# People who dislike Glenn Gould



## millionrainbows

...Not in this forum, that's not interesting...but I've run across instances where other performers have dissed Glenn Gould.

I suppose the original incident I recall is Leonard Bernstein's "disclaimer" before the performance of a Brahms piano concerto.

The second instance was Elizabeth Schwartzkopf's displeasure with her collaboration with Gould on some Richard Strauss songs.

The third incident, which I discovered recently, was Alfred Brendel's exclusion of Gould in his list of top Bach interpreters, which he justified by saying that his list "only included players who remained true to the composer, which Gould did not."

This is interesting. We all know that Gould could play Bach fabulously, so it seems to me that this anti-Gould attitude is really a reaction which reinforces tradition, and is not an indictment of his musical facility. Schwartzkopf's attitude seems similar to Brendel's, in that she was protesting against a breech of tradition or a crossing of some line.

Many CM listeners think the way Brendel and Schwartzkopf do. In this view, music carries a 'program' which is the 'DNA' of the composer. In this view, the classical repertoire 'work' is tied to the 'performance-as-text,'* and is thus tied to the notated work in an inviolate way. *This would also include the accompanying baggage of performance conventions.
This "Biblical" orthodox view of classicism gives ultimate credence to 'the work' as an unchanging entity of permanence (scripture), and the performance as a mere 'reading' of a 'text'.

There is a more flexible position which puts more importance on the performance, with the idea that the performance at that time embodies the work. This more flexible view is that the *performance is tied to the notated work as self-defined **in that it presumes to supplant or subsume 'the work' at the moment of performance. **The performance thus stands on its own *for consideration, such as Glenn Gould's Bach performance/recordings.

This is what separates Gould from other classical performers; he saw the need to depart from orthodoxy, and breathe fresh, if non-traditional, life into works. His greatest triumph was single-handedly bringing back Bach's Goldberg Variations from obscurity in 1955.

I think the "performance" aspect of Classical, which got separated when the composer and notation divided them, needs to come back, and CM players are going to have to improvise and 'take solos' like we see in Yo-Yo's Silk Road Ensemble. This means, generally, more ear and less eye; more flexibility and less rigidity.


----------



## hpowders

I first heard the Goldberg Variations from Glenn Gould's first recording. I liked it. Disappointed with his second recording.
Later, I found others (particularly on harpsichord) who put Gould's performances of Bach to shame.

I've yet to find any pianist whose solo Bach truly appeals to me. Gould's first Goldberg Variations I could live with if I had to.

Overall, lukewarm opinion of Gould, at best.


----------



## Op.123

Me no likey gould


----------



## Bulldog

Love him or hate him, Gould's Bach was unique and trail-blazing. Personally, I consider Gould one of the greatest pianists ever.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> ...Not in this forum, that's not interesting...but I've run across instances where other performers have dissed Glenn Gould.
> 
> I suppose the original incident I recall is Leonard Bernstein's "disclaimer" before the performance of a Brahms piano concerto.
> 
> The second instance was Elizabeth Schwartzkopf's displeasure with her collaboration with Gould on some Richard Strauss songs.
> 
> The third incident, which I discovered recently, was Alfred Brendel's exclusion of Gould in his list of top Bach interpreters, which he justified by saying that his list "only included players who remained true to the composer, which Gould did not."
> 
> This is interesting. We all know that Gould could play Bach fabulously, so it seems to me that this anti-Gould attitude is really a reaction which reinforces tradition, and is not an indictment of his musical facility. Schwartzkopf's attitude seems similar to Brendel's, in that she was protesting against a breech of tradition or a crossing of some line.
> 
> Many CM listeners think the way Brendel and Schwartzkopf do. In this view, music carries a 'program' which is the 'DNA' of the composer. In this view, the classical repertoire 'work' is tied to the 'performance-as-text,'* and is thus tied to the notated work in an inviolate way. *This would also include the accompanying baggage of performance conventions.
> This "Biblical" orthodox view of classicism gives ultimate credence to 'the work' as an unchanging entity of permanence (scripture), and the performance as a mere 'reading' of a 'text'.
> 
> There is a more flexible position which puts more importance on the performance, with the idea that the performance at that time embodies the work. This more flexible view is that the *performance is tied to the notated work as self-defined **in that it presumes to supplant or subsume 'the work' at the moment of performance. **The performance thus stands on its own *for consideration, such as Glenn Gould's Bach performance/recordings.
> 
> This is what separates Gould from other classical performers; he saw the need to depart from orthodoxy, and breathe fresh, if non-traditional, life into works. His greatest triumph was single-handedly bringing back Bach's Goldberg Variations from obscurity in 1955.
> 
> I think the "performance" aspect of Classical, which got separated when the composer and notation divided them, needs to come back, and CM players are going to have to improvise and 'take solos' like we see in Yo-Yo's Silk Road Ensemble. This means, generally, more ear and less eye; more flexibility and less rigidity.


I have a theory about this interesting question. I think that people don't like Gould because he had ideas, and he was outspoken. It's nothing to do with the way he played - there are lots of very personal musicians who don't elicit the same strong feelings as GG. People don't like it when musicians are too mouthy.

This question has been on my mind recently because I've been listening to a lot of Stockhausen, who also had ideas, and who also evokes strong opinions.


----------



## Fang

Artists are like magnets. The stronger they are the stronger they attract some type of people and repel the other type. That's just the nature of life so there is no point in arguing who should be whose favorite. Also there are no fixed lines in arts. All that there is are imaginary lines that people create for themselves to enjoy or hate something. My own lines are more about how honest a musician is to himself and others because as long as he believes in what he is doing he can connect to his higher self and drag me to his world. So in that sense Gould's ranking is very high on my list.


----------



## ptr

Interesting Rainbows, I find Brendel's Bach dreadfully boring, and quite think that Gould is one of maybe a handful of pianists that come as close to Bach as it is possible on a "modern" grand piano. Anyone who have studied Baroque music knows that its basic ethos is for the performer to embellish the music with his own gestalt. 
To me this is so basic and perhaps the basic reason why so many modern (HIP or not) performers fail at playing Baroque, they are to literal, to bound to the text that they do not see the music behind the notes; they can solve any composition from a technical standpoint but they are unable to express the gestures that the music is glued together with!

Do we need to name names?

/ptr


----------



## norman bates

millionrainbows said:


> ...Not in this forum, that's not interesting...but I've run across instances where other performers have dissed Glenn Gould.
> 
> I suppose the original incident I recall is Leonard Bernstein's "disclaimer" before the performance of a Brahms piano concerto.
> 
> The second instance was Elizabeth Schwartzkopf's displeasure with her collaboration with Gould on some Richard Strauss songs.
> 
> The third incident, which I discovered recently, was Alfred Brendel's exclusion of Gould in his list of top Bach interpreters, which he justified by saying that his list "only included players who remained true to the composer, which Gould did not."


don't forget Gunther Schuller, who of his rendition of Wagner's Sigfried idyll said: "the most inept, amateurish, wrong-headed rendition of a major classic ever put to vinyl."


----------



## Headphone Hermit

millionrainbows said:


> His greatest triumph was single-handedly bringing back Bach's Goldberg Variations from obscurity in 1955.


Is that accurate? I had considered Wanda Landowska to be a very influential exponent of this piece from the 1930s onwards ... and there were others too, I think.

Gould was certainly very influential, but single handed???? (He would have had to play one of the many Wittgenstein-commissioned pieces for that sobriquet!)


----------



## Alypius

I can't listen to pianists who mumble, hum, or grumble in the background. And so I can't listen to Gould just as I can't listen to Keith Jarrett. Pianists want their pianos in tune; recording engineers want to maintain soundproof silence for the environment. Well, as a listener, I too want all things to be in tune. And I want pianists to be quiet. Spare me the out-of-tune singing, gasping, sighing, etc. 

I also think that, in the case of historical music, sensitivity to historical practices matters. Gould is very quirky and very un-historical in his interpretations. I realize that there is plenty of room to debate these matters. But what I have heard of Gould sounds like he is oblivous to historical context: loud pounding, quirky mixes of staccatos and legatos, odd tempi, no sense of the history of ornamentation. It sometimes turns Bach into a romantic, sometimes into a modernist. Can we let 18th-century music sound like 18th-century music?


----------



## SONNET CLV

Call me what you will, but I've collected all of the Gould Bach recordings over the years and find I mostly turn to Gould when I would listen to the _Goldberg_ or the Suites. I find I prefer modern piano to harpsichord, for one reason, though on occasion I do indulge in a harpsichord/clavichord reading. I'm not certain if Bach ever distinguished a particular instrument for much of his keyboard works, though I don't expect to hear a lot of _pp to ff _pounding and pedaling during a Bach piece. But Gould is a player I turn to quite a bit; I fancy his interpretations. But then, I tend to hum to myself a lot, too.


----------



## DavidA

Bernstein's was a typical piece of showmanship nonsense. If he so disapproved of Gould's slow tempo then why did he conduct an even slower one with Zimmerman later in life?

Schwartskopf was driven to distraction by Gould as he refused to listen to playbacks. He was most unco-operative during the sessions and that with a singer he'd said he wanted to work with. Of course, he might have been put off by Legge's baleful presence.

Gould polarises opinions even among his admirers (which I am). His Mozart sonatas are among the worst recordings ever. Listening to them you wonder whether he was mad after all.
. Yet he was unbeatable in other things like Bach.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Alypius said:


> I can't listen to pianists who mumble, hum, or grumble in the background. And so I can't listen to Gould just as I can't listen to Keith Jarrett.


Which may explain why you utilize Andrew Hill's _Point of Departure _for an avatar? I'm currently listening to that album, and I must admit I do not catch any vocalizing from the pianist. (By the way, the album -- and all of Hill's work -- is astounding -- refreshingly timeless. Who'd have thought this is a recording from 1964!)

One problem with having good playback equipment, gear with high sensitivities to what sounds are recorded, is that you do experience every moan and groan on certain musicians' discs. I actually like to hear string quartet players breathing as they play; it adds to the realness of the scene in my listening room. And the occasional turn of a score page or the squeaking of a chair (even the sound of a bus pulling out from in front of a concert hall) are neat things my system allows me to hear. But I will admit that Gould forces me to shut off the vocalizing. But the power of the playing allows for my forgiveness. Quite a number of jazz musicians besides Jarrett can be heard vocally during their playing. It's just part of the scene.


----------



## Mandryka

Headphone Hermit said:


> Is that accurate? I had considered Wanda Landowska to be a very influential exponent of this piece from the 1930s onwards ... and there were others too, I think.
> 
> Gould was certainly very influential, but single handed???? (He would have had to play one of the many Wittgenstein-commissioned pieces for that sobriquet!)


I wonder how we can see whether what you say is true. Are there any statistics about how well Landowska's recordings of it sold in the 1930s and 40s? Is that the measure of her influence?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Mandryka said:


> I wonder how we can see whether what you say is true. Are there any statistics about how well Landowska's recordings of it sold in the 1930s and 40s? Is that the measure of her influence?


If records sold is the measure of influence, Andre Rieu must be one of the most influential musicians of the present moment.

I rather suspect critical opinion might disagree


----------



## nightscape

hpowders said:


> I've yet to find any pianist whose solo Bach truly appeals to me. Gould's first Goldberg Variations I could live with if I had to.


I thought Denk's playing of the Goldberg Variations was quite amazing, though it is sort of Gould-like.


----------



## DavidA

The irascible George Szell summed up Gould when he said: "that nut's a genius!"


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> ...Not in this forum, that's not interesting...but I've run across instances where other performers have dissed Glenn Gould.
> 
> I suppose the original incident I recall is Leonard Bernstein's "disclaimer" before the performance of a Brahms piano concerto.


Bernstein was hardly "dissing" Gould. His remarks were made in quite good humor. Here they are:


----------



## trazom

I prefer Glenn Gould when he's memorizing phone-books rather than playing piano.


----------



## Winterreisender

Although I can appreciate Gould's musicianship and I enjoy watching videos of his performances, I would never play one of his CDs because the vocal accompaniment is just too irritating, especially when I listen with headphones.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I'm actually fairly oblivious to Gould's vocalising, it's just his interpretations of Bach that I find uncongenial. And the wilful tempi sometimes drive me to distraction. I've been trying to listen to him playing Bach for a while, but I'm not getting it. Sokolov and Schiff I do like, even Brendel brings something to Bach that I like.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

I'm an admirer of Gould's playing, and absolutely love all his renditions of Bach. I got used to his vocalising and accept that this trait, being from his childhood piano playing, is part of the package.

As an example, his Well Tempered Clavier books I & II give a sense of continuity, excitement and energy that are difficult to find elsewhere. The 48 preludes and fugues seem like one whole work under his hands. I also adore Kenneth Gilbert's sublime WTC on harpsichord for the same reasons.

The embellishments in Gould's playing are what makes him original and interesting. In Bach's days the player was expected to embellish the repeats and certainly not repeat what was already played. Furthermore Gould's decided not to play the repeats in his 1955 Goldberg's and he managed to shake the classical music world's view of Bach two-handedly!


----------



## mikey

No doubt Gould is an amazing pianist, but I can't listen to him for more than a few minutes (there are some exceptions). His sound just starts to grate on my ears.


----------



## KenOC

For those put off by Gould's humming, I recommend the Zenph re-performance. The 1955 Goldbergs in a modern stereo recording without vocals. This was created using a computer analysis of the original Columbia mono recording and performed by a mechanized Yamaha piano. It worked!

http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Goldberg...qid=1403920029&sr=1-1&keywords=goldberg+zenph


----------



## brianvds

millionrainbows said:


> The second instance was Elizabeth Schwartzkopf's displeasure with her collaboration with Gould on some Richard Strauss songs.


His incessant humming and howling would surely get on the nerves of any singer he accompanied.


----------



## Mister Man

How can anyone hate Glenn Gould when his Bach recordings are such a value? You get the keyboard stylings of J.S. Bach AND vocal accompaniment by Gould!


----------



## shangoyal

I like Gould's playing, the staccato he uses to dramatise the music, unlike how other people tend to blend the notes together to create an ethereal feel, which IMO is usually out of place in Bach's music. For Bach on piano, I think I would recommend Glenn Gould more than any other pianist that I know of.


----------



## shangoyal

KenOC said:


> For those put off by Gould's humming, I recommend the Zenph re-performance. The 1955 Goldbergs in a modern stereo recording without vocals. This was created using a computer analysis of the original Columbia mono recording and performed by a mechanized Yamaha piano. It worked!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Goldberg...qid=1403920029&sr=1-1&keywords=goldberg+zenph


Listening to this on YouTube and I like it a lot so far! Mainly the sound quality is better than the 1955 recording, as expected.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> don't forget Gunther Schuller, who of his rendition of Wagner's Sigfried idyll said: "the most inept, amateurish, wrong-headed rendition of a major classic ever put to vinyl."


Ahh, yes, I seem to remember running across that one somewhere. Good catch. I like Gunther Schuller, and from the way he has morphed jazz standards, and his interest in "Third Stream" music, I'm surprised to hear him dis Gould.


----------



## millionrainbows

Alypius said:


> I also think that, in the case of historical music, sensitivity to historical practices matters. Gould is very quirky and very un-historical in his interpretations.


Apparently, you are of the mindset that the classical repertoire 'work' is tied to the 'performance-as-text,'and is thus tied to the notated work in an inviolate way.This would also include performance conventions.

This "Biblical" orthodox view of classicism gives ultimate credence to 'the work' as an unchanging entity of permanence (scripture), and the performance as a mere 'reading' of a 'text'.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Bernstein's was a typical piece of showmanship nonsense. If he so disapproved of Gould's slow tempo then why did he conduct an even slower one with Zimmerman later in life?
> 
> Schwartskopf was driven to distraction by Gould as he refused to listen to playbacks. He was most unco-operative during the sessions and that with a singer he'd said he wanted to work with. Of course, he might have been put off by Legge's baleful presence.


There was something in the notes that mentioned her going off and discussing things with someone; I assume that was Legge. From what I gather, Gould was quite enthusiastic; it was Elizabeth who got offended because of some breach of performance tradition.



DavidA said:


> Gould polarises opinions even among his admirers (which I am). His Mozart sonatas are among the worst recordings ever. Listening to them you wonder whether he was mad after all.
> . Yet he was unbeatable in other things like Bach.


That's funny, it was Gould who got me into the Mozart sonatas in the first place. I guess if you'd never heard them before that, they sound normal. I didn't know about the Zimmerman one.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Ahh, yes, I seem to remember running across that one somewhere. Good catch. I like Gunther Schuller, and from the way he has morphed jazz standards, and his interest in "Third Stream" music, I'm surprised to hear him dis Gould.


I think Schuller can dis a specific performance without dissing Gould himself as a pianist. I could say the same of some Beethoven sonatas, or almost anything by Mozart -- but I still think Gould was a very great pianist.


----------



## Alypius

millionrainbows said:


> Apparently, you are of the mindset that the classical repertoire 'work' is tied to the 'performance-as-text,'and is thus tied to the notated work in an inviolate way.This would also include performance conventions.
> 
> This "Biblical" orthodox view of classicism gives ultimate credence to 'the work' as an unchanging entity of permanence (scripture), and the performance as a mere 'reading' of a 'text'.


No, that is not my view. Please don't caricature it. Just as I would hold that the Biblical text needs to be interpreted contextually (historical context, literary context, social context, canonical context), so I hold that a musical text, like any other historical text (literary, artistic, political), needs to be read historically, be in the context of its time.

Only fundamentalists treat texts a-historically. Gould, ironically, is the fundamentalist who reads into the text whatever he wants. Gould treats individual works as though they are free-standing a-historical entities. While I personally prefer HIP recordings, I accept that Bach can be played on the modern piano. But I expect that the _interpretation_ recognize that the work was not written in the 20th or 21st century. For example, I much appreciate Andras Schiff's fine performance of the _Well-Tempered Clavier_; even the recent performance by Christophe Rousset of _The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book II_ on harpischord is an interpretation -- while deeply sensitive to Baroque performance practices, he had to make all sorts of decisions about bringing the text to life. You might find Gould's eccentricities entertaining. That's fine. But it's far removed from Bach.


----------



## shangoyal

Alypius said:


> You might find Gould's eccentricities entertaining. That's fine. But it's far removed from Bach.


I think what you are trying to say is that Gould's Bach is far removed from _your_ idea of Bach. As long it is entertaining, what's the big deal? Can you criticise his playing in any way other than saying that it is removed from tradition? Because I would be listening intently to what you have to say.


----------



## merlinus

For me, Glenn Gould is one of the greatest musicians, and pianists, ever. He, similarly to Leonard Bernstein with Mahler and other composers, made the music truly his own. He threw so-called conventionality out the window, and I for one am always gladdened and inspired by his playing.

As for the humming, I totally enjoy it. It make me feel as though he is sitting at the piano at that very moment in my listening space.


----------



## KenOC

Alypius said:


> You might find Gould's eccentricities entertaining. That's fine. But it's far removed from Bach.


I like to think that if Bach heard Gould playing his WTC or Goldbergs, he might say something like "That nut's a genius!" Of course he might say something less printable -- but we'll never know.


----------



## Alypius

shangoyal said:


> I think what you are trying to say is that Gould's Bach is far removed from _your_ idea of Bach. As long it is entertaining, what's the big deal?* Can you criticise his playing in any way other than saying that it is removed from tradition? *Because I would be listening intently to what you have to say.


I did so in my initial post in which I noted: "loud pounding, quirky mixes of staccatos and legatos, odd tempi, no sense of the history of ornamentation. It sometimes turns Bach into a romantic, sometimes into a modernist." Have you ever read any musicological studies on Bach? On 18th-century German performance practices? On baroque traditions of ornamentation? My remarks come from studying Bach and from playing Bach. I think of Gould as something like Busoni's transcriptions / adaptations of Bach. They are modern recastings. He deserves credit for drawing people's attention back to Bach's works. But he's a Romantic in his self-image, his sense of himself as possessing an inner authority to interpret the world as he wills. In that, he was, ironically, like Horowitz. I think of performers as servants of the score, not its willful dictators. That is no underestimate of the high vocation of the performer. Performers breath life into what are otherwise dead letters on the page. Think of what actors do to the playwright's score. They bring it to life. But they need to be respectful of the text. Just as actors are not the playwright -- but there is no play without them -- so performers are not the composer. Every performance is an interpretation. Classical music is not like jazz or rock. It is historically rooted music. Performers do not have the same latitude. Their artistic genius is inhabiting a work from another world and communicating accurately and vivaciously to ours. Balancing things is the heart of their art.


----------



## shangoyal

Alypius said:


> I did so in my initial post in which I noted: "loud pounding, quirky mixes of staccatos and legatos, odd tempi, no sense of the history of ornamentation. It sometimes turns Bach into a romantic, sometimes into a modernist." Have you ever read any musicological studies on Bach? On 18th-century German performance practices? On baroque traditions of ornamentation? My remarks come from studying Bach and from playing Bach. I think of Gould as something like Busoni's transcriptions / adaptations of Bach. They are modern recastings. He deserves credit for drawing people's attention back to Bach's works. But he's a Romantic in his self-image, his sense of himself as possessing an inner authority to interpret the world as he wills. In that, he was, ironically, like Horowitz. I think of performers as servants of the score, not its willful dictators. That is no underestimate of the high vocation of the performer. Performers breath life into what are otherwise dead letters on the page. Think of what actors do to the playwright's score. They bring it to life. But they need to be respectful of the text. Just as actors are not the playwright -- but there is no play without them -- so performers are not the composer. Every performance is an interpretation. Classical music is not like jazz or rock. It is historically rooted music. Performers do not have the same latitude. Their artistic genius is inhabiting a work from another world and communicating accurately and vivaciously to ours. Balancing things is the heart of their art.


I respect some people's views who want their classical music played in a historically informed way - but I am one who judges by my ears alone most of the times. Of course, you can have your own opinion of Gould - it seems you have good reason to not like his interpretations. But that should not make you champion only historically informed performances. There might be other modern re-castings of other works which you might like, or maybe already do.


----------



## worov

I think Gould is a very interesting musician. But I don't think his Bach recordings can be seen as authoritative performance. His ideas are certainly fresh and cool. Just like these :






Or this one :






Are these authentic Bach performances ? Well, they certainly are very entertaining. But, I wouldn't call them authentic.


----------



## shangoyal

worov, don't you think you are exaggerating a little bit?


----------



## Bulldog

Alypius said:


> I did so in my initial post in which I noted: "loud pounding, quirky mixes of staccatos and legatos, odd tempi, no sense of the history of ornamentation. It sometimes turns Bach into a romantic, sometimes into a modernist." Have you ever read any musicological studies on Bach? On 18th-century German performance practices? On baroque traditions of ornamentation? My remarks come from studying Bach and from playing Bach. I think of Gould as something like Busoni's transcriptions / adaptations of Bach. They are modern recastings. He deserves credit for drawing people's attention back to Bach's works. But he's a Romantic in his self-image, his sense of himself as possessing an inner authority to interpret the world as he wills. In that, he was, ironically, like Horowitz. I think of performers as servants of the score, not its willful dictators. That is no underestimate of the high vocation of the performer. Performers breath life into what are otherwise dead letters on the page. Think of what actors do to the playwright's score. They bring it to life. But they need to be respectful of the text. Just as actors are not the playwright -- but there is no play without them -- so performers are not the composer. Every performance is an interpretation. Classical music is not like jazz or rock. It is historically rooted music. Performers do not have the same latitude. Their artistic genius is inhabiting a work from another world and communicating accurately and vivaciously to ours. Balancing things is the heart of their art.


On the subject of latitude, performers can take any degree of latitude they want. Whether you or I will like the results is another matter. Personally, I like Gould's results. As for accuracy, I don't care about it. Although I certainly prefer Bach played on period instruments, it's only because I enjoy the results.


----------



## worov

We're talking about authentic Bach, aren't we ? That means how Bach played his works.

I agree with Alypius.

First of all, a performer should research about performance practice. To gather informations about how did Bach played. There are some testimonials about this. His son C.P.E. Bach wrote a book about this. But there are many others.

But the most important of all is Bach's own words :









Translation :

_"Straightforward Instruction, 
in which amateurs of the keyboard, and especially the eager ones, are shown a clear way not only (1) of learning to play cleanly in two voices, but also, after further progress, (2) of dealing correctly and satisfactorily with three obbligato parts; at the same time not only getting good inventiones, but developing the same satisfactorily, and above all arriving at a *cantabile manner* in playing, all the while acquiring a strong foretaste of composition. 
Provided

Anno Christi 1723.	by 
Joh. Seb. Bach: 
Capellmeister to 
his Serene Highness the Prince of Anhalt-Cöthen."_

Source : http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/tomita/essay/inventions.html

So Bach want his works to played in a cantabile manner. Cantabile is an italian word. the term is frequently used in pianoforte music to indicate that the tone must be made to 'sing'. Is Gould's playing cantabile ? Let's listen to Gould :

Prelude in D major Book I, BWV 850 (the first piece in the video) :






What is this tempo ? Isn't that a bit too fast ? It certainly is fast. What about the voicing ? Gould plays the bass stronger than the singing line.

Now, listen to this one :






Much slower. I find it highly enjoyable and much more cantabile. Maybe that's just me. Everyone listens with one's ears.

Than a performer should try to play on an older instrument. Even if a pianist intends to perform on a modern piano. A pianist should be interested in the sounds of Bach's instruments. That means listen to HIP recordings, yes, but also playing the instrument yourself. Rosalyn Tureck, a Bach scholar and stunning performer has studied several years the older instruments. Why did she do this ? It allows her to understand what is possible to do on a harpsichord or clavichord (Bach had both) and what is not. And therefore she understands better the musicality intended by the composer. I must say Tureck's results are breathtaking. She has a perfect understanding of Bach's polyphony.

That is why Rosalyn Tureck is my favourite performer on the piano. Listen to her :


----------



## DavidA

brianvds said:


> His incessant humming and howling would surely get on the nerves of any singer he accompanied.


As someone remarked, if he had accompanied Melba, the hat pin would have stopped him humming!


----------



## DavidA

Alypius said:


> Have you ever read any musicological studies on Bach? On 18th-century German performance practices? On baroque traditions of ornamentation? My remarks come from studying Bach and from playing Bach.


Always remember Beecham's definition of musicologists: "People who can read music but can't hear it!"

Are you saying you play Bach better than Gould? If so, you're set for a wonderful performing career!


----------



## merlinus

I find Turek's "Goldberg Variations" to be a great soporific. I never got into those pieces until I heard Glenn Gould, and now I am also playing them in addition to listening.


----------



## DavidA

The problem is, however much we research, we cannot really know how Bach played himself. Gardiner has said as much. We know he was a great improviser. When I listen to Gould playing Bach it is easy to imagine JSB improvising. It is electrifying.
Of course it's not the only way of doing it. But give me Gould any day over some of the dull old pedagogues.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> There was something in the notes that mentioned her going off and discussing things with someone; I assume that was Legge. From what I gather, Gould was quite enthusiastic; it was Elizabeth who got offended because of some breach of performance tradition.
> 
> That's funny, it was Gould who got me into the Mozart sonatas in the first place. I guess if you'd never heard them before that, they sound normal. I didn't know about the Zimmerman one.


I think Elizabeth thought that GG was improvising rather than accompanying. But he wouldn't listen to playbacks but sat playing the piano when she and Legge listened. I have the recordings she approved and they are very fine.

I'll have to have another listen to GG Mozart!


----------



## Alypius

DavidA said:


> Always remember Beecham's definition of musicologists: "People who can read music but can't hear it!"
> 
> Are you saying you play Bach better than Gould? If so, you're set for a wonderful performing career!


Why are you making this personal? I referred to his interpretations as eccentric and un-historical, and I gave some specific reasons for judging his work in that light. My points are actually fairly commonplace. Here's an interpretation from one of the best contemporary pianists, Pierre-Laurent Aimard, quoted by Tom Service, "Glenn Gould: A Wilfully Idiotic Genius?" _The Guardian_, Sept. 20, 2012:



> "I am fascinated by the strength of Gould's personality, his intelligence, his cleverness, and the way he was able to realise his own world so completely through his playing. I have a great admiration as a pianist for how he did that. He could be very interesting and funny, and his writings are always quality entertainment. He was an eccentric, certainly, but the way he absorbed the music he played, the way he realised the polyphony of, say, Bach, makes him an interesting phenomenon and ensures his place in the pantheon of Bach players.
> But I am somehow frustrated and irritated by the result in his recordings. Frustrated because he seems to be living in an exclusively Glenn Gould world. The question is how he communicates his emotions through the sound of the instrument. There is a problem with his motoric, automatic approach to tempo, and there is a problem with his sound. It's not that it's not a beautiful sound, it's rather that there is no flexibility in the way he phrases the melodies and harmonies of what he's playing. And the irritation? That comes from the mannerisms and the affectations of his playing. What you are aiming for, as a listener, is to forget about the performer, to listen just to the music, but in Gould's playing, there is too much that disturbs to forget about him. There are many clever commercial reasons for the cult of Gould that existed during his lifetime and still does now. I'm not a fan nor a member of that club, but I'm more frustrated by the fact that for many people he is the Bach interpreter. There are many other people who are really remarkable in this music, and Gould is certainly not a person who plays Bach's music in a way that is without question-marks."


Here's a more sharply critical, but also appreciative view from Bernard Holland, "The Continuing Cult of Glenn Gould, Deserved or Not," New York Times Nov. 24, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/arts/music/24goul.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


> "I have been going back to the Gould recordings of these preludes and fugues on Sony Classical. At a number of moments, Bach is brilliantly served. Gould's intelligent use of astonishing muscular control in the C sharp and E flat fugues of Book 1 gives separate personalities to two and three voices in simultaneous conversation, this on a modern piano constructed to make individual notes sound uniform rather than distinctive.
> There are similar if occasional satisfactions. The rest is a series of assaults. They behave like satires, discreet lampoons of how everybody but Glenn Gould plays Bach. You hear a brilliant adolescent insulting his elders. The message of brashness is quietly put but no less potent.
> Gould's concepts can be horrifying - like ice water thrown in the face - but they are always fascinating. *The famous C major Prelude of Book 1 makes a simple request for flowing arpeggios; Gould chops the phrases into half-legato, half-staccato. The C sharp Prelude and E minor Fugue from Book 1 are made ridiculously fast, and these are just two examples of show-off acceleration.*
> *The E flat Prelude, again from Book 1, begs to flow over bar lines in long, melodic breaths; Gould turns to a machine-gun delivery of separated notes. *Here, as in most of the preludes and fugues à la Gould, Bach's meter shrinks to dainty little marches. *Bar lines fence off phrases that want to sing but end up as maypole dances.* This is not a matter of education; Gould played Brahms with as much far-reaching songfulness as any Romantic pianist. He just liked to be different."


----------



## aleazk

I like Gould. But when I'm not in the correct mood for "understanding" him or to accept his views, it is indeed irritating.


----------



## Bulldog

worov said:


> We're talking about authentic Bach, aren't we ? That means how Bach played his works.
> 
> I agree with Alypius.
> 
> First of all, a performer should research about performance practice. To gather informations about how did Bach played. There are some testimonials about this. His son C.P.E. Bach wrote a book about this. But there are many others.
> 
> But the most important of all is Bach's own words :
> 
> View attachment 45508
> 
> 
> Translation :
> 
> _"Straightforward Instruction,
> in which amateurs of the keyboard, and especially the eager ones, are shown a clear way not only (1) of learning to play cleanly in two voices, but also, after further progress, (2) of dealing correctly and satisfactorily with three obbligato parts; at the same time not only getting good inventiones, but developing the same satisfactorily, and above all arriving at a *cantabile manner* in playing, all the while acquiring a strong foretaste of composition.
> Provided
> 
> Anno Christi 1723.	by
> Joh. Seb. Bach:
> Capellmeister to
> his Serene Highness the Prince of Anhalt-Cöthen."_
> 
> Source : http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/tomita/essay/inventions.html
> 
> So Bach want his works to played in a cantabile manner. Cantabile is an italian word. the term is frequently used in pianoforte music to indicate that the tone must be made to 'sing'. Is Gould's playing cantabile ? Let's listen to Gould :
> 
> Prelude in D major Book I, BWV 850 (the first piece in the video) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this tempo ? Isn't that a bit too fast ? It certainly is fast. What about the voicing ? Gould plays the bass stronger than the singing line.
> 
> Now, listen to this one :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much slower. I find it highly enjoyable and much more cantabile. Maybe that's just me. Everyone listens with one's ears.
> 
> Than a performer should try to play on an older instrument. Even if a pianist intends to perform on a modern piano. A pianist should be interested in the sounds of Bach's instruments. That means listen to HIP recordings, yes, but also playing the instrument yourself. Rosalyn Tureck, a Bach scholar and stunning performer has studied several years the older instruments. Why did she do this ? It allows her to understand what is possible to do on a harpsichord or clavichord (Bach had both) and what is not. And therefore she understands better the musicality intended by the composer. I must say Tureck's results are breathtaking. She has a perfect understanding of Bach's polyphony.
> 
> That is why Rosalyn Tureck is my favourite performer on the piano. Listen to her :


FWIW, I much prefer Gould's Prelude to Hewitt's which I find slow and numbing. However, if you're really into "cantabile" playing, look no further than Eggar's Goldbergs.


----------



## aleazk

@Alypius, that Aimard quote is right on the spot. Just compare the Webern Variations:

Gould - 




Pollini - 




Webern was viennese, i.e., Mozart, Mahler, etc. Grace, elegance, and, why not, a little of romanticism, since Webern's music is very lyrical. Gould's bachian, mechanical, approach kills the piece here. The piece has indeed a mechanical component, the second movement canon particularly. But that aspect doesn't need to be emphasized. Instead, it's the lyrical aspect the one that needs to be emphasized, as Pollini does. The result is a beautiful, and very typical of Webern, combination of mechanical and lyrical.


----------



## Vaneyes

Winterreisender said:


> Although I can appreciate Gould's musicianship and I enjoy watching videos of his performances, I would never play one of his CDs because the vocal accompaniment is just too irritating, especially when I listen with headphones.


----------



## Morimur

Vaneyes said:


>


On an entirely unrelated subject, did you all know that Marlon Brando was very short and had an unusually small head? Just saying.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lope de Aguirre said:


> On an entirely unrelated subject, did you all know that Marlon Brando was very short and had an unusually small head? Just saying.


I did not. And now because of that (possible humming notwithstanding), I will never watch another of his films.


----------



## merlinus

For me, it comes down to my experience whilst listening to the recording of any piece of music, soi-disant pundits, musicologists, wannabe reviewers, and their ilk notwithstanding. When it comes to Gould's Bach, and even most of his Beethoven, not much else comes close.


----------



## Bulldog

Those quoted paragraphs from Aimard were amusing. Essentially, he's saying that Gould plays Gould when he's interpreting a Bach work. Aimard hasn't recorded much Bach, but I'm very familiar with his Art of Fugue. Every time I listen to Aimard's recording, it strikes me that Aimard is playing Aimard. That's fine with me, but folks in glass houses would be wise not to throw stones.

Summing up my reaction to the last couple of thread pages, Gould bests Aimard, and Tureck bests Gould. All three are fantastic artists. Hewitt I'm not so sure about.


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> @Alypius, that Aimard quote is right on the spot. Just compare the Webern Variations:
> 
> Gould -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pollini -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Webern was viennese, i.e., Mozart, Mahler, etc. Grace, elegance, and, why not, a little of romanticism, since Webern's music is very lyrical. Gould's bachian, mechanical, approach kills the piece here. The piece has indeed a mechanical component, the second movement canon particularly. But that aspect doesn't need to be emphasized. Instead, it's the lyrical aspect the one that needs to be emphasized, as Pollini does. The result is a beautiful, and very typical of Webern, combination of mechanical and lyrical.


"Webern was lyrical"

Hmmmm!!


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> Hmmmm!!


Yes? ........................................................


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> Those quoted paragraphs from Aimard were amusing. Essentially, he's saying that Gould plays Gould when he's interpreting a Bach work. Aimard hasn't recorded much Bach, but I'm very familiar with his Art of Fugue. Every time I listen to Aimard's recording, it strikes me that Aimard is playing Aimard. That's fine with me, but folks in glass houses would be wise not to throw stones.
> 
> Summing up my reaction to the last couple of thread pages, Gould bests Aimard, and Tureck bests Gould. All three are fantastic artists. Hewitt I'm not so sure about.


Gould plays Gould but in many different ways. GG would set down a (eg) Bach fugue in many different ways then choose which one he wanted on record. To say that Gould played Gould is nonsense as he played in many different ways. Horowitz then played Horowitz! It's a sly way of dissing an artist like the people who moan that Karajan's interpretations all sound the same.
Now I vastly prefer GG to Tureck but just my opinion.
Another great Bach puma it's of the modern era is Perahia. Absolutely wonderful!


----------



## DavidA

Alypius said:


> Why are you making this personal? I referred to his interpretations as eccentric and un-historical, and I gave some specific reasons for judging his work in that light. My points are actually fairly commonplace. Here's an interpretation from one of the best contemporary pianists, Pierre-Laurent Aimard, quoted by Tom Service, "Glenn Gould: A Wilfully Idiotic Genius?" _The Guardian_, Sept. 20, 2012:
> 
> Here's a more sharply critical, but also appreciative view from Bernard Holland, "The Continuing Cult of Glenn Gould, Deserved or Not," New York Times Nov. 24, 2007:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/arts/music/24goul.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Nothing personal, mate, but you did include your own Bach playing in the discussion, with the implication you knew how to play JSB better than GG.
The problem with including such quotes from Aimard is that his opinion. Other pianists - Graffman, Richter, et al, had very different opinions and were great admirers of GG.

Here's Graffman, one of the great pianists and teachers who attended GG's first NY recital:
So I went to the concert with one of my best friends, Eugene Istomin, and you know, at the time, people still wore clothes for concerts: either white-tie at night, or at least a black tuxedo or something (laughs). But out comes this guy on stage, he wore a business suit, at least, but he had his hands in his pockets. He sits down, plays three notes, and immediately, he had our attention. Everything just made sense! It was absolutely remarkable. Eugene and I looked at each other and knew.

Tell me, has Aimard caused a revival in interest in Bach's music as GG did?
And who is this guy holland? What does he play? Does he fill concert halls?
All you have proved is that GG sharply divided opinion. But in the pro camp are some pretty distinguished musicians.


----------



## Mandryka

Bulldog said:


> Those quoted paragraphs from Aimard were amusing. Essentially, he's saying that Gould plays Gould when he's interpreting a Bach work. Aimard hasn't recorded much Bach, but I'm very familiar with his Art of Fugue. Every time I listen to Aimard's recording, it strikes me that Aimard is playing Aimard. That's fine with me, but folks in glass houses would be wise not to throw stones.
> 
> Summing up my reaction to the last couple of thread pages, Gould bests Aimard, and Tureck bests Gould. All three are fantastic artists. Hewitt I'm not so sure about.


I can imagine that you like Aimard's Art of Fugue. He plays some of those canons like one of those brutal piano sonatas by Salvatore Sciarrino.


----------



## worov

> Tell me, has Aimard caused a revival in interest in Bach's music as GG did?


Gould was certainly important in the revival, but he was not the only one as said another member. There were plenty of them : Mendelssohn,Liszt, Chopin, Busoni, Landowska, Harnoncourt, Leonhardt, Tureck and many others.



> And who is this guy holland? What does he play? Does he fill concert halls?


Is filling concert halls the most important ? If that is, I think you're listening to the wrong music. You'd better switch to pop music.

I'm not sure that a full concert hall means the music is good. McDonald is probably the most filled restaurant in the whole world. Does this mean that the food is good ? I don't think so.

It's not about filling the hall. It's about music.


----------



## dgee

I've never really got the Gould thing and haven't listened to him that much - seems to me he played in a characterful way, a bit bashy, sometimes quite free and fast. I certainly found his recordings of the earlier moderns to be less compelling than others' - Pollin for instance as aleazk mentioned. 

He's definitely got a good story though. I'm always tempted to believe that the powerful mythologising of Gould and other artists of the 50s/60s/70s is part of a general nostalgia for a supposed heyday of music recording and promotion. These artists are perceived as powerful artistic personalities with deep wellsprings of creativity while those coming later are automatons. The aural evidence just isn't there for me - maybe it doesn't help that classical and baroque didn't really come alive to me until I immersed myself in HIP (yes, I'm one of those)


----------



## bigshot

The best way to understand Gould is to watch his Canadian television broadcasts. He is a performer of the first rank in a style all his own and courage that current performers lack.


----------



## dgee

bigshot said:


> The best way to understand Gould is to watch his Canadian television broadcasts. He is a performer of the first rank in a style all his own and courage that current performers lack.


So let it be written. So let it be done.


----------



## Rhythm

Here's the link to Mr. Service's entire article, which I enjoyed, from The Guardian, but my research didn't begin and end with Mr. Aimard or Mr. Service.

Please notice Mr. Pollini began making vocal sounds from about mark 3.15 to the end of his performance of the Webern variations. Obviously, Gould hasn't been the only pianist to accompany himself during performance. That said, Gould waving his hand in the air as if conducting while playing piano was curious early on yet endearing later as a genuinely emotive expression, in my way of thinking. Still, I think that expression was unnecessary, but that's just me.


----------



## Morimur

I can't stand Gould's egoism. It consumed his entire being. Terrible.


----------



## DavidA

Rhythm said:


> Here's the link to Mr. Service's entire article, which I enjoyed, from The Guardian, but my research didn't begin and end with Mr. Aimard or Mr. Service.
> 
> Please notice Mr. Pollini began making vocal sounds from about mark 3.15 to the end of his performance of the Webern variations. Obviously, Gould hasn't been the only pianist to accompany himself during performance. That said, Gould waving his hand in the air as if conducting while playing piano was curious early on yet endearing later as a genuinely emotive expression, in my way of thinking. Still, I think that expression was unnecessary, but that's just me.


This whole business of making noises. Brendel made noises. So did Serkin and Casals was notorious. Listen to Toscanini or Barbirolli joining in with passion! Does that rule them out?


----------



## DavidA

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I can't stand Gould's egoism. He was wholly consumed by it. Terrible.


Hmmm. That rules a lot of musicians out for you then!


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> This whole business of making noises. Brendel made noises. So did Serkin and Casals was notorious. Listen to Toscanini or Barbirolli joining in with passion! Does that rule them out?


Bernstein too often sang along with the orchestra.

These people, guilty of making noises: if you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh?


----------



## DavidA

worov said:


> Gould was certainly important in the revival, but he was not the only one as said another member. There were plenty of them : Mendelssohn,Liszt, Chopin, Busoni, Landowska, Harnoncourt, Leonhardt, Tureck and many others.
> 
> Is filling concert halls the most important ? If that is, I think you're listening to the wrong music. You'd better switch to pop music.
> 
> I'm not sure that a full concert hall means the music is good. McDonald is probably the most filled restaurant in the whole world. Does this mean that the food is good ? I don't think so.
> 
> It's not about filling the hall. It's about music.


Of course there were others. But Gould was probably the most important as far as getting people to listen to JSB's keyboard music.

Of course filling concert halls is important. So is selling records. Music will not survive unless this happens.
GG was rather good at both before his retirement from the concert platform. When he went to Moscow people were calling their friends to get them to come and hear this wonderful pianist. You couldn't get in. Are you really saying that these Russians didn't know their music?

Now of course we can all be purists who misguidedly believe that it doesn't matter who comes in hears you. But it does matter. The music industry will not survive unless people come. Frankly to say it's not about filling the hall it's music is a contradiction in terms
Unless there are people willing to listen and then the music will not take place except to an audience of one!


----------



## mitchflorida

Isn't Gould a jazz-inspired classical pianist? I never understood all the hype, and he isn't someone I particularly seek out.

In my opinion, there are only two pianists out there: Vladimir Horowitz and everyone else.


----------



## Rhythm

DavidA said:


> This whole business of making noises. Brendel made noises. So did Serkin and Casals was notorious. Listen to Toscanini or Barbirolli joining in with passion! Does that rule them out?


Good question. But for what would they be ruled out? Listening to them? If that's what you're asking, I wouldn't for the world end listening to them. There would be too many technical and expressive nuances I might miss if I didn't listen whether in my house or theirs, or in a recital or concert hall.


----------



## DavidA

mitchflorida said:


> Isn't Gould a jazz-inspired classical pianist? I never understood all the hype, and he isn't someone I particularly seek out.
> 
> In my opinion, there are only two pianists out there: Vladimir Horowitz and everyone else.


I think, friend, your view is too narrow. And I speak as a committed Horowitz admirer.


----------



## Blake

I have a like/dislike thing with Gould. On the liking hand... he is quite brilliant and bold enough to do what he really feels. On the disliking hand... he does what he feels. I hear too much Gould in a piece. It's almost to the point where it comes off disrespectful to the original composer. It's like he walks into Bach's house and starts re-arranging the furniture and putting his own family portrait on the wall.


----------



## Rhythm

I picked up the Gould album I had close by so I could personally transcribe an excerpt of the interview heard on disc three. The conversation was just over 50 minutes, and you won't hear, unfortunately, in my transcription the friendliness and giggles and laughter shared between Gould and the interviewer. For various reasons, I liked Gould, and still do.

_________________
Glenn Gould Discusses His Performances of the Variations with Tim Page on August 22, 1982, in Toronto. Mr. Gould passed away in October, 1982.








The Complete Goldberg Variations 1955 & 1981​
From disc three of three | The interviewer, Mr. Page, asks Gould, "Are you one of those artists who avoids listening to his earlier recordings, or are you the type who positively relishes basking in the glow of sessions past?"


> *Gould *No. I don't think I do much basking, Tim. But it doesn't really dampen my spirit, usually, to be confronted with the sins of my youth. I mean, I've never understood, never even believed this sort of interview one hears again and again on talk shows where actors profess never to have seen their own films. …


"…You do read [something here unclearly spoken] of your discographic sins of your youth, from time to time."


> *Gould *Oh, sure, of course I do. But I will admit that specifically in the case of Goldberg Variations, with a bit more reluctance that's unusual for me, a bit more in the sense of duty than enthusiasm, perhaps.


"When did you last listen to your [first] record [of the Variations]?"


> *Gould *Oh, let's see. I listened to it about three or four days before I went to New York to re-record it, and that would've been April 1981. I just sort've wanted to remind myself of what it was like. And to be honest, I don't mean to sound like some actors [they mentioned earlier], it had at that point been so many years since I heard it, I really was curious what I would find.


"What did you find?"


> *Gould *I found it was a rather spooky experience. I listened to it with great pleasure in many respects. I found for example I had a real sense of humor; there were all kinds of quirky, spiky accents and so on that gave it a certain buoyancy. And, I found I recognized in it all the fingerprints of the party responsible. I mean, the tactile, the purely mechanical standpoint, my approach to playing the piano really hasn't changed all that much over the years. It remains quite stable I think; static, some people like to prefer to say. So, I recognize the fingerprints, but, and that's a very big but, I could not recognize or identify with the spirit of the person who made that recording. It really seemed like some other spirit had been involved, and, as a consequence, I was very glad to be doing it [recording Variations] again.


Further into the scripted conversation, Gould repeatedly said, and sometimes implied, he wished he had played differently in the Haydn and Mozart recordings, and he talked of those differences before returning to the Bach discussion.

I think Glenn Gould, perhaps, if you will, showed a certain interest in setting things right, before the end, which I think he knew or had intuited.


----------



## millionrainbows

Alypius said:


> I did so in my initial post in which I noted: "loud pounding, quirky mixes of staccatos and legatos, odd tempi, no sense of the history of ornamentation. It sometimes turns Bach into a romantic, sometimes into a modernist." Have you ever read any musicological studies on Bach? On 18th-century German performance practices? On baroque traditions of ornamentation? My remarks come from studying Bach and from playing Bach. I think of Gould as something like Busoni's transcriptions / adaptations of Bach. They are modern recastings. He deserves credit for drawing people's attention back to Bach's works. But he's a Romantic in his self-image, his sense of himself as possessing an inner authority to interpret the world as he wills. In that, he was, ironically, like Horowitz. I think of performers as servants of the score, not its willful dictators. That is no underestimate of the high vocation of the performer. Performers breath life into what are otherwise dead letters on the page. Think of what actors do to the playwright's score. They bring it to life. But they need to be respectful of the text. Just as actors are not the playwright -- but there is no play without them -- so performers are not the composer. Every performance is an interpretation. Classical music is not like jazz or rock. It is historically rooted music. Performers do not have the same latitude. Their artistic genius is inhabiting a work from another world and communicating accurately and vivaciously to ours. Balancing things is the heart of their art.


Well Alypius, that is a very orthodox perspective, even though you recoil when you are called on it. As you said,



Alypius said:


> No, that is not my view. Please don't caricature it....Just as I would hold that the Biblical text needs to be interpreted contextually (historical context, literary context, social context, canonical context), so I hold that a musical text, like any other historical text (literary, artistic, political), needs to be read historically, be in the context of its time.


That is orthodox, very orthodox. Just sayin'.

That orthodox view is quite different from the more flexible position which puts _*more importance on the performance, *_with _*the idea that the performance at that time embodies the work.*_

This more flexible view is that the performance is tied to the notated work as *self-defined *in that *it presumes to supplant or subsume 'the work'*at the moment of performance.

*The performance thus stands on its own *for consideration, such as Glenn Gould's Bach performance/recordings. That's considerably more radical than your view of the score as being historical text, don't you think?


----------



## millionrainbows

Alypius said:


> ...Performers breath life into what are otherwise dead letters on the page. Think of what actors do to the playwright's score. They bring it to life. But they need to be respectful of the text. Just as actors are not the playwright -- but there is no play without them -- so performers are not the composer. Every performance is an interpretation.





Alypius said:


> ...Classical music is not like jazz or rock. It is historically rooted music. Performers do not have the same latitude. Their artistic genius is inhabiting a work from another world and communicating accurately and vivaciously to ours. Balancing things is the heart of their art.


Oh, that could be because of CM's longer tradition, and because scores "holy text/scriptures) existed long before recording as a visual recording method, a visual memory.

This orthodox, historical perspective could also be what keeps classical music, as a genre and musical force, from being viable in the marketplace, and it instead becomes simply a showcase for historical artifacts, like a museum.

Popular music is developing its own 'museum' of unchanging artifacts. Recording technology is an aural form of memory, replacing the visual score. This is creating an aural history, the same way CM has a history. Note the way Beatle fans protest when the original recordings are messed with. The Sinatra Capitol recordings, the Reprise albums, all are now "iconic texts" in the same way that notated scores 'fixed' a composition in ideal form.

So in this sense, jazz and rock are similar to classical, in the way both genres are accruing 'histories'. Yet, I doubt that jazz or rock players would slavishly imitate note-for note jazz solos, since jazz is improvisatory in nature. But with jazz being taught in universities, that may change, and jazz will have its academic, orthodox players. "

Even rock music may succumb..."Rock School"... The Pink Floyd tribute band tour...


----------



## DavidA

Rhythm said:


> I picked up the Gould album I had close by so I could personally transcribe an excerpt of the interview heard on disc three. The conversation was just over 50 minutes, and you won't hear, unfortunately, in my transcription the friendliness and giggles and laughter shared between Gould and the interviewer. For various reasons, I liked Gould, and still do.
> 
> _________________
> Glenn Gould Discusses His Performances of the Variations with Tim Page on August 22, 1982, in Toronto. Mr. Gould passed away in October, 1982.
> 
> View attachment 45569
> 
> The Complete Goldberg Variations 1955 & 1981​
> From disc three of three | The interviewer, Mr. Page, asks Gould, "Are you one of those artists who avoids listening to his earlier recordings, or are you the type who positively relishes basking in the glow of sessions past?""…You do read [something here unclearly spoken] of your discographic sins of your youth, from time to time.""When did you last listen to your [first] record [of the Variations]?""What did you find?"Further into the scripted conversation, Gould repeatedly said, and sometimes implied, he wished he had played differently in the Haydn and Mozart recordings, and he talked of those differences before returning to the Bach discussion.
> 
> I think Glenn Gould, perhaps, if you will, showed a certain interest in setting things right, before the end, which I think he knew or had intuited.


Showed an interest in settings things right? You don't understand Gould's mind. He was right! Period! He might have changed his mind but in his own mind he was always right! He did what he wanted and did not allow anyone any interference.


----------



## DavidA

There is much nonsense talked about historically informed performance, that we can get back to what Bach intended. We don't know. Even among H I P performers there is no one way of doing things. Is what some people say is right and they alone have the wisdom on Bach performance, then every performance should be the same. But they are not. And we simply do not know whether bar would want his music played on the limited instruments he had rather than a concert grand! To have a preference is fine. To imply there is one way is not.


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> There is much nonsense talked about historically informed performance, that we can get back to what Bach intended. We don't know. Even among H I P performers there is no one way of doing things. Is what some people say is right and they alone have the wisdom on Bach performance, then every performance should be the same. But they are not. And we simply do not know whether bar would want his music played on the limited instruments he had rather than a concert grand! To have a preference is fine. To imply there is one way is not.


For sure, 'historically performed' is really just a surface term alluding to the idea that they're trying to be more adherent to the ways of the past. It won't bring Bach or the past times into full manifestation again. However, it's pretty easy to tell when someone has smeared their personal 'ego' all over a piece... and that's really what Gould does. However brilliant he might be.


----------



## Cosmos

Alypius said:


> I can't listen to pianists who mumble, hum, or grumble in the background. And so I can't listen to Gould just as I can't listen to Keith Jarrett. Pianists want their pianos in tune; recording engineers want to maintain soundproof silence for the environment. Well, as a listener, I too want all things to be in tune. And I want pianists to be quiet. Spare me the out-of-tune singing, gasping, sighing, etc.
> 
> I also think that, in the case of historical music, sensitivity to historical practices matters. Gould is very quirky and very un-historical in his interpretations. I realize that there is plenty of room to debate these matters. But what I have heard of Gould sounds like he is oblivous to historical context: loud pounding, quirky mixes of staccatos and legatos, odd tempi, no sense of the history of ornamentation. It sometimes turns Bach into a romantic, sometimes into a modernist. Can we let 18th-century music sound like 18th-century music?


I think Gould is great. My only gripe is the humming, but I can ignore that :lol:
And it's all his unorthodox interpretations that make his playing so interesting; really brings new perspective to works. I'm not always a fan of them (i.e. his Scriabin Sonata 5 makes me cringe at points), but it's still cool to hear varied interpretations


----------



## merlinus

Cosmos said:


> I think Gould is great. And it's all his unorthodox interpretations that make his playing so interesting; really brings new perspective to works.


Absolutely! It gets very tiring to hear performances that seem created in a fast food restaurant and then piped through the airwaves -- same old, same old.


----------



## Morimur

Vesuvius said:


> I have a like/dislike thing with Gould. On the liking hand... he is quite brilliant and bold enough to do what he really feels. On the disliking hand... he does what he feels. I hear too much Gould in a piece. It's almost to the point where it comes off disrespectful to the original composer. It's like he walks into Bach's house and starts re-arranging the furniture and putting his own family portrait on the wall.


Exactly. As if he thought he was Bach's equal. At the end of the day, Gould was a mere interpreter.


----------



## Bulldog

At the end of my day, I'll be listening to Gould's "81" Goldbergs and the six Partitas.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, I greatly admire Gould's performances of Bach... and a number of other composers. I understand the notion that one hears much of the performer in Gould's work... but I find this true of a great many of the finest performers... be they singers, pianists, violinists, conductors, etc... What is the alternative? A performer who blandly performs a given work with the utmost respect to his or her concept of what the composer's intentions were without the least bit of personal vision or inspiration? 

The comparison with Karajan... and I would add Callas... is quite apt. All three had a clear original vision... based upon their personal interpretation of what they felt the composer's intentions were. I somewhat suspect that at least part of the hatred for Gould (or Karajan... or Callas?) is simply the usual dislike for something or someone that one deems is too big. After all... great art can't be popular, can it? Even among the rather limited clique of classical music fans.

I have an uncounted trove of recordings of Bach's solo keyboard works by dozens of performers ranging from Sviatoslav Richter, Angela Hewitt, Edwin Fischer, Rosalyn Tureck, and Andras Schiff to Friedrich Gulda, Gustav Leonhardt, Ralph Kirkpatrick, Murray Perahia, Andreas Staier, Grigory Sokolov, and Glenn Gould. Each of these artists brings something unique to their performance of Bach... otherwise there would be no point having more than one recording, would there? Gould, IMO, brings quite a bit more than most... and thus remains among my first choices when listening to Bach.

Your mileage may differ.


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> For sure, 'historically performed' is really just a surface term alluding to the idea that they're trying to be more adherent to the ways of the past. It won't bring Bach or the past times into full manifestation again. However, it's pretty easy to tell when someone has smeared their personal 'ego' all over a piece... and that's really what Gould does. However brilliant he might be.


By 'personal ego' you mean 'interpretive insights'.


----------



## starthrower

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I can't stand Gould's egoism. It consumed his entire being. Terrible.


I never got that impression. He had a good sense of humor, and he didn't take himself too seriously. He also didn't need to spend his entire career performing warhorses in concert for the adulation of the audience.


----------



## KenOC

There's a lot of fun stuff in "The Glenn Gould Reader," available used for next to nothing.

http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Gould-R...1404104495&sr=1-1&keywords=glenn+gould+reader

His interview of Mozart is priceless. Gould on the attack!


----------



## starthrower

^^^
Borrowed that one from the library a couple of years ago. A good read!


----------



## Fang

Sometimes I listen to Gould's Mozart or Beethoven instead of standup comedy.


----------



## starthrower

Lope de Aguirre said:


> As if he thought he was Bach's equal. At the end of the day, Gould was a mere interpreter.


The art of interpretation is the vital thing. Notes on paper are not music. They need to be brought to life by a great artist like Glenn Gould.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

Gould felt that the only way he could _respect_ a composer was to play his own original interpretation of the work. He adored Bach and he would never play a piece unless he could shine a new light onto Bach's notated works.

Richter felt the same when he was confronted with playing Schumann for example. That's why both pianists admired each other. The same could be said about so many famous keyboard players and other artists who imprinted their own spirit onto the music written down in bygone eras.

Furthermore, this idea of works being immutable is very alien to the Baroque era when improvisation was expected from the performer. We can't know how Baroque works where interpreted at the time as all the embellishments were improvised on the spot every time an artist played a piece.

Why can't a fellow human being give an original interpretation of a musical work of another?

Music would stay vibrant and relevant to our age and to future generations.


----------



## Morimur

Personal interpretation ends as soon as the performer opens his stupid mouth during a recital. Bach's keyboard works were not meant to be hummed to.


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> By 'personal ego' you mean 'interpretive insights'.


Nope, sure don't.


----------



## BurningDesire

I don't think Gould plays Bach fabulously. His Bach performances are bland and robotic. If all I ever heard were his performances of Bach, I wouldn't like Bach. Thats not even getting into his making noises while playing, and overall being kind of an obnoxious person to the people who had to deal with him. The making noises I don't mind as much, though its not something that would make me want a record.


----------



## BurningDesire

starthrower said:


> The art of interpretation is the vital thing. Notes on paper are not music. They need to be brought to life by a great artist like Glenn Gould.


Brought to stilted, robotic, might-as-well-use-a-player-piano-or-MIDI-playback life XD


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> There is much nonsense talked about historically informed performance, that we can get back to what Bach intended. We don't know.


I see what you're saying, but that has more to do with attitude than anything else. When it comes to tuning and temperaments, that's a different story, and I encourage the use of period tunings and gut strings. Equal temperament is a modern innovation, which was finally achieved in 1919, and as far back as Bach, was developing.

In older Renaissance and Baroque music, I advocate the use of period tunings when appropriate.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> For sure, 'historically performed' is really just a surface term alluding to the idea that they're trying to be more adherent to the ways of the past. It won't bring Bach or the past times into full manifestation again. However, it's pretty easy to tell when someone has smeared their personal 'ego' all over a piece... and that's really what Gould does. However brilliant he might be.


I think the attitude and ego thing is what is the key here, not HIP tunings or instruments. Conversely, Alfred Brendel has got a lotta nerve to criticize Gould, when Brendel himself is playing the WTC on the piano! Ego, indeed!

Apparently, Brendel considers the traditional, historical performance conventions to be 'gospel,' along with the notated score/scripture. His is a double-orthodox view, which considers performance to be inviolate. (while he hammers it out on a 1950 Steinway!)

If CM is to be a viable, living, relevant form, we must let it breathe!


----------



## millionrainbows

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I can't stand Gould's egoism. It consumed his entire being. Terrible.


Conversely, I can't stand Alfred Brendel's egotism. The way he always arches his eyebrows up in every photo, to look like he's the most intelligent alpha monkey. Daniel Barenboim, too; he does that eyebrow thing.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Of course there were others. But Gould was probably the most important as far as getting people to listen to JSB's keyboard music.


Oh, I'm sure there will be a Wanda Landowska fanatic who will disagree with you, who can't recall that Gould's 1955 recording of the Goldbergs received phenomenal praise and was among the best-selling classical music albums of its time. Duhh...


----------



## Whistler Fred

This is my perception, based on my familiarity with Glenn Gould's recordings. 

Gould, like many others at the time, was reacting to what he saw as the excesses of romanticism. What made his Bach recordings so distinctive was his unwillingness to indulge in too much romantic expression and to emphasize structure and proportion in its place. To some, this meant that his Goldberg was fresh and original; to other it was cold and analytical. I'm more inclined to side with the former camp for most of his Bach recordings. I'm far less convinced with his approach to the more romantic composers, particularly Brahms, where his emphasis on classical clarity too frequently short-changed the more romantic angle that was equally a part of Brahms’s musical personality. 

So, if I’m not firmly seated on the Gould bandwagon, I do find much to admire and enjoy in his Bach and some of his other recordings. And I do find the humming to be a distraction, but not a deal-breaker.


----------



## DavidA

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Personal interpretation ends as soon as the performer opens his stupid mouth during a recital. Bach's keyboard works were not meant to be hummed to.


How do you know Bach didn't hum?

I mean, baths were in short supply then!


----------



## DavidA

BurningDesire said:


> I don't think Gould plays Bach fabulously. His Bach performances are bland and robotic. If all I ever heard were his performances of Bach, I wouldn't like Bach. Thats not even getting into his making noises while playing, and overall being kind of an obnoxious person to the people who had to deal with him. The making noises I don't mind as much, though its not something that would make me want a record.


Interesting your comment as it was GG who made interested in Bach's keyboard works.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I think the attitude and ego thing is what is the key here, not HIP tunings or instruments. Conversely, Alfred Brendel has got a lotta nerve to criticize Gould, when Brendel himself is playing the WTC on the piano! Ego, indeed!
> 
> Apparently, Brendel considers the traditional, historical performance conventions to be 'gospel,' along with the notated score/scripture. His is a double-orthodox view, which considers performance to be inviolate. (while he hammers it out on a 1950 Steinway!)
> 
> If CM is to be a viable, living, relevant form, we must let it breathe!


As far as I recall Brendel does NOT play WTC on a piano.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I'm sure there will be a Wanda Landowska fanatic who will disagree with you, who can't recall that Gould's 1955 recording of the Goldbergs received phenomenal praise and was among the best-selling classical music albums of its time. Duhh...


You need to think of Tureck too, not just Landowska. But yes Gould sold - Tureck and Landowska did too - I don't know the figures. Do you?


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Conversely, I can't stand Alfred Brendel's egotism. The way he always arches his eyebrows up in every photo, to look like he's the most intelligent alpha monkey.


No ---------


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> You need to think of Tureck too, not just Landowska. But yes Gould sold - Tureck and Landowska did too - I don't know the figures. Do you?


GG easily outsold both of them. The Goldbergs 1955 were a sensation.


----------



## Mandryka

I expect that's true. You know Gould's first set is Bach easy listening style. Over with in a jiffy, a catchy swinging rhythm, he highlights all the best tunes. I fully understand why it became popular with the general public, in fact I think it's Bach dumbed down for general consumption. Glib. 

Denk's a bit that way too.


----------



## bigshot

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I can't stand Gould's egoism. It consumed his entire being. Terrible.


Well he did have the chops to earn a bit of ego.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> I expect that's true. You know Gould's first set is Bach easy listening style. Over with in a jiffy, a catchy swinging rhythm, he highlights all the best tunes. I fully understand why it became popular with the general public, in fact I think it's Bach dumbed down for general consumption. Glib.
> 
> Denk's a bit that way too.


Just this morning I've read a number of negative/ridiculous comments about a few of the greatest 20th century pianists. What I find hard to understand is why folks can't just enjoy these artists and their respective interpretations. As another CMG member said, each artist brings something special to the music that any Bach enthusiast is capable of recognizing and appreciating.

So, some of you can continue with your "dumping" activities, but I consider it all a lot of bull.


----------



## Mandryka

Bulldog said:


> So, some of you can continue with your "dumping" activities, but I consider it all a lot of bull.


Just listen to Simone Pedroni, Tureck (Great Pianists), Gould (1981), Walter Riemer, Andrei Vieru. All of them are deeper than Gould 1955 or Denk.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> Just listen to Simone Pedroni, Tureck (Great Pianists), Gould (1981), Walter Riemer, Andrei Vieru. All of them are deeper than Gould 1955 or Denk.


Hmmm... My faves right now are Gould '81 and Denk's new release. I can't really hear one as being "deeper" than the other, not even sure what that means.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... My faves right now are Gould '81 and Denk's new release. I can't really hear one as being "deeper" than the other, not even sure what that means.


Ok. I shouldn't have put Gould 1981 in the list - delete. Deeper means profounder. You know, telling a compelling epic story of the meaning of life.


----------



## Guest

I don't dislike Gould so much as I would just rather listen to somebody else - Perahia, for example. His style is indeed unique, and he did introduce me to the Goldbergs (80's recording), for which I am eternally grateful. But while I own that recording, it is perhaps the one I turn to the least. I have listened to others, and none really speak to me. The vocalizations do irritate me as well, and if that were the only thing, I could probably overlook it. But he just doesn't inspire me like others.


----------



## kv466




----------



## stevens

I dont like Glenn Gould`s crunchy dry tone, and his sewing machine interpretations of Bach. -Not always but too often


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> Just listen to Simone Pedroni, Tureck (Great Pianists), Gould (1981), Walter Riemer, Andrei Vieru. All of them are deeper than Gould 1955 or Denk.


I have listened to each of them and appreciate them all. As for the "deep" consideration, I'm all for it. However, there's a lot more to Bach's music than only the deep component.

One more thought. Schiff's newer ECM recording of the Goldbergs is certainly not a profound or deep interpretation. However, I find its exuberance totally addictive. What about you?


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> Ok. I shouldn't have put Gould 1981 in the list - delete. Deeper means profounder. You know, telling a compelling epic story of the meaning of life.


Please give me a clue as to the Bach keyboard works that tell an "epic story of the meaning of life". I can't think of any at the moment.


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> Just listen to Simone Pedroni, Tureck (Great Pianists), Gould (1981), Walter Riemer, Andrei Vieru. All of them are deeper than Gould 1955 or Denk.


What on earth do you mean by 'deeper'. You mean you prefer them. No problem! Your choice!


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> What on earth do you mean by 'deeper'. You mean you prefer them. No problem! Your choice!


I'll take Mandryka's side here for the moment. A deep interpretation is one that explores the profound emotions expressed in a composer's music, stuff like spirituality and the underbelly of the human condition. I love "profound" and find it in Bach pianists such as Tureck, Woodward and Vieru. However, I also love the exuberance of Schiff's ECM and Hantai's Naive Goldbergs. How about clarity of counterpoint and other architectural devices? I consider those features also very enlightening. Concerning the architecture, artists like Edward Parmentier and Gould can't be beat. One of the features I love most about Gould's Bach is how he gives each musical line equal weight; you can really hear what's going on below the surface. I've heard the criticism that Gould bangs away on the lower voices, but I never hear that at all. Must be an eardrum problem with some listeners. By the way, listen to Craig Sheppard's Bach Partitas and you will hear that same equal weight of musical lines that Gould offers us.

Now I'll get a little negative about one particular pianist - Murray Perahia. I don't hear equal weight from him or great exuberance; also, profound isn't his thing. Pianism is what he's all about, and I can't say that quality gets any priority from this listener. I find it bland and entirely non-specific to Bach's music. However, I don't want to shortchange Perahia. He's quite excellent in Schumann and other early Romantics; his Mozart is top of the line. Bach just isn't his thing.


----------



## bigshot

Bulldog said:


> Just this morning I've read a number of negative/ridiculous comments about a few of the greatest 20th century pianists. What I find hard to understand is why folks can't just enjoy these artists and their respective interpretations. As another CMG member said, each artist brings something special to the music that any Bach enthusiast is capable of recognizing and appreciating.


To me, the ones with the biggest differences are the most interesting. More potential for actually having something unique to say there. I can see not being able to listen to Gould because of the creaky chair and humming. But not being able to listen to him because his interpretations are uniquely his misses the whole point of his work.

You're absolutely correct about Perahia, Bulldog. At one point in his career, he tried to step out of his own style, but it really didn't work. He was great at what he was great at... and that wasn't Bach or Liszt.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I expect that's true. You know Gould's first set is Bach easy listening style. Over with in a jiffy, a catchy swinging rhythm, he highlights all the best tunes. I fully understand why it became popular with the general public, in fact I think it's Bach dumbed down for general consumption. Glib.

Denk's a bit that way too.

That seems a bit presumptions... considering the great respect that a good many classical listeners hold for that recording. But I guess were all "dumbed down".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

To me, the ones with the biggest differences are the most interesting. More potential for actually having something unique to say there. 

Exactly! When I give thought to seeking out a second or third... etc... recording of a much loved work of music I'm not likely to seek out another version that closely resembles what I already have. Take for example Brahms' Deutsches Requiem. My first recording was the classic old-school version by Klemperer. When I went for a second recording, I turned to the opposite side of the spectrum and opted for an HIP recording (Gardiner). These very different interpretations gave me a greater insight into the work rather than limiting me to a single "definitive" version... of which there is no such thing.

Gould gives me insight into different aspects of Bach's keyboard works than Kirkpatrick, Fischer, Richter, Schiff, or Perahia. Every one of these interpretations offers a strong, unique and valid vision. Of course I have personal favorites, but I'm not about to dismiss Richter or Sokolov as sloppy, Romantic, mush as opposed to Gould's robotic mechanistic interpretation.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

kv466 said:


>


I was wondering when you would show up. The next thing you know they'll be diss in' the Earl.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Now I'll get a little negative about one particular pianist - Murray Perahia. I don't hear equal weight from him or great exuberance; also, profound isn't his thing. Pianism is what he's all about, and I can't say that quality gets any priority from this listener. I find it bland and entirely non-specific to Bach's music. However, I don't want to shortchange Perahia. He's quite excellent in Schumann and other early Romantics; his Mozart is top of the line. Bach just isn't his thing.

I'll have to disagree with you here. I greatly admire Perahia's Bach. He brings an almost Mozartian fluidity. His performances of the keyboard concertos especially opened these works up for me. Once again I would not think of them as definitive. I also admire Gould's, Hewitt's, Egarr & Manze's etc...


----------



## Bulldog

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Now I'll get a little negative about one particular pianist - Murray Perahia. I don't hear equal weight from him or great exuberance; also, profound isn't his thing. Pianism is what he's all about, and I can't say that quality gets any priority from this listener. I find it bland and entirely non-specific to Bach's music. However, I don't want to shortchange Perahia. He's quite excellent in Schumann and other early Romantics; his Mozart is top of the line. Bach just isn't his thing.
> 
> I'll have to disagree with you here. I greatly admire Perahia's Bach. He brings an almost Mozartian fluidity.


The words "Mozartian fluidity" really floored me and will have me thinking. Mozart's fluidity is a prime reason I love his music. Do I not want it from Bach's music? They ARE different composers, and I know that I don't get much satisfaction from Perahia's Bach. Now, thanks to you, I also am aware that Perahia does give a pearly fluidity to the music. I need to get a handle on this.


----------



## Mandryka

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I expect that's true. You know Gould's first set is Bach easy listening style. Over with in a jiffy, a catchy swinging rhythm, he highlights all the best tunes. I fully understand why it became popular with the general public, in fact I think it's Bach dumbed down for general consumption. Glib.
> 
> Denk's a bit that way too.
> 
> That seems a bit presumptions... considering the great respect that a good many classical listeners hold for that recording. But I guess were all "dumbed down".


Not at all, what are the presumptions? I've tried to say why it's dumbed down about the 1955 recording - I repeat, "Over with in a jiffy, a catchy swinging rhythm, he highlights all the best tunes. " Do you think I'm wrong?

Denk's a different matter, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned him, since he's a distraction from the interesting topic of Gould.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> Not at all, what are the presumptions? I've tried to say why it's dumbed down about the 1955 recording - I repeat, "Over with in a jiffy, a catchy swinging rhythm, he highlights all the best tunes. " Do you think I'm wrong?


"Over in a jiffy." No repeats? The pain...is intense! "Catchy swinging rhythm." Bach as Gershwin? What you smokin'? "Highlights all the best tunes." Better than highlighting the worst ones. :lol:

If Gould '55 is "dumbed down," then there have been a lot of dumb people walking around for the last half century. Well (to admit it frankly) myself among them!


----------



## ptr

KenOC said:


> If Gould '55 is "dumbed down," then there have been a lot of dumb people walking around for the last half century. Well (to admit it frankly) myself among them!


I's agree Kenny, We's a fine bunch of hillbillies we's fo shu! :guitar:

/ptr


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> Now I'll get a little negative about one particular pianist - Murray Perahia. I don't hear equal weight from him or great exuberance; also, profound isn't his thing. Pianism is what he's all about, and I can't say that quality gets any priority from this listener. I find it bland and entirely non-specific to Bach's music. However, I don't want to shortchange Perahia. He's quite excellent in Schumann and other early Romantics; his Mozart is top of the line. Bach just isn't his thing.


Totally disagree there. Perahia is a very fine Bach player. Listen to his Goldbergs. Wonderful! The best since Gould - but very different!


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> Not at all, what are the presumptions? I've tried to say why it's dumbed down about the 1955 recording - I repeat, "Over with in a jiffy, a catchy swinging rhythm, he highlights all the best tunes. " Do you think I'm wrong?
> 
> Denk's a different matter, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned him, since he's a distraction from the interesting topic of Gould.


Yes I think you're totally wrong!


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Totally disagree there. Perahia is a very fine Bach player. Listen to his Goldbergs. Wonderful! The best since Gould - but very different!


(Cough) Denk (cough) (cough)

"I worried for years that I would be seduced into playing them, and would become like all the others - besotted, cultish - and that is exactly what happened. I have been assimilated into the Goldberg Borg."


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> Not at all, what are the presumptions? I've tried to say why it's dumbed down about the 1955 recording - I repeat, "Over with in a jiffy, a catchy swinging rhythm, he highlights all the best tunes. " Do you think I'm wrong?
> 
> Denk's a different matter, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned him, since he's a distraction from the interesting topic of Gould.


Gould is fast and skips repeats, but I don't see the connection with dumbing down. Same goes for the rhythm thing; would you prefer a lifeless rhythm that catches nobody's attention? As for highlighting the best tunes, I have no idea what you mean.


----------



## aleazk

Too bad she doesn't play much Bach, because what she does with it is quite unique (I'm speaking of Argerich, of course): 



 ;


----------



## DavidA

aleazk said:


> Too bad she doesn't play much Bach, because what she does with it is quite unique (I'm speaking of Argerich, of course):
> 
> 
> 
> ;


Her DG Bach album is terrific!


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> Gould is fast and skips repeats, but I don't see the connection with dumbing down. Same goes for the rhythm thing; would you prefer a lifeless rhythm that catches nobody's attention? As for highlighting the best tunes, I have no idea what you mean.


One reason GG skipped repeats in 1955 was to get the whole thing on to one LP of about 40 minutes.


----------



## hpowders

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Personal interpretation ends as soon as the performer opens his stupid mouth during a recital. Bach's keyboard works were not meant to be hummed to.


Otherwise the cover page would have said "Keyboard Partitas With Vocal Obligato".


----------



## realdealblues

The only thing that bothers me on a recording is coughing because then I feel like I'm catching a cold and want to cough myself...

Edit: And sneezing or someone blowing their nose into a handkerchief.


----------



## tdc

In many ways I agree with the OP, I believe in the artistic freedom of the interpreter. I love having a wide variety of interpretations to choose from. I think the interpreter should simply play the music in the way they feel is right, whether that is HIP or putting their own spin on things. Sometimes I prefer the more traditional approach, sometimes not. Outspoken artists don't really bother me either, I often enjoy reading strong opinions on things, and when I don't agree with them it does not effect my view on their music. 

Further, I actually agree with a lot of the things Gould has said, and with his artistic freedom. In fact I have always wanted to like Gould and have tried, but for whatever reason I just don't enjoy listening to his piano playing. The humming is certainly part of the reason, but even in recordings where I don't hear it, I don't enjoy the playing.


----------



## musicphotogAnimal

Sorry to dig this one out: just putting my 2 cents minus PST & GST. 

a) not a fan because of the incessant drone (humming) in the background of his recordings. It's nothing against Gould's technique or playing, it's just the humming drives me absolutely bat**** insane. My late dad enjoyed Gould. In fact he swore by Gould and would grab whatever recordings he could. Gould's recordings just weren't my cup of tea. 

b) I buy recordings based on the visceral reaction that it brings to me. If I feel like the performance speaks to me, then fine it belongs on my iPod...or in my CD collection. For me. Gould's interpretation does not speak to me.


----------



## Giordano

Thanks for this thread. Some of you spoke much of what I had in mind.
The gist of my complaint against Gould's Bach is that despite his apparent
sincerity, I hear no "depth", no "profundity", no "spirituality and transcendence"
that he himself talked about. All I hear is "Wow, I am so clever!"

May I recommend Maggie Cole and Masaaki Suzuki on the harpsichord?
I find them to be exceptionally good, reaching for transcendence as did Tureck.
(Unfortunately there are only a handful of their keyboard performances on YouTube.)


----------



## jdcbr

I think it's interesting that many seem to dislike the Sewing machine" or mechanical quality that GG brought to Bach AND claim that his interpretations are not historically informed. To me, Gould is almost trying to minic harpsichord characteristics on a modern piano. I'm thinking that he comes closer to HIP than other pianists, but then what is the point of this argument? If you want pure HIP, you don't want your Bach played on a modern piano-period.
Count me among those who do want their Bach on a piano. Wasn't it Fritz Reiner who described the sound of a harpsichord like two skeletons f******* on a tin roof?
For me, I like to alternate Gould with a more lush interpretation, just like I don't always want vanilla ice cream.


----------



## millionrainbows

jdcbr said:


> I think it's interesting that many seem to dislike the Sewing machine" or mechanical quality that GG brought to Bach AND claim that his interpretations are not historically informed.


I must disagree, especially when Gould takes an especially slow tempo. You can't imitate a sewing machine unless you're going fast. The best example I can give you is the Sinfonia (Invention) No. 9 in F minor, where Gould takes a slower tempo than anyone else I've heard, but not for effect: he draws the most exquisite emotion and profundity from the piece. In this instance, all the _other_ renditions sound "mechanical."


----------



## hpowders

I never cared much for Gould, but his first Goldberg Variations recording introduced me to the wonderful keyboard music of Bach and there was no turning back after that. So I'm grateful that his recording was out there to get me started.


----------



## Bulldog

Dufay said:


> Thanks for this thread. Some of you spoke much of what I had in mind.
> The gist of my complaint against Gould's Bach is that despite his apparent
> sincerity, I hear no "depth", no "profundity", no "spirituality and transcendence"
> that he himself talked about. All I hear is "Wow, I am so clever!"


I hear all those qualities that you do not hear. I have great ears.


----------



## millionrainbows

I was buying GG on vinyl as they came out, and he made it fun! I'd never heard the Liszt/Beethoven symphony transcriptions before that. And his Sibelius album, where he used modern mixing techniques like panning, adding reverb...it was ridiculous, but fun. His interest in radio was neat, too, and he always talked about McLuhan, his fellow Canadian. He was intelligent, experimental...for a young 20-something listener like me, with $ to spend on LPs, Gould was endlessly interesting. I guess you had to be there, in that era, to realize what a treasure he was, and what a refreshing breath of air he was in the otherwise stodgy world of classical recordings. His liner notes were killer, too...characterizing Schoenberg's D-F ostinato theme as a "Linus security blanket" was one I'll not forget. Let's not forget his championing of Schoenberg, and more obscure composers like Byrd.


----------



## shangoyal

Glenn Gould is such a charismatic figure - when he talks about music, it's fun to listen and I really like his Bach recordings.


----------



## Blancrocher

millionrainbows said:


> I must disagree, especially when Gould takes an especially slow tempo. You can't imitate a sewing machine unless you're going fast. The best example I can give you is the Sinfonia (Invention) No. 9 in F minor, where Gould takes a slower tempo than anyone else I've heard, but not for effect: he draws the most exquisite emotion and profundity from the piece. In this instance, all the _other_ renditions sound "mechanical."


I agree. Gould's tempi are always interesting to me, even when I don't agree with a given decision--the man was a genius, after all. One of my own favorite moments where he takes a sudden slow tempo is in book 1 of the WTC. He takes most of the book at a fairly quick clip, but then in #22 in B flat minor grinds everything to a halt with an impassioned and soulful performance.

And you can tell he's as excited as I am at the moment he starts to sing!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Originally Posted by Dufay-Thanks for this thread. Some of you spoke much of what I had in mind.
The gist of my complaint against Gould's Bach is that despite his apparent
sincerity, I hear no "depth", no "profundity", no "spirituality and transcendence"
that he himself talked about. All I hear is "Wow, I am so clever!"

Bulldog- I hear all those qualities that you do not hear. I have great ears.

Perhaps you simply don't expect Bach to be performed like Beethoven or Schubert.

May I recommend Maggie Cole and Masaaki Suzuki on the harpsichord?

Hmmm... interesting recommendation. Masaaki Suzuki has been criticized on more than one occasion for some of the very flaws you accuse Gould of: a lack of depth, spirituality and transcendence. He is an almost icy perfectionist. Having said that, I quite admire Suzuki's recordings of a great many of Bach's works although there are others I prefer.


----------



## Andreas

The thing about Gould's tempi is that they were neither fixed nor did they evolve over time. The E major fugue frm the WTC II is a great example. Gould's recording from the 50s was very slow. The one from the 60s was practicaly twice as fast, and the TV performance from 1980 is very slow again. Similar to the Goldbergs of '54, 55 and 81.

For me, that seems to indicate that Guld didn't think there was One Right Tempo for a given piece. Or at least that the pieces he chose to play were so inherently well conceived that they tolerated almost any tempo one might choose. I suppose that does not apply to all kinds of pieces. Many things start to sound ridiculous if played too fast of too slow. I'd like to think that that was one of Gould's criteria for quality: whether a piece was flexible enough to work with all kinds of tempi.


----------



## Giordano

Well....

Bach's music contains and delivers far more than emotions and feelings of "spirituality" (which for humans is a whole bunch of distorted ideas). There is "information" in his music that can come through if you "let the music play itself." You do this by being faithful to the composer's "instructions" and by "getting out of the way of the music." Bach's music is not intellectually "understandable" because the essence of it is super-conscious. The intellect is not able to grasp this "information." On the other hand, it is not "emotional," either, especially when what humans consider emotions are mostly conditioned responses. What is known as "intuition" gives you a "feeling" and a "knowing" of this higher "information." 

You do not inject your "ideas" and "emotions" into the music. You surrender yourself to the music and let it move you. You let Divinity (music) come through your Humanity (interpretation), re-Create (improvise), enJoy, and reVive. Which is what Bach did when he composed. 

Everyone, including Bach, is learning and evolving. Every effort is worthy and valuable … as long as one does not negate the effort by self-deception and self-limitation through arrogance.

....

Obviously, what I wrote above is nonsense according to the perspective of the current prevailing worldview. It is precisely the music of the masters such as Bach which is gently and persistently pushing the human mind to let go of its arrogance and expand its view so as to evolve and ultimately embody the "high civilization" encoded in the music.


----------



## Blancrocher

Andreas said:


> The thing about Gould's tempi is that they were neither fixed nor did they evolve over time. The E major fugue frm the WTC II is a great example.


As an aside, here's a fun little discussion by GG of that piece:


----------



## millionrainbows

Dufay said:


> Well....
> 
> Bach's music contains and delivers far more than emotions and feelings of "spirituality" (which for humans is a whole bunch of distorted ideas). There is "information" in his music that can come through if you "let the music play itself." You do this by being faithful to the composer's "instructions" and by "getting out of the way of the music." Bach's music is not intellectually "understandable" because the essence of it is super-conscious. The intellect is not able to grasp this "information." On the other hand, it is not "emotional," either, especially when what humans consider emotions are mostly conditioned responses. What is known as "intuition" gives you a "feeling" and a "knowing" of this higher "information."
> 
> You do not inject your "ideas" and "emotions" into the music. You surrender yourself to the music and let it move you. You let Divinity (music) come through your Humanity (interpretation), re-Create (improvise), enJoy, and reVive. Which is what Bach did when he composed.
> 
> Everyone, including Bach, is learning and evolving. Every effort is worthy and valuable … as long as one does not negate the effort by self-deception and self-limitation through arrogance.
> 
> ....
> 
> Obviously, what I wrote above is nonsense according to the perspective of the current prevailing worldview. It is precisely the music of the masters such as Bach which is gently and persistently pushing the human mind to let go of its arrogance and expand its view so as to evolve and ultimately embody the "high civilization" encoded in the music.


The separation of music, away from performer, into "composer and performer" did not happen until music was written down and scored. Thus, the music was "recorded" in a definitive, unchanging form, and similar to The Bible, became "written scripture" which was inviolate and sacred. To deviate from the score was "heresy."

Now that we have a different way of "recording" music in a definitive form, without writing it down in score, the medium of sound recording has created new "definitive" performances of works. The performance is now seen as an embodiment of the written work which can, at that moment, "subsume" the work and make it definitive.

The older, orthodox way of separating the performer away from the "created work" and giving the composer full credit (although he may be long dead) results in a "dehumaniziing" presentation which adheres slavishly to orthodox assumptions and performance norms.

"Let the music play itself?" What is that supposed to mean? Music is a human pursuit.

"You let Divinity (music) come through your Humanity (interpretation)..." I see, "the composer as God." Very orthodox. After all, in most cases, the dead composer is a "holy ghost."

"… as long as one does not negate the effort by self-deception and self-limitation through arrogance." In other words, "Humble yourself before the presence of God!"


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> The separation of music, away from performer, into "composer and performer" did not happen until music was written down and scored.


Just because an oral tradition can change over time doesn't mean that there's no separation between the originator of a melody and the one who plays it in their own way. Just because something is written down doesn't mean that it is automatically "sacred scripture" which must remain unaltered by the performer. Just because the composer of a work is given credit doesn't mean that the performer is somehow dehumanized thereby. You are taking everything in terms of absolutes; art doesn't work that way.


----------



## Alypius

millionrainbows said:


> The separation of music, away from performer, into "composer and performer" did not happen until music was written down and scored. Thus, the music was "recorded" in a definitive, unchanging form, and similar to The Bible, became "written scripture" which was inviolate and sacred. To deviate from the score was "heresy."
> 
> Now that we have a different way of "recording" music in a definitive form, without writing it down in score, the medium of sound recording has created new "definitive" performances of works. The performance is now seen as an embodiment of the written work which can, at that moment, "subsume" the work and make it definitive.
> 
> The older, orthodox way of separating the performer away from the "created work" and giving the composer full credit (although he may be long dead) results in a "dehumaniziing" presentation which adheres slavishly to orthodox assumptions and performance norms.
> 
> "Let the music play itself?" What is that supposed to mean? Music is a human pursuit.
> 
> "You let Divinity (music) come through your Humanity (interpretation)..." I see, "the composer as God." Very orthodox. After all, in most cases, the dead composer is a "holy ghost."
> 
> "… as long as one does not negate the effort by self-deception and self-limitation through arrogance." In other words, "Humble yourself before the presence of God!"


Million, You invoke here a scripture analogy (and I believe that you did so earlier in this thread). I do not know how much you have studied the history of biblical interpretation, but frankly speaking, your presumptions about how Christians through the centuries have read the Bible is inaccurate -- in fact, an absurd parody. Fundamentalism is a phenomenon that is, roughly speaking, about 150 years old (it began in the 1870s). You presume (incorrectly) that Christians have always and everywhere viewed the Bible and interpreted the Bible in some hyper-literalist fashion. That is frankly not the case. You seem to have no sense of the development of the biblical canon, of the historical-critical method (source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, reader-response criticism, social science criticism, etc., etc.), or for that matter, of the nearly 1800 year-old-tradition of figurative exegesis (e.g. Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Bede, etc.). I do not want to distract this thread into a discussion on biblical interpretation, the history of Christianity, or philosophical hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur, etc., etc.). I gather that there are other places on the forum where such discussions go on. (I have never ventured into them). My point is that your argument by analogy does not work. And it does not work because it is founded on an inaccurate conception of the Christian (or Jewish) understandings of the Bible. I would be happy to recommend things you can read on this. But your argument founders on a false analogy.

There is also an equally complex relationship between text and performance in the history of Western music. In fact, it is precisely that relationship that in many respects is a defining feature of Western music, what Richard Taruskin calls "literate music." It is important, I believe, to deal with the issue of that relationship in Western music free of the religious baggage that you have chosen to invoke.


----------



## Giordano

millionrainbows said:


> "Let the music play itself?" What is that supposed to mean? Music is a human pursuit.
> 
> "You let Divinity (music) come through your Humanity (interpretation)..." I see, "the composer as God." Very orthodox. After all, in most cases, the dead composer is a "holy ghost."
> 
> "… as long as one does not negate the effort by self-deception and self-limitation through arrogance." In other words, "Humble yourself before the presence of God!"


Since I do not want to appear not to respond, I will just say that further discussion will not clear up anything.
I accept the fact that communicating through words will always be inadequate.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Just because an oral tradition can change over time doesn't mean that there's no separation between the originator of a melody and the one who plays it in their own way.


That's true, but you seem to be reversing the relevant emphasis here. What is degraded in "aural" or "oral" methods is that the human "biological" memory is much less reliable, and "precise authorship" is in question, or non-existent (public domain).

Yes, there can be "separation" of "originator" and "improvisor" in a performance which changes a composition, as long as the author is somehow acknowledged; but in most older history before the advent of sound recording, the "originator of a melody" remained anonymous in an oral tradition.

So the question of "separation" of composer and performer in most of older aural music history (such as folk music) is effectively non-existent and irrelevant. The two functions remained "combined" in an oral tradition. Only by sound-recording can the "composer/performer" be chronicled.

Thus, in jazz, which originated and thrives on oral methods, using written lead-sheets only as a sketchy guide, the composer of the jazz standard (like "My Favorite Things" by Rogers & Hammerstein) *is *known, but the relevant performance (an improvisation on soprano sax by John Coltrane) is recorded on magnetic tape, not written down.

Thus, there is a "separation" between composer and improvisor, but the nature of the two is apparent, and each function is relevant to its own method, be it written (visual) or performed (aural). Recording (aural) allows this new elevation and separation of a performance to be considered "on its own."

The idea of "separation" of composer and performer is only relevant in looking at scored music, and comparing it to non-scored aural or oral music forms.

Otherwise, because of the public and anonymous nature of orally-transmitted musics, this separation of composer/performer is irrelevant to the point of non-existence.

Feel free to provide older pre-recording-era examples to back up your position, but generally speaking, it is well-established that "authorship" in aural music did not relevantly or effectively exist until music could be written down, or much later, recorded in sound.



Mahlerian said:


> Just because something is written down doesn't mean that it is automatically "sacred scripture" which must remain unaltered by the performer.


That all depends on the attitude and traditions of performance, and of the composer. But most older-tradition scored music like Bach or Beethoven seems beholden to a strict tradition, in which the composer is given sacred status. Thus, the criticisms of Glenn Gould by Brendel, etc.



Mahlerian said:


> Just because the composer of a work is given credit doesn't mean that the performer is somehow dehumanized thereby.


In the pre-written aural era, the only way music could be heard, recorded by memory, or transmitted, was by performers who actually played it. By writing music down, the performer is separated from the compositional process, and is employed to play only what is written.

If the term "dehumanized" is too strong for you, I will say that this process "removes the human creative element" from the realization of a score, and the orchestra member is part of a collective.



Mahlerian said:


> You are taking everything in terms of absolutes; art doesn't work that way.


No, I'm speaking generally of the nature of aural (ear) versus written (eye) methods. Your objections are simply obscuring these differences I wish to illuminate, so we are at odds on this. On this point, I disengage.


----------



## kv466

Plain and simple, this is what I call sheer "carelessness" when approaching a piece. Something that is shared by mostly all who have interpreted the same pieces Glenn has. They all share a lack of attention to detail and general sense of blah and plain boredom; not to mention lack of virtuosity. Take your pick, it is like this across the board.






And then, there is Glenn Gould. Each note accounted for and well thought of and dissected. Every phrase a story in itself. 'People who dislike Glenn Gould' this thread is called? That simply means people who know they will never possess the ability to perform at an extremely high level and for those who don't play, well, it just simply means that they don't care for greatness. I, for one, look for greatness in everything I experience and do and I can fully accept every nuance this idiosyncratic best of musicians ever put out. Sure, it's not all the best, but none of it is as bad as every else out there. Enjoy:






Disclosure: If these two performances sound like entirely different pieces it is because one of the two had no idea what it was supposed to sound like.


----------



## hpowders

Whenever I hear the name Glenn Gould, I think of that radio broadcast of the Brahms First Piano Concerto with Leonard Bernstein apologizing to the audience before the performance, getting them ready for the excruciating and eccentrically slow tempos to come from the soloist. The performance is probably still out there somewhere.


----------



## millionrainbows

Alypius said:


> Million, You invoke here a scripture analogy (and I believe that you did so earlier in this thread). I do not know how much you have studied the history of biblical interpretation, but frankly speaking, your presumptions about how Christians through the centuries have read the Bible is inaccurate -- in fact, an absurd parody. Fundamentalism is a phenomenon that is, roughly speaking, about 150 years old (it began in the 1870s). You presume (incorrectly) that Christians have always and everywhere viewed the Bible and interpreted the Bible in some hyper-literalist fashion. That is frankly not the case. You seem to have no sense of the development of the biblical canon, of the historical-critical method (source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, reader-response criticism, social science criticism, etc., etc.), or for that matter, of the nearly 1800 year-old-tradition of figurative exegesis (e.g. Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Bede, etc.). I do not want to distract this thread into a discussion on biblical interpretation, the history of Christianity, or philosophical hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur, etc., etc.). I gather that there are other places on the forum where such discussions go on. (I have never ventured into them). My point is that your argument by analogy does not work. And it does not work because it is founded on an inaccurate conception of the Christian (or Jewish) understandings of the Bible. I would be happy to recommend things you can read on this. But your argument founders on a false analogy.
> 
> There is also an equally complex relationship between text and performance in the history of Western music. In fact, it is precisely that relationship that in many respects is a defining feature of Western music, what Richard Taruskin calls "literate music." It is important, I believe, to deal with the issue of that relationship in Western music free of the religious baggage that you have chosen to invoke.


All I'm doing is using "scripture" as an analogy. I'm not making a statement about religion or how scripture has been used to justify slavery and war, just saying that music in written form is considered "sacred" because of its connection to the composer (God). This attitude (visual/eye/written) is in most cases diametrically opposed to a freer performance perspective (aural/ear/sound).

Still, you're right; I'm almost disdainful in my analogy of score/scripture, but your response underlines my purpose in using it, since I see the two as being from a closely related mindset of the 'true believer.' After all, scored music started in a church setting.

Hey, I didn't create these conditions; I'm just commenting on the way things seem to be so conveniently related. Plus, I think respected British author *Simon Frith* used the analogy first in his book _Absolute Music._


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> Whenever I hear the name Glenn Gould, I think of that radio broadcast of the Brahms First Piano Concerto with Leonard Bernstein apologizing to the audience before the performance, getting them ready for the excruciating and eccentrically slow tempos to come from the soloist. The performance is probably still out there somewhere.


Here are Bernstein's actual remarks, really quite humorous. Does this sound like an apology?


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Here are Bernstein's actual remarks, really quite humorous. Does this sound like an apology?


It does sound somewhat apologetic, if not downright condescending; at best, it is a "disclaimer." Bernstein is quite diplomatic in his use of humor to soften the blow.

Also, note Bernstein's use of the descriptor "unorthodox." Also, he states that his compliance with Gould is because Gould's approach provides a "fresh approach" and a "new look" at the piece.

And the very idea that he would mention a "replacement soloist" or "substitute conductor." I think that deep down, Bernstein had quite an ego, and it shows itself here. Maybe he was jealous of Gould's own brand of "unorthodoxy."

After all "I'm Leonard Bernstein, I conducted Charles Ives, I wrote a Broadway Musical, I'm the wunderkind of New York, etc. etc. Who is this freaky Glenn Gould guy who is selling more records than me?"


----------



## Andreas

I guess one _can_ look more thrilled than Bernstein on this cover:










Maybe this is Gould's take on Bernstein's depressed pose:


----------



## fjack1415

Me no just no likey Gould, Me hate him. I only heard him once or twice maybe 35 years ago playing I do not recall which JSB piece, but it drove me up a wall. My girlfriend at the time oohed and aahed over him. Ugh. And now a good friend (much younger it happens) posted the same sentiment on FB and when I told him why I did not like Gould I am afraid he took me for benighted. 

Please share with me what you do not like and I will tell you what upset me about Gould playing Bach, The only other musician who has upset me so in his playing of Bach is Nathan Milstein on violin.


----------



## fjack1415

It was precisely this, Gould's tempo that drove me up a wall and made me want to scream when I first heard him 35 years ago. It was slow in this instance and it seemed the just refused to let the music and the composer set the tempo. And it made me think that Gould was a passive aggressive and taking it out on the music. I never wanted to listen to him again. So it is news to me that he could also do the contrary and speed up the tempo. I am no musician, but I just have a very strong sense of what to me the music demands. Other posts here point out that some great performers also have taken exception to Gould's liberties with tempo (and I do not know what else.)


----------



## fjack1415

Yes, you are so, so very right. Bravo. I could not have expressed it any better myself. Thank you. (PS see my recent comments on Gould and how he robbed Bach's music of this very quality, of it "speaking for itself" by distorting the tempo. I am not a musician, but every fiber of being said his tempo was wrong and therefore destructive to the music and its very essence. Again thank you for your post. It is most appreciated.


----------



## Woodduck

fjack1415 said:


> It was precisely this, Gould's tempo that drove me up a wall and made me want to scream when I first heard him 35 years ago. It was slow in this instance and it seemed the just refused to let the music and the composer set the tempo. And it made me think that Gould was a passive aggressive and taking it out on the music. I never wanted to listen to him again. So it is news to me that he could also do the contrary and speed up the tempo. I am no musician, but I just have a very strong sense of what to me the music demands. Other posts here point out that some great performers also have taken exception to Gould's liberties with tempo (and I do not know what else.)


You need a sense of humor with Gould. He was eccentric in almost every way, personally and artistically. He almost proves the old folk tale true: babies really are dropped down chimneys by storks.

There probably are not many pieces of music to which I would introduce anyone through his recordings; his 1955 Goldbergs would be an exception. In most cases it's best to begin by getting to know the music. Then - eventually - you work up the curiosity or courage to discover what GG does to it. I'm not saying that listening to Gould play Mozart is like listening to Florence Foster Jenkins sing Mozart (his vocal obbligato aside); Gould was an intelligent, sensitive musician and a fabulous technician, and his interpretations are meticulously considered, precisely executed, and generally interesting, even when they're basically wacko.

How can you hate a man who understands the difference between "German silence, which is organic" and "French silence, which is ornamental"?


----------



## Chordalrock

People move on to Gould, when they should move on to new music instead (Ockeghem, late Schoenberg, Unsuk Chin, etc etc).

I do give credit to Gould for realising already fifty years ago that ever new recordings by different pianists of the same old pieces made no sense. I suspect he'd have recorded a lot more new music if the record companies had been interested.

I don't think he ever had any musical reason for what he did with the classics, other than wanting to be different, seeing the absurdity of being "just another pianist playing the same old stuff the same old way."


----------



## KenOC

Chordalrock said:


> People move on to Gould, when they should move...


Never "moved on" to Gould. He was my introduction to Bach's keyboard music. Yes, it was a long time ago!


----------



## DavidA

fjack1415 said:


> Yes, you are so, so very right. Bravo. I could not have expressed it any better myself. Thank you. (PS see my recent comments on Gould and how he robbed Bach's music of this very quality, of it "speaking for itself" by distorting the tempo. *I am not a musician, but every fiber of being said his tempo was wrong and therefore destructive to the music and its very essence. *Again thank you for your post. It is most appreciated.


As Bach didn't put tempo indications on his music how can it be wrong? The thing is that Gould had a way of playing that convinced you nine times out of ten (especially in Bach) that his was the way to do it. When I hear of the numbers of people (including me) who have begun listening to Bach's keyboard music through Gould's recordings then your statement appears pretty off beam. At his best Gould gives an idea of what Bach must have sounded like improvising. It has to be admitted that there are eccentricities but rather that than the immensely dull keyboard playing in Bach we got pre Gould.


----------



## Mandryka

DavidA said:


> It has to be admitted that there are eccentricities


There are major eccentricities in many pianists' recordings. Think of Richter's D960, Schnabel's Hammerklavier, Yudina'a K310, Gilels's op 110 and symphonic etudes, Pollini's Chopin nocturnes.

My feeling is that many people don't like Gould because he was voluble, intelligent and articulate. He also came at a time when there was, I think, an establishment opinion in European and American conservatories, that the musician should play the music as composed and shut up, or something like that. You still hear traces of that today.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think a point that has been overlooked is Gould's touch. He had a teacher in Canada who taught him a special technique of articulating each note, and Gould took it and ran with it. This technique lends itself perfectly to Baroque music, and if very little or no pedal is used, the texture of the music depends entirely on how long the key is depressed by the finger. I think this is also why Gould doesn't sound very astounding on Romantic era music, when he relaxes his touch.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I think a point that has been overlooked is Gould's touch. He had a teacher in Canada who taught him a special technique of articulating each note, and Gould took it and ran with it. This technique lends itself perfectly to Baroque music, and if very little or no pedal is used, the texture of the music depends entirely on how long the key is depressed by the finger. I think this is also why Gould doesn't sound very astounding on Romantic era music, when he relaxes his touch.


The touch is one of the things I dislike the most. Too often too little portato. But it's not a deal breaker.

I disagree that he doesn't sound good in romantic music, by the way. In solo Brahms for instance, and Liszt and Scriabin, in Schumann chamber music and in Beethoven op 126, and in his own Wagner transcriptions, these are all very important recordings in my opinion.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> The touch is one of the things I dislike the most. Too often too little portato. But it's not a deal breaker.


Gould's touch is a prime reason why so many folks love his interpretations. If he used a lot more potato, he'd sound less distinctive and effective.


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> There are major eccentricities in many pianists' recordings. Think of Richter's D960, Schnabel's Hammerklavier, Yudina'a K310, Gilels's op 110 and symphonic etudes, Pollini's Chopin nocturnes.
> 
> My feeling is that many people don't like Gould because he was voluble, intelligent and articulate. He also came at a time when there was, I think, an establishment opinion in European and American conservatories, that the musician should play the music as composed and shut up, or something like that. You still hear traces of that today.


Agreed! Or it can be called _character_! When I first heard Schnabel in Beethoven I was amazed at how off centre he sometimes was compared with more 'straight' performances.


----------



## ArtMusic

Gould is famous for the Goldberg Variations. I don't find him as well received on other works by Bach however.


----------



## Balthazar

ArtMusic said:


> Gould is famous for the Goldberg Variations.* I don't find him as well received on other works by Bach* however.


I disagree.

I believe his recordings of the WTC, the Partitas, the English Suites, the French Suites, the Toccatas, and the concertos are generally considered as close to essential as you can get for anyone seeking familiarity with those works.


----------



## ArtMusic

Possibly but they are overshadowed by The Goldberg recording(s). There is far too much bias with Gould and Goldberg (even the names sound alike).


----------



## Chordalrock

Balthazar said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I believe his recordings of the WTC, the Partitas, the English Suites, the French Suites, the Toccatas, and the concertos are generally considered as close to essential as you can get for anyone seeking familiarity with those works.


Most of it (like most of Gould in general) is patently very idiosyncratic. No musicologist would dream of calling Gould's Bach interpretations authentic or historically informed. Like that one time when he uses legato for the first half of a piece and then staccato for the rest, it's just Gould doing something different for the sake of being different. If you care at all about how composers envisioned their own pieces, you shouldn't consider Gould the standard by which to judge other performances. Essential they're not.


----------



## KenOC

Chordalrock said:


> ...If you care at all about how composers envisioned their own pieces, you shouldn't consider Gould the standard by which to judge other performances. Essential they're not.


I think Gould played Bach's works the way he thought they sounded good. The way he played sounds good to me as well. Beyond that point, for me, there's not much use to go.


----------



## Bulldog

Chordalrock said:


> Most of it (like most of Gould in general) is patently very idiosyncratic. No musicologist would dream of calling Gould's Bach interpretations authentic or historically informed. Like that one time when he uses legato for the first half of a piece and then staccato for the rest, it's just Gould doing something different for the sake of being different. If you care at all about how composers envisioned their own pieces, you shouldn't consider Gould the standard by which to judge other performances. Essential they're not.


They are essential to me, and that's all I care about.


----------



## DavidA

Chordalrock said:


> Most of it (like most of Gould in general) is patently very idiosyncratic. *No musicologist would dream of calling Gould's Bach interpretations authentic or historically informed.* Like that one time when he uses legato for the first half of a piece and then staccato for the rest, it's just Gould doing something different for the sake of being different. If you care at all about how composers envisioned their own pieces, you shouldn't consider Gould the standard by which to judge other performances. Essential they're not.


But as Beecham once famously said, musicologists are people who can read music but can't hear it! :lol:


----------



## Mandryka

Chordalrock said:


> it's just Gould doing something different for the sake of being different. If you care at all about how composers envisioned their own pieces, you shouldn't consider Gould the standard by which to judge other performances. Essential they're not.


Yes. The same is true for most of them: Landowska is as casual as Gould about Bach's intentions, for example.


----------



## hoodjem

hpowders said:


> I first heard the Goldberg Variations from Glenn Gould's first recording. I liked it. Disappointed with his second recording.
> Later, I found others (particularly on harpsichord) who put Gould's performances of Bach to shame.
> 
> I've yet to find any pianist whose solo Bach truly appeals to me. Gould's first Goldberg Variations I could live with if I had to.
> 
> Overall, lukewarm opinion of Gould, at best.


Interesting.
I find Gould's first recording of the Goldbergs abominable: too fast, too mechanical, too robotic, too emotionless, rushed without feeling or nuance. (Most of this applies to almost all of his recordings of JS Bach, IMHO.)

I do, however, appreciate his second Goldberg Variations recording: better speeds, more subtlety, interesting rhythmic properties, he finds poetry in the music and allows it to breath.


----------



## larold

_I've run across instances where other performers have dissed Glenn Gould._

Of course ... he's more a cult figure than artist in my opinion. I have no problem with him but also don't love him. He changed things in the 1950s and set a whole world of copycats a-runnin' to his style.

He came of age in a time when everything was legato; he changed that. I think it's easy to tire of his staccato attacks and humming also. But no one can deny his originality. There is no one else like him.

Still ... take away his Bach, or even the two Goldbergs, and he isn't very interesting or memorable.

He probably built the greatest following in classical music using the least ammunition in history. He taught people like conductor Carlos Kleiber how to turn a couple recordings and some bizarre personal characteristics into a cult following.


----------



## vtpoet

hoodjem said:


> Interesting.
> I find Gould's first recording of the Goldbergs abominable: too fast, too mechanical, too robotic, too emotionless, rushed without feeling or nuance. (Most of this applies to almost all of his recordings of JS Bach, IMHO.)
> 
> I do, however, appreciate his second Goldberg Variations recording: better speeds, more subtlety, interesting rhythmic properties, he finds poetry in the music and allows it to breath.


I love everything Gould did, even his Mozart Sonatas. Yes. Even those. He's always refreshing and always making you hear even the most stale and overplayed pieces of music-afresh.

Even the Scriabin, Berg, Kreneck, Webern. Somehow he could make sense of this music that otherwise just sounds flat and uninviting. I like both the first and late Goldberg recordings, as well as the Salzburg recording that is always overlooked.

Oh, and I find his performance of the Hammerklavier among the greatest. Nobody touches his interpretation of the slow movement. <--- He wrote objectively.


----------



## consuono

I used to think Gould was the bee's knees when I was younger. I still like a lot of his recordings and still love the clarity in his playing, but just can't take the 1955 Goldbergs anymore -- even though it was one of the very first classical LPs I bought back in the day (I don't have it anymore). Nowadays I prefer to listen to Tureck, Schiff and Perahia. The thing is, with the possible exception of a recording of BWV 831 that I heard, for everything Gould recorded there's a performance by someone else that's more "definitive" to me.


----------



## chu42

It's not that I don't like Gould. It's that I don't think he represents the be-all end-all of Bach like many of his fans like to think.

For example, his Goldberg variations are good but he has a lot of questionable interpretations in the WTC.

For example:






If a 10 year old Chinese prodigy played like that surely the critics would be lampooning it as too fast and too robotic!


----------



## Mandryka

chu42 said:


> It's not that I don't like Gould. It's that I don't think he represents the be-all end-all of Bach like many of his fans like to think.
> 
> For example, his Goldberg variations are good but he has a lot of questionable interpretations in the WTC.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a 10 year old Chinese prodigy played like that surely the critics would be lampooning it as too fast and too robotic!


It is fast but not that much faster than other people of the same ilk as Gould, like Edwin Fischer Sviatoslav Richter and Samuil Feinberg. What is most interesting about Gould in the prelude there is the balance of the voices, the lower voice revealed to be at least as important as the upper, more important.

This is a piece of music which comes off very well on clavichord, by the way. Colin Tilney especially.


----------



## hoodjem

vtpoet said:


> I love everything Gould did, even his Mozart Sonatas. Yes. Even those. He's always refreshing and always making you hear even the most stale and overplayed pieces of music-afresh.
> 
> Even the Scriabin, Berg, Kreneck, Webern. Somehow he could make sense of this music that otherwise just sounds flat and uninviting. I like both the first and late Goldberg recordings, as well as the Salzburg recording that is always overlooked.
> 
> Oh, and I find his performance of the Hammerklavier among the greatest. Nobody touches his interpretation of the slow movement. <--- He wrote objectively.


One of my favorite JS Bach keyboard pieces is the Sarabande from the French Suite no. 5. IMHO, Perahia plays it wonderfully--making it a transfixing moment of ethereal beauty. As if a small piece of heaven fell out of the sky and graced our mundane existence. (Gavrilov, Hewitt, Gilels, Schepkin, and Feltsman also.)

When I listen to Gould's performance, it seems a completely different piece that I do not recognize. He plays it in a way to suggest he cannot wait for it to be done, as if punch-cards are controlling his hands, if he is quite bored and rushing to catch a train.

Oddly, I love Gould's recorded performance of the Brahms late Intermezzi. I find them virtually perfect in terms of tempi, phrasing, emotional depth, and poetic meaning.


----------



## SanAntone

Chordalrock said:


> f you care at all about how composers envisioned their own pieces, you shouldn't consider Gould the standard by which to judge other performances. Essential they're not.


Most often the composer is long dead and the work has a life of its own. Gould has made some recordings which I enjoy, others not so much (this is true for all performers) - but "how composers envisioned their own pieces" is fairly irrelevant when I listen.


----------



## Musicaterina

I do not really dislike Glenn Gould in general, but I do not like him playing works on the piano which are composed for the harpsichord, for example Bach, because in my opinion music should be played on the instruments for which it is composed - or at least on instruments of the period, if possible.

But I like the cello sonata op. 69 played by Glenn Gould and Leonard Rose:


----------

