Glenn Gould Bach Goldberg variations

quote:

---

Do I understand this right? The classically trained are saying that GG isn't playing Goldbergs within the accepted scope of the written music and the jazz/rock orientated listeners are saying they like it for exactly those reasons.

Tom

---

At the heart of it surely all interpretations are acceptable as long as the performance makes no claim to be something it isn't?

It is only if an improvised rendition claims it is a performance of the orignal written music that there is a problem of pretention.

It is not that people will not get pleasure from listening to it but the fact that, unless they are aware of their own volition, they are being mislead into thinking they are hearing the pure original.

regards
GEOFF

Listening every day planning to "not fade away"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Do I understand this right? The classically trained are saying that GG isn't playing Goldbergs within the accepted scope of the written music and the jazz/rock orientated listeners are saying they like it for exactly those reasons.

---

Yes, I think so. In fact, I was just about to say that the trained musicians (myself excluded, probably because of my extremely relativistic ideology) are being rather pedantic/formalistic. They seem to hold too dearly to the technical issues, probably because they're too immersed in that side of things. As a result, their ability to appreciate the message on a purely emotional level is lessened.

This often happens to me: By twiddling in my studio, I now have an appreciation for how Electronica is created. Because of this, I cannot enjoy it on a purely emotional level. Instead, I find myself deconstructing it. That's enjoyable too, but by gaining the one perspective, the other has diminished. Sometimes I wish I could go back to being blissfully ignorant.

BTW, I constantly question authority, and appreciate someone who is willing to stretch the "rules". I think this is part of why I like Gould's Bach, and probably why some others have difficult accepting it as valid. RdS has suggested that the manner in which the Gouldbergs are written dictates a certain style. However, as a musician I can assure you that there are no absolutes in this regard. In fact, I was often admonished for taking too much liberty when I was training as a pianist. My teacher tried to suggest that what I was doing was "wrong", while I knew it was merely "different". I still feel the same way, which is why I'm on the Gould-is-good side of this argument.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Geoff P:
At the heart of it surely all interpretations are acceptable as long as the performance makes no claim to be something it isn't?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which leads us back to GG. His interpretations are claiming to be something they aren't. Or at least if the RdS or FF (and me) are to believed

Tom

---

Yes that is what I was offereing somebody the opportunity to say.

I have and enjoy listening to JL who does not mislead with his intentions, but since I have no experinece of GG did not feel qualified to draw that conclusion myself. I count myself among the people that would want to be aware of what we are being asked to listen to and appreciate it for what it is rather than something it is not.

regards
GEOFF

Listening every day planning to "not fade away"

Outstanding post, RdS, probably the best thing I've read by you.

I still like Gould, and there are a few points I feel tempted to pick you up on ;-) but on this occasion I have no compunction in admitting you win.

Thanks for taking the effort to write so comprehensively.

-- Ian

Today, my wife and I saw the Toronto SO play Wagner's "Siegfried-Idyll", followed by Bruckner's 4th, conducted by Gunther Herbig. The Wagner was nice, but the Bruckner struck me as rather pedestrian, and the flutist kept screwing up whenever trying to play in time with everyone else. Add a occasionally off-pitch horn sticking out like sore thumb, and it was quite underwhelming.

While I was at Roy Thompson Hall, I visited their music shop and picked up Leonhardt's recent version of the Goldbergs on DHM. I'm just part way through it now, but I was immediately struck by his approach, even in the Aria (and continuing as we go). RdS said, "Leonhardt ... is rhythmically very free", and I can concur. I find that he plays haltingly, often seeming that he's about to stall. Then he rushes ahead, only to pause again when you least expect it. It's really quite off-putting, in an awkward sort of way.

To my sensibilities, Gould creates a much better sense of flow and lyricism. I'll give this new one a few listens, though, before passing any sort of "final" judgment. So far, though, it's not overly endearing. Perhaps that's where Gould really shines: his performances are quite likeable to most listeners. His Goldbergs never fail to "sing" to me.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

I think that our anti Gould camp may know a lot about classical music to the exclusion of other forms, if Fredrik recoils in horror at Gould, can you imagine his reaction to Rammstein or The Sex Pistols, i think if they were honest they would classify both as garbage and not music, were i suspect most of the pro camp are a bit more tolerant.
And please do not hit us with a list of non classical artists that you like that is predictable, or maybe you should and you can put Gould in.


God Bless.

Central, I think you're being a bit harsh at this late stage. BTW, I don't like the Sex Pistols myself (a bit too much fury without intrigue). And believe it or not, I've never managed to experience Rammstein. I just listened to a few snippets on the net, and I must say that they sound much like one of my long time favorites, Ledernacken. Curiously, Ledernacken did this about 15 years earlier.

BTW, I've listened to the Leonhardt a few times now. Last night it was on my office system, but this morning I played it on my main system, and now I'm certain of it: Not only is the overall timing seemingly disjointed, his left hand often lags behind his right, virtually eradicating the glorious interplay between the melodic threads. I'm not sure whether he's doing this on purpose or whether he's "struggling", but I don't like the overall awkwardness of it. In a way, it's like listening to a system with terrible PRaT.

To be sure that I wasn't imagining things, I'm listening to Gould's 1982 recording now, and the sense of natural rhythm and flow is decidedly locked in, with no sense of discontinuity between the left and right hands. His presentation seems effortlessly natural.

I'll still play the Leonhardt occasionally, though, as it's an interesting contrast to Gould's approach. Now I've got to get a couple of the others.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on Fri 21 May 2004 at 11:08.]

I'm on to GG's 1956 recording, and I forgot how fast it was in places (too fast, if you ask me). I definitely prefer his 1982 version, as it seems more "right" to my ears.

Having said that, the natural flow and melodic interplay is still very good in the 1956 recording. It just seems too rushed in many of the variations.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Tom, I might remind you that i started this topic, and it was nothing to do with interpretation of Bach, you lot hijacked it so you could prove how clever you are.

Tom, Pompous, arrogant, self important,far too serious, Moi.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fredrik Fiske:
Could anyone here tell me why Gould's extra-ordinarily mannered, un-self-controlled Bach should be worth re-issueing? It has always driven me up the wall musically. And the man can't even sing!

At least when Casals sang, it was rhythmic and in tune.

No,there are many many more musical versions, even on the historically anachronistic piano avaliable which serve old Bach's cause better. In fact I'd almost say just go and buy anything else. On balance it is unlikely to be worse!

Fredrik Fiske

---

Tom, I think you should be reminded of this mature balanced adult, kick off.

Tom, Anyway none of the anti gould camp comment's were directed at you, as i had you down as a half way house man, so you have insulted me for no reason, shame on you.

Tom,I absolutely adore Authur Rubenstien's recording of the Bach/Busonni Chaccone, but i also love Roy"Chubby"brown , Les Dawson, and Bernard Manning, preferrably while sitting with my feet in a bowl of hot water eating pickled onion's so don't be too impressed.

And what's wrong with Roy and Bernard, not enough Pathos, Irony?

On a more serious note, might it be silly of me to add, that his staccato playing along with metallic tone, might have been to approximate a more period instrument?

quote:

---

Originally posted by central:
On a more serious note, might it be silly of me to add, that his staccato playing along with metallic tone, might have been to approximate a more period instrument?

---

That's the first thing that came to mind for me.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

That was indeed a marvellous post by RdS on page 8, and it is rather heartbreaking to see all that hard work dismissed so smugly.

Central couldn't have made the point about GG and bad taste more succinctly.

So that's why I'm thanking RdS (and Fredrik, too) for their considered, passionate and erudite posts on this thread.

Thank you for the kind remarks, i don't recall you adding much at all, erudite or vulgar.

Tom, I could not and have not made a case for Gould caring about correct performance, however i do know for certain, that when recording Bach he made or had carried out adjustments to his piano to produce a thinner less romantic tone, if you listen to the Beethoven sonata's 12/13 that he recorded roughly at the same time as the Goldberg's it sounds like a completely different instrument, which of course it may well have been,
he recorded the 82 goldberg's on a Yamaha rather than his usual Steinway, he was also notable for playing Beethoven concerto's with the soft pedal down.
So i think that he had in mind the instrument that the piece would have been performed on, whilst not letting it get in the way, if you get my drift.
It is obvious that FF and RDS have knowledge of classical music, my post that has been taken in the wrong spirit, was not an attack on them at all, what i am suggesting is that although they may know about Bach they may know nothing about Ska or Tamla Motown, those 2 were plucked out of the air as were Rammstein,
Which if is the case, hardly gives them a broad view of music, which i think is required when listening to any music, maybe they do, it was just a suggestion.
They attack Gould with there knowledge of theory,whilst knowing little about Gould himself, possibly? and the reasons for his performance.
As we all know classical music can be stuffy and exclusive, i think Gould went some way to break that and bring Bach into the 20th century.
What i have been suggesting all along is that this anti Gould thing may have nothing to do with music but the snobbery and elitism that surround's it.
I have listened to some of the other performances which have been mentioned, and they are all superb i have never attacked any of them, i could listen to Bach played by Walter/Wendy Carlos, Jethro Tull, Jimmy Page,the bloke down the pub, as i did recently the first prelude WTC on Casio £150 electric keyboard, still Bach, goosebumps, you bet.

God Bless.

I don't think there's any doubt that some anti-Gould sentiment is motivated by elitism and snobbery, but it's now pretty clear that Fredrik and RdS have different motivations.

I agree they have an aesthetic based on a relatively narrow area of musical interest, that they're rather more specialist than most listeners, and therefore may judge things quite differently from others, but it's also fair to say that really great musicians also tend to be specialists, so that's not necessarily a criticism.

Me, I'm an interested and obsessive listener rather than a musician, comfortable enough with my own aesthetic to recognise the intelligence of somebody else's even when I don't agree with it.

-- Ian

quote:

---

Originally posted by herm:
That was indeed a marvellous post by RdS on page 8, and it is rather heartbreaking to see all that hard work dismissed so smugly.

Central couldn't have made the point about GG and bad taste more succinctly.

So that's why I'm thanking RdS (and Fredrik, too) for their considered, passionate and erudite posts on this thread.

---

I think this makes my point well, he add's nothing but critique, dips his oar in to insult me, but all in the finest possible taste.

quote:

---

Originally posted by central:
...but i also love Roy"Chubby"brown , Les Dawson, and Bernard Manning, preferrably while sitting with my feet in a bowl of hot water eating pickled onion's so don't be too impressed.

---

The only people allowed to like Bernard Manning are the Indian nouveaux riches seen, in a TV documentary last year, laughing in a painfully uncomfortable way at his racist jokes, presumably under the impression that it was the "sophisticated" thing to do.

Hmmm... how did we get from the Golberg Variations to Bernard Manning? This is probably the first time in human history that this has happened.

Allowed to like. sounds like you have hit the nail right on the head.

Nice one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
FWIW my favourite Goldberg is by Angela Hewitt who is a woman and Canadian. Is that alright?

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

I'm afraid I side with Fred on this. Gould was a genius but his playing says much more about Gould than it did about Bach IMO. That doesn't mean his playing is bad or not worthy or less enjoyable, just that for me it's not Bach as I like to hear it. I remember reading aninterview with Rosalyn Turek who taught GG. 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. She might have been a snob or jealous but she might just be exhibiting the natural concern of a mainstream concert pianist.

I wouldn't be without Gould but he's not my first choice to listen to.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

---

Tom, You need to get your story right,may i draw your attention to the last sentence, it seems to differ from your view now, could it be that you wish to belong to the FF/RDS club.

Tom, I have nothing further to add, my point is obvious.
Remember the Monty Python Sketch,
"Is this the room for an argument"
Im off to open a jar of pickled onion's soak my feet, watch Bernard Manning offending all and sundry, and this evening i might just try and locate a copy of the Art of Fugue played on the instrument for which it was intended, Bottles with varying degrees of liquid in, with a rythmn section added, the spoons and a washboard, and get the dog to wag his tail in time then bite the wife,make the kids have a bath and laugh my head off at my wonderfull life.

God Bless

Ps, Just so you do not think i have completly lost the plot, a posting was made which clearly shows that the postee has changed his tune quite a bit, he then deleted it when he realised he had been caught with his pants down.
But if you go back a bit further you will find the evidence which i hope he can't delete.
So much for mature adult debate.

[This message was edited by central on Sat 22 May 2004 at 16:54.]

[This message was edited by central on Sat 22 May 2004 at 16:57.]

I have only been reading the odd bit here and there in the last few pages of this ongoing saga but there seems to be this rather curious presumption that classically trained musicians generally dislike Gould. As a classically trained musician who has has had the opportunity to study both privately and in masterclasses with some very fine pianists - Peter Katin, Robert Silverman, Ronald Turini etc. - this is utter nonsense. I would say that, by and large, most classically trained musicians have very high regard for GG. It doesn't mean we always agree with him but then you can't say that about Richter, Rubinstein, Argerich, Moravac, or anyone else I'm aware of. Sure his approach sometimes breaks with standard - and often pedantic - approachs to Bach interpetation but the manner in which he does this and the execution are always interesting and often illuminating. As for hearing narccissism in others playing... only a narccissist would make such an assumption I think. I mean really, Give me a break.