Glenn Gould's Bach

[Ralph]

I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?

Ralph

[Theresa]

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?
Ralph

Why worry about bad reviews? If you like Gould's playing (I do)
then keep listening.

[L***@aol.com]

Post by Theresa
Why worry about bad reviews? If you like Gould's playing (I do)
then keep listening.

Glenn Gould was a very good pianist, technically. His love of Bach was
conveyed with great luminosity and limpidity, albeit in an abstract
form often with a pronounced, motoric staccato. Much more can be done
with Bach with a little imagination along with cultural feasting and
after some very focal scholarly immersions, yet Gould deserves a place
in new collections, if only for a certain unrestricted forward flow to
his playing, unencumbered by the sort of portulent, even flatulent
[usually via badly-played organ, not intending to imply "flat" organ,
especially in Bach's case] presence we've come to associate with Bach's
music. For some reason, I keep going back to Glenn Gould's recordings;
I bask in obsessive amounts of Bach on the piano myself, [as well as
Liszt, Busoni, Rachmaninoff and Tausig arrangements thereof--if you're
going to feast on it, might as well *feast*--, but my interpretations
of Bach's works are not especially influenced by Glenn Gould. It is
still possible for me to "like" Glenn Gould without always agreeing
with him artistically. I enjoy the wry humor and refreshing colors of
Picasso's cubism much the same way. Except with Glenn Gould, there is
something, well, spiritual, mystical, deeper than the man, coming
through. Not in every single piece, but in certain choice ones.
and he's not all far removed from the angular approaches of Tureck and
even Argerich, when you come down to it. Argerich for me is one of the
great Bach players--if only there was more. She has that cutting edge
that keeps Bach fresh, but without the juvenile bizarro perversions
Glenn Gould thrills us with, [even if "Goulding" has to be in the
closet]. And Piotr Anderszewski is another crisp Bach player, not a
romanticized Bach.

***************Val

[Thomas Wood]

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?

Far from being "briefly fashionable" -- his Bach recordings in particular
keep getting reissued and people keep enjoying them and buying them. And
others keep bitching about them.

Whether they're "the best" or not, they're stimulating, sometimes
infuriating, sometimes exhilarating. I would recommend his recording of the
Partitas as one of the very best, period. Like him or not, he was one of the
most important and influential pianists of the 20th century.

Tom Wood

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Thomas Wood

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?

Far from being "briefly fashionable" -- his Bach recordings in particular
keep getting reissued and people keep enjoying them and buying them. And
others keep bitching about them.
Whether they're "the best" or not, they're stimulating, sometimes
infuriating, sometimes exhilarating. I would recommend his recording of the
Partitas as one of the very best, period. Like him or not, he was one of the
most important and influential pianists of the 20th century.

I agree fully re. the Partitas ... less convinced by his Goldbergs.

[unglued]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Thomas Wood

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?

Far from being "briefly fashionable" -- his Bach recordings in particular
keep getting reissued and people keep enjoying them and buying them. And
others keep bitching about them.
Whether they're "the best" or not, they're stimulating, sometimes
infuriating, sometimes exhilarating. I would recommend his

recording of the

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Thomas Wood
Partitas as one of the very best, period. Like him or not, he was one of the
most important and influential pianists of the 20th century.

I agree fully re. the Partitas ... less convinced by his Goldbergs.

I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect music
as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have approved is another
matter.

[Steve Molino]

Post by unglued
I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect music
as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have approved is another
matter.

If he made a recording in '87, I suspect he consulted Bach directly first...

[Bob Lombard]

Post by Steve Molino

Post by unglued
I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect music
as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have approved is another
matter.

If he made a recording in '87, I suspect he consulted Bach directly first...

The recording wasn't released in the U.S.

bl

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Bob Lombard

Post by Steve Molino

Post by unglued
I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect music
as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have approved is another
matter.

If he made a recording in '87, I suspect he consulted Bach directly first...

The recording wasn't released in the U.S.

I don't think there are any trade relations in place between the US and
where Gould was in '87 ... although I think Bush is trying to establish
them.

[graham]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Bob Lombard

Post by Steve Molino

Post by unglued
I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect music
as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have approved is another
matter.

If he made a recording in '87, I suspect he consulted Bach directly first...

The recording wasn't released in the U.S.

I don't think there are any trade relations in place between the US and
where Gould was in '87 ... although I think Bush is trying to establish
them.

He died October 4, 1982.

Graham

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by graham

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Bob Lombard

Post by Steve Molino

Post by unglued
I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect music
as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have approved is another
matter.

If he made a recording in '87, I suspect he consulted Bach directly first...

The recording wasn't released in the U.S.

I don't think there are any trade relations in place between the US and
where Gould was in '87 ... although I think Bush is trying to establish
them.

He died October 4, 1982.

That was the whole point, going back to Mr. Molino's comment ...

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by unglued
I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect
music as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have
approved is another matter.

Considering he died several years earlier, that's remarkable.

I'd suggest you listen to Pinnock or Perahia before you decide Gould's
Goldberg's are "close to perfect."

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by unglued
I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect music
as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have approved is another
matter.

Considering he died several years earlier, that's remarkable.
I'd suggest you listen to Pinnock or Perahia before you decide Gould's
Goldberg's are "close to perfect."

And on harpsichord, Pierre Hantaï's earlier recording (I have not heard the
remake).

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by William Sommerwerck
I'd suggest you listen to Pinnock or Perahia before you decide
Gould's Goldberg's are "close to perfect."

And on harpsichord, Pierre Hantaï's earlier recording (I have not
heard the remake).

Just to clarify a point (or two)...

I would not consider either the Pinnock or Perahia performances to be "perfect."
Rather, they're musically far more interesting and appealing than Gould's. The
Perahia reaches a level of profundity that is startling. But "perfect"?

I have no idea how the piece is "supposed" to sound. I assume Bach considered it
a single work, and had an overall structure in mind that the better performances
reveal to a greater or lesser extent. Even so, there's a good chance Goldberg
never played it all the way the through, as he would perform a few of the
variations to help his insomniac employer fall asleep.

[john grant]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by William Sommerwerck
I'd suggest you listen to Pinnock or Perahia before you decide
Gould's Goldberg's are "close to perfect."

And on harpsichord, Pierre Hantaï's earlier recording (I have not
heard the remake).

Just to clarify a point (or two)...
I would not consider either the Pinnock or Perahia performances to be "perfect."
Rather, they're musically far more interesting and appealing than Gould's. The
Perahia reaches a level of profundity that is startling. But "perfect"?
I have no idea how the piece is "supposed" to sound. I assume Bach considered it
a single work, and had an overall structure in mind that the better performances
reveal to a greater or lesser extent. Even so, there's a good chance Goldberg
never played it all the way the through, as he would perform a few of the
variations to help his insomniac employer fall asleep.

Some of P.'s Bach is hideous, but I have to admit that his old-fashioned
interpretations of the keyboard concerti are pretty good.

Never heard is Goldberg V., but I'll be sure not to buy it without listening
first. He's disappointed me before too many times.

E. Dershavina's Goldberg is the ONLY version *on piano* I've liked other
than Gould's.

JG

[unglued]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by unglued
I think his Goldberg variations from '87 are as close to perfect
music as you can get. Whether or not Bach would have
approved is another matter.

Considering he died several years earlier, that's remarkable.
I'd suggest you listen to Pinnock or Perahia before you decide

Gould's

Post by William Sommerwerck
Goldberg's are "close to perfect."

Alright already, I'll try again. I find the '81 recording of the
Goldberg Variations to be the best I have heard in my limited
experience of Goldberg Variations which includes Gould's recordings
from '55, '58 and a Perahia whose release date escapes me at the
moment.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by unglued
Alright already, I'll try again. I find the '81 recording
of the Goldberg Variations to be the best I have heard
in my limited experience of Goldberg Variations which
includes Gould's recordings from '55, '58 and a Perahia
whose release date escapes me at the moment.

The Perahia was just two years ago, I think. I can understand someone not liking
it. It's so "deep" and "profound" that some listeners might consider it
pointlessly overblown. I don't.

[Bob Lombard]

Post by William Sommerwerck
The Perahia was just two years ago, I think. I can understand someone not liking
it. It's so "deep" and "profound" that some listeners might consider it
pointlessly overblown. I don't.

YMMV of course. I've never thought of Perahia and 'deep and profound' in
the same sentence.

bl

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Bob Lombard

Post by William Sommerwerck
The Perahia was just two years ago, I think. I can understand
someone not liking it. It's so "deep" and "profound" that some
listeners might consider it pointlessly overblown. I don't.

YMMV of course. I've never thought of Perahia and 'deep and
profound' in the same sentence.

Which raises the unanswerable question -- why do people respond so differently
to the same stimulation?

Anyone who can make Post-Romantic, highly chromatic music appealing must have
_some_ talent.

[Steve Molino]

Post by Bob Lombard

Post by William Sommerwerck
The Perahia was just two years ago, I think. I can understand someone not liking
it. It's so "deep" and "profound" that some listeners might consider it
pointlessly overblown. I don't.

YMMV of course. I've never thought of Perahia and 'deep and profound' in
the same sentence.
bl

That's not really fair, Bob. I often think that Perahia is profoundly
boring in a really deep way.

[Bob Lombard]

Post by Steve Molino

Post by Bob Lombard

Post by William Sommerwerck
The Perahia was just two years ago, I think. I can understand someone not liking
it. It's so "deep" and "profound" that some listeners might consider it
pointlessly overblown. I don't.

YMMV of course. I've never thought of Perahia and 'deep and profound' in
the same sentence.
bl

That's not really fair, Bob. I often think that Perahia is profoundly
boring in a really deep way.

Some of the _young_ Perahia's Schumann works very well for me; but I don't
think of it as deep or profound, just that his notions of how the music
ought to go are effective.

bl

[Simon Roberts]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by unglued
Alright already, I'll try again. I find the '81 recording
of the Goldberg Variations to be the best I have heard
in my limited experience of Goldberg Variations which
includes Gould's recordings from '55, '58 and a Perahia
whose release date escapes me at the moment.

The Perahia was just two years ago, I think. I can understand someone not liking
it. It's so "deep" and "profound" that some listeners might consider it
pointlessly overblown.

Conversely, one might think it's so pointlessly overblown it's not "deep" and
"profound"....

Simon

[Dan Koren]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by unglued
Alright already, I'll try again. I find the '81 recording
of the Goldberg Variations to be the best I have heard
in my limited experience of Goldberg Variations which
includes Gould's recordings from '55, '58 and a Perahia
whose release date escapes me at the moment.

The Perahia was just two years ago, I think. I can
understand someone not liking it. It's so "deep"

and "profound" that some listeners might consider it

Post by William Sommerwerck
pointlessly overblown.

Conversely, one might think it's so pointlessly
overblown it's not "deep" and "profound"....

Perrahia's Goldbergs are one of the dreariest
performances of a work of music I have ever
heard.

One really needs an Ashkenazy Jew to play the
Goldbergs successfully. My top vote goes to
Feltsman.



dk

[William Sommerwerck]

Perahia's Goldbergs are one of the dreariest
performances of a work of music I have ever
heard.

One person's dreary is another's profound and spiritual.

Perhaps the greatest thing about classical music is that there is rarely only
one "correct" way to interpret a piece. Or to put it another way, most works are
sufficiently complex that they can tolerate a variety of interpretations, each
of which reveals something different. Like the blind men and the elephant, only
in a positive sense.

[Dan Koren]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Perahia's Goldbergs are one of the dreariest
performances of a work of music I have ever
heard.

One person's dreary is another's profound and
spiritual.

"Profound" and "spiritual" are code words for
"banal", "boring" and "conventional". Worse,
they are LITERARY concepts that have nothing
to do with music. I do not want the music I
hear to be "profound and spiritual" any more
than I want to eat steak that is "profound
and spritual".

Post by William Sommerwerck
Perhaps the greatest thing about classical
music is that there is rarely only one
"correct" way to interpret a piece.

You're changing subject. I wasn't talking
about "correctness" (a subject I do not
give a shit about). I was referring to
Mr. Perrahia unending blandness and
boredom.

Post by William Sommerwerck
Or to put it another way, most works are
sufficiently complex that they can tolerate

"Tolerate" is the operative word here.

Post by William Sommerwerck
a variety of interpretations, each of
which reveals something different.

Music reveals nothing. It is just music.
Neither does the steak (or the tofu) you
eat. It is just steak (or tofu).



dk

[graham]

Post by Simon Roberts
says...

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by unglued
Alright already, I'll try again. I find the '81 recording
of the Goldberg Variations to be the best I have heard
in my limited experience of Goldberg Variations which
includes Gould's recordings from '55, '58 and a Perahia
whose release date escapes me at the moment.

The Perahia was just two years ago, I think. I can
understand someone not liking it. It's so "deep"

and "profound" that some listeners might consider it

Post by William Sommerwerck
pointlessly overblown.

Conversely, one might think it's so pointlessly
overblown it's not "deep" and "profound"....

Perrahia's Goldbergs are one of the dreariest
performances of a work of music I have ever
heard.
One really needs an Ashkenazy Jew to play the
Goldbergs successfully. My top vote goes to
Feltsman.

Using your "logic" I would have thought a German Lutheran
would be better!
Graham

[mdhjwh]

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's

performing

Post by Ralph
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?

Ralph, you may have just thrown a rock into the hornet's nest of
'correctness' . Far too often in snobbish little electronic covens such
as this, we are harangued about so called 'correct' interpretations.
Historical accuracy to performance styles, instrumentation & tuning
have their place in telling us something of the sonic world a
particular composer worked within but nothing can convince me other
ways of performing are some kind of musicological sin against
'correctness'. If you enjoy Gould's enthusiastic if idiosyncratic take
of J,S., just enjoy it and bugger the naysayers.
I too sin by enjoying his performances of Bach bust must admit his
bloody humming along is mighty annoying.
Now for a confession that will have the musicologicaly correct
squirming in their mean temperaments.
To my ears one of the greatest ever renditions of JS Bach's Brandenburg
concertos was on the Moog synthesiser by Walter (now Wendy?) Carlos.

I'm not trying to be rude here but your question "can they be
recommended to the consumer who wants the best..." reminds me of
questions often asked about audio components on other news groups in
which potential buyers expect to be given an assurance that a
particular piece of audio junk will be the best. As I often
answer......'Listen for yourself and bugger what anyone else thinks'

[Marc Perman]

Post by mdhjwh
To my ears one of the greatest ever renditions of JS Bach's Brandenburg
concertos was on the Moog synthesiser by Walter (now Wendy?) Carlos.

My favorite Sibelius Karelia Suite is Keith Emerson's with his 1960s band
The Nice. Then again, that was the first version I heard, so I'm hopefully
to be forgiven for feeling that the piece seems lacking without drums and
bass guitar accompaniment.

Marc Perman

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Marc Perman

Post by mdhjwh
To my ears one of the greatest ever renditions of JS Bach's Brandenburg
concertos was on the Moog synthesiser by Walter (now Wendy?) Carlos.

My favorite Sibelius Karelia Suite is Keith Emerson's with his 1960s band
The Nice. Then again, that was the first version I heard, so I'm hopefully
to be forgiven for feeling that the piece seems lacking without drums and
bass guitar accompaniment.

As long as you don't make similar claims for Pictures at an Exhibition
by ELP ...

[Marc Perman]

Post by Marc Perman

Post by mdhjwh
To my ears one of the greatest ever renditions of JS Bach's Brandenburg
concertos was on the Moog synthesiser by Walter (now Wendy?) Carlos.

My favorite Sibelius Karelia Suite is Keith Emerson's with his 1960s band
The Nice. Then again, that was the first version I heard, so I'm
hopefully to be forgiven for feeling that the piece seems lacking without
drums and bass guitar accompaniment.

As long as you don't make similar claims for Pictures at an Exhibition by
ELP ...

No, that was dreadful.

Marc Perman

[William Sommerwerck]

Gould's Bach recordings are worth hearing -- once. But whether you'll want to
return to them for musical satisfaction is another matter.

My opinion is that Gould will eventually be judged as a musician who too-often
projected his own quirky personality on the music he was performing.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by William Sommerwerck
Gould's Bach recordings are worth hearing -- once. But whether you'll
want to return to them for musical satisfaction is another matter.
My opinion is that Gould will eventually be judged as a musician who
too-often projected his own quirky personality on the music he was
performing.

I agree. There is marvellous separation of the voices in the polyphonic
music he recorded, but oh, oh, oh, at what an aesthetic cost!

[mdhjwh]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by William Sommerwerck
Gould's Bach recordings are worth hearing -- once. But whether you'll
want to return to them for musical satisfaction is another matter.
My opinion is that Gould will eventually be judged as a musician who
too-often projected his own quirky personality on the music he was
performing.

I agree. There is marvellous separation of the voices in the

polyphonic

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
music he recorded, but oh, oh, oh, at what an aesthetic cost!

An interesting claim Mr T. How do you calculate such aesthetic cost?
Loss of expression, clarity, meaning, emotion ? I'm intrigued by such
claims and don't doubt their probable veracity but am often left
wondering what gets lost due to 'marvellous separation of the voices'.
Is it that such separation necessarily always induces this loss or is
Mr Gould's particular method of achieving such separation the culprit?

[L***@aol.com]

Post by mdhjwh
Is it that such separation necessarily always induces this loss or is
Mr Gould's particular method of achieving such separation the

culprit?

If this music was done with wind instruments, the notes would be
detached. I think that what is missing from Glenn Gould is not so much
legato as the French influence. That is not to say that Bach is French
music. It is definitely more angular and motoric than the French
baroque, and I think it is a mistake to overdo the French accent when
performing Bach unless it's the English Suites. Even then, it's too
conventional to make those Suites into stylistic copies of the French
compositions he liked--[in a way, the English Suites are more french
than the French--that's how I play them on the piano, but do not
recommend this extreme to others]. We need to hear the difference
between Bach and his musical influences, to feel his unique identity as
we listen [or perform, for that matter]. In that sense, I disagree
somewhat from Nicolas McGegan that, in his words, "he's French" .
*************Val

[Dan Koren]

Post by L***@aol.com
If this music was done with wind instruments, the notes would be
detached. I think that what is missing from Glenn Gould is not so much
legato as the French influence.

Certainly.

They don't like that in Ontario.



dk

[Dan Koren]

First rmcr post of 2005 goes to Val.

Did you time your typing?


dk

Post by mdhjwh

Post by mdhjwh
Is it that such separation necessarily always induces this loss or is
Mr Gould's particular method of achieving such separation the

culprit?
If this music was done with wind instruments, the notes would be
detached. I think that what is missing from Glenn Gould is not so much
legato as the French influence. That is not to say that Bach is French
music. It is definitely more angular and motoric than the French
baroque, and I think it is a mistake to overdo the French accent when
performing Bach unless it's the English Suites. Even then, it's too
conventional to make those Suites into stylistic copies of the French
compositions he liked--[in a way, the English Suites are more french
than the French--that's how I play them on the piano, but do not
recommend this extreme to others]. We need to hear the difference
between Bach and his musical influences, to feel his unique identity as
we listen [or perform, for that matter]. In that sense, I disagree
somewhat from Nicolas McGegan that, in his words, "he's French" .
*************Val

[Dan Koren]

Post by L***@aol.com
[in a way, the English Suites are more french
than the French--...

The English are becoming more French than the French.

Just think Stilton.



dk

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> appears to have caused the
following letters to be typed in news:1104566412.592043.91380

I think that what is missing from Glenn Gould is not so much legato as the
French influence.

There are times when I wonder if he didn't play legato because he couldn't.

[Dan Koren]

Post by William Sommerwerck
My opinion is that Gould will eventually be
judged as a musician who too-often projected
his own quirky personality on the music he was
performing.

My opinion is that Gould will eventually be
judged as a clown.



dk

[b***@earthlink.net]

Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.

Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

John

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"

In the context, "That nut is a genius."

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

So what? People have called *me* a genius.

[b***@earthlink.net]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"

In the context, "That nut is a genius."

Yep.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

So what?

So nothing. You either like GG's recordings or you don't. Doesn't
matter what anyone else has said. That said, none of those people
above needed a new pair of ears.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
People have called *me* a genius.

Perhaps, but no one of the stature of Feltsman, Menuhin, Stravinsky,
Szell, and the others, I'll wager, and not in the field of music.
J

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by b***@earthlink.net

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"

In the context, "That nut is a genius."

Yep.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

So what?

So nothing. You either like GG's recordings or you don't. Doesn't
matter what anyone else has said. That said, none of those people
above needed a new pair of ears.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
People have called *me* a genius.

Perhaps, but no one of the stature of Feltsman, Menuhin, Stravinsky,
Szell, and the others, I'll wager, and not in the field of music.

I guess not. It must have been Neville Marriner the pastry chef, and Nicolas
Slonimsky the dry cleaner.

[Bob Lombard]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
People have called *me* a genius.

Perhaps, but no one of the stature of Feltsman, Menuhin, Stravinsky,
Szell, and the others, I'll wager, and not in the field of music.

I guess not. It must have been Neville Marriner the pastry chef, and Nicolas
Slonimsky the dry cleaner.

Marriner is English, right? One never knows what those people mean by
"genius".

bl

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by Bob Lombard

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
People have called *me* a genius.

Perhaps, but no one of the stature of Feltsman, Menuhin, Stravinsky,
Szell, and the others, I'll wager, and not in the field of music.

I guess not. It must have been Neville Marriner the pastry chef, and
Nicolas Slonimsky the dry cleaner.

Marriner is English, right? One never knows what those people mean by
"genius".

Who knows? Maybe he was dazzled by my excellent teeth and hair (rather
more hair in those days).

[Dan Koren]

Post by Bob Lombard
Marriner is English, right?

Correction.

One cannot be English.

One can only be British,
Scotish, Welsh or Irish.



dk

[M-e-i-j-e-r]

Post by Dan Koren
One can only be British,
Scotish, Welsh or Irish.

More than six billion people will disagree.

E-l_t-j_o M_e-i_j-e_r
***@[e-mail]
(x=@=a, 5=e)

[Tom Deacon]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Bob Lombard
Marriner is English, right?

Correction.
One cannot be English.
One can only be British,
Scotish, Welsh or Irish.

I think your knowledge of "ethnicity" stops somewhere close to the Golan
Heights.

Of course one can be English. Just ask any Scot and he will tell you. There
is a border. And the battle of Culloden is still remembered.

Vive cette difference!

TD

[john lewis grant]

Post by Dan Koren
One cannot be English.
One can only be British,
Scotish, Welsh or Irish.
dk

You're joking, right?

JG
http://www.pianosociety.com/index.php?id=98

[b***@earthlink.net]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"

In the context, "That nut is a genius."

Yep.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

So what?

So nothing. You either like GG's recordings or you don't. Doesn't
matter what anyone else has said. That said, none of those people
above needed a new pair of ears.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
People have called *me* a genius.

Perhaps, but no one of the stature of Feltsman, Menuhin,

Stravinsky,

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Szell, and the others, I'll wager, and not in the field of music.

I guess not. It must have been Neville Marriner the pastry chef, and Nicolas
Slonimsky the dry cleaner.

Um, wait a minute. Not that I admit that either is of the same stature
as those on the above list, but are you seriously implying that
Marriner and Slonimsky both called you a genius of music? I plan to
confirm with Marriner, if you dare claim so.


J

[b***@earthlink.net]

Hmm, I found this in a post by Matthew after NS's death:

I met him only once, and used the
occasion to inquire as
to the true birthplace of Antonia Brico (one edition of
Baker's said Oakland,
another said Rotterdam!), and he smiled and said, "How do
you know such
things?"

I assume "how do you know such things?" was followed by "You must be a
genius!"


J

[Matthew B. Tepper]

I met him only once, and used the occasion to inquire as to the true
birthplace of Antonia Brico (one edition of Baker's said Oakland, another
said Rotterdam!), and he smiled and said, "How do you know such things?"
I assume "how do you know such things?" was followed by "You must be a
genius!"

Maybe not in so many words, but he went on with more praise, which (as I've
said) makes me embarrassed and uneasy. I don't really know why, and I know
it's unusual in somebody as pompous and self-absorbed as me, but oh well.
This does not mean that I can't appreciate praise for other people, nor do
I have any problem bestowing it on others when warranted. It's just that
when it's directed at me, it might as well be bar-bar-bar, just noise.

Anyway, remember, it was Nicolas Slonimsky the dry cleaner.

[b***@earthlink.net]

I met him only once, and used the occasion to inquire as to the true
birthplace of Antonia Brico (one edition of Baker's said Oakland, another
said Rotterdam!), and he smiled and said, "How do you know such things?"
I assume "how do you know such things?" was followed by "You must be a
genius!"

Maybe not in so many words<snip>

Okay, so neither Marriner nor Slonimsky called you a genius, which was
about what I expected. GG was called "a genius", in so many words, by
all those eminent people I listed in my earlier post.


J

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by b***@earthlink.net

I met him only once, and used the occasion to inquire as to the true
birthplace of Antonia Brico (one edition of Baker's said Oakland,
another said Rotterdam!), and he smiled and said, "How do you know
such things?"
I assume "how do you know such things?" was followed by "You must be a
genius!"

Maybe not in so many words<snip>

Okay, so neither Marriner nor Slonimsky called you a genius, which was
about what I expected. GG was called "a genius", in so many words, by
all those eminent people I listed in my earlier post.

That's wonderful. I hope this makes you very happy.

[john grant]

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Okay, so neither Marriner nor Slonimsky called you a genius, which was
about what I expected. GG was called "a genius", in so many words, by
all those eminent people I listed in my earlier post.
J

.... and it's not every kid who at the age of 10 has mastered all of Book 1
of the WTK.

JG
http://artist.amazon.com/johnlewisgrant

[Dan Koren]

Post by john grant

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Okay, so neither Marriner nor Slonimsky called you a genius, which was
about what I expected. GG was called "a genius", in so many words, by
all those eminent people I listed in my earlier post.
J

.... and it's not every kid who at the age
of 10 has mastered all of Book 1 of the WTK.

^^^^^^^^
------------||||||||

Did you mean "learned"?

There have been others.



dk

[john grant]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by john grant

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Okay, so neither Marriner nor Slonimsky called you a genius, which was
about what I expected. GG was called "a genius", in so many words, by
all those eminent people I listed in my earlier post.
J

.... and it's not every kid who at the age
of 10 has mastered all of Book 1 of the WTK.

^^^^^^^^
------------||||||||
Did you mean "learned"?
There have been others.
dk

Enlighten us.

JG
http://www.pianosociety.com/index.php?id=98

[Dan Koren]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Anyway, remember, it was Nicolas Slonimsky the dry cleaner.

Did he take you to the cleaners?

Or did you go there by yourself?



dk

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by b***@earthlink.net

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net

to be typed in news:1104424938.843884.125800

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of
RMCR, here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure,
pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"

In the context, "That nut is a genius."

Yep.

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

So what?

So nothing. You either like GG's recordings or you don't. Doesn't
matter what anyone else has said. That said, none of those people
above needed a new pair of ears.

People have called *me* a genius.

Perhaps, but no one of the stature of Feltsman, Menuhin, Stravinsky,
Szell, and the others, I'll wager, and not in the field of music.

I guess not. It must have been Neville Marriner the pastry chef, and
Nicolas Slonimsky the dry cleaner.

Um, wait a minute. Not that I admit that either is of the same stature
as those on the above list, but are you seriously implying that
Marriner and Slonimsky both called you a genius of music? I plan to
confirm with Marriner, if you dare claim so.

Remember, I said Neville Marriner, the pastry chef. ;--) Go ahead if it's
that important to you. I'll even give you time, place, and circumstances.
It was March or April 1979, and he visited San Francisco State University
to show the orchestra there how to make a ganache from scratch. I was (or
had just been, memory is not perfect) Laszlo Varga's sole conducting pupil,
as Kent Nagano had been the previous year.

Anyway, Marriner met with the Dean of the School of Creative Arts (which
included the Music Department) and praised me effusively for some reason.
My source for this was the Dean himself, who collared me in the hallway and
relayed the conversation with me. I've always felt somewhat embarrassed at
receiving such praise, so I think I squirmed about as much as though I had
been reprimanded for something, and I kind of blocked it out and don't
remember all the details.

Whatever Marriner's high opinion of me may have been, it did not last long.
I decided to do my graduate work in Minneapolis, where he had just gotten
his ill-fated appointment as Music Director of the Minnesota Orchestra (do
a Google Groups search for many stories related thereto, or anyway a couple
of stories told myriad ways). He pretty much ignored me then, and I never
cracked his inner circle. It wasn't due to anti-Semitism, but more likely
my charming personality, since he took as protegé one Joel Fishman, who may
still be conducting in Iowa or someplace.

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by b***@earthlink.net
You either like GG's recordings or you don't.

Not so. I like of his stuff, and dislike other performances.

[b***@earthlink.net]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by b***@earthlink.net
You either like GG's recordings or you don't.

Not so. I like of his stuff, and dislike other performances.

You knew what I meant, just as I know what you mean, despite the fact
you left out "some".


J

[Dan Koren]

Post by William Sommerwerck

Post by b***@earthlink.net
You either like GG's recordings or you don't.

Not so. I like of his stuff, and dislike other performances.

"stuff" is OK, as long as you don't call it music.



dk

[Dan Koren]

Post by b***@earthlink.net

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
George Szell called GG "a genius"

In the context, "That nut is a genius."

Yep.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

So what?

So nothing. You either like GG's recordings or you don't. Doesn't
matter what anyone else has said. That said, none of those people
above needed a new pair of ears.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
People have called *me* a genius.

Perhaps, but no one of the stature of Feltsman, Menuhin, Stravinsky,
Szell, and the others, I'll wager, and not in the field of music.

Yes another attempt to impose value by association?


dk

[Dan Koren]

Post by b***@earthlink.net
You either like GG's recordings or you don't.
Doesn't matter what anyone else has said. That
said, none of those people above needed a new
pair of ears.

Precisely.

The needed taste.



dk

[b***@earthlink.net]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by b***@earthlink.net
You either like GG's recordings or you don't.
Doesn't matter what anyone else has said. That
said, none of those people above needed a new
pair of ears.

Precisely.
The needed taste.

In terms of taste, next to Rose, Bernstein, Menuhin, Afanassiev,
Copland, Feltsman, Stravinsky, Szell, Ashkenazy, and Rorem, you are a
leprous, lice-ridden, filthy, mangled, impotent dwarf. Actually, come
to think of it....


J

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"

In the context, "That nut is a genius."

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

So what? People have called *me* a genius.

Could those people be nuts?

[Dan Koren]

Post by Norman M. Schwartz

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"

In the context, "That nut is a genius."

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

So what? People have called *me* a genius.

Could those people be nuts?

Or worse -- peanuts?



dk

[Dan Koren]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
So what? People have called *me* a genius.

You too?



dk

[Dan]

<<Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of
RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
...

George Szell called GG "a genius">>

...

I don't know about the others, but I believe the whole quote from Szell
was

"That nut's a genius" the tone of which, I think, qualifies it a
little. Also, although Gould was invited to play with the Cleveland
Orchestra, I seem to recall reading that it was never when Szell was
conducting, which also qualifies it a bit as well.

I know personally he had an exact knowledge of large repertoire other
than the piano and no one could reasonably question his musicianship,
even if his judgement was suspect.

Still, for all that Gould's playing still interests listeners, it's
hard to deny that as time went on his performances seemed more
concerned with displaying his own commentaries on the works rather than
the work itself.

That said, I think anyone interested in the music of Schoenberg should
listen to his live Mitropoulos/NY Phil performance of the Piano
Concerto to understand how musical and passionate he was at such an
early age.

Dan Plante

[b***@earthlink.net]

Dan wrote:
<snips>

Post by Dan
I don't know about the others, but I believe the whole quote from Szell
was
"That nut's a genius" the tone of which, I think, qualifies it a
little.

Reportedly, although Gould denied the specific story (which is surely
as famous as the quote itself), Szell was exasperated by GG's
non-musical eccentricities, hence the "nut" part. I don't think that
qualifies the judgement of genius at all, though it may explain why
Szell was unwilling to work with Gould again (if true).


J

[Dan Koren]

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

If I don't like the food, I could not
care less if anyone calls the chef a
genius.



dk

[b***@earthlink.net]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Now that we've heard from some of the mighty, illustrious men of RMCR,
here's a few words of contradiction from some obscure, pitiful losers.
Leonard Rose called GG "a genius"
Leonard Bernstein called GG "a genius"
Yehudi Menuhin called GG "a genius"
Valery Afanassiev called GG "a genius"
Aaron Copland called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Feltsman called GG "a genius"
Igor Stravinsky called GG "a genius"
George Szell called GG "a genius"
Vladimir Ashkenazy called GG "a genius"
Ned Rorem called GG "a genius"

If I don't like the food, I could not
care less if anyone calls the chef a
genius.

I didn't expect you to care less. I expected you to continue on in
obscurity and irrelevance, as I'm quite certain you will.


J

[L***@aol.com]

There is plenty of humor in Gould.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

"***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> appears to have caused the
following letters to be typed in news:1104472885.756504.213280

Post by L***@aol.com
There is plenty of humor in Gould.

Never be clever for the sake of being clever, for the sake of showing off!

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by L***@aol.com
There is plenty of humor in Gould.

Never be clever for the sake of being clever, for the sake of showing off!

Which could be a valid criticism for some of Gould's performances.

Yes, I'm old enough to remember the record bound into Stereo Review.

[b***@earthlink.net]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:1104472885.756504.213280

Post by L***@aol.com
There is plenty of humor in Gould.

Never be clever for the sake of being clever, for the sake of showing off!

Well, nothing ventured nothing gained, they say.


J

[Dan Koren]

Post by L***@aol.com
There is plenty of humor in Gould.

Canadian humor?



dk

[Simon Roberts]

Post by William Sommerwerck
Gould's Bach recordings are worth hearing -- once. But whether you'll want to
return to them for musical satisfaction is another matter.
My opinion is that Gould will eventually be judged as a musician who too-often
projected his own quirky personality on the music he was performing.

"Will eventually be"? That's been the reaction of many for decades. As for
whether he projected his own quirky personality on the music he was performing,
well, all musicians project their personality onto the music they perform.
Whether one cares for Gould's is a matter of taste.

Simon

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by Simon Roberts

Post by William Sommerwerck
Gould's Bach recordings are worth hearing -- once. But whether you'll want to
return to them for musical satisfaction is another matter.
My opinion is that Gould will eventually be judged as a musician who too-often
projected his own quirky personality on the music he was performing.

"Will eventually be"? That's been the reaction of many for decades. As for
whether he projected his own quirky personality on the music he was performing,
well, all musicians project their personality onto the music they perform.
Whether one cares for Gould's is a matter of taste.

The operative word was "quirky."

[Van Eyes]

I was wondering if his time has passed....

Nope.

Are his recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?

The latter. Thanks for asking.


Regards

[Richard Schultz]

And you're gonna be in trouble (hey la, hey la). . .

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Any computer containing the equivalent of 256 or 512 K ('kilobytes') of
RAM . . . should provide reasonable performance for most word-processing
applications." -- Ebel, Bliefert, and Russey, _The Art of Scientific Writing_

[s***@compuserve.com]

One of my stock answers for this is that great music doesn't just
accomodate, but it needs many different interpretations and some of
those will be at the extremes. I happen to respond with great
enthusiasm to both Hewitt and Gould, they are very different but I
wouldn't be without either.

Finding the best kind of assumes no one is going to do it better in the
future.

I would to recommend Gould - but hope you would lend an ear to
countless others too.

S

[Ivailo Partchev]

a weird artefact - yes
just a weird artefact - no
the best - hardly

There IS no such thing as the best. I can partly understand the mixture
of greed and stupidity which makes Sony hype up the two Gould Goldbergs
plus the new-fangled young German misunderstanding while deleting or
hiding Rosen. But: even worse are publications in the style of Norman
Lebrecht with his self-appointed task 'to sift golden wheat from a
mountain of chaff'. It then turns out that the 'golden wheat' is
Casals' erratic if historically important recording of the cello suites,
while the 'mountain of chaff' seemingly includes the superb accounts of
Schiff, Wispelway, Bylsma... I can hardly imagine anything more damaging
than such pompous nonsense --- it destroys the whole sense of diversity
and development that lies at the heart of record collecting.

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?
Ralph

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by Ivailo Partchev
There IS no such thing as the best. I can partly understand the mixture
of greed and stupidity which makes Sony hype up the two Gould Goldbergs
plus the new-fangled young German misunderstanding while deleting or
hiding Rosen.

Part of the reason for suppressing Rosen is a personal grudge by the head
of the division.

[Simon Roberts]

In article <***@207.217.125.201>, Matthew B. Tepper
says...

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by Ivailo Partchev
There IS no such thing as the best. I can partly understand the mixture
of greed and stupidity which makes Sony hype up the two Gould Goldbergs
plus the new-fangled young German misunderstanding while deleting or
hiding Rosen.

Part of the reason for suppressing Rosen is a personal grudge by the head
of the division.

That may be, but Sony did release his Goldbergs on CD, in 1992; assuming it's
not in print now (I've no idea whether it is or not), it nevertheless remained
in print for years.

Simon

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Tepper says...

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by Ivailo Partchev
There IS no such thing as the best. I can partly understand the
mixture of greed and stupidity which makes Sony hype up the two Gould
Goldbergs plus the new-fangled young German misunderstanding while
deleting or hiding Rosen.

Part of the reason for suppressing Rosen is a personal grudge by the
head of the division.

That may be, but Sony did release his Goldbergs on CD, in 1992; assuming
it's not in print now (I've no idea whether it is or not), it
nevertheless remained in print for years.

Rosen hadn't yet published his scathing indictment of Gelb at that time.

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Simon Roberts
says...

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by Ivailo Partchev
There IS no such thing as the best. I can partly understand the mixture
of greed and stupidity which makes Sony hype up the two Gould Goldbergs
plus the new-fangled young German misunderstanding while deleting or
hiding Rosen.

Part of the reason for suppressing Rosen is a personal grudge by the head
of the division.

That may be, but Sony did release his Goldbergs on CD, in 1992; assuming it's
not in print now (I've no idea whether it is or not), it nevertheless remained
in print for years.

It still is in print; as is his less impressive AoF, for some reason
coupled with Tureck playing the Italian Concerto and a large number of
relatively minor works of Bach.

Rosen's is my favourite Goldbergs, but for Aof I prefer Sokolov.

[Dan]

I admire Rosen's Goldbergs too, but have you ever heard Igor Kipnis'
recording on EMI - it was recently reissued on a Seraphim CD with
really overly bright and cold sound. Rosen plays it as a document he
tries to honor, Kipnis - a completely different conception - plays it
in a way to bring it to life in a more involved way.

Dan Plante

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Dan
I admire Rosen's Goldbergs too, but have you ever heard Igor Kipnis'
recording on EMI - it was recently reissued on a Seraphim CD with
really overly bright and cold sound. Rosen plays it as a document he
tries to honor, Kipnis - a completely different conception - plays it
in a way to bring it to life in a more involved way.

I don't really like the sound of the harpsichord, so I stick to piano
performances.

[Dan Koren]

Post by Paul Ilechko
Rosen's is my favourite Goldbergs,

Why isn't Goldberg your
favorite Goldberg?



dk

[Dan Koren]

Post by Paul Ilechko
Rosen's is my favourite Goldbergs,
but for Aof I prefer Sokolov.

Have you heard Feltsman or Schepkin?


dk

[john grant]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Paul Ilechko
Rosen's is my favourite Goldbergs,
but for Aof I prefer Sokolov.

Have you heard Feltsman or Schepkin?
dk

I'd give F. a pass. Gould's Goldberg(s) are masterpieces by comparison.
Try Dershavina. She knows how to play them.

JG
http://www.pianosociety.com/index.php?id=98

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Paul Ilechko
Rosen's is my favourite Goldbergs,
but for Aof I prefer Sokolov.

Have you heard Feltsman or Schepkin?

I've heard both of their WTC - love Schepkin, don't care for Feltsman.

[Steve Molino]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Paul Ilechko
Rosen's is my favourite Goldbergs,
but for Aof I prefer Sokolov.

Have you heard Feltsman or Schepkin?

I've heard both of their WTC - love Schepkin, don't care for Feltsman.

Feltsman's WTC is my favorite by a wide margin at this time. I have shed so
many recordings of the WTC over the last few years because whenever I want
to listen to it, I usually always turn to Feltsman, with the occasional nod
to Fischer and Feinberg.

[john grant]

Post by Steve Molino

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Paul Ilechko
Rosen's is my favourite Goldbergs,
but for Aof I prefer Sokolov.

Have you heard Feltsman or Schepkin?

I've heard both of their WTC - love Schepkin, don't care for Feltsman.

Feltsman's WTC is my favorite by a wide margin at this time. I have shed so
many recordings of the WTC over the last few years because whenever I want
to listen to it, I usually always turn to Feltsman, with the occasional nod
to Fischer and Feinberg.

It's impossible to listen to the same WTK over and over, true enough. And
some of the Feltsman WTK is good, but much of it, though technically
perfect, leaves me completely cold. Feinberg's idiosyncratic WTK on the
other hand never ceases to astonish me, every bar of it.

JG
http://www.pianosociety.com/index.php?id=98

[Steve Molino]

Post by john grant
It's impossible to listen to the same WTK over and over, true enough. And
some of the Feltsman WTK is good, but much of it, though technically
perfect, leaves me completely cold.

That's a shame. It strikes me as a very human and warm version, not cold in
the least.

[Simon Roberts]

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?

They're a weird artifact from the recent past that have been fashionable in some
quarters for 50 years and can be recommended to any "consumer" with the ears to
appreciate them.

Simon

[Waduino]

Well, I received the Sony "A State of Wonder" CDs for Christmas, and
although I'm a newbie to classical music, it certainly sounds lovely to my
ears (minus the humming.) The interview on the 3rd CD lends a whole lot more
to the set and gave me a small glimpse of some of the significant decisions
musicians make in approaching a piece of music. I found the discussion on
tempi quite fascinating, but hey, what do I know.
Waduino.

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?
Ralph

[john grant]

Post by Ralph
I have recently read yet another harsh review on Glenn Gould's performing
Bach. I was wondering if his time has passed, and we should no longer look
to his recordings, in order to appreciate Bach's keyboard music. Are his
recordings just some weird artifact from the recent past, that was briefly
fashionable, or can they be recommended to the consumer who wants the best
in Bach's keyboard music?
Ralph

He was a genius (but so are many musicians). Certainly a quirky pianist.
But not all his recordings are a kind of bare-bones analysis of the music.
His ecording of the Partitas and of the Goldberg V. (both) manage to be
something more than intellectual pontificating and musical logic-chopping.
They are beautiful and masterful interpretations.

The WTC, on the other hand, particularly Bk 1, is tossed off in a
any-fool-could-play-these manner, which I find even more irksome than his
humming. I've never really understood his treatmentof the WTC, and can't
forgive him for it. He really does manage to make the 48 sound like
technical exercises. They were, of course; but in the right hands--say
Richter or Feinberg--they are obviously much more: the greatest keyboard
music ever composed, in my view.

Could he have done more with the Well-tempered? No doubt he could have,
and perhaps would have had he not undermined his health with prescription
drugs. After all, he had mastered all of Book 1 by the tender age of 10.

JG
http://artist.amazon.com/johnlewisgrant

[Marc Perman]

Post by john grant
He was a genius (but so are many musicians). Certainly a quirky pianist.
But not all his recordings are a kind of bare-bones analysis of the music.
His ecording of the Partitas and of the Goldberg V. (both) manage to be
something more than intellectual pontificating and musical logic-chopping.
They are beautiful and masterful interpretations.
The WTC, on the other hand, particularly Bk 1, is tossed off in a
any-fool-could-play-these manner, which I find even more irksome than his
humming. I've never really understood his treatmentof the WTC, and can't
forgive him for it. He really does manage to make the 48 sound like
technical exercises. They were, of course; but in the right hands--say
Richter or Feinberg--they are obviously much more: the greatest keyboard
music ever composed, in my view.
Could he have done more with the Well-tempered? No doubt he could have,
and perhaps would have had he not undermined his health with prescription
drugs. After all, he had mastered all of Book 1 by the tender age of 10.

Which is precisely why the Dutch Sony Gould Bach set appealed to me: it
contains most if not all of Gould's solo Bach recordings, but not his WTC.

Marc Perman