[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [F_minor] GG's GVs versus the world
Rosalyn Tureck's several recordings of GV were even more obsessive about
"structural integrity" (and stiffly regimented details, all the way down
to her "structural" graffiti ornamentation) than Gould's. It's to the
point of dullness, IMO! :) Her piano recordings of GV are worth
hearing, at least once, but the one on harpsichord is just deadly in
that regard: so consistent and structurally rigid that "when you've
heard one phrase, you've heard 'em all".
To my ears, a strength of the four published Gould interpretations was
his way of letting things flow, *not* having a structural emphasis be
the only -- or even the most important -- feature of the music. His
live 1959 Salzburg perf is still my favorite of his, ahead of the more
famous 1955 (which is cleaner but less exciting).
His 1981 record has moved upward a little bit in my estimation, compared
with my opinion of it from about 15 years ago, because of the improved
sound in the "State of Wonder" issue: I now like it a little bit better
than my least favorite of the four, the 1954 CBC.
Brad Lehman
Kpapademas wrote:
Hi Mr. Singh - It appeared to me, at any rate, that the commentators
were not well-versed in either of Glenn Gould's versions of the Goldberg
Variations. I think they should have listened to the GG "interview" with
Tim Page (that came with the "State of Wonder" CD).
K
In a message dated 08/07/09 15:54:53 Central Daylight Time,
k_dawg71@hotmail.com writes:
Fabulously interesting comparison. I think I remember Murray
Perahia's Goldbergs mentioned here once before. It is indeed a
masterful performance. For me, however, it does not surpass Glenn
Gould's, but that just may be personal bias.
I think, however, the commentator contradicted himself slightly, and
without intending to do so (meaning it may not be what he meant to
say). He seems to imply that structural integrity is more present in
Perahia's than in Glenn Gould's. This may certainly be valid,
particularly if each variation is taken separately. However, the
commentators seemed to have ignored taking the piece as a whole,
which seems to me to be the point of the variation form. A great man
once told me that each variation must seem as if it is an inevitable
consequence of the one prior to it. In terms of linkage between the
variations, to me at least, there doesn't seem to be much going for
Murray Perahia. For me, there is no one who played the
Goldbergs with the sole purpose of making listeners aware of the
structural integrity more than Glenn Gould.
Also, I was rather disappointed with the way Glenn Gould's Variation
5 was treated. It seemed to be a rather uninformed way of talking
about the Variation. Also, it may be that the commentators took the
particualr variation out of context.
Again, I am not arguing to put down Perahia's Gouldbergs. Also, what
the commentators say about dance music in relation to Bach doesn't
strike me as being particularly comprehensive. Correct me if I'm
wrong. Perhaps I just need to listen to more Bach. (when isn't there
such a time?).
Singh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:01:27 -0500
From: kpapademas@aol.com
To: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
Subject: [F_minor] GG's GVs versus the world
Hello F_minors!
Check the following site: It is on Murray Perahia's Goldberg Vs
compared to our GG's GVs.
Listen to the commentary and the comparisons (there is a play button
as you scroll down).
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuar/.artsmain/article/9/1338/1538256/People/Gold.Standard.For.Bach's.'Goldberg.Variations'/
Katherine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay on top of things, check email from other accounts! Check it
out. <http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9671350> =