GG: other good Goldbergs on piano

[Bradley P Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>]

Anne, I agree with you that Perahia's Goldbergs are fine but don't quite
have that sparkle.  I also like Hewitt's.

But better than both of those, for me, are (1) Gould's own live 1959
performance from Salzburg, and (2) Zhu Xiao-Mei on Mandala 4950.
(Midprice from Harmonia Mundi distribution.)

Info about Ms Zhu is at http://www.google.com/search?q=zhu+xiao-mei

Here is a review I wrote soon after I bought her recording:

=====================================

7/16/01

ZHU Xiao-Mei plays the Goldberg Variations on a Steinway: Mandala
(Harmonia Mundi dist) 4950 from 1999.  61'20".  Budget- to midprice.  A
steal, and in my opinion Ms Zhu's performance has vaulted to share the
summit with Gould '59 among the recordings on piano that I've heard.
Wow!

Why do I hear this as so great?

She has a complete grasp of the music, knowing where everything belongs,
and a willingness to play it straightforwardly instead of overemphasizing
anything. She trusts us to "get it."  She plays phrases, not notes.  She
varies her touch all over the place to bring out things subtly.  She lets
the music get her hyped up sometimes, with great passion, and lets it
bring a cooler serenity as well.  Note: I didn't say she brings a
passionate delivery _to_ the music;  she gets it _from_ the music.  It's a
huge and vital difference.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson noted, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of
small minds."  Zhu allows the music to be subtly inconsistent in her
repeats and during sections, intuitively altering her delivery from moment
to moment as she feels it, letting the music grow.  It's organic, the
furthest thing from intellectual control (as Tureck, Gould, and some
others play).  Zhu recognizes that richness in Bach comes from letting
things be irrational enough within a controlled structure.

The result is that we hear the music making its own effect, not the effort
of a performer trying to show us something, or a performer trying to be a
Personality.  The performance is satisfying while it's happening, and even
more satisfying in retrospect.  In how many more ways can I say that the
performance is organic?

Zhu's touch at the piano is so natural; that's another reason why I like
her sound so much.  She plays the piano for what it is, not trying to
simulate some other instrument.  She doesn't try to create odd tone colors
for sections as players of the Russian school do; she just lets the music
flow with a fairly consistent touch.  She doesn't use artificial-sounding
articulations, either, she just plays!  Within that basic consistency she
has a large range of dynamics and intensity.  As I mentioned above, she
uses that range with what sounds like intuitive reaction rather than a
pre-planned intellectual road map.

In overall feeling (and in character/tempos of individual sections) Zhu's
performance sounds modeled on Gould '59 (Salzburg)...perhaps that's why I
like it so much.  She also does what he does in var 29, playing octaves in
the bass, but even more enthusiastically as a grand climax before the
quodlibet. Otherwise she sticks very closely to the text.

The sound and production are fine; I caught only a few moments where rough
digital edits break the continuity (most notably in var 29).

Zhu takes the first repeats but not the second repeats.  The exceptions
are var 16 where she takes none, and 30 (quodlibet) where she takes both.
These exceptions interestingly break up the AAB pattern when it has got
almost too predictable.  Internally, the repeated first sections are
anything but predictable: she brings out different things without changing
any of the notes.  It's as if she has an endless supply of different
interpretations available in her mind, and in each moment she chooses one
that fits with the larger flow of emotions.  Sometimes she lets the
emotion extend over several variations;  at other times she changes it
quickly from phrase to phrase.  Again, that unpredictability is welcome
and it seems in no way arbitrary.  It springs from the musical content,
and from how the performance up to that point has been going.  (Once again
I'm finding another way to say it's natural and organic!)

Listening to her reminds me of how it feels inside to play the Goldbergs
straight through in concert (on harpsichord)...it's a journey, an
experience, being swept along by the rich characters of the music.  This
CD seems to contain a Real performance, not a patched-together anthology
of nice moments. That's what I look for in a "great" recording: a sense of
something happening with freshness and directness.  The overall effect is
of how wonderful Bach's music is, not how wonderful the player is.

Here's a quote from the program notes: "The Art of Zhu Xiao Mei, made up
of contemplative concentration and insatiable vigour, tells us, at the
highest level of mastery, about the emotion of a life.  The interpretation
of the _Goldbergs_ that she gives us today--dense, serene, but
exultant--leads us to the heart of her light, on the paths of a just
woman."  (Alain Meunier)

Well said.

-----

Some comparisons...other CDs I have of the Goldbergs on piano are: all
four of Gould's, Barenboim (Erato), Tureck at Wm F Buckley's house
(Albany-Troy), and Martins (Concord Concerto).

I used to have Lifschitz' set but I sold it: his artificial touch and
"listen to me play piano" delivery and his repeats in the upper octave all
put me off. I don't like it when pianists in Bach adopt an affected touch
for a passage to simulate what they think harpsichord registration does
(terraced tone, and no inflection within phrases).

I heard the first Schiff recording years ago and enjoyed it, but (if
memory serves) his way of delivering phrases sounds a bit affected.  I do
like the way he makes things sound improvisatory.  I haven't heard his
remake.  Zhu is more direct: we're listening to _the music_ rather than to
an artist trying to say something profound about the music.  Art conceals
art.

Barenboim has decent continuity but is overall dull: too much
concentration on the notes instead of the phrases, and he seems
emotionally cautious.  Too objective.  Zhu is much more exciting and
involved, and her performance sounds more "live" in spirit even though
Barenboim's really _is_ live in concert.

Martins' performance is a circus.  A thrill every minute.  Fun, but it's
not at the service of the music.  It's "listen to _me_ do something clever
with the music!" and too aggressive, like the Eroica Trio's way with
things.  Zhu makes the music sound natural, every idea springing from
within the music instead of pasted on as Martins does.

Tureck is very interesting but I'm ultimately not moved.  It's too much an
intellectual dissection, all head, not enough heart.  Her articulations
are artificial, too, and she sometimes reminds me of the stiffness in
Gould '81. She's of the belief that a player should improvise many new
notes on repeats, to be clever and "expressive," while I'd rather hear it
done by emphasis and touch (Zhu's way) rather than by so many new notes.

Gould '81 is a loss for me, too much Glenn Gould Being Glenn Gould, and
playing Gould's Ideas About Bach rather than playing Bach.  Lots of
interesting ideas and some moving moments, but too much artificial
nonsense in his touch and his forced tempo relationships.

Gould '54 is good for a live performance, but not as focused as he did
himself later, plus the sound is lousy.  Ultimately dull against his own
standard.

Gould '55 is great, playing the piano honestly and the music brilliantly,
with depth of emotion and a joyous sparkle.  But Gould '59 live in
Salzburg is the best of all.  It has the strengths of '55 but also a
better connection across the whole performance...more unity and an
overwhelming cumulative effect, where '55 is a series of sometimes
disconnected vignettes.  Zhu is somewhere in that league of Gould '59 and
'55: great.  And I'm enjoying listening to her more than all the others
above.

My copy of Perahia hasn't arrived yet [at the time when I wrote this
review...].

Additionally on LP I have the two Gould Columbia recordings plus Rosen,
Johannesen (1977), and Peter Serkin's solo debut (1965).  It's been a
while since I listened to any of them except the Goulds, so I have nothing
to say about them here.

-----

There's my mostly intuitive reaction to the Zhu CD.  It's the state of
mind she puts me in.  I'm now listening to it for the fifth time in the
past 24 hours. This is a great CD.


Bradley Lehman, Dayton VA
home: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl
clavichord CD's: http://listen.to/bpl or http://www.mp3.com/bpl
trumpet and organ: http://www.mp3.com/hlduo

I dislike lined paper.  My thoughts don't fit into lines that are all the
same size.  - BPL, 9/15/01

===========================================


At 08:49 AM 11/19/01 -0500, Anne Smith wrote:
Hi Cal,


I share your feelings.

 I have listened to Murray Perhahia's Goldberg Variations.  Like Natalie,
I
appreciate the repeats.  His GVs are very correct but they don't have the
sparkle that Glenn Gould's have.  I have Angela Hewitt's GVs.  I like them
better than MP's.  She plays the repeats.  I have heard that her Well
Tempered Clavier is excellent.  I have not listened to it myself.

It is not fair to compare anyone else's Bach playing to Glenn Gould's.

Anne Smith

From: caleb peck <caleb_peck@YAHOO.CA>
To: <F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:28 AM
Subject: my GG bias, but...


> Hello List,
>
> I know that GG's recordings of composers other than
> Bach deserve just as much praise, but I know his Bach
> the best.
>
> I'm interested in exploring recordings of Bach's works
> by other pianists.  I don't know if it's just my GG
> bias, but the few pianists that I have listened to, I
> haven't been entirely impressed or moved by.
>
> Can you recommend any recordings by pianists whom you
> think can almost be on par with GG?
>
> I did say 'almost' :)
>
> Thanks very much.