# Goldberg Variations - Who - Glenn Gould?



## richardgaray

I have the later (81, I think) version of these, and also a version redorded live before his first studio set from 55. This live one is from 54. 

He's famous for this 'piece'. 

Honestly, I love both sets and can't really fault either, personally. They are of a quality that just completely satisfies my requirements and powers of discernment. 

Who else has given a good account of the goldberg variations, and if you're a fan of the Goulds, which is your fav?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Hmm. Very difficult to choose. I enjoy both of Gould's readings for different reasons; the excitement and vitality of the '55 recording, the slower tempo and greater maturity in the '81 version. I suppose I'd go with the '81.

Perahia's reading is also popular, and I enjoy that one as well, but far less than Gould.

A similar discussion can be found in this thread.


----------



## muxamed

richardgaray said:


> Who else has given a good account of the goldberg variations ... ?


Murray Perahia (better than Gould IMHO)


----------



## World Violist

I like Glenn Gould's 1980's recording better than any other. I've heard bits of Perahia's recording, and it seems like he doesn't make much of the transitions between variations, which ends up displaying a lack of arch over the piece as a whole. One of the things I prefer about Gould's later recording is the directness, the frankness (or starkness, if you prefer; I rather like starkness) about it, which makes Perahia seem positively superficial.

On piano, for me it's Gould 1981; on harpsichord, it's Masaaki Suzuki.


----------



## richardgaray

Cheers guys.

I wonder what a harpsichord version would be like. I mean, I don't know how people most commonly appreciate the baroque, and how important its _oldness_ is for people, but the Gould I have of this piece does not involve me in a conscious contemplation of a music form, namely baroque, that is from a time and culture that is foreign to me, and that I must somehow observe from outside. Gould's versions are such that I do not feel the questions of relevance or historical context arising. 
I am not sure if the reasons for this are within my reach, but it seems likely that this has as much to do with the pianoforte as Gould. His is an art of the most miraculous breadth of expression which has remianed always - obviously - in the sound, the medium, the instrument of the piano. 
It so happens that I live in a time where the piano is familiar - very familiar - to me; the sound of the harpsichord is strange. Is the harpsichord a sound that anchors the baroque firmly in its proper historical context; that takes it back, in terms of the difference of physicality and timbre, to a 'sound' which is more limited and rudimentary and _older_?
Or do contemporary harpsichord players 'contemporize' the instrument?
Just wondering what these variations would sound like on the harpsichord, how it might change the music, apart from the fact of a different artist, whether this music can only really mean the piano and Gould for me.


----------



## World Violist

Harpsichord interpretation is very different from piano interpretation in a very fundamental way, namely that the harpsichord doesn't have any possible variation in dynamics. Thus the entire interpretation has to be hinged on timing and things like that, whereas on piano you have many more considerations in addition, such as dynamic, attack, and so on.

And then there's also the sound, which is obviously very different and not really to everyone's liking (I know several people who can't stand the harpsichord sound). Really the entire foundation of performance practice is kind of ridiculous, since its main consideration is playing music like Bach did 300 years ago, as if it really mattered.

If you prefer piano, go with a great piano performance. If you prefer harpsichord, go with a great harpsichord one. I don't think it makes any difference, but I think you really should hear both since they are so contrasting.


----------



## Guest

I have recordings by Kenneth Gilbert and Trevor Pinnock on harpsichord - I enjoy the Gilbert recording. 

I have the 80's recording by Gould. But honestly, the recording that really makes me enjoy the Goldberg Variations is the Perahia recording.


----------



## muxamed

World Violist said:


> I've heard bits of Perahia's recording, and it seems like he doesn't make much of the transitions between variations, which ends up displaying a lack of arch over the piece as a whole.


You need to hear Perahia's whole recording in order to be able to judge his grasp of a piece as a whole.


----------



## nefigah

One of my personal goals in classical music appreciation is to eventually be able to think half as much of Glenn Gould as many people do. I'm not there yet, however. My current recommendation remains the same as in the other thread on this topic, that Poppin' Fresh linked (Schiff and Perahia).


----------



## richardgaray

Negifgah, would you mind appending a reason to that intriguing remark?
What are the most common objections to Gould's style? Brashness and lack of sensitivity in his individualism where it is not suited to the piece, is it? On which recordings is this exemplified?

Oh, hey, maybe you already outlined your reasons in the linked thread - I'll scoot off there now


----------



## Guest

I think Gould is fine, but his playing seems choppy to me. That and all the damned humming/vocalisations.


----------



## handlebar

I dislike the Gould. I prefer the Perahia or the Hewitt.

Jim


----------



## nefigah

richardgaray said:


> Negifgah, would you mind appending a reason to that intriguing remark?
> What are the most common objections to Gould's style? Brashness and lack of sensitivity in his individualism where it is not suited to the piece, is it? On which recordings is this exemplified?
> 
> Oh, hey, maybe you already outlined your reasons in the linked thread - I'll scoot off there now


I may have mentioned the vocalizations in the other thread, but I've listened to more of him since then (admittedly, only on youtube), and I just think it's a matter of he and I not seeing eye to eye on some interpretations. For example, he does things with tempi sometimes that I find gratuitous ("look at how deep and ponderous I'm making it!").

In any case, it's totally no big deal; people like different things. The only thing that stands out in this case is how adored Gould seems to be, and that's what prompted my remark. Like I say, maybe I'll come around eventually


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

I understand why some don't embrace the Gould performances; they are unique enough where I almost consider them a recontextualization of the piece, but they really connect with me like I said in the other thread.


----------



## World Violist

I just find that I really like the idiomatic playing style, and the vocalizations don't bother me in the slightest when there is such great music going on. I prefer more "cerebral" approaches to "romantic" (hence why I prefer Boulez to most other conductors).


----------



## richardgaray

Of course, I agree with everyone about these bloody 'vocalizations'. Cannot understand the point; they're infuriating. Presumably he was such a big deal that the engineer just let him have his pretentious innovations. 
Interesting that Nefigah would characterize a lot of Gould's dynamics as 'ponderous'. Can't say I ever found fault there. It was actually a bit of a mind-blow to read that comment. Bombast had just never occurred to me while listening, I was always affected. 
I guess I need to try out some more 'delicate' version of acclaim, and see if Gould ever appears crude in comparison. Not that I feel morally obliged to. I'm sure it would be interesting. 
By the way, any more excellent recordings of bach by Gould - pieces that he had as strong a personal attachment to as he evidently had for the Goldberg Variations?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

richardgaray said:


> By the way, any more excellent recordings of bach by Gould - pieces that he had as strong a personal attachment to as he evidently had for the Goldberg Variations?


His Well-Tempered Clavier are amazing.


----------



## muxamed

richardgaray said:


> By the way, any more excellent recordings of bach by Gould - pieces that he had as strong a personal attachment to as he evidently had for the Goldberg Variations?


His piano concertos are first class.


----------



## handlebar

Poppin' Fresh said:


> I understand why some don't embrace the Gould performances; they are unique enough where I almost consider them a recontextualization of the piece, but they really connect with me like I said in the other thread.


I cannot embrace something I just don't like. Nothing against Gould personally of course. I simply don't like the tempos and rubato he employs. They don't "connect" with me at all.

Jim


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

After years of enthrallment with Gould's 1955 Goldbergs on his 1928 Steinway CD174, I've recently 'gone over' to his incredible 1981 digital recording on his 1973 Yamaha.

The later recording has innumerable differences, but the main feature is Gould's tempo concept of connecting each variation to the previous and succeeding one, thereby welding the work into a single piece, as opposed to the 1955 set of 32 individual pieces.

http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-GOULD-s.../R3BDYACDAGEZMX/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full


----------



## Lemminkainen

Ketil Haugsand's harpsichord rendition is quite good.

I also have great affection for Catrin Finch's recording for harp.


----------



## robert

Rosalyn Tureck

Case closed.....

Robert


----------



## handlebar

robert said:


> Rosalyn Tureck
> 
> Case closed.....
> 
> Robert


She is very good I must admit.


----------



## teccomin

Rosalyn Tureck plays it too slow
Andrei Gavrilov on DG is a great recording.
If you want some change, Mischa Maisky recorded it as a trio of Violin, Viola and Cello.


----------



## Vaneyes

Gould, '59 Salzburg.


----------



## Lukecash12

Who else would I go for? Ton Koopman, Eunice Norton, Richter, Feinberg, and Gieseking. I think they have made the most definitive if not in several cases authentic interpretations to this day.


----------



## itywltmt

My 2 cents:
http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/itywltmt/231-day-music-history-june.html


----------



## elgar's ghost

'Ponderous' surely can't apply to Gould's recordings of the Goldbergs if we take into account their duration - his first in 1981 took barely 50 minutes and his 1955 recording I gather was shorter still - compare that to, say, Perahia and Schiff who both weigh in at over 70 minutes.


----------



## TxllxT

I use to vary between these piano Goldberg Variations. A pity that Sviatoslav Richter didn't record them complete!


----------



## Webernite

Murray Perahia's is a good "standard" recording to have - the sound quality is high and the playing is very good. You should get Gould '55 just to hear it and see whether you like it. Gould '59 is better than '55, but not as important. 

There's no harpsichord recording that's widely accepted as the best, but I like Pinnock's.


----------



## GoneBaroque

Don't forget Jean Gillou's transcription for organ

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000001Q7T/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=5174&s=music

Rob


----------



## kv466

handlebar said:


> I dislike the Gould. I prefer the Perahia or the Hewitt.


I dislike the Bone-In Ribeye Delmonico. I prefer the Ground Beef Patty or the Minute Steak.


----------



## itywltmt

I had a very good listen of the Gould *CBC broadcast performance of 21 June 1954 *this morning. (I downloaded it as part of the 6-CD set "Gould The Young Maverick" - more on that in a blog in October).

The less-than-ideal sound quality is irrelevant: you quickly lose yourself in the performance. Clearly, this is Gould's "start state" on this massive work, and this is done "live on radio", so no benefit of studio post-production hanky-panky or retakes. This version allows us to appreciate just how phenominally gifted Gould is as a pianist, every note is in place - this is a veritable "piano clinic". Yes, some of the variations have evoilved over the years, so this interpretation is (as such) unique when compared with the other three available commercially - discussed here in June.

What I retain most of all is the "aria da capo", which is taken at a slow tempo, more like the 1981 version than the 1955 version, which kind of surprised me.

May not be everybody's cup of tea, but it is solid, and devoid of any of the eccentricities that we associate with Gould - as is the case for all 6 CD's worth of CBC broadcast archives, captured so early in Glenn's career. The set also features 3 CDs worth of Beethoven, two CDs of Bach, one CD of the *Second Viennese school *(Berg, Schioenberg, Webern), and also features 5 piano concerti, three of them played with Sir Ernest Macmillan and the Toronto Symphony.


----------



## Ronim

muxamed said:


> Murray Perahia (better than Gould IMHO)


I agree - Perahia
If Gould - early, 1955


----------



## Itullian

I'll be the weirdo here, I guess. I like Schiffs complete set, Hewitt's complete set. Both their Goldbergs are beautifully played and recorded.

But I really really like Charles Rosen and Wilhelm Kempff , the first direct, powerful, the second subtle and totally magical.....get them both.

Oh yeah, special mention to Gavrilov, DG and Nikolayeva . great.


----------



## misterjones

Just discovering Gould playing Bach now. I am not trained in the art of jazz or classical music. I just know what I like. I'm liking Gould, and more so than some of the other pianists I've heard (especially when it comes to The Art of the Fugue, which I find to be an amazing work regardless of the performer). What he's doing wrong or right doesn't concern me. I'm a bit glad I cannot analyze it further. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.


----------



## kv466

misterjones said:


> Just discovering Gould playing Bach now. I am not trained in the art of jazz or classical music. I just know what I like. I'm liking Gould, and more so than some of the other pianists I've heard (especially when it comes to The Art of the Fugue, which I find to be an amazing work regardless of the performer). What he's doing wrong or right doesn't concern me. I'm a bit glad I cannot analyze it further. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.


"If ignorance is bliss,...then wipe the smile of my face!"

Anyway, I'm glad you're enjoying the only person who has truly done this justice.


----------



## misterjones

By the way . . . the Great Performances or the Glenn Gould Edition version? Sound quality is an area where technicalities do concern me more.


----------



## kv466

misterjones said:


> By the way . . . the Great Performances or the Glenn Gould Edition version? Sound quality is an area where technicalities do concern me more.


I can't comment because, to me, it could be played on a mono, crappy old and cheap record player with nothing but hiss and crackles and if it is played the way GG plays it,...it is FAR better than the best DDD or HQ or whatever you wanna call version played by somebody else. So, that is for you to decide.

Don't get me wrong. I use the best possible equipment for my reproduction but that is because I am an audiophile...still, I prefer great performances to great sound,...any day of the week.


----------



## Vaneyes

misterjones said:


> By the way . . . the Great Performances or the Glenn Gould Edition version? Sound quality is an area where technicalities do concern me more.


For a good GG GV study, get this (though it doesn't contain my favorite-the '59 Salzburg). Prior to, I didn't know of the '81 analog recording.


----------



## misterjones

Regarding, "Great Performances" vs "The Glenn Gould Edition", I prefer the latter. The volume level of Gould's "vocalizations" as compared to the piano are the same on both, but because "The Glenn Gould Edition" has more sound clarity they somewhat stand out more on that version. (The muddier sound of the "Great Performances" version tends to mask the vocalizations.) But I only notice the vocalizations when I'm listening with earphones and then only on about four tracks, so the better sound "The Glenn Gould Edition" makes it an easy choice for me. I haven't heard the set noted above, so I don't know how that ranks.


----------



## kv466

I'm with you on The Glenn Gould Edition. Not only are they Super Bit Mapping and all that fun stuff but they sound great and look great...I love how they put stuff together and bunched it all nice in beautifully packaged products with great notes. The first I ever got was Bach's Keyboard Concertos double disc and I never stopped from there.

In 2007, however, I had just first started to navigate through Amazon and I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that for $200 I could get every record released in it's original cover: The Complete Original Jacket Collection. I love this and hear it so much but for the classic works like Mozart's piano sonatas or the ones by Beethoven, I miss the CBS ones so bad; Bog curse me for having lost them in a break up!

Remember these?










Anyway, those were great and sounded great and I've still got a few scattered ones. Crazy to think of it but aside from having everything complete, twice...I've always got everything they've put out from other releases in other formats another three times...not to mention TGGE on minidisc, which I got every one I could get my hands on...and they're the same recordings! Oh, well...I came here to talk Glenn and I guess that means I'm a fan but I hadn't thought of how crazy til now...don't remember which ones were released in the early 2000's but I got all them, too...they were the CBS in cardboard sleeves...actually, they were basically the COJC but sold as individual discs and some doubles...I'd still get my box set today although I'm glad I only paid a fifth the price as last I checked there were only a couple in stock and for $1000...I should have ordered two at the time and kept one sealed but I should still have those CBS/Odyssey discs, too!


----------



## GGluek

There's a very good piano version from the 1980s on Dorian by Andrew Rangell.


----------



## Morimur

Perahia rules.
***********


----------



## Musicophile

Wow, 44 responses and nobody has mentioned Pierre Hantaï yet? He really is apparently even more unknown than I thought. He has done my personal favorite Goldberg, and that even twice.

Just wrote about it on my blog: http://musicophilesblog.com/2015/07/15/bachs-goldberg-variations-and-the-brilliant-pierre-hantai/


----------



## realdealblues

If I could only have one, Gould's 81 would be it. I like Perahia and Hewitt and others I've heard but the Gould 81 has a special place in my heart and is the only one I couldn't live without.

On Harpsichord, I like Karl Richter or Gustav Leonhardt.


----------



## msvadi

I really like Tatiana Nikolayeva's recording for BBC. Very lyrical.


----------

