Glenn Gould Bach Goldberg variations
Posted by: central on 27 April 2004
Has anyone heard the new remastered analogue version of the later Goldbergs, the difference is unerving and not just from a sound point of view?
Posted on: 16 May 2004 by herm
I can live with this.
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by central
Well i guess i must be a popster then.
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by sideshowbob
Ross got in before me, I completely agree with him.
This discussion is about Gould playing Bach, but it could be about any musician playing the music of any composer in any genre. The basic question remains: is it any more than an academic musicological issue to insist a player stays true to the spirit of the score (however that has been determined)? Surely the only thing that matters to an "ordinary" listener is whether the playing communicates something to them or not. If Gould's playing appeals to ordinary listeners more than the playing of somebody a musicologist regards as more in tune with Bach's intentions, that's an indication that Gould is doing something right, musically speaking, even if he appears to be doing something wrong musicologically speaking (I don't know if, in reality, he is; nobody in this thread has provided any real evidence that he is). For the ordinary listener, the latter shouldn't matter in the slightest. It certainly doesn't matter to me, if it did I'd find it impossible to listen to jazz, which would be a shame as it's my favourite genre of music...
-- Ian
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by central
Could RDS qualify his expertise on all matters musical?
Quote "Being an arpeggio means you have to play it legato" Why?
[This message was edited by central on Mon 17 May 2004 at 10:49.]
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by central
Thank's for that, i do know what an arpeggio is i play them on the guitar, slightly confused, are you saying that it is technically impossible to play them staccato, or in your book they should not be played that way, as you say that is exactly what Gould does?
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by Mike Hanson
quote:
Originally posted by R. d S.:
As for an arpeggio, it is a chord in which the notes are added sequentially, and not played all at once. Needless to say, this can't be played staccato.
I think most of what you've posted is very informative and inspiring, and very much looking forward to hearing more interpretations of the Goldberg Variations.
However, this comment regarding arpeggios is over-simplified to the point of being misleading. There are basic arpeggios, which are played as individual notes. (These are the ones to which Central refers.) Of course, you were referring to another type: the arpeggiated chord, which includes the "slow terminal arpeggio" (IIRC). It could certainly be played (albeit with a bit of insouciant iconoclasm) in a staccato fashion. Sure it's not strictly "proper", but does it really matter one way or the other?
This alludes to Gould's intrinsic charm. He doesn't always take things too seriously, but rather is willing to inject a bit of levity into his work. I suppose it could be construed as grandstanding, although I don't have a problem with that, as humility can get pretty boring. Perhaps this playful stance is too rebellious and seemingly "disrespectful" for the music establishment, which also helps to explain Gould's popularity.
I can see it now: Glen Gould and James Dean, walking hand-in-hand into the sunset…
(Or is that GG and JD holding hands, while driving their convertible over a cliff? Haven't I see this image somewhere before?)
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by Geoff P
quote:
I hope this wasn't aimed at me. I love Jacques Loussier but he is JL and not JSB even if he uses Bach as a starting point. As I said earlier, I personally find GG a little too far from my norm and not far enough for it to be his own music.
Tom
I think what R.d.s. meant was just pointing to the fact that you highlight in your comment about GG. JL does not claim to be playing Bach as an interpretation of the score. He desribes his music as an improvisation based on the motifs of the original music and is quite happy to be classified as a Jazz musician. It is therefore unrealsitic to attempt a comparison with Walcha for instnace because ther is no basis for it.
regards
GEOFF
Listening every day planning to "not fade away"
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by garth
I would love to respond to all the interesting comments thoroughly, but, as I am very pressed for time, here are my random and rambling thoughts.
Well Glenn Gould certainly does spark alot of discussion and debate on these works and that in itself is a very good thing. I am sure he also liked to be quite a contrarion and challenge people's perceptions. He certainly had a quirky sense of humour and I am sure enjoyed confounding people with some of his interpretive choices. Sometimes I like it and sometimes I don't. Mostly I like his Bach. His Chopin 3rd Sonata does not- to my ear - work at all. I just purchased his recording of the Opus 10 Beethoven Sanata's and listened to about 3 minutes of Opus 10 # 3. I don't think I will be listening to it again. However I love his prokofiev 7th and Scriabin 3rd. So I am certainly not a Gould fanatic, but I do enjoy enjoy much of his Bach, as I do Perahia, Brendel, Kempff, Argerich, and others. All very different. Perhaps this is one of the great qualities of Bach, that there is so much in it that disparate interpetation can be quite effective. Of course and performance on a modern piano for modern ears is essentially a transcription to begin with. I have only glanced at the well thought comments by RDS and others and generally concur with much that has been shared. I think it is great that the general tone of this conversation is so congenial in spite of the inflamed passions the topic of GG seems to ingnite. Flame on, I say!
Cheers,
Garth
Posted on: 17 May 2004 by central
Dear Everyone, I think we are falling into the trap of "The Expert's" with this, if you quote a bit of know how on music, all of a sudden you are an authority, and i have noticed some of the pro GG camp being seduced, just a bit.
I am an amateur Guitar player who has never studied music and is as thick as two plank's, but none of the tech talk is telling me anything i did not know before.
There were as said before, a number of very famous,wealthy,experts, that would not be bothered with HiFi forum's, that were nothing but complimentary of GG's art.
I simply can not believe that you like a performance of a work, you learn something about performer or performance, and you don't like it.
You never liked it in the first place.
I see this in my job, people walk in they see a guitar in the corner, they assume that as a musician i have more insight into good HiFi than they,well that's plain rubbish.
Somebody once remarked that they had a sence of Autumnnal quality in GG's playing, GG took it as a great compliment, i always felt that too, try putting that into words?
God bless.
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by central
Garth, I don't know if you have them already, but his recording's of opus 26/27 are superb i think, they seem to be at odd's with most of his other Beethoven recording's.
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
Tom, I think you're confusing having a different perception with having greater insight. After all, none of the musicians on this thread have yet explained what they actually think is wrong with GG's playing, apart from them not personally liking it.
-- Ian
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by central
Tom, What i find in GG's playing, is that i find it much easier to deconstruct the music, i can more clearly here the different voices and themes, which i find blurred with a great many other performance's.
GG made some interesting Radio broadcast's in which he recorded people talking about the same subject all individually, he brings in the first voice and then the second and so on, so that in the end you have 6 people all talking at once, it sounds like rubbish at first but you soon learn to be able pull out snippetts, and then follow the subject.
No genius at work here and nothing profound but give it a listen.
God Bless.
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
quote:
GG made some interesting Radio broadcast's in which he recorded people talking about the same subject all individually, he brings in the first voice and then the second and so on, so that in the end you have 6 people all talking at once, it sounds like rubbish at first but you soon learn to be able pull out snippetts, and then follow the subject.
That's the Solitude trilogy. It's terrific, especially the first one (The Idea of North).
-- Ian
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by central
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Central
The converse could be said. You seem to be suggesting that "professional" musicians don't understand/feel the music anymore than the layman. I realise this is contentious but in my experience those who perform music for a living do have a greater insight and therefore see the flaws more readily. That doesn't negate the pleasure derived by the non musician but I would suggest that, in a similar way that many are happy with an Aiwa mini system and can't see the need for "serious" hi-fi, the general public do not always see as deeply into the music as does the performer. (cf my comment about Perahia)
Tom
Actively enjoying it all
Tom, The difference between a pro and an amateur is that one get's paid, it's no more than that, i think that knowing the 18th variation in the Goldberg's is a Cannon, does nothing at all to enrich your enjoyment of Bach's music, you might make a case that it could have the reverse effect.
To make a simplistic analogy with HiFi, a great many people who enjoy listening to recorded music, buy a good HiFi get into it read the Mag's visit the forum's.
Then no longer listen to or enjoy music.
They then spend there time picking faults and worrying about this tweeter or that stylus.
I used to enjoy listening to the famous "bouree"
from the Lute Suite in e minor bwv 996,it is a favourite amongst amateur guitar players, it is i think grade 5 on the hard to play scale.
I used to marvel at how anyone could keep that bass line going whilst playing the melody on top, until i learned to play it.
It's easy you just play the two notes together and they take care of themselves, clever bloke that Bach, i now no longer enjoy listening to it, which seems to contradict what i said earlier but actually reinforces it, you see i never really enjoyed it as music but as a piece of guitar playing, once i realised it was not that special in either regard it spoilt it's charm.
God Bless.
[This message was edited by central on Tue 18 May 2004 at 10:27.]
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by central
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Hanson:
quote:
Originally posted by R. d S.:
As for an arpeggio, it is a chord in which the notes are added sequentially, and not played all at once. Needless to say, this can't be played staccato.
I think most of what you've posted is very informative and inspiring, and very much looking forward to hearing more interpretations of the Goldberg Variations.
However, this comment regarding arpeggios is over-simplified to the point of being misleading. There are basic arpeggios, which are played as individual notes. (These are the ones to which Central refers.) Of course, you were referring to another type: the arpeggiated chord, which includes the "slow terminal arpeggio" (IIRC). It could certainly be played (albeit with a bit of insouciant iconoclasm) in a staccato fashion. Sure it's not strictly "proper", but does it really matter one way or the other?
This alludes to Gould's intrinsic charm. He doesn't always take things too seriously, but rather is willing to inject a bit of levity into his work. I suppose it could be construed as grandstanding, although I don't have a problem with that, as humility can get pretty boring. Perhaps this playful stance is too rebellious and seemingly "disrespectful" for the music establishment, which also helps to explain Gould's popularity.
I can see it now: Glen Gould and James Dean, walking hand-in-hand into the sunset… (Or is that GG and JD holding hands, while driving their convertible over a cliff? Haven't I see this image somewhere before?)
Mike, as far as i know there is only one type of arpeggio and that is a chord played as single notes any thing other is just single notes, on this i will bow to an expert?
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by central
Tom,
When you hear a great musician or composer,you are listening to a Human Being with something to say, they just happen to say it with music, some of the greatest never wrote or played an
instrument,and died having never said anything.
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
quote:
I firmly believe that those who become professional musicians tend to have a deeper reaction to the music than the majority of amateurs.
Deeper in what way? Certainly IME jobbing musicians hardly ever listen to music when they're not working, and I suspect most orchestral players rarely get a chance to play what they really feel, unless they become successful enough to be stars in their own right. Hence, I suspect, the suspicion some classical musicians seem to have towards the very idea of "playing what you feel" (musicians are a competitive and jealous bunch, goes with the territory I suppose).
-- Ian
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by Mike Hanson
quote:
Originally posted by central:
What i find in GG's playing, is that i find it much easier to deconstruct the music, i can more clearly here the different voices and themes, which i find blurred with a great many other performance's.
This is something that I've always noted when listening to his performances. The clarity that he brings to the individual melodic lines is astonishing. In a word:
Facile.
Now this is ironic! When I use words this earnestly, I prefer look them up to ensure that they could not be misconstrued. One of the definitions for
facile is,
"readily manifested and often lacking sincerity or depth". It almost sounds like a summation of this discussion.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
Well, this is turning into a really interesting discussion.
RdS wrote:
quote:
Now what can be truly said is that there is a 'listening' and a 'playing' attitude, as many people here have said. If you know the inner workings of a fugue you’ll listen to it in a different way. And, as Tom has rightly remarked, there is neurological evidence that trained musicians listen to music in a different way from other people.
I have no dispute with this, my concern is the way "different" has been taken by some in this thread to imply "deeper". Now, there's no question that a trained musician brings all kinds of technical understanding to a piece that a layman doesn't, or that having that technical knowledge may be a prerequisite for actually playing the piece in question, but I reject the notion that this is a "deeper" understanding than a more purely emotional, untrained, response. After all, presumably Bach's artistic purpose was primarily to provoke an emotional reaction from his audience, and surely this is the fundamental purpose of his music? To go further, perhaps a trained musician's technical understanding can actually get in the way of her ability to emotionally respond to hearing a piece in the way the composer intended?
quote:
I will, perhaps post about the limits of interpretation. But if one is to take the view that everything is acceptable, I won’t bother.
I'd be interested to read your views on the limits of interpretation. IMO, music is music, not scripture; as such, there are,
in principle, no limits to interpretation, nothing should be "not allowed". This is not to suggest that all interpretations are of equal value, I'm not a cultural relativist, but I do have trouble with the idea that any art is sacrosanct. Interpretations of any piece of music in any genre have to be taken on their own merits, and some of them may be of great value whilst also being very far from the original composer's intentions. Again, jazz is full of examples of this, and often the "deviant" interpretation is a far greater piece of music than the original.
-- Ian
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
Fredrik, point one is a speculation for the purposes of discussion. I certainly have no problem believing a musician may sometimes find it difficult to lose themselves in a piece of music because they're distracted by technical questions of how it is being made. Frankly I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case.
As for point two, this could lead us into a large discussion about aesthetic theory. My view is that any work of art needs to be judged by the standards of art, which don't necessarily have to refer in any way to the intentions of its maker. Some great art, in fact, achieves greatness despite those intentions. Here's an example from music: John Coltrane performed hundreds of versions of Rodgers and Hammerstein's My Favorite Things, a truly awful, syrupy song, sung by Julie Andrews in the film Mary Poppins. He turned it into a great work of art, a source of endless improvisational energy, something its composers never planned it to be. Judged by the intentions of the composers, he's a failure, judged by the standards of art, he's a genius.
Art is its own language; the composer's intention, historical context, and biography are small parts of that language, and can be entirely irrelevant to an aesthetic judgement.
-- Ian
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
A fair distinction Tom, but not always the whole story.
Perhaps in a particular case the composer's intention was to quickly make some money, as he was down on his luck. Does the musician "decode" that intention, or interpret using rather different criteria? Great art is often made out of such prosaic realities, for example, most of Charlie Parker's recorded output was made to fund his heroin habit.
-- Ian
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
Fredrik
quote:
To discuss your thesis; it is so strange as to beggar belief: How could any musician possibly perform any music if his technical ability had emasculated his emotional response.
I was quite deliberately talking about
listening to music rather than
performing it. Have you never found your training and musical ability leading you to analyse a piece of music rather than simply responding to it emotionally?
Having said that my point was about listening rather than playing, is this the same Fredrik who wrote earlier in this thread:
quote:
I could never get my head round Britten, but I was capable of playing it stylishly, and indeed, with "apparent" affection.
I read that as you saying you sometimes rely on your technical facility to enable you to play things you don't have an emotional response to (nothing wrong with that, I imagine it's inevitable for any working musician). My point is that an ordinary listener doesn't have any of that to worry about; the emotional response is everything.
I'm sure I don't listen to Gould, or anyone else, in the way a trained musician does. But I remain to be convinced I understand the music I love (and, indeed, study, albeit not by reading the score) less "deeply" than someone who reads music or plays an instrument. An unmediated response is often much more profound than a mediated one.
quote:
There is also the fact that most performing musicians spend some time or even as much as possible listening to music as an auditor, rather than a performaer.
Not always the case in my experience. This may be a cultural difference between the classical and other worlds, but the many (non-classical) musicians I know listen to little music, relatively speaking. Either this is a deliberate policy, to avoid influences, or simply because they find the act of creation more satisfying than the act of listening.
quote:
In reference to point two, concerning absolutism in artistic worth. You make reference to a song in a Twentieth Century Musical, as being syrupy and other derogatory descriptions. Now I am not about to enter another debate over the value of Rogers and Hammerstein's art, or the preference you show for performances by John Coltraine, which rescues something "truely awful" in your words, and converts it in to a "great work of art." Fine - I am glad that it pleases you. But here we are talking of the keyboard music of Bach, which indisputibly represents one of the twin pinnacles of Western keyboard music alongside the piano music of Beethoven. [You may disagree, of course, but I don't have the time or the energy for that!].
It's impossible to have this kind of discussion without talking about aesthetics more generally, and both RdS's and your posts reflect a particular way of gauging the worth of cultural artefacts that may not be the only valid approach. You asked me to justify point two, that compositional intention is not necessarily the most important issue in judging artistic worth, and I gave you an example of where it isn't. This inevitably means a widening of the conversation. Your aesthetics seem to be based on quite a narrow interpretation of what is "correct" in music, or, at least, narrow by my standards. I suspect, again, this is a cultural difference between somebody who is deeply in the classical music tradition and somebody who isn't. As for Bach being "indisputibly" one of the twin pinnacles of Western keyboard music, you can't say both that and then comment that I may disagree, it's either indisputible or it isn't! (I don't necessarily dispute it, btw, but you see my point.)
quote:
Bach actually wrote what he wanted, very carefully, even to the point where it would be hard to change any ornamnetation in the Goldbergs without significantly altering the very nature of the melodic, harmonic and contrpuntal lines, or even their emotional clout. All Bach needs is an acute, lively mind who comprehends the extreme subtlety of means needed to convert the page into a viable, totally clear-sighted, and emotionally powerful and satisfying rendition.
I'm very happy to defer to your much greater knowledge of Bach than mine, and I'm sure you're quite correct. But this in itself doesn't offer any evidence that Gould fails in the respects you mention. Nobody has yet explained at all clearly how Gould fails to produce "an emotionally powerful and satisfying rendition". Given that very many people find Gould's rendition extremely satisfying, these people must be wrong in some way. How so? So far there's been very little meat on the bones.
Edit: I've just seen your second post, don't worry, I don't think you're picking on me!
quote:
Not all but most classical musicians, even, as you rather sadly call them "jobbing musicians," have a far deeper understanding of music in all its facets than most memebers of your average classical music audience. Some don't, obviously...
You need to define what you mean by "deeper", I think. (Oh, and there's no criticism implied by the term "jobbing musician", most of my heroes are in exactly that category.)
-- Ian
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
RdS, I don't find you condescending, but I suspect we'll never fully agree on anything! But I like your post, it has some passion. Some earlier posts in this thread, about "depth", seemed a bit ponderous and ill-justified to me. And still nobody has satisfactorily explained how Gould is faulty, other than to say they don't like his interpretation, which seems to me to be a matter of opinion rather than truth.
Of course, the world isn't free, but art is.
quote:
Also, what do you mean by 'understand'? A purely cognitive thing? But with music this is not at all the case. You understand it with your entire self: your brain, your emotions, your very body are needed to understand a complex piece of music. With Bach you have actually better be conscious of all the voices and their inner working.
You make my point very well. You have actually summarised my own view in this paragraph.
quote:
What I mean is you love the music much more when you actually play it: it then becomes a part of you and you a part of the music: it *will* change you. It can be almost - no, cross almost - a mystical experience.
You won't believe me, but I can say
exactly the same thing, without playing a note...
-- Ian
Posted on: 18 May 2004 by sideshowbob
Fredrik
Some very interesting comments, just a few sketchy thoughts from me. I won't reply to everything you've written, not because I don't find it interesting, but because this thread could probably go on forever if I do...
quote:
One can never afford to go into a reverrie when playing, or else things go badly wrong - always...
This is the heart of it, I think. I said earlier I thought a lot of the disagreement was a cultural difference between the classical and non-classical traditions. You must bear in mind that many listeners to Gould don't share your tradition, his popularity extends beyond it. For many of those people, myself included, Gould's playing has an improvisational edge (a reverie, if you like) that makes it stand out. Their response to him is no less valid for that, even if it is different to that of (some, although by no means all) classical musicians - after all, I'm sure you must accept that many classical musicians have great respect for Gould's interpretations, so your assessment isn't uncontentious even within the classical tradition.
quote:
Now if you can tell me where you can find even a handful of people who are invariably going to enjoy every piece on a season's programmes in one concert room then I reckon you are looking among super-humans. Orchestral musicians have feelings, emotions and preferences in taste, just like other people.
Of course, which is why I said "nothing wrong with that, I imagine it's inevitable for any working musician". I think we're agreeing here.
quote:
Really the Goldbergs are High Baroque, and as such fall into the category of "classical" music in the broadest sense. Therefore what musicians in other disciplines do, really has no constructive part in this debate.
But you seem to be implying that Gould does something similar to what musicians in other disciplines do, by showing insufficient respect to the composer's intentions, so the argument has relevance. You regard this as a criticism of Gould, I don't, and I was trying to explain why.
quote:
Even in the days before my playing, I was capable of a severe reaction against narcissism, above anything else in a performer. Especially in such wonderful and profound music. I am sorry to say it but I care too much for this music. So perhaps I should just give up and say, like Manuel,"I know nothing!"
OK, that's exactly the kind of answer I was seeking. That's a coherent critique, and clearly based on a reasonable aesthetic choice, even if it's one I don't share. That's really what I was after, sorry to keep pushing you until I got it! I doubt we'll ever agree, but at least I now understand a bit better where you're coming from.
-- Ian
Posted on: 19 May 2004 by sideshowbob
That could be it, Tom. And a lot less verbose than I was!
-- Ian
