"Gouldbergs"

[arensky]

Which one of these legendary recordings do you prefer?

I think they are both unbelievably good  but if I only had to have one, it would be the 1955. It is more alert and alive, and sharply defined. The 1981 is wonderful, but it seems somewhat stodgy and slow moving to me, stuck in the mud. It's like he was becoming a caricature of himself, as many great artists do. Yes it's more historically informed and he observes all (or more) of the repeats but it doesn't equal the first one, IMO...

[pianistimo]

it's been awhile since i've listened to both, but my initial reaction when first listening to the two was the same as yours.  the earlier version seemed peppier. 

[lisztisforkids]

They are both really neat. The first, energetic and full of vigor and youth. The second, slow, and introspective.

[Contrapunctus]

The first is faster, but who cares? Among supervirtuosos, the real skill lies in the ability to play something slower than normal and still make it sound amazing. Try playing the aria from the Goldbergs. You will find that after you learn the notes, playing it fast is much easier than playing it as slow as Gould did in '81 and making it sound good. Speed is not everything. '81 has more maturity and more restraint, and in it Gould employs his theory on how fast each variation should be played. Some people think that just because each variation has different thematic  material means that they can play a variation by itself--this is horrifically wrong. The aria and variations follow a specific chord progression that each variation is built off. You cannot separate them just as much as you cannot separate the Diabelli variations. In Glenn's theory he puts this all into effect and plays the chord progression at a speed relative to the speeds of the other variations. Besides, at a slower speed Gould is able to emphasize more submelodies and make the notes even more clearer. And, if you take away the repeats in the '81 version then you will find that the '55 and the '81 have the same overall time.

[e60m5]

Discounting repeats, they have the same overall timing? This I wasn't aware of. I was under the impression that the '81 is just... longer, even discounting repeats.

I must say that either recording on their own is amazing. I'm a huge fan of both of them. However, putting the two together and in the context of what they actually represent (namely, the very birth of Gould's career, and its very twilight), they become so much more than they are in isolation. Choosing between the two, I prefer to listen to the '55, but that's not at all to say that the '81 is inferior. They're both superlative works of art - impossible to say which is objectively better. I am allowed to indicate a preference, though. 

[arensky]

I am allowed to indicate a preference, though. 

Of course you are! 

[anschlag]

1955 for me. Exalted and euphoric playing. Find the 1981 version too abstract and cool.