GG: Goldberg Preferences

["John P. Hill" <jphill@frank.mtsu.edu>]

Yo, to the list:

I *much* prefer the '81 Goldbergs, for many of the reasons mentioned by
David.

The '55 version is a distaster in terms of sound quality;  it may be
the worst *sounding* piano recording I own.  In terms of performance,
it sounds very much like a young virtuoso pianist who wants to push
the envelope on all fronts:  "I can play this movement ___________
(insert appropriate term: faster, slower, with more intensity, etc...)
than you've ever heard or imagined it."  There's no doubt that it was
a pianistic tour de force on a fairly unpopular (at the time) piece of the
keyboard repertoire.  But in comparison to the other recorded versions,
this one hasn't aged too well.  It sounds to me like there's a good bit of
empty virtuosity there; precisely the kind of display that GG eshewed in
later recordings for LP, video and film.

I think that many of Gould's early performances suffer from this syndrome
of trying to create something unique or unusual regardless of the musical
costs involved.  At times, this creates something beautiful and indeed
one-of-a-kind (try the B-flat minor prelude from WTC Bk1), but at other
times the result is so mannered that it becomes kind of vaudvillian.  One
just doesn't find that in the recordings from about '74 to '82.  These
interpretations seem much more balanced, with a greater emphasis on the
performance needs inherent in the *music*.  These recordings also
incorporate stereo analog tape with Dolby A-type noise reduction;
arguably the best-sounding format on which GG recorded.

I've only listened to the live Saltzburg set a few times, but I'm pretty
much ready to give this CD away to a good home.  I'd call it "Goldberg
Lite".  I get the sense that he's playing through most of these pieces at
"half-steam".  The dynamic contrasts are minimized, many of the pieces are
mp to mf throughout and the predominant phrasing is legato or
semi-detached.  It's a pleasant enough realization, but somewhat lacking
in dynamic and other contrasts.  There are some pretty noticeable
finger-slips, too, which may explain why GG didn't appove it for release
during his lifetime;  no take-two-ness to work with there and certainly no
ability to butt-splice sections of contrasting interpretations.  Gould
had some nice things to say about this one (as a live performance) but it
sounds a bit bland to me and has none of the carefully worked out
inter-variational detail of the '81 set.

The '81 set is undoubtedly the best sounding of the three recordings,
although I have misgivings both about the instrument used and the rather
astringent sound of this early digital recording.  The "sucker-punch"
dynamic contrast between the Aria and first variation is certainly there
and, yes, digital recordings are clean and quiet.  But that Yamaha piano
is a real loser on tonal quality IMHO and certainly no substitute for
CD318, even after it's various (and according to GG, unsuccessful) 
surguries.

What the '81 recording *does* have, for me at least, is a flawless sense
of what's right for the music.  Gone is the empty virtuosity of a young
pianist trying to thrill the listener.  Gone is the need to amplify
pianistic gestures to the 20th row orchestra seats.  In it's place are
realizations that reflect a lifetime of performing and studying the
*music* of Bach.  Gestures here highlight the internal archetecture of the
individual variations and, more importantly, the work as a whole.  I don't
find this version overly intellectual or lacking passion at all.  The
passion here, however, springs from the music itself and not a desire to
impress listeners with an external display of virtuoso pianism.

jh


On Sat, 6 Sep 1997, David Daniel wrote:

> Hello to all,
> 
> I really can't consider the '81 performance to be a disaster at all.  I like
> it better musically.  It seems less virtuosic.  When Glenn recorded it the
> second (fourth) time, he was less interested in making a good impression and 
> recorded it how he really thought it ought to sound.
> 
> A good analogy:  Hindemith's two Marienlebens. (GG's comparison of course :)
> The first Marienleben is an "inspired occasionally untidy masterpiece" (I
> paraphrase)  The second is a flawless masterpiece in which every possible
> aspect of music has a part to make it work.  While Glenn liked both, he said 
> that the second version seemed to lose some of the mystery and inspiration of 
> the first.  This is what I feel about the '55 vs. '81 Goldbergs.  The '81 may
> be less inspired and sparkling, but in many ways, everything has a purpose 
> musically, rhythmically, etc.   
> 
> >From a personal point of view, I also like the '81 better because I hear more
> GOULD in it.  It's not happy and gleeful, like a kid trying to dazzle the 
> world with his first recording, it's darker and more brooding.  I really 
> dissagree with "All intellect, no soul."  I think there are both.  It
> is filled with what I associate as being the real Glenn Gould. 
> 
> -David
> 
> 
>