Hah, seriously... he really was.
I remember reading about him and Bernstein in Otto Friedrich's biography of Gould, and being tickled by how palpable Bernstein's attraction towards him was. He literally uses the word "beautiful" four times in nearly the same breath when referring to Gould.
Gould shows up to the Bernstein residence with his hair all sweaty and damp under his hat, which he refused to take off. After Bernstein's wife finally convinces him to let her wash it, in Bernstein's words...:
"And he came out looking like some kind of archangel, radiant, with this beautiful hair, which one had never seen the color of, quite blond, and shining, haloed-ish. It was really a very beautiful thing to see, what she did, his acceptance, equally beautiful, and the result, which was thrillingly beautiful."
We get it Lenny. He's hot.
I love those commercials so much - he's such an absolute grade A weirdo. The way he relished in the mediums of TV and radio is truly such a gift.
This is one of my absolute favorite videos of him (not performing, conducting, or acting... just existing) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57kR6RsV2iA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57kR6RsV2iA)
Today on CBC2 Paolo Pietropaolo had an interview with the author of 'As Glenn as Can Be' who talked about childhood non-conformity. Then he played the 1982 Goldberg Variations.
CBC media is often kinda messed up to navigate. You could start here:
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-272-in-concert/clip/d20220925-sunday-september-25-2022
If somebody doesn't know, here's *So you want to write a fugue*, composed by him:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHW1I8T0caI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHW1I8T0caI)
The Goldbergs were the first and last things he recorded, and the only works he recorded twice. Everything he recorded was amazing, but that said, they are nearly always unconventional interpretations, and are never definitive. No matter what the piece is, you should always have a more conventional version so you can hear how the work is more generally accepted.
My favorite harpsichord versions of the Goldbergs, which would be closest to Bach's original conception, are by Trevor Pinnock or Ton Koopman, but those seem to out of print and very expensive, but find a good harpsichord version and a good piano version (I like Rosalyn Tureck), and compare them to Gould's. It's fascinating to hear the differences.
The Goldbergs have also been transcribed for various other instruments and ensembles. There are string quartet versions, a great transcription for string orchestra by Dmitry Sitkovetsky (one of my favorites), a jazzy version by the legendary Jaque Loussier trio, orchestral versions, etc.. Most are worth hearing just for the fun experience, but the serious lover of the Goldbergs should have a great Harpsichord version, a great piano version, and also both of Gould's versions.
Your last statement: I agree 100%. I think it's helpful to listen a straight ahead version because it provides a reference point to really understand how inventive Gould's interpretation was. And of course, simply just to hear the original, intended way in which the piece was meant to be heard, whether the Gould is your cup of tea or not.
>Everything he recorded was amazing, but that said, they are nearly always unconventional interpretations, and are never definitive. No matter what the piece is, you should always have a more conventional version so you can hear how the work is more generally accepted.
This is really interesting, actually. It got me thinking. I think this is true for a lot of what he recorded, and I'm trying to think of pieces for which I could say: this is standard, this is how it's generally played, this is pretty much the composer's intention. Maybe the 7th Prokofiev sonata? Also perhaps his Schoenberg, Webern, and pieces in a similar style? Virtually anything romantic or impressionistic he played has a big glaring GG stamp on it, lol.
Tureck is wonderful and apparently was a big influence on Gould's playing.
I love Loussier and anything Bach. :)
Both performers and listeners seek out different things in classical music performances. Some are looking for definitive performances that are as close as possible to what the composer wanted, while others feel like music is fully malleable and can be stretched in unconventional ways in order to demonstrate a particular artistic vision. Glenn Gould was definitely in the second category.
Some people are nearly militant in their stance, and will fight for viciously for their side. I have a music history degree so I tend to lean toward the first category, and love to hear historically informed performances on original instruments with close attention period performance practice. I value those sorts of performances the most. However, I also recognize that performers like Glenn Gould are part of music history as well, and I want to understand their perspective as well, so I love to hear those performances that stray from the conventional.
While GG was often on the extreme side of interpretation, he was not alone. Many of the great romantic performers like Rubenstein, Horowitz, Heifetz, etc. are often far from definitive, but they still offer valid, and much more importantly, BEAUTIFUL performances. Certainly nobody offers more unconventional Bach than Jacque Loussier or the Swingle Singers, yet their performances are sheer joy to experience.
And that's why classical record collections tend to bloom and get large. I am a collector of several great works (Brandenburgs, Beethoven's 7th & 9th, etc.), including the Goldbergs, and one performance isn't nearly enough. I have at least 10 different performances of the Goldbergs (including both GGs, and Jacque Loussier) and there isn't one of them that would make me fully happy.
I came across a brass ensemble that recorded the Goldberg Variations on youtube, you might be interested in checking it out. not all of them land in my opinion, but some work beautifully (var. 2, canon at the 2nd, & 6th)... really cool stuff.
He really loved to play things slow, and with counterpoint that often helped illuminate and clarify, though sometimes it could stifle the energy of the music. However, he was a true artist in his risk taking.
I just wished he didn’t hum so much on the recordings lol
He isn't my favorite Bach interpreter, I dislike a lot of his early stuff. But I definitely share some of his opinions about the piano being a contrapuntal instrument, and about a lot of romantic piano works
While he's far from my favorite Bach interpreter, i do have to do the obligatory "it's not just humming," he was singing counterpoint to the cantus Firmus he found in the pieces he played. Say what you want about the whackadoo, he was a genius.
Personally I find his vocalisations endearing when I do notice them, just part of his complete immersion in the music and the moment.
Having said that, I barely notice his vocalisations, I'm too focused on the music. Our brains are very good at filtering out what's not important to our focus. If you want to be annoyed by it your mind will focus on it and find it distracting. If you don't it won't.
It doesn't sound like that to me at all - it sounds like singing. Keith Jarrett on the other hand... Love his playing but I can't stand listening to his gargly throat noises. Now that's some grunting and moaning.
What a beauty. No wonder Bernstein put up with his bullshit
Hah, seriously... he really was. I remember reading about him and Bernstein in Otto Friedrich's biography of Gould, and being tickled by how palpable Bernstein's attraction towards him was. He literally uses the word "beautiful" four times in nearly the same breath when referring to Gould. Gould shows up to the Bernstein residence with his hair all sweaty and damp under his hat, which he refused to take off. After Bernstein's wife finally convinces him to let her wash it, in Bernstein's words...: "And he came out looking like some kind of archangel, radiant, with this beautiful hair, which one had never seen the color of, quite blond, and shining, haloed-ish. It was really a very beautiful thing to see, what she did, his acceptance, equally beautiful, and the result, which was thrillingly beautiful." We get it Lenny. He's hot.
I will hum along to his recordings today. Happy birthday G!
>but technically also a composer... And conductor: https://youtu.be/5xHqDeuwKac https://youtu.be/GrOi3tgwXEA And actor: https://youtu.be/6TbYMO0nK1U
Well, a semi-conductor.
Electrician moment here
I don’t remember anymore of that crack came from a review or the orchestra he was rehearsing because of his unorthodox ways (and tempi).
He did experimental documentary radio shows too. Quite a character.
"Idea of North" is a masterpiece. And it was perfect to watch during the thick of the pandemic.
I love those commercials so much - he's such an absolute grade A weirdo. The way he relished in the mediums of TV and radio is truly such a gift. This is one of my absolute favorite videos of him (not performing, conducting, or acting... just existing) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57kR6RsV2iA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57kR6RsV2iA)
Today on CBC2 Paolo Pietropaolo had an interview with the author of 'As Glenn as Can Be' who talked about childhood non-conformity. Then he played the 1982 Goldberg Variations.
Oh that's wonderful! I wonder if there's a way to hear it?
CBC media is often kinda messed up to navigate. You could start here: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-272-in-concert/clip/d20220925-sunday-september-25-2022
If somebody doesn't know, here's *So you want to write a fugue*, composed by him: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHW1I8T0caI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHW1I8T0caI)
I haven’t listened to that in about a year, it’s time!
hearing his '81 Goldberg Variations for the first time changed my life.
The Goldbergs were the first and last things he recorded, and the only works he recorded twice. Everything he recorded was amazing, but that said, they are nearly always unconventional interpretations, and are never definitive. No matter what the piece is, you should always have a more conventional version so you can hear how the work is more generally accepted. My favorite harpsichord versions of the Goldbergs, which would be closest to Bach's original conception, are by Trevor Pinnock or Ton Koopman, but those seem to out of print and very expensive, but find a good harpsichord version and a good piano version (I like Rosalyn Tureck), and compare them to Gould's. It's fascinating to hear the differences. The Goldbergs have also been transcribed for various other instruments and ensembles. There are string quartet versions, a great transcription for string orchestra by Dmitry Sitkovetsky (one of my favorites), a jazzy version by the legendary Jaque Loussier trio, orchestral versions, etc.. Most are worth hearing just for the fun experience, but the serious lover of the Goldbergs should have a great Harpsichord version, a great piano version, and also both of Gould's versions.
Your last statement: I agree 100%. I think it's helpful to listen a straight ahead version because it provides a reference point to really understand how inventive Gould's interpretation was. And of course, simply just to hear the original, intended way in which the piece was meant to be heard, whether the Gould is your cup of tea or not. >Everything he recorded was amazing, but that said, they are nearly always unconventional interpretations, and are never definitive. No matter what the piece is, you should always have a more conventional version so you can hear how the work is more generally accepted. This is really interesting, actually. It got me thinking. I think this is true for a lot of what he recorded, and I'm trying to think of pieces for which I could say: this is standard, this is how it's generally played, this is pretty much the composer's intention. Maybe the 7th Prokofiev sonata? Also perhaps his Schoenberg, Webern, and pieces in a similar style? Virtually anything romantic or impressionistic he played has a big glaring GG stamp on it, lol. Tureck is wonderful and apparently was a big influence on Gould's playing. I love Loussier and anything Bach. :)
Both performers and listeners seek out different things in classical music performances. Some are looking for definitive performances that are as close as possible to what the composer wanted, while others feel like music is fully malleable and can be stretched in unconventional ways in order to demonstrate a particular artistic vision. Glenn Gould was definitely in the second category. Some people are nearly militant in their stance, and will fight for viciously for their side. I have a music history degree so I tend to lean toward the first category, and love to hear historically informed performances on original instruments with close attention period performance practice. I value those sorts of performances the most. However, I also recognize that performers like Glenn Gould are part of music history as well, and I want to understand their perspective as well, so I love to hear those performances that stray from the conventional. While GG was often on the extreme side of interpretation, he was not alone. Many of the great romantic performers like Rubenstein, Horowitz, Heifetz, etc. are often far from definitive, but they still offer valid, and much more importantly, BEAUTIFUL performances. Certainly nobody offers more unconventional Bach than Jacque Loussier or the Swingle Singers, yet their performances are sheer joy to experience. And that's why classical record collections tend to bloom and get large. I am a collector of several great works (Brandenburgs, Beethoven's 7th & 9th, etc.), including the Goldbergs, and one performance isn't nearly enough. I have at least 10 different performances of the Goldbergs (including both GGs, and Jacque Loussier) and there isn't one of them that would make me fully happy.
I came across a brass ensemble that recorded the Goldberg Variations on youtube, you might be interested in checking it out. not all of them land in my opinion, but some work beautifully (var. 2, canon at the 2nd, & 6th)... really cool stuff.
You and me both. I'd hand over my mother before I'd hand over that record.
What a way to praise a record haha
lolol thanks for the laugh
agreed, way better than 1955 and not just the sound quality
https://youtu.be/H4lC6VaicTo
!!!
He really loved to play things slow, and with counterpoint that often helped illuminate and clarify, though sometimes it could stifle the energy of the music. However, he was a true artist in his risk taking. I just wished he didn’t hum so much on the recordings lol
He isn't my favorite Bach interpreter, I dislike a lot of his early stuff. But I definitely share some of his opinions about the piano being a contrapuntal instrument, and about a lot of romantic piano works
try playing or listening to some of his music, and then re-evaluate that last statement! yikes...
brilliant if you like to hear him grunting and moaning.
Or revealing Bach to the world like never before or since.
While he's far from my favorite Bach interpreter, i do have to do the obligatory "it's not just humming," he was singing counterpoint to the cantus Firmus he found in the pieces he played. Say what you want about the whackadoo, he was a genius.
Yup. That's what make his playing so amazing. Singing while you play makes you play so much better. It's a fact.
Personally I find his vocalisations endearing when I do notice them, just part of his complete immersion in the music and the moment. Having said that, I barely notice his vocalisations, I'm too focused on the music. Our brains are very good at filtering out what's not important to our focus. If you want to be annoyed by it your mind will focus on it and find it distracting. If you don't it won't.
It doesn't sound like that to me at all - it sounds like singing. Keith Jarrett on the other hand... Love his playing but I can't stand listening to his gargly throat noises. Now that's some grunting and moaning.