# Newbie decissions. Gould or Perahia? What about Dvorak?



## Bayreuth

So I'm quite new in this, but I just recently started to put together a rather decent collection. I listened to both of Perahia's and Gould's (55 and 81) 'Goldberg Variations' quite a few times. I still can decide and I think it is my newbie condition to blame. So, what do you guys think? Which version will be more enjoyable once I've acquired a good ear for classical music?

And also, I'm trying to find a good set of Dvorak's symphonies. I've heard and liked the one from Kubelik and the Berlin Philarmonic, which is also reasonably cheap, but I guess there might be some other better versions. Any suggestions?

Thank you


----------



## Nereffid

I think your question "Which version will be more enjoyable once I've acquired a good ear for classical music?" is impossible to answer. Nobody can possibly know which version you'll enjoy more. Even if Bach himself emerged from the grave and pronounced one particular recording to stand above all others, that still doesn't mean you'll necessarily enjoy that one the most. I flat-out do not believe in the idea of a "definitive" recording.

So, don't worry about it. If you like one more than the other, get it. If you like them equally, toss a coin. You can always change your mind later.

For myself, I'd say that the only one of the three Goldbergs mentioned that I've heard is Gould's 1981, and I find his singing sufficiently annoying that I'd rather listen to Perahia, who I've heard and liked in the Partitas.

Kubelik's Dvorak... sure, why not? I've got his 8 and 9, which I like. Vaclav Neumann's Czech PO set on Supraphon is another possibility.


----------



## Bruce

Your tastes will probably change as you become more familiar with the music. Today you may prefer Gould, but in a few years you may find Perahia more attractive. Each time you approach these works, you'll have a bit more listening experience under your belt, so to speak, and you'll approach the works with a fresh perspective. The best way to listen, at least I've found to be true in my case, is exposure to a number of different recordings. Give as many artists a chance as you can.

That said, my own preference (at the moment) for the Goldberg Variations is Vladimir Feltsman (on piano), or Anthony Newman (on harpsichord). 

As for the Dvorak symphonies, I've not heard Kubelik's recordings. My own version of these symphonies is by Colin Davis, and these suite me just fine.


----------



## Bulldog

I can only relate to you my preference which is strongly with Gould; Perahia's Goldbergs is well down on my list.


----------



## Jos

Well Sweetjesus, we're not very helpful are we ? 
My advice would be to walk your own path. Listen as much as you can. And your preference might change over time.
Gould is sort of a must, but maybe Perahia is more pleasant to listen to. Or vice-versa !
Enjoy your trip !

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## merlinus

I definitely agree that your ears, and responses, are the best judge of what versions of any piece of music is most satisfying.

I concur with those who much prefer GG. I find almost all of Perahia's recordings to be rather boring.


----------



## Bulldog

merlinus said:


> I definitely agree that your ears, and responses, are the best judge of what versions of any piece of music is most satisfying.
> 
> I concur with those who much prefer GG. I find almost all of Perahia's recordings to be rather boring.


IMHO, that's because he displays the same personality for every composer he's recorded. It is great/classy pianism but that's about it.


----------



## Guest

Length of experience with the Goldbergs is not going to factor much into who you prefer. Gould very much seems a love/hate dichotomy. Both Gould and Perahia get high praise for their Goldbergs. Personally, I prefer Perahia. And then some people will only listen to Bach on original instruments, so that knocks both of them out, since they don't perform them with a harpsichord. Go with what you like. If you like both - great! Personally, I have numerous recordings - Perahia, Gould (80's recording), Masaaki Suzuki, Trevor Pinnock, Kenneth Gilbert, a recording by Jean Guillou transcribed for organ, and a recording by Fretwork transcribed for a viol consort. Too good of music to be tied down to only one recording.


----------



## DavidA

In their very different ways Gould and Perahia make compulsive listening. Gould's 55 recording is one of the truly historic performances which popularised Bach on the piano. I have at least four recordings by GG - in the studio and in concert before his retirement. He was a remarkable pianist.
I dislike the harpsichord - as Beecham once remarked "Like two skeletons copulating on a tin roof!"


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> In their very different ways Gould and Perahia make compulsive listening. Gould's 55 recording is one of the truly historic performances which popularised Bach on the piano. I have at least four recordings by GG - in the studio and in concert before his retirement. He was a remarkable pianist.
> I dislike the harpsichord - as Beecham once remarked "Like two skeletons copulating on a tin roof!"


I've read/heard that stupid Beecham comment hundreds of times. One thing for sure - Beecham dies but the comment lives on.


----------



## Vaneyes

I coulda sworn there was another thread....

For Dvorak Symphonies, Suitner.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

... he (Perahia) displays the same personality for every composer he's recorded. It is great/classy pianism but that's about it.

I must respectfully disagree. Perahia's recordings of Bach are quite marvelous in the opinion of this listener who owns some 400+ discs of Bach alone. I certainly agree with the suggestion that no one can give a definitive opinion as to what recordings you may find most pleasurable... now... of after you have listened to much. I greatly enjoy Gould's Bach and find them to be essential... but I also find Andras Schiff, Edwin Fischer, Angela Hewitt, Rosalyn Tureck, Andreas Staier, and several others all have something of merit to add to the interpretations of Bach.

The same might be said of Dvorak. I have recordings of various of his symphonies by Rafael Kubelik with both the Berlin Phil. and the Vienna Phil., István Kertész, George Szell, Herbert von Karajan, Otmar Suitner, and Karel Ancerl. All of these are worthy of hearing. From what I have heard of Ivan Fischer's work over the years, I suspect I would greatly like his Dvorak as well.

You state that you are new to this (classical music). I would suggest to you that you forget the idea of the existence of the single definitive recording of nearly any work. Instead... listen to a variety of conductors/performers and with time you will develop a personal taste for what conductors/performers you like for a given body of music.


----------



## Bulldog

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... he (Perahia) displays the same personality for every composer he's recorded. It is great/classy pianism but that's about it.
> 
> I must respectfully disagree. Perahia's recordings of Bach are quite marvelous in the opinion of this listener who owns some 400+ discs of Bach alone.


I'm glad you find the Perahia a wonderful performance. I wish I did as well, since I spent my money on it; alas, I wasn't impressed much.

I don't think that the number of Bach discs owned counts for a lot. I have over 150 recordings of the Goldberg Variations, but my opinion of the quality of each one is just that - one man's opinion.


----------



## tdc

My favorite performer for Bach on piano is Andras Schiff.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> My favorite performer for Bach on piano is Andras Schiff.


Roger that. His latest WTC is nothing short of fabulous.


----------



## Mandryka

I've only found 3 examples of Perahia recordings which I like to hear: Chopin preludes, Bach's English Suites (though I have some doubts and reservations) and Schumann's Davidsbundlertanze.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Roger that. His latest WTC is nothing short of fabulous.


Pity the rest is so uninteresting.


----------



## Bulldog

I think Schiff has given us some excellent Bach recordings, especially his 2nd WTC and 2nd Goldbergs on ECM. His Decca WTC was also pretty good. What I didn't like at all was his first Goldbergs on Decca.

Overall, I wouldn't place Schiff on as high a level as Gould or Tureck, but he's a big improvement over Perahia.


----------



## donnie a

Re the Goldbergs, I find myself listening most to either the '55 Gould or the Simone Dinnerstein recording—diametrical opposites, I think. I also like the Murray Perahia and the '81 Gould.

Re the English suites, I like the Perahia set (especially No. 1) except for No. 4—nobody does that one like Gould.

For the French Suites, I like the Italian pianist Monica Leone best—very poetic and satisfying playing. I like her Suite in A Minor, too.


----------



## Bulldog

donnie a said:


> For the French Suites, I like the Italian pianist Monica Leone best-very poetic and satisfying playing. I like her Suite in A Minor, too.


Never heard of her. Is there a recording available? What label?


----------



## KenOC

Has Denk been mentioned? His recent Goldbergs is superb. The CD comes with a DVD that has about an hour of video, Jeremy walking through the Goldbergs at the keyboard, with commentary. Highly recommended!


----------



## donnie a

Yes, she is not too well-known here, I don't believe. There are some of her Bach recordings available for download on the PP Classica label (iTunes, several other places). I believe cd's are available, too.


----------



## Bulldog

donnie a said:


> Yes, she is not too well-known here, I don't believe. There are some of her Bach recordings available for download on the PP Classica label (iTunes, several other places). I believe cd's are available, too.


Thanks for the quick response to my question. I did find that she has her very own website with some samples of her Bach playing. I found her very pleasing and elegant.


----------



## brotagonist

SweetJesus said:


> I listened to both of Perahia's and Gould's (55 and 81) 'Goldberg Variations' quite a few times. I still can decide and I think it is my newbie condition to blame. So, what do you guys think? Which version will be more enjoyable once I've acquired a good ear for classical music?


I used to have Gould's '55 and I found it way to short. It was either rushed or somehow shortened (skipping repeats, if any?). I pawned it. I've never heard Perahia. I now have Gavrilov  I've got a pretty good ear even though I'm not musically trained 



SweetJesus said:


> I'm trying to find a good set of Dvorak's symphonies. I've heard and liked the one from Kubelik and the Berlin Philarmonic, which is also reasonably cheap, but I guess there might be some other better versions. Any suggestions?


While I have a number of symphony cycles for one or another composer, I typically eschew symphony sets, preferring to buy them individually, particularly if the composer wrote a fair number of them, or if the earlier ones are considered less important. I don't care, I'll go bare, bye-bye long johns


----------



## Bulldog

brotagonist said:


> I used to have Gould's '55 and I found it way to short. It was either rushed or somehow shortened (skipping repeats, if any?). I pawned it.


I like that "too short" comment. Two reasons for the short timing - Gould plays very fast and skips the repeats. With that in mind, it does seem as if a few of the variations end almost as soon as they begin.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> Pity the rest is so uninteresting.


Perhaps if you prefer Bach played with various eccentricities or added personality. I think the strength of Bach's music is in the compositions themselves and I generally lean towards interpreters that just play the notes without getting in the way too much, and I haven't come across any piano interpreters that just 'play the notes' better than Schiff.

There are exceptions to this - sometimes a performer finds a 'slant' that I think just works, but Gould's approach isn't one that falls into this latter category for me personally.


----------



## Giordano

tdc said:


> I think the strength of Bach's music is in the compositions themselves and I generally lean towards interpreters that just play the notes without getting in the way too much, and I haven't come across any piano interpreters that just 'play the notes' better than *Schiff*.


Rosalyn Tureck is equally good, to my ears.

I will keep my mouth shut on GG...


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> Perhaps if you prefer Bach played with various eccentricities or added personality. I think the strength of Bach's music is in the compositions themselves and I generally lean towards interpreters that just play the notes without getting in the way too much, and I haven't come across any piano interpreters that just 'play the notes' better than Schiff.
> 
> There are exceptions to this - sometimes a performer finds a 'slant' that I think just works, but Gould's approach isn't one that falls into this latter category for me personally.


If you want someone who just plays the score, then the doyen is Walcha, I don't believe Schiff falls into that category though. On the contrary.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> If you want someone who just plays the score, then the doyen is Walcha, I don't believe Schiff falls into that category though. On the contrary.


Schiff improvises, yes - but I think that is what would be the norm in a Baroque score, so I don't see that as stepping outside the bounds of what Bach would expect in a performance. Just literally playing the score and nothing more is not what I'm after. That said there is plenty of room for different approaches with Bach - whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Bulldog

Mandryka said:


> If you want someone who just plays the score, then the doyen is Walcha, I don't believe Schiff falls into that category though. On the contrary.


I'm with you here; Schiff can be a frequent interventionist. I remember how often he screwed around with the Goldberg Variations in his Decca recording; switch to the newer ECM version and Schiff totally sheds the baggage and delivers a thoroughly exuberant and straight-forward reading.


----------



## tdc

^ Yes admittedly my phrase 'just play the notes' was the wrong choice of words - I think improvisation is an important part of Baroque performance. I guess what I was getting at is I find Schiff's playing respectful and tasteful (and very well-executed). When I listen to his interpretations I feel like I am hearing the composer more so than the performer.


----------

