Goldberg Variations - what do you like and not like?

[Jazid]

I must fess up to not having found the wherewithal to listen to the famous Gould Goldbergs more than two or three times: I find it dispiriting and metronomic. The later recording I find slightly more bearable as it has a human element that I find missing in the earlier one. Having heard a couple of other versions I had all but decided that the Goldbergs just weren't for me when I heard Joanna McGregor playing them at the Back Marathon at the Albert Hall at Easter. To my ears she stole the show, it was one of those revelatory moments when the purpose of the music and the performance suffused together and did that thing that only the best live music can do to me. Her CD is in my opinion an excellent interpretation, at once flowing, light and delicate, but very precise in voicing and alive to the melodies.

What do others hereabouts like when listening to this piece of music, and what is it that I just don't get with the Gould performances?

 

[Guest]

Goodness there's a collected volume in people's responses to this I'm sure.

I'm quite a fan of the 81 Gouldberg. Though very idiosyncratic, for me it gets a real sense of the music across and the practical performer in me agrees with him that it's Ok to be selective about whether or not to observe all the repeats which while part of the standard form of the day surely can't have been implemented so rigidly as some of the more pedantic modern performers do.

I'm with you on the early one though - 55 is it? - far too fast and not expressive enough, though I have the Zempf re-performance version of this and that works rather better for me.

These is a special edition Gouldberg CD which has the analog mono 55, and an analog tape backup of the 81 recording which for me works best of all, better than the digitally recorded 81 (which is the one on basically all of the CDs and records). Next time you come!

Pinnock on harpsichord does it fantastically well, as does Rosalyn Tureck (avoid the recent remaster though), neither giving any kind of nod in the direction of Gould the way just about every modern pianist does, Marian Tipo being perhaps a laudible exception (if a bit too 'straight' for me).

A dark horse for me is the Evgeni Koroliov version which approaches some of Gould's mysicism, without the mannerisms, and perhaps the one getting the biggest hammering of them all from me at the moment is Max Reger's version for two pianos! It sounds mental - who would have the chutzpah these days to think they could improve on Bach? (though the old man himself might have had a different attitude) - but it somehow works and is a fabulous recording.

 

[Popey]

You can download a free recording of the variations from http://www.opengoldbergvariations.org/.

I do like the Glenn Gould version.

 

[khapahk]

Following on from Tom's comment about having "the chutzpah to think they could mprove on Bach", there is also the Goldberg arrangements for two pianos by Robin Holloway called "Gilded Goldbergs" recorded on Hyperion. Some interesting harmonies in that set......!

k

 

[Lefty]

Thanks for sharing - I'll have to try and get a listen to the Joanna McGregor version.

FWIW - I really like the 81 Gould version. (Yes, even his famous humming which can be heard in the background :mrgreen: )

Lefty

 

[Jazid]

If I can get to the Tom's classical bakeoff (family stuff to sort but I hope free on Sunday :upgrade: ) I shall most certainly bring the McGregor CD along for the assembled great and good to listen to

Oh its not Goulds humming that turns me off, I guess Tom talks about mysticism and what I hear is matter of factness. I am prolly completely deaf though

 

[AnalogAlba]

I find the original Gould album wonderful and would second Evgeni Koroliov (in fact much anything by him..)

Also worth tracking down is the Charles Rosen (Sony?) recording - lovely.

Plus a Portuguese pianist whose name I have forgotten....apologies not much help...someone else may know him....

 

[wizons]

Another vote for Gould '81, though it is a marmite interpretation. I prefer this to his '55 recording. Gould filmed the '81 recording with Bruno Monsaingeon and the film has recently been reissued as part of a 3 DVD set called 'Glenn Gould plays Bach'. The films were broadcast by Channel 4 in the early 1980s (I remember watching them). The interviews with Gould are fascinating as an insight into his character, not least of all because he scripted each interview.

One thing I'm surprised has not been taken up by other musicians since Gould is the way he builds a sense of progression and development through the variations. He does this partly by establishing precise tempo relationships between variations and by sometimes leaving little time between variations. The effect is fantastic and variation 30 really feels like the culmination of all that's gone before.

Another superb piano version is Murray Perahia's on Sony. Very different from Gould, but equally valid

 

[Guest]

If I can get to the Tom's classical bakeoff (family stuff to sort but I hope free on Sunday :upgrade: ) I shall most certainly bring the McGregor CD along for the assembled great and good to listen to Oh its not Goulds humming that turns me off, I guess Tom talks about mysticism and what I hear is matter of factness. I am prolly completely deaf though

Looking forward to that, James.

Gould 81s, for me, has all the right feeling of a journey: the aria is slow and very pensive, the opening variations vituosic and dramatic, but the whole thing becomes more mystical and meditative as it progresses and by the time it gets to the later variations (especially the minor ones) it's quite revelatory. The 'knowing' return of the aria then completes the cycle. It's a unity.

Typically harpsichordists (and many of the pianists too) focus on the fact that most of the variations (in that binary structure of course) have their roots in dance movements - sarabandes, allemands, gigues etc, to say nothing of the fact that the key of G/occasionally G minor is used throughout (like a dance suite) - and therefore make sure and apply the appropriate mannerisms and tempi.

It's not that Gould entirely ignores this - though certainly an early music type could repeatedly take issue - but for him it's not a manner of applying formulaic rules according to the movements' style, but rather in weaving a whole, which I think he does spectacularly. It's a feat that by no means all Goldberg interpreters, however virtuosic or intellectual, manage to pull off.

The Goldbergs are one of those wonderful late Bach works - the B minor mass, the Musical Offering, the Art of Fugue, the Von Himmel Hoch variations - where Bach is attempting on the one hand to transcend the particular form and structure, and on the other hand to provide the ultimate experssion of it through establishing some kind of sense of completness. For me this is the magic of the Goldbergs, and Gould (for me) really GOT it.

There was a great interview with the great early music pioneer Gustav Leonhart, broadcast just before he died (I was lucky enough to get to his last London concert two summers ago - the interview must have been recorded around then as it was broadcast that autumn). In the interview he expressed open disdain for any and all performances of the Goldbergs on piano. He could only see this work through the narrow lens of an idiomatic, period-accurate harpsichord performance.

Leonhart was a wonderful performer, not least in Bach (his gamba sonatas with Kiujen is my favourite) but the version of his of the Goldbergs I have is not very good. It's obvious why: for me at least, I think he rather missed the point.

 

[JANDL100]

Nah - it has to be played on the accordion .... :^

It really is one of my fave versions!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Goldberg-Variations-Hussong-Johann-Sebastian/dp/B000027AA9/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1373007655&sr=1-2&keywords=bach+hussong

 

[JANDL100]

Others that haven't been mentioned that are well worth a listen are Lifschitz, Katz, Jacottet, Canadian Brass, Peter Serkin, Suzuki.

I'm not usually a big fan of Perahia, but he does well in his Sony recording.

The MacGregor sounds interesting - I've not heard that one yet.

Interesting alternative user review on Amazon ...

1.0 out of 5 stars A Joke, surely?, 18 Nov 2010

By AbsoluteClassical (Dublin)

I have to say I was transfixed whilst listening to this recording of one of the greatest works ever written. Not transfixed for good reasons, alas, but because I actually thought I was listening to some kind of spoof/joke recording. I have NEVER heard such tasteless playing in my life - the pedal is down through most of the initial Aria, the textures in general merge into a kind of blurry haze and as for technique, well, the work is clearly beyond Ms. MacGregor's capabilities. I was amazed that as soon as the fingerwork got in any way taxing, which let's face it is in a bulk of the work, she actually slows down to half speed in order to play the notes. Even then there are are inaccuracies that should never have been allowed past an editing process.

If not a joke recording, then this must be some attempt to be 'different' - but different only works in the hands of a capable artist, one who has true vision and instinct. Alas, Ms MacGregor appears to have neither, and any attempt she has made to be original has fallen flat. I don't decry people for trying to record out of their comfort zone, but this recording actually verges on the insulting: an insult to Bach, to the work, and, indeed, the listener. Had I been able to rate with Zero stars then I would have done so. Shocking!

 

[themadlatvian]

Others that haven't been mentioned that are well worth a listen are Lifschitz, Katz, Jacottet, Canadian Brass, Peter Serkin, Suzuki.I'm not usually a big fan of Perahia, but he does well in his Sony recording.

The MacGregor sounds interesting - I've not heard that one yet.

Interesting alternative user review on Amazon ...

1.0 out of 5 stars A Joke, surely?, 18 Nov 2010

By AbsoluteClassical (Dublin)

I have to say I was transfixed whilst listening to this recording of one of the greatest works ever written. Not transfixed for good reasons, alas, but because I actually thought I was listening to some kind of spoof/joke recording. I have NEVER heard such tasteless playing in my life - the pedal is down through most of the initial Aria, the textures in general merge into a kind of blurry haze and as for technique, well, the work is clearly beyond Ms. MacGregor's capabilities. I was amazed that as soon as the fingerwork got in any way taxing, which let's face it is in a bulk of the work, she actually slows down to half speed in order to play the notes. Even then there are are inaccuracies that should never have been allowed past an editing process.

If not a joke recording, then this must be some attempt to be 'different' - but different only works in the hands of a capable artist, one who has true vision and instinct. Alas, Ms MacGregor appears to have neither, and any attempt she has made to be original has fallen flat. I don't decry people for trying to record out of their comfort zone, but this recording actually verges on the insulting: an insult to Bach, to the work, and, indeed, the listener. Had I been able to rate with Zero stars then I would have done so. Shocking!

:rofl:

Some slight reservations, then!

 

[JANDL100]

Well, other user reviews on Amazon are a lot more positive!

 

[Diapason]

I quite enjoy Gould's 1981 recording, but I'd never admit that publicly as I'm too much of a purist. I've always really enjoyed Pierre Hantai's recording on Opus 111 (harpsichord) as I think it captures the spirit of the dance without being flippant.

 

[Guest]

Nah - it has to be played on the accordion .... :^

Bach, Cajun style. :^

Actually I enjoyed this a lot.

 

[themadlatvian]

After reading this thread once more I have just listened to the 1955 Gould right through - Sony re-master CD.

It's much much better than I had remembered it, though not (for me) as moving as the 1981 version. Gould was after all only in his early twenties when this was recorded.

:^

 

[AnalogAlba]

After reading this thread once more I have just listened to the 1955 Gould right through - Sony re-master CD.It's much much better than I had remembered it, though not (for me) as moving as the 1981 version. Gould was after all only in his early twenties when this was recorded.

:^

The 1955 is inspiring. Gould's career is worth much reading - many good books out there.

I have many early Gould mono Columbia Masterworks (Six Eye?) on vinyl (or whatever they were using, plastilite?)....

Try the early mono LP's - worth it - they are amazing .... a shot in the arm.

 

[tones]

Nobody for Angela Hewitt? I would put her version on a par with Murray Perahia's.

 

[themadlatvian]

Nobody for Angela Hewitt? I would put her version on a par with Murray Perahia's.

I heard Angela Hewitt do them live in Manchester - very fine.

:^