Why was Glenn Gould the best Bach performer?

[orlandopiano]

His name is almost always mentioned when discussing Bach keyboard legends.  To some, he's the only choice for Bach. But I'll never understand why.  I'll be honest, I've never been a fan of Glenn Gould.   His playing is more original than others, but overall it does nothing for me (and I adore the music of Bach). That's probably blasphemy to a lot of you. There are a number of pianists for Bach I would choose over Gould.

So, maybe I don't "get" it. Maybe Mr. Gould's playing is too profound for me. I am open to hearing your reasons why he is so great.

(note: I am fully aware of Gould's remarkable ability and rare genius. I've read books, seen the (fictitional) 32 short films, yada yada yada. I am asking about his actual playing)

[vladhorwz]

My guesses:

1) He was very intelligent
2) Quirky(like Kissin)
3) He hummed alot which made him stand out a little
4) He sat so low which was different to watch
5) luck
6) Connections
7) luck
8 ) luck

He had the talent and he brought somethig different to the table, whcih is refreshing where there are 10,000 people who can play those pieces.  And Luck.

[da jake]

The more I hear of Gould, the more I admire him. I think he's hands down the greatest interpreter of Bach's music.

 - He possessed sublime insight into the music. He was a genius who could record a given Bach piece in as many different ways he desired.
- Superb mechanism, absolute finger articulation, best player of counterpoint ever. Listen to the '55 Gouldberg recording. Though Gould would never fare as well in Romantic music like Chopin Etudes as Andrei Gavrilov, Gould's recording's of the Goldberg's are actually superior to Gavrilov's in terms of control, clarity, and sensitivity (in my opinion). This should prove that Gould mastered an aspect of technique that surpasses even the greatest of the recorded virtuosi. Only Hofmann possessed the same freakish and stunning touch.

My first introduction to the English suites was actually the Piranha's recording. I liked it - until I heard Gould's. The latter's sparing use of pedal allows the listener to hear exactly what's going on in the music. I now find Perahia's and even Kapell's 4th Partita unlistenable compared to Gould. The only pianist who comes close to Gould's in Bach, is, for me, Lipatti.

[quasimodo]

Okay Gould was great and his approach was very original. Although I don't consider at all that he was the greatest Bach performer.

On the WTC which is IMO the reference on Bach's music interpretation, I find Richter tops him by far.

Plus, Gould used to extensively edit his recordings, so his performance are quite a bit "artificial" sounding.

[pseudopianist]

Okay Gould was great and his approach was very original. Although I don't consider at all that he was the greatest Bach performer.

On the WTC which is IMO the reference on Bach's music interpretation, I find Richter tops him by far.

Plus, Gould used to extensively edit his recordings, so his performance are quite a bit "artificial" sounding.

Agreed

[Bouter Boogie]

Okay Gould was great and his approach was very original. Although I don't consider at all that he was the greatest Bach performer.

I agree.

[BoliverAllmon]

Okay Gould was great and his approach was very original. Although I don't consider at all that he was the greatest Bach performer.

On the WTC which is IMO the reference on Bach's music interpretation, I find Richter tops him by far.

Plus, Gould used to extensively edit his recordings, so his performance are quite a bit "artificial" sounding.

I find Gould's performance of the WTC better than Richter. I am not sure exactly why, but I just do.

[da jake]

Respect unto Boliver.

[jhon]

IMHO, Gould is the best Bach performer bec. he has the MOST "delicate" touch.  You see, this man doesn't really like repertoire that used to "bang" the keyboard (such as what ROmantic and 20th Century periods are mostly).  I remember reading a bio of his stating that he hates romantic and modern music as they "exploit" (make the most of it)  the capabilities of piano.  He adds, its only from "Baroque to Beethoven" he can take - well, you can see from his beethoven sonatas what I mean...

[pseudopianist]

Respect unto Boliver.

I disagree

[da jake]

I disagree

4 shame. 

[orlandopiano]

IMHO, Gould is the best Bach performer bec. he has the MOST "delicate" touch. 

Sorry, but there is no way Gould has the most delicate touch.

[prometheus]

Gould knew that Bach's music doesn't need to be 'ornamented' with rubato, cresendo, diminuendo and other harsh emotional rhetorical effects.

I once heard Sokolov's Goldberg Variations and it is awful. I have heard Schiff's two part inventions, both the piano and the harpsichord versions. If I take No.1 as an example. I can't imagine the WTC being played like he plays the first invention on the piano. The way he plays in on the harpsichord is very different, which is a sign of intelligence. The piano sounds like Chopin while the harpsichord sounds a lot more like Gould playing Bach.

I am not sure if Gould is really the best at all Bach works on piano. But his second Goldberg Variation recording, no other I heard rivals it.

Gould lets Bach's music speak for itself, he presents it naked; steady rhythm and sublte articulation with only the purpuse to make the countepoint cleared. When some other people play Bach they feel they need to play it 'musical'. The best 'musical' (or rather rhetorical) version of the WTC I have heard is Korevaar. He uses it intelligent, very subtle and with great functionality. I can't imagine Bach WTC as flashy and dancy and swining as Schiff invention No.1. But then I don't know how he plays those works. I have never heard Richter but I will be suprised if I will like it. I can't imagine Bach sounding like Richter sounds, Bach being played by a russian klavierlion, no thanks.

[BoliverAllmon]

Respect unto Boliver.

thank you

I disagree

I don't thank you.

[leahcim]

Funny quirks.

If you play really well, so what? Some people will think you're good, some won't. It's all bullocks after a certain point.

If you vomit into the piano before the 3rd movement and let your playing spray the audience there'll be a bunch of students obsessively vomiting into theirs to improve their technique before long, posting to forums with your name - many critics and music professors will talk and write at length about the vomit and how it affected your tone.

The review for your album and performances will have more opportunities for puns, pleasing journos "Yesterday I met Grogowitz backstage, keen not to regurgitate the usual interview about his vomit I didn't bring up the subject as I'm sure he's sick of it by now. There was more Bach than Barf in yesterdays performance, more Chopin than choking - although his team of 4 helpers, busily cleaning up his piano, were still kept busy....'What next?' I asked him. 'For me it's all about the music not cheap gimmicks. So I'm thinking of sawing the legs off the piano and playing on stilts, so I can get better control and tone."

[da jake]

@Leahcim: what.

Gould knew that Bach's music doesn't need to be 'ornamented' with rubato, cresendo, diminuendo and other harsh emotional rhetorical effects.

Gould did extravagant things even with Bach.  Listen to the weird syncopations in the first prelude of WTC. I found it really strange at first, now I think it is a brilliant addition that I miss in other pianists' version of the piece (like Cziffra's Mazeppa trill). Same with the second Prelude (cmin) of WTC I thought Richter's was neat cuz it was super fast, but after hearing Gould, I find that Richter's playing is reminiscent of someone winding up a jack in the box - with Gould you can actually hear the weird dissonances in the outer notes of each hand. Gould's ornamentation is often anything but standard (especially in endings), but is often clever and very funny.

The only deficiencies of Gould's Bach, I think, are some of the slower movements in his earlier recordings (compare Gould's slow movement of the Italian Concerto to Schnabel's  and the immaturity is apparent). As a true artist, Gould remedied these problems as he progressed. I'm starting to see the artistic superiority of the 81 Goldberg's over the 55 ones...the complete and utter rhytmic control clarity (BETTER in some ways than 55!).

If you've reached the Aria da Capo in Gouldberg video, you're witnessing a display of pure artistic enlightenment.

[perfect_pitch]

WHY WAS HE THE BEST?

Because he doesn't seem to play anything BUT Bach... No bleeding Wonder.

either that or because he suffers from OCD and has to play everything perfect. Or he can communicate with the spirit of Bach   

[princessdecadence]

In answer to the thread question, Gould did not play Bach in the conventional way but he made those Bach music his own.  Hence why the term "Gouldberg Variation" and as with anything, it really depends on your personal taste.  To me, he did made some of those Bach music sounds as sweet as Chopin's nocturne and they did sell like Rachmaninov's.  A lover of Bach would definitely appreciate his new interpretations.

Poor Glenn - don't bash him coz of his Bach. I kinda love him. *blush*

[perfect_pitch]

Poor Glenn - don't bash him coz of his Bach. I kinda love him. *blush*

HEY - I wasn't bashing him... I'm just saying that I would rather be a well rounded Pianist and be able to play most concertos instead of just sticking to one for all of my life.

I do have several of his CD's and one of his DVD's.

[piazzo23]

I don´t know if he was the best, but he was playing music, and that is missing in most of today´s well known.

But if you compare it with other past times pianists, they´re all good.

[jeremyjchilds]

I like Gould because he performed like a musicologist. (if that makes any sense)

[princessdecadence]

@piazzo23 - I muchly agree with you.

@perfect pitch - Perhaps he could play lots of concertos it's just that he just love to play Bach. Anyhow, I wasn't aiming particularly at you for bashing Gould.

[perfect_pitch]

I know, but instead of focusing solely on Bach, why doesn't he expand at least to other Baroque Pianists?? Early Mozart??? Scarlatti???

I just feel it is such a shame.

[prometheus]

He played Mozart, to show how much Mozart sucks...

I really dislike most of Mozart stuff, but I can't really agree with Gould here.

I can see why he didn't play Scarlatti.

He played some good Schoenberg, I think Macdowell sonatas or Hindemith sonatas, one of the two. He played Liszt Beethoven symphony transcriptions, though other people played them better (and some worse too).

Gould should have recorded some Sorabji.

[bernhard]

I know, but instead of focusing solely on Bach, why doesn't he expand at least to other Baroque Pianists?? Early Mozart??? Scarlatti???

I just feel it is such a shame.

He did. Besides Bach he played the following Baroque composers:

C.P. E. Bach:
https://sonyclassical.com/music/87753/
https://sonyclassical.com/music/60686/

William Byrd:
https://sonyclassical.com/music/52589/

Orlando Gibbons,
https://sonyclassical.com/music/52589/

Scarlatti:
https://sonyclassical.com/music/87753/
https://sonyclassical.com/music/60686/

Handel:
https://www.glenngould.com/52590.html

and Jan Sweelinck:
https://sonyclassical.com/music/52589/

Have a look here for a complete list of all composers Gould played:

https://www.glenngould.com/bycompos.html


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[jeremyjchilds]

I'd be curious to know what Bernard would say in response to Gould's statement referring to the scarlatti sonatas as "popcorn"

I would tend to think that they are more substantial...so I wonder what Gould meant...or was it just a gould thing?


On a different note:
Judging from the amount of popcorn flavours available, at the local theatre (At least at mine, there are too many to count) I guess one could relate the 550 to popcorn because there are so many flavors (too many to count) Even if you grab just one sonata, It can be like a handful of flavours in one....

[bernhard]

I'd be curious to know what Bernard would say in response to Gould's statement referring to the scarlatti sonatas as "popcorn"

I would tend to think that they are more substantial...so I wonder what Gould meant...or was it just a gould thing?


On a different note:
Judging from the amount of popcorn flavours available, at the local theatre (At least at mine, there are too many to count) I guess one could relate the 550 to popcorn because there are so many flavors (too many to count) Even if you grab just one sonata, It can be like a handful of flavours in one....

It is Gould's prerrogative to like/dislike any composer/music he chooses.

However,
to answer the original question – Why he was the best the best Bach interpreter -  quite simply he was not.

1.   His insights and knowledge of Bach interpretation were frequently wrong and baseless. He felt no qualms in coming up with some interpretative idea out of the blue and then using his – by no means negligible – powers of rhetoric to dress it up as some kind of scholarship. True Bach scholars, of course saw easily through him, but I guess no one will listen to some obscure academic when it contradicts – let us be candid here – a pop star.

2.   His technique (or mechanism if you prefer) was terribly faulty and limited – it probably led to early injury which is a much more cogent explanation why he left the concert stage at a relatively early age, rather than his convoluted self-justifications.

3.   His playing of counterpoint often suffered severe limitations due to the above. If you want to have a benchmark for comparison, listen to Rosalyn Tureck on the piano, or Ralph Kirkpatrick on Harpsichord/clavichord, both of which had truly superb, limitless technique plus the Bach scholarship to match it. Russians like Gavrilov and Richter are to be listened as curiosities. Hoffman was active at a time when information about authentic Baroque interpretation was simply not available (only after the 1950’s the gross mistakes started being addressed and corrected). Most pianists – specially the pop stars - do not have the time or inclination to go through this material (exceptions that come to mind: Angela Hewitt, Richard Goode and Andras Schiff).

4.   Most of his “touch” had nothing to do with the sound he produced, but rather with the extensive doctoring of his piano. Seems no one told him that shaking his fingers on an already depressed key was not going to result in any “vibrato” sound. (The only keyboard instrument for which this is not true is the clavichord).

5.   The main reason why Gould is so revered is simply due to his eccentric personality (the public loves this sort of thing) and being at the right place at the right time. At the time he started his career, Bach was not considered fit to be played on a piano – a case put forward mostly by Polish harpsichordist Wand Landowska. So strong and well argued was her case, that Claudio Arrau scraped Bach out of his repertory  completely after having give a historical series of recitals in Berlin where he played all of Bach’s keyboard pieces on the piano. Yet after conversing with Landowska, he simply dropped Bach works from his repertory to never touch it again, except in his 80s, when he went back to it – in his own words, because he realised the foolishness of his attitude in his younger years. So, Gould’s daring to play Bach on the piano was  - in the late 50’s early 60’s – iconoclastic, and hey, these were the 60s, the hippies, and so on. Iconoclasm was the order of the day. Tureck, on the other hand – which was certainly was far more deserving of appreciation than she received was the typical case of not being weird enough in personality , and being just that much ahead of her time – since she was actually the one who single-handedly brought Bach back to the piano years ahead of Gould – an idea whose time had come and which Gould was quick to profit from.

Having said that, let me assure Gould’s fans that I enjoy his playing as much as the next man.  I do own most of Gould’s CDs, DVDs, and I often listen to his interpretations simply for their idiossincratic value. There is a big difference between appreciating a pianist’s quirks and individual musical concepts and equating that with proper playing, which most definitely Gould does not do. I equate him with the Swingle Singers, Jacques Loussier and the Camerata Brasil (which plays Bach in Latin rhyhtms). Delightful, original and fresh? No doubt. Correct Baroque rendering? Hardly.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[da jake]

@Bernhard: You seem to be operating on the logic that the best interpretation of a work is one closest to the composers' own. I think that Gould never sought to either emulate the example of others or to churn out standard interpretations of works. He played the way he felt like.

Correct Baroque rendering? Hardly.

The question asks why Glenn Gould was the best Bach performer (which I believe is 100% correct), not most faithful interpreter (which I might even be able to argue, had I enough background knowledge on the subject!)

His insights and knowledge of Bach interpretation were frequently wrong and baseless

Who cares?

2.   His technique (or mechanism if you prefer) was terribly faulty and limited – it probably led to early injury which is a much more cogent explanation why he left the concert stage at a relatively early age, rather than his convoluted self-justifications.

FALSE.

Most of his “touch” had nothing to do with the sound he produced, but rather with the extensive doctoring of his piano. Seems no one told him that shaking his fingers on an already depressed key was not going to result in any “vibrato” sound. (The only keyboard instrument for which this is not true is the clavichord).

Un huh. His entire technique and art was faked by his piano. Yeah, that or Ocham's razor - he possessed a sublime technique for Bach that was fashioned through natural ability coupled with decades of practice.

[ahmedito]

I love Gould, but saying anyone is the best at anything, musically speaking is a big stretch, since its all personal taste.

My favourite Bach performer is Rosalyn Tureck.

[allthumbs]

Greetings

As brilliant and eccentric as Gould may or may not have been, I never could get past his annoying and detracting habit of humming off key to his playing. One would have thought to do this in a concert performance where it likely would not have been heard was one thing, but to have on his recordings IMO was a shame.

Cheers

PS - Bernhard, once again your insights are well thought out and intelligent.

[bernhard]

@Bernhard: You seem to be operating on the logic that the best interpretation of a work is one closest to the composers' own. I think that Gould never sought to either emulate the example of others or to churn out standard interpretations of works. He played the way he felt like.

Da Jake: you seem to be operating onthe logic that the best interpretation of a work is the one you like the best...

[bernhard]

Greetings

As brilliant and eccentric as Gould may or may not have been, I never could get past his annoying and detracting habit of humming off key to his playing. One would have thought to do this in a concert performance where it likely would not have been heard was one thing, but to have on his recordings IMO was a shame.

I couldn't agree more. I hate when pianists start humming (a surprising lot of them are in the habit - including such luminaries as Richard Goode and Brendel). But apparently Gould fanatics actually like it, so when Sony had the opportunity to remaster his tapes and exclude the humming they decide not too, fearing the outcry that would follow.

PS - Bernhard, once again your insights are well thought out and intelligent.

Thank you!

[xvimbi]

I think in order to appreciate what Gould did to Bach, one should listen to what he did to, for example, Mozart. His Bach was almost as radical as his Mozart. Nobody would claim his Mozart is anywhere near authentic or scholarly. Neither is his Bach. In fact, anybody who today dares to play Mozart this way would be considered a charlatan and put in the same bin as Maxim. Many people consider his Bach should put him in the same bin as well. As long as one is aware of this there shouldn't be any problem.

I personally do enjoy Gould's Bach tremendously. I find it refreshing. However, if I want to listen to some real Bach, I look elsewhere.

Gould's main achievement is perhaps that he opened up Bach to the masses and made music accessible that was considered stuffy and boring. This is however at the same time why many Bach scholars hate Gould, because everybody who plays Bach "correctly" is compared to this "pop star" (great attribute, Bernhard ) and is almost invariably perceived as boring and stuffy, although it may be a much bigger achievement.

There is really no difference between:
"Oh, please play Bach like Gould. He was so marvelous"
and
"Can't you play Fuer Elise with a jazzy rhythm, like Maxim. It sounds so great"

Both have their place, but both also show a similar level of understanding.

[gkatele]

"Oh, please play Bach like Gould. He was so marvelous"

I may have the attributions wrong here, and the quote not quite right, but the point is still valid:

(I think) It was Rosayln Tureck who was giving a master class on Bach. She suggested that one partipant play Bach a certain way. The participant said, "I want to play Bach my way."

She responded, "You can play Bach your way, if you wish. I'll play Bach HIS way."

I always thing about that when I listen to Gould (or for that matter Jarrett). I don't know enough to comment on the historical accuracy of his playing. I do know enough to realize that it's different!

(just my 1/50th of a dollar)


George

[gkatele]

I may have the attributions wrong here, and the quote not quite right, but the point is still valid:

Boy, did I ever have it wrong!

Landowska also generated one of the great put-downs of all time: when a pianist dared to criticize her performance, she replied: “That's fine - you play Bach your way and I'll play Bach his way!”


https://www.classicalnotes.net/classics/goldberg.html


Sorry!

George

[bernhard]

Boy, did I ever have it wrong!

Landowska also generated one of the great put-downs of all time: when a pianist dared to criticize her performance, she replied: “That's fine - you play Bach your way and I'll play Bach his way!”


https://www.classicalnotes.net/classics/goldberg.html


Sorry!

George

And ironically enough, the pianist was Rosalyn Tureck

[gkatele]

And ironically enough, the pianist was Rosalyn Tureck

Damn, you're good!

[bernhard]

***, you're good!

 

[bernhard]

There is really no difference between:
"Oh, please play Bach like Gould. He was so marvelous"
and
"Can't you play Fuer Elise with a jazzy rhythm, like Maxim. It sounds so great"

Both have their place, but both also show a similar level of understanding.

Gould = Maksim?

Now you are pushing it, xvimbi

[gkatele]

Another interesting Gould story is related to his humming. His fans (and detractors!) were not the only ones annoyed by it. He was as well. He wished he could stop, but it was an unconscious thing for him. He reportedly underwent psychotherapy to get it to stop, and was marginally successful. However, when he listened to recordings without the humming, the musicality was not as he wished, so he gave up on the effort to stop.

I am motivated to go watch "Glenn Gould, the Alchemist" to see some of his quirkiness.

"So, you want to write a fugue....

     "Yes I really want to write a fugue....

            "etc., etc. ..."

Also, I'm glad that I was not hallucinating (at my advanced age!) about hearing Brendel humming.

[xvimbi]

Gould = Maksim?

Now you are pushing it, xvimbi

I love pushing

[mr david]

And ironically enough, the pianist was Rosalyn Tureck

As I understand it, the remark was not made to Tureck, or a pianist, but to Pablo Casals. (?)

[prometheus]

I just listened to the Goldberg Variations played by Gould, Sokolov and Kirkpatrick. Gould and Kirkpatrick sounded quite similar when compared to Sokolov, and the Kirkpatrick recording is on a harpsichord. The polyponic character is brought out best by Gould. I don't know if it's the recording quality. The harpsichord is blurry and muddy anyway. No one knows how Bach played his music but to me Goulds approach in the '81 Goldberg variations brings out the essence of Bach (or: the essence of what is Bach today) most clearly.

I actually do prefer some WTC pieces being played by Korevaar.


But Gould is overrated, sure. Everyone that is famous is overrated. That's what people like to do, overrate people and create hero's. They seem to need those.

[ramseytheii]

And ironically enough, the pianist was Rosalyn Tureck

I've heard this quote many times as we all have, often with a different recipient at the other end.  Denise Restout, who was Landowska's one-time student, and long-time companion, and who maintained Landowska's estate in Connecticut until she (Restout) died a year or so ago, wrote that Landowska actually said this to Pablo Casals, in a friendly, joking conversation, probably when Tureck was a child or teenager.  Who knows, maybe she used the witticism later on, but I believe Tureck's presence is apocryphal.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

2.   His technique (or mechanism if you prefer) was terribly faulty and limited – it probably led to early injury which is a much more cogent explanation why he left the concert stage at a relatively early age, rather than his convoluted self-justifications.

3.   His playing of counterpoint often suffered severe limitations due to the above. If you want to have a benchmark for comparison, listen to Rosalyn Tureck on the piano, or Ralph Kirkpatrick on Harpsichord/clavichord, both of which had truly superb, limitless technique plus the Bach scholarship to match it.

Many interesting points as usual, but I quoted the ones I can't really understand.  About the first point, Where were the faults or limits in Gould's mechanism?  I've read it before on the forum that the main limitation was in virtuoso octaves; of course not an issue in the music of Bach.  I heard another reference to injury in connection to Gould, and that was on the Taubman website.  But honestly noting the prolific production of recordings, I can't see what injury anyone is referring to, and how it affected his piano playing. 
About his retirement, Gould himself said that the explanations came later.  He was "pleased" to discover a thesis that confirmed his innate discomfort and disgust at the performing scene.

And about the second, I really can't think of any Gould recording where the counterpoint seems limited or suffering from mechanical want.  Many times I've put on his Well-tempered Clavier recording, and pulled out the score, with the intention of following only this alto voice all the way through, or this bass, et cetera, and have been amazed every time at the purity and individuality of phrasing in all the voices.  Same with the Art of the Fugue, and also with his Beethoven recordings.  Am I perhaps listening for a different aesthetic?  Though it seems to me the aesthetic of counterpoint is the pinpoint balance between the horizontal and vertical, which I find Gould achieved time and time again.

I don't dispute Gould's amateurish scholarship, but it doesn't matter to me, because he made the piano sing in the most beautiful way.  I don't find the same compelling quality when I listen to for instance Angela Hewitt, only my opinion of course. 

Since I do believe Gould to be a master musician and pianist, his interpretation of Bach rather reminds me of this Neuhaus quote:

"Rachmaninoff, playing Chopin as a genius but not a la Chopin, arouses admiration, in spite of his obvious departure from the composer's spirit, because his powerful personality together with unprecedented mastery will always carry away the listener and also because this is an elemental phenomenon which is not the result of a process of thought, of striving or of reasond preparation."

I feel it much the same way with Gould, who "shot first, and asked questions later."

I look forward to your response,
Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

I just listened to Tureck playing a WTC fugue. Those sound really good, very clear, steady rhythm, nothing fancy.

[da jake]

I agree with RamseytheII (LET MY PEOPLE GOOOO!!!), except for the perpetuation of the myth of Gould's 'amateurish scholarship'. There is no "right" way to play Bach. For all we know, Bach would have approved of Gould over Tureck, Lipatti over Perahia. I know I would. 

[bernhard]

I've heard this quote many times as we all have, often with a different recipient at the other end.  Denise Restout, who was Landowska's one-time student, and long-time companion, and who maintained Landowska's estate in Connecticut until she (Restout) died a year or so ago, wrote that Landowska actually said this to Pablo Casals, in a friendly, joking conversation, probably when Tureck was a child or teenager.  Who knows, maybe she used the witticism later on, but I believe Tureck's presence is apocryphal.

Walter Ramsey

Rosalyn Tureck was as fascinating a musician as she was a  person. She was surprisingly small (I would reckon around 1.5m), and yet she had a most powerful presence and a strong, imperious personality. I don’t think the “I’ll play Bach his way” quote is apocryphal at all. In fact I just did a search, and this article actually has the roles reversed:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/obituary/0,12723,1001476,00.html

"You play it your way; I play it Bach's way." Addressing the indomitable harpsichordist Wanda Landowska, the equally indomitable Rosalyn Tureck, who has died aged 88, made one of her most famous and characteristic statements.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. You see, when she was 17, Tureck had some sort of epiphany/mystical experience, which she described in this interview:

https://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?mediaURL=/pt/20030723_pt_tureck&mediaType=RM

So, it would not be unthinkable for a young Tureck just coming out of an enlightenment  experience to confront a (very) senior Landowska (known for her “romantic” playing of Bach) with her newfound ideas and the whole conversation to finish by Tureck telling Landowska (and not the other way around) “I’ll play Bach his way”.

Here is a most interesting article about her:

https://www.mvdaily.com/articles/2005/01/tureck1.htm

So, seekers after the best Bach interpreter, look no more, Rosalyn is the real article!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

I will start with your last remarks:

I don't dispute Gould's amateurish scholarship, but it doesn't matter to me, because he made the piano sing in the most beautiful way.  I don't find the same compelling quality when I listen to for instance Angela Hewitt, only my opinion of course. 

Since I do believe Gould to be a master musician and pianist, his interpretation of Bach rather reminds me of this Neuhaus quote:

"Rachmaninoff, playing Chopin as a genius but not a la Chopin, arouses admiration, in spite of his obvious departure from the composer's spirit, because his powerful personality together with unprecedented mastery will always carry away the listener and also because this is an elemental phenomenon which is not the result of a process of thought, of striving or of reasond preparation."

I feel it much the same way with Gould, who "shot first, and asked questions later."

We are in complete agreement here. (Except perhaps in regards to Angela Hewitt whose pianism I truly love). Gould was a master musician, and certainly a genius (and I abhor the theories that he was an autist which I regard as mediocre people trying to feel good about their mediocrity by labelling their superiors mnentally sick). As I said, I own most of his CDs, DVDs and I thoroughly enjoy listening to them. However, most of his interpretations (not only Bach's) are eccentirc to say the least. Again, there is no problem with eccentric interpretations except when people start claiming it is the real thing. I heard that Bobby Fisher invented some variant of Chess with slightly different rules (I cannot remember the details). Now Fisher's orthodox chess was exhilarating, surprising and powerful, and most chess entusiasts throughly enjoyed his games - in spite of all his idiossincracies and eccentric behaviour (which usually drove his opponents round the bend). However much one admires Fisher,  one would not now claim that because he was such a chess genius that the game he invented is actually the true game of chess, after all who knows what the original game of chess was like anyway?

So with Gould. A master musician with refreshing ideas about music? No doubt. The best Bach interpreter? He does not come even close.

About the first point, Where were the faults or limits in Gould's mechanism?  I've read it before on the forum that the main limitation was in virtuoso octaves; of course not an issue in the music of Bach.  I heard another reference to injury in connection to Gould, and that was on the Taubman website.  But honestly noting the prolific production of recordings, I can't see what injury anyone is referring to, and how it affected his piano playing. 

Most pianists when they experience injury will hide it (after all their livelihood depends on being injury free). We might never know the exact details of Gould's injuries. However his playing - for anyone who is conscious of proper body use - is painful to watch (and I would say that it was also painful to do). Back problems at the very least, given his atrocious posture.

But here you make an assertion difficult to defend: that Gould was injury free was evidenced by his prolific recording. This is not true. Live concertizing is the proof of the pudding, not recording. It is perfectly possible to produce the most amazingly sounding recordings even if one is injured. thanks to all the technology at one's disposal - several takes, splicing, and so on. Gould was a pioneer and a proponent of using any technological wizardry to make up for personal limitations. The same way he doctored his piano to get him the sound he was after, he doctored his recordings (by the way, there is nothing wrong with that - everyone does it - which is one of the reasons you never hear wrong notes in recordings). Gould was not even averse to some cheating in the areas where he was technically limited (as you said, double octaves). When he recorded Liszt's trancription of Beethoven's 5th symphony for CBS, he played the virtuoso octaves in the right hand by using both hands and overdubed the left hand afterwards. Obviously one cannot get away with this sort of thing on a live concert.

Moreover, you can record a piece bar by bar over many days, and an injury would not be nearly as crippling in such circumsntances as it would be in a live concert.

So, Gould's recordings produce no convincing evidence for him being either injury free or possessing a superlative, limitless technique.

About his retirement, Gould himself said that the explanations came later.  He was "pleased" to discover a thesis that confirmed his innate discomfort and disgust at the performing scene.

Gould was a supremely articulate, intelligent man. If you ever get one of his DVDs, where he is interviewed by Bruno Montsaingeon, you might be totally surprised (I was) to learn that that very spontaneous, flowing interview was completely scripted and painstakingly rehearsed by Gould himself. Burno never got a chance to ask any question. Gould asked all the questions, and Gould answered all of them, Bruno being just his mouthpiece.

And about the second, I really can't think of any Gould recording where the counterpoint seems limited or suffering from mechanical want.  Many times I've put on his Well-tempered Clavier recording, and pulled out the score, with the intention of following only this alto voice all the way through, or this bass, et cetera, and have been amazed every time at the purity and individuality of phrasing in all the voices.  Same with the Art of the Fugue, and also with his Beethoven recordings.  Am I perhaps listening for a different aesthetic?  Though it seems to me the aesthetic of counterpoint is the pinpoint balance between the horizontal and vertical, which I find Gould achieved time and time again.

Compare it with Tureck's (WTC 1953 recording, reissued by DG, and 1986 Goldberg Variations recorded in St Peterburg's)


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[burstroman]

Gould was great like several other Bach performers.  Clarity at any tempo, delineation of each voice, a spirit of experimentation, and respect for the music which are great goals.