[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
That's a very good point you make. The "dry, intimate sound" is how
most of us got to know Gould on record, and we have tuned our inner
ears to it. Anyone who can't mentally extract perfect sound from the
1955 recording (or, for that matter, from a 1936 Szigeti recording)
just doesn't know how to listen.
Nevertheless, the clean, driving, immediate sound of the Zenph
deserves a place in the subjective world of sonic perfectability.
It may be that Gould felt that no matter how well he played Bach it
could never sound the way he heard it in his head - it always came
out filtered through his willpower - a power he couldn't put aside.
At 01:44 PM 6/4/2007, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
In my opinion, no, the Zenph re-performance is not 24k Gould--closer to 10k
perhaps. Yes, the notes are all in place and the unsuspecting would have a
hard time believing it's not an actual person at the piano, but the Gouldian
sound is nonexistant, and for me, that is half of the equation. I miss the
dry, intimate sound of Gould's recordings. That "head-inside-the-piano"
intensity I experience with the other recordings is nowhere to be found. Even
when compared to the 1981 Goldbergs, it is easy to see how simply having a
Yamaha will hardly reproduce the laser-like timbre we're so used to. It seems
that having the same tuner, sound engineer (or whatever other authorities
helped in making the re-performance) was not enough to acheive that unique
sound. But I am relieved to know that GG's physical presence--the most
important ingrediant--did indeed seem to be this project's only shortcoming.
I believe that the new recording surpasses the 1955, where most elements I've
mentioned were lost in the horrible attempts to suppress singing, squeaking,
etc. However, the new recording does not live up to the sound standards that
are the hallmark of Gould's stereo recordings. I enjoyed listening to it, for
it made me better understand and appreciate the 1955 recording. If for no
other reason than that, this CD should be in any Gould fan's music library.
Quoting Randy Walld <Randy_Walld@cpe.umanitoba.ca>:
> The fact that you noticed 'nothing unusual' is itself
amazing! Comparing it
> to a 'repressing' misses the point entirely. Is this 24k Gould or not??
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: paul wiener <email@example.com>
> Date: Monday, June 4, 2007 10:49 am
> Subject: Re: [F_minor] (no subject)
> > I got a copy. I have a reasonably excellent, if normal sound
> > system - several.
> > Other than perfect clarity, I didn't notice anything unusual
> > about
> > the recording. Of course, it's far, far better than any of the
> > conventional repressings of the 1955 version. The jacket info with
> > the disc says it should optimally be played on special equipment
> > or
> > headphones; perhaps I'm an atypical listener - I still depend a
> > lot
> > on my ears, speakers and amplifier. And on Gould's musicianship.
> > >so, what's the word. it that new reproduced, or should I say
> > >resurrected, 55 goldberg any good. ?
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >F_minor mailing list
> > >F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> > >https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> > _______________________________________________
> > F_minor mailing list
> > F_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> > https://email.rutgers.edu/mailman/listinfo/f_minor
> F_minor mailing list
F_minor mailing list