Your Thoughts On Glenn Gould/Bach?

[JSngry]

Ok, old news/past history/etc here, and nobody's fault but my own for being so far behind this particular curve, but I'm just now getting into Glenn Gould playing the Well-Tempered Clavier, and I find it a totally unique experience. It seems like he separates his hands/lines in a way I've never heard done before, almost as if it's two pianos, not two hands. And his time...sometimes it seems leviational or out-of-body.

Perhaps time and increased familiarity will lessen the impact of these impressions, but I'd be very much interested in hearing what people with a much more informed familiarity with these performances have to say about them, pro or con.

Thanks for sharing!

[Larry Kart]

Charles Rosen, in implicit contradiction to much of Gould's approach:

"It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that the keyboard works are written above all for the pleasure of the performer. One small detail will show to what extent this aspect of musical life changed within thirty years of Bach's death. When Mozart rediscovered the music of Bach and began enthusiastically to compose fugues himself, he said that fugues must always be played at a slow tempo, as otherwise the successive entrances of the theme would not be clearly heard. Nevertheless, it is remarkable how often Bach tries to hide the entrance by tying the opening to the last note of the previous phrase, how much ingenuity he has expended to avoiding articulation, in keeping all aspects of the flowing movement constant. Yet, though many of the entrances fugues are ... inaudible, there is one person -- the performer -- who is always aware of them. If in no other way, he can always sense them through his fingers....

 

"The very reproach often leveled at the keyboard -- its blending, even confusion, of separate contrapuntal lines --made it the ideal medium for Bach's art. This inability of the instruments to make in practice the clear-cut distinctions that were made in theory embodied the tendency toward a completely unified texture and the powerful vertical harmonic force that characterized sxo much of the music of the early eighteenth century ... Once the intimate setting of this art is accepted, many of the problems of playing it either disappear or are seen in a new light. Most of Bach's keyboard works were writtten to played for oneself or a few other musicians; some of it was written almost as much for meditation as for listening. Many of the more complex details can be appreciated fully only by the performer -- they can be heard, but their significance can never be entirely grasped until one has felt them under one's fingers. This implies that much of the calculation of dramatic effect necessary for public performance was never intended for the greater part of Bach's keyboard music -- except in the large organ works it tends to be felt as ... an intrusion of the performer. Even the shaping of structure and its elucidation are not crucial, and performances of a Bach fugue in which the theme is consistently emphasized to the detriment of the other voices can only be a travesty of a work whose chief glory lies in the relation of the voices to each other and their interaction...." (My emphases)

In other words, if you credit Rosen's take, Gould's separating his hands and lines almost as if it's two pianos is more or less his attempt to make evident to the listener relationships that the performer already hears because he knows, in his fingers, that they are there. How one feels about Gould's Bach is for each of us to say; I was impressed by its sheer liveliness way back when but pretty much can't stand it now, in the light of many other Bach performances that are no less lively but don't throw those fugal entrances in one's face and articulate every voice.

Compare Gould:
 

And Blandine Rannou:
 

 

[Larry Kart]

Or David Cates (above) 

 

and Gould (below)
 

 

[Teasing the Korean]

Didn't he sometimes record the two hands separately?

[Alexander Hawkins]

I have to say that I disagree a little with Charles Rosen (extremely respectfully - I'm definitely an admirer of his playing). It's very interesting to read what he says - I used to play a number of preludes and fugues on the organ when I was much younger, but have actually recently been going back to the WTC to learn some more on the piano; so have been listening a lot again recently.

A few thoughts in relation to what he says:

- yes, Bach of course often dovetails the entrance of a subject with the end of a previous phrase; but I don't think it follows that this is an attempt to 'hide' the subject. Look for example at the language of the countersubjects, which leave lots of space for the subjects (melodically/rhythmically/otherwise) - I take it that Bach of all people could hide a subject much more successfully than claimed, if this is what he's really trying to do. Plus of course I don't think all entrances of the subject are equal; then there are the false entrances of subjects, etc. etc. etc.

- of course pianists have a variety of options open to them which aren't open to harpsichordists (etc.) to voice an entry...and yes Gould (alongside countless others) will often bring out the entrance of a subject; but he chooses his moments. Richter too in his recording. Some he makes very obvious; others less so.

For sure Rosen doesn't mention Gould, and one reason I wouldn't personally link those comments to Gould is that it sells him way short IMHO here, in talking about performances 'in which the theme is consistently emphasized to the detriment of the other voices'. I don't know of many pianists who would argue - whether particular fans of Gould or not - that he emphasises the theme 'to the detriment of the other voices'. I would say that one of the miracles of Gould's playing pianistically speaking, and one which I don't think many detractors of his would deny (though of course there may be many other aspects of his artistry on which they're less than keen), is his ability to articulate and phrase a number of contrapuntal lines simultaneously, i.e. not just the subject (take e.g. the 5 voice B flat minor fugue from book 1; which I would say also gives the lie to any idea that Gould just hammers out all entries of the subject...some he makes very obvious here; others far less so - listen e.g. to the delicacy of the stretto at the end).

Just a few thoughts scribbled in a rush. I love Gould in Bach (the WTC and other stuff which I think feels very different in ways, e.g. the partitas). I also like Charles Rosen! On a slight tangent: I sometimes feel like the 'Ur' Gould is actually possibly the Byrd/Gibbons stuff, even more so than Bach. And just one last thought: I think so much of the magic of Bach is that there are so many ways to play it; and that however personal, idiosyncratic, (in-)authentic or whatever the playing, it still always sounds like Bach...

10 minutes ago, Teasing the Korean said:

Didn't he sometimes record the two hands separately?

I've never heard that, and it wouldn't make sense to in most Bach, where individual parts move between the hands. On the one hand, knowing how much he loved the studio as an instrument in itself, I guess it wouldn't be totally surprising if he tried it to see how it sounded; but on the other, I actually think it would - on balance - be harder to do, and to get it sounding musical, than just to play the thing down..!

[JSngry]

Perhaps I'll hear it more with more exposure, but I really don't hear Gould emphasizing the entrances of lines over anything else. I hear what I think Alexander is saying, that the lines coexist simultaneously, and it's a real trip for me to all of a sudden hear this "split brain" thing happening just out of nowhere, it's almost hallucinogenic Miraculous, if you like), like WHOA, how did that happen? Maybe that's just the bedazzlement of a still-newbie-ish listener.

I'd also be loathe to compare interpretations of a pianist to that of a harpsichordist...seems like taht gets you through the door but not into the room, if that makes any sense.

As far as the recording thing goes, is what TTK is asking about legit? I know enough to know that Gould was playing games in the studio (or, if you like, exploring his options). I also seem to recall somebody saying somewhere, with an assumed chuckle, something like "Bach didn't write ALL those notes, you know", so was Gould not above doing a little Gould-ishness not just on tempos and articulations, but also actual notes?

Anyway, Bach I've always "known about", my god, how do you not, but this is the first time I've really focused in on him for about...40+ years. A lot has changed in how I hear things now. Gould is somebody I've known about far more than actually listened to, and that has been my loss. Put both things together, hearing Gould play Bach and really, hopefully, hearing it and not just listening to it is both exhilarating and humbling.

Further comments/observations certainly welcomed!

 

[Chuck Nessa]

I have loved and hated his recordings since high school (1959-62) when I first got them from the Columbia Record Club. Up and down over the years and I decided to buy the big Columbia box, put it on the shelf and sample when the mood strikes.

Certainly no final decision expected before my death.

[Larry Kart]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Perhaps I'll hear it more with more exposure, but I really don't hear Gould emphasizing the entrances of lines over anything else. I hear what I think Alexander is saying, that the lines coexist simultaneously, and it's a real trip for me to all of a sudden hear this "split brain" thing happening just out of nowhere, it's almost hallucinogenic Miraculous, if you like), like WHOA, how did that happen? Maybe that's just the bedazzlement of a still-newbie-ish listener.

I'd also be loathe to compare interpretations of a pianist to that of a harpsichordist...seems like taht gets you through the door but not into the room, if that makes any sense.

As far as the recording thing goes, is what TTK is asking about legit? I know enough to know that Gould was playing games in the studio (or, if you like, exploring his options). I also seem to recall somebody saying somewhere, with an assumed chuckle, something like "Bach didn't write ALL those notes, you know", so was Gould not above doing a little Gould-ishness not just on tempos and articulations, but also actual notes?

Anyway, Bach I've always "known about", my god, how do you not, but this is the first time I've really focused in on him for about...40+ years. A lot has changed in how I hear things now. Gould is somebody I've known about far more than actually listened to, and that has been my loss. Put both things together, hearing Gould play Bach and really, hopefully, hearing it and not just listening to it is both exhilarating and humbling.

Further comments/observations certainly welcomed!

 

As Jim says, and Alexander Hawkins also says or implies, it's not that Gould always  emphasizes the entrance of lines, it's that he arguably over differentiates those lines instead of blending them, In that regard, it's interesting that in both of the harpsichord performances I posted, I think there is a fair bit more such blending than there is in Gould's performances, even though one might think that different lines on a harpsichord would sound more differentiated than they would on a piano. It's Gould's rather 'pecking" articulation that makes for much of the difference.

Again re: Gould's pecking, compare his French Suite 5 Allemande (see post no. 3 above) to this reading on piano:
 

 

[JSngry]

Interesting...I've not heard it as "pecking" as much as letting every note have it's own full life without bleeding into another one, at fast tempos and slow alike. I'm liking that very much right now, but I do hear the difference, and I'm beginning to see why Gould generated such "controversy". Still...I like it, I like the almost "avant-garde" feel of it. today I was listening to one thing and thinking how it was reminding me of Cage almost, the almost obsessive...specificity.

To that end, and referring back to Gould and his relationship to teh studio, does anybody know how he worked with his engineers on his miking? Some of what I hear is not just the performer, it's the sound of the piano as recorded vs how it was being played, if that makes any sense.

[Larry Kart]

"To that end, and referring back to Gould and his relationship to teh studio, does anybody know how he worked with his engineers on his miking? Some of what I hear is not just the performer, it's the sound of the piano as recorded vs how it was being played, if that makes any sense."

 

Yes, it does make sense, and I recall reading a whole lot at one time at about how radically Gould tweaked  his pianos and directed the engineers to tweak things at their end of the sonic chain. What exactly was going on at both ends I no longer recall, but I'm fairly sure that it was in the name of control, in terms of attack and duration, of every note. BTW, when you say "avant garde," it's long been a commonplace that the replacement in the  early 20th Century of romantic modes of interpreting Bach with a more "objective" approach was an offshoot of then-contemporary trends in musical modernism in general and not a genuine, historically defendable return to the way Bach and other Baroque music actually was played (to the degree that can be known). 

BTW, you don't hear any "pecking" in Gould's French Suite 5 Allemande? 

[Alexander Hawkins]

7 hours ago, JSngry said:

Interesting...I've not heard it as "pecking" as much as letting every note have it's own full life without bleeding into another one, at fast tempos and slow alike. I'm liking that very much right now, but I do hear the difference, and I'm beginning to see why Gould generated such "controversy". Still...I like it, I like the almost "avant-garde" feel of it. today I was listening to one thing and thinking how it was reminding me of Cage almost, the almost obsessive...specificity.

To that end, and referring back to Gould and his relationship to teh studio, does anybody know how he worked with his engineers on his miking? Some of what I hear is not just the performer, it's the sound of the piano as recorded vs how it was being played, if that makes any sense.

Jim - there are a few bits here and there of Gould working in the studio. Here's a little video which I think is really fascinating, of Gould mixing his Scriabin. The Sibelius record is a pretty fascinating document of his approach too. 

 

5 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

"To that end, and referring back to Gould and his relationship to teh studio, does anybody know how he worked with his engineers on his miking? Some of what I hear is not just the performer, it's the sound of the piano as recorded vs how it was being played, if that makes any sense."

 

Yes, it does make sense, and I recall reading a whole lot at one time at about how radically Gould tweaked  his pianos and directed the engineers to tweak things at their end of the sonic chain. What exactly was going on at both ends I no longer recall, but I'm fairly sure that it was in the name of control, in terms of attack and duration, of every note. BTW, when you say "avant garde," it's long been a commonplace that the replacement in the  early 20th Century of romantic modes of interpreting Bach with a more "objective" approach was an offshoot of then-contemporary trends in musical modernism in general and not a genuine, historically defendable return to the way Bach and other Baroque music actually was played (to the degree that can be known). 

BTW, you don't hear any "pecking" in Gould's French Suite 5 Allemande? 

A nice book which goes into Gould's piano is 'A Romance on Three Legs'. It contains lots of biographical detail on his faithful/long suffering/delete as appropriate technicians; things on how Gould requested they set up CD318, his own Steinway D (which explains why you can hear the hammers bouncing just very occasionally when he really attacks the instrument); accounts of recording sessions etc.

8 hours ago, Larry Kart said:

he arguably over differentiates those lines instead of blending them

Larry - I hear what you're saying, although I wouldn't personally say 'over-' differentiates; this is the clarity I love in Bach (e.g. the quality of the voicing is one of the reasons why I think Lipatti's Bb partita is held as such a classic).

Again, I don't really feel that there's any 'correct' way to voice this type of contrapuntal writing. But I suppose worth throwing in (and relevant to the Rosen discussion, since I suppose the piece would be regarded as one with which he has a special connection) is that of course with pieces like The Art of Fugue, it's not even clear that we're dealing with keyboard music as such in the first place anyway; so it's harder to claim that lines need to speak with the same timbral/dynamic homogeneity as the by definition would on a harpsichord.

[mikeweil]

On 7.8.2018 at 4:22 AM, Larry Kart said:

Yes, it does make sense, and I recall reading a whole lot at one time at about how radically Gould tweaked  his pianos and directed the engineers to tweak things at their end of the sonic chain. What exactly was going on at both ends I no longer recall, but I'm fairly sure that it was in the name of control, in terms of attack and duration, of every note. BTW, when you say "avant garde," it's long been a commonplace that the replacement in the  early 20th Century of romantic modes of interpreting Bach with a more "objective" approach was an offshoot of then-contemporary trends in musical modernism in general and not a genuine, historically defendable return to the way Bach and other Baroque music actually was played (to the degree that can be known). 

I remember a passage in the "Conversations with Glenn Gould" tv series where he stated he wanted his recordings to sound in a certain way, no matter what equipment they are played back with, from kitchen radio to high end, so that all the notes came across the way he wanted them to sound. He distrusted the listener and disliked the thought that anybody could manipulate the sound with their control knobs, no matter how (un)musical they are.

The only other record I know that sounds equal on any playback gear, btw., is "Heavy Weather"!

Edited August 8, 2018 by mikeweil

[Larry Kart]

15 hours ago, Alexander Hawkins said:

Jim - there are a few bits here and there of Gould working in the studio. Here's a little video which I think is really fascinating, of Gould mixing his Scriabin. The Sibelius record is a pretty fascinating document of his approach too. 

 

A nice book which goes into Gould's piano is 'A Romance on Three Legs'. It contains lots of biographical detail on his faithful/long suffering/delete as appropriate technicians; things on how Gould requested they set up CD318, his own Steinway D (which explains why you can hear the hammers bouncing just very occasionally when he really attacks the instrument); accounts of recording sessions etc.

Larry - I hear what you're saying, although I wouldn't personally say 'over-' differentiates; this is the clarity I love in Bach (e.g. the quality of the voicing is one of the reasons why I think Lipatti's Bb partita is held as such a classic).

Again, I don't really feel that there's any 'correct' way to voice this type of contrapuntal writing. But I suppose worth throwing in (and relevant to the Rosen discussion, since I suppose the piece would be regarded as one with which he has a special connection) is that of course with pieces like The Art of Fugue, it's not even clear that we're dealing with keyboard music as such in the first place anyway; so it's harder to claim that lines need to speak with the same timbral/dynamic homogeneity as the by definition would on a harpthe Art of the Fugue not being keyboard musisichord.

As for even The Art of the Fugue not being keyboard music, Rosen has this to say: "...[T]he old controversy of which instrument [these works] were written for is largely meaningless; it is not a question that could have been asked in  the early eighteenth century. [Many of these pieces] are essentially practice pieces, etudes, in short; they would have been studied on whatever instrument with a pair of keyboards and a set of pedals was handy -- at home, it would most likely have been a clavichord. This does not rule out  their performance on the organ when the occasion afforded one.... But practicing on an organ was not as simple a matter in the eighteenth century, when manpower as well as an organist was needed to produce a sound; furthermore, occasions for  the public performance of secular, non-operatic music were  rare at that  time.... The basic interchangeability of instrument for most keyboard music of the time must be accepted before we  can begin to understand the relatively limited number of works intended for a specific instrument."

Yes, there have been numerous realizations/arrangements of The Art of the Fugue for various ensembles of instruments over the years but no evidence I'm aware of that any of these date from  Bach's time. TAF was written for private study/contemplation, not for public performance. Indeed, as Rosen says, there were then "no recitals in any recognizable sense of the word."  If TAF were realized in sound, as it surely was by some of those who were studying it; it would have been realized by them on a keyboard instrument that was near to hand.

[mikeweil]

There is a small book by Gustav Leonhardt from the 1960's in which he already argued quite convincingly that The Art Of The Fugue is indeed keyboard music, but some pieces need a third hand, which is not unusual considering the number of pieces for two players extant. In early music circles there is no longer any debate about this.

That said, it was common practice in the 17th and 18th centuries to transcribe multiple voiced keyboard music to chamber instrumentation and vice versa. There are exmples from Bach's own oeuvre and in his circle, and documents that he improvised these from the score. It was part of the learning program of his sons and students. 

As for the public performance of any type of keyboard music in Bach's time, there is a rather new book by Siegbert Rampe on the contexts of keyboard playing which is on top of my buying list (it's in German, however). I had brief look into it at the library, there were organ and harpsichord recitals, but limited to private circles or special public events, like auditions for an organist's post, or the testing of a newly built organ. OTOH there are some collections of organ music that can only have been intended for use in public performance, like the Husumer Orgelbuch. Bach gave some organ recitals in his lifetime, but we do not know what he played, there probably was a lot of improvisation involved, as was common practice. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by mikeweil

[JSngry]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 9:22 PM, Larry Kart said:

BTW, you don't hear any "pecking" in Gould's French Suite 5 Allemande? 

I think I hear the quality you describe, but "pecking" is not the word I myself would use to describe it.

What I don't hear in Gould is as much ambient/room sound as in other piano recordings, the "blur" of a performance recorded to capture the ambience of the room/hall/whatever. I hear gould looking away from that model and instead looking to, as I said earlier, give each note it's own, fullest space without any transient(?) overflow into the next. I guess that could be heard as "pecking", I look at it more as "scientific objectivity", and ok, yeah, that might not be what everybody wants out of anything, but Bach's is definitely one music that can not only stand up to that type of approach, but actually flourish with it. People talk about "do the math", well hell, do THIS math, right?

Of course, it's math in the "praise of god" not just math for math's sake, but I don't hear Gould doing math for math's sake. Don't know how much I hear him "praising god" either, but there's definitely a sense of revelation and reverence in how he plays this stuff.

 

[Larry Kart]

Sorry for my semi-error. In my previous post, I was thinking more of The Musical Offering than the TAF when I said that settings for that work/such works for instrumental ensembles were not of Bach's time but were later developments. Nonetheless, the evidence more than suggests that we're basically talking about music that was, in origin and practice, keyboard music. OTOH, there are no limits to the larger implications of such works.

[Larry Kart]

24 minutes ago, JSngry said:

I think I hear the quality you describe, but "pecking" is not the word I myself would use to describe it.

What I don't hear in Gould is as much ambient/room sound as in other piano recordings, the "blur" of a performance recorded to capture the ambience of the room/hall/whatever. I hear gould looking away from that model and instead looking to, as I said earlier, give each note it's own, fullest space without any transient(?) overflow into the next. I guess that could be heard as "pecking", I look at it more as "scientific objectivity", and ok, yeah, that might not be what everybody wants out of anything, but Bach's is definitely one music that can not only stand up to that type of approach, but actually flourish with it. People talk about "do the math", well hell, do THIS math, right?

Of course, it's math in the "praise of god" not just math for math's sake, but I don't hear Gould doing math for math's sake. Don't know how much I hear him "praising god" either, but there's definitely a sense of revelation and reverence in how he plays this stuff.

 

We're talking about the same thing, and whether one does or doesn't respond positively to this approach is a matter of personal preference. I do think, though, that the phrase "its own" in "give each note its own, fullest space without any transient(?) overflow into the next" assumes or grants too much. Each note has a will, wants to be cut off just so, apart from its role in the overall musical context? Again, for what Rosen's point of view is worth, he writes that "it is remarkable ... how much in ingenuity [Bach] has expended in avoiding articulation, in keeping all aspects of the flowing movement constant." (My emphasis) I also bridle some at "scientific objectivity." What science are we talking about, and why are notes that flow more into other notes than the notes in Gould's Bach do the results of subjective choices?
 

[JSngry]

The science of harmonic weight, gravitational pull, that which perhaps is generally labeled as "theory" but in my mind is still a science. Conventional theory goes hand in hand with the science of acoustics, and although I learned the former far better than the latter, I still learned enough to respect the interrelatedness of the two.

And then factor in the physics of the effects of attack, duration, etc, Newtonian principles applied to the motion of sound, yeah, that too. If you hit a note forcefully and sustain it, that's a different arc than an abrupt staccato or a slowly attacked note left to sustain. Different arcs, different shapes, different actions/reactions, science. You may say that these are not truly "physical" events, but if you can accept that music/science/physics all have substantial and legitimate overlapping, then yes, they are.

And yes, to my ears, the tensions and releases in Gould's Bach come from the impact of every note being left open for its full duration to go to wherever the next one is. To use today's vernacular, it's a very "hi-def" presentation of these "schematics", each note has a life of its own, as does the one before, and the one after.

And yes, I get that Rosen is expressing an appreciation for the more traditional, articulation-averse approach. And I certainly appreciate that. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, just Gould's approach reveals things that the other one doesn't, and vice versa. And right now, I am very much enjoying Gould's approach.

I will say that, to my ears at this time, the older approach seems to highlight the notion that the listener will instinctively prefer the flow of phrases over the specific value of each note, get the phrase/shape first and then get the specifics if they matter to you.. What I hear in Gould is more or less putting the music under a higher-resolution microscope, so that we first experience each note, and then the phrases fall into place more or less effortlessly. Like I said earlier, there are time with Gould where, yeah, I'm listening to both hands going on and then all of a sudden there's this "there" there that was likely there all along, but the way Gould does it, he lets it grown onto you, he doesn't hand it to you on a plate of presentation.

Implicit in this approach is the notion that you - the listener - SHOULD hear the notes first and then feel the phrases, and that is definitely not the "traditional" idea of how to present Bach (or a lot of other music, really, the notion being that the player masters the details so the audience doesn't have to deal with them and gets presented with the final product of details in service of something less tangible, emotion, being moved, etc.) So indeed, there is an element of aggression, effrontery, snottiness, perhaps even hostility in the very notion of Gould deciding, and unambiguously so, the he is going to do this music this way, all-in, no looking back.

Maybe it is that, but...I like it, at least now I do.

[Alexander Hawkins]

1 hour ago, Larry Kart said:

Sorry for my semi-error. In my previous post, I was thinking more of The Musical Offering than the TAF when I said that settings for that work/such works for instrumental ensembles were not of Bach's time but were later developments. Nonetheless, the evidence more than suggests that we're basically talking about music that was, in origin and practice, keyboard music. OTOH, there are no limits to the larger implications of such works.

I could be remembering wrong, but doesn't the manuscript of the trio sonata portion of that work expressly request flute/violin/continuo?

Anyway, what an astonishing piece *that* is! (Count me in as a huge fan of the Webern orchestration of the 6 part Ricercar.)

Re TAF and contemporary performances - I don't know about contemporary practice and playing things like this from unpublished manuscripts, but wasn't it only published posthumously?

[Larry Kart]

Yes.

"Apart from the trio sonata, which is written for flute, violin and basso continuo, the pieces have few indications of which instruments are meant to play them, although there is now significant support for the idea that they are for solo keyboard, like most of Bach's other published works."

[JSngry]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:09 AM, Alexander Hawkins said:

Jim - there are a few bits here and there of Gould working in the studio. Here's a little video which I think is really fascinating, of Gould mixing his Scriabin. The Sibelius record is a pretty fascinating document of his approach too. 

 

A nice book which goes into Gould's piano is 'A Romance on Three Legs'. It contains lots of biographical detail on his faithful/long suffering/delete as appropriate technicians; things on how Gould requested they set up CD318, his own Steinway D (which explains why you can hear the hammers bouncing just very occasionally when he really attacks the instrument); accounts of recording sessions etc.

Thanks for calling these to my attention!

It's funny what you say about the hammers bouncing...I've been listening to him a lot in my car, and I never want to trust what I hear in that environment too much in terms of timbre/coloration, but there were a few times, just a few, where Gould's piano had this really weir "aftersound" that reminded me of an old Wurlitzer electric piano. I was thinking, oh my, how jacked up is this car system, or how jacked up was this remastering, but maybe that's what it was, bouncing hammers. Or maybe not.

20 hours ago, mikeweil said:

The only other record I know that sounds equal on any playback gear, btw., is "Heavy Weather"!

I've never heard that claim before, but would not even begin to dispute it!

[Alexander Hawkins]

1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Thanks for calling these to my attention!

It's funny what you say about the hammers bouncing...I've been listening to him a lot in my car, and I never want to trust what I hear in that environment too much in terms of timbre/coloration, but there were a few times, just a few, where Gould's piano had this really weir "aftersound" that reminded me of an old Wurlitzer electric piano. I was thinking, oh my, how jacked up is this car system, or how jacked up was this remastering, but maybe that's what it was, bouncing hammers. Or maybe not.

I've never heard that claim before, but would not even begin to dispute it!

I'm sure it is what you're hearing! Some examples of his so-called 'hiccuping' piano in the C major 2 part invention, for instance: 

 

[mikeweil]

To add another view to the discussion, please listen to this recording by Luca Gugliemi on exact copies of the Cristofori and Silbermann fortepianos known to Bach:

Tracklist:

I have no idea what and how much Gould knew (or, at the state of knowledge of his time, could have known) about the piano sound Bach was familiar with, but this might give you an idea what it really was - sometimes Gould comes close with his soundideal. With all that was researched after him: some of his ideas are pretty far from 18th century performance practice. Davitt Moroney, in a post last year on the harpsichord mailing list, had a lot of criticism about the performers, who, like Gould, play the entrances of fugue subjects with too much emphasis. What comes after them was much more interesting ...

[JSngry]

I'm trying to understand what, in general, it is about Gould that those who don't enjoy him, Is it the sense of a-historical perfomrance practice, is it that it just sounds ugly, what is it, exactly, apart from simply "not liking it"? Is it Gould in general or is it Gould doing Bach like he does?

Wondering how/if this would/could fit into a Bach/Tristano/ego vs id thing. It seems to me that there's a least a thread of thought to begin to engage in there?

[JSngry]

33 minutes ago, mikeweil said:

I have no idea what and how much Gould knew (or, at the state of knowledge of his time, could have known) about the piano sound Bach was familiar with, but this might give you an idea what it really was - sometimes Gould comes close with his soundideal. With all that was researched after him: some of his ideas are pretty far from 18th century performance practice. Davitt Moroney, in a post last year on the harpsichord mailing list, had a lot of criticism about the performers, who, like Gould, play the entrances of fugue subjects with too much emphasis. What comes after them was much more interesting ...

I doubt I'll ever begin to fathom all that goes into the notion of historically accurate performance practices, so/but as it petains to Bach, is Bernstein just bullshitting here, using "interpretation" as an excuse for projecting, perhaps even using it as a gateway seduction to actual improvisation? Is this guy a degenerate, or does he have an honest to gor point here?

Full program here (Gould playing, Eileen Farrel singing, and Stravinsky conducting!), and I should have found this a long time ago...oh well.

Network freaking television!

Originally aired on January 31, 1960 on CBS Television as part of its Ford Presents series, this program was entitled "The Creative Performer." The entire show is actually three performances — by Gould, the soprano Eileen Farrell (singing the "Suicidio!" aria from *La Gioconda*), & Igor Stravinsky (conducting the last three scenes of his ballet *The Firebird*) — punctuated with scintillating musicological lectures by Maestro-Professor Bernstein, who is arguably the star of the show. Though I recommend watching the program in its entirety, here's a time-stamped playlist, in case you'd like to jump to any given section: 1. Leonard Bernstein, on the vagaries of score notations: 0:00 - 12:56 2. Leonard Bernstein, intro to Gould: 12:57 - 18:02 3. Glenn Gould: 18:03 - 27:08 4. Leonard Bernstein, intro to Farrell: 27:09 - 33:46 5. Eileen Farrell: 33:47 - 38:24 6. Leonard Bernstein, intro to Stravinsky: 38:25 - 40:05 7. Igor Stravinsky: 40:06 - 51:06 8. Closing Credits: 51:07 - 52:24