# Goldberg Variations



## Oliver

I have Gould's '55 and '81 recordings, as well as Murray Perahia's. 

I much prefer Perahia as he actually includes the repeats with ornaments, which I think sound brilliant, but Gould completely misses them out. Why is this? Plus his humming drives me crazy. Perahia's recording just seem to have more clarity and character. So I'd just like to ask why Gould's recordings generally receive more praise and are the favourite among most people.

Maybe I'll change my mind after further listening.


----------



## Ukko

First, are you listening with headphones? Do not listen to Gould with headphones. Often, including in both versions of Goldbergs, when heard via loudspeakers the humming does not detract from many hearers' enjoyment.

Second, there are those who believe that Bach included in the score all ornaments necessary.

Third, when improvisational ornaments _are_ deemed acceptable, it does not follow that Perahia's are.

Fourth, I like your post. It has potential.


----------



## Taneyev

Gould was brilliant, but I prefer Andrei Gavrilov's on piano. But better that them, I love Sitkovetsky's transcription for string trio.


----------



## NightHawk

I'm a great fan of Murray Perahia and have a lot of Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann that he has recorded. I haven't yet picked up his GV, but I must say that I have read reviews which are mostly 'ok' but not superlative. Gould is an acquired taste, and concerning THIS ONE WORK, in my personal opinion, his GV in the early and late celebrated versions (he made others) is still without peer. His voice leading and, to borrow a word from the art world, his 'chiaroscuro', meaning in my context his ability to show every voice, even those in the shadows, created by a cross-relationship between the two hands, is astonishing, even miraculous. You might enjoy the DVD _The Goldberg Variations_ a film by Bruno Monsaingeon*. There is an interview with Gould and other bits, but there is also a complete studio performance of the work with very fine camera work, almost always on his hands. Some cannot abide him or his odd behavior while playing (in slow movements, he also conducts himself with one or the other hand when it is not being used), but I believe the groaning (singing) began as an unconscious thing - I've heard other well known concert pianists do it, and Leonard Bernstein always sang from the podium. With Gould these things may have become conscious mannerisms, but there is no doubt about his utterly unique eccentricity, or his unique musicality. I resisted him for years and then fell in love with his last recording of the GV, made at age 50 shortly before he died. The biography, _Glenn Gould: A Life and Variations_, by Otto Friedrich is available in PB for nothing - I found it quite absorbing...so, I guess you have to sort of want to like him, or investigate the possibility. (Which, it seems, you are certainly doing 

*DVD/Sony - ISBN - 0-7389-1911-X (the complete film, of which, this is a part, was made between 1976 and 1981)



GeneralOJB said:


> I have Gould's '55 and '81 recordings, as well as Murray Perahia's.
> 
> I much prefer Perahia as he actually includes the repeats with ornaments, which I think sound brilliant, but Gould completely misses them out. Why is this? Plus his humming drives me crazy. Perahia's recording just seem to have more clarity and character. So I'd just like to ask why Gould's recordings generally receive more praise and are the favourite among most people.
> 
> Maybe I'll change my mind after further listening.


----------



## Webernite

Gould just didn't like repeats. I think he felt they were a sign of laziness. But in addition, remember that in 1955 the _Goldberg Variations_ were considered incredibly long and boring, even more than the _Diabelli Variations_. By playing the work quickly and without repeats, he was probably trying to make it more palatable.

And adding ornaments to Bach is always bad, in my opinion. It makes his music sound older than it is.


----------



## Webernite

Double post


----------



## Dodecaplex

GeneralOJB said:


> So I'd just like to ask why Gould's recordings generally receive more praise and are the favourite among most people.


Because, like I said here, Glenn Gould is the Greatest. He is the One and the Only. The Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End. The Plato and the Wittgenstein. The First and the Last. The Zero and the Infinite. The Yin and the Yang. Etc.

A few days ago, I went to a Hamelin concert and all I could think of was "God, every pianist in the world sucks, I wish Gould were still alive."

And Perahia sucks even more than your average sucking-pianist.

That's why.


----------



## kv466

GeneralOJB said:


> So I'd just like to ask why Gould's recordings generally receive more praise and are the favourite among most people.


Because he was simply a better pianist; regardless of his choices. My opinion, of course.


----------



## moody

Webernite said:


> Gould just didn't like repeats. I think he felt they were a sign of laziness. But in addition, remember that in 1955 the _Goldberg Variations_ were considered incredibly long and boring, even more than the _Diabelli Variations_. By playing the work quickly and without repeats, he was probably trying to make it more palatable.
> 
> And adding ornaments to Bach is always bad, in my opinion. It makes his music sound older than it is.


Who thinks the Diabelli Variations are boring---not you I hope? I think they are wonderful and exciting .


----------



## moody

GeneralOJB said:


> I have Gould's '55 and '81 recordings, as well as Murray Perahia's.
> 
> I much prefer Perahia as he actually includes the repeats with ornaments, which I think sound brilliant, but Gould completely misses them out. Why is this? Plus his humming drives me crazy. Perahia's recording just seem to have more clarity and character. So I'd just like to ask why Gould's recordings generally receive more praise and are the favourite among most people.
> 
> Maybe I'll change my mind after further listening.


Did you look at the thread "Solo Piano: the Gould Standard"? It's been running for 150 years.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

This idolatory of Gould as seen above completely amazes me. There's no denying that Gould's playing of Bach is very good indeed, and in his day probably the best available, but it's not the best any longer. For example, his versions of the Golberg Variations are bettered by the recent version by Andras Schiif, which is technically excellent in all respects including the pristine sound quality of the recording. Gould's playing of other composers' works is second-rate in comparison with the best available. For example, I'd never choose Gould over the likes of for example Richter, Rubinstein, Argerich, Pollini, Brendel, Michelangeli to name ony a few of the greats. This assessment ignores the often quite appalling humming which mars so many of Gould's efforts, especially of Bach.


----------



## Ukko

Andy Loochazee said:


> This idolatory of Gould as seen above completely amazes me. There's no denying that Gould's playing of Bach is very good indeed, and in his day probably the best available, but it's not the best any longer. For example, his versions of the Golberg Variations are bettered by the recent version by Andras Schiif, which is technically excellent in all respects including the pristine sound quality of the recording. Gould's playing of other composers' works is second-rate in comparison with the best available. For example, I'd never choose Gould over the likes of for example Richter, Rubinstein, Argerich, Pollini, Brendel, Michelangeli to name ony a few of the greats. This assessment ignores the often quite appalling humming which mars so many of Gould's efforts, especially of Bach.


Jeez Andy; selecting the Schiff for an example is... unfortunate. The guy's playing has the flavor of distilled water. Then you mention Brendel in your pantheon... <sigh>. And finally you misspell 'appealing' as 'appalling'.

Well, some of that could be bad proof reading.

:devil:


----------



## quack

I prefer my Goldbergs on the upright piano






Someone didn't pay the electricity bill.


----------



## Webernite

moody said:


> Who thinks the Diabelli Variations are boring---not you I hope? I think they are wonderful and exciting .


Well, they have a reputation as demanding of the listener, like the _Missa Solemnis_ and the _Hammerklavier_. Personally, the variations aren't among my favorites, but I wouldn't call them boring and I wasn't referring to my own opinion in that post.



Andy Loochazee said:


> This idolatory of Gould as seen above completely amazes me. There's no denying that Gould's playing of Bach is very good indeed, and in his day probably the best available, but it's not the best any longer. For example, his versions of the Golberg Variations are bettered by the recent version by Andras Schiif, which is technically excellent in all respects including the pristine sound quality of the recording. Gould's playing of other composers' works is second-rate in comparison with the best available. For example, I'd never choose Gould over the likes of for example Richter, Rubinstein, Argerich, Pollini, Brendel, Michelangeli to name ony a few of the greats. This assessment ignores the often quite appalling humming which mars so many of Gould's efforts, especially of Bach.


Gould's biggest claim to fame has always been his freakish dexterity, which Schiff doesn't match. True - Gould used a modified piano in most of his recordings, which makes comparison with other pianists unfair. But if you listen to his live performances, he uses a regular Steinway and still sounds incredible. He was also more influential on the history of music than Schiff. He redefined a great composer (the greatest?) and made him popular and fashionable. Schiff wouldn't be playing all-Bach concerts now if it weren't for him.

I can't agree that his playing of other composers is second-rate. Everything that makes his Bach interesting is also present in his Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, etc.


----------



## UberB

OP, I used to be in your boat, but now I prefer Gould to Perahia.

Things to note:

1. If you think the humming drives you crazy then wait until you listen to Richter live recordings for example. A new listener would probably find the humming annoying but I can't imagine who truly loves music would find the humming even an issue. You can't even hear the humming in the 1955 version anyway.

2. Clarity. Gould's playing is always completely clear no matter how many contrapuntal voices Bach adds. It was first with Gould's recordings that I could actually hear the leader and the following voices in the canons, for example. Listen to Variation 12 and you'll see what I mean, the way he can manage all those voices with absolute clarity is just stunning.

3. Integration between variations. In Gould's 1981 version (my favorite) he links all the variations together through tempo making the Goldbergs a complete performance instead of 32 bagatelles. He clearly has thought a lot about the Goldbergs and his understanding of the piece is second to none. Once you hear the variations all linked together it's impossible to imagine them being played any other way. For example the link between Variations 27 and 28 is particularly well thought out because the 27th variation ends so suddenly, it seems most logical that the 28th variation should instantly begin afterwards. Perahia does not do this on his recording and IMO it sounds extremely awkward.

4. More exciting playing. In general a lot of Perahia's recordings lack excitement. The goldbergs are one of his better recordings, but I think in certain instances (for example Variation 13) he almost makes me fall asleep with his playing. Another one of the moments I love in Gould's '81 recording is immediately beginning Variation 10 (the fughetta) after Variation 9, the canon on the third, as there is definitely a link between the two. See point #3.

5. Lack of repeats, or only repeats in A sections in the '81 recordings. This is something that should only upset scholars and not music lovers. Sure, A section repeats distort the symmetry in Bach's writings and I wish that some variations (the canons especially) had repeats for both A and B sections. But on the other hand other variations work much better without repeats at all (the Aria, Variation 13, Variation 25 immediately come to mind) so there are pros and cons with either approach really.

The important thing is to enjoy the music instead of fussing over marginal things such as repeats and humming. I think, the more you listen to the Goldbergs, the more you will find that Gould has an understanding of this piece that surpasses all others.

edit: To the poster above who prefers Schiff's Goldbergs to Gould, my prayers go with you. I do however agree that a lot of Gould's other interpretations are quite bad (pretty much all of his Mozart and Beethoven recordings for example, particularly in op. 57 and op. 111 where he showed absolutely no respect to the composer). The Goldbergs however are truly his greatest recording.


----------



## Ukko

Thanks for the details, _UberB_. I read all of the post, and didn't even have to read much of it twice to understand it.


----------



## Dodecaplex

UberB said:


> edit: To the poster above who prefers Schiff's Goldbergs to Gould, my prayers go with you. I do however agree that a lot of *Gould's other interpretations are quite bad (pretty much all of his Mozart and Beethoven recordings for example*, particularly in op. 57 and op. 111 where he showed absolutely no respect to the composer). The Goldbergs however are truly his greatest recording.


I was just about to like your post until I saw that dreadfully anticlimactic statement. Really, you ruined what could have essentially been one of the best posts in TC history.


----------



## UberB

^ Each to his own, but it's no secret that Gould harbored little respect for a lot of Mozart and Beethoven's works, and that some of his recordings of their works are not so much performances as they are satires. I'm very touched that you admired the rest of my post though


----------



## Oliver

Three year update: I have been converted. I _definitely_ prefer Gould's now. Perahia just sounds boring in comparison.


----------



## fjf

I could not stand Bach's keyboard works. Never understood them, never could listen to them for more than a few minutes. Then I heard them played by Gould. And later by Richter, Perahia....Now the Goldbergs, WTK, english and french suites, partitas...are central to my life. Cannot get enough of them. It turns out that I love the works, but I dont like the harpsicord. And Gould is just fantastic.


----------



## tdc

fjf said:


> I could not stand Bach's keyboard works. Never understood them, never could listen to them for more than a few minutes. Then I heard them played by Gould. And later by Richter, Perahia....Now the Goldbergs, WTK, english and french suites, partitas...are central to my life. Cannot get enough of them. It turns out that I love the works, but I dont like the harpsicord. And Gould is just fantastic.


I was the opposite - I loved Bach's keyboard works, then I heard them played by Gould and I wasn't quite so enthusiastic, but quickly realized I just don't enjoy his approach to these works.

I think a lot of listeners (not all) that prefer Gould are actually fans of Gould more so than they are fans of Bach's music.


----------



## Bulldog

tdc said:


> I think a lot of listeners (not all) that prefer Gould are actually fans of Gould more so than they are fans of Bach's music.


I'm in the "not all" category; I've always been repertoire oriented. I would not want to be without Gould's Bach, but he is only one performer.


----------



## Steatopygous

I think it's essential to have Gould, but I think it's essential to have some others as well. I find Gould quite revelatory, as Uber B has noted above, in the way he brings out the voices. But also quite idiosyncratic and even wilful. Some of his Beethoven is notorious for this.
The 1955 Goldbergs was a tremendously important disc, and congratulations to Gould. But I also have Schiff, Gavrilov, Hewitt, Tureck, Yudina and Perahia on piano and Kirkpatrick, Suzuki, Rousset, Ogeil and Pinnock on harpsichord,and there is something to praise in all of them. I also have the later Gould recording (81, from memory).


----------



## Steatopygous

Sorry, just noticed the post I am replying to is three years old. Never mind, the discussion is going again... That's the danger of replying to a post before you reach the end of the thread.


----------



## KenOC

Just thought I'd ask...what do people think of the Zenph "re-performance" of Gould's 1955 Goldbergs? You can hear it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah392lnFHxM


----------



## Steatopygous

I like it a lot. But the bass line often sounds very artificial to me (ie, not at all pianistic). That could just be my elderly ears. (ie, the left hand.)


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> Just thought I'd ask...what do people think of the Zenph "re-performance" of Gould's 1955 Goldbergs? You can hear it here:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah392lnFHxM


In a way, it sounds fantastic - Gould here right now. But is it all Gould? Seems to me that the re-performance makes contours more rounded; generally, I find that the performance sounds a little manufactured with Gould's style of pianism altered to meet mainstream wishes.


----------



## JohnD

Steatopygous said:


> I think it's essential to have Gould, but I think it's essential to have some others as well...


I totally agree. Gould's Bach in general is special, but since he takes a lot of liberties with the works, it's good to get a sense of how a more traditional pianist approaches them. I like both of Gould's Goldberg Variations, but currently I'm enjoying Murray Perahia's recording.


----------



## Pugg

I personally think that this is going to be a new standard for a long time to come.






Sublime playing and recording :tiphat:


----------



## Ilarion

Goldberg Variation played on a Lautenwerk are my cup of tea but I also love them on this instrument:


----------

