Glenn Gould Bach Goldberg variations

I could not agree more Bach is not Rocket science, any fool including alien fools can enjoy him.
It's a pity that you had no influence with the guy's at NASA, as to which music and by who'm it should be played.
As potentially the little green men are missing out on the supperior musicianship and deep understanding of everything, that your choice of musician would have offered.
They also stuck on some Chuck Berry, what does that prove?

Dear Fredrik, Sorry i can't remember the guy's name, but i think it should be worth a listen.
Just to hear that someone is physically capable of playing it on solo guitar,but i think it might be too much even for me.
I have really enjoyed our often heated debate and many of your point's have been taken on board.
It was certainly a pleasure to have been in civillised and intelligent company.
Who knows one day i may wake up and think i really dont like GG's playing any more,( it happened with some of Beethoven's work's that i held dear),
and think back, you know i think that Fredrik guy was right.
But perhaps not just yet.

All the best Fredrik and god be with you.

Tom, Sorry, I think that it must be said that twenty years or so after his death at 50 , that we are still talking about him and that he inspire's such passionate debate is a agood thing, and a great tribute to a man who i think we would all agree lived his life more than most, in pursuit of his art wether you like the result or not I just wish he was still around. shall we put this one to bed now?

God Bless.

[This message was edited by central on Fri 30 April 2004 at 18:19.]

Fredrik (or anyone else with an opinion): I wonder if you would comment briefly on the differences between the Leonhardt and Hantai interpretations?

[I have Landowska, Leonhardt and Karl Richter on LP but as I expect to be unable to listen to LPs for at least three years I'm thinking of buying a CD of the Goldberg Variations].

Fredrik,
Thanks very much! I'll definitely track down Hantai's 1992 version.

Looking forward to reading your thoughts on the Nicholaeva if you decide to write about it.

Not sure if the Gould critics have ever heard of Heinrich Neauhaus, Richter, etc., etc., - not to mention folks like Hewitt, Turreck, and Shiff - but they all thought that Gould was one of the greatest musical genius's and Bach interpreters of all times. Accept the fact that if you don't "get" Gould the problem doesn't lie with Gould.

Garth

Garth, Your a week late, i could have done with you on my side.

the History of Bad Taste

quote:

---

Originally posted by central:
Fredie how do you know what JSB intended and what gives you a Gods eye view on the work?
When i listen to Glenn play i hear pure music

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fredrik Fiske:
What I do know is that the style for the correct rendering of Baroque music has been understood, from musicological research, for the best part of a century. The reason that this research was necessary was that, as (especially Bach's works) the Baroque repertoire was first published or published in (largely) correct editions in the mid to late 19th century, it became painfully apparent that no-one understood HOW this body of music should be played. There was no continuous performing tradition as there was for Haydn and Mozart.

Therefore throughout the 20th century, musicians struggled to apply this research in a practicle way to the performing conditions of their day. With increasing certainty of style the excesses of "Bach arranged Mahler" were overthrown in favour of the the lythe musicianship of such as Adolph Busch, and later the timbrally correct style using instruments recognisable as Baroque by such as Leonhardt. In all this, efforts at an understanding of tempo and touch (degree of Staccato or Legato) were incorporated into a musically satisfying approach to such radical ideas as variations being taken at a single basic pulse (with only modest adjustements) right through, with terraced dynamics (again with only subtle gradings within these), instead of the romantically based ideas of almost total tempo flexibilty and curvy-linear dynamics. These are only the basics, and there are huge volumes to be studied on even the smallest details...

---

Sorry for dropping my two cents rather late (I have been moving house and as a consequence have been offline for quite awhile).

I think Fredrik's position is eminently sane and right, which I guess means I agree with him. Yes, Gould is rather exciting in an easily accessible way. What Fredrik is talking about is what happens if you take your interest in this music just a nanosecond further than that. some lucky guys can enjoy both Gould and non-sentimentalized Bach performers. Personally I have a rather hard time enjoying Gould's blatantly manipulative Bach recordings. I do like Gould's recording of the Brahms intermezzi.

I think Gould's enduring popularity proves little more than that he's a very marketable artist, who produced not just a lot of recordings, but books as well, plus a lot of video material, so everybody can cash in. IMHO his reputation belongs, like the painter Dali's and Elton John's, to the History of Bad Taste.

Herman

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Lees:
Oi. Herm.

Leave Dali out of this - some notable ...err... experiences would have been a good deal less ...err... notable without Dali.

---

So you had sex with Salvador?

Pray, when was this (just to determine whose bad taste we're talking about...

Here we go again,

I like Glenn Gould so i suffer from poor taste,
if i like Dali ditto, Elton John are you Joking?
I wonder if one of the reasons GG pisses you off so much has nothing to do with music, but the continent that he came from.
Offensive isn't it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by central:
I wonder if one of the reasons GG pisses you off so much has nothing to do with music, but the continent that he came from.
Offensive isn't it.

---

Nope. Just his weird, manipulative, self-indulgent way of playing Bach. It is true that the commercialized Art Genius cult he exploited was a thing rather typical of post-war / cold-war America (Stravinsky and Bernstein were part of it too), but there are plenty of things American I like. And I said I liked Gould's Bach, remember?

I would not say liking Gould is an indication of bad taste. However, believing that Gould is totally it would be - to my taste of course.

[This message was edited by herm on Mon 10 May 2004 at 9:39.]

You miss my point, If Gould was older, uglier, conformist and German how would you then view the Goldberg's.

I would be viewing him with one hand down my lap.

Old ugly Germans really turn me on.*

Is that what you want to hear?

Talking about missing the point.

* Recluse Gould actually isn't really very pretty either. Looking scruffy and unkempt was part of the Mad Genius deal (cf Stravinsky, Einstein).

I am enlightened it was all a big con, Eienstin mad genius deal, Gould in it for the Money, Stephen Hawking voice synth charlatan.
Thank you for putting me right about the buggers.

a piece of my sanity

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Glad to see you back Herm. We need your sanity round here.

---

What are you trying to say, Tom? I sense some subtext. Don't you think I'm a mad genius myself?

Fredrik,
Thanks very much for the detailed description - I think I'm going to have to put the Nicholaeva on my "to buy" list.

Comment on opinions about Gould:

Although I consider it self-evident that there are no absolutes in music, there are some interpretations that really test this conviction. Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations and Karajan's Beethoven symphonies are particularly striking examples of these, because they seem not just "wrong" - certainly not incompetent - but wilfully "wrong". In such circumstances I must admit that I sometimes catch myself treating my own preferences as absolutes - although, luckily, I managed to avoid it in this thread.

An example from the pop world: I recently heard a stylised and polished interpretation of Light My Fire by The Doors. It was certainly accomplished, and it hinted at a sense of celebratory irony [or do I mean ironic celebratoriness?], so in a sense it seemed a valid and unique interpretation in its own right. But if you feel the intensity of the original...

When I hear something that sounds wilfully wrong, if the musician(s) concerned appear to have some technical ability, I tend to ask myself why they're choosing to play the way they are, rather than assume they're just making a mistake. But then, I like free jazz and improv, perhaps that attitude goes with the territory.

As for Gould specifically, I have no idea what people mean in this thread when they accuse him of being manipulative or a showman, or suggest he isn't serving Bach's music. Interpretation's what it's all about, presumably. Nobody has to like his interpretation, but to suggest only a populist or somebody who doesn't understand Bach "deeply" (daft word, that) could possibly like Gould says more about the failings of the critic than the artist IMO.

-- Ian

Omer, My understanding was that Gould's passion was for Contrapuntal music,and that his goal was to give clarity to the seperate voices in the work, as stated before ad infinitum, he was not concerned with any perceived correct way of playing Bach, or any other composer for that matter, he said on many occasions that there is no point in making a recording unless you have something different to say about the piece.
Most of his detractors on this forum sound as if they are reading from a script, they are not saying anything that they have not lifted from some interview with a sour grapes loser, that has to justify his boring samey approach to Bach and why he can't sell CD's.
This is the bottom line, Gould sells, people like him.
But they woluld have us believe it is because we have had the wool pulled over our eye's.
This crap has been doin'g the round's now for a few years, if i could be bothered i could probably find it's birthplace.
The worst recording i ever heard of the late Beethoven Sonata's was by Gould, but that's just my opinion.

Omer,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vuk's son:
Jeremy, Herm and FF (sorry to answer you all at once),

I feel stupid, do I have to give credetianls to my admittedly mere musical education, list other favourite Bach performers, list authentic-reading performers that I like or maybe quote my highschool teacher for you to stop devaluating us for our choice of Gould as the best Goldberg performer ?

---

I'm afraid you have not understood what I said - I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough.

By saying that I don't believe in musical absolutes I mean that, IMO, the idea that one piece of music or musical interpretation is intrinsically better than another is absurd. As far as I am concerned, it makes as much sense as saying blue is "better" than orange. Rather than devaluing you for your choice of Gould I was merely explaining how one's - or at least my - own experience can sometimes seem be so overwhelmingly right that one is tempted to think of and express one's preferences as absolutes.

I had assumed that, in this context, my use of the word "wrong" in inverted commas would leave no doubt that I understood that this was merely my own perception.

I gave an example of a Doors cover version because there generally seems to be more agreement in such cases. As such, it is an example that is likely to lead others into the same absolutist temptation - thereby illustrating what I meant...

The issue of whether one interpretation can be objectively closer to a composer's intentions is another matter - it seems clear that in some cases this can be readily established. I am not competent to say whether or not it can in this case. Either way, however, it makes no difference. Even if we all were to agree that Gould's interpretation is objectively further from Bach's intentions than any other interpretation, we still could not claim that it is an objectively lesser interpretation.

Just a slight correction to an earlier posting by Herm on this topic. Gould is not American. He is Canadian and lived all his adult life in Toronto. Canadian hate being referred to as Americans since this refers to people from the United States. It is not the same thing as referring to Brits, Germans, etc. as Europeans as the United Statesians have claimed this moniker - "American" - as their own.

End of rant and no I don't have anything against Americans.

Garth, Just to clarify my intension re Gould's birthplace, there is a lot of misguided snobbery and racism around, i.e white men can't play the blues etc, and i think that Gould's reputation as one of the 20th century's greatest musicians and interprators of Bach, does not sit well with them, he was never reticent on coming forward and contrary to what has been said here, was a very glamourous and attractive man.
There is a certain type of so called music lover who would hate him without hearing him.

God bless.

P.S His genetic origins i think were Scottish and he was related to Grieg.

quote:

---

She was most scathing because he went off and did his own thing with the music rather than keeping within the natural bounds of the score

---

I think this is the nub of the issue. I for one don't see that as a criticism (of Gould, or anyone else). This seems to me to be a musicologist's critique, not a music fan's. I'm well aware many people who are far more passionate (and knowledegable) about classical music than I am often adopt this position in regard to the music, but I think it's an irrelevant position for anyone other than an academic.

-- Ian

quote:

---

Another interpreter I like is Jacques Loussier but that's probably not pure Bach.

---

Tom

I also like Jacques Loussier BUT It is defenitely a very free from interepretation of Bach. That's OK though since it is normally filed under "Jazz". What is does do is illustrate that in reality the improvisational techniques used in Jazz are akin to the dvelopment of "themes" in the construction of classical music.

regards
GEOFF

Did Rosalyn Turek actually claim to have taught GG? He studied with his mother and then Alberto Guerro. That's it. Angela Hewitt, whom I had the pleasant opportunity to spend the evening with at an intimate reception for her thrown by a friend, is a big fan of Gould's and first came to prominence winning the GG piano competition. I think she's a great player.

As far as taking liberties with the score, performance practice, etc., Bach keyboard scores have only the notes. No phrasing, articualtion markings, dynamics, tempi, etc., so there is not too much to take liberty with. Since no one alive has heard Bach, and he didn't make alot of records... What did Toscannini say, "tradition is the last bad performance"(?). For me, Gould's interpretations are full of life and blood, exciting, tender, always facinating, the polyphony is always utterly clear, it just works. The fact is, very few can play Bach with that kind of articulation and tone colour. If you don't like it fine, but I think we can all be spared the idea that somehow his musicianship is suspect, Turek's sour grapes notwithstanding

Actually I did, however, I was not responding exclusively to your comments. My point was, that as far as "faithful to the score is" there is simply not much to go by - just the notes. Anything else is editorial additions. Check out a good "Urtext" edition to see what I mean. Therefore, any assertion that Gould is not following the composers intentions is impossible to back up. Clearly Gould had a very individualistic take on this music which may or may not be someone's cup of tea, but to say it is or is not what Bach would have wished is baseless. Considering all the transcriptions Bach made of his own compositions he probably had a pretty open mind about such things. In Bach's era, improvisation and the general concept of musical composition as a living and breathing entity gives credence to the concept of a certain degree of interpretive freedom, that would not be indicated by music of later periods where precise indications - by the composer - as to articulation, tempi, dynamic subtlety, etc. are indicated.

Garth