Re: Why 1981 Goldbergs better than 1955?

[Pablo Fagoaga <faguss@yahoo.com>]

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