Re: GG: Perahia & the best Goldbergs...Zhu!

[Cristalle Watson <wcristalle@HOTMAIL.COM>]

> From: Bradley P Lehman <bpl@UMICH.EDU>
> Reply-To: Bradley P Lehman <bpl@UMICH.EDU>
> To: F_MINOR@EMAIL.RUTGERS.EDU
> Subject: GG: Perahia & the best Goldbergs...Zhu!
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:46:02 -0400
>
> I agree about Perahia: too mild, too middle-of-the-road, not particularly
> interesting or engaging.  His playing is beautifully inoffensive.  Not
> just in the Goldbergs but also the English Suites; I wrote a review of
> that here, where I mention quite a few things I disagree with in
> Perahia's approach:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000062DF/

Sorry, but I really have to disagree with you on this one. Listening to
Perahia play the Goldbergs was like hearing them for the first time over
again. He brought so much insight, clarity, and above all lyricism to the
music that I found his recording utterly astounding.

You say "middle of the road." Okay, so Perahia doesn't do zany, highly
individualistic things to the Goldbergs that are of questionable musical
taste, like many other performers do. He doesn't sound like he's had one (or
maybe more like ten) too many cups of coffee and is now on a major high,
like Gould's 1955 recording sounds like. He doesn't sound like he's entered
a deep meditative trance and is now trying to commune with Bach's spirit,
and in doing so playing the music as slowly as he can, like Rosalyn Tureck
sounds like in her recording. If you see the fact that he doesn't do these
things as "boring," well I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but
seriously, would Bach have genuinely appreciated those two recordings of the
Goldbergs? I think not.

Perahia's approach is, above all, lyrical. He brings years of training as a
classicist/romanticist to a piece that is very much a baroque creation. Some
people would object to this. I take the opposite approach: I tend to like
the Bach pianists who have had lots of experience in other areas more than
those who just specialize in Bach. The latter type, like Glenn Gould,
unfortunately often sound like they're trying to dissect the music rather
than say anything with it (or worse, sound utterly monotone and bored with
the whole thing.)
Don't get me wrong: I like Glenn Gould's Bach, and his later recording of
the Goldbergs. I even occasionally like to listen to the 1955 recording,
when I feel like listening to a fireworks display of pure virtuosity. But in
terms of musicality, I think Perahia's recording is far above Gould's.

Why do I love Perahia's recording? It sounds pleasing to the ear, lyrical,
unlike many other recordings. It sounds relaxed but still intense. It isn't
played so fast that you feel like you're on a roller coaster, but not so
slow that you wish you could just yell at the pianist to hurry up! Also,
Perahia has a great ear for counterpoint and an incredible ability to
sustain several lines at once, and this definitely comes through in the
recording. And finally, Perahia really sounds like he's having fun playing
the piece!

Cristalle Watson


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx