An acquaintance of mine who know Wanda Landowska had brought her Gould's 1955 Goldbergs. Landowska listened. My acquaintance asked Landowska what she thought. Landowska replied something of the effect of "I don't like it, but he's wonderful."
Didn't know the Rosalyn Tureck, so cued up the first few variations of the 1957 recording that is uploaded to UA-cam. I was stunned to see that the video lasted a full 1hr and 33mins. I thought it was really beautiful, a very calm and unhurried version that seemed to delight in all the details with a certain gentleness, I really enjoyed it. It's interesting how Bach's music seems to work well both ways which such radically different conceptions.
Woody Allen said he initially thought the Goldberg Variations was something that Mr. & Mrs. Goldberg did in their bedroom. I do enjoy Pinnock's harpsichord recording. And Pinnock's Partitas (on the Hanssler release) is just so beautiful.
I prefer the later one. But they are so different as to be by two different people. There is a lot of music I'd let Cancrizans destroy before I'd let him touch either of these Gould recordings.
Rosalyn Tureck, High Priestess of Bach, was the inspiration for Gould's 1954 performance. She performed Bach on all instruments including Moog Synthesizer.
Really? I am aware of several recordings on the piano, and one harpsichord -- but where and when was the MOOG released? Somehow seems out of character for her. (Switched-on Bach was the work of Walter -- later Wendy -- Carlos)
Talking about references, my teenage-son recently asked: "It's actually a bit annoying, but why is it, that everytime I hear somebody else play the Goldberg variations, I hear Glenn Gould's performance for my inner ear?" (the 1981-recording, which is his preference, that is). Á pro pos the Goldberg Vars. a favourite musical anecdote: Rudolf Serkin recollected, that he made his Berlin debut in 1921 as soloist in the 5th Brandenburg Concerto with the Busch Chamber Players. As he took his bows after the performance, his to-be father-inlaw, Adolf Busch, told him to play an encore for the enthusiastic crowd. When the 17 year old Serkin asked, what to play. Busch proposed as a joke, that he could play the Goldberg variations. The perplexed teenager took Busch seriously: "When I finished there were only four people left: Adolf Busch, Arthur Schnabel, Alfred Einstein and me". A tenacious, though august company for certain - and boy, would I have loved to be the proverbial fly on the wall for that concert!
it is because Glenn Gould was probably the greatest pianist in modern history. When he played things right, they were THE way it should have been played
Simply the right man, at the right moment, with the right instrument for that moment, and the right label. Considering that he was esteemed by such diverse artists as Bernstein, Rubinstein, Richter, Menuhin, and (grudgingly) Szell, it’s surprising how much ire we’ve seen at the mention of his name.
Buckley fancied himself as a Bach performer and expert. He published interesting Bach keyboard scores were the notes with sharps and flats are in red and the rest in black. Never really caught on
I used to prefer Gould '55 but after listening to Gould '81, I like that better. So did Gould, as he discussed at length in the interview on the State of Wonder CD; that box has both 55 and 81, the long interview, and some outtakes. Alternate instrumentations are also fun: I have the Goldbergs on string trio, string quartet, guitar, brass quintet, probably more.
Gould said the variations hung together better in the 81 recording. I remember hearing the 55 version for the first time and wondering how anyone could play that fast with such precision and control
As much as it highlights my sound ignorance, your sleevenote like yet spirited explanation is so brilliant that it incites me to try a listening of this famous benchmark (I must have heard it at least once but being not one of those intimidating Bach connoisseurs I came across and having stayed faithful to the Kempff perhaps a shade placid but I think quite overwordly beautiful DG recording, I did not care too much). Thank you.
I said generally, and Gould isn't weird at all. People love it or hate it, but I don't know anyone who says he treats the music in a deliberately perverse or gratuitous manner (as he did Beethoven, arguably).
It's kinda shocking that a recording as polarizing and as idiomatic as the '55 Gould would be considered a reference, but your explanation of the timing of its release makes a lot of sense. I would have guessed either a Tureck or even the '81 Gould, as I feel he split the difference between his own idiosyncrasies and "proper" Bach performance. I own both the '81 Gould and Angela Hewitt's, and I love them both, each for different reasons.
Of course, it had to be Gould. I just heard Kempff's recently after decades of being familiar with Gould and some harpsichordists' versions. I was stunned, shocked--even appalled--at first, until I relaxed into his very different interpretation and came to really love it.
Just a little suggestion to Mr Hurwitz: how about a series about the most perverse recordings ever and why they qualify as such? Some examples that come to mind: Gould’s Mozart sonatas, Pletnev’s Beethoven Symphonies, Bernstein’s DG New World Symphony…
First time I heard the Gould recording I thought my neighbour, who was outside leaning on his gate, was singing along. Nobody had warned me. The last time I heard the work it was performed live by Vikingur Ōlafson. I prefer it when it's just me humming along.
If Tureck and Landowska were loony ladies, Gould was certainly a loony laddie. Glad to see you demonstrated self awareness of the male narrative in classical perception, especially back in the day. Call me woke if you like.
Of course it would be the Glenn Gould 1955 - and really fascinating chat, across the board. Now I want to hear Tureck and Landowska, thanks. And I agree, Trevor Pinnock is my own favorite on the harpsichord - Beecham's hilarious comment notwithstanding! (Committing that gem to memory ...)
I think in William F. Buckley's drawing room, they guests would have been lock-jawed Roman Catholics. However, I first learned of Tureck in an issue of National Review when she played at, you guessed it, an NR anniversary celebration.
Yes, of course, it had to be Gould '55! And, yes, it came along at just the right time, when young adults with disposable income were reading (in Playboy, et al.) that they just weren't 'cool' if they didn't have a 'hi-fi rig'. I can't tell you how many friends' record collections I flipped through in the mid-1960's, always finding the same two two non-Rock or -Folk albums: Dave Brubeck's 'Time Out', and Glenn Gould's 1955 'Goldbergs'. We're all debating the relative merits of Gould's two studio recordings, '55 and '81. But Sony also released his live 1959 Salzburg performance, and into that one he poured his heart. Find the '55 too rushed and brittle? GET THE '59! Find the '81 too studied? GET THE '59! By Gouldian standards, it's almost rhapsodic: it has poetry, tenderness, a rapt expressiveness, and flow. Amazon still lists it as available from Sony International. The front cover bears the legend, "Live from Salzburg and Moscow". (And I believe they also issued a 2nd version, minus the Moscow bits but with the complete Salzburg recital.)
I much prefer Gould’s 1981 recording: even though I admire the brilliance of Gould’s first, much faster version. But my favourite version is that of Keith Jarrett’s 1989 recording, on the harpsichord. I love his sense of relaxed freedom and faithfulness in this performance. Jarrett is musically much more insightful, perhaps because of his experience of improvisation as a jazz musician. There’s a sense of humour in some of the variations, especially in variation 20, which has a sublime clarity compared to Gould’s rapid blurring of the notes in both of his recordings if this same variation. Thanks, Dave for such an enlightening and enjoyable video.
I will always remember a French critic who wrote in the 70s, I think it was Marcel Marnat (him again!) about Goldberg by Glenn Gould....'' it's not Bach , it's Glenn Gould....( ) '' the 1955 version is a flagship disc for those who want to know this work, and fortunately it is still available
Dave, my departed friend Gerald Ranck a harpsichordist was called on several times by Buckley to entertain his guests. Congrats. on 37k subscribers. Be well.
RCA Victor Red Seal - LSC-2851 Vinyl, LP, Stereo 1965 Peter Serkin. Will need to check to see if W.Landowska's student Ralph Kirkpatrick recorded it on the harpsichord.
He was not nuts. He developed a life that allowed him to totally concentrate on his art and interests. He stopped public performances to emphasize recording. He hummed because he played better. There was a sound reason for all his eccentricities and thank God we have this genius’s rich legacy !
I've heard both Glenn Gould versions of the "Goldbergs" (the "Gouldbergs," as one Fanfare critic called them), and my reaction was, "He's playing the piano so staccato and trying so hard to make it sound like a harpsichord, why doesn't he just play a harpsichord?" And when I heard jazz pianist Lennie Tristano's 1956 album on Atlantic, in which he played some of the pieces an octave lower and then sped them up in the mastering, thereby slashing the decay time in half, I thought, "If Glenn Gould had made a jazz album, this is what it would have sounded like."
In the nineties, as I was very young and discovering music, there was one harpsichordist whose Goldberg Variations everybody had and cited and discussed and compared to Glenn Gould's, and whom I am therefore pretty surprised not to hear mentionned at the end of this video : Scott Ross. I don't say I find his GV worthy of reference status (I don't feel competent at all to judge!), I'm just surprised because I would have thought it t h e reference recording on the harpsichord (of course not to be compared with Glenn Gould's overall notoriety). But I'm from France, and Scott Ross was probably more popular there than anywhere else ?
Scott Ross is my go to for Goldberg Variations. He's very "non-precious" and unpretentious in his approach. Not trying to turn Bach into some kind of museum exhibit, while also not trying to twist the music into something it's not for the sake of "modernising" it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide A valid & fair point, but also it stands to be noted that many of his recordings were only sold in France (his Rameau and Couperin in particular, on a label called Edition STIL). A lot of his non-France recordings also dropped out of the catalog quickly other than the mega-box complete Scarlatti sonatas. I wonder if that contributes to his relative obscurity.
A good example of a reference recording being a standard to which no-one else should aspire, I suppose! I hate it, but understand why it's the reference.
Great story by Bernstein about how for him and his wife the 1955 record became 'our song'. But surprised I don't see any love here for Gould's live (1958) Salzburg recording, which to me has a better flow.
I totally agree that Glenn Gould is the reference recording. In fact, I have the triple CD of the original he made plus his re-recording and an interview with him on a Sony CD issue called A Sense Of Wonder. And so it is!.
Beside the obvious reference interpretation of that monumental music 🎶 played by Glenn Gould 🎹; I admire the following interpretations as well: Simone Dinnerstein 🎹 🗽 Angela Hewitt🎹🇬🇧🇮🇹
I have both recordings bij Gould and they are a class on its own, nevertheless for me its the harpsichord (Gilbert, Leonhard) that for this music is preferable to the piano.
@@glenngouldificationDisagree--he played all the repeats--that's why I don't like the Gould and the later recording is awful---please someone---anyone--take away the damned humming!!
Dave, I have a CD of the Goldberg Variations by the Canadian Brass. What do you think of such transcription recordings, like Stokowski? I've been reading about him in Reinventing Bach by Paul Elie.
I have a CD of a performance on the marimba, by Pius Cheung. It's a beautiful sound, but it becomes rather monotonous after a while. It almost makes me wish for a xylophone to take over.
Landowska also had the later problem of playing a profoundly un-authentic harpsichords. The industry didn't completely take off until maker started making wooden instruments closer to original spec. They did sound better!
“It is insane!” - but you obviously have it! I prefer the 1955 to the 1980 recording / I find the obbligato singing and grunting unlistenable. And you are also right / sone recordings one has to think about when considering a reference recording - but this one takes about 1 nano second to conjure - Like the Callas Tosca, the Schwarzkopf/Szell 4LL, Solti Ring, Giulini Don Giovanni…. Thanks for the marvelous reference entertainment.
If there is a case for a reference recording this is it. For everything you said. But also, to a certain point, on how Glenn Gould could have influenced all the piano interpretations that followed. To such an extent that one almost wonders if he is not ultimately the composer. My favorite interpretation is that of E. Koroliov. One of Koroliov's most influential Bach experiences was hearing Glenn Gould playing in Moscow in 1957 when he was only eight. it was, according to him, a decisive moment of his life
Thanks, Dave, for this instructive discographic history. Of course it HAD to be Gould 1955, not 1982. Two brief comments. It should be noted that Gould himself dismissed his 1955 recording as "too pianistic," and that helped to promote the feeding frenzy among Gouldians (and I confess that I am one) to purchase and fawn over his 1982 account. The other, and historically more important point, is that the instant popularity of the earlier recording helped to legitimize Bach on the piano. Thanks to that legitimation, the role and status of the "Bach pianist" was established. Without Gould's early effort the project of Ivo Janssen to record Bach's complete keyboard works on piano would not have been oossible or, as it has turned out, successful.
One further comment. It just struck me that Gould's recording career, indeed his life as a performing artist, is framed by two recordings of the same work. That means his creative life began and ended with the same music, but the "same music" perceived differently. In other words Gould's life as an artist is structured along the same lines as the 1982 Goldbergs! And Bach himself would have appreciated the symbolism, even if, or maybe especially, since it wasn't intended by the pianist.
This seems like a bizarre series of responses. It is always going to be a subjective matter of opinion. I love the early Gould performance, and agree that before his recording the Goldbergs got relatively little attention. I listen to Gould's performance at night to help me fall asleep, because it is short. But musically I prefer Schiff, but don't listen to him to fall asleep because he takes the repeats and it is too long for that. I hope everyone is happy now.
Beethoven comes to me in psychic moments and shouts very abusively at me--and not just because he's still deaf in the afterlife, he also remains quite ill-tempered.
ohhhhh, no, not Gleeny!!! Is there any of him without his voice arrangment for that? Any that played only with keyboard as Bach intended? I mean without voice arrangemet along with keyboard. Also, everybody woud agree... he is a bad singer.
Yes, we can all hum along with him. The recording engineer made repeated attempts to keep him from doing that, and tried desperate measures to adjust the microphone placement and "fix it in the mix", all to no avail. I find that it really distracts from the music.
Dear Dave, please, my opinon about G. is mine... If you got offended by, please accept my appologies, I really referred on his noise on the play, not you. I follow you by the reason of your channel is unique. Take care! Can't wait for the next video!
Certainly the best known and most heard. But for me, GG does not set any standard for comparison with others. I derive much more enjoyment from the pianists who exploit the resources of the piano for tone, color, etc. Off the top of my head: Kempf, P. Serkin, Nikolayeva, and Kolsnikov for example.
@DavesClassicalGuide The three Great Singers and Grunters were all geniuses. Toscanini, Casals, and Gould. (Im meh, but I find myself doing it at home sometimes, but not at concerts, thank heavens.)
Love Landowska, hate Tureck. And always found Tureck to be one of the most boring, mechanical pianists that have walked de face of earth. I think she specialized un Bach because it's very hard to really screw it. I remember a recording of her playing Chopin's op 62 no 2....the most unsensitive, cold recording in history.
I hate the entire reference recording idea. As if there's one interpretation or production that's better than all the rest. How insulting to the classical musicians who have devoted their lives to music, much less my own intelligence.
It is not only the reference recording of the Goldberg Variations -- it is the the iconic version of what a reference recording is.
Agreed, the very definition
An acquaintance of mine who know Wanda Landowska had brought her Gould's 1955 Goldbergs. Landowska listened. My acquaintance asked Landowska what she thought. Landowska replied something of the effect of "I don't like it, but he's wonderful."
Gary Graffman, just to confirm your anedocte, said that when Gould played Bach it didn’t seem to listen to Bach but to Gould himself
Wise woman!
@jdistler2 - And of course there's George Szell's remark: "That nut's a genius!"
Just to mention that in the early fifties, Erica Morini and Monique de la Bruchollerie we're totally acceptef and not not considere loony ladies.
Didn't know the Rosalyn Tureck, so cued up the first few variations of the 1957 recording that is uploaded to UA-cam. I was stunned to see that the video lasted a full 1hr and 33mins. I thought it was really beautiful, a very calm and unhurried version that seemed to delight in all the details with a certain gentleness, I really enjoyed it. It's interesting how Bach's music seems to work well both ways which such radically different conceptions.
Woody Allen said he initially thought the Goldberg Variations was something that Mr. & Mrs. Goldberg did in their bedroom.
I do enjoy Pinnock's harpsichord recording. And Pinnock's Partitas (on the Hanssler release) is just so beautiful.
What a great joke from Woody!! Thanks for sharing!
It's maybe " did on their honeymoon "
I like Gould's last digital recording of Goldberg better than his 1955, with more dynamic and passion. Anyone else likes that one?
And that is correct!
Yes - and the video document of this performance is unbelievable.
Same here.
I prefer the later one. But they are so different as to be by two different people. There is a lot of music I'd let Cancrizans destroy before I'd let him touch either of these Gould recordings.
Yes, very much
Rosalyn Tureck, High Priestess of Bach, was the inspiration for Gould's 1954 performance. She performed Bach on all instruments including Moog Synthesizer.
Really? I am aware of several recordings on the piano, and one harpsichord -- but where and when was the MOOG released? Somehow seems out of character for her. (Switched-on Bach was the work of Walter -- later Wendy -- Carlos)
There is only a video of her playing the Moog. There is no recording.@@ugolomb
Grateful to him for tackling Hindemith.
Talking about references, my teenage-son recently asked: "It's actually a bit annoying, but why is it, that everytime I hear somebody else play the Goldberg variations, I hear Glenn Gould's performance for my inner ear?" (the 1981-recording, which is his preference, that is).
Á pro pos the Goldberg Vars. a favourite musical anecdote: Rudolf Serkin recollected, that he made his Berlin debut in 1921 as soloist in the 5th Brandenburg Concerto with the Busch Chamber Players. As he took his bows after the performance, his to-be father-inlaw, Adolf Busch, told him to play an encore for the enthusiastic crowd. When the 17 year old Serkin asked, what to play. Busch proposed as a joke, that he could play the Goldberg variations. The perplexed teenager took Busch seriously: "When I finished there were only four people left: Adolf Busch, Arthur Schnabel, Alfred Einstein and me". A tenacious, though august company for certain - and boy, would I have loved to be the proverbial fly on the wall for that concert!
it is because Glenn Gould was probably the greatest pianist in modern history. When he played things right, they were THE way it should have been played
Fascinating video... Love all the insights and history. Thanks for posting!
Gould succeeded in creating the clarity of a harpsichord with a piano.
Simply the right man, at the right moment, with the right instrument for that moment, and the right label. Considering that he was esteemed by such diverse artists as Bernstein, Rubinstein, Richter, Menuhin, and (grudgingly) Szell, it’s surprising how much ire we’ve seen at the mention of his name.
The fact that he's still controversial only confirms his continuing relevance.
Nice impression of W. F. Buckley. 😂
Buckley fancied himself as a Bach performer and expert. He published interesting Bach keyboard scores were the notes with sharps and flats are in red and the rest in black. Never really caught on
But Buckley was a devout Roman Catholic, not Episcopalian. Tho certainly the class he belonged to was dominated by uptight transatlantic Anglicans.
I used to prefer Gould '55 but after listening to Gould '81, I like that better. So did Gould, as he discussed at length in the interview on the State of Wonder CD; that box has both 55 and 81, the long interview, and some outtakes. Alternate instrumentations are also fun: I have the Goldbergs on string trio, string quartet, guitar, brass quintet, probably more.
Gould said the variations hung together better in the 81 recording. I remember hearing the 55 version for the first time and wondering how anyone could play that fast with such precision and control
Gould ‘55 and Gould ‘81 were very different people.
either way, others who play this are really only paying homage to Gould.
As much as it highlights my sound ignorance, your sleevenote like yet spirited explanation is so brilliant that it incites me to try a listening of this famous benchmark (I must have heard it at least once but being not one of those intimidating Bach connoisseurs I came across and having stayed faithful to the Kempff perhaps a shade placid but I think quite overwordly beautiful DG recording, I did not care too much). Thank you.
"... weird is not what you want in a reference recording, generally speaking ..." just after proclaiming Gould's recording as the reference...
I said generally, and Gould isn't weird at all. People love it or hate it, but I don't know anyone who says he treats the music in a deliberately perverse or gratuitous manner (as he did Beethoven, arguably).
@DavesClassicalGuide and his Mozart is very peculiar 😊
It's kinda shocking that a recording as polarizing and as idiomatic as the '55 Gould would be considered a reference, but your explanation of the timing of its release makes a lot of sense.
I would have guessed either a Tureck or even the '81 Gould, as I feel he split the difference between his own idiosyncrasies and "proper" Bach performance.
I own both the '81 Gould and Angela Hewitt's, and I love them both, each for different reasons.
This recording is wonderful while running!
Of course, it had to be Gould. I just heard Kempff's recently after decades of being familiar with Gould and some harpsichordists' versions. I was stunned, shocked--even appalled--at first, until I relaxed into his very different interpretation and came to really love it.
Yes, Kempff's is a highly unusual reading, but very affecting.
Kempff is one of my favorite pianists; I do enjoy his "Goldbergs"
Just a little suggestion to Mr Hurwitz: how about a series about the most perverse recordings ever and why they qualify as such? Some examples that come to mind: Gould’s Mozart sonatas, Pletnev’s Beethoven Symphonies, Bernstein’s DG New World Symphony…
First time I heard the Gould recording I thought my neighbour, who was outside leaning on his gate, was singing along. Nobody had warned me.
The last time I heard the work it was performed live by Vikingur Ōlafson. I prefer it when it's just me humming along.
An opinion shared by those sitting next to you at the concert? 🤪
If Tureck and Landowska were loony ladies, Gould was certainly a loony laddie. Glad to see you demonstrated self awareness of the male narrative in classical perception, especially back in the day. Call me woke if you like.
Of course it would be the Glenn Gould 1955 - and really fascinating chat, across the board. Now I want to hear Tureck and Landowska, thanks. And I agree, Trevor Pinnock is my own favorite on the harpsichord - Beecham's hilarious comment notwithstanding! (Committing that gem to memory ...)
I think in William F. Buckley's drawing room, they guests would have been lock-jawed Roman Catholics. However, I first learned of Tureck in an issue of National Review when she played at, you guessed it, an NR anniversary celebration.
Yes, of course, it had to be Gould '55! And, yes, it came along at just the right time, when young adults with disposable income were reading (in Playboy, et al.) that they just weren't 'cool' if they didn't have a 'hi-fi rig'. I can't tell you how many friends' record collections I flipped through in the mid-1960's, always finding the same two two non-Rock or -Folk albums: Dave Brubeck's 'Time Out', and Glenn Gould's 1955 'Goldbergs'.
We're all debating the relative merits of Gould's two studio recordings, '55 and '81. But Sony also released his live 1959 Salzburg performance, and into that one he poured his heart. Find the '55 too rushed and brittle? GET THE '59! Find the '81 too studied? GET THE '59! By Gouldian standards, it's almost rhapsodic: it has poetry, tenderness, a rapt expressiveness, and flow.
Amazon still lists it as available from Sony International. The front cover bears the legend, "Live from Salzburg and Moscow". (And I believe they also issued a 2nd version, minus the Moscow bits but with the complete Salzburg recital.)
His live recordings of the inventions are amazing. They are of course flawless but there is more expression in them than his other Bach recordings !
I much prefer Gould’s 1981 recording: even though I admire the brilliance of Gould’s first, much faster version. But my favourite version is that of Keith Jarrett’s 1989 recording, on the harpsichord. I love his sense of relaxed freedom and faithfulness in this performance. Jarrett is musically much more insightful, perhaps because of his experience of improvisation as a jazz musician. There’s a sense of humour in some of the variations, especially in variation 20, which has a sublime clarity compared to Gould’s rapid blurring of the notes in both of his recordings if this same variation. Thanks, Dave for such an enlightening and enjoyable video.
I will always remember a French critic who wrote in the 70s, I think it was Marcel Marnat (him again!) about Goldberg by Glenn Gould....'' it's not Bach , it's Glenn Gould....( ) '' the 1955 version is a flagship disc for those who want to know this work, and fortunately it is still available
Dave, my departed friend Gerald Ranck a harpsichordist was called on several times by Buckley to entertain his guests. Congrats. on 37k subscribers. Be well.
I wish you would speak more about Ms Tureck's eccentricity.
Her contributions themselves remain eminently worthy of a review (if not several)...
RCA Victor Red Seal - LSC-2851 Vinyl, LP, Stereo 1965 Peter Serkin. Will need to check to see if W.Landowska's student Ralph Kirkpatrick recorded it on the harpsichord.
Peter Serkin, like Gould, later re-recorded the Goldberg's in the 1990's. Again for RCA...
He did, on Deutsche Grammophon, with a coupling of the Italian Concerto BWV 971
@@peterwollenberg4905Zum Italienischen Konzert sagte Gould: Bach für Leute, die Bach nicht mögen.
What about Helmut Walcha's stereo recording?
Looking forward to more baroque RRs, also Renaissance and earlier (if they exist).
Hi Dave, I would like to know what do you think about Wilhelm Kempffs Recording?
Greetings from Munich 🥨
It doesn't thrill me.
I like the latter recording more. I watched a good documentary about Gould recently & he really was eccentric or just plain nuts
Just plain nuts!
He was not nuts. He developed a life that allowed him to totally concentrate on his art and interests. He stopped public performances to emphasize recording. He hummed because he played better. There was a sound reason for all his eccentricities and thank God we have this genius’s rich legacy !
@@glenngouldification His different behaviour went a bit further than that. I’m a fan it’s all good.
The film "Thirty-two Short Films about Glenn Gould" is worth seeking out. I flew 600 miles to NYC to see it in the '90s.
@@phomchick Wow your a serious fan I will try & find it. Thanks
I've heard both Glenn Gould versions of the "Goldbergs" (the "Gouldbergs," as one Fanfare critic called them), and my reaction was, "He's playing the piano so staccato and trying so hard to make it sound like a harpsichord, why doesn't he just play a harpsichord?" And when I heard jazz pianist Lennie Tristano's 1956 album on Atlantic, in which he played some of the pieces an octave lower and then sped them up in the mastering, thereby slashing the decay time in half, I thought, "If Glenn Gould had made a jazz album, this is what it would have sounded like."
In the nineties, as I was very young and discovering music, there was one harpsichordist whose Goldberg Variations everybody had and cited and discussed and compared to Glenn Gould's, and whom I am therefore pretty surprised not to hear mentionned at the end of this video : Scott Ross.
I don't say I find his GV worthy of reference status (I don't feel competent at all to judge!), I'm just surprised because I would have thought it t h e reference recording on the harpsichord (of course not to be compared with Glenn Gould's overall notoriety). But I'm from France, and Scott Ross was probably more popular there than anywhere else ?
Yes, he was much more popular in France.
Scott Ross is my go to for Goldberg Variations. He's very "non-precious" and unpretentious in his approach. Not trying to turn Bach into some kind of museum exhibit, while also not trying to twist the music into something it's not for the sake of "modernising" it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide A valid & fair point, but also it stands to be noted that many of his recordings were only sold in France (his Rameau and Couperin in particular, on a label called Edition STIL). A lot of his non-France recordings also dropped out of the catalog quickly other than the mega-box complete Scarlatti sonatas. I wonder if that contributes to his relative obscurity.
A good example of a reference recording being a standard to which no-one else should aspire, I suppose!
I hate it, but understand why it's the reference.
Great story by Bernstein about how for him and his wife the 1955 record became 'our song'. But surprised I don't see any love here for Gould's live (1958) Salzburg recording, which to me has a better flow.
I will never understand how people claim to be surprised because the universe doesn't accord with their viewpoint.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Strange response. There’s a wide range of recordings referenced in the discussion, Gould has many fans, ergo…
I totally agree that Glenn Gould is the reference recording. In fact, I have the triple CD of the original he made plus his re-recording and an interview with him on a Sony CD issue called A Sense Of Wonder. And so it is!.
That's the one to have. 👍
Beside the obvious reference interpretation of that monumental music 🎶 played by Glenn Gould 🎹; I admire the following interpretations as well:
Simone Dinnerstein 🎹 🗽
Angela Hewitt🎹🇬🇧🇮🇹
Blandine's Couperin is the best i agree!!
I have both recordings bij Gould and they are a class on its own, nevertheless for me its the harpsichord (Gilbert, Leonhard) that for this music is preferable to the piano.
If RCA had actually released Arrau's 1941 take on the Goldberg Variations at that time, would it have brought the piece renown earlier.
No, as with Turecks the pace is slow and never as inspiring and whimsical as Goulds !
@@glenngouldificationDisagree--he played all the repeats--that's why I don't like the Gould and the later recording is awful---please someone---anyone--take away the damned humming!!
Dave, I have a CD of the Goldberg Variations by the Canadian Brass. What do you think of such transcription recordings, like Stokowski? I've been reading about him in Reinventing Bach by Paul Elie.
I enjoy them. Bach works on kazoos.
I have a CD of a performance on the marimba, by Pius Cheung. It's a beautiful sound, but it becomes rather monotonous after a while. It almost makes me wish for a xylophone to take over.
The string trio version is really amazing!
Landowska also had the later problem of playing a profoundly un-authentic harpsichords. The industry didn't completely take off until maker started making wooden instruments closer to original spec. They did sound better!
Not necessarily. Just different.
Now for the Diabellis.
R. Serkin?
Interesting question which makes me ask: what is the reference recording of The People United will Never be Defeated?
“It is insane!” - but you obviously have it! I prefer the 1955 to the 1980 recording / I find the obbligato singing and grunting unlistenable. And you are also right / sone recordings one has to think about when considering a reference recording - but this one takes about 1 nano second to conjure - Like the Callas Tosca, the Schwarzkopf/Szell 4LL, Solti Ring, Giulini Don Giovanni…. Thanks for the marvelous reference entertainment.
If there is a case for a reference recording this is it. For everything you said. But also, to a certain point, on how Glenn Gould could have influenced all the piano interpretations that followed. To such an extent that one almost wonders if he is not ultimately the composer. My favorite interpretation is that of E. Koroliov. One of Koroliov's most influential Bach experiences was hearing Glenn Gould playing in Moscow in 1957 when he was only eight. it was, according to him, a decisive moment of his life
I heard Gould at Stratford Ontario in 1962 and it was a reference point in my life that I will never forget !
That Moscow trip was apparently something of a sensation and helped make Gould famous
@@glenkoehn7166 Koroliovis my favorite. Saw it live in Montpellier. Also like Fazil Say.
Gould’s humming is very hard to tolerate
Doesn't bother me.
Thanks, Dave, for this instructive discographic history. Of course it HAD to be Gould 1955, not 1982. Two brief comments. It should be noted that Gould himself dismissed his 1955 recording as "too pianistic," and that helped to promote the feeding frenzy among Gouldians (and I confess that I am one) to purchase and fawn over his 1982 account. The other, and historically more important point, is that the instant popularity of the earlier recording helped to legitimize Bach on the piano. Thanks to that legitimation, the role and status of the "Bach pianist" was established. Without Gould's early effort the project of Ivo Janssen to record Bach's complete keyboard works on piano would not have been oossible or, as it has turned out, successful.
One further comment. It just struck me that Gould's recording career, indeed his life as a performing artist, is framed by two recordings of the same work. That means his creative life began and ended with the same music, but the "same music" perceived differently. In other words Gould's life as an artist is structured along the same lines as the 1982 Goldbergs! And Bach himself would have appreciated the symbolism, even if, or maybe especially, since it wasn't intended by the pianist.
I love the early Gould recording, but I have one word for you: Andras Schiff
Not a reference.
Herr Schiff wandelt seit längerer Zeit auf seltsamen Pfaden.
This seems like a bizarre series of responses. It is always going to be a subjective matter of opinion. I love the early Gould performance, and agree that before his recording the Goldbergs got relatively little attention. I listen to Gould's performance at night to help me fall asleep, because it is short. But musically I prefer Schiff, but don't listen to him to fall asleep because he takes the repeats and it is too long for that. I hope everyone is happy now.
Bill Buckley was Roman Catholic, not Episcopalian; so Catholic that the only mass he would attend had to be in Latin.
He was an Episcopalian in drag.
Beethoven comes to me in psychic moments and shouts very abusively at me--and not just because he's still deaf in the afterlife, he also remains quite ill-tempered.
Sehr seltsam, Beethoven erscheint mir als einer der sehr wenigen Komponisten mit Humor. Frohe Ostern!
can't listen to Gould in Bach. hard to describe how I and so many others are indebted to a recording that is completely unpalatable.
Not nearly as unpalatable as your comments and your meaningless representations on behalf of “so many others “
ohhhhh, no, not Gleeny!!! Is there any of him without his voice arrangment for that? Any that played only with keyboard as Bach intended? I mean without voice arrangemet along with keyboard. Also, everybody woud agree... he is a bad singer.
Yes, we can all hum along with him. The recording engineer made repeated attempts to keep him from doing that, and tried desperate measures to adjust the microphone placement and "fix it in the mix", all to no avail. I find that it really distracts from the music.
I couldn't care less about his singing, but then look who's talking.
Dear Dave, please, my opinon about G. is mine... If you got offended by, please accept my appologies, I really referred on his noise on the play, not you. I follow you by the reason of your channel is unique. Take care! Can't wait for the next video!
Certainly the best known and most heard. But for me, GG does not set any standard for comparison with others. I derive much more enjoyment from the pianists who exploit the resources of the piano for tone, color, etc. Off the top of my head: Kempf, P. Serkin, Nikolayeva, and Kolsnikov for example.
@DavesClassicalGuide The three Great Singers and Grunters were all geniuses. Toscanini, Casals, and Gould. (Im meh, but I find myself doing it at home sometimes, but not at concerts, thank heavens.)
Love Landowska, hate Tureck. And always found Tureck to be one of the most boring, mechanical pianists that have walked de face of earth. I think she specialized un Bach because it's very hard to really screw it. I remember a recording of her playing Chopin's op 62 no 2....the most unsensitive, cold recording in history.
I hate the entire reference recording idea. As if there's one interpretation or production that's better than all the rest. How insulting to the classical musicians who have devoted their lives to music, much less my own intelligence.
That's not what a reference recording is. You haven't been paying attention and don't understand the point of this series at all.