# Is Glenn Gould the greatest pianist of the 20th century?



## Gouldanian

He's a polarizing figure, I know. You either loved or hated his interpretations (or him personally as an eccentric weirdo). But that's not what I'm asking here.

Talent-wise, solely based on his technique and virtuosity, how would you rank him among his peers of whom we have surviving records (we obviously can't compare him to Beethoven and Liszt for instance since we don't know how they played).

Try to be as impartial as you can. Opinions such as "he's not in my top 10 list because he disregarded LVB and destroyed his sonatas" aren't valid for the sake the specific question presented to you.

I'm very curious to know how he's perceived by the most committed classical music fans and there's no better place than here to ask this question.


----------



## Barbebleu

He probably is disqualified because of his narrow repertoire but for me he is absolutely number one. He was adored in the Soviet Union by those who knew a bit about piano playing and I totally concur with their opinions.

His Bach is peerless and his Mozart is as interesting as he was.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think he is the greatest interpreter of Bach. His 'staccato' technique is what sets him apart, a skill he learned from a Canadian piano teacher.

He's weaker on Romantic stuff, quite passable on Beethoven. I love him, but would have to go with Richter in an overall comparison. Gould could never play Debussy like Richter, but Richter can play just as spectacularly on Bach, or the Handel Keyboard sonatas.

I go to different pianists for different reasons. There are times that I crave the flash of Horowitz, or Evginy Kissin.


----------



## Gouldanian

millionrainbows said:


> I love him, but would have to go with Richter in an overall comparison. Gould could never play Debussy like Richter, but Richter can play just as spectacularly on Bach, or the Handel Keyboard sonatas.


Wrong about Bach. Richter himself once said "I could play Bach as good as Gould if I wanted to but that would require from me a ridiculous investment of time and practice to reach that level, which I'm not willing to do."

He admitted that he was inferior to Gould when it came to Bach.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Gould was absolutely the most influential pianist of the 20th century, as for him being the greatest for me he is but only when he plays Bach and some Beethoven, his Mozart whilst interesting and thought provoking weren't exactly how I want to listen to Mozart. Apart from that Gould was my introduction to Hindemith and Webern so I'll always be indebted to him for that.


----------



## shadowdancer

Fully agree with @millionrainbows.

His Bach is almost unbeatable. But one can't compare his Beethoven to Annie Fischer or Emil Gilels. Talking about Debussy, in my opinion, Michelangeli is the one. 
Even his Mozart is not for my taste. Uncomparable to Brendel, for instance.

Summary: for each composer/school/musical period one interpreter.


----------



## majlis

No, he wasn't. But at least he was the most neurotic, and that's something.


----------



## Mandryka

Gouldanian said:


> Talent-wise, solely based on his technique and virtuosity, how would you rank him among his peers of whom we have surviving records


He had a tremendous sense of rhythm, more than any other pianist I can think of, he makes the music swing. And he was imaginative about voicing and tempo. His great weakness IMO is to do with the his distinctive detached touch, which is often unvarying and IMO not very well judged.


----------



## Stavrogin

I agree he's a terrific genius, but I wouldn't pick him as the "desert island" pianist because of the limited repertoire (or, to be precise, the inconsistent level of excellence throughout the various elements of his vast repertoire)

For the desert island, I'd most certainly pick Richter, or maybe Yuja Wang (especially if it's a sunny island with a nice beach - just kidding).


----------



## hpowders

OP: Gould, No. 1? With the likes of Schnabel, Cortot, Annie Fischer, Rubinstein, Serkin, Arrau, Edwin Fischer, Rachmaninoff, Horowitz, Cliburn and Richter roaming around the 20th century? No way.


----------



## DaveM

I agree with those who mention his exemplary Bach interpretations, the benefits & liabilities of his touch and the limited repertoire. He was certainly an iconic 20th century pianist, but not the greatest. Fwiw: I saw him in live performance.


----------



## Fugue Meister

I will say in terms of record sales he is also No. 1, his original recording of the Goldbergs is the most widely selling classical music album of all time and has never been out of print... Pretty miraculous for a debut recording...


----------



## Fugue Meister

DaveM said:


> I agree with those who mention his exemplary Bach interpretations, the benefits & liabilities of his touch and the limited repertoire. He was certainly an iconic 20th century pianist, but not the greatest. Fwiw: I saw him in live performance.


I'm so jealous of you... What did he play and how was it?


----------



## Morimur

OP: Certainly not the greatest. The hammiest? Surely.


----------



## Gouldanian

Stavrogin said:


> I agree he's a terrific genius, but I wouldn't pick him as the "desert island" pianist because of the limited repertoire (or, to be precise, the inconsistent level of excellence throughout the various elements of his vast repertoire)
> 
> For the desert island, I'd most certainly pick Richter, or maybe Yuja Wang (especially if it's a sunny island with a nice beach - just kidding).


Oh, on a desert island my choice would be Hélène Grimaud!


----------



## Weston

His playing is not always to my taste, but then neither entirely is Martha Argerich's. I do enjoy his too few compositions that have been recorded, "So You Want to Write a Fugue?" being only the most well known.


----------



## DaveM

Fugue Meister said:


> I'm so jealous of you... What did he play and how was it?


I wish I could remember what he played -I was pretty young, around 9-10 years old- although I'm pretty sure that Bach was part of the program. It was (I believe) a solo performance given for grade school children in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

But I do remember the occasion very vividly: He came out with mittens and a scarf and sat on his custom stool sitting very low such that his outstretched arms were almost at 90 degrees. I remember the iconic humming. I do remember the very distinct touch and the fact that although his whole demeanor was somewhat eccentric, once he sat down and played, his fingers flew over the keyboard and he was in his own separate world.

Although, at that time I had been listening to classical music for several years, I had not anywhere near plumbed the depths of piano-only music so I wasn't very familiar with Bach. If he had played with orchestra something like a Beethoven Concerto, I would have remembered what he played. In retrospect, I wish it had been a performance with orchestra.


----------



## Triplets

Gouldanian said:


> Wrong about Bach. Richter himself once said "I could play Bach as good as Gould if I wanted to but that would require from me a ridiculous investment of time and practice to reach that level, which I'm not willing to do."
> 
> He admitted that he was inferior to Gould when it came to Bach.


I'd rather listen to Richter than Gould in Bach. Gould sounds like a sewing machine


----------



## Chronochromie

I dislike his playing of just about everything, from Bach to Beethoven to Webern. As far as I'm concerned, no, he isn't.


----------



## hpowders

Glenn Gould could have been the greatest touch-typist secretary of his day. Too bad he missed his calling.


----------



## Gouldanian

hpowders said:


> Glenn Gould could have been the greatest touch-typist secretary of his day. Too bad he missed his calling.


Can you even play an entire piece on the piano to feel comfortable enough to make such a statement about the best selling pianist of all time?


----------



## DavidA

DaveM said:


> I agree with those who mention his exemplary Bach interpretations, the benefits & liabilities of his touch and the limited repertoire. He was certainly an iconic 20th century pianist, but not the greatest. *Fwiw: I saw him in live performance.*


Lucky you! One of the chosen few!


----------



## DaveM

Gouldanian said:


> Oh, on a desert island my choice would be Hélène Grimaud!


I watch/listen to her YouTube performance of Brahms 1st almost once a week and her Brahms 2nd frequently. I believe she is on the short list of great live performers. Maybe it's just that I'm so mesmerized, but I don't hear any mistakes either.


----------



## millionrainbows

Gouldanian said:


> Wrong about Bach. Richter himself once said "I could play Bach as good as Gould if I wanted to but that would require from me a ridiculous investment of time and practice to reach that level, which I'm not willing to do."
> 
> He admitted that he was inferior to Gould when it came to Bach.


I heard that they had a mutual respect. I'm basing Richter's ability on the Handel keyboard sonatas.


----------



## DavidA

GG certainly polarises opinion. Szell said of him: "That nut's a genius!" Karajan and Richter were both admirers of his playing, as is just about everyone who plays the piano to any real level. He was certainly the most individual of pianists but sadly with the individuality came unwanted eccentricities, especially later on. He is certainly the most important Bach pianist of the 20th century because he showed how Bach could be successfully played on the piano. What's more, he made it fashionable! 
He gave us a wonderful disc of Byrd, Gibbons et al, some stunning (if eccentric) Beethoven but I consider his Mozart sonatas simply perverse - iconoclastic for the sake of it. But you would never call Gould an uninteresting pianist - like Richter and other great pianists he had a way of making you believe his way of doing things was right. 
I believe his celebrated retreat from the concert platform was due mainly to his mental state rather than artistic conviction. His protestations were always too extreme! 
To talk about the 'greatest' pianist of the 20th century is bit facile. For example Horowitz was incomparable in some repertoire but elsewhere was exceeded by other pianists. Same with Gould and most other pianists. Why a pianist is wise to concentrate on repertoire he is good at.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Triplets said:


> Gould sounds like a sewing machine


... a Singer, presumably


----------



## Ukko

I gotta go with post #10, only with slightly more ambivalence.


----------



## KenOC

It's hard for me to be objective about Gould. In days gone by, it was his playing that showed me, for the first time and instantly, what Bach was all about. I was in a store in San Francisco, and there was piano music playing that absolutely transfixed me. I just stood there and listened, amazed. Finally I went up to the counter and asked what it was. It was Gould's WTC.

I still consider him my favorite Bach pianist, though I deeply dislike his way with some other composers.


----------



## EdwardBast

So, to summarize what I have read above: Most people think he is very good at playing the music of someone who wrote no piano music whatever, and that he is not particularly good at anything else? That hardly sounds like a likely candidate for the best pianist of the 20th century.


----------



## George O

I think Bach should be played on a harpsichord or an organ, so since Gould's repertory was so Bach-heavy . . .


----------



## millionrainbows

As far as the Gould/machine typist analogy, this was definitively dispelled when I heard him play the Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor. He plays it much slower than other pianists, and now none of those faster versions means anything to me; only Gould's.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> So, to summarize what I have read above: Most people think he is very good at playing the music of someone who wrote no piano music whatever, and that he is not particularly good at anything else? That hardly sounds like a likely candidate for the best pianist of the 20th century.


Charles Rosen (and presumably others) believed that the Musical Offering was written for the piano. After all, it was written for a guy who had a palace full of fortepianos.


----------



## millionrainbows

George O said:


> I think Bach should be played on a harpsichord or an organ, so since Gould's repertory was so Bach-heavy . . .


He had a Chickering piano on which the action was so altered that it became, virtually, a harpsichord.


----------



## hpowders

George O said:


> I think Bach should be played on a harpsichord or an organ, so since Gould's repertory was so Bach-heavy . . .


Agree. You want to hear great Bach on piano. Listen to Edwin Fischer.


----------



## Gouldanian

millionrainbows said:


> As far as the Gould/machine typist analogy, this was definitively dispelled when I heard him play the Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor. He plays it much slower than other pianists, and now none of those faster versions means anything to me; only Gould's.


Then you would also like his Brahm's concerto No. 1 and his Grieg's sonata in E...


----------



## Gouldanian

millionrainbows said:


> He had a Chickering piano on which the action was so altered that it became, virtually, a harpsichord.


He even played with metal hammers a few times.


----------



## George O

hpowders said:


> Agree. You want to hear great Bach on piano. Listen to Edwin Fischer.


Okay, next to spin.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Charles Rosen (and presumably others) believed that the Musical Offering was written for the piano.


Can you check that for me please? What does he say exactly? That all of it was possibly piano music or just the 3 part ricercar?


----------



## Mandryka

EdwardBast said:


> So, to summarize what I have read above: Most people think he is very good at playing the music of someone who wrote no piano music whatever, and that he is not particularly good at anything else? That hardly sounds like a likely candidate for the best pianist of the 20th century.


Everyone I know loves his Brahms, and his Beethoven op 126. His Schienberg suite is more than interesting and his Webern variations are, IMO, unsurpassed.

But maybe the thing I like most from him is his Wagner transcriptions. Not the Liszt - I mean the transcriptions he made himself.


----------



## Gouldanian

Mandryka said:


> Everyone I know loves his Brahms, and his Beethoven op 126. His Schienberg suite is more than interesting and his Webern variations are, IMO, unsurpassed.
> 
> But maybe the thing I like most from him is his Wagner transcriptions. Not the Liszt - I mean the transcriptions he made himself.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> Can you check that for me please? What does he say exactly? That all of it was possibly piano music or just the 3 part ricercar?


 Found the article. He was speaking specifically of the six-voice ricercare: "Many musicians consider the six-voice ricercare from "The Musical Offering" to be his greatest fugue, and I would choose this as the most significant piano work of the millennium, as it is perhaps the first piece composed for the recently invented piano -- at least, the first piece that a composer knew would certainly be played on a piano."

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/millennium/m1/rosen.html


----------



## hpowders

If all the great pianists I mentioned in post 10 died (and they did), I would still choose the esteemed and much heralded on this forum, Lang Lang, especially for his performances of Bartók 2 and Prokofiev 3 with Rattle/Berlin Philharmonic.

Gould was eccentric. Lang Lang, merely egocentric.


----------



## Gouldanian

hpowders said:


> If all the great pianists I mentioned in post 10 died (and they did), I would still choose the esteemed and much heralded on this forum, Lang Lang, especially for his performances of Bartók 2 and Prokofiev 3 with Rattle/Berlin Philharmonic.
> 
> Gould was eccentric. Lang Lang is merely egocentric.


So Lang Lang is a better pianist than Glenn Gould... Ok. It's your opinion and I promise not to laugh at it if you promise not to laugh at my opinion that LVB is the worst composer of all time (yes, all composers the world has known were better than him). It's just my opinion and I want it to be taken as seriously as you'd like yours to be taken.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Found the article. He was speaking specifically of the six-voice ricercare: "Many musicians consider the six-voice ricercare from "The Musical Offering" to be his greatest fugue, and I would choose this as the most significant piano work of the millennium, as it is perhaps the first piece composed for the recently invented piano -- at least, the first piece that a composer knew would certainly be played on a piano."
> 
> http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/millennium/m1/rosen.html


Thanks Ken. As far as I remember all the so called HIP performances which use piano just use it for the 3 part ricercar, I don't know why. Lorenzo Ghielmi uses a harpsichord for the 6 part ricercar, and so does Michael Behringer. They both use pianos for the 3 parter.

Maybe someone could say whether it needs some rearrangement to fit naturally onto a single keyboard.


----------



## SimonNZ

Gould is a fascinating guy and a fascinating pianist, but not my no.1 choice in anything.


----------



## Bulldog

i don't hold Gould's lack of extensive repertoire against him. I love his detached playing, equal emphasis on all musical lines and supreme contrapuntal clarity. However, I don't even consider him the best Bach pianist of the 20th century; my vote goes to Rosalyn Tureck.


----------



## Triplets

Gouldanian said:


> Can you even play an entire piece on the piano to feel comfortable enough to make such a statement about the best selling pianist of all time?


And does one need to be able to play the Piano to critique an Artist? I do play, but I find your comment irrelevant .
And what does GG sales figures mean? Does that make Horowitz great? Or Van Cliburn? Or David Helfgott?


----------



## SimonNZ

...............................


----------



## Gouldanian

Triplets said:


> And does one need to be able to play the Piano to critique an Artist?


No, not at all. But his comment wasn't to criticize Gould, it was to degrade him. When you degrade a proven artist you have to expect remarks.


----------



## Richard8655

Apparently Gould has been so idolized a company called Zenph Studios in 2007 "re-performed" his 1955 Goldberg Variations performance as if he were alive today and sitting at the piano keyboard (grunts not included). Recorded and released as a Sony hybrid SACD. Interesting technology. From Stereophile Magazine:

"I was reminded of the Blish tale when I first heard about the work being done by Zenph Studios: analyzing a piano recording in order to create an expanded MIDI instruction set to drive a Yamaha Disklavier Pro reproducing piano. Assuming that every aspect of the performance—which keys struck when, and how hard or soft, along with the pedaling—could be reproduced, a historic performance captured in less-than-stellar sound could thus be "re-performed" on the Disklavier and recorded in a more optimal acoustic environment."


----------



## KenOC

Richard8655 said:


> Apparently Gould has been so idolized a company called Zenph Studios in 2007 "re-performed" his 1955 Goldberg Variations performance as if he were alive today and sitting at the piano keyboard (grunts not included). Recorded and released as a Sony hybrid SACD.


The Zenph re-performance of Gould's 1955 Goldbergs is still available as a CD. It's my go-to listening for that performance. Great sound, full stereo, no vocals!


----------



## Richard8655

Sounds good Ken, got me interested. Probably the SACD here.


----------



## KenOC

Yes, I misread. It's a Hybrid SACD - DSD.

http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Goldberg-Variations-Performance-Re-performance/dp/B000LE0THE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459391542&sr=8-1&keywords=goldberg+zenph


----------



## Pugg

DaveM said:


> I agree with those who mention his exemplary Bach interpretations, the benefits & liabilities of his touch and the limited repertoire. He was certainly an iconic 20th century pianist, but not the greatest. Fwiw: I saw him in live performance.


Except from the latter ( never saw him, as he died before I was even born) I am with you :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

Richard8655 said:


> Apparently Gould has been so idolized a company called Zenph Studios in 2007 "re-performed" his 1955 Goldberg Variations performance as if he were alive today and sitting at the piano keyboard (grunts not included). Recorded and released as a Sony hybrid SACD. Interesting technology.


There's much to be said for the exceptional sound of the re-performance, but all is not gold. The sound is much richer than the original, and notes take longer to decay. To my ears, Gould's detached style and the clarity of the counterpoint suffers enough to dampen my enjoyment.


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> Agree. You want to hear great Bach on piano. Listen to Edwin Fischer.


The fact is that Gould convinced the world that Bach could be played on the piano and made to sound interesting. I don't think Fischer achieved that.


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> i don't hold Gould's lack of extensive repertoire against him. I love his detached playing, equal emphasis on all musical lines and supreme contrapuntal clarity. However, I don't even consider him the best Bach pianist of the 20th century; my vote goes to Rosalyn Tureck.


Frankly I find Tureck boring.


----------



## DavidA

Triplets said:


> And does one need to be able to play the Piano to critique an Artist? I do play, but I find your comment irrelevant .
> And what does GG sales figures mean? Does that make Horowitz great? Or Van Cliburn? Or David Helfgott?


Frankly if you even consider putting Gould, Horowitz and Van Cliburn alongside Helfgott I would question your judgment! The fact is that Helfgott became a best seller through a (very well made) movie of rather dubious historical accuracy. The other three got there on their own merits as pianists.


----------



## dieter

Who, what is 'The Greatest'? Cassius Clay? 
Give me a break, there's Arrau, Richter, Gilels, Gulda, Pollini, Brendel, Moravec, Lupu, Fischer, Kempff, Micheangeli.
That's just to name a few. To claim anyone as The Greatest reduces it to a Bailey's Circus. Which is, kind of precisely, how a certain music writer regards the USA, in a book about Toscanini. It's like there has to be a 'Best'. Live and let live, I say, Vive Le Difference. Or, Sailor Vee.


----------



## hpowders

Triplets said:


> And does one need to be able to play the Piano to critique an Artist? I do play, but I find your comment irrelevant .
> And what does GG sales figures mean? Does that make Horowitz great? Or Van Cliburn? Or David Helfgott?


Exactly. I facetiously posted about Lang Lang on this thread. The guy's CD sales are through the roof. Yet very few piano enthusiasts on TC take him seriously as a musician. One thing has nothing to do with another.


----------



## hpowders

Gouldanian said:


> So Lang Lang is a better pianist than Glenn Gould... Ok. It's your opinion and I promise not to laugh at it if you promise not to laugh at my opinion that LVB is the worst composer of all time (yes, all composers the world has known were better than him). It's just my opinion and I want it to be taken as seriously as you'd like yours to be taken.


Facetious post. A while back we had a TC thread ripping Lang Lang to shreds. I thought I would resurrect the memory.


----------



## hpowders

OP: You set up a thread like this and you must assume you will get a lot of "static" in response.


----------



## Triplets

DavidA said:


> Frankly if you even consider putting Gould, Horowitz and Van Cliburn alongside Helfgott I would question your judgment! The fact is that Helfgott became a best seller through a (very well made) movie of rather dubious historical accuracy. The other three got there on their own merits as pianists.


Dah, that was the point of my post, David. Goulding was attacking a critic of GG and pointing to GG sales figures as 'proof' that he must 'great'. My point was that if we consider sales figures as a criteria for greatness, then the likes of Helfgott need to be added to the mix.
I just love having to explain sarcasm.


----------



## Richard8655

Bulldog said:


> There's much to be said for the exceptional sound of the re-performance, but all is not gold. The sound is much richer than the original, and notes take longer to decay. To my ears, Gould's detached style and the clarity of the counterpoint suffers enough to dampen my enjoyment.


Yes, for sure enjoyment and appreciation of performance is significantly enhanced by quality audio reproduction (i.e., SACD). The performance itself is of course a more important aspect.

I think the value of this re-performance is in recreating a milestone historical event and capturing the audio subtitles not heard in the original mono recording. It might also provide a nice comparison with other and later performances and techniques.


----------



## cliftwood

The 20th Century's greatest pianist?

Gould was a great talent with a remarkable technique, but except for his amazing Bach recordings, he hardly measures up to many of the superior artists even from Canada, let alone the world. I consider Anton Kuerti and Marc-Andre Hamelin, both Canadiens far more skilled than Gould.

With all respect, Gould was a unique and very interesting pianist but his eccentricities and limited repertoire leave his legacy far beneath many of the super-artists he should be compared to.


----------



## DaveM

cliftwood said:


> The 20th Century's greatest pianist?
> 
> Gould was a great talent with a remarkable technique, but except for his amazing Bach recordings, he hardly measures up to many of the superior artists even from Canada, let alone the world. I consider Anton Kuerti and Marc-Andre Hamelin, both Canadiens far more skilled than Gould.
> 
> With all respect, Gould was a unique and very interesting pianist but his eccentricities and limited repertoire leave his legacy far beneath many of the super-artists he should be compared to.


Thanks for mentioning Anton Kuerti, a truly great 20th century pianist, but, unfortunately, relatively unknown in the U.S. I was very influenced by his 1976-76 Columbia/Odyssey complete Beethoven Sonata set of LPs, now available as a remastered Analekta CD boxed set on Amazon. It took some sleuthing to find out that the latter are the same Columbia 1970s recordings since there's no reference to it on the Analekta set.

Kuerti plays some of the Adagio/Andante movements a little slower than was typical at the time which particularly attracted me. His technique and interpretation is impeccable. Unfortunately, he suffered a stroke-like condition a few years ago, but I believe he has largely recovered.


----------



## Mandryka

Several people on this thread suggest that Gould's repertoire was limited. I don't think that's totally fair, though clearly he was less interested in 19th century music than someone like Cortot. But Cortot didn't record Schoenberg or Mozart or Bach or Haydn as far as I know.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> Thanks Ken. As far as I remember all the so called HIP performances which use piano just use it for the 3 part ricercar, I don't know why. Lorenzo Ghielmi uses a harpsichord for the 6 part ricercar, and so does Michael Behringer. They both use pianos for the 3 parter.
> 
> Maybe someone could say whether it needs some rearrangement to fit naturally onto a single keyboard.


In the printed edition Bach himself prepared, the 6 part ricerare is notated in full score, like the contrapuncti of Art of Fugue, a common practice for keyboard music whether for harpsichord or organ or other kinds of keyboards.

An autograph by Bach of the piece on two staves (which also means keyboard version) exists, and the piece can actually be played on a single keyboard with two hands, but it is very difficult.

From the nature of the piece one may also consider, if it rather was meant for organ. Walcha's arrangement implies, that the lowest part can be played with the feet. And this is indeed possible.


----------



## Gouldanian

How exactly did he have a limited repertoire? Many of you said that and I frankly believe you just don't know anything about Gould besides what anyone who's not interested is ought to at least know: Bach.

Besides Bach, Brahms, Haydn, Strauss, Schoenberg and many others, he recorded the complete sonatas of Mozart and Beethoven as well as their concertos. He recorder (and resurrected) dozens of renaissance and classical era composers that most of us wouldn't know today if it weren't for him being interested in them instead of being a simple crowd pleasure like Rubinstein (anyone can play the Polonaise he figured, he wasn't looking for public acclamation like Rubinstein and Horowitz).

Bear in mind that he always said the following: There's no point in playing something if you're going to play it exactly like everyone else. If you can't bring something new to the piece leave it alone.

It's all of this that should be considered about Gould before you say something like "his repertoire is limited"! 1- It's false, 2- He was just a little more interested in the good of the music than in money like most of his fellow pianists. Ironically, he's the one who outsold them...


----------



## Bayreuth

Gouldanian said:


> How exactly did he have a limited repertoire? Many of you said that and I frankly believe you just don't know anything about Gould besides what anyone who's not interested is ought to at least know: Bach.
> 
> Besides Bach, Brahms, Haydn, Strauss, Schoenberg and many others, *he recorded the complete sonatas of Mozart and Beethoven *as well as their concertos. He recorder (and resurrected) dozens of renaissance and classical era composers that most of us wouldn't know today if it weren't for him being interested in them instead of being a simple crowd pleasure like Rubinstein (anyone can play the Polonaise he figured, he wasn't looking for public acclamation like Rubinstein and Horowitz).
> 
> Bear in mind that he always said the following: There's no point in playing something if you're going to play it exactly like everyone else. If you can't bring something new to the piece leave it alone.
> 
> It's all of this that should be considered about Gould before you say something like "his repertoire is limited"! 1- It's false, 2- He was just a little more interested in the good of the music than in money like most of his fellow pianists. Ironically, he's the one who outsold them...


I agree with you in claiming that he wasn't a limited pianist, although I would never use his recordings of the Beethoven Piano Sonatas in his favour since they are really not good


----------



## DavidA

Triplets said:


> Dah, that was the point of my post, David. Goulding was attacking a critic of GG and pointing to GG sales figures as 'proof' that he must 'great'. My point was that if we consider sales figures as a criteria for greatness, then the likes of Helfgott need to be added to the mix.
> I just love having to explain sarcasm.


One tip you should remember is that sarcasm does not work very well in print.


----------



## DavidA

cliftwood said:


> The 20th Century's greatest pianist?
> 
> Gould was a great talent with a remarkable technique, but except for his amazing Bach recordings, he hardly measures up to many of the superior artists even from Canada, let alone the world. I consider Anton Kuerti and Marc-Andre Hamelin, both Canadiens far more skilled than Gould.
> 
> With all respect, Gould was a unique and very interesting pianist but *his eccentricities and limited repertoire *leave his legacy far beneath many of the super-artists he should be compared to.


Horowitz also had eccentricities and limited repertoire. Does that lessen him as a pianist?


----------



## DavidA

Gouldanian said:


> How exactly did he have a limited repertoire? Many of you said that and I frankly believe you just don't know anything about Gould besides what anyone who's not interested is ought to at least know: Bach.
> 
> Besides Bach, Brahms, Haydn, Strauss, Schoenberg and many others, *he recorded the complete sonatas of Mozart and Beethoven *as well as their concertos. He recorder (and resurrected) dozens of renaissance and classical era composers that most of us wouldn't know today if it weren't for him being interested in them instead of being a simple crowd pleasure like Rubinstein (anyone can play the Polonaise he figured, he wasn't looking for public acclamation like Rubinstein and Horowitz).
> 
> Bear in mind that he always said the following: There's no point in playing something if you're going to play it exactly like everyone else. If you can't bring something new to the piece leave it alone.
> 
> It's all of this that should be considered about Gould before you say something like "his repertoire is limited"! 1- It's false, 2- He was just a little more interested in the good of the music than in money like most of his fellow pianists. Ironically, he's the one who outsold them...


His Beethoven sonatas are not complete


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> Exactly. I facetiously posted about Lang Lang on this thread. The guy's CD sales are through the roof. *Yet very few piano enthusiasts on TC take him seriously as a musician. *One thing has nothing to do with another.


Interesting that people like Gary Graffmann and Fanny Waterman take him seriously then. But, of course, these are lesser pianistic lights compared with our expertise on TC. :lol:


----------



## Gouldanian

DavidA said:


> His Beethoven sonatas are not complete


My bad, about 60% of them.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> His Beethoven sonatas are not complete


I'm sure he did other good deeds as well.


----------



## Gouldanian

KenOC said:


> I'm sure he did other good deeds as well.


Out of curiosity Ken, who's your favorite pianist?


----------



## Ilarion

After pouring through all that was written about and confessed by Richter in Russian, German, and English I am still enamoured by Richter and consider him the greatest pianist of the 20th century - Even though he said Gould was better than him in JSBach.


----------



## KenOC

Gouldanian said:


> Out of curiosity Ken, who's your favorite pianist?


I have several depending on the music. In Bach, Gould's up there with the very best. I'd rate Denk and (lately) Schiff close, but Denk of course has a much narrower Bach repertoire.

Gould did everything right except record half the AoF on an organ. And he really couldn't sing very well IMO.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> And he really couldn't sing very well IMO.


WHAT? You got something against atonal?


----------



## Gouldanian

KenOC said:


> I have several depending on the music. In Bach, Gould's up there with the very best. I'd rate Denk and (lately) Schiff close, but Denk of course has a much narrower Bach repertoire.
> 
> Gould did everything right except record half the AoF on an organ. And he really couldn't sing very well IMO.


Actually, his mother wanted him to become a singer... I guess he achieved that in some ways...


----------



## hpowders

Gould should have taken embellished repeats when playing Bach.
He only gave us half the music.
Goldberg Variations in 40 minutes when many take almost 80.
Therefore all his Bach recordings should have been sold at half price.


----------



## Mahlerian

Never mind.

(It's not worth it.)


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Gould should have taken embellished repeats when playing Bach.
> He only gave us half the music.
> Goldberg Variations in 40 minutes when many take almost 80.
> Therefore all his Bach recordings should have been sold at half price.


Give the guy a break. He was double-parked.


----------



## premont

hpowders said:


> *Gould should have taken embellished repeats *when playing Bach.


I am certainly not a Gould-fan, but this is an unfair argument. In the 1960es and 1970es, when his Bach recordings were made, it wasn't but the most HIP conscious keybord players - mostly harpsichordists - who took embellished repeats. And HIP conscious is the last label I would put on Gould.


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> Gould should have taken embellished repeats when playing Bach.
> He only gave us half the music.
> Goldberg Variations in 40 minutes when many take almost 80.
> Therefore all his Bach recordings should have been sold at half price.


When he first recorded the Goldbergs they were practically unknown commercially and CBS wanted him to do somethng else. A recording of the Goldbergs (38 minutes) without repeats was about all an LP could take in 1955. For CBS it was a risky enough commercial venture without repeats and another LP. When Gould re-recorded them in 1981 he did include some repeats.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> Gould should have taken embellished repeats when playing Bach.
> He only gave us half the music.
> Goldberg Variations in 40 minutes when many take almost 80.
> Therefore all his Bach recordings should have been sold at half price.


I don't think Sony will be hiring you any time soon.


----------



## hpowders

premont said:


> I am certainly not a Gould-fan, but this is an unfair argument. In the 1960es and 1970es, when his Bach recordings were made, it wasn't but the most HIP conscious keybord players - mostly harpsichordists - who took embellished repeats. And HIP conscious is the last label I would put on Gould.


I don't buy it. Didn't Gould attempt to be stylish by getting his touch to imitate a harpsichord? Proper Bach keyboard style was written about before Gould. Schiff was doing it way back. I'm sure Gould was aware.


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> I don't think Sony will be hiring you any time soon.


Good. Their quality control sucks.


----------



## Bulldog

I prefer Bach with repeats, but I never hold it against performers who do not observe them.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> Good. Their quality control sucks.


I rarely acquire Sony recordings, so I'll take your word for it.


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> When he first recorded the Goldbergs they were practically unknown commercially and CBS wanted him to do somethng else. A recording of the Goldbergs (38 minutes) without repeats was about all an LP could take in 1955. For CBS it was a risky enough commercial venture without repeats and another LP. When Gould re-recorded them in 1981 he did include some repeats.


Okay. That's valid. However someone as eccentrically hyper-sensitive to anything and everything as Gould was should have told Sony where to go and found a label that would have completely accommodated him.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> I don't buy it. Didn't Gould attempt to be stylish by getting his touch to imitate a harpsichord? Proper Bach keyboard style was written about before Gould. Schiff was doing it way back. I'm sure Gould was aware.


When Gould recorded his Goldbergs in 1955, Andras Schiff was two years old.


----------



## hpowders

Bulldog said:


> I prefer Bach with repeats, but I never hold it against performers who do not observe them.[/QUOTE
> 
> I only hold repeats against a performer when they play them exactly the same as the first time. That's dullsville and surely would have been laughed at during Bach's time. Completely misses the purpose of a Bach repeat, IMO.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Charles Rosen (and presumably others) believed that the Musical Offering was written for the piano. After all, it was written for a guy who had a palace full of fortepianos.


I listened to Rosen playing the ricercar à 6, and I thought it was suave, inoffensive , quite emotionally restrained and not very interesting.


----------



## joen_cph

> A recording of the Goldbergs (38 minutes) without repeats was about all an LP could take in 1955.


Ormandy´s CBS_ Sacre _from that year is on one LP side, and it lasts around 31 mins.

Some pre-Gould recordings are listed here, and they include Landowska, Arrau, Tureck, Leonhardt and Kirkpatrick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_Variations_discography


----------



## KenOC

Others wanting to hear Rosen's Ricercar a 6 can find it on YouTube. Sounds pretty good to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2c6AFlb4x4

Generally speaking, LPs could have about 25 minutes per side. Some had more, but tended to have pretty bad inner groove distortion. I had a Klemperer Missa at 70 minutes on a single LP, and the sound was worse than wretched.

Gould could have afforded some repeats if he had wanted to, just as he did on his 1981 recording. For whatever reason, he didn't want to.


----------



## Strange Magic

Regarding Gould and the Mozart concertos, it is my understanding that the only concerto Gould liked, played, and recorded was #24, C minor.


----------



## Gouldanian

Strange Magic said:


> Regarding Gould and the Mozart concertos, it is my understanding that the only concerto Gould liked, played, and recorded was #24, C minor.


Correct, he recorded the 24th on several occasions, both live and in the studio. It's LVB's concertos that were completely recorded.


----------



## SimonNZ

joen_cph said:


> Ormandy´s CBS_ Sacre _from that year is on one LP side, and it lasts around 31 mins.
> 
> Some pre-Gould recordings are listed here, and they include Landowska, *Arrau*, Tureck, Leonhardt and Kirkpatrick
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldberg_Variations_discography


The Arrau was recorded in 1942, but saw its first release as a cd in 1988.

I've always disliked the way these later releases (and especially the more cynical vault-plunderings) are retrofitted into the chronology without reflecting the historical reception. The otherwise excellent bach-cantata site does it as well, when they could do something simple like "rec:1942, rel:1988".


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Okay. That's valid. However someone as eccentrically hyper-sensitive to anything and everything as Gould was should have told Sony where to go and found a label that would have completely accommodated him.


Gould didn't record for Sony but for Columbia Records, probably the premier classical label in the US at that time. For him as an aspiring artist to refuse an opportunity to record for them would have been unthinkable. And in fact, his relationship with Columbia was beneficial to both sides as long as he lived (and to Columbia and now Sony for long after that!)


----------



## Methuselache

What Artur Schnabel did for the Beethoven sonata Gould did for the Bach piano works .


----------



## dieter

DaveM said:


> Thanks for mentioning Anton Kuerti, a truly great 20th century pianist, but, unfortunately, relatively unknown in the U.S. I was very influenced by his 1976-76 Columbia/Odyssey complete Beethoven Sonata set of LPs, now available as a remastered Analekta CD boxed set on Amazon. It took some sleuthing to find out that the latter are the same Columbia 1970s recordings since there's no reference to it on the Analekta set.
> 
> Kuerti plays some of the Adagio/Andante movements a little slower than was typical at the time which particularly attracted me. His technique and interpretation is impeccable. Unfortunately, he suffered a stroke-like condition a few years ago, but I believe he has largely recovered.


My first Schubert record - the late 1960's - was the G Major Sonata D894, on Monitor, the pianist Anton Kuerti. He recorded more Schubert in the late 80's, early 90' and they were released on IMP Masters, 7 volumes all told. They are now on Analekta.
I recall a fabulous lecture which is on You Tube where he is critical of some of Brendel's views on Schubert.
I love the guy, love his politics as well: he's a mensch.


----------



## Triplets

KenOC said:


> Others wanting to hear Rosen's Ricercar a 6 can find it on YouTube. Sounds pretty good to me.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2c6AFlb4x4
> 
> Generally speaking, LPs could have about 25 minutes per side. Some had more, but tended to have pretty bad inner groove distortion. I had a Klemperer Missa at 70 minutes on a single LP, and the sound was worse than wretched.
> 
> Gould could have afforded some repeats if he had wanted to, just as he did on his 1981 recording. For whatever reason, he didn't want to.


Gould was very much in the forefront of recording technology. He would have been well aware that the CD, introduced in the late 1970s, had a capacity approaching 80 minutes. If he left repeats off he did so as an Artistic decision, not due to limitations in playback technology


----------



## Triplets

GG Bach was in many cases my introduction to many works of the Composer. I used to be more sympathetic to it than I currently am, but I am not saying it doesn't have value or represent a valid interpretive viewpoint. And he did the world a great service in bringing JSB to a higher profile amongst the listening public.
I really dislike his Mozart, however, and Not a fan of his Beethoven. His Modern Music recordings are much more interesting, and I wish that he would have focused more there


----------



## DaveM

Triplets said:


> Gould was very much in the forefront of recording technology. He would have been well aware that the CD, introduced in the late 1970s, had a capacity approaching 80 minutes. If he left repeats off he did so as an Artistic decision, not due to limitations in playback technology


Gould died in 1982, the year the CD became commercially available. Plus, the number of classical music CD releases were limited in the first year.


----------



## ArtMusic

I think Gould was highly idiosyncratic, a fine pianist of the old school but not the greatest. Someone like Vladimir Horowitz was greater, who was the pupil of one of Franz Liszt's students.


----------



## Richard8655

Artur Rubinstein for me. (We may need a favorite pianist poll.)


----------



## tdc

ArtMusic said:


> I think Gould was highly idiosyncratic, a fine pianist of the old school but not the greatest.


This about sums up my feelings on Gould as well.


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> I don't buy it. Didn't Gould attempt to be stylish by getting his touch to imitate a harpsichord? Proper Bach keyboard style was written about before Gould. Schiff was doing it way back. I'm sure Gould was aware.


Schiff doing it way back? Schiff was two years old when Gould made his Goldberg's recording. Some protege then?


----------



## DavidA

Triplets said:


> Gould was very much in the forefront of recording technology. He would have been well aware that the CD, introduced in the late 1970s, had a capacity approaching 80 minutes. If he left repeats off he did so as an Artistic decision, not due to limitations in playback technology


The first CDs played much less than 80 minutes.


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> Okay. That's valid. However someone as eccentrically hyper-sensitive to anything and everything as Gould was should have told Sony where to go and found a label that would have completely accommodated him.


After the Goldbergs CBS allowed Gould to record anything he liked. He was a best selling gold mine, an absolute sensation. Probably why the critics hated him - they can never handle success! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> The first CDs played much less than 80 minutes.


I believe early CDs maxed out at about 70 minutes. Can't find a reference though.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> After the Goldbergs CBS allowed Gould to record anything he liked. He was a best selling gold mine, an absolute sensation. Probably why the critics hated him - they can never handle success! :lol:


Columbia gave Gould free rein but (it is said) also pressured him to record works he didn't care for. One example was his recording of the Beethoven "big name" sonatas, a certain best-seller that almost every major pianist recorded. Gould had his revenge with a tortuously slow 1st movement of the Appassionata and in the program notes he took pains to write himself.

"The so-called Appassionata Sonata...is usually ranked with the most popular of Beethoven's keyboard works. But I must confess the reasons for its popularity elude me... The Appassionata...is a study in thematic tenacity. His conceit at this period was to create mammoth structures from material that in lesser hands would scarcely afforded a good sixteen-bar intro. The themes as such are usually of minimal interest but often of such primal urgency that one wonders why it took a Beethoven to think them up... The elaboration of these motives...are determined, combative and resistant to concession... No one had ever before composed with so belligerent an attitude... When it works -- when Beethoven's furious onslaughts find their mark- - one feels that music's rhetorical demands have been transcended by an affirmation at once personal and universal...and I think that in the Appassionata Sonata his method does not work...[placing it] somewhere between the King Stephen Overture and the Wellington's Victory Symphony."


----------



## DaveM

The first CD Digital Audio Standard called for a capacity of 74 minutes. The legend is that Norio Ohga of Sony wanted that length because that was the longest time any previous recording of Beethoven's 9th took. Others said it was Von Karajan who wanted that length for the same reason. On the other hand, Philip's engineers say that that was the capacity of a 12 cm disc which was the preferred 'neutral' size. That capacity was later increased to 80min.

Likewise, the first CD-Rs had a capacity of 74min (650mb). That was later increased to 80min (700mb).


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> I believe early CDs maxed out at about 70 minutes. Can't find a reference though.


They were about the same as LPs - about 55-60 minutes.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Columbia gave Gould free rein but (it is said) also *pressured him to record works he didn't care for.* One example was his recording of the Beethoven "big name" sonatas, a certain best-seller that almost every major pianist recorded. Gould had his revenge with a tortuously slow 1st movement of the Appassionata and in the program notes he took pains to write himself.
> 
> "The so-called Appassionata Sonata...is usually ranked with the most popular of Beethoven's keyboard works. But I must confess the reasons for its popularity elude me... The Appassionata...is a study in thematic tenacity. His conceit at this period was to create mammoth structures from material that in lesser hands would scarcely afforded a good sixteen-bar intro. The themes as such are usually of minimal interest but often of such primal urgency that one wonders why it took a Beethoven to think them up... The elaboration of these motives...are determined, combative and resistant to concession... No one had ever before composed with so belligerent an attitude... When it works -- when Beethoven's furious onslaughts find their mark- - one feels that music's rhetorical demands have been transcended by an affirmation at once personal and universal...and I think that in the Appassionata Sonata his method does not work...[placing it] somewhere between the King Stephen Overture and the Wellington's Victory Symphony."


It was that Gould was recording the complete Beethoven sonatas and didn't like the Appassinata. Certainly a perverse performance. He should have taken Richter's example and not played thngs he didn't like. Then again, he would have missed out on being perverse, something he did like!


----------



## joen_cph

Early CDs could have more playing time. The Karajan Beethoven 9 (1983) is 66 mins, for example.


----------



## DavidA

joen_cph said:


> Early CDs could have more playing time. The Karajan Beethoven 9 (1983) is 66 mins, for example.


The length of the CD was actually decided by a Sony executive's wife who wanted the Beethoven 9th to fit on to a CD


----------



## Fugue Meister

DavidA said:


> They were about the same as LPs - about 55-60 minutes.


They were developed to hold up to 76 minutes before they were ever even commercially available.


----------



## hpowders

hpowders said:


> Okay. That's valid. However someone as eccentrically hyper-sensitive to anything and everything as Gould was should have told Sony where to go and found a label that would have completely accommodated him.


I forgot to add: 2LPs for the price of one could have been arranged to accommodate a Gould Goldberg Variations with repeats.

There was always a way!


----------



## hpowders

Triplets said:


> GG Bach was in many cases my introduction to many works of the Composer. I used to be more sympathetic to it than I currently am, but I am not saying it doesn't have value or represent a valid interpretive viewpoint. And he did the world a great service in bringing JSB to a higher profile amongst the listening public.
> I really dislike his Mozart, however, and Not a fan of his Beethoven. His Modern Music recordings are much more interesting, and I wish that he would have focused more there


I first heard the GV with Glenn Gould. I have both recordings. I've since moved on.


----------



## EdwardBast

Rachmaninoff, Josef Hofmann and some other pianist I can't remember walk into a bar talking about who is the best pianist and Rachmaninoff says something like: "A tailor opens his shop on a Paris street and puts up a sign reading 'The best tailor in Paris,' which is fine until a competitor opens a shop across the street and hangs an even bigger sign saying 'The best tailor in all of France.' Both were soon outdone, however, when another tailor went into business a block away advertising himself as 'The best tailor in Europe.' Finally, the next year, a fourth tailor decided to ply his trade among all of the others, assessed his competitors claims, and modestly inscribed his own sign: 'The best tailor in this street.' Josef Hofmann, you are the best pianist in this street." Rachmaninoff was certainly the highest paid at the time, sometimes engaged under Led Zeppelin like terms, 70%-80% of the house rather than a flat fee. I've never heard Josef Hofmann.


----------



## DavidA

Fugue Meister said:


> They were developed to hold up to 76 minutes before they were ever even commercially available.


Whatever, the earliest CDs tended to hold the same amount of music as LPs.


----------



## Triplets

DaveM said:


> Gould died in 1982, the year the CD became commercially available. Plus, the number of classical music CD releases were limited in the first year.


CDs became available in 1979. Given GG extreme interest in recording technology, I'd be surprised if he wasn't an early adopter.
The point is that he had to have known that playback in the future would entail longer playing times than the lp


----------



## DaveM

Triplets said:


> CDs became available in 1979. Given GG extreme interest in recording technology, I'd be surprised if he wasn't an early adopter.
> The point is that he had to have known that playback in the future would entail longer playing times than the lp


Where are you getting your information? The first CD ever pressed was an ABBA album, August 17, 1982. The CD was first _conceived_ in 1979. Gould died October 4, 1982. Your theory is highly speculative.


----------



## hpowders

Any thread involved with "was such and such the greatest?" is so subjective, one will always be able to find 1000 people to agree with you and at least 1000 people to disagree.

If the OP is particularly fanatical and believes said performer is indeed the greatest, all he is doing is setting himself up to be hurt.

I will acknowledge the true worth of the latest, greatest thread:

It's a fine time-killer.


----------



## hpowders

Richard8655 said:


> Artur Rubinstein for me. (We may need a favorite pianist poll.)


As with me, so two for Rubinstein. Now, who will be the two to quickly and passionately say "no way!"


----------



## Richard8655

hpowders said:


> As with me, so two for Rubinstein. Now, who will be the two to quickly and passionately say "no way!"


Yes, these polls are good for some interesting discussions but they can't provide absolutes, as it is all subjective. Gould no doubt was a virtuoso, but so were many earlier outstanding pianists too. Each had their own distinctive styles and techniques. So it really comes down to who do you like best?


----------



## Hmmbug

Gould may be the greatest pianist of the 20th century who made an effort to promote the music of his time (outside from the Rachmaninoff style). In addition to his Bach and Beethoven recordings, he also did albums of music by the Second Viennese School, Hindemith, Krenek, and modern Canadian composers like Jacques Hétu, and in his writing he was an outspoken advocate for the new atonalist system as well. That is definitely important to some music listeners.

And of course, his recordings of the Common Practice Period works aren't half bad either. I have to vouch for Richter as my personal opinion in the question, but Gould definitely rounds out the top group.


----------



## jdec

He is the greatest of the 20th century pianists that hum loud while playing, for sure.


----------



## Barbebleu

jdec said:


> He is the greatest of the pianists that hum loud while playing, for sure.


Next to Keith Jarrett of course!

Incidentally both of whom are among my top twenty piano players.


----------



## SimonNZ

Nope - even then I still prefer Keith Jarrett.

(heh - x-post)

And, yes, I much prefer Jarrett's Bach over Gould's (though Gould is still essential listening)


----------



## Barbebleu

SimonNZ said:


> Nope - even then I still prefer Keith Jarrett.
> 
> (heh - x-post)


No room for a little Gould doing maybe Byrd and Gibbons, one of his, in my opinion only of course, greatest achievements.


----------



## Myriadi

Gould is one of my favorite pianists. I don't know how a "greatest" pianist can be determined in a century that had so many incredible pianists, so I'll pass on that question.

One thing that set Gould apart was, to me, his attitude to recordings. He acted almost like a modernist composer, obviously delighted by all the new technology, and embarking on projects Stockhausen or Babbitt could've conceived. One I can remember is the contrapuntal radio, "The Idea of North". The other is his Sibelius album, which I think is a masterpiece, albeit a very bizzare one: microphones were placed differently for various portions of the music, so that a wistful, melancholic theme could be played wistfully, and also _recorded_ wistfully, as if coming from far away. There are many examples in those Sibelius sonatinas which are quite astounding: a warm chordal passage is given an intimate, homely quality by recording it close, while a nervous movement with incessant repeated staccato notes would be given a colder sound to match its mood, by recording with a bit more reverb. It is a crazy idea, but it works really well on that album, and could be used sparingly by pianists today, but... Not many pianists gave any consideration to the way their performances are recorded, even though this is incredibly important in our age, when records are so ubiquitous, and frequently are the only way for us to hear a pianist. And I don't think any pianists other than Gould ever considered that different pieces may be recorded differently, to highlight their moods, their logic, their strengths. (À propos, Sometimes when I hear records such as Goldmund's - 



 - I wonder if this kind of intimate sound would work wonders in some of the gentler Classical and Romantic repertoire. Naturally, nobody ever records Classical music this way - Gould might have tried, had he lived.)

Another incredibly endearing characteristic of Gould's is his ability to eloquently explain his ideas and interpretations. I'm sure many great pianists played a piece only after carefully considering their options for all kinds of passages, but very few actually explained their thought processes. Gould did, and after listening to him you realize the logic behind his choices. One can see his point, for instance, when he talks about the A minor fugue from WTC 1, a large and unwieldy piece of countrapuntal finesse and power, very uncomfortable and un-keyboardistic to play, and unrelenting on the ears. Arguing that the first exposition may be treated as an introduction, or at any rate a "first part", Gould chooses to record that using a heavier kind of touch, and the rest of the fugue with a lighter one, all the while bringing out the voices in both sections. A shocking idea to purists (and really most pianists, at least) - but as a result, we get the feeling for the imposing fugal procedure employed, and also get what could be perceived as a more coherent, tuneful, profound listening experience, because instead of unrelenting power throughout the piece we get a structured work which gives us time to come to our senses - but also keeps the contrapuntal lines in perfect balance and clarity.

Another example from the WTC is the E major fugue from WTC 2, played with grace and beauty on film - 



 - and very quickly, somewhat mechanically, on the record. Offputting it may be to some, but the choice is quite natural for Gould because on the record the fugue isn't played solo, as in the film: it follows the prelude, which Gould argues was mismatched, being in completely different style. Representing "a completely different view of the world", if I remember Gould's words correctly. So he simply plays the fugue so that it matched the fast, shallow-ish Rococo style of the prelude: fast, light, with bouncing mechanics.

One may not agree with any of this, but it is impossible to deny how well thought-out Gould's approach was. Knowing his interviews, it is obvious how coherent his view of the world and the history of music was, and how much it impacted his interpretations. How many pianists do you know who you could say had a particular, personal, passionately defended and realized view of the history of music? This simply is a level of thinking quite beyond the vast majority of performers - many of them have such busy concert and recording schedules, I doubt they have the time necessary for reflection, study, and thinking. And while I'm talking about the different versions of the E major fugue, how many pianists do you know who could, in the space of just a few years, deliver two or more vastly different interpretations of the same piece, based on musical context, and their musical ideas?


----------



## Bulldog

SimonNZ said:


> Nope - even then I still prefer Keith Jarrett.
> 
> (heh - x-post)
> 
> And, yes, I much prefer Jarrett's Bach over Gould's (though Gould is still essential listening)


I'm not a big fan of Jarrett's Bach, but I do prefer him playing Bach on harpsichord. Jarrett's predilection for rounded notes isn't as problematic on the harpsichord.


----------



## hpowders

Richard8655 said:


> Yes, these polls are good for some interesting discussions but they can't provide absolutes, as it is all subjective. Gould no doubt was a virtuoso, but so were many earlier outstanding pianists too. Each had their own distinctive styles and techniques. So it really comes down to who do you like best?


I can certainly understand why Gould has his passionate advocates as I can appreciate the passionate arguments of his detractors.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. We all have our favorites.

After listening to a lot of R. Serkin, Rubinstein, Annie Fischer, Horowitz and Richter, I simply wouldn't place Gould on their level.


----------



## Triplets

DaveM said:


> Where are you getting your information? The first CD ever pressed was an ABBA album, August 17, 1982. The CD was first _conceived_ in 1979. Gould died October 4, 1982. Your theory is highly speculative.


Hi Fi News. A recent article on the history of the CD.
The point is that GG, who was fanatically involved in technology, would have been well aware that formats were around the corner that exceeded lp limitations. Hell, the cassette and reel to reel were available then, with longer playing times than Lps . I find your attempt to explain his decision on the inclusion of repeats based on the limitations of lp playback to be "highly speculative"


----------



## DaveM

Triplets said:


> Hi Fi News. A recent article on the history of the CD.


If it says that the CD was available for use in the late 70s, then it is wrong.



> I find your attempt to explain his decision on the inclusion of repeats based on the limitations of lp playback to be "highly speculative"


That's interesting because I never said anything about repeats or LP playback.


----------



## Gouldanian

I call for a poll of the greatest 20th century pianist. Let's see what the general public really thinks.


----------



## KenOC

Gouldanian said:


> I call for a poll of the greatest 20th century pianist. Let's see what the general public really thinks.


You'll need special rules. Exactly such a poll is taking place elsewhere. There are already 40 seconded nominations, and the voting list will be capped at 50.


----------



## Gouldanian

Look what I just found from a 2012 poll on talk classical! GG came in second to Richter, ahead of everyone else (tie with Horowitz)


----------



## Blancrocher

Gouldanian said:


> Look what I just found from a 2012 poll on talk classical! GG came in second to Richter, ahead of everyone else (tie with Horowitz)


Richter was a pretty good pianist, I admit, but he was woefully inadequate about crowd management. By contrast, in a memorable performance of Beethoven's Hammerklavier I attended I was amazed at how Lang Lang was able to unwrap cough drops and throw them to audience members who appeared to need one while playing through the slow movement.


----------



## SimonNZ

Blancrocher said:


> Richter was a pretty good pianist, I admit, but he was woefully inadequate about *crowd management*. By contrast, in a memorable performance of Beethoven's Hammerklavier I attended I was amazed at how Lang Lang was able to unwrap *cough drops and throw them to audience members* who appeared to need one while playing through the slow movement.


Yet another area in which Jarrett excells! (read: is a complete nazi)


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> Richter was a pretty good pianist, I admit, but he was woefully inadequate about crowd management. By contrast, in a memorable performance of Beethoven's Hammerklavier I attended I was amazed at how Lang Lang was able to unwrap cough drops and throw them to audience members who appeared to need one while playing through the slow movement.


Ouch! Didn't happen when R. Serkin was performing it.


----------



## Pugg

Gouldanian said:


> I call for a poll of the greatest 20th century pianist. Let's see what the general public really thinks.


What's stopping you to make one?


----------



## DavidA

Gouldanian said:


> I call for a poll of the greatest 20th century pianist. Let's see what the general public really thinks.


TC is not the general public


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> TC is not the general public


No, TC is inferior to the general public. The general public will decide what enters the repertoire and what doesn't. TC has no say, no matter how superior we hold ourselves.


----------



## Gouldanian

Pugg said:


> What's stopping you to make one?


I can't seem to find the button to create one... Is it reserved for Senior Members?


----------



## Mandryka

Tell me, is anyone making a thorough Gould discography?


----------



## joen_cph

Some earlier threads discussing qualities of pianists:

http://www.talkclassical.com/22559-absolute-greatest-pianists-all.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/11311-match-composer-best-pianist-2.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/39990-if-you-were-entitled.html


----------



## Richard8655

Gouldanian said:


> I can't seem to find the button to create one... Is it reserved for Senior Members?


I'd suggest making the poll free-form without providing a list. But there's a "post a poll" checkbox within post new thread.


----------



## Gouldanian

Richard8655 said:


> I'd suggest making the poll free-form without providing a list. But there's a "post a poll" checkbox within post new thread.


So I simply check the "post a poll" box within the post new threat box? I tried but I don't see where I can insert the choices.


----------



## hpowders

There is no greatest pianist. There is no greatest novelist. There is no greatest baseball player or football player or TC poster (although here, I beg to differ) because....are you ready....drumroll please.....

IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE!!! Get over it.


----------



## Jos

No, he wasn't
Interesting, weird and amazing, he was; but there were many others


----------



## Gouldanian

hpowders said:


> There is no greatest pianist. There is no greatest novelist. There is no greatest baseball player or football player or TC poster (although here, I beg to differ) because....are you ready....drumroll please.....
> 
> IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE!!! Get over it.


That's what a poll is for, to see how many people subjectively believe which one's the greatest. It's just for fun... get over it.


----------



## Richard8655

Gouldanian said:


> So I simply check the "post a poll" box within the post new threat box? I tried but I don't see where I can insert the choices.


Yes, after checkboxing "post a poll", click the submit thread button. It won't submit the thread yet. The system will then step you through creating the choices and how they're viewed. Be sure to enter how many choices first when clicking the checkbox.

HP, relax a little. It's for fun and general interest to spark a little discussion.


----------



## Mandryka

hpowders said:


> There is no greatest novelist.


There is a greatest playwright in English.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Mandryka said:


> There is a greatest playwright in English.


Who Mamet?.. No Albee.


----------



## starthrower

Triplets said:


> I'd rather listen to Richter than Gould in Bach. Gould sounds like a sewing machine


You should probably skip Bach and listen to Chopin or Grieg, because you prefer romantic music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Richter was good at baroque too. His Handel Keyboard Suites are killer. BTW, Richter and Gould had a great mutual respect.

I see no great differences in their touch, on baroque. In fact, I like Richter on Handel precisely _because_ of his similarities to Gould. They both play it at a pretty good speed, and with precision.

Richter, though, excelled at Debussy, which I don't think Gould could do.


----------



## starthrower

I do like Richter too! But I've only listened to a bit of his WTC. I didn't buy the CD, because the sound is pretty murky.


----------



## DavidA

There is no question in my mind that Gould suffered certain personality disorders which were not helped by his extremely indulgent upbringing. One friend told of a cabinet which was in Gould's room but was no longer there. When asked about it Gould said, "I got rid of it. I didn't like the way it was looking at me!"


----------



## lifetweet

Glenn Gould was one of the greatest pianists in the 20th century so he wasn't really the greatest above all. He was equipped with great piano skills and that's make him famous.


----------



## Marinera

Deleted: not really relevant


----------



## Marinera

I don't know, I can't listen to his Bach for longer than 15 or 20 minutes. My ears tire very quickly. He sounds a bit too stark and unrelenting to me, more like constructivism, than baroque. Though I see were he gets that spirit since he lived during the era when such style was prevailing. 
Anyway, his Bach playing may be inspired, but I prefer other pianists.


----------



## starthrower

I just got 15 CDs of his Bach, and I can definitely listen for a lot longer than 20 minutes. His Partitas and Toccatas are great! I'm looking forward to the rest.


----------



## tdc

Marinera said:


> I don't know, I can't listen to his Bach for longer than 15 or 20 minutes.


That is longer than I can listen to him playing any composer for. (Even on recordings where you cannot hear the humming).

He just has a style that I find grating. Though in interview I find him an interesting individual and I don't mind listening to him speak and demonstrating short clips of music. I admire his skill level and his passion for music.


----------



## starthrower

I don't know how he could sit in that crummy chair for more than 15 or 20?


----------



## pcnog11

Gouldanian said:


> He's a polarizing figure, I know. You either loved or hated his interpretations (or him personally as an eccentric weirdo). But that's not what I'm asking here.
> 
> Talent-wise, solely based on his technique and virtuosity, how would you rank him among his peers of whom we have surviving records (we obviously can't compare him to Beethoven and Liszt for instance since we don't know how they played).
> 
> Try to be as impartial as you can. Opinions such as "he's not in my top 10 list because he disregarded LVB and destroyed his sonatas" aren't valid for the sake the specific question presented to you.
> 
> I'm very curious to know how he's perceived by the most committed classical music fans and there's no better place than here to ask this question.


He is certainly one of the greatest. He was innovative and passionate. I think it is impossible to say he is the 'greatest' of the 20th century. Among his peers, he had his own style so was his peers eg. Rubinstein, Cliburn or Arrau etc. If there is no objective measurement, we cannot just blindly answer how would he rank among his peers.


----------



## Dan Ante

For years I just did not bother with him but I have gradually grown to love his Bach even with vocal accompaniment


----------



## Vaneyes

starthrower said:


> I don't know how he could sit in that crummy chair for more than 15 or 20?


The holey item (National Arts Centre, Ottawa). :tiphat:


----------



## Dan Ante

Vaneyes said:


> The holey item (National Arts Centre, Ottawa). :tiphat:


My goodness couldn't they at least have given it a coat of paint.


----------



## Pugg

Dan Ante said:


> My goodness couldn't they at least have given it a coat of paint.


But then it loses it's authenticity.


----------



## Dan Ante

Pugg said:


> But then it loses it's authenticity.


But it would look better


----------



## znapschatz

I don't consider myself qualified to rate Gould in comparison to other highly regarded pianists I have heard in concert, but he was the best I ever heard. In addition to recordings, I heard him live in concert at Severance Hall in Cleveland in a Bach program, and it remains my personal benchmark of the greatest.


----------



## lextune

Gouldanian said:


> Wrong about Bach. Richter himself once said "I could play Bach as good as Gould if I wanted to but that would require from me a ridiculous investment of time and practice to reach that level, which I'm not willing to do."
> 
> He admitted that he was inferior to Gould when it came to Bach.


"The best thing about the internet is that you can just say anything, put it in quotes, and attribute it to anyone you like." -Abraham Lincoln.

....sorry, but I would need to see where this "quote" came from. I do believe I have read everything available about, and/or by, Richter, and I have never seen it. Not to mention the ridiculous nature of the "quote", and the fact that it does not jive with many *actual* quotes by Richter about Gould.

Such as this one, from page 197 of Monsaingeon's book, "Richter - Notebooks and Conversations"

"In my own view, Bach's music demands more depth and austerity, whereas with Gould everything is just a little too brilliant and superficial. Above all, however, he doesn't play all the repeats, and that's something for which I really can't forgive him. It suggests that he doesn't actually love Bach suffciently." -Sviatoslav Richter


----------



## lextune

Fake quotes aside, and on to the actual topic. I love Gould. But no, he is not the "greatest", mostly because there could never be a single greatest pianist: of any century.

That said, Gould is certainly among the greatest pianists of the 20th Century. Richter, Horowitz, Arrau, Serkin, Gould, Rubinstein, Gilels, Barenboim, Kempff, Michelangeli....


----------



## DavidA

Dan Ante said:


> My goodness couldn't they at least have given it a coat of paint.


He wouldn't let anyone touch it! His father had built it and it had some superstitious aura for him!


----------



## regenmusic

I admire GG the person the way I admire Leonard Bernstein, for getting classical music out there and putting his whole life behind it in a way that engaged people. I don't belittle him for his eccentricities. But I don't really like his Bach as always better compared to others I've heard.

Compare this:





Bach - Prélude de la suite anglaise en la mineur BWV 807 - Eloïse Bella Kohn

to this:





Bach English Suite No 2 in A minor BWV 807 Glenn Gould Prelude


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Talent-wise, solely based on his technique and virtuosity, he was a pioneering pianist that managed to exploit the most out of Bach on a modern piano. But for me, this is not sufficient to put him on the top of all 20th century pianists, because it is merely one part of various approaches that fits the keyboard music of Bach, not to mention that Bach is only one of many great piano compositions whose works require to be interpreted with no less skill or talent on a modern piano.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

To answer the original question: No. He had great talent but ruined the music by making a lot of silly noises.


----------



## silentio

Gould may not have the most beautiful piano tone and any awareness of style, but he almost always makes you feel he is doing things more "correct" than anyone else.

My first Gouldian revelation came when I tried out his Brahms' _4 Ballades op.10_ and the late _klavierstucke_--not a repertoire one would associate with Gould. Yet, he does sound right, very right, about his choice of tempo, and the ability to reveal the contrapuntal genius in Brahms' writing for the piano. He helped me to realize that Brahms should be played like Bach -- it is true after all, Brahms was the great heir of the Germanic tradition.

His Scriabin, Schoenberg, R.Strauss, Berg, Byrd, and even a subset of Mozart have the same effect on me.

The same can be said for other two favorite artists of mine, Heifetz, and Callas.


----------



## Mandryka

silentio said:


> a subset of Mozart


Which pieces?

........


----------



## hpowders

If Glenn Gould is the greatest pianist of the 20th century, then every sensibility and attraction I have to classical music has been thrown out the window.

He was a Bach specialist on piano and he was good, but otherwise too eccentric for the likes of me.


----------



## silentio

Mandryka said:


> Which pieces?
> 
> ........


K.576, K.333, and K.394 (Fantasia and Fugue). His K.331 is weird, but it has its own charm.


----------



## agoukass

I would say that Glenn Gould is one of the great pianists of the 20th century. However, his repertoire was too narrow and his playing was often idiosyncratic. While I do enjoy his Bach, Haydn, Brahms, and Beethoven, I can't say the same for his deconstruction of Mozart. 

Also, the superlative title "greatest" is extremely subjective. While Gould may be the greatest pianist of the 20th century to one person, he certainly isn't for me.


----------



## mathisdermaler




----------



## Mandryka

silentio said:


> K.576, K.333, and K.394 (Fantasia and Fugue). His K.331 is weird, but it has its own charm.


There are some fun things here, even 331, I agree with you. Esp 394 fugue. I like his 475 too.


----------



## millionrainbows

After reading about some of Vladimir Horowitz' shenanigans, I have less sympathy for criticisms about GG's eccentricities. 

GG's "slow" version of the Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor is a singular testament. I heard it as being profound, whereas Brendel just passed over it like a typist.


----------



## dillonp2020

Not to me. He isn't one of my top 5. Being unique isn't always a good thing. For me Gould doesn't beat Richter, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Serkin, etc. I like his '81 Goldbergs, and that's pretty much it, the rest I find barely palatable.


----------



## silentio

millionrainbows said:


> After reading about some of Vladimir Horowitz' shenanigans, I have less sympathy for criticisms about GG's eccentricities.
> 
> GG's "slow" version of the Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor is a singular testament. I heard it as being profound,* whereas Brendel just passed over it like a typist.*


You read my mind. Actually, I always picture Brendel as a typist rather than a pianist in most of the things he played.


----------



## Blancrocher

Whenever I become annoyed about Glenn Gould's penchant for wearing heavy coats in the summertime, I reflect that Friedrich Gulda occasionally gave recitals in the nude.


----------



## Bettina

Blancrocher said:


> Whenever I become annoyed about Glenn Gould's penchant for wearing heavy coats in the summertime, I reflect that Friedrich Gulda occasionally gave recitals in the nude.


Sounds like a pretty good idea. That way, if he had trouble reaching a note in a huge chord, he would have an alternative way of hitting that key! :lol:


----------



## Blancrocher

Jesus, Bettina.


----------



## DeepR

I learned to appreciate some Bach pieces from his playing.
But after hearing him completely butcher one of my favorite piano sonatas, Scriabin #3, I have to say he is as incompatible with romantic music as a pianist could possibly be.


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> Sounds like a pretty good idea. That way, if he had trouble reaching a note in a huge chord, he would have an alternative way of hitting that key! :lol:


So when women take up the keyboard, they start at a rather HUGE disadvantage; so, in sum, it seems like males get to expand their horizons a bit more when playing the piano.


----------



## Captainnumber36

When it comes to Classical and Baroque, there is a very strong argument for it. But it's all personal preference in the end, is it not?


----------



## bioluminescentsquid

I've been thinking about Gould's notorious Appassionata "scandal" recording.






Confession:
There are lots of haters out there (understandable) of this recoding, but this was actually the first recording of the Appassionata I've ever heard. I liked it, and thought that it made total, logical sense, even if Gould had meant it in jest. When I "graduated" to other recordings, they seemed to be ludicrously fast. But at the same time, it's a give-or-take thing: when played slowly, faster parts and normally textural elements acquire a sort of irresistible melodic polish that is lost when it's played at more conventional speeds, but at other times, I just feel like I have to wait too long for built-up tension to be resolved.


----------



## jegreenwood

At this time for me he offers an interesting alternative version of Bach. I listen to Schiff and Perahia more frequently. 

I like his Brahms recital disc. I don't have anything else by him.


----------



## gprengel

Gouldanian said:


> Oh, on a desert island my choice would be Hélène Grimaud!


Oh yessss! Her Chaconne from Bach/ Busoni opened a new universe for me !!
Also the Welltempered piano by Daniel Barenboim!!


----------



## bioluminescentsquid

I was talking about Glenn Gould with a friend who also happens to admire him yesterday.

He said something which I've never thought about: Recordings are simply objective documents of sounds made on an instrument(s), and do not, by themselves cause controversy. If someone's offended by a recording, it says more about them than the recording.


----------



## premont

bioluminescentsquid said:


> He said something which I've never thought about: Recordings are simply objective documents of sounds made on an instrument(s), and do not, by themselves cause controversy. If someone's offended by a recording, it says more about them than the recording.


When we discuss a recording, we usually do not talk so much about the recording as such but more about the interpretation, the recording displays. This (the interpretation) is most often a very subjective matter.


----------



## Tallisman

No. And because I need 15 characters I'll add that his Well-Tempered Clavier pisses me off beyond belief.


----------



## jegreenwood

premont said:


> When we discuss a recording, we usually do not talk so much about the recording as such but more about the interpretation, the recording displays. This (the interpretation) is most often a very subjective matter.


Although in the case of Gould more than most pianists, you can actually have a debate about recording techniques.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Tallisman said:


> No. And because I need 15 characters I'll add that his Well-Tempered Clavier pisses me off beyond belief.


Read this while listening to his gorgeous Well-Tempered Clavier and it pissed me off beyond belief (I kid)! Why don't you like it?


----------



## mathisdermaler

No, he is a master of Bach but everything else is just... weird. Actually, I do like the atonal stuff. It seems almost contrarian to me the way he plays everything _so_ peculiarly. I think Schnabel or Brendel is the best.


----------



## Casebearer

Why would Glenn Gould be the best? He maybe Anglosaxon and peculiar, I'll grant you that, but the best...? Maybe his Bach is the best.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I'm with Richter's assertion that the interpreter shouldn't dominate the music but should dissolve into it. Gould never did that. Even with his much-lauded Bach recordings, one is not listening to Bach's music but to Gould's playing. And for more or less anything else, his playing left a lot to be desired. So in answer to the OP - no.


----------



## Tallisman

Pat Fairlea said:


> I'm with Richter's assertion that the interpreter shouldn't dominate the music but should dissolve into it. Gould never did that. Even with his much-lauded Bach recordings, one is not listening to Bach's music but to Gould's playing. And for more or less anything else, his playing left a lot to be desired. So in answer to the OP - no.


You stole the words from my mouth. Europeans (especially Eastern and Russian) like Richter, Horowitz, Zimerman seem to have a respectful modesty to their playing in general, rooted in a 'tragic sense of life' as I heard it described recently. Gould's ego could never dissolve as you say.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid

In book typography, there's a much used cliche that the typography should be "a crystal goblet" - that it should let the stuff inside shine through, rather than draw attention away from it.
http://gmunch.home.pipeline.com/typo-L/misc/ward.htm









Here's a picture of the work of Jan van Krimpen - I think he's the typesetter equivalent of Sweelinck 

But I don't know how much this approach will work with music. You can easily draw a line between typesetting and the content, but in music it's much harder to do so between interpretation and score, especially when improvisation and ornamentation etc. come into play.

The nice thing, though, is that interpretations of pieces aren't irreversible, unlike the restoration of an artifact. Although you could also argue how certain interpretations irreversibly influenced the reception of certain pieces or performing styles, such as Glenn's Goldbergs or Leonhardt's Froberger.


----------



## EdwardBast

DeepR said:


> I learned to appreciate some Bach pieces from his playing.
> But after hearing him completely butcher one of my favorite piano sonatas, Scriabin #3, I have to say he is as incompatible with romantic music as a pianist could possibly be.


As can be seen and heard in a youtube video, he also butchered Prokofiev's 7th, so it's not just romantic music. The man didn't even bother to memorize the work correctly and so deflated the slow movement by failing to play its most important figure. Amazing!



bioluminescentsquid said:


> I've been thinking about Gould's notorious Appassionata "scandal" recording.


Okay, so it's not just romantic and modernist music he butchered. Wow. And after butchering half of music history people are still suggesting he might be the greatest pianist of the 20thc?


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Tallisman said:


> You stole the words from my mouth. Europeans (especially Eastern and Russian) like Richter, Horowitz, Zimerman seem to have a respectful modesty to their playing in general, rooted in a 'tragic sense of life' as I heard it described recently. Gould's ego could never dissolve as you say.


Merely borrowed the words, with every intention of returning them, much as one might borrow a neighbour's lawnmower.


----------



## agoukass

There was a time when I thought that Gould’s performance of the Prokofiev Seventh was brilliant and interesting, but then I listened to the Horowitz and Kapell recordings. Those forced me to completely re-evaluate what I thought of the piece as well as Gould as a performer.

I think the problem is that many people probably think of Glenn Gould as being the greatest pianist of the 20th century simply because they haven’t exposed themselves to others. While there are many things that can be admired in Gould’s playing of Bach, Beethoven, or even Brahms, there are other pianists out there such as Rubinstein, Richard Goode, Serkin, Schnabel, Richter, Edwin Fischer, and others who have done revelatory things with some of these pieces that make Gould pale in comparison.

I’ve found this to be true in my case. The more I’ve explored the piano repertoire and the more great performers I’ve exposed myself to, the less I like Gould’s playing. This doesn’t mean that I will throw away my CDs of his Bach keyboard concertos, the Italian Concerto, or the 1955 Goldberg Variations, of course.


----------



## DavidA

To say Gould (or anyone else for that matter) is 'the greatest' seems to me absolutely daft. Yes he was one of the great pianists (as other pianists testified) but there were many others.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid

agoukass said:


> I've found this to be true in my case. The more I've explored the piano repertoire and the more great performers I've exposed myself to, the less I like Gould's playing. This doesn't mean that I will throw away my CDs of his Bach keyboard concertos, the Italian Concerto, or the 1955 Goldberg Variations, of course.


Interesting. I admit that my liking of Gould might indeed be because he's so radically different from the others, and I haven't learned to appreciate the nuances in the playing of others yet. (Since I'm still relatively new to piano music, having listened to harpsichord for as long as I know) A little knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess. Something I'll have to be aware of.

But, it seems that there are some varying definitions of what "butchering" a piece means. Some will say that playing Bach on a Harass harpsichord, but in the wrong temperament is butchery. Some consider Bach-Busoni or Bach-Stokowski (or in this case, Bach-Gould) to be butchery.

Some will be tolerant enough to only draw the line at an arrangement of Froberger's Tombeau for a vuvuzela quartet with the sounds of ducklings being strangled to death in the background while Kanye West raps about deviant drug-fueled sadomasochistic sexual practices in the foreground.

But, as long as you aren't tied to a comfy chair and forced to listen to Glenn Gould's Scriabin (which by the way, is a guilty pleasure of mine) by the Spanish Inquisition, you'll be fine. 

Now, what about this "greatest pianist" stuff?


----------



## Crystal

Gould was good at Bach, but I dislike his Mozart. Maybe good, but not the best. Rubinstein is the greatest.


----------



## Larkenfield

I value Gould as the man who gave Bach back his youth-the vital rather than tired Bach, who fathered 20 children and was indefatigable as a master composer... Gould was highly influential in his lifetime, worthwhile, whether he hummed in fascination and delight during some of his performances or his recordings varied greatly in satisfaction... His Brahms could be tender, soulful and passionate... exquisite... and there was a thoughtful, introspective side to his personality... At his best he was clear and articulate... Controversial musicians stimulate public interest and a re-examination of old and perhaps exhausted ways of doing things... He trusted his muse implicitly over a lifetime and wasn't afraid to challenge his listeners. He had far more interests than Bach. His Gibbons and Byrd recordings are great IMO, where he was in top form.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bow to the altar of history, mere mortals! Be ye now confronted with genius!


----------



## Dan Ante

*Is Glenn Gould the greatest pianist of the 20th century?*

No but I like him.


----------



## Taplow

no. this text is not here.


----------



## jdec

Not the greatest (of the 20th century), but one of the greatest anyway.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Taplow said:


> no. this text is not here.


Yeah.
What Taplow said.


----------



## silentio

Larkenfield said:


> I value Gould as the man who gave Bach back his youth-the vital rather than tired Bach who fathered 20 children and was indefatigable as a master composer. Gould was highly influential in his lifetime, worthwhile, whether he hummed in fascination and delight during some of his performances or his recordings could vary in quality. *His Brahms could be tender and passionate, and he did have a thoughtful, introspective side to his personality. At its best, he was clear and articulate. *Controversial musicians stimulate public interest and a re-examination of much that has gone on before. He trusted his muse absolutely-never betrayed it.


Ten thumb-ups for you.

This Brahms recital reveals the core of Gould's genius. After hearing these intermezzi (plus the 4 Ballades op.10) by Gould, I couldn't enjoy anyone else in Brahms, including the very best like Gilels, Lupu, Kovacevich, Katchen, and Rubinstein.

Why is Gould in Brahms too good to be true? First, you touched a point: he was clear and articulate. He was _very_ clear: the texture is transparent as if it is Mozart or Scarlatti, which reminds us that Brahms was a classist at heart. Second, his affection with Bach shines through: he knows how to reveal the contrapunctual intricacies in Brahms. In the footstep of Bach, Brahms is _the _great contrapuntalist. In this A major intermezzo, nobody but Gould brings out the tenor voice in the arpeggios of the left hand at the end of the A section. Last, as Gould stated it himself, he intentionally plays Brahms as if he is improvising. After all, Brahms was of the grand romantic tradition. Gould playing in this piece was full of drive and pulse, which Lupu, Sokolov and Rubinstein lack.

Another aspect of Gould that I appreciate is that he dares to reinvent a composer. Is his Brahms "authentic"? I must say no. Just compare his playing to the survived recordings of Brahms and Clara Schumann's students, like Carl Friedberg and Ilona Eibenschutz. They are a world apart. The older pianists tend to perform with excessive rubato and even a greater amount of freedoms and deviations from the scores. Gould, in turns, deconstructs Brahms in a more mechanical (in a good sense) and precise way, which IMO reveals more structural insight of this music.

Who cares about being a HIP purist? This kind of reinvention works in Gould's Scriabin, Grieg, Schoenberg/Webern/Berg, the Renaissance masters (Byrd, Gibbon), Beethoven (the late sonatas), and guess it, Mozart too! I know he "hates" Mozart, but listen to the Durnitz sonata K.284, the third movement (a set of theme and variations, right up his alley). How fun and original is his concept of the piece.

That is the trademark of a great artist. I think neither *Maria Callas *was a purist in bel canto or *Joseph Szigeti *in Bach. But what a new world they created.


----------



## EdwardBast

silentio said:


> Ten thumb-ups for you.
> 
> This Brahms recital reveals the core of Gould's genius. After hearing these intermezzi (plus the 4 Ballades op.10) by Gould, I couldn't enjoy anyone else in Brahms, including the very best like Gilels, Lupu, Kovacevich, Katchen, and Rubinstein.
> 
> Why is Gould in Brahms too good to be true? First, you touched a point: he was clear and articulate. He was _very_ clear: the texture is transparent as if it is Mozart or Scarlatti, which reminds us that Brahms was a classist at heart. Second, his affection with Bach shines through: he knows how to reveal the contrapunctual intricacies in Brahms. In the footstep of Bach, Brahms is _the _great contrapuntalist. In this A major intermezzo, nobody but Gould brings out the tenor voice in the arpeggios of the left hand at the end of the A section. Last, as Gould stated it himself, he intentionally plays Brahms as if he is improvising. After all, Brahms was of the grand romantic tradition. Gould playing in this piece was full of drive and pulse, which Lupu, Sokolov and Rubinstein lack.
> 
> Another aspect of Gould that I appreciate is that he dares to reinvent a composer. Is his Brahms "authentic"? I must say no. Just compare his playing to the survived recordings of Brahms and Clara Schumann's students, like Carl Friedberg and Ilona Eibenschutz. They are a world apart. The older pianists tend to perform with excessive rubato and even a greater amount of freedoms and deviations from the scores. Gould, in turns, deconstructs Brahms in a more mechanical (in a good sense) and precise way, which IMO reveals more structural insight of this music.
> 
> Who cares about being a HIP purist? This kind of reinvention works in Gould's Scriabin, Grieg, Schoenberg/Webern/Berg, the Renaissance masters (Byrd, Gibbon), Beethoven (the late sonatas), and guess it, Mozart too! I know he "hates" Mozart, but listen to the Durnitz sonata K.284, the third movement (a set of theme and variations, right up his alley). How fun and original is his concept of the piece.
> 
> That is the trademark of a great artist. I think neither *Maria Callas *was a purist in bel canto or *Joseph Szigeti *in Bach. But what a new world they created.


I think Gould butchers the Brahms Intermezzo (op. 118 #2). Stupid rhythmic mannerisms throughout. The opening motive is straight eighth notes, not a dotted figure. Jeeezzzuss! Half the point is the contrast between that and the dotted rhythms in the second half of each phrase. Ignores the most basic dynamics and completely ruins the climax. One of the most annoying interpretations I've ever heard.


----------



## silentio

^ What is the most basic dynamics that he ignores and the climax that he ruins?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Not the greatest, but a fine pianist nonetheless. Schnabel, Richter, Schiffra and Horowitz (among others) were greater.


----------



## EdwardBast

silentio said:


> ^ What is the most basic dynamics that he ignores and the climax that he ruins?


There is only one crescendo to *f* in the piece. Gould seems to have missed it but I'm sure you will have better luck. The climax comes at the usual place, not long before the return of the principal section in a ternary form.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Gould’s reboots are interesting to hear once, but I don’t feel like wanting to return to them.


----------



## fluteman

Larkenfield said:


> He trusted his muse absolutely-never betrayed it.


Your entire post was right on point, but this is what matters, not whether he was the greatest pianist of the 20th century or not. That's why I'm such a devoted fan of Gould -- the music he recorded (with rare exceptions), his writings, the shows he produced on radio and tv, everything. But exactly what criteria would one use to determine "greatest"? I haven't read the first two hundred plus posts in this thread, but I'd bet money none of them list criteria that everyone will agree upon. Alfred Cortot also trusted his muse absolutely. Alas, his career coincided with the early days of recording. He had to do it, but couldn't yet take advantage of modern editing technology, which Gould relied upon so heavily. So excuse this major detour in this Glenn Gould thread.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

No. To someone like me with no musical ability, There are many greats.


----------



## Larkenfield

................


----------



## Larkenfield

Gould's Gibbons and Byrd recordings are superb, highly regarded, where he can be heard at his best. He had far more interests than only Bach-that is, if one isn't too rash or angry to give his other recordings a fair hearing. I wouldn't change one note of these outstanding & astonishing performances, where I have never heard him sound better-beautifully paced recordings with an uplifting lightness of spirit.

https://www.amazon.com/Consort-Musicke-William-Orlando-Sweelinck/dp/B0000028NB


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Not the greatest, but a fine pianist nonetheless. Schnabel, Richter, Schiffra and Horowitz (among others) were greater.


Schiffra... I meant Cziffra, d'oh! But I'm sure y'all knew whom I meant


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> Gould's Gibbons and Byrd recordings are superb, highly regarded, where he can be heard at his best. He had far more interests than only Bach-that is, if one isn't too rash or angry to give his other recordings a fair hearing. I wouldn't change one note of these outstanding & astonishing performances, where I have never heard him sound better-beautifully paced recordings with an uplifting lightness of spirit.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Consort-Musicke-William-Orlando-Sweelinck/dp/B0000028NB


Once again, good at performing the piano music of composers who wrote no piano music? That is nice but not a qualification for greatest pianist of the 20thc, which some of us believe should at some point involve the playing of piano music.


----------



## premont

There were many great pianists in the 20th century. Each of them was in their own way the greatest.


----------



## premont

To be a great pianist one must be a great Beethoven pianist, since Beethoven is the most important composer of piano music in our musical history. But Gould's Beethoven was - at best - rather mediocre IMO.


----------



## jdec

premont said:


> *To be a great pianist one must be a great Beethoven pianist*, since Beethoven is the most important composer of piano music in our musical history. But Gould's Beethoven was - at best - rather mediocre IMO.


Are you sure? what about Horowitz.


----------



## premont

jdec said:


> Are you sure? what about Horowitz.


I have only heard his recordings of some of the named Beethoven sonatas, but I found them very rewarding.


----------



## tdc

premont said:


> To be a great pianist one must be a great Beethoven pianist, since Beethoven is the most important composer of piano music in our musical history. But Gould's Beethoven was - at best - rather mediocre IMO.


I disagree with this, for one thing no performer likes all composers. Each performer will naturally gravitate towards certain composers, there is not one composer every pianist has to be great at in order to be a great pianist. Secondly Chopin and Debussy both explored the dynamic range of the instrument further than Beethoven, and their contributions to the piano repertoire are equally important.

*Edit -* I don't believe Gould was that highly regarded in any of those 3 composers - yet I still consider him a great pianist, but not the greatest of the 20th century.


----------



## premont

tdc said:


> I disagree with this, for one thing no performer likes all composers. Each performer will naturally gravitate towards certain composers, there is not one composer every pianist has to be great at in order to be a great pianist. Secondly Chopin and Debussy both explored the dynamic range of the instrument further than Beethoven, and their contributions to the piano repertoire are equally important.


I only meant, that one of the prerequisites for being a great pianist is, that one is a great Beethoven pianist. But it is not enough. A great pianist must of course be versatile and have a high quality approach to piano music in general including the composers you list. My using of LvB as example was just to mention one of the reasons, why I do not consider Gould a great pianist.


----------



## jdec

premont said:


> I only meant, that one of the prerequisites for being a great pianist is, that one is a great Beethoven pianist. But it is not enough. A great pianist must of course be versatile and have a high quality approach to piano music in general including the composers you list. My using of LvB as example was just to mention one of the reasons, why I do not consider Gould a great pianist.


Going back to Horowitz again, he was not considered a great Beethoven pianist. He even admitted Beethoven not being one of his favorite composers. He was a truly great pianist nonetheless.


----------



## premont

This is a confusion about definitions. I maintain that a truly great pianist must be versatile. Otherwise I would talk e.g. about a great Chopin pianist (Rubinstein) or a great Mozart pianist (Lili Kraus).


----------



## Phil loves classical

Being radically different doesn’t make one great, and not in the least the greatest. But he was interesting, which may have been all he wanted.


----------



## Larkenfield

I would not consider GG as the greatest pianists of the 20th-century. Neither would I consider anyone else as the greatest. Unless one is restricted to hearing only one pianist in a lifetime, which has never or will never happen, the absolute pinnacle of a choice is impossible & unnecessary. There have been too many great pianists within the last 100 years, including the astounding Ignaz Freidman, and no one pianists has ever recorded the entire range of the piano repertory. Horowitz playing Schoenberg? Forget it! (But Arrau did.) Then what?

I recently heard Shura Cherkassky for the first time after his amazing 70-year career, an obviously legendary pianist, and yet he's not worth considering as one of the great 20th-century pianists? it seems that he's rarely ever mentioned. There are too many astonishing choices. The amazing thing about Cherkassky is that he never knew how he did what he did. Elsewhere, I would consider the legendary Gould as one of the most astonishing performers of the 20th-century, and hugely influential. Some of his inspired Bach performances brings tears to my eyes.


----------



## fluteman

Phil loves classical said:


> Being radically different doesn't make one great, and not in the least the greatest. But he was interesting, which may have been all he wanted.


Well, all of that is true, but it's also true that creative new ideas are the life blood of any art form, regardless of how long and rich its history. Gould was all about challenging long unchallenged dogma with radical new ideas, which sounds fun and exciting, but is hard to do successfully. You have to accept some near-misses and the occasional disaster if you are going to achieve the dramatic and exciting successes. To me Beethoven is one of the greatest examples of an artist with the courage to fail now and then in order to succeed at the highest level for the most part.

Gould also wouldn't back down, but I believe the fear and stress of striking out in new directions is what caused him to abandon the concert stage and become increasingly neurotic and drug-dependent until he died at an early age. His famous failures (at least in the view of many, feel free to disagree) include his Mozart A major sonata, K. 331, his Bach Art of the Fugue (recorded on a modified organ, which Gould was experienced and adept at playing) and his Bach two and three-part inventions (played on a modified Steinway that Columbia Records was no longer using and allowed him to tinker with). The last is particularly grating on the ears. Fix that piano!

But that urge to find new approaches is also responsible for all of his successes.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, Glenn Gould was the greatest pianist of the 20th century. Just the fact that we can even pose this question is partial proof, and he sold a hell of as lot of records. Books about him, films, etc, are a mounting legacy of proof of this, which can be opposed, but is a formidable amount of proof in favor of the greatness theory. Let the naysayers have their opinions, which are invisible. The legacy is real.


----------



## Chromatose

fluteman said:


> Gould also wouldn't back down, but I believe the fear and stress of striking out in new directions is what caused him to abandon the concert stage and become increasingly neurotic and drug-dependent until he died at an early age. His famous failures (at least in the view of many, feel free to disagree) include his Mozart A major sonata, K. 331, his Bach Art of the Fugue (recorded on a modified organ, which Gould was experienced and adept at playing) and his Bach two and three-part inventions (played on a modified Steinway that Columbia Records was no longer using and allowed him to tinker with). The last is particularly grating on the ears. Fix that piano!
> 
> But that urge to find new approaches is also responsible for all of his successes.


Gould wasn't afraid of striking out in new directions (I take this to mean many of the composers he didn't really record, vast swaths of romantic era music correct me if this isn't what you meant), he simply was not interested to do so. Doesn't mean he didn't ever explore those scores, it is well known he played and recorded many things in private that he never recorded to be put out. Witnesses who saw him play many of these pieces report flawless sight readings down to following all dynamics and instructions in the scores, only to run through it again dropping the instructions and experimenting with his own interpretations.

Because of this I don't think it's fair to say he wasn't a great pianist because look at how he utterly botches Mozart (at least how the majority view his Mozart recordings) he played it that way because no one had ever done it his way before or any other way for that matter (which is why I believe him to be one of the most unique of the greatest pianist because he was striking out into unexplored territory by playing other composers' work his own way not always successfully I'll grant you but sometimes to incredible effect). Just because he played eccentrically in the recordings doesn't mean he couldn't rattle off a perfect version (in the majorities eyes).


----------



## EdwardBast

Chromatose said:


> Because of this I don't think it's fair to say he wasn't a great pianist because look at how he utterly botches Mozart (at least how the majority view his Mozart recordings) he played it that way because no one had ever done it his way before or any other way for that matter (which is why I believe him to be one of the most unique of the greatest pianist because he was striking out into unexplored territory by playing other composers' work his own way not always successfully I'll grant you but sometimes to incredible effect). Just because he played eccentrically in the recordings doesn't mean he couldn't rattle off a perfect version (in the majorities eyes).


So far the list in this thread of those whose music he botched includes, at least, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Scriabin and Prokofiev. Did I forget anyone? When one puts that much bad playing and horrendous interpretation on tape, people notice.


----------



## Larkenfield

................


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> So far the list in this thread of those whose music he botched includes, at least, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Scriabin and Prokofiev. Did I forget anyone? When one puts that much bad playing and horrendous interpretation on tape, people notice.


I think if you discussed this with Mr. Gould (if that were possible) he'd carefully explain that it was not _he _who "botched" the music of all these composers, but all those other pianists and, very likely, the composers themselves.

And, music being music, it would be difficult to prove him wrong.


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> *I think if you discussed this with Mr. Gould (if that were possible) he'd carefully explain that it was not he who "botched" the music of all these composers*, but all those other pianists and, very likely, the composers themselves.
> 
> And, music being music, it would be difficult to prove him wrong.


EdwardBast would learn some good things from a discussion with Mr. Gould. ......OK, so would I.


----------



## Chromatose

EdwardBast said:


> So far the list in this thread of those whose music he botched includes, at least, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Scriabin and Prokofiev. Did I forget anyone? When one puts that much bad playing and horrendous interpretation on tape, people notice.


I for one always enjoyed _most_ of his interpretations of Beethoven (particularly the early and middle period sonatas), his Brahms, Scriabin and Prokofiev (although the only piece I know he recorded of Prokofiev is the 7th sonata). I'm not going to sit hear and say you don't know what your talking about because clearly you know music on the page, I think I remember people talking about you being a musicologist of some sort but regardless if this is the case or not you truly do know your stuff (Russian music in particular I note from your posts). However, maybe it's precisely because of how well you know how it is on the page that you take issue with some young Canadian punk tampering around with the traditions of how music in the repertoire should be performed, no?

Maybe not and I'm with you on his Mozart, I know what he was trying to do but I really don't think it makes for interesting listening much less good. But I've never known a better versions of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 3, 13, 14, 15, & 17 (I'm no pianist and don't know the composers given directions on the page I just go by what sounds better to me and the way Gould plays the Adagio of Sonata No. 3 is the greatest interpretation I've ever come across, it gives me goosebumps every time I hear it). Anyway to each his own, I really do respect your opinions and insights and even if I don't agree with your position I always enjoy reading your acerbic witticisms concerning nearly any subject. So if you feel up to it tell me why you dislike his Scriabin and Prokofiev offerings?


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> I think if you discussed this with Mr. Gould (if that were possible) he'd carefully explain that it was not _he _who "botched" the music of all these composers, but all those other pianists and, very likely, the composers themselves.


Why do you think this ? Did he ever say anything like this?


----------



## Chromatose

Mandryka said:


> Why do you think this ? Did he ever say anything like this?


Oh yes many a time did he.. Remember google is your friend.

I remember Gould saying the worst thing that happened to Mozart's music was that he lived to long and let the Viennese style influence his work too much, I really think he went as far as to say Mozart would have been a much more impressive composer if he died at 28 or 29. In some interview on youtube when asked about why he ignored Beethoven's carefully marked scores he said something close to, I don't think Beethoven could really see how much better it could be without some of his markings. (I'm botching what he said but it was something just as presumptuous.)


----------



## Mandryka

Chromatose said:


> Oh yes many a time did he.. Remember google is your friend.
> 
> I remember Gould saying the worst thing that happened to Mozart's music was that he lived to long and let the Viennese style influence his work too much, I really think he went as far as to say Mozart would have been a much more impressive composer if he died at 28 or 29. In some interview on youtube when asked about why he ignored Beethoven's carefully marked scores he said something close to, I don't think Beethoven could really see how much better it could be without some of his markings. (I'm botching what he said but it was something just as presumptuous.)


The comment about Beethoven is really interesting because it shows how, for Gould, the markings were really vague suggestions (like repeats ) and in all matters apart from relative pitch, the performer should use his discretion.

There is one late piece which Gould played frequently and played relatively well -- the 24th piano concerto. Similarly I think he played Beethoven's 3rd piano concerto with Karajan relatively well, and possibly op 110 too.

But no-one would listen to these things if it weren't for his well oiled marketing machine, which continues to have an influence.


----------



## premont

Chromatose said:


> ..... In some interview on youtube when asked about why he [Gould] ignored Beethoven's carefully marked scores he said something close to, I don't think Beethoven could really see how much better it could be without some of his markings. (I'm botching what he said but it was something just as presumptuous.)


I always find it questionable when performers think they know better than the composers.


----------



## DavidA

Chromatose said:


> Oh yes many a time did he.. Remember google is your friend.
> 
> I remember Gould saying the worst thing that happened to Mozart's music was that he lived to long and let the Viennese style influence his work too much, I really think he went as far as to say Mozart would have been a much more impressive composer if he died at 28 or 29. In some interview on youtube when asked about why he ignored Beethoven's carefully marked scores he said something close to, I don't think Beethoven could really see how much better it could be without some of his markings. (I'm botching what he said but it was something just as presumptuous.)


I wonder sometimes whether it was Gould who lived too long! One of his problems was that he obviously suffered from a personality disorder that led him always to want to be an iconoclast. I write as a fan btw! His early recordings of Mozart are really good but as he got older he seemed to feel he had to get attention by shocking people. Rather like the naughty boy at the back of the classroom. So afraid his later recordings of Mozart are somewhat of a travesty. Read the biography 'Wondrous Strange' to see the deterioration in his mental condition, which in no way affected his playing but it did effect the way he interpreted pieces of music. The other thing was he was completely impervious to criticism in that if a friend or producer made a suggestion he didn't like, that person would just be excluded from his life. A pity because as a pianist he could be an absolute genius. Greatest pianist? No. Always interesting? Yes!


----------



## Chromatose

DavidA said:


> I wonder sometimes whether it was Gould who lived too long! One of his problems was that he obviously suffered from a personality disorder that led him always to want to be an iconoclast. I write as a fan btw! His early recordings of Mozart are really good but as he got older he seemed to feel he had to get attention by shocking people. Rather like the naughty boy at the back of the classroom. So afraid his later recordings of Mozart are somewhat of a travesty. Read the biography 'Wondrous Strange' to see the deterioration in his mental condition, which in no way affected his playing but it did effect the way he interpreted pieces of music. The other thing was he was completely impervious to criticism in that if a friend or producer made a suggestion he didn't like, that person would just be excluded from his life. A pity because as a pianist he could be an absolute genius. Greatest pianist? No. Always interesting? Yes!


Yeah I feel similarly, and I've read and own Wondrous Strange and three other books about him, obvious fan here too.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> I think if you discussed this with Mr. Gould (if that were possible) he'd carefully explain that it was not _he _who "botched" the music of all these composers, but all those other pianists and, very likely, the composers themselves.
> 
> *And, music being music, it would be difficult to prove him wrong.*


Actually, it would be quite easy. One could point to the opening motive of Brahms's Op. 118 #2 and say: Those are two eighth notes and you are playing the first one at twice the length of the second - over and over again. What do you have against Brahms? Or one could point to mm. 89-95 in the slow movement of Prokofiev's Seventh Sonata and ask: Why did you leave out the crucial notes that distinguish this passage from its earlier version at m.79ff? Did you not care enough to memorize the movement? Or do you really not comprehend why those notes are crucial? These are examples of objective errors that demonstrate embarrassing incomprehension of musical structure - or else the parody of music he purposefully chose to perform poorly. And, of course, it takes no special knowledge to appreciate that the man had no business playing Beethoven's "Appassionata."


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Actually, it would be quite easy. One could point to the opening motive of Brahms's Op. 118 #2 and say: Those are two eighth notes and you are playing the first one at twice the length of the second - over and over again. What do you have against Brahms? Or one could point to mm. 89-95 in the slow movement of Prokofiev's Seventh Sonata and ask: Why did you leave out the crucial notes that distinguish this passage from its earlier version at m.79ff? *Did you not care enough to memorize the movement? Or do you really not comprehend why those notes are crucial?* These are examples of objective errors that demonstrate embarrassing incomprehension of musical structure - or else the parody of music he purposefully chose to perform poorly. And, of course, it takes no special knowledge to appreciate that the man had no business playing Beethoven's "Appassionata."


I imagine Mr. Gould just staring at you with a smirk of his face, without saying a word. Uncomfortable silence.


----------



## Tallisman

nope
...........
.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> Actually, it would be quite easy. One could point to the opening motive of Brahms's Op. 118 #2 and say: Those are two eighth notes and you are playing the first one at twice the length of the second - over and over again. What do you have against Brahms? Or one could point to mm. 89-95 in the slow movement of Prokofiev's Seventh Sonata and ask: Why did you leave out the crucial notes that distinguish this passage from its earlier version at m.79ff? Did you not care enough to memorize the movement? Or do you really not comprehend why those notes are crucial? These are examples of objective errors that demonstrate embarrassing incomprehension of musical structure - or else the parody of music he purposefully chose to perform poorly. And, of course, it takes no special knowledge to appreciate that the man had no business playing Beethoven's "Appassionata."


Could it be argued he improved on the pieces with those changes, or just presented alternatives? Personally i don't find any of his readings ideal, but they are a refreshing or at least interesting change when I get overfamiliar with the music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> Could it be argued he improved on the pieces with those changes, or just presented alternatives? Personally i don't find any of his readings ideal, but they are a refreshing or at least interesting change when I get overfamiliar with the music.


No. These are just blatant errors. In both cases he butchered the composition. Gould is ignoring (misplaying) the notated rhythm in the Brahms, which is a particularly egregious error given that the distinction between straight eighth notes in the beginning of the phrase and dotted eighth/sixteenth figures in the last part of the phrase is an essential feature of the structure. It is a stupid, arbitrary and poorly conceived decision. Musicians who wish to be taken seriously don't do things like this. In the Prokofiev he simply failed to play the notes Prokofiev wrote - for no apparent reason.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> No. These are just blatant errors. In both cases he butchered the composition. Gould is ignoring (misplaying) the notated rhythm in the Brahms, which is a particularly egregious error given that the distinction between straight eighth notes in the beginning of the phrase and dotted eighth/sixteenth figures in the last part of the phrase is an essential feature of the structure. *It is a stupid, arbitrary and poorly conceived decision. Musicians who wish to be taken seriously don't do things like this.* In the Prokofiev he simply failed to play the notes Prokofiev wrote - for no apparent reason.


I honestly think you are exaggerating on the Brahms's (opening motive of the op.118 No.2), yes, he extends the first note of the opening motive a bit, but it's just a peccata minuta in my view, the performance is fine for me, other great musicians (Fürtwangler being one of them, for example) have taken even greater liberties when interpreting a work. I still find Gould's Brahms convincing. I can agree with you on the Appassionata though, the slow approach on the 1st movement does not work for me (the 2nd mov. so so, the 3rd one is fine). Have not heard his Prokofiev 7th sonata, my references on this one are Pollini, Pletnev and Sokolov.

Regardless, Glenn Gould is one of the most celebrated pianists of the 20th century (and deservedly so) and always interesting to see what he had "to say" when playing.


----------



## Mandryka

I listened to Gould's 118/2. The opening is dynamic and there's a lively, dramatic interaction between the voices. Whether he could have achieved this effect and played the eight notes equally is something I can't comment on.


----------



## Star

Glenn Gould was certainly a very great pianist. Of course he got lots of flak from literally minded critics who didn't realise that what he was trying to do was to do something different to give alternative interpretations if pieces that had been recorded before. In fact he would often record a piece different ways and then pick the one he wanted. He just had that technical ability to play at how we liked. Of course sometimes he went too far and became iconoclastic for the sake of it, like in the Apoassionata. However listened to his recording of the Beethoven piano concertos and you will find there are incredible flashes of insight into the works. Of course they were criticised for being mannered but actually they are a very fine examples of his alternative views on the works. He might not of been the greatest pianist of the 20th century but he was certainly the most talked about and will be talked about long after his critics are all dead and buried


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> I honestly think you are exaggerating on the Brahms's (opening motive of the op.118 No.2), yes, he extends the first note of the opening motive a bit, but it's just a peccata minuta in my view, the performance is fine for me, other great musicians (Fürtwangler being one of them, for example) have taken even greater liberties when interpreting a work. I still find Gould's Brahms convincing. I can agree with you on the Appassionata though, the slow approach on the 1st movement does not work for me (the 2nd mov. so so, the 3rd one is fine). Have not heard his Prokofiev 7th sonata, my references on this one are Pollini, Pletnev and Sokolov.
> 
> Regardless, Glenn Gould is one of the most celebrated pianists of the 20th century (and deservedly so) and always interesting to see what he had "to say" when playing.


No, I am not exaggerating. I am counting. He plays the first 8th twice as long as the second. He also ignores critical dynamics and completely blows the overall arc of the piece. It is a wretched interpretation.


----------



## joen_cph

I don´t mean the artist taking liberties. Usually, there´s a literal or even pedantic alternative to listen to, if one wants that.


----------



## Larkenfield

I salute Gould's spirit of adventure and his genuine interest in taking a fresh look at whatever he played, even if some of his interpretations failed fans and critics alike. But I'll be gosh darned if this was one of his failures... It's achingly tender and exquisite for those with the heart to hear...


----------



## Phil loves classical

There is an interview with Gould where he admits there are some recordings he is not happy with himself. He prefers playing music in different ways each time than having the same interpretation as in concerts.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> There is an interview with Gould where he admits there are some recordings he is not happy with himself. He prefers playing music in different ways each time than having the same interpretation as in concerts.


Richter was the same. I remember him saying about his titanic performance of Brahms 2 with Leinsdorf, reckoned to be one of the greatest on disc, "I can find nothing good about it!"


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> No, I am not exaggerating. I am counting. He plays the first 8th twice as long as the second. He also ignores critical dynamics and completely blows the overall arc of the piece. It is a wretched interpretation.


I'm so thankful that he gave us these individualistic renditions (these Gouldian interpretations which are now quite famous among pianists and others). The world would be poorer without such beautiful risk-taking.

Most every work he recorded had already been 'documented' according the 'proper' tradition which has grown up over the many decades after the composer's time. So where's the problem?

Some days I cringe at his op57 first movement, some days I laugh a little and wonder how he played it so slowly? It's quite difficult to play it so slowly and expressively.


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> I'm so thankful that he gave us these individualistic renditions (these Gouldian interpretations which are now quite famous among pianists and others). The world would be poorer without such beautiful risk-taking.
> 
> Most every work he recorded had already been 'documented' according the 'proper' tradition which has grown up over the many decades after the composer's time. So where's the problem?
> 
> Some days I cringe at his op57 first movement, some days I laugh a little and wonder how he played it so slowly? It's quite difficult to play it so slowly and expressively.


Yes, individualistic, that's it  "A tradition which has grown up over the many decades"? Playing some semblance of the rhythms Brahms wrote and observing his dynamics is not a tradition, it's basic competence in musical interpretation. Gould had nothing to say with the Brahms so, in order to distract from his inadequacy, he picked a couple of random affectations, either not caring or oblivious to the fact that they undercut the internal contrasts and tension within the theme.

Gould had nothing to say with the Beethoven either, so he excreted all over it. He couldn't even bother to memorize Prokofiev's Seventh correctly, let alone play the thing.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, individualistic, that's it  "A tradition which has grown up over the many decades"? Playing some semblance of the rhythms Brahms wrote and observing his dynamics is not a tradition, it's basic competence in musical interpretation. Gould had nothing to say with the Brahms so, in order to distract from his inadequacy, he picked a couple of random affectations, either not caring or oblivious to the fact that they undercut the internal contrasts and tension within the theme.
> 
> Gould had nothing to say with the Beethoven either, so he excreted all over it. He couldn't even bother to memorize Prokofiev's Seventh correctly, let alone play the thing.


Gould has explained in interviews about many of these deviations from the expected. He's also explained more than once in a general way his approach which results in these eccentric recordings. When he gets up that morning he hasn't decided which take he'll actually favor. He's memorized the scores and he plays the scores from his own experiences. I prefer performances like this. But I also want the orthodox examples because over time they've been tried and tested.

I want both types. Gould has explained and I always ask a detractor - can you explain why he shouldn't do this? Is it mostly an academic or educational qualm or complaint? Playing it wrong can be educational, from a positive or negative viewpoint. It's great fun to dissect these pieces and rebuild them into the optimal condition to make them universal.


----------



## hpowders

Glenn Gould is one of the worst pianists I have ever listened to. He plays the Bach Keyboard Partitas as if he is late for a dental appointment. No repeated sections. Ridiculously fast. Musical graffiti.


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> Gould has explained in interviews about many of these deviations from the expected. He's also explained more than once in a general way his approach which results in these eccentric recordings. When he gets up that morning he hasn't decided which take he'll actually favor. *He's memorized the scores* and he plays the scores from his own experiences. I prefer performances like this. But I also want the orthodox examples because over time they've been tried and tested.
> 
> I want both types. Gould has explained and I always ask a detractor - can you explain why he shouldn't do this? Is it mostly an academic or educational qualm or complaint? Playing it wrong can be educational, from a positive or negative viewpoint. It's great fun to dissect these pieces and rebuild them into the optimal condition to make them universal.


Except sometimes he _hadn't_ memorized them, as when he leaves out a few of the most crucial notes in the slow movement of Prokofiev's 7th sonata.

I don't care that he played musical works any atrocious way he liked. I'm just a little irked when a man who butchered hours of great music is put up as a candidate for best pianist of the 20thc. The possibility that someone might take that assessment seriously and believe that Brahms, Beethoven, Scriabin, Prokofiev, et alia are supposed to sound that way should give one pause.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Except sometimes he _hadn't_ memorized them, as when he leaves out a few of the most crucial notes in the slow movement of Prokofiev's 7th sonata.
> 
> I don't care that he played musical works any atrocious way he liked. I'm just a little irked when a man who butchered hours of great music is put up as a candidate for *best pianist of the 20thc.* The possibility that someone might take that assessment seriously and believe that Brahms, Beethoven, Scriabin, Prokofiev, et alia are supposed to sound that way should give one pause.


the best pianist of the 20thc.

lemme see;

Clarity, freshness, originality

contrapuntal skill, sensitivity, vision/confidence, an energetic explorer

the promotion of interest in CM beyond the staid audience, his speaking and his thoughts impressed me (he even made edifying points about the pop music rumpus)

the 50s and 60s needed a bad boy of CM, different from Stockhausen and Cage

And he explained what he was doing and what he had released. He wrote liner notes.

I'll think of more..

What other pianist?


----------



## AeolianStrains

All of those qualities save contrapuntal skill are secondary in deciding "greatness." First and foremost skills in handling the pieces should be evaluated. "Bad boy of the 50s?" I mean, we could be talking about Jerry Lee Lewis.

And with Rachmaninoff and Rubinstein both in the 20th century, Gould definitely doesn't deserve the top award. I don't think I'd even put him in my top 10. Top 10 Bach pianists, perhaps, but greatest overall last century?


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

The preternatural clarity of his polyphony and his unique piano tone are enough to establish him beyond all doubt as one of the most important pianists of the 20th century; yet many of his recordings outside Bach and Renaissance music are unsatisfactory and work only as curiosities. 

Even with Bach, there's a lot one can criticize and take issue with in his interpretations, including the lack of repeats and - this is especially prominent in his WTC - his apparent rejection of the fact that Bach's music has elements of harmony, not just polyphony. But no one can deny the pianistic and intellectual qualities of his Bach interpretations.


----------



## Luchesi

AeolianStrains said:


> All of those qualities save contrapuntal skill are secondary in deciding "greatness." First and foremost skills in handling the pieces should be evaluated. "Bad boy of the 50s?" I mean, we could be talking about Jerry Lee Lewis.
> 
> And with Rachmaninoff and Rubinstein both in the 20th century, Gould definitely doesn't deserve the top award. I don't think I'd even put him in my top 10. Top 10 Bach pianists, perhaps, but greatest overall last century?


At the piano player myself, I'm always amazed at how well he handled the pieces, with the whole work in his mind, each large swath at a time. Maybe it came natural to him, like the other things.

Beginning n the late 40s CM was under siege, for many reasons. An interesting poster boy was needed.

Rach and Artur remain at the same level in my mind, but Glenn goes up and down, still today. He's more inspiring to me, while at other times he's glaringly wrong. This is what you want as a working pianist, I think.


----------



## Luchesi

BiscuityBoyle said:


> The preternatural clarity of his polyphony and his unique piano tone are enough to establish him beyond all doubt as one of the most important pianists of the 20th century; yet many of his recordings outside Bach and Renaissance music are unsatisfactory and work only as curiosities.
> 
> Even with Bach, there's a lot one can criticize and take issue with in his interpretations, including the lack of repeats and - this is especially prominent in his WTC - his apparent rejection of the fact that Bach's music has elements of harmony, not just polyphony. But no one can deny the pianistic and intellectual qualities of his Bach interpretations.


People say his JsB is off-putting. And they say that he didn't understand how to measure out the music before JsB. Some say his Brahms is the greatest recording of those Brahms pieces.

We won't like his Haydn sonatas (they're really special). We won't 'like' his Beethoven. His Mozart sonatas were merely a contractual obligation.

The truth is somewhere in the middle for me. Gould ends up farthest afield when the score is only part of the package he should project. He didn't grow in the time of Rachmaninoff or Rubinstein or Serkin.


----------



## Genoveva

I don't think Gould was the greatest pianist of the 20th Century, although he is up with the best. He was exceptionally good with Bach, and some of his Haydn and Mozart is very good too. I don't much care for his Beethoven in comparison with several others. He was often quite idiosyncratic, which sometimes paid off in the interests of providing a new "take", but sometimes it didn't work to my satisfaction. Watching some videos of his playing he had a very good technique. 

It's impossible to say who was the "best" pianist of the 20th C, because we all have different tastes in styles of music and some pianists were excellent with some composers and not so good with others. The five pianists I rate most most highly are Michelangeli, Richter, Rubinstein, Ashkenazy and Barenboim for their range of coverage and technical mastery, but I wouldn't wish to argue it any further.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

i'm not sure, it seems like a loaded question from the OP because of the qualifier "solely based on his technique and virtuosity", as if having the most virtuosic technique = greatest pianist.

Also, how can anyone tell who is the greatest based on recordings.....I'm of the believe that the piano doesn't record very well as an instrument. A lot of probably very nice pianos sound like toys on modern recordings. 

If they were better, I may have actually come to like the mainstream piano repertoire but as of today, outside of Ravel I don't.


----------



## bz3

He's probably my favorite. I actually like most everything he did at least a little, and I definitely rate his Beethoven higher than many though he is not my favorite overall in Beethoven. He opened up some lesser known pieces in various composers to me (like Strauss, Schoenberg, Hindemith) but like most I rate him so highly because his Bach is so satisfying, and Bach is probably my most-listened-to composer for keyboard.


----------



## johnlewisgrant

"It's impossible to say who was the "best" pianist of the 20th C, because we all have different tastes in styles of music and some pianists were excellent with some composers and not so good with others."

Useful caveat, and duly noted. 

I liked Gould more in my teens, probably because he was so obviously non-status quo. I gradually abandoned him in my 20s, and actually became less catholic in my Bach/keyboard preferences. Richter (the piano Richter, not the clavier Richter) was my go-to man for the WTC bk 1, and another Russian, Feinberg, for bk 2. Quite a transition from Gould.

Someone remarked above that the piano is difficult to record. So true, and a poorly recorded piece or set of pieces can massacre an interpretation. Now we have access to many, many recordings of Bach (to take only one example) most of which are much better than the recordings of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. "Lesser known" pianists, such as Schepkin, have made spectacular recordings of the WTC, both sonically and interpretively. Just as valuable and interesting as Gould's WTC, but relatively unknown in the absence of the sort of one-man marketing machine that was "Glenn Gould." 

So, not one of my favourite pianists, by any means, even in Bach. But tremendously gifted, no doubt about that.

I confess to having a weak spot for his recordings of the Beethoven piano concerti, particularly #1, where Gould employs his own contrapuntal cadenzas. These are stunning performances, for my money; although (like many listeners, possibly) when the portmanteau question "Who's the greatest?" comes up, I think of Gilels' recording(s) of Beethoven's (greatest) piano concerto, no. 4 (G major) with Sanderling, and later, with Ludwig. I have never heard Gilels or Richter live, but if the recorded-record is any indication, I think I might consider either of these pianists as among the best of the last century. 

Oh.... and Gould's take on the Brahms Intermezzi is also interesting, oddly enough, considering that Bach was his "thing"; but I'm not sure that sort of oddity, along with his many other side-interests in non-Bach composers, is enough to make him the "greatest," much less "great." 

Again, all such questions being relative and subjective in nature.


----------



## SCSL

DaveM said:


> I watch/listen to her YouTube performance of Brahms 1st almost once a week and her Brahms 2nd frequently. I believe she is on the short list of great live performers. Maybe it's just that I'm so mesmerized, but I don't hear any mistakes either.


Looks aside, her Mozart is outstanding. And this coming from not a great fan of Mozart.


----------



## daves cliches

This is one statement one rarely hears.....

Glen Gould is favoured mostly for his relaxed easy listening style, flexible rubato and gentle manner! LOL!!!

When I first heard Glen's playing it was like being hit with a cricket bat..........finally someone was not "sucked in" by centuries of classical traditional style playing.....His Bach is totally compelling, both in it's dynamic rhythm and total mastery of phrasing.......the temptation to romanticise or colour is thankfully not part of the equation.
His left hand is the forth dimension itself and his treatment of trills, complicated figures, is always completely transparent.....to the point where you wonder how everybody else got it so wrong!...........in short many call his performances, interpretations.... I see it as the real thing!

I don't think anyone will ever match him!........So yes...IMHO


----------



## Mozart555

It depends on the composer really. For me Rubinstein and Chopin are a match made in heaven. For Schubert I would usually go for Brendel.


----------



## Dan Ante

He also does magnificent vocal accompaniments.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Murray Perahia and Vladmir Ashkenazy are my safe pianists. Not in that I feel they play it safe, in that I feel that I'll at least get a good performance when I see their names on the cover of a CD. Gould is one of those that I'll either think the performance is one of the most deeply touching performances ever, or I'll think "Oh God, he's butchered it!"

This all being said, I'm not an expert on piano, so I mostly judge on tempo, sound, and feeling. Ashkenazy and Perahia both seem to make consistently inspired recordings.


----------



## DavidA

Gould was remarkable and an incredible self-publicist without really trying. He came at the right time when LP recording was in its infancy and there were lots of recordings to be made . The fact his recordings sell as they do today is a mark of his pianism. But today there is some incredible talent around. When you think a 16 year-old girl won the BBC young musician by playing Prokofiev's second piano concerto and tossing it off with unbelievable nonchalance. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. In the same competition a teenage lad gave a blistering performance of Gaspard de la Nuit. Such is the talent today.


----------



## Chromatose

DavidA said:


> Gould was remarkable and an incredible self-publicist without really trying. He came at the right time when LP recording was in its infancy and there were lots of recordings to be made . The fact his recordings sell as they do today is a mark of his pianism. But today there is some incredible talent around. When you think a 16 year-old girl won the BBC young musician by playing Prokofiev's second piano concerto and tossing it off with unbelievable nonchalance. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. In the same competition a teenage lad gave a blistering performance of Gaspard de la Nuit. Such is the talent today.


Those kids were finger synching.. It was all a recording.


----------



## Guest

Is Glenn Gould the greatest pianist of the 20th century?

No. Next question.


----------



## Luchesi

Baron Scarpia said:


> Is Glenn Gould the greatest pianist of the 20th century?
> 
> No. Next question.


Someone said Gould lived inside the score he played. It was his whole world while experiencing the tactile interactions in his unique brain center layout. He sidestepped most humans and their views and notions. 'Classic case.

He was always looking for seriousness, not 'pleasantness'.

"He didn't really record the fantasia, either, only whacked through it for a
television program. In the program he plays half of the fantasy, then
turns to Bruno Monsaingeon and explains why he doesn't like it. He claims
that this is his "first and last" performance of it. He illustrates a few
passages, talking while playing, and compares the piece to bad music for
horror movies. Then he plays the rest of the fantasy from the point where
he quit. Then he turns to Bruno and says, "That's Bach for people who
don't like Bach."
His meaning is clear: in his earlier comments he contrasted Bach the
improviser with Bach the organizer. This final smirk says that people who
like the chromatic fantasy (and, by implication, the Toccata and Fugue BWV
565 and the other popular dramatic/improvisatory Bach pieces) can't handle
the "real" Bach.
To Gould, Bach was a supreme organizer. The less structured pieces were
(to Gould) inferior and hardly worth his attention. Perhaps this explains
why he didn't record them. And given the way he played the pieces he hated
but *did* record (the toccatas, the remake of the Italian Concerto, the
Fantasy BWV 906, ...).........
Michael Stegemann's notes in Sony CD 52620 (JS Bach, Scarlatti, CPE Bach)
point out that
there are 78 BWV numbers of Bach's solo works that Gould didn't
record. Many of those solo works have multiple movements, plus there are
the ensemble works I mentioned yesterday. Adding everything up, there are
between 100 and 200 Bach pieces that Gould didn't record. I agree with
Stegemann that Gould probably never intended to finish them all.
To sum up: GG was happy with Bach's German music. But Bach's Italian and
French music eluded him, perhaps even embarrassed him. As Bazzana points
out, GG liked the Bach that Schoenberg liked."

Bradley Lehman, Dayton VA


----------



## Mandryka

I have two recordings of Gould playing the fantasia BWV 903, the studio recording and one from a DVD. It's grossly misleading in both cases to say that he "only whacked through it"

On the other hand he never recorded the fugue from 903 as far as I know, which has an obvious structure. 

All the talk about "germanic" seems dubious at best. Didn't Gould say that his favourite composer was Orlando Gibbons? Is the Gibbons galliard he recorded more structured than BWV 903? Or (to use an example Lehman gives) Schoenberg's piano music, the suite for example?

These comments by Brad Lehman are unclear IMO -- maybe he'll come along here and explain what he was getting at.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> I have two recordings of Gould playing the fantasia BWV 903, the studio recording and one from a DVD. It's grossly misleading in both cases to say that he "only whacked through it"
> 
> On the other hand he never recorded the fugue from 903 as far as I know, which has an obvious structure.
> 
> All the talk about "germanic" seems dubious at best. Didn't Gould say that his favourite composer was Orlando Gibbons? Is the Gibbons galliard he recorded more structured than BWV 903? Or (to use an example Lehman gives) Schoenberg's piano music, the suite for example?
> 
> These comments by Brad Lehman are unclear IMO -- maybe he'll come along here and explain what he was getting at.


Good points, but GG said he got other unique beauties out of Gibbons. Something about Gibbons the pinnacle of that kind of performer/composer, no romanticism, none of the direction of the dramatical that he disliked.

Dr. Lehman is my favorite GG critic. I learn new things. I rarely agree with every point he makes in a post. If you expect you'll agree with a critic you will be frittering away your time. They're just educated opinions, after all.

from

http://fminor.glenngould.org/f_minor/msg09500.html

"My point was: in equal temperament (on piano, et al) that page of the F# minor toccata DOES sound aimless and pointless, and Gould did something arguably good by pruning it out...because he was playing it on piano. It was a musically effective choice to make that cut. But, on harpsichord/clavichord/organ where the temperament is right for the music (i.e. correctly unequal with the right pattern), that page sounds wonderfully rich, and to omit it would be a bad move.

Brad Lehman Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:47:58

Anne French wrote:
Brad, that is priceless! This is a must for the logo imho.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Brad Lehman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Anne French wrote:

Anything that does NOT include (1) hat (2) gloves (3) chair. We must get out the message that there was more to GG than
eccentricity!

I did a lecture yesterday where I played the page of music that
Gould cut out of Bach's F-sharp minor Toccata. He disliked that
section so much that he simply left it out! (One of his essays
explains why: he didn't mind second-guessing Bach's judgment on
"interminable sequencing".) So, any logo should have a spot where
part of the design is omitted. 

Brad Lehman"


----------



## Josquin13

I don't believe there's any such thing as the "greatest pianist of the 20th century". There were too many great pianists in the 20th century, and they all specialized & excelled in various differing repertory, at the exclusion of other repertory; so I suppose you'd have to also decide upon what the greatest piano literature is?, in order to claim the greatest pianist.

For example, Gould didn't play Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Schubert (a composer that he disliked until he heard Sviatoslav Richter play Schubert in Russia), Debussy, or Ravel--all core composers in the solo piano literature. He also had a low opinion of Mozart's Piano Sonatas 1-10, as well (despite reluctantly recording the complete sonatas for Columbia) and if memory serves, played only one Mozart piano concerto (no. 24 in C Minor, KV 491). So, there are some significant gaps in Gould's repertory, in comparison to other "great" pianists, such as Sviatoslav Richter or Claudio Arrau, for example.

I also don't think that Glenn Gould would have agreed with you, since later in life he was quite critical of his early Bach recordings: such as his famous 1955 recording of the Bach Goldberg Variations, which he found "too fast for comfort", spiritually limited, overly romantic & too much like a "Chopin Nocturne" in one of the slower variations, and generally performed with a "lack of deliberation", which he said was so crucial to complex, polyphonic music:






I also think that harpsichordist Scott Ross's (rather humorous) criticism of Gould's Bach isn't completely unfounded, either. Ross made the following comment in a 1989 documentary film:

"When I hear nutcases like Glenn Gould who do: [plays staccato version of J.S. Bach's Partita no. 1, BWV 825, Allemande], I say he understood nothing of Bach's music! I've listened carefully to his records: he didn't understand. He was very brilliant; I respect him up to a certain point. For me, the fact that an artist doesn't appear in public poses a problem. But at least he was a guy with the courage not to do things like other people. All the same, he was wide off the mark, so wide off the mark that you'd need a 747 to bring him back. I'm hard on Glenn Gould. Well, he's dead now, so I won't attack a colleague."*

I too have a problem with Gould's weird "staccato" effects in Bach, especially in the opening Prelude & Fugue of the Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1, which is favorite music of mine. & I haven't a clue why Gould chose to play the music like that. I also find his French Suites similarly bizarre, at times, and foreign to anything that Bach would have likely recognized. For example, Gould plays the opening Allemande of the first suite ridiculously fast!, so much so that I can't help but agree with Ross that Gould is "wide off the mark" here (& elsewhere in the French Suites):











(For the sake of comparison, here are two more justifiable? recordings of the opening Allemande, etc.:








)

Yet, I'm a big fan of Gould's. For me, he was at his best in the solo piano music of Beethoven (such as the Op. 31 Sonatas: 



, the Op. 10 sonatas, Bagatelles Op. 33 & 126, and the opuses 2, 26, 27, & 28 sonatas); along with the last six sonatas of Haydn (



), late Brahms Intermezzi (



), the keyboard music of Gibbons, Prokofiev's Piano Sonata No. 7, Berg, Schoenberg, Hindemith, R. Strauss (



), Bach's Toccatas (



) & the late Prelude, Fughettas & Fugues, and the 1981 recording of the Bach Goldberg Variations--which I agree with Gould is superior to the 1955 recording. He also plays the outer movements of Bach's keyboard concertos brilliantly too, however, the slow movements are too romantic for my tastes, as the orchestral accompaniment can almost sound like Vaughan Williams at times, and it shouldn't.

Had Gould not passed away prematurely at the age of 50, I think he would have remade a number of his Bach recordings in the 1980s & 90s, and played the music under more of an HIP influence, at least to some degree, as I recall he was intensely interested in what turned out to be the early years of the period revival of the late 1970s & 1980s. It also appears that he may have been looking to record a complete cycle of Beethoven Piano Sonatas for CBS.

In the end, I find him an eclectic pianist, with a wide range of musical interests and a highly intelligent mind; who, as Scott Ross said, had the courage to play music differently from others (such as with his Haydn, in comparison to say Alfred Brendel)--which I admire more often than not. But as much as I treasure Gould's finest recordings (my personal favorites), they're not enough for me to put him in my own top 5 pantheon of "greatest pianists of the 20th century"; although he'd certainly be in my top 25, and maybe even my top 10 (though I'd have to think about that), which is really saying something, when you consider how many great pianists there were in the 20th century.

(*the above quote is taken from Ross's Wikipedia page)


----------



## Mandryka

All that stuff about technique and Chopin is a red herring, he's the greatest pianist because his Goldbergs is the only iconic classical piano recording. Greatness is a marketing concept, and Gould's marketing machine is one of the best. Go to spotify, search for a Bach piano recording, and see how his name comes at the top; type Goldberg Variations into google and see how his name comes up in the video list -- these things are proof of greatness if proof were needed.


----------



## Fredx2098

Is he the one who hums along while he plays? He's definitely skilled at the piano, but I can't tolerate his recordings because of the humming. It's also not my opinion that Bach is god incarnate. Aside from those things which are my opinions, I don't think it's right to assert that anyone is the greatest anything, especially when talking about music. Personally, I certainly wouldn't call him the greatest piano player known to modern ears because I'm not a Bach fanatic (so his music isn't the gold standard in my mind) and virtuosity doesn't really concern or impress me in a musical way beyond appreciating the skill. On top of that, it doesn't really seem productive to talk about which musician for which instrument is the greatest. If I am to infer anything about society's views of classical music, it's that people (composers, musicians, etc.) are worshiped based on how old they are and how relatively famous they are. If people keep talking about the Gould recordings being the best, it seems like in a few hundred years people will still be saying the same things. It doesn't seem possible to actually gauge the "greatness" of a person and be able to compare them to others in a way that isn't based on opinions. I guess I would agree that he's the most popular pianist of the 20th century. I think that's all that can really be asserted.


----------



## Bulldog

Fredx2098 said:


> Is he the one who hums along while he plays? He's definitely skilled at the piano, but I can't tolerate his recordings because of the humming. It's also not my opinion that Bach is god incarnate. Aside from those things which are my opinions, I don't think it's right to assert that anyone is the greatest anything, especially when talking about music. Personally, I certainly wouldn't call him the greatest piano player known to modern ears because I'm not a Bach fanatic (so his music isn't the gold standard in my mind) and virtuosity doesn't really concern or impress me in a musical way beyond appreciating the skill. On top of that, it doesn't really seem productive to talk about which musician for which instrument is the greatest. If I am to infer anything about society's views of classical music, it's that people (composers, musicians, etc.) are worshiped based on how old they are and how relatively famous they are. If people keep talking about the Gould recordings being the best, it seems like in a few hundred years people will still be saying the same things. It doesn't seem possible to actually gauge the "greatness" of a person and be able to compare them to others in a way that isn't based on opinions. I guess I would agree that he's the most popular pianist of the 20th century. I think that's all that can really be asserted.


You're no fun at all.


----------



## Fredx2098

Bulldog said:


> You're no fun at all.


Woops! Sorry about that, don't mind me...


----------



## Phil loves classical

Richter is way better than Gould. Even Gould knew it. There is a video where he praised Richter.


----------



## KenOC

Gould couldn't be beat when he was doing what he did best. Almost all of his Bach is tip-top stuff; in comparison, Richter's Bach is something of a snoozeroo.

However, as was said of somebody else: "But when he was bad, he was horrid."


----------



## Bulldog

Phil loves classical said:


> Richter is way better than Gould. Even Gould knew it. There is a video where he praised Richter.


Richter is more of a pianist for all seasons than Gould, but Richter's Bach remains a few steps below Gould's.


----------



## Dan Ante

Rosalyn Tureck would be one of the top performers of Bach IMO but I do like Gould's Goldberg.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bulldog said:


> Richter is more of a pianist for all seasons than Gould, but Richter's Bach remains a few steps below Gould's.


I really like Richter's WTC, but I know of some who don't like his pedalling.


----------



## Luchesi

"...foreign to anything that Bach would have likely recognized."

"... have a problem with Gould's weird "staccato" effects in Bach..."

Gould is one of the greatest because he did things differently, so differently that we talk about him after his death 'way back in 1982. As performers we need to hear new things. It's crucial. What is the value in hearing the same conceptions and acceptable styles over and over? I think a great composer would be very disappointed. It seems logical to me, they were creators and innovators and pathfinders and promoters, am my crazy?

No one today is writing serious Music that so touches so many people. There's no more of it coming our way. We need more pianists like Gould. Some young pianists are timidly trying his path, but not many music listeners seem to hear it (because it's so cautious). 

I'm a pianist today because I heard his earliest recordings (and Schnabel's left hand) when I was young. Who will so monumentally inspire the kids today like that?


----------



## Mandryka

I think he’s a very bad Bach player, extreme tempos, the music rattled through like a fast machine, the 1955 goldbergs is an example of his disservice to music. He’s been a bad influence on Bach playing for over half a century.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> I think he's a very bad Bach player, extreme tempos, the music rattled through like a fast machine, the 1955 goldbergs is an example of his disservice to music. He's been a bad influence on Bach playing for over half a century.


I'm interested in how you appreciate music. Can you describe it or is it indescribable?

Don't get me wrong. I care about 'authentic' Bach playing. I can see how we can arrive at authentic conceptions of JsB and earlier masters through aesthetic formulations and especially the foundations from the science of aesthetics.

I also care about inspirational playing like that of Gould and the other ingenious and shrewd interpreters.


----------



## Mandryka

Just listen to the way he takes the first Goldberg variation in 1955. It’s so fast there’s nothing being expressed beyond energy, we’re not given the chance to appreciate the expressive possibilities of the music.

To get an idea of those possibilities go listen to how Richard Egarr takes it!


----------



## aleazk

No, he's not. He was very limited. Sure, his crystal clear Bach is wonderful, the best some may even say. But that doesn't make you the best pianist of the century. At his not-so-good stuff, his mannerisms and idiosyncrasies are infuriating. His character may have been fresh at his moment, but with the perspective of time it doesn't stand very well.


----------



## aleazk

Mandryka said:


> Just listen to the way he takes the first Goldberg variation in 1955. It's so fast there's nothing being expressed beyond energy, we're not given the chance to appreciate the expressive possibilities of the music.
> 
> To get an idea of those possibilities go listen to how Richard Egarr takes it!


Agree, but the second, late recording is much better.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> Just listen to the way he takes the first Goldberg variation in 1955. It's so fast there's nothing being expressed beyond energy, we're not given the chance to appreciate the expressive possibilities of the music.


but we already know how it sounds more slowly and drawn out for sentimental transparency.

Believe me, I love to delve into and exaggerate the expressiveness of the faster variations. I sometimes even slow down the slow variations. The point is, we need eccentric recordings for the people who can't explore these worlds if not for such recordings.


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> The point is, we need eccentric recordings for the people who can't explore these worlds if not for such recordings.


No, we don't need glib interpretations which don't do the poetry justice.


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> but we already know how it sounds more slowly and drawn out for sentimental transparency.


There are a plethora of things to explore, voicing, articulation, ornamentation, attack, colour . . . These things are beyond Gould in that first variation because of the tempo. I think it's a totally philistine, coarse and puerile way to play the music.


----------



## Luchesi

aleazk - "His character may have been fresh at his moment, but with the perspective of time it doesn't stand very well."

It sounds like you have a ossified conception about how these multifaceted great works should be played. That's a fascinating path that many music lovers develop. It's like stamp collecting or a cherished list of their favorite chess games by grandmasters. They're collectors. I don't see anything wrong with that approach. On and off in my life it's been a great comfort to me also. It's something that you can hold onto that's always there for you.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> No, we don't need glib interpretations which don't do the poetry justice.


It seems to depend upon the level of the experience a music lover has. Young people seem to need that rebelliousness or freshness or angst or what I would call clever reevaluations. Otherwise as teachers we lose them.


----------



## aleazk

Luchesi said:


> aleazk - "His character may have been fresh at his moment, but with the perspective of time it doesn't stand very well."
> 
> It sounds like you have ossified conception about how these multifaceted great works should be played. That's a fascinating path that many music lovers develop. It's like stamp collecting or a cherished list of their favorite chess games by grandmasters. They're collectors. I don't see anything wrong with that approach. On and off in my life it's been a great comfort to me also. It's something that you can hold onto that's always there for you.


I don't really need to hear an actual recording of ultra fast Bach to know it sounds awful, I can imagine and discard all that by myself in my mind  I would agree with your view if the variations in interpretation are done in the limits of somwthing that could have some interest, which can be quite wide actually. But one doesn't need to put Bach inside a washing machine gone mad to obtain an interesting take on a piece.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> Just listen to the way he takes the first Goldberg variation in 1955. It's so fast there's nothing being expressed beyond energy, we're not given the chance to appreciate the expressive possibilities of the music.
> 
> To get an idea of those possibilities go listen to how Richard Egarr takes it!


Those are almost fighting words. For me, Egarr is a slacker who meanders around in cantabile heaven (or hell). Oh well, different strokes and all that.


----------



## Luchesi

aleazk said:


> I don't really need to hear an actual recording of ultra fast Bach to know it sounds awful, I can imagine and discard all that by myself in my mind  I would agree with your view if the variations in interpretation are done in the limits of somwthing that could have some interest, which can be quite wide actually. But one doesn't need to put Bach inside a washing machine gone mad to obtain an interesting take on a piece.


I get the impression that Glenn Gould was only interested in pleasing himself. In his condition he was quite asocial. Did he realize it? I think he was intelligent enough to realize it, but he also felt put upon by the concert industry and the record industry and the wider public in general. Once he was old enough to break out of that mold he was free of his less than happy teenage years. You can watch him in the interviews acting like a child with new projects and new sounds.

What matters is the examples he left us. Will his peculiar condition and upbringing and opportunities and teacher and that early LP recording setting in history ever come again? No I can't imagine that it will..


----------



## Steve Mc

Gould is in the top 5 surely. He was a singuar genius, the kind that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.


----------



## Iota

Mandryka said:


> Just listen to the way he takes the first Goldberg variation in 1955. It's so fast there's nothing being expressed beyond energy, we're not given the chance to appreciate the expressive possibilities of the music.


Oh but the energy dances to it's core! Whatever speed he plays, however strident his accents, I think it's this that most moves me about his Bach playing, that and the luminescent counterpoint.

I've been just about everywhere with Gould's Bach over the years, from awe, to not being able to tolerate the singing, to liking the singing a bit, to really disliking it again. There is so much excellent choice these days on piano and harpsichord, that I don't often find myself listening to him. In his Goldberg's the thing I think most puts me off is the lack of repeats, whenever I think I might put them on it's that that discourages me. I'm ambivalent about him, but very glad he's there to hear.


----------



## Mandryka

Bulldog said:


> Those are almost fighting words. For me, Egarr is a slacker who meanders around in cantabile heaven (or hell). Oh well, different strokes and all that.


It is strange that I like Egarr so much -- I went and played it after making that post and I was smitten again. By the way, do you know about this, to be released next month?


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> It is strange that I like Egarr so much -- I went and played it after making that post and I was smitten again. By the way, do you know about this, to be released next month?
> 
> View attachment 105462


Yes, and I'll be acquiring it. It will be my first purchase of any recording in a couple of years; I'm a big Rubsam fan. He's a keyboardist who knows how to slow down a piece of music and give it more depth and additional layers of meaning.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> It seems to depend upon the level of the experience a music lover has. Young people seem to need that rebelliousness or freshness or angst or what I would call clever reevaluations. Otherwise as teachers we lose them.


Cleverness for the sake of cleverness, newness for the sake of newness are a waste of time but it is a little insulting to the young to suggest that it is what they need. The gifted young do, perhaps, need to experiment but isn't experimentation one of the best and most personal ways of learning? And, surely, one of the main things a talented a young musician needs to do is find her personal voice?

On the other hand genuinely new insights - rebellious or otherwise - _are _precious and act as a real antidote to the idea pushed by many that there is a correct way to play a piece of great music, that we know what it means and how it should sound. Such insights cannot be particularly associated with the young.

Gould was a maverick and some of his recordings are quite simply disasters. But he could also produce the miraculous and did so quite often and for a wide variety of composers.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast - what would you substitute for cleverness and newness?

When I watch a master class on YouTube I'm thinking the teacher is saying, "This is how I do this." and then they immediately say, "but don't mimic what I do."
The poor kid is trying to find his way and what is he actually learning? 'That someday he'll be in a position to give master classes? lol

Glenn Gould said something to the effect of, I can teach you everything in order to play like I do in one afternoon and then the rest is for you to work and work and work at. It's true. Piano playing and sight-reading can be taught in a short video over the internet but the player has to bring the art do it.


----------



## Dan Ante

Luchesi said:


> It's true. Piano playing and sight-reading can be taught in a short video over the internet but the player has to bring the art do it.


Depends what you mean by sight reading and what level you expect to achieve as a pianist.


----------



## Luchesi

Dan Ante said:


> Depends what you mean by sight reading and what level you expect to achieve as a pianist.


I think I know what you mean. But maybe I don't know what you mean. Are you alluding to musical analysis and reducing scores to melodies and chords fast enough for it to help you?


----------



## aleazk

Singularity is overrated. Craft, hardwork, and discerning taste are, unfortunately, not emphasized enough.


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> Singularity is overrated. Craft, hardwork, and discerning taste are, unfortunately, not emphasized enough.


True, but sometimes sheer bloody genius can make quite a difference.


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> True, but sometimes sheer bloody genius can make quite a difference.


Equally true. But, ya know, even a genius' faeces are... well, just faeces. I apologize for the scatological analogy


----------



## Dan Ante

Luchesi said:


> I think I know what you mean. But maybe I don't know what you mean. Are you alluding to musical analysis and reducing scores to melodies and chords fast enough for it to help you?


I was taking you remark at face value but perhaps you meant something else in which case I apologise, a short video or for that matter a very long one cannot teach you how to play the piano only time and ability will do that and sight reading is a thing only experienced musicians ever achieve, again I may have misunderstood you. :tiphat:


----------



## San Antone

I recognize Gould's importance, and have the big box of his recordings (not the newest one, but the one that came out about ten years(?) ago, "original covers") - but enjoy other pianists more. It depends upon the composer, i.e. I don't listen to the same pianist playing everything. Gould is really good with Schoenberg and good with Bach, but I don't like his Mozart and there are many pianists whose Beethoven I prefer.

The recent recordings of Rubsam's WTC are wonderful and I am looking forward to his GV. But Gould's GV and WTC are in the top echelon, imo.

The thread's title question is problematic for me since I don't "do" greatest, and can't offer more than my own favorites.


----------



## Luchesi

Dan Ante said:


> I was taking you remark at face value but perhaps you meant something else in which case I apologise, a short video or for that matter a very long one cannot teach you how to play the piano only time and ability will do that and sight reading is a thing only experienced musicians ever achieve, again I may have misunderstood you. :tiphat:


I might feel I have to apologize after this post. lol There's no such thing as talent or innate ability. All abilities are developed. So it's very bad to tell a young student they have a huge talent OR tell a student that they have very little talent. What we think of as talent is the results of early exposure and genetics and competing with older siblings and friends and lucky exposures to the right sequence of music at the right time in our young lives. It seems like a long process because we're so young.

The word talent is like the word God - we know what people mean when they say it - we know how it makes us feel, but that's where it stops. We have feelings but we don't know anything more. It's a label.


----------



## Luchesi

"but I don't like his Mozart.."

Mozart was trying to capture something significant in his sonatas (teaching pieces) he was using structures and figurations and a dramatic flow that he felt would be a significant experience for students and listeners.

Gould seems to be documenting something significant to himself in those easy sonatas. Various renditions on various days depending upon how he thought about them and came to conclusions, but never expecting anything other than that they are light works.

Today's audience can get the various significances of the historical and the psychological and Wolfgang's celebrity and the masterful performers who take their turn. But my point is it's not about liking.


----------



## CnC Bartok

In response to the original post: No.


----------



## Bulldog

Robert Pickett said:


> In response to the original post: No.


I'd also have to say no though he would be in my top ten. No. 1 is reserved for Gilels or Brendel.


----------



## Josquin13

***Deleted post***


----------



## Dan Ante

Luchesi said:


> I might feel I have to apologize after this post. lol There's no such thing as talent or innate ability. All abilities are developed. So it's very bad to tell a young student they have a huge talent OR tell a student that they have very little talent. What we think of as talent is the results of early exposure and genetics and competing with older siblings and friends and lucky exposures to the right sequence of music at the right time in our young lives. It seems like a long process because we're so young.
> 
> The word talent is like the word God - we know what people mean when they say it - we know how it makes us feel, but that's where it stops. We have feelings but we don't know anything more. It's a label.


Sorry but I don't agree, if you are inherently clumsy and awkward then you do not have the ability to become a good Ballet dancer, if you have no ear for music you will never be a good musician. A teacher will be able to tell very early if a pupil is wasting his/her time (I know from experience) also a natural/gifted child would also stand out very quickly. OK there is always the rare exception to this but in general I think it is correct. Lets agree to differ


----------



## SONNET CLV

Gouldanian said:


> Is Glenn Gould the greatest pianist of the 20th century?


Whether or not he was remains debatable.
But he_ did_ have the coolest piano chair ever!


----------



## Luchesi

Dan Ante said:


> Sorry but I don't agree, if you are inherently clumsy and awkward then you do not have the ability to become a good Ballet dancer, if you have no ear for music you will never be a good musician. A teacher will be able to tell very early if a pupil is wasting his/her time (I know from experience) also a natural/gifted child would also stand out very quickly. OK there is always the rare exception to this but in general I think it is correct. Lets agree to differ


That's a widely held attitude. Somehow there's something indescribable in a 'talented' person, beyond understanding. And it has ramifications for teachers and students and parents and even audiences (even adult beginners). Only negativity can come from abstracting about talent or the lack of talent, because there's no such thing.

I've seen predispositions (rarely) that are difficult to separate from nurture and nature, but the subject is so complex. Generalities?


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> I might feel I have to apologize after this post. lol *There's no such thing as talent or innate ability. *All abilities are developed. So it's very bad to tell a young student they have a huge talent OR tell a student that they have very little talent. What we think of as talent is the results of early exposure and genetics and competing with older siblings and friends and lucky exposures to the right sequence of music at the right time in our young lives. It seems like a long process because we're so young.
> 
> The word talent is like the word God - we know what people mean when they say it - we know how it makes us feel, but that's where it stops. We have feelings but we don't know anything more. It's a label.


Sorry but that is completely wrong. Of course there is such a thing as talent. In my time as a teacher (not music) I taught some highly talented kids and some who hadn't got a clue in my subject. However hard they worked some kids weren't going to succeed beyond an elementary point but some kids would make it to Oxford. Similarly with my piano playing. I'm not very talented. However hard I practise I won't be able to make it beyond a certain grade despite having aspirations in my (very foolish) youth to be a concert pianist. I'm certainly glad my teacher didn't tell me I haven't got much talent because that might put me off music altogether. But to say anyone can get there is like a certain Johann Sebastian Bach saying anyone could do like he did if they worked hard enough. I'm afraid talent is a factor as talent is a factor in all realms of life. What we have to do is to encourage young people to make the most what they got, but also not be disappointed with unrealistic expectations.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Bulldog said:


> I'd also have to say no though he would be in my top ten. No. 1 is reserved for Gilels or Brendel.


Yep. Well, those two or Arrau!


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Sorry but that is completely wrong. Of course there is such a thing as talent. In my time as a teacher (not music) I taught some highly talented kids and some who hadn't got a clue in my subject. However hard they worked some kids weren't going to succeed beyond an elementary point but some kids would make it to Oxford. Similarly with my piano playing. I'm not very talented. However hard I practise I won't be able to make it beyond a certain grade despite having aspirations in my (very foolish) youth to be a concert pianist. I'm certainly glad my teacher didn't tell me I haven't got much talent because that might put me off music altogether. But to say anyone can get there is like a certain Johann Sebastian Bach saying anyone could do like he did if they worked hard enough. I'm afraid talent is a factor as talent is a factor in all realms of life. What we have to do is to encourage young people to make the most what they got, but also not be disappointed with unrealistic expectations.


I wonder what you think talent is, that you don't have? Or what some talented person was just given at birth. What does any of that even mean? Yes, it's what you've been told all your life, and what you've later digested and projected because of those impressive early notions. Like I said, talent is a word that guides our thinking because it's emotionally packed.

I guess we need double-blind studies, but would we be smart enough find 'talent'? As you know, some people make giant strides when they're young at an art (wow what a natural talent, but don't look too closely!), but everyone makes larger steps in improvement early on. We can sort out why. Are you convinced that talent is mysterious?


----------



## Barbebleu

Surely talent is an innate ability that one is born with that gives you an edge that you may or may not make something of. Without talent all the hard work in the world will never get you to the top.


----------



## derin684

I don't really think that he's the greatest pianist of the 20th century, because I'm not sure that there is a "greatest pianist of 20th century". Hoewever, he was surely one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century because of his virtuosity, technique, and etc.

I know some people that think Glenn Gould can't match others because he is inlyrical. He didn't record from romantic period composers much, but IMO he was lyrical as much as the other legends of 20th century(Richter, Gilels, Horowitz, etc.). You can feel his lyricism in Bach suites, partitas, concertos... but other than that he did the best recordings of Brahms(Intermezzi,Op. 10 Ballades, Op. 79 Rhapsodies) and Scriabin(Sonatas No. 3, No.5, and Deux Morceaux Op. 57; not sure if he played anything else).

He also was the first person who recorded Liszt/Beethoven symphony transcriptions(only Nos 5 and 6 as I remember).

He did much more contribution than I wrote here, for example his Bach recordings, and his contributions to classical and his interesting personality music made him one of the most remembered and loved interpreters of all time, and also one of the greatest pianist of 20th century.


----------



## Luchesi

Imagine what Glenn Gould would say about such a question about him, and what he would say about the replies in this thread.

He once said something to the effect of, he would never sit through a piano recital - and he didn't understand why anybody would put themselves through that! 

He famously said that he didn't like the sound of the piano. I think he tried to ignore or at least disregard the sound when he was playing.


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> Imagine what Glenn Gould would say about such a question about him, and what he would say about the replies in this thread.
> 
> *He once said something to the effect of, he would never sit through a piano recital - and he didn't understand why anybody would put themselves through that! *
> 
> He famously said that he didn't like the sound of the piano. I think he tried to ignore or at least disregard the sound when he was playing.


Guess he'd been listening to his own playing for too long.


----------



## Chromatose

EdwardBast said:


> Guess he'd been listening to his own playing for too long.


Sounds like somebody's jealous.. :devil:


----------



## Chromatose

Luchesi said:


> He famously said that he didn't like the sound of the piano. I think he tried to ignore or at least disregard the sound when he was playing.


This is most likely false, I've never heard this anywhere. Prove it.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Imagine what Glenn Gould would say about such a question about him, and what he would say about the replies in this thread.
> 
> He once said something to the effect of, he would never sit through a piano recital - and he didn't understand why anybody would put themselves through that!
> 
> He famously said that he didn't like the sound of the piano. I think he tried to ignore or at least disregard the sound when he was playing.


I don't think one ought to take too much notice of what Gould said. He was like a little boy trying to shock


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> I wonder what you think talent is, that you don't have? Or what some talented person was just given at birth. What does any of that even mean? Yes, it's what you've been told all your life, and what you've later digested and projected because of those impressive early notions. *Like I said, talent is a word that guides our thinking because it's emotionally packed.
> *
> I guess we need double-blind studies, but would we be smart enough find 'talent'? As you know, some people make giant strides when they're young at an art (wow what a natural talent, but don't look too closely!), but everyone makes larger steps in improvement early on. We can sort out why. Are you convinced that talent is mysterious?


Not at all. There are some people that have a musicality and hand-eye co-ordination beyond the norm. See the lass who played the Prokofiev concerto in BBC young musician. I could never play it like that if I practised for 100 years. Same is true of sports people. Some have an innate ability to run fast. I never had that. Whereas when it comes to other things I (in a very modest way) am quite good. It's called talent. Of course talent can be developed by hard work but unless you had in the first place then all the hard work in the world won't do it. Talent is not mysterious. It is just innate ability. Einstein had an innate ability to do mind experiments which is far beyond most of us. As a scientist myself I find it most extraordinary. But that is why he is Einstein and I'm not!


----------



## Larkenfield

Good article on Gould: "A Wilfully Idiotic Genius?" https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/sep/20/glenn-gould-wilfully-idiotic-genius


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> He famously said that he didn't like the sound of the piano. I think he tried to ignore or at least disregard the sound when he was playing.


Please provide sources and citations for such fanciful imaginative quotes. What Gould did say is that the piano "is not an instrument for which I have any great love as such... [but] I have played it all my life, and it is the best vehicle I have to express my ideas." That's a big difference than saying he did not like the sound of the piano.

Also, there's such a thing as innate God-given talent, something born within an individual to be awakened and developed, the extent of which cannot always be logically explained, or every child would be a Mozart if they had the same education and training by someone like Leopold.

It's hard to watch such a simple obvious word called talent turned into a muddle. Responsible teachers know it when they hear it, while still doing their best to nurture whatever talent each student may have. It's not about neglecting the talent of anyone who wants to learn regardless of their level of ability. That's an entirely separate consideration.

In the meantime, not everyone is endowed equally with the same potential of ability, and really, this is so plainly observable in others if the educators are not confused by some idiosyncratic theory of talent where everything is reduced to a matter of outer conditioning and education.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Not at all. There are some people that have a musicality and hand-eye co-ordination beyond the norm. See the lass who played the Prokofiev concerto in BBC young musician. I could never play it like that if I practised for 100 years. Same is true of sports people. Some have an innate ability to run fast. I never had that. Whereas when it comes to other things I (in a very modest way) am quite good. It's called talent. Of course talent can be developed by hard work but unless you had in the first place then all the hard work in the world won't do it. Talent is not mysterious. It is just innate ability. Einstein had an innate ability to do mind experiments which is far beyond most of us. As a scientist myself I find it most extraordinary. But that is why he is Einstein and I'm not!


Everyone's different with different formative years. That's talent? It's a meaningless label. We see impressive people, yes. Look at Einstein's early years. An athlete spends so much time doing sports. They don't often do well in other areas, there's only so many hours in a day. Genetics is talent? What is talent? It's a complex outcome, it's not innate. There has to be exposure and development and all the rest.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Please provide sources and citations for such fanciful imaginative quotes. What Gould did say is that the piano "is not an instrument for which I have any great love as such... [but] I have played it all my life, and it is the best vehicle I have to express my ideas." That's a big difference than saying he did not like the sound of the piano.
> 
> Also, there's such a thing as innate God-given talent, something born within an individual to be awakened and developed, the extent of which cannot always be logically explained, or every child would be a Mozart if they had the same education and training by someone like Leopold.
> 
> It's hard to watch such a simple obvious word called talent turned into a muddle. Responsible teachers know it when they hear it, while still doing their best to nurture whatever talent some students may have. It's not about neglecting the talent of anyone who wants to learn regardless of their level of ability. That's an entirely separate consideration.
> 
> In the meantime, not everyone is endowed equally with the same potential of ability, and really, this is so plainly observable in others if the educators are not confused by some idiosyncratic theory of talent where everything is reduced to a matter of outer conditioning and education.


'Sorry, I had heard of his distaste for the sound of pianos in that movie about Gould <below>. But he did make the remark about recitals in an interview with Bruno M.

Some of these pianos were
so hopelessly unwieldy...

l decided it was best
just to ignore them.

lt required a kind of mystical
transcendence to get me through.

l have no idea
what the audience resorted to.

l'm not one of those piano freaks
you know. Of course...
l know there are people who would gladly
sit in the most uncomfortable chair...
with other people
in uncomfortable chairs...

and listen to hours and hours
of the stuff...

but it's nothing l would ever
subject myself to.

l just don't like the sound
of piano music that much.

Five minutes Mr. Gould.

Yeah. Tell them to close the doors now.

Yeah l think he's ready now.

l told you go ahead. Here he comes.

This way Mr. Gould.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Everyone's different with different formative years. *That's talent? It's a meaningless label. * We see impressive people, yes. Look at Einstein's early years. An athlete spends so much time doing sports. They don't often do well in other areas, there's only so many hours in a day. Genetics is talent? What is talent? It's a complex outcome, it's not innate. There has to be exposure and development and all the rest.


Sorry that is absolutely nonsense imo. Of course talent is innate. Why does an athlete spend time doing sports? Because he has talent. Why could Mozart compose symphonies at such an early age and then go on to compose the sublimest operas? Talent my dear fellow. During my time as an educator I saw it over and over again. Some kids had talent and some were lacking. We did our best with the less talented ones but no amount of hard work could make up for a lack of innate talent. Einstein actually made his greatest breakthroughs as a young man when working in a patent office. He had genius!


----------



## KenOC

The "nature versus nurture" debate continues apace. One school claims that everybody is absolutely equal in ability when they come from the womb. Of course there is absolutely no reason to believe that (except ideology) and copious observational evidence from the human sciences to demonstrate its falseness. But in the age we inhabit, honest discussions of such things have grown dangerous.


----------



## les24preludes

KenOC said:


> The "nature versus nurture" debate continues apace. One school claims that everybody is absolutely equal in ability when they come from the womb. Of course there is absolutely no reason to believe that (except ideology) and copious observational evidence from the human sciences to demonstrate its falseness. But in the age we inhabit, honest discussions of such things have grown dangerous.


Have they? Not dangerous in psychology - you can't hide from data and repeatable studies. We're finding that most human personality phenomena have around a 50% genetic component, and that even includes potential for happiness, anxiety etc. This is taken into account in research on e.g. happiness, where it's plainly said by the experts that "you're given a certain happiness quotient which determines your probably high and low points, but your average level depends on what you make it through your own determination and environment".

I imagine exactly the same is true of musical potential - genetics determines your probable high and low points but your actual operating level will depend on tuition, study and life experience. So potentially high talent musicians may never develop or do other things in life, while those with a lower genetic predisposition may do well in the business through hard work and dedicated study plus other positive personality attributes. Musical geniuses are unlikely to come from parents with cloth ears, but in many cases they'll be doing something quite different in life - quite a few have been painters, authors, actors and the like and some have been scientists or educators. In times past some of the parents would have been in the army or politics.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> The "nature versus nurture" debate continues apace. One school claims that everybody is absolutely equal in ability when they come from the womb. *Of course there is absolutely no reason to believe that* (except ideology) and copious observational evidence from the human sciences to demonstrate its falseness. But in the age we inhabit, honest discussions of such things have grown dangerous.


Of course. I think Bill Gates is (rightly or wrongly) is accredited with saying to students: "Life isn't fair. Get over it!"


----------



## les24preludes

DavidA said:


> Of course. I think Bill Gates is (rightly or wrongly) is accredited with saying to students: "Life isn't fair. Get over it!"


That's the basis of Positive Psychology, and I'm sure Bill Gates is very aware of that. You have a genetic "quotient" (the usual term) which, as I was saying, determines high and low points but how you then live your life depends on you. Positive Psychology is all about not being a victim but being a kind of entrepreneur in your own life game. I don't know if the right term for life is "fair or unfair" though it certainly looks like it in practice.

Maybe one way of looking at it is that people have choices depending not only on their genetics but on the circumstances they're born into, which is why human rights is such an important principle. We're not literally born with "rights" - that's a fallacy. We're born with a set of guarantees based on our birth certificates and citizenship, but conceptualising this as "rights" is nevertheless useful.

In terms of music, music education is important, as is the place of music in our culture. At least on websites like this one we can discuss all this.


----------



## Larkenfield

*Life is not fair*

Such quotes have been around way before Bill Gates.

"There is always inequity in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded, and some men never leave the country, and some men are stationed in the Antarctic and some are stationed in San Francisco. It's very hard in military or in personal life to assure complete equality. Life is unfair."
-John F. Kennedy 1962

"Walter Scott has no business to write novels, especially good ones. It is not fair. He has fame and profit enough as a poet, and should not be taking the bread out of the mouths of other people." -Jane Austen


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Sorry that is absolutely nonsense imo. Of course talent is innate. Why does an athlete spend time doing sports? Because he has talent. Why could Mozart compose symphonies at such an early age and then go on to compose the sublimest operas? Talent my dear fellow. During my time as an educator I saw it over and over again. Some kids had talent and some were lacking. We did our best with the less talented ones but no amount of hard work could make up for a lack of innate talent. Einstein actually made his greatest breakthroughs as a young man when working in a patent office. He had genius!


It's amazing how you look at the world. Einstein was born with a genius for the physics of light and time?, of the backward thinking of steady state ideas? Maybe because of his 'talented brain' he gave up too soon on the unification potential of extra dimensions that was given to him? All the forces have now been unified. Ooops, this so-called talent is not what it's cracked up to be? That's what he died working on, the TOE, maybe his talent blocked him from embracing the quantum explanations? It's double-edged, but i wouldn't call it talent, he said, "Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work..."

Remember the greatest blunder? If you're 'talented' you need a lot of talent for humility it would seem. He had it, he was very humble considering the new world he opened up, but I wouldn't call it talent.

Was he born with racial prejudice against Chinese, Japanese and Indian people? Where does it end?

Look at children again and see if you can honestly see this mystical aura you've been conditioned to christen with the empty word talent.


----------



## Larkenfield

There used to be a fellow around here by the name of Robert Newman, who claimed that Mozart didn't write half the things he did because he was too young to have had conservatory training despite being taught by his father Leopold. He attributed some of the works that Mozart wrote to a composer by the name of _Luchesi_. No one could convince him otherwise. I'm beginning to be strongly reminded of him like déjà vu all over again. Newman had some very eccentric views on talent and genius and no one was going to convince him otherwise. Sometimes the past has a way of coming full circle in strange and unusual ways.


----------



## Luchesi

"We're born with a set of guarantees based on our birth certificates and citizenship, but conceptualising this as "rights" is nevertheless useful."

Yes, and the guarantees we're born with for the recognition and appreciation of constrained ambiguity in Art are well-explained by the research in evolutionary psychology. It's a fascinating subject.


----------



## Luchesi

"Newman had some very eccentric views on talent and genius and no one was going to convince him otherwise."

Unlike Newman and those eccentric posters I don't care who wrote the great works. I don't care who's called a genius, whatever that means to the person doing the posting. From what I read about Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and Brahms they're the type of people, each in their own way, that I avoid in my life now. I think we would be very disappointed going back and meeting them in those uncomfortable times. What do you think, Lark? It's like meeting Moses or The Buddha or some other famous religious icon. Novels have been written about this phenomenon. They probably didn't get to be noteworthy without being quite extreme as personalities with explosive dispositions. Walk on eggs and all that. Just give me the fruits of all their efforts! and allow me to believe that they were nice people.. unselfishly giving their all to the world.. People today are so far removed from those times and places that they can hold onto that luxury, if it's important to them.


----------



## aleazk

Deleted .


----------



## Tallisman

Gouldanian said:


> Richter himself once said "I could play Bach as good as Gould if I wanted to but that would require from me a ridiculous investment of time and practice to reach that level, which I'm not willing to do."
> 
> He admitted that he was inferior to Gould when it came to Bach.


And yet Richter's WTC is infinitely better to my ears. I don't precisely know what Gould is trying to achieve with the staccato. Staccato is fine but his is excessive, at least on the WTC. His precision is wonderful but I'll forego precision if it means I can have a more organic flow. That first prelude strikes me as being played by a jerky automaton. Bach doesn't necessarily need pedal, but it needs some minimal flow. At least that's how I like it. I'm no Bach scholar.

There were greater pianists of the 20th century. Gould is one of the great Bach interpreters on the basis of the Goldbergs alone (and also his excellent Schoenberg, Webern etc), but this can't compete with what other more versatile pianists (Arrau, Richter etc) achieved with much wider repertoire.


----------



## Tallisman

Well, just browsing over this thread, it seems like it left the topic of Glenn Gould many, many posts ago :lol:


----------



## Bulldog

Tallisman said:


> And yet Richter's WTC is infinitely better to my ears. I don't precisely know what Gould is trying to achieve with the staccato. Staccato is fine but his is excessive, at least on the WTC. His precision is wonderful but I'll forego precision if it means I can have a more organic flow. That first prelude strikes me as being played by a jerky automaton. Bach doesn't necessarily need pedal, but it needs some minimal flow. At least that's how I like it. I'm no Bach scholar.


I"m also no Bach scholar, but I enjoy Gould's staccato such as in that first prelude of WTC Bk. 1 which I don't find jerky or mechanical in the least. Rosalyn Tureck in her Bach recordings also offers some unexpected staccato at times. I think it's a nice change of pace that I appreciate.


----------



## les24preludes

Bulldog said:


> I"m also no Bach scholar, but I enjoy Gould's staccato such as in that first prelude of WTC Bk. 1 which I don't find jerky or mechanical in the least. Rosalyn Tureck in her Bach recordings also offers some unexpected staccato at times. I think it's a nice change of pace that I appreciate.


I find Richter's WTC quite boring - he isn't as exciting and eccentric as Gould but on the other hand he isn't as melodic and insightful as Feinberg. I feel the same about his Scriabin. OTOH I love his Bach keyboard concerti - single and double.


----------



## Bulldog

les24preludes said:


> I find Richter's WTC quite boring - he isn't as exciting and eccentric as Gould but on the other hand he isn't as melodic and insightful as Feinberg. I feel the same about his Scriabin.


I enjoy Richter's WTC, but I do prefer a few other pianists. It's a shame that Richter never recorded the Art of Fugue or the Goldberg Variations.


----------



## Luchesi

Bulldog said:


> I enjoy Richter's WTC, but I do prefer a few other pianists. It's a shame that Richter never recorded the Art of Fugue or the Goldberg Variations.


Goldberg Variations BWV 988
Harpsichord Karl Richter
Recorded:1970

No huh? Everyone's a critic! lol






or Glenn and Barbra S.


----------



## Luchesi

Gould was a fan of Barbra. A friend of mine was surprised.

...(I always felt that I could live without the Chopin concertos and managed to until Alexis Weissenberg dusted the cobwebs from Mme. Sand's salon and made those works a contemporary experience.) Sometimes, inappropriately perhaps, it surfaces in the presence of a work for which poker-faced solemnity is considered de rigueur. (Hermann Scherchen's boogie-beat Messiah was, for me, one of the great revelations of the early LP era.) Sometimes it conveys my relief upon discovering that a puzzle I had thought insoluble has fallen into place. (Strauss's Metamorphosen, for example, is a work I have loved, on paper, as a concept, for nearly thirty years but which I had long since written off as a vehicle for twenty-three wayward strings in search of a six-four chord. All that changed a couple of years ago when I first heard Karajan's magisterial recording. For weeks, night after night, on occasion two or three times per-I'm not exaggerating-I played that disc, passed through the eyes-uplifted-in-wonder stage, went well beyond the catch-in-throat-and-tingle-on-the-spinal-cord phase and, at last, stood on the threshold of ... laughter.) I have the same reaction to practically everything conducted by Willem Mengelberg or Leopold Stokowski and always-well, almost always-to Barbra Streisand.

http://barbra-archives.com/bjs_library/70s/high_fidelity_1976.html


----------



## Luchesi

Here's the Fm






Here's the Em






Weissenberg


----------



## Doctuses

By far the most unique, and his sense of rhythm and tempo is superior to anyone i've ever heard.


----------



## Highwayman

No. Gould was a Bach specialist and arguably the most talented Bach interpreter of his time. But other than Bach and some 20th century contemporaries, he hasn`t got much... His Beethoven&Mozart are not universally cherished. He wasn`t an all-rounder and his repertoire is very humble in comparison with Richter, Gilels, Arrau, Horowitz and all other big-shot all-rounders. He had a great virtuosic capability but he didn`t play that much of virtuosic pieces throughout his career which makes it difficult to evaluate his virtuosity and compare him with great virtuosos of his time...

Due to these reasons, calling him the greatest pianist of the 20th century would be very farfetched...


----------



## Eusebius12

He wasn't even the greatest pianist with no fingers.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eusebius12 said:


> He wasn't even the greatest pianist with no fingers.


_He who has no arms has the cleanest hands_ (Dylan Thomas)


----------



## Mandryka

Non les brav's gens n'aiment pas que
L'on suive une autre route qu'eux
Tout le monde me montre du doigt
Sauf les manchots, ça va de soi


Brassens


----------



## Luchesi

Who's the best singer? Who's the best architect or painter? Who's the best chef? Who's the best chess grandmaster? Who's the best conductor?

Doesn't it depend upon what you're looking for in any of the 'best'?

Old English betest (adjective), betost, betst (adverb), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch and German best, also to better


----------



## wolfgang1782

Could you reference that quote? Seems a remarkable one given Richter’s not shying away from hard work! On YouTube there is a beautiful Richter harpsichord performance of the Toccata in G Minor. Immensely difficult fugue in there...


----------



## wolfgang1782

For me Gould is special because he seemed to only pursue that music which deeply moved him. The vocal intonations that he is infamous for speak plainly of his excitement at the very core. As a musician it is the THROAT where musical inspiration rises and abides. The same reason teachers advise students to play their instruments as if they were singing the lines. 
Anyway in answer to the thread my mind is more upon Ivo Pogorelich.


----------



## Luchesi

wolfgang1782 said:


> Could you reference that quote? Seems a remarkable one given Richter's not shying away from hard work! On YouTube there is a beautiful Richter harpsichord performance of the Toccata in G Minor. Immensely difficult fugue in there...


Welcome to the forum. Which quote are you referring to?

Richter said that he was cursed with a powerful memory. He remembered the names and faces of all the people coming backstage who he had ever been introduced to, and he didn't really want to remember all that. How would it be? 
He said in an interview that he would take scores onto the stage because during preparation and trying different conceptions he annotated his own graduations in the dynamic markings and slurs etc for different interpretations, not because he didn't remember the notes.


----------



## Luchesi

Singing is very good for memory and for phrasing and for the precise duration of the notes to make sense of the whole. Also it can act as an expressive place holder in the treble for a busy left hand.


----------



## DavidA

wolfgang1782 said:


> For me Gould is special* because he seemed to only pursue that music which deeply moved him. *The vocal intonations that he is infamous for speak plainly of his excitement at the very core. As a musician it is the THROAT where musical inspiration rises and abides. The same reason teachers advise students to play their instruments as if they were singing the lines.
> Anyway in answer to the thread my mind is more upon Ivo Pogorelich.


Why then did he record a whole cycle of Mozart sonatas when he said he didn't like them?


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Why then did he record a whole cycle of Mozart sonatas when he said he didn't like them?


I think he had a contract with Columbia. Later he could demand contracts more to his liking.


----------

