Why was Glenn Gould the best Bach performer?

[mephisto]

I will start with your last remarks:

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.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

The most important thing about Bach`s music is pholyphony. No other pianists has ever loved, understood or has been able to produce the pholyphonic texture of Bach`s music in the same way as Glenn Gould.

Tempo: Bach`s music has no tempo markings. In other words if Gould plays anything faster than others that is the same thing as saying that they play it slower than him. There is no way of saying that one speed is better than the other. But in the dance movements he plays them in the right tempo.

Legato: Bach`s keyboard music was written for a harpsichord. And it isn`t possible to play legato on that instrument. Glenn Gould`s Bach is the closest you can come to playing Bach as it sounded when Bach played them himself because Gould understood Bach`s music and sometimes imitated the harpsichord on the piano. I have read that you don`t even like the harpsichord and than trhere is nothing strange about you not liking Gould`s recordings of Bach. It isn`t as if I like Hummel`s trumpet concerto when I don`t like Hummel or the trumpet.

Rythm: Glenn Gould`s rythm is about as steady as it gets. He doesn`t exactly play Bach with rubato. Also he was able to play extremely fast and very slow.

Freedom: Bach`s music allows more freedom in interpretation than  any other composers. No one is right or wrong. But Glenn Gould was definetly the one that played the pholyphony in the best way. Gould`s Bach is special and ideosyncratic and is not wrong nor is it right because no one is right.

Taste: So it all falls down to taste. Almost all critics lovs Gould`s Bach. And he is probably the one that most people like( not all of course).Muisc critics such as Tim Page, Jed Distler and David Hurwitz have been giving praise to Gould. And they have abviously gotten a lot more understanding of music than a 30++ man like you who uses most og his time at something as absurd as a piano forum.

Some people said that Gould-lovers only like him becasue pf how strange he was. That is just wrong.I remember that my piano teacher gave me a CD of Gould playing the WTC  no1. and I knew nothing of Glenn Gould. I loved the playing and I latter bought the Gouldberg variations from 81 and I loved that to. Than I started to read about him and I have to say that I disagree with him on about everything he say about Beethoven etc really I don`t care about what he sais as long as his playing is nice.
The humming is almost non-auidable. I didn`t hear it before someone told me about it.

And remember Gould did`t only play Bach. He played good Haydn, early Mozart, earli Beethoven and those rennesance composer, and most importantly Schoenberg, Hindemith and many other 20th century composers such as Fartein Valen.

Best Bach player based on the most important criterias in music is our man Glenn Gould.
So Bernhard just go and fall asleep to Angela Hewitt`s boring performance of the 20th prelude and fugue in a minor. I don`t care. I mean how can you like Hewitt`s performance more than Gould`s.

-The Mephisto

[bernhard]

The most important thing about Bach`s music is pholyphony. No other pianists has ever loved, understood or has been able to produce the pholyphonic texture of Bach`s music in the same way as Glenn Gould.

Well, this is more or less obvious, since it would be pretty much impossible for any pianist to produce the poliphonid texture of Bach in the same way as any other pianist. So your statememt is a trivial truism and applies to any pianist, not only to Gould.

Tempo: Bach`s music has no tempo markings. In other words if Gould plays anything faster than others that is the same thing as saying that they play it slower than him. There is no way of saying that one speed is better than the other. But in the dance movements he plays them in the right tempo.

Bach’s music, as Baroque music in general, depends primarily on articulation for expressive means (while romantic music, for instance depends more on dynamics and agogics). So even though we may not know exactly the tempo, the range of tempo can be pretty well determined. But then again, I agree with you. Any piece of music of any composer will accept a range of tempos in which it is effective. Gould’s main departures from authentic interpretation are not really in that area.

Legato: Bach`s keyboard music was written for a harpsichord. And it isn`t possible to play legato on that instrument. Glenn Gould`s Bach is the closest you can come to playing Bach as it sounded when Bach played them himself because Gould understood Bach`s music and sometimes imitated the harpsichord on the piano. I have read that you don`t even like the harpsichord and than trhere is nothing strange about you not liking Gould`s recordings of Bach. It isn`t as if I like Hummel`s trumpet concerto when I don`t like Hummel or the trumpet.

This is highly arguable. First it is more or less accepted that Bach’s keyboard music is absolute music, in the sense that it is not particularly idiomatic to any instrument, and as long as you keep to the Baroque conventions, it can be played effectively in any instrument.

But second and perhaps more importantly, it is now accepted that most of Bach’s keyboard music (except for the works for organ) was actually written for the clavichord. It was Bach’s favourite keyboard instrument, and for very good reason. Contrary to the harpsichord, and exactly like the piano, the clavichord allows for dynamic variations and perfect legato. Then again, contrary to the piano where the keys act as levers to impulse a mallet to the strings, the keys in the clavichord contact the strings directly. So while on the piano, changes in touch beyond the escapement point make no difference whatsoever to the sound produced, this is not so on the clavichord, where a vibrato in the keys will result in a vibrato in sound. Indeed the expressive possibilities on a clavichord are well beyond what one can get in a modern piano. It is well known that Bach tried a few pianos and was not happy with them, and the main reason was because he was comparing them to a clavichord.

The third point is that Bach was indeed very interested in legato, witness his first page of the “Inventions and Sinfonias” where he explicitly say that these are exercises to develop a cantabile style of playing, which – as modern research has shown – is primarily intended for the clavichord, not the harpsichord. But even if it was intended for the clavichord, you seem to be missing a huge point here, and because Harnoncourt wrote beautifully about it, I will quote:

We cannot hear a long sustained note on a harpsichord or a lute; we hear only the onset of the tone, which then fades away. The imagination supplies the rest, while the actual tone disappears. This disappearance does not mean that the tone ceases, rather that it continues to be heard by the “inner ear” and is cancelled only by the onset of the subsequent note. If this tone were to continue to sound at it full strength, it would disturb the transparency of the composition’s texture and would cover up the entrance of the next tone; this outcome is often heard in the case of organ concerts as is theoretically possible to hold nay tone on the organ for as long as it is notated. The reality of a sustained sound; on the contrary, under certain circumstances the former can mask and interfere with our understanding of the latter.”
(Nikolaus Harnoncourt – “Baroque Music Today: Music as Speech”  - Amadeus Press)

Bach was supremely interested in his keyboard work with this legato of the mind. And the fact that apart from the organ none of the keyboard instruments available to him had perfect continuity of sound, but rather degrees of decay, does not imply that his keyboard works are non-legato.

In Gould’s defense I might perhaps add that most of this research started after the 1950s, being published in obscure musicological journals, so may be he was not aware of it.

Rythm: Glenn Gould`s rythm is about as steady as it gets. He doesn`t exactly play Bach with rubato. Also he was able to play extremely fast and very slow.

Steady is nothing to write home about. Just listen to Wolfgang Rubsam’s interpretations of Bach’s keyboard works for Naxos for a breath of fresh air in regards to flexibility of pulse.

Freedom: Bach`s music allows more freedom in interpretation than  any other composers. No one is right or wrong. But Glenn Gould was definetly the one that played the pholyphony in the best way. Gould`s Bach is special and ideosyncratic and is not wrong nor is it right because no one is right.

Er… I am right, you are wrong . (see below)

Taste: So it all falls down to taste.

No, it does not. Taste is of course important, but that does not mean that you can call bad taste good taste.

For instance, Gould’s staccato rendition of pralltrillers and other ornaments is historically unfounded. And since we are at it, let us consider his interpretation of prelude 1 in the WTC I, where he plays the whole thing staccato. It is wrong for a number of reasons:

1.   The character of the prelude is vocal.
2.   Almost all the intervals are small, which suggests legato at a slow tempo.
3.   Given the quiet and sustained character of the piece, the theory of affects again stipulates legato playing.

Almost all critics lovs Gould`s Bach. And he is probably the one that most people like( not all of course).Muisc critics such as Tim Page, Jed Distler and David Hurwitz have been giving praise to Gould. And they have abviously gotten a lot more understanding of music than a 30++ man like you who uses most og his time at something as absurd as a piano forum.
 

Here is an interesting opinion:

Gould knew what he was doing, but he simply had no scruples about disregarding historical considerations whenever he thought he could dazzle his audience with a modern interpretation. In this, he undoubtedly succeeded world-wide. […] However, this has little to do with Bach’s intentions, which we do after all know fairly well nowadays. […] One cannot really object to modern distortions of works of art, e.g. Dali’s variations on the Mona Lisa, even when they are lacking in good taste. But in the case of Glenn Gould, many of his admirers are still convinced that he was playing in the spirit of Bach. It must be said in Gould’s defence that, as far as I know, he never claimed that his performances were historically authentic.”
 
(Paul Badura-Skoda: “Interpreting Bach at the keyboard” – Oxford University Press).

Now, who gets more understanding of music? Badura-Skoda or Page/Distler/Hurwits? I know! Let us get a new thread started about it! 

Haven’t you  got it yet that ideas fall or stand on their own merits, and not because some “authority” subscribes to them?

The humming is almost non-auidable. I didn`t hear it before someone told me about it.

Have you considered having your ears checked? No wonder you love Gould so much, you can barely hear him!

And remember Gould did`t only play Bach. He played good Haydn, early Mozart, earli Beethoven and those rennesance composer, and most importantly Schoenberg, Hindemith and many other 20th century composers such as Fartein Valen.

Have a look at reply #24. The main reason he is associated mostly with Bach is that his interpretations of these other composers were so idiosyncratic that even his die hard fans were embarrassed and pretend they did not exist.

a 30++ man like you who uses most og his time at something as absurd as a piano forum.

It is a dirty work, but someone has to do it.

And I will be 13 next October.

I mean how can you like Hewitt`s performance more than Gould`s.

This is a funny remark. It says much about you. Who said I like x more than y? I like them all. From Jacques Loussier to Tatiana Nikolaieva. Sure, my favourite is Rosalyn Tureck, but why should I limit myself unnecessarily?

For crying out loud, you are worse than my five wives bickering about who is the favourite. I told them, and I tell you: None. I like them all the same (but Rosalyn is special).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[stevie]

bernhard, congratulations on seriously PWNING an arrogant little norweigan male chicken 

[mephisto]

Well, this is more or less obvious, since it would be pretty much impossible for any pianist to produce the poliphonid texture of Bach in the same way as any other pianist. So your statememt is a trivial truism and applies to any pianist, not only to Gould.

Bach’s music, as Baroque music in general, depends primarily on articulation for expressive means (while romantic music, for instance depends more on dynamics and agogics). So even though we may not know exactly the tempo, the range of tempo can be pretty well determined. But then again, I agree with you. Any piece of music of any composer will accept a range of tempos in which it is effective. Gould’s main departures from authentic interpretation are not really in that area.

This is highly arguable. First it is more or less accepted that Bach’s keyboard music is absolute music, in the sense that it is not particularly idiomatic to any instrument, and as long as you keep to the Baroque conventions, it can be played effectively in any instrument.

But second and perhaps more importantly, it is now accepted that most of Bach’s keyboard music (except for the works for organ) was actually written for the clavichord. It was Bach’s favourite keyboard instrument, and for very good reason. Contrary to the harpsichord, and exactly like the piano, the clavichord allows for dynamic variations and perfect legato. Then again, contrary to the piano where the keys act as levers to impulse a mallet to the strings, the keys in the clavichord contact the strings directly. So while on the piano, changes in touch beyond the escapement point make no difference whatsoever to the sound produced, this is not so on the clavichord, where a vibrato in the keys will result in a vibrato in sound. Indeed the expressive possibilities on a clavichord are well beyond what one can get in a modern piano. It is well known that Bach tried a few pianos and was not happy with them, and the main reason was because he was comparing them to a clavichord.

The third point is that Bach was indeed very interested in legato, witness his first page of the “Inventions and Sinfonias” where he explicitly say that these are exercises to develop a cantabile style of playing, which – as modern research has shown – is primarily intended for the clavichord, not the harpsichord. But even if it was intended for the clavichord, you seem to be missing a huge point here, and because Harnoncourt wrote beautifully about it, I will quote:

We cannot hear a long sustained note on a harpsichord or a lute; we hear only the onset of the tone, which then fades away. The imagination supplies the rest, while the actual tone disappears. This disappearance does not mean that the tone ceases, rather that it continues to be heard by the “inner ear” and is cancelled only by the onset of the subsequent note. If this tone were to continue to sound at it full strength, it would disturb the transparency of the composition’s texture and would cover up the entrance of the next tone; this outcome is often heard in the case of organ concerts as is theoretically possible to hold nay tone on the organ for as long as it is notated. The reality of a sustained sound; on the contrary, under certain circumstances the former can mask and interfere with our understanding of the latter.”
(Nikolaus Harnoncourt – “Baroque Music Today: Music as Speech”  - Amadeus Press)

Bach was supremely interested in his keyboard work with this legato of the mind. And the fact that apart from the organ none of the keyboard instruments available to him had perfect continuity of sound, but rather degrees of decay, does not imply that his keyboard works are non-legato.

In Gould’s defense I might perhaps add that most of this research started after the 1950s, being published in obscure musicological journals, so may be he was not aware of it.

Steady is nothing to write home about. Just listen to Wolfgang Rubsam’s interpretations of Bach’s keyboard works for Naxos for a breath of fresh air in regards to flexibility of pulse.

Er… I am right, you are wrong . (see below)

No, it does not. Taste is of course important, but that does not mean that you can call bad taste good taste.

For instance, Gould’s staccato rendition of pralltrillers and other ornaments is historically unfounded. And since we are at it, let us consider his interpretation of prelude 1 in the WTC I, where he plays the whole thing staccato. It is wrong for a number of reasons:

1.   The character of the prelude is vocal.
2.   Almost all the intervals are small, which suggests legato at a slow tempo.
3.   Given the quiet and sustained character of the piece, the theory of affects again stipulates legato playing.

Here is an interesting opinion:

Gould knew what he was doing, but he simply had no scruples about disregarding historical considerations whenever he thought he could dazzle his audience with a modern interpretation. In this, he undoubtedly succeeded world-wide. […] However, this has little to do with Bach’s intentions, which we do after all know fairly well nowadays. […] One cannot really object to modern distortions of works of art, e.g. Dali’s variations on the Mona Lisa, even when they are lacking in good taste. But in the case of Glenn Gould, many of his admirers are still convinced that he was playing in the spirit of Bach. It must be said in Gould’s defence that, as far as I know, he never claimed that his performances were historically authentic.”
 
(Paul Badura-Skoda: “Interpreting Bach at the keyboard” – Oxford University Press).

Now, who gets more understanding of music? Badura-Skoda or Page/Distler/Hurwits? I know! Let us get a new thread started about it! 

Haven’t you  got it yet that ideas fall or stand on their own merits, and not because some “authority” subscribes to them?



Have you considered having your ears checked? No wonder you love Gould so much, you can barely hear him!

Have a look at reply #24. The main reason he is associated mostly with Bach is that his interpretations of these other composers were so idiosyncratic that even his die hard fans were embarrassed and pretend they did not exist.

It is a dirty work, but someone has to do it.

And I will be 13 next October.

This is a funny remark. It says much about you. Who said I like x more than y? I like them all. From Jacques Loussier to Tatiana Nikolaieva. Sure, my favourite is Rosalyn Tureck, but why should I limit myself unnecessarily?

For crying out loud, you are worse than my five wives bickering about who is the favourite. I told them, and I tell you: None. I like them all the same (but Rosalyn is special).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

First of all my answer/reply was not an attac on you.

You seam to think that the best performance(if there really is such things in music) is the one that is closest to the way it sounded in its historical context. I doubt that you play Mozart`s, Haydn`s and Beethoven`s legato-bows lagato at the same time as you play diminuendo simply becasue this was the way it was done before. Non of the famous Beethoven pianists does that(Schnabel, Solomon, Pollini, Arrau, Brendel Gilels etc) but who would say that their performances were bad and could never be considered reference because they aren`t played by the simple and important rules of the classical perioed?

Tha same is true for Gould`s Bach. Maybe he doesn`t play every thing in an perfect baroque way but he sure plays it in a nice way. This is of course based on taste. I mean music is taste.

It isn`t as if Rubinstein`s acclaimed Chopin performances sounds the way it was played in Chopin`s time. Comparing Cortot and Rubinstein is a good example of this. I love both I can`t see how Rubinstein`s performances are bad only becasue his consept of Chopin was very different from the way Chopin was played before. The same thing is true for Gould. He is not the only Bach pianist but he should be considered among the best( if the word best can be used than I think he was the best)

And as you of course understood when I was talking about the polyphony was that I mean and many others with me feels that Gould`s way of takling the polyphony was a bout as good as it can be. Do you disagree? Even Angela Hewitt said the same thing.

About the humming. When you see one of those pictures where there are painted one face but if you watch closely you can see two faces.  When you finaly see that picture you can`t understand that you didn\t see that before. The same may be true for Gould humming. But it still isn`t much of a big deal. If you listen only for the music and don`t think about the humming - while being there, isn`t a big problem at all. Of course if you care only about the humming than the music will not be important to you and you will be obsessed(in a bad way) with the humming.


About Hewitt I do think that her performances are boring. The 20th prelude and fugue in a minor from wtc 1 being the most shocking. I like many other Bach pianists tough such as Gavrilov, Schiff, Richter, Tureck and also Argerich( belive it or not).

First you say that Tureck is your favourte than you say that they are are equal to you.
This just doesn`t make any sence. And that sais more about you than it does about me.

To the end. If someone studies Bach music and plays it 100% after the rules will it than be the best performance? Hardly.
 It is of course the performance that sounds best to the normal person that is best.( music is supposed to sound good isn`t it. I am of course only talking about performances of pieces not compositions where the general public have got a bad taste. But when someone performces a piece many people like such as the Goldberg variations in a way that is to most people and also cmost critics the best performance than it should be regarded as the reference recording. A perfectly played recording doesn`t have to be the best only becasue it follows all the rules. It might as well be boring.). A performance that has no creativity (such as a performence that only follows the rules) is a bad performance. To quote Goethe: a work of art( a performanc of Bach`s piano music in this case) that leaves nothing to the imagination( a performance stripped of personality and that doesn`t do any thing other than to follow the rules) is not a true and complete work of art. Surely Bach`s music is art of the highest order. If we disagree on this  point than we are surley different.( well we are all different aren`t we) So lets agree to disagree if you disagree.

Good Gould performances of non Bach music that sounds good: Orlando Gibbons, William Byrd etc, Haydn, Beethoven concertos( some of the sonatas are imo terrible tough. And i guess some will hate the concertos to.) Schoenberg piano music( altough I prefer Pollini) and Hindemith`s sonatas. So Gould fans like me aren`t embarresed of all Gould`s non Bach performences. Also he plays a good Prokofiev 7( wich I find really strange) altough I prefer Richter and Pollini. And I can`t see that his Berg sonata is bad. I love it. I mean it isn`t anything ideosyncratic abut it altough Gould`s extremely good sence of polyphony is there.



By the way you reply learned me some(if not many) things that I didn`t know before.Such as Bach`s instrument.

-The Mephisto

 

[allthumbs]

Greetings

I enjoyed reading this thread and I learned some new words -apochryphal, agogic, iconoclastic, idiomatic, even the musical term 'pralltrillers' which I had never come across before. I couldn't find poliphonid though.

Cheers

allthumbs

[da jake]

Good posts Mephisto. 

[BoliverAllmon]

Greetings

I enjoyed reading this thread and I learned some new words -apochryphal, agogic, iconoclastic, idiomatic, even the musical term 'pralltrillers' which I had never come across before. I couldn't find poliphonid though.

Cheers

allthumbs

i think the word was meant to be polyphonic. Could be wrong though.

[allthumbs]

i think the word was meant to be polyphonic. Could be wrong though.

That makes sense

[m]

It should be noted here that G. Gould cannot be seen only as some eccentric person who is famous for his unique way of playing Bach and Bach only.
I think he should be seen rather in historical context. He was a pioneer. Nobody before him played LIKE THIS. When he appeared first, it still was time of Golden Age of piano. Romantic way of treating and performing music was extremely strong. G. Gould was the first who broke this tradition, and basically turned whole music world upside down. He showed the world that there are OTHER ways of music thinking.

Of course, Goulds mind is unique and suits well polyphonic music texture. Friend of mine was quite close with him. He told me that they would go to a restaurant and have there a conversation. After the dinner they'd go out and Gould would repeat all the conversations around other tables in the restaurant.
It is actually quite amazing that even on such "unpolyphonic" instrument as organ, you can follow every voice in Kunst der Fugue from the very beginning to the end, as if it lives its own life.

However, it would be wrong to reduce him to only as a Bach performer. He played wonderful XX century music--Hindemith, Krzenek, Berg...
He introduced the world some other Baroque music, including virginalists, etc.
Actually, I enjoy his Brahms, and many Beethoven Sonatas and Concerti, as well.

He was an experimentator and liked to show music from unusual, unconventional angle. When he "hit" it, he was wonderful, when he "missed" it... in every note one still could hear that that is the "miss" of the great artist.

As for the original question: "Was Gould the best Bach performer"?
I am not sure if he was the "best", as in music there is no such term, but definitely he was unique, refreshing, passionate, articulative. His Bach speaks in a way of opera recetativo. Was it exactly what Bach intended his music to be? I don't know, but definitely this is one of the numerous ways his music can be performed, once it is done convincingly.

Some other Bach performers I love and admire are Rosalyn Tureck (I heard her live in recital, and also giving lectures demonstrations on both piano and harpsichord), Samuil Feinberg, Grigory Sokolov, and Vladimir Feltsman.
They all are very different, but each one very unique in their own ways.

[mephisto]

It should be noted here that G. Gould cannot be seen only as some eccentric person who is famous for his unique way of playing Bach and Bach only.
I think he should be seen rather in historical context. He was a pioneer. Nobody before him played LIKE THIS. When he appeared first, it still was time of Golden Age of piano. Romantic way of treating and performing music was extremely strong. G. Gould was the first who broke this tradition, and basically turned whole music world upside down. He showed the world that there are OTHER ways of music thinking.

Of course, Goulds mind is unique and suits well polyphonic music texture. Friend of mine was quite close with him. He told me that they would go to a restaurant and have there a conversation. After the dinner they'd go out and Gould would repeat all the conversations around other tables in the restaurant.
It is actually quite amazing that even on such "unpolyphonic" instrument as organ, you can follow every voice in Kunst der Fugue from the very beginning to the end, as if it lives its own life.

However, it would be wrong to reduce him to only as a Bach performer. He played wonderful XX century music--Hindemith, Krzenek, Berg...
He introduced the world some other Baroque music, including virginalists, etc.
Actually, I enjoy his Brahms, and many Beethoven Sonatas and Concerti, as well.

He was an experimentator and liked to show music from unusual, unconventional angle. When he "hit" it, he was wonderful, when he "missed" it... in every note one still could hear that that is the "miss" of the great artist.

As for the original question: "Was Gould the best Bach performer"?
I am not sure if he was the "best", as in music there is no such term, but definitely he was unique, refreshing, passionate, articulative. His Bach speaks in a way of opera recetativo. Was it exactly what Bach intended his music to be? I don't know, but definitely this is one of the numerous ways his music can be performed, once it is done convincingly.

Some other Bach performers I love and admire are Rosalyn Tureck (I heard her live in recital, and also giving lectures demonstrations on both piano and harpsichord), Samuil Feinberg, Grigory Sokolov, and Vladimir Feltsman.
They all are very different, but each one very unique in their own ways.

I agree with everything you said.

And jake thanks for liking my posts.

-The Mephisto

[mcgillcomposer]

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   

Gould played a hell of alot of repertoire other than Bach.  In fact,  Bach isn't even his favorite composer...Orlando Gibbons takes that title.  There are so many myths that have perpetuated about Gould it is unbelieveable.  For example, it is not true that he recorded the entire Mozart sonatas to 'show how bad they are'.  He was quite fond of Mozart's early sonatas.

Secondly, with respect to him disliking modern music:  This is false.  This statement could only be made by one who has skimmed the suface of a book on Gould and has taken a quotation by the pianist himself out of context.  Gould disliked certain aspects of modern music, however he was a huge fan of the dodecaphonic style.  he has beautiful recordings of Schoenberg (particulary the piano concerto) and recorded many other "modern" (not any more) composers.

Finally, with regards to Gould's unique approach to Bach.  A member (I don't remember who) was right on the money when he'she stated that he realized Bach does not need to be ornamented by elaborate exaggerations and rubato.  In fact the main characteristic of Baroque music is the tessitura continua (a continuous fabric).  Also the idea of Unity of Affect demonstrates this lack of duality within the music of this period.  An individual piece was written based on a very limited selection of rhythmic cells, from which the entire rhythmic structure would unfold.  Also, the very rapid harmonic rhythm contributed to this style of continuous fabric.  By understanding these very basic principles of Baroque music, Gould understood that grand elaborations and tempo deviations were uncharacterisitc of the music.  One may argue that modern performance practice allows for such things (which it does), but this does not mean that it best suits the music.  Please note that my remarks are objective and neutral as I am only basing them on historical fact.  Evidently when one introduced the notion of personal aesthetic, the question becomes very gray.

I would like to thank the so many well informed people who contribute very rich posts.  On the contrary, I would like to encourage those who post rather "empty" opinionated posts to research their topics further so we can all gain more from them.  Contentions to my points above are welcomed, but only on factual basis.  I prefer to perpetuate healthy, intellectual discussion rather than biased and opinionated trash.

- Andrew

[gkatele]

For example, it is not true that he recorded the entire Mozart sonatas to 'show how bad they are'.  He was quite fond of Mozart's early sonatas.

However, he was not all that fond of Mozart's later works. I heard an interview with him in which he said that "Mozart didn't die too early - he died too late." Meaning that he had already reached his creative acme, and was not as innovative as he was when younger.


George

[mcgillcomposer]

However, he was not all that fond of Mozart's later works. I heard an interview with him in which he said that "Mozart didn't die too early - he died too late." Meaning that he had already reached his creative acme, and was not as innovative as he was when younger.


George

I just said that in my comment above.  Gould was only fond of Mozart's earlier sonatas (not later) for the piano.  As for Gould's comment with regards to Mozart's development you are quite right.  In fact, this is one area in which I fail to see Gould's point.  For example, take Mozart's 41 symphonies.  He only ever became innovative in the last 3 really.  The others were pastiches of styles based on his travels (of course with his own "stamp" on them).  This is an exceptional case however, as the symphony was not Mozart's forte genre and one of his least favorite (see Wolfgang's letters to Leopold Mozart) .  Symphony no. 40 contains many of his only innovations in the symphony genre.  For example, here he introduces for the first time the following: phrasic modulation, and prominence of woodwinds.  This idea of strings presenting the first theme and woodwinds the second is very Baroque, but Mozart rejuvinated it within the Classical style.  If you listen  to Mozart's pre-classical symphonies you will see that they are not very important with regards to new developments in the genre, however they are still a REMARKABLE achievement for a man of such a young age.  There is not a fault in them.  I also forgot to mention one other characteristic from symphony no. 40.  He uses fugato in the first theme of the second movement.  this was not seen in the symphonic genre again until Beethoven's 1st symphony (he obviously borrowed this from Moazart).

[nick]

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.

Agreed!

Nick

[xvimbi]

I just said that in my comment above.  Gould was only fond of Mozart's earlier sonatas (not later) for the piano. 

Who has actually listened to a recording of Gould playing Mozart's earlier sonatas?

[mcgillcomposer]

Who has actually listened to a recording of Gould playing Mozart's earlier sonatas?

I have.  I've heard him play all of the Mozart sonatas in fact.  Why do you ask?

[mcgillcomposer]

I know that his recordings are very unorthodox, however I don't think this would warrant or support the notion that he was not fond of the earlier sonatas.  Especially since Gould explicitly stated his appreciation for not only Mozart's early sonatas, but much of Mozart's earlier works I  don't feel that it can really be contended.  I am not so clear on why Gould preferred the earlier works except that they exhibit a "more youthful and lively atmosphere and style".  With regards to compositional techniques, Mozart was innovative throughout his entire life EXCEPT for many of his earlier works.  My example of the symphonic style is listed a few posts back.

[shoshin]

Don't you mean the second best Bach performer?

[xvimbi]

I have.  I've heard him play all of the Mozart sonatas in fact.  Why do you ask?

Just making sure that people comment on his playing of Mozart sonatas, not on what Gould might have said about them in some interview.

I know that his recordings are very unorthodox, however I don't think this would warrant or support the notion that he was not fond of the earlier sonatas.  Especially since Gould explicitly stated his appreciation for not only Mozart's early sonatas, but much of Mozart's earlier works I  don't feel that it can really be contended.  I am not so clear on why Gould preferred the earlier works except that they exhibit a "more youthful and lively atmosphere and style".  With regards to compositional techniques, Mozart was innovative throughout his entire life EXCEPT for many of his earlier works.  My example of the symphonic style is listed a few posts back.

IMO, his rendition is not "refreshing" or "unconventional" or "unorthodox"; it's just awful and has nothing to do with Mozart's operatic style, whatsoever. Whatever Gould was thinking will remain his secret, but it ain't pretty. It is also not really important whether he was fond of the sonatas or not. It's like somebody saying, "Oooh, I'm really fond of this Ferrari", and then proceed to tear it apart with a sledgehammer .

[mephisto]

Glenn Gould was left handed in a very strange way. The reason he didn`t like Mozart`s later sonatas was because he thought that Mozart neglectet the left hand and all the canons wich could be played with the left hand.

https://www.collectionscanada.ca/glenngould/m23-502.11-e.html

-The Mephisto

[mcgillcomposer]

Glenn Gould was left handed in a very strange way. The reason he didn`t like Mozart`s later sonatas was because he thought that Mozart neglectet the left hand and all the canons wich could be played with the left hand.

https://www.collectionscanada.ca/glenngould/m23-502.11-e.html

-The Mephisto

Thanks Mephisto!  I have been wondering why for so long...you put my mind @ ease :d

[pianistimo]

but, as i recently learned, he did not follow the baroque practice of rolling the chords always.  some are 'kerchunk.'  now that i know this, i would undo all my previous scarlatti k119 playing (lh chords) from last semester.  why didn't someone tell me this earlier.  are you just supposed to figure it out.  guess that the harpsichord couldn't handle a big pluck all at the same time.

votes richter.  he was kinder and gentler and treated bach as a sort of respite from the world.  well, i guess glen gould did too.  ok.  listen back and forth.  i don't hate gould.  i actually like his gutsy playing.  but, is it historically accurate (as someone else pointed out).  probably not.

who is page/ditsler/herwitz?   i respect badura skoda's research but don't know much about suggested practices.  some of the mozart cadenzas are rather long, but people cut and paste and they sound ok.  i heard a GREAT cadenza by cassedesus yesterday (the second one in the k 466) wow. it was out of this world.  i want to get someone to transcribe it off the cd.  how can i do that?  (just do it myself?)  ok.  i'll do it myself.

[da jake]

The more Bach you play the more appreciate Gould.

It's so much easier to gloss over your technical defects with pedal than to actually get that freakish clarity that Gould does.

[steveie986]

This is one of the best threads I have ever read. There were many highly nuanced posts and I learned a whole lot.

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.

But this above statement is possibly the most thoroughly foul bull_$hite I have encountered in my entire life on the Internets. I don't know if this svbimbo person is still around, but I have never felt a greater urge to knock a cyber-person upside the head. He is a certain fool without any redeeming subtlety. He is a poor mockery of Bernhard's formidable erudition and nuance, and worse than the 15-year-old uber-Christian-zealots who frequent this forum.

Personally, discovering Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations was a turning point in my life, as it marked a musical shift away from vapid Romanticism toward the Musical Word that is Bach's counterpoint, and the corresponding change in personal spirituality that accompanied it was equally significant. But having listened to more interpretations I can certainly understand some of Bernhard's arguments about Gould's deficiencies. I have just purchased some Tureck and they are very, very astounding and will certainly make me think more.

This is the kind of thread I want to see on this forum. Not dumb_a$$ polls, not juvenile composer bashings.

[da jake]

stevie986 - your gut feeling was right. I totally agree with you about Gould.  His 81 recording is one of the best recordings of anythign ever.

However, don't be brainwashed by Bernhard's support of Tureck. Bernhard is a fantastic poster and contributes to this forum in many many ways, but he is simply wrong on this matter.

As a person who loves the music of Bach, I can't describe how lousy Tureck's Bach makes me feel.  It makes my skin crawl. It represents everything I hate about the academic approach to music playing.  Brendel-types who think that music should be boring. I've been playing a year and a half and can play Var 5 better than her. She brings no insight to the music. She has a lame technique. She's academic and four-square. I'm sure if Tureck, Gould, and Bach were in the same room together, Bach would be fascinated and astounded by Gould's playing, whereas when it was Tureck's turn he'd probably put on a pair of those fake glasses with open eyes painted on the lenses so he could sleep without her noticing. If all Tureck's recordings disappeared off the face of the earth, we wouldn't have lost anything.

[m]

As a person who loves the music of Bach, I can't describe how lousy Tureck's Bach makes me feel.  It makes my skin crawl. It represents everything I hate about the academic approach to music playing.  Brendel-types who think that music should be boring. I've been playing a year and a half and can play Var 5 better than her. She brings no insight to the music. She has a lame technique. She's academic and four-square. I'm sure if Tureck, Gould, and Bach were in the same room together, Bach would be fascinated and astounded by Gould's playing, whereas when it was Tureck's turn he'd probably put on a pair of those fake glasses with open eyes painted on the lenses so he could sleep without her noticing. If all Tureck's recordings disappeared off the face of the earth, we wouldn't have lost anything.

Wow!!!

I have no idea how to respond to this... somehow I just felt it requires a response.

[steveie986]

Me neither.

[da jake]

Actually, I can only think of a few people who play Bach REALLY well:

Gould, Rachmaninov, Feinberg, Lipatti, Gavrilov

[da jake]

For fun, watch a video of Gould and Menuhin playing a Bach Violin Sonata:

&search=gould%20glenn

The second part of the video (with a funny conversation between Yehudi and Glenn) is easy to find.

[elevateme]

he was, until angela hewitt

[da jake]

Hewitt = BORING.

[elevateme]

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha goulds crap, his goldberg variations are cold, and he hums which totally spoils the performance. hewitt = perfection

[elevateme]

listen to hewitts goldberg variations

[da jake]

Hewitt's are totally flaccid. She shouldn't even have a recording contract.

Anyway, if you think Gould 81 is "cold" listen to his LIVE Salzburg recording.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000028OE/102-2948454-7426557?v=glance&n=5174

It's some of the most spontaneous and personal playing I've heard.

[elevateme]

im sorry, its just my opinion, i totally respect that you love glen gould. but obviously there are hundreds on your side lol     however angela hewitt is always first for me

[steveie986]

Group hug time.

I personally think it's silly to be polemical about something as beautifully abstract as music. Why do we treat music like politics? Glenn Gould was my first love - but Perahia & Tureck bring something very interesting and unique to the table as well. It's fine if you don't like a certain interpretation. But when I don't immediately understand a recording I feel the burden is on me to listen more and figure it out as opposed to immediately dismiss it simply because the new is initially uncomfortable.