Glenn Gould's Mozart: A Travesty?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Glenn Gould, genius performer or instigator? In this video, we take a look at his version of Mozart's Alla Turca. Much slower than usual. But further or... closer to Mozart? Let's check.
Interested in our Beethoven V - check it out here: www.authentics...
--
🙋We need YOU to continue on (full) speed! THANK YOU for even considering becoming a patreon!▶ / authenticsound
--
Videos of Tonebase piano used:
* • Seymour Bernstein REAC...
* • I asked 6 pianists wha...
--
Our solution to the metronome problem is called the WBMP (Whole Beat Metronome Principle). Many other 19th century metronome marks is to read them in -what we believe - was the old way: in Whole Beat. In this reading, like the pendulum is still used today by physicians, the metronome ticks indicate the subdivision of the note value in the metronome mark. So you end up counting like one AND two AND three AND... That results in a different tempo yes, but a tempo that exactly matches the metronome mark given by the composer. In our current reading of these metronome marks, we are not able to do that for the simple reason most are way too fast. A logical consequence from actually doubling (yes) the intended tempo. New to the WBMP? Start here: • How Fast did Beethoven...
--
See our Beethoven's sonatas playlist here: bit.ly/Beethove...
--
📩One weekly mail in your mailbox? 👉bit.ly/as-maili...
--
📱 Website: ▶www.authenticso...
I absolutely despise the way pianists play the "Rondo Alla Turca" as though it is "flight of the bumblebee"
I personally prefer the Alla Turca (to play and listen to) at a slower tempo. I dunno about Gould's tempo, but definitely not Lang Lang's.
I have always thought this about Gould's Alla Turka. I'm in complete agreement here. I remember talking with a professor in the Conservatoire in Glasgow about the high level of detail in Mozart's scores and how it was impossible to play in the tempos we were expected to play them. He said "Yes we all know that there is a problem but since nobody is ever going to speak about it, there's no point in us trying anything different". Well, now you're talking about it. I'm still not sure what I think of the WBMP, because I fully admit I'm entrenched in the 20th Century system.
I *do* have plans to make recordings of the Mozart sonatas, the Bach Inventions and the Italian Concerto with the French Overture, and I've decided just to play at a tempo that makes musical sense to me rather than trying to match anyone else. I've been very, very surprised what happens when I allow my musical convictions to take precedence over speed. It'll be a few months before any of this happens but I will share some results with you and you might be intrigued. I know Mozart and Bach didn't have the metronome, but I've ended up playing much slower as a result. Also the playing becomes much more conversational and lyrical.
I like your philosophy, Joseph. I look forward to hearing your interpretations!
VERY much agreed, I always played too fast, In my practice recently, musical ideas come out so much more clearly and musically at a walking pace (for 1st movements I find this applies BEST but of course everywhere)
@@fletchercalderbank8498 Exactly. So many pianists seem to be obsessed with how fast they can play the notes and not whether they can phrase properly at speed.
@@josephfleetwood3882 the obsession with fast tempo could be because too many audiences marvel with regards to technique and brilliance rather than the art of the music. Some sort like " you are only a great pianist if you can execute a 'fast' piece in a phenomenally insane tempo" kind of thinking. My 2 cents
@@arcturus4067 Certainly too many musicians are obsessed with it. But you're right, I've heard audiences criticize a performer's technique when the tempo is a bit slower than normal. It's frustrating.
I love this idea that Gould, in doing something completely different from the norm, potentially reveals aspects of the original that had originally been shrouded in centuries of performance practice. By challenging the "traditional" standard, you might just find the true original. It's a shame, however, that we may never really know if Gould (or any others who followed suit) were truly closer.
But then again maybe he was just being weird.
Some of Gould's departures from the most commonly-used tempi of great works are really quite keen, but I do agree with Kevin H that many of them were really just him "being weird." His Moonlight Sonata and Appasionata tempi are fascinating, but they are really just straight up wrong from an interpretative standpoint. There's a difference between interpreting music and misrepresenting it. That is a distinction that has been all but lost today, when people commonly ridicule and disregard Beethoven's carefully-chosen tempo indications in a way that would undoubtedly infuriate him were he alive to see it.
Your love is misapplied. He does not reveal "potential aspects of the original" but what his childish fancy, his compulsion to be "different", dictated at that time.
You are so misinformed.
You all call his interpretations based in childish fancy and a proclivity towards distinction, and "straight up wrong". Provide a shred of evidence that supports these arguments, and perhaps I shall consider conceding.
Western Art Music is shrouded in veils of tradition and supremacy, and we must be weary of anchoring ourselves to this formless veil, the very cloud that shrouds the truth. Fortunately, historians have procured some artefacts of primary evidence from within the shroud; these are what we must base our assertions off. I hope you are all doing so.
Now let us briefly suppose that Gould's interpretations truly are entirely different to the composers' intent. Even so, was that not the point? As he said, "I think that all the basic statements have been made (...) what we must do is try to find our way around these things..." He wasn't trying to follow any tradition or norm, he was actively trying to be different... and he succeeded. In the subjective world of art, a well-regarded standard of objective "good" is the artist's success at their intention, and Gould, by this metric, was undeniably successful. So, ignoring all fanciful speculation, Gould, at least, was successful in his (admittedly radical) intentions, and at best, parted some of the veil shrouding the past. Either way, in light of this, let us not scorn him for playing "wrong" in a realm where "wrong" is rarely concretely definable. Just admit that you personally don't like his style, perhaps prefer to hear Bach rather than Gould, and move on.
It's pronounced "goold" like "fooled" but softer, not "gold". Other than that I 100% agree with everything. Gould's recording of the Alla Turca is one of my all time favourites. He savours each and every note, letting it shine as it should.
Glenn Gould is the only pianist who on occasion plays as slow as Mr. Authentic sound would like.
Umm, Pogorelich.
lmfao
He is not THE ONLY PIANIST. I can play the Turkish March much slower than he did, even an octave higher or lower. So, I must be a Mr. Authentic too, ha ha.
My question to the traditional thinkers is where did the traditional philosophy of having to honor the composers original interpretation come from and how do we know what in fact the composer actually intended. Who is the interpreter that gets lay down their ideas on a composers thought process ?
That's why I find Goulds artistry so wonderful . I love his mozart sonatas. They are so fresh and mind provoking. Seymour is an old man immersed in traditional thoughts. That's great but not the end of the dialog.
If you want to hear fresh interpretations, listen to the Mozart of Gulda, of Lévy, of Benvenutti, all people who loved Mozart deeply, and who demonstrate this in every note, while not following vain formalisms of classicism but interpreting in a bold, nervous and in my opinion also realistically much closer to an eventual Mozart original than the aseptic gracelessness that often corrodes interpretations of his works.
In Gould's ones there is nothing pleasant, positive or remotely estimable: they are the vacuous ravings of an idiot, worth nothing more than the emmiferious provocation for which they were conceived: the repulsive work of a capricious and annoying child, not of a great pianist, nor even of a true lover of music; and even to speak of Gould is an insult to all the myriads of extraordinary interpreters who have been there and who have devoted their lives to trying to make the world a better place, unlike the spastic spiteful Canadian full of hatred and lack of talent
Seymour was about the beauty and he was, give or take, a purist. Gould was about distortion and experimentation. Both minds are needed. If everyone was like Gould nothing would ever be persevered. If everyone was like Seymour nothing would be pushed to new limits of creativity.
@@esalinasml
Exactly, artists like Gould, Pogorelich, and Lang Lang at least TRY to experiment. Pushing the envelope should be ENCOURAGED because it’s how music advances, but the perfection of what has already been established is a different kind of art. They shouldn’t even be comparable, in my opinion, because they’re intentionally diverting from one another
The problem is I find Gould to perhaps be deliberately doing these distortions on purpose, so that there is a contrived insincerity to him --Too busy drawing attention to himself, just because he can.
We should be faithful to the music - not the composer.
I have the 1981 Goldberg variations performed by Glenn Gould on my phone and I listen to the entire album during my daily walks
"TRUE ORIGINAL "??? Seriously----music goes constantly through metamorphosis' even as played by the composers..... There are stories about Brahms playing Brahms & Rachmaninoff playing g Rachmaninoff where they both completely diverge from prior renditions.
People get so sticky & fussy about " HOW " music should be played or not played according to their grand estimations.
I'm quite sure Bach ,Mozart,Beethoven Chopin ,Liszt et al would laugh @ all yr pedantic prognostication.
Play & let play.
Move on...........
I'm with you! The Gould '81 Goldberg is the most important recording in the history of sound recording. He saw the future, and we all have much to learn from him.
I dont like mozart, but i do like goulds interpretations of mozarts music.
Me likewise.
Great content, thanks for this video. I don't agree with Gould with some things but I admire his artitic vision, and guts. He is one of my music heroes and he is one of the greatest of all time. Mr. Bernstein went a little too far with his opinion (to me anyways).
Gould’s rendition of Mozart’s concerto 24 is actually really good
He hated the 1st movement of that concerto (apparently liked the others) and even dedicated the "How Mozart became a bad composer" doc to it. Nevertheless critics of his time actually loved that performance. I think most of his Mozart is actually quite good and closer to the fortepiano articulation conception.
@@anonymousl5150 When I think of Gould sometimes I wonder how fucking stupid a man can be, and especially one who has dedicated his entire life to music. It seems almost paradoxical. That someone could go so far as to fail to understand the extraordinary grandeur of the overture of K491, especially one who is supposed to be one of the greatest pianists of all time, and, more importantly, not a classicist but a heterodox avant-gardist, a lover not of tradition but of novel interpretations and musical modernism, is truly incomprehensible to me
@@pe-peron8441 Glenn Gould was far more intelligent than you, and his reasoning for the most part is always justified. Most of Mozart's repertoire is honestly, quite overrated. Meanwhile almost everyone from Gould's era ignored the really important Bach works like the plague, so clearly if you want to direct a lack of understanding it should go in that direction to most other musicians.
@@anonymousl5150 Glenn Gould is probably infinitely more intelligent than everyone here in the comments section in many ways I agree, but I'll have to side with Peron here that he could often be an eccentric idiot as well. The only possible justifications you can come up with for his Appassionata and Moonlight Sonata recordings, for example, is that they are "bold" or "fresh" or "fascinating" (which I wouldn't disagree with in the slightest). From an interpretative standpoint though, they, quite frankly, suck, and there is little doubt that Beethoven would hate them were he still alive.
And yes, I also agree with you that many of Mozart's works are very unremarkable in that they were mass-produced without the intention of being anything significant or profound. That's not to say they were low-quality--it's just that they aren't anything special, either. This isn't because Mozart was a "bad composer" though, but rather because his livelihood relied on producing music that was easily palatable to the aristocratic public. The pieces in which Mozart steps out of that safe comfort zone and is allowed to be his cheeky (or passionate) self are always the best.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 What do you think is so wrong with the Appassionata and Moonlight sonata? Tempo choice? Well goodness no one knows exactly what tempo Beethoven had in mind did he? Hardly wrote metronome markings and even the few that had them are controversial and never followed. Dynamic markings don't deviate any more than the average performer.
Can you go after opera next? I think back in the day they used to have perfectly normal singing voices without special ‘training’ that gives off this nasal sound we hear today.
[9:21] „That speed not particularly sounds as an Allegretto that Mozart originally gave for it”
Yes, because Moscheles CHANGED the original indication from Allegretto to an *Allegro* - the fact that was left unmentioned in the video and was deliberately ignored throughout your whole „analysis”. (Why does it not surprise me?)
160BPM for quarter note might „not sound as Allegretto that Mozart intended” because it wasn’t designated by Mozart, and it wasn’t meant to correspond with an Allegretto.
I heard many works first by Glenn Gould. This explains why I easily embraced his interpretations as genuine. Others' versions now sound odd after a liftime of hearing Gould.
I was once enamored of Gould. But then I was a naive kid. I grew out of him and heard many, many others. I learned how to listen and hear subtlety. Now Gould seems grotesque, crude, and self-indulgent. Playing for himself. Dealing with his own hangups. I don't have Gould's hangups, so for me Gould puts the emPHAsis on the wrong syLAble. Comments gushing over Gould by people who probably haven't listened carefully to others is annoying.
In your about section contact link needs to be updated
Very interesting video of the Turkish dance! I find the slow Beethoven symphony tempo's a bit challenging I must say. But an example of a slower tempo on record is Grunfeld (who knew J Strauss) playing Voices of Spring, Frühlingsstimmen ... it's incredibly beautiful and elegant, which rather contradicts performances even soon after like Szell VPO in 1932 who goes much faster, and although exciting, loses a huge amount of Grunfeld's expression.
In all pieces of note there are a plethora excellent, traditional recordings. This leaves room for experimentation, the quality of which is measured by whether it "works" based on its own. internal merits.
He was an odd duck. But what an amazing duck!
I don't think that Seymour deserves to be in the same video as Glenn Gould.
Thanks for the subtitles in portuguese
OMG! Just, IN - JOY! 🎶 💜
Brilliant. Gould was a genius in all respects. 💙
Seymour was about the beauty a gave he was give a take a purist. Gould was about distortion and experimentation. Both minds are needed. If everyone was like Gould nothing would ever be persevered. If everyone was like Seymour nothing would be pushed to new limits of creativity.
Surely it is up to the performer whether they decide firstly to honour the composers intentions, or do what they want with it - and why should it even be 'beautiful'. What right (barr the composer?) has anyone to damn any well thought out and executed interpretation. We should call these 'rightous police' 'Interpretol' (after Interpol).
I find it very arrogant that people think they know the composer's intentions. Particularly since composers themselves were open to musical performance that contradicted their "intentions", think Mozart and the clarinet concert where he was surprised and loved the soloist, or Beethoven who said that metronome markings were for the first bar only - "after that musical people don't need them, and unmusical people aren't helped by them". Interpretation is the "tail end of composition" (to quote Hans Keller) and if there is not creativity, we are merely listening to a mechanical cliche.
However, Glenn Gould played the Goldberg Variations much faster when he was young. Perhaps someone remembers the video (now gone?) with the M. C. Escher thumbnail, this was a 1959-ish recording.
This video is groundbreaking Wim your work is magnificent!
Out of interest how would you see the notation being given for this piece. It's 2/4 so would you see it as a 4/8 with 2 notes per pulse or as the crochet as the pulse as if it were a common time cut in half? Or would it be like a scaled down alla breva that is in 2/4 where the quavers are like the crochets in a cut time piece? Also how many chords changes per bar would you expect in a standard notation?
The only issue is that for almost all of these pieces the composers wrote, they did not write down metronome markings. They usually are added after the fact but someone else. It doesn't make much of a case for either side of the debate. I think the most reasonable interpretation of these markings is pretty simple: since there is a claimed convention change between single and double beat, unless everyone changed at the same time there were people who meant double beat and late adopters who meant single beat going on for some time (perhaps forever). Therefore neither interpretation should be accepted and pieces should be looked at on a case by case basis, such as the Alla Turca.
This video made me subscribe to your Channel. I really appreciate your objectivity
Great research on that Turkish military march. Brilliant.
i think if i remember correctly, gould hated the classical era and columbia wanted him to record all of the mozart sonatas. his playing is so aggregious because it was out of spite. he just played the notes on the page, it sounds like midi rather than actual playing.
I remember 15 years ago, after watching a movie late at night in a big screen in the student house.. saying: 'Let's listen to 5 minutes of Gould playing 'these' Goldberg variations'.. it was a video.. well, I listened to the whole thing, couldn't press the stop button.. that was my first listening of the variations. What an experience it was!
Wonderfully informative. Glenn Gould was a true visionary.
This was a fascinating video! Thank you!
I first became aware of the historical question of tempo on reading Albert Schweitzer’s comment that Bach is typically played too fast and obscures the architecture of the music. That judgment seemed intuitively right to me. For instance, I love Heifetz’s playing but his tempos often seem a bit rushed, for instance in the Mendelssohn concerto. I liked Gould’s Mozart recordings from the first time I heard them, though given his disparaging remarks about Mozart I’m not sure he enjoyed making them, or even why he did. Have to say, though, the first movement of his “Appassionata” does seem to drag. Slower is usually better-but there’s a limit to everything.
Seymour was a great teacher, but Gould is in a class of his own.
Just to add, as someone who knows a little bit about Ottoman music, I remember reading some sources in college about how the viennese considered Ottoman music to be fast, and showed examples of pieces the emulated Ottoman music, not just the janissary march. Those pieces always struck me as quite odd, not ottoman or evoking maqam at all, and if anything a cartoonish, and sometimes even derogatory puzzlement of notes. While maqam of the period and still today can get pretty fast, the need for improvisation and ornamentation that is always at the forefront of this music prevents it from going the breakneck speeds that classical performers playing viennese compositions that evoked the style would suggest. If Viennese musicians considered Ottoman music to be fast, then either they overplayed it as an offensive stereotype, or their music must have been slower. We at least have an idea of the tempo of Ottoman maqam and therefore we have further evidence of WB, and that theory paints a kinder and more nuanced light on the relationship between the two great musical ecosystems of the time.
If anyone here is more knowledgeable on Ottoman music, I'd love your thoughts on this, as I'm mostly speculating based on what I know about Arabic Music (I mostly do Egyptian and Levantine music)
Many modern compositions are based on local folk songs . I wonder what the original author of these folk songs would think of these modern renditions, or what an AI rendition would do to them?
Original intention? Should we not then play them on their original instruments? Mozart couldnt possibly have intended his music for the Pianoforte. Gould plays Alla Turca with an attack simular to what it would be on fortepiano. Same with bach and the harpsichord. Also the projection of every note in goulds playing is unparalleled.
In terms of tempo, Gould was NOT interested in the composer's intentions. His slow tempi were determined in order to connect movements of eg a sonata through a common pulse. This has been discussed in great detail, and Gould has explained this himself. There is NO connection whatsoever with the single vs. double beat theory.
This is what Bernstein can't accept. To him it's a RULE WRITTEN IN STONE. Which is just him projecting his own RIGIDITY, as in LACK OF CREATIVITY.
@@andrewgohring7625? Bernstein didn't mind accommodating GG in the Brahms. It was the NY Philharmonic who couldn't play slowly enough in a piece they were too accustomed to play at a certain speed.
@@steinwey Bernstein was quite clear about his feelings towards Gould not violating the tempo, but the 6/8 rhythm. It's strange to observe you and others conflating this.
I'd say Bernstein was full of himself, but I wouldn't want to slight him
Sir you are my favourite
Can you tell me why Beethoven wrote impossible fingering in his 2nd piano sonata...
And what's your opinion on ONE NOTE CRESCENDO tgat is impossible to play on piano
If we were in a socialist democratic republic where there was only one official allowed recording of each opus, then Glen Gould would probably not be the optimal choice. But, thankfully, we live in a world where we are swamped with choices. In that context I am glad that we have the option to listen to Gould’s recordings.
Perfect!
I love Gould's 'Alla Turca' but not the first movement (the variations). We need to keep open minds when listening, and keep our own minds - as Gould did. His first recording of Mozart sonatas remains a favourite (even though the sound has been unfavourably altered in the CD release I have). Horowitz also played the Alla Turca at a slower than usual pace. I like that too. For me the mime artist's Presto Alla Turca holds no attraction, but to others it evidently does. What strikes me is that of all the recordings I've heard of this sonata, a strong attraction for me is the tone, the distinctive sound of both Gould and Horowitz. In the LL performance I do not hear anything distinctive. As for the frenetic pace, if they had the manual ability most children would play it that fast. I'm expressing personal opinions, yes, but that's what most feelings amount to in the end. Whether in politics, the arts, sport - anything - people almost invariably defend the opinion they already hold - cast in stone - rather than trying to open the mind.
Gould could play as fast as anyone but chose not to. Why? Gould was not a public performer. His only intension was recording what he wanted to hear.
It's extremely easy to prove Wim's ideas are cranky and completely daft. SINGERS! The natural tempo of music is more or less dictated by singing. It's very easy to identify musicians who play unnaturally by how much their style deviates from singing. Like all things in art, there is room for interpretation but not too much. Wim chucks singing out the window. Even the Hammerklavier has to sing which guides the tempo more reliably than Beethoven's metronome marks. Chopin etudes have to sing. All music on the piano has to sing or it's not worth listening. Wim plays everything far too slow to even shape a phrase. The notes die out before they can connect to each other. Violins run out of bow, wind players run out of breath. Nothing Wim says makes any sense at all musically. He's a pseudo intellectual divorced from the actual practice of making music.
Your argument has been proven wrong many times since several videos of singers and wind players show that it is very much possible to play in whole beat. Moreover you only need to hear Chopin played in whole beat to understand that the music at last can sing at this tempo.
@Chlorinda Evidence? This was not meant to be an evidence only the refutation to the claim that playing in whole beat would be impossible for strings singers and wind instruments.
This gives me a new lens to observe Gould's recordings outside Bach. Thank you!
MOSCHELES particularly had a wonderful teaching series...beautifully written piano etudes actually...and MUSICAL...BEETHOVEN himself praised it. his a minor chromatic etude ...foreshadowed CHOPIN S famous one in A minor...with one difference...instead of a full triad in the right hand...moscheles allows only a single other note , also . under the chromatic line.
Gould in the context of what a composer intended is just a mistake to analyze. Gould's work is about how Gould intends it. Often experimental, so let go of your preconceptions. Maybe you like it maybe you don't but at least that much should be acknowledged.
I really this hi performance here of the Alla Turca is just trolling the audience. Man that is AWFUL!!
All I can say is thank you ❤️
But Mozart was also a unique talent - so who says that a) he knew the exact tune of the traditional Janissary march (if it was, then, what it is played as now!) and b) that he wanted to copy it faithfully. One must not forget that all artists, even the geniuses, where also performers who relied on selling themselves to the public, so Mozart's turkish march surely would have been more speedy and sparkly than the slow march you quote as an example.
Gould is the best.
1955 not 1956
Lang lang est un fou
Im still yet to any piece Gould didnt mess up. I honestly cant stand anything Ive heard him play and Im always open to new ideas and interpretations, I just dont like his.
I do not like Gould and his Mozaet playing is RUBBISH
Tonalite parçanın temposunu doğrudan etkiler. Parça La majör yerine Mi b majörde çalınırsa tüm duygu ve dinamizm değişerek farklı bir tempo arayışı başlar. Her parçanın değişik travest :) . . . transpozisyonları yapılabilir. Mozart ın parçalarını çalarken kullanılan ALTIN TEMPO deyimini Karl Böhm söylemişti sanırım.
Interesting insight into Mozart's alla turca, and Gould's interpretation of it.
What makes it even more interesting on a personal level is that I wasn't aware of Gould's rendition, nor of Moscheles' tempo indication, and despite that, my playing preference is even slightly slower than those two. Of course, I'm committing a grave sin in a different area as I prefer to play the appoggiatura short.
Bach.... stop...
Are there any recordings of Seymour performing on the piano? As Theodore Roosevelt stated, "It is not the critic who counts....." If Seymour hasn't heard Gould play anything that is beautiful as he said, he hasn't herard enough of Gould's performances. Gould's Brahms Intermezzi are beautiful interpretations, for example.
I have a CD of Seymour’s. Very ordinary 2nd rate pianist. How is he weighing in on the greatest pianist of the 20th century. Gould rules !
Of course there are recordings of Seymour. Although, not having professional-level recordings from a performer has nothing to do with how talented or not one might be. Plenty of virtuosos and geniuses remain "undiscovered". Man, Seymour went and got the Gould fanatics seething, lmao
Listen to Seymour's recordings of the intermezzi and come back, and we can continue speaking
@@dariocaporuscio8701 The only reason you’ve heard about Seymour is because Ethan Hawke made a documentary about a cute old piano teacher !
@@glenngouldification honestly, as a musician, I admire the modesty of his approach when he looks at the composer's score, and in my opinion it reflects well this quote from Hindemith: "If our performers-players, singers, and conductors alike-had a better insight into the essentials of musical scores, we would not be faced with what seems to have become almost a rule in the superficially over-polished performances of today: either the rattling through of a piece without any reasonable articulation, without any deeper penetration into its character, tempo, expression, meaning, and effect-or the hyper-individualistic distortion of the ideas expressed in a composer's score".
That being said, it seems clear to me that a person that decided to quit because he was not satisfied of his own playing, even if the press and the public considered him a virtuoso of the highest order, probably applies the same severity to other piano players. I disagree with some of Bernstein opinions, but what I don't get is how for you Gould fanatics it's ok if Gould says that Mozart should have died earlier and calls Schumann a secondary musician, but it's not ok if a lesser known pianist doesn't like Gould. Maybe the reason is because you are fanatics
great video!
Senile Seymour has no relevance and gets WAY too much attention. A grouchy old relic with not even a sliver of Gould's genius and innovation.
Wim, sandblasting patina again! He is one of the very best innovators who constantly mines gold out of thoroughly explored veins.
Call me a traditionalist, but, at home where I grew up, there were only Gould's Goldberg Variations (both). That has not prevented me to admire and prefer other recordings.
Sorry man, but you really need to work on your pronunciation. This non--standard, disconnected way you speak is painful to listen to, even though the content itself is quite interesting. Sorry.
I do remember getting an LP with Gould playing Mozart sonatas about 45 years ago, and thinking about it being absurd or a travesty, but not because the way he played the Rondo alla Turca, but because of him butchering the first movement of K330 that he played absurdly fast.
When I listened to Rondo alla turca I thought it is unusual, but interesting (and quite in line what an 'Allegretto' should sound like).
Well you certainly can put it more gently than I can... Bernstein is a hypocrite.
Gould would have been on Cloud 9 with a modern arranger and sequencer.
Hearing his detractors cite "humanity" as the basis of their criticism is just plain funny. Anyone who questions Gould's humanity has considerable shortcomings of the same.
🙄😑
please leave the great music of mozart and beethoven just the way they are -- stop messing with everything that is so beautiful and authentic - i'm an iraqi man and i adore the beautiful piano music of mozart and i listen to it every day - please stop this political correctness nonesense - i love mozart beethoven haydn schubert wagner bach schumann telemann handel and brahms i love them all just the way they are as authentic as they originaly are - and for the record i also love and adore the baroque italian composers such as vivaldi corelly nardini tartini samartini please leave there beautiful music alone and stop messing with it - is this too much to ask ?????
Gould's playing his way does not stop you playing anything your preferred way, or from buying performances done your preferred way.
You are not the boss of anyone. Please stop pretending to be.
Is asking *everyone* to play it the way you want?
Yes sir. It is too much ask.
I hope my answer helps you.
Gould is overrated. And I grew up in Canada.
Gould is underrated, you are inconsequential and I grew up in Canada !
@@glenngouldification you are also inconsequential.
@@glenngouldification go play a harpsichord, lunatic.
I have seen a lot of musicians, who were average looking people and became of angelic beauty, when they performed music. Glenn Gould is a good looking man, who became disgusting and ugly, when playing. Doesn't that mean anything to you? Especially regarding the classic idea of Art.
A lot of Mozart is about lovers teasing one another about having a gift to give but it's a secret. Stuff like that. Gould didn't get this at all.
The alla turca secret meaning ?
I don't get what you mean
seymour bernstein -- WHO? what DID he produce in recordings or a career with the likes of GOULD to access public distribution , enough to have a VIEWPOINT in playing people can recognize and discuss? IT IS NONSENSE from an obviously JEALOUS bernstein...don t tell me...perhaps he is related to one LEONARD....of great legendary fame....that DID NOT AGREE , publicly, with GOULD S solo piano part in their performance of BRAHMS D minor? nevertheless...BERNSTEIN...to go back to start...who IS HE anyway....1) as a PIANIST 2) as an ARTIST and thinker, 3) as an interpreter, ?
he s like ANY OF US...just talking about our preferences...who . for one reason or another..in our lives,,,have not been "renowned" whatever our talents have been....
except that ,,with his "late life fame as a bernstein//teacher" he can pass off as somehow having a PROFOUND statement about GOULD or "what is mozart"...mozart s works are NOT that difficult..whatever one says ....at least not the technical or conceptual aspects...or textural ones...and VERY well-suited to the pianist s hand...THEREFORE..evne for an OLD MAN..such as seymour ...in pretty good pianistic shape still (as horowitz was at his late 80s) ..SEYMOUR WOULD PLEASE JUST PERFORM what he means!!!
the WIDE ACCESS TO THE WORLD IS AT HIS DISPOSAL for one presumably so well connected!!
PUT HIMSELF or any old recording of HIS...to allow people to HEAR HIS mozart...and persuade them "his concepts are better and gould s a TRAVESTY"...
I really dislike Glenn Gould 😡 He was a hack that thought he was better and hated Mozart! His Bach’s Goldberg variations were trash!
Gould's Appasionata is the best.
I am listening to this video at .25 speed. I find it to be much more authentic and in accord with Wim's original intention.
Gould was a scientist. Some of his interpretations were really terrible but he was a revolutionary pianist which created a new path for the music. And for me as well, gouldberg variations are still gouldberg variations...
Indeed a person who explored the unknown, a true scientists
A like many experiments some of them failed, but when it succeeds it’s revolutionary
What do you think about lang Lang goldberg variations
The Chopin… Oh the Chopin!!
Glenn Gould, was actually born as Glenn Gold. Later his family name was changed to Gould. Coincidence?
Well put. Anyhow, what history needs is not perfection, but revolution, and Gould is truly a revolutionist in classical music.
There is a brief mention of Bernstein's speech to the audience before Gould performed one of the Brahms Piano Concertos. My father was a violinist in the NY Philharmonic in that era and was appalled by the speech. He believed the conductor's job was simply to follow the soloist no matter what his personal opinion was, or not conduct it at all.
I agree
Inimitable GG, quirky, but always worth a careful listen. To some, idiosyncratic; to others, remarkably unique. Technique to burn&could clearly demonstrate his ideas and allow folks into his Sound Worlds
The only thing written in stone is the actual notes not how they are connected. Bernstein is one that fosters boredom in most people when it comes to the classics.
Yes, Glenn Gould's Mozart IS a TRAVESTY. And the comment in the video has very little rationale. The tempo of the Turkish March ??? Look at Moschels' edition: it says ALLEGRO. The same it says on the sheet music I have. Gould's playing is much slower than an Allegro. Even if Mozart is not here to reveal what his intentions were, he left them in the partiture. He left ALLEGRO. And today's meaning of this tempo is not significantly different from what it was in Mozart's days. So how fast the soldiers of the Ottoman Empire marched in Vienna is IRRELEVANT. Also their marching is FAKE, because they didn't have video recorders in those days.
Gould was nothing if not idiosyncratic.
I believe he was genuine in his idiosyncrasy - he was not trying to make a show out of being different. He just "was" different, and this was the way the music flowed through him. He was a bent pipe.
great video! your analysis makes perfect sense
The idea that music is written in stone is foolish, Mozart would disagree..you can dislike anything you want of course, that's the whole point
Fascinating analysis. It's a shame Gould never composed his own music. I have a couple of 1954-55 recording by Gould on CBC radio transcriptions, predating his first commercial recordings. Very interesting glimpses of the eary Gould. I also have original pressings of almost all of Gould's Columbia LPs. I agree the 1981 Bach recordings are arguably his best recordings. Gould was definitely decades ahead of his time. Don't forget Gould's transcriptions, of symphonies,and, yes, operatic works. What could Gould have done had he been born a couple of decades later ? One can only speculate...
He did compose! You should check out his string quartet. He also composed some fugues, and there are a few recordings of him improvising
He had all the right in the world to play his own compositions the way his weirdness chose. But other people's compositions, especially that of a genius like Mozart, he should have respected the wishes of the composer, not his fancy. He was a very troubled individual.
I just wish Glenn Gould had performed and recorded a all of Bach’s transcriptions which were made by other composers. I mean, I too am a Bach Purist, …but, hey!, there really doesn’t have to be a limit; 🫢
I stick with what Vladimir Horowitz used to declare : "The formal interpretation is invented. Everything is invented; by the public, by artists. Nobody knows how it is supposed to sound.". He also talked about making music with "good taste" which is, again, a very subjective assessment.Therefore, I can't say if Glenn Gould is a travesty to Mozart's music... This is a definitive judgment that would end any further investigation or appreciation. I think that every interpretation becomes interesting as soon as some heart is put into it. Another question would be : Do we need to establish standards ? Bernstein says "There are some certain things that are written in stone" and I disagree because I think this is the best to way to kill creativity. In fact, some people consider that interpretation doesn't need creativity because the composers already created something that should bear no alteration, out of "respect". But, we're not talking about reproduction of paintings... Pianists are not copyists. In itself, a music score is not a complete work of art... it needs sound and life and creativity to become one. Otherwise, we might as well listen to MIDI files played by computers. Or listen to human computers like the ones that win piano contests everyday. I know musicians that read music all day long. What they hear in their head is perfection. But reading a score is already an interpretation. Nobody knows how it is supposed to sound.
I find it interesting how you pronounce Glenn’s last {or, family} name, it’s almost sounding like you’re saying Gold instead of Gould (pronounced: Gooold).
You do know that his father change the family name from Gold to Gould, because of the high level of antisemitism in Canada at the time, and he did not wish to be mis-identified as a Jew, and documentation shows that his family was not Jewish [even though some people like to think that maybe he was].
I cannot stand Gould's '81 Goldberg. Gould plasters himself over the top of Bach's music. He was a technician at best and injected himself over the top of everything he played and obscured everything that the composer may have wanted to say. There are two types of people. Those who like Gould and those who want to hear the composer.
Omg think Beethoven’s fifth played at half speed: he wasn’t a rocker after all
My deepest insight into Gould's musical motivation came while watching him torment elephants at the zoo.
Dumb question here, at what point in history did composers started to write down how fast or slow their music was meant to be played?
19th Century. But conventions had a major role.
I
The speed of a piece of music is called "tempo". Johann Maelzel invented the 'metronome' in the beginning of the 1800s. This provided a precise, mathematical precision. Beethoven was among the first composers to use an "MM" marking. Before and after that, even up to today, it is common to use the Italian descriptors such as "Adagio" or "Allegretto". Of course, these do not provide strict, mathematical precision. They convey character, a large part, but not all of which has to do with the speed of performance.
Before the 1600s it is unusual to find any indication of tempo. In the 1600s they are found fairly often on manuscripts. In the 1700s they become the norm, with most manuscripts showing them. By the 1800s it is unusual to find a manuscript without a tempo marking.
@dejuren That's the spirit! 🙂
I love that some people today can claim to know with absolute certainty what Mozart's or Bach's intentions were about how to play their music.
In a sense the composer is like an artist trying to be faithful to a visual subject, the music "visits" the composer and he does his best to transcribe it in musical language. Then the performer recreates the composer's conception. Music does not belong to anyone alone but to all.
The most valuable lesson that I learned from Glen Gould was that there is some flexibility in how one can interpret and play Bach.
Not many musicians can bring great masterpieces of composition alive. Gould is one musician with this gift. hat does not means that every musician who has this gift will crank out an identical, machine made version, because the audience changes, and so the performance to some degree. Just my take on the subject.
I find GG perfect for Bach, but his hand is too heavy for Mozart.
Very interesting point of view with a lot of evidence to back it. You did a great job making this video.
I agree. I find Gould's interpretations very frustrating to listen to, but this musicologist make an outstanding case through convincing and well-substantiated argument.
Glenn Gould estaba muy conectado a eso extraño a lo que se le puede llamar "consciencia no local".