# Glenn GOULD's Goldbergs--1955 or 1982 ??



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

GG 1955 http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Goldberg-Variations-BWV-1955/dp/B000UH8HPS/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

GG 1982 http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Goldberg-Variations-Glenn-Gould/dp/B0000025PM/ref=cm_lmf_tit_37

I've listened to Glenn Gould's 1955 Goldbergs for nearly 40 years.
Still listen to them virtually weekly.
But lately I've come to the conclusion that his 1982 set is actually superior.
How? Why?

Well, there are many differences, beginning with the piano.

In the 1955 reading GG used a 1920s Steinway; in the 1982 digital reading, a Yamaha.
(Not that I'm a big fan of Yamaha, but the piano _does_ sound well. Personally I prefer Bösendorfer, Fazioli, or Petrof.)

The other chief differences have to do with tempi.
1955 is generally f a s t e r.
1982 is generally s l o w e r.

1955 is 30 discrete (i.e., separate) variations.
1982 is one piece with 30 movements. (GG connected each variation with the one preceeding it by means of tempo and rhythm.)

Trevor Pinnock did a very good reading on harpsichord, but still GG packs a punch.
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Goldberg...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1280577516&sr=1-1

What sayest thou?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I sayest GG's 1980's. I don't care for purism (as influenced by the liner notes I happened to read from Esa-Pekka Salonen's CD of Bach transcriptions! coincidence...), so lack of harpsichord, "proper" feel, etc. just don't impact me. I like the music and I like how the later GG recording presents it.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

The 1982 is more meditative and the tempos seem more secure and well thought out to create a coherent structure. However the singing is louder too which is a problem, although he doesn't sing in the fast passages for some curious reason. To me, that highlights the pretence of singing along to Bach.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2010)

Between the two, I prefer the '82 recording, but I picked other, because Perahia's recording, in my opinion, is the better choice.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I voted "other" because I love both... but I also have some 5 or so other versions which I also love including Schiff's, Perahia's, and the recent Andreas Staier on harpsichord. And then I have Caitrin Finch's version on harp at the top of my wish list.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

I also have Landowska's Goldbergs on her iron-framed harpsichord, but so far haven't really gotten to know them
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-Landowsk...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1280681057&sr=1-1

A bit surprized GG's 1955 seems to get no love, for it was a groundbreaking performance which was adored in Europe and Japan.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

There was a recent thread somewhere about this. I recall Glen Gould was discussed at length there. Personally, I think the 1982 Glen Gould recording is overrated (I have not listened to the 1952 recording). It doesn't bring the elegant variations on score out very well, as it sounds overtly romantic, with *no repeats observed * (repeats required by the composer), jumping continuously through each movement. The whole thing sounded trivialised to me.

But if it works for your ears, who the hell am I to care?



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... the recent Andreas Staier on harpsichord.


Worth getting for a HIP harpsichord music admirer? (Staier is more renowned as a fortepianist). I probably will get it at some stage but as I haven't listened to it, I would like your esteemed opinion.

My only version (so far) on harpsichord, played by Christoph Rousset. It just sounds way more elegant than Gould's (1982). Compare with Gould's. Notice repeats are played, and say the second movement where the score is really given the opportunity to speak for itself, unlike Gould who seemed to just walk through it lacking the intensity of the counterpoint like some Romantic player.

*Rousset*, 2nd movement example commencing at about 3'53", lasting about 2 full minutes (i.e. with repeats and played fast), giving a full impression of the elegant score and the intensity of the counterpoint.





*Gould*, 2nd movement example commencing at about 3'06" lasting only up to 4'17" (no repeats). His left hand banging on the piano and at other times, surpressed, making the whole movement sound uneven, whereas there is no balancing "problem" with the harpsichord.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> There was a recent thread somewhere about this. I recall Glen Gould was discussed at length there. Personally, I think the 1982 Glen Gould recording is overrated (I have not listened to the 1952 recording). It doesn't bring the elegant variations on score out very well, as it sounds overtly romantic, with *no repeats observed * (repeats required by the composer), jumping continuously through each movement. The whole thing sounded trivialised to me.
> 
> But if it works for your ears, who the hell am I to care?
> 
> ...


Kenneth Gilbert has a very nice recording on harpsichord as well. I just took the time to listen to it yesterday, and continue to enjoy it. I believe it is on the Harmonia Mundi label, with their cheaper Musique d'Abord line.


----------

