[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why 1981 Goldbergs better than 1955?
I'd judge them as DIFFERENT, with positive points for each one over the
other.
May be the tendency to consider the 1981 recording as a better one is held
on the logical assumption that it is the whole work revisited, by an
outstanding artist carrying the experience of more than 25 years as a
top-line pro.
In the '81 recording is evident the progress in terms of musical coherence.
I mean, it reveals a more rational reading of the Goldbergs, with a clear
seek to express the subtle sense of unity that hides behind the more obvious
diversity that surges from the "inmediate" fact that it is a compound of 32
parts.
Definitely, a more rational approach, but equally valuable.
Of course, as a Gould fan, I find the 1955 version as an undisposable gem, a
cornerstone in terms of freshness. It has that magical sense of a discovery,
a jump into the unknown, the unpredictable. Gould manages to transmit to us
in his playing his amusement and pleasure.
You know, it is like the humming... if you catch the feeling, it is
adorable, if you don't dig it, it is SO unprofessional...
Pablo
----- Mensaje original -----
De: Juozas Rimas <JuozasRimas@TAKAS.LT>
Para: <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
Enviado: Viernes 4 de Mayo de 2001 18:30
Asunto: Why 1981 Goldbergs better than 1955?
> A quote from a recent mesage:
>
> "I agree totally with prof. Poli of Milan who rates the Gould's
> Bagatelles as equal to the 1981 Goldberg recording "
>
> Is it the common opinion that 1981 goldbergs are better than 1955?
>
> Juozas Rimas Jr
> http://mp3.com/JuozasRimas
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com