Glenn Gould talks about Chopin and plays Impromptu No.1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июн 2021
- Gould does not hide his admiration for Chopin as a miniaturist and says "nobody has ever understood the piano that well".
He then plays Impromptu No.1 in A-flat major, op.29, from his private home recordings (dating back to the late 1940's).
As usual, with Glenn Gould, you hear notes within the music that you were never aware of before.
find his nonchalant performance of chopin.s Etude in A minor...#2 , op.10...thought i m old and no longer play...i used to play, i think rather well,, the chopin etudes..and like most would have to be familiar with their difficulties...I HAVE NEVER heard (in video in a large stage in an empty hall recording...to give an idea of what he sounded with that piece in a LARGE hall..) ANYONE...not RICHTER,,,not pollini...not ANYONE...play it with such BEAUTY....it seemed he played it during a BREAK in a recording project probably to amuse himself......and i discovered it (youtube somewhere) ...just after coming across a performance by richter -- Live video -- and then by ARGERICH ..the famed chopin player...GOULD PLAYED IT FAR, FAR better...
beautiful finger legato...his hands as if gliding or Wiping the keyboard...as if wiping it of dust...unbelievable refinement of technic...had gould "MADE A CAREER NAME " like most: CHOPIN player...he would have left everyone in the dust.....and REVOLUTIONIZED or ''bothered" the "experts'' of every generation....but none would explain WHY ...even with their "disgreements" on interpretation..."...NONE ,, either,, could surpass THAT on which THEIR interpretations WERE DEPENDENT on...the TECHNIC and pianism .
HIS either way...would STILL be better (technic) and open doors they and their technic could NOT peek through!!
CHOPIN player "legends" like argerich etc,,SHOULD be thankful...GOULD "didn t think much of chopin" to SHOW OF "how talented pianist" he was...like THEY all do.....
Not necessarily notes but ideas, themes
@myAutoGen you re right..ideas , themes...in this chopin ..gould brings a certain romantic flair...one nowadays seldom talked about or noticed as part of artistry...and that is "a suggestion of idea...a shadow" ...which gould does in the FIRST of the sonata...'in certain lines...not everything is "BOLD LETTER NOTES" ..just a BRUSH and the rest is up to the listener
Gould takes Chopin outside of the world boundaries, makes him immense and formidable. As geniuses should be. Richter, a shallow and despicable human being, with his mechanical music, shouldn't be in the ring at all.
The first sounds almost calypso.
I appreciate that Gould is able to convey his own opinion in a convincing and straightforward way, even though I personally disagree with much of what he said.
Please don't ever stop adding to your channel, wherever you get these marvelous hitherto unheard snippets! Gould is for all time!
Please keep posting this content. So good.
mmm this is such a great insight into what he thought of Chopin and the piano. Thanks for sharing!
Much more interesting than another repeat from the textbook. And when that technically proficient, any approach is worth a listen.
I think one thing that I didn't quite pick up on for years was that Glenn Gloud was aware that his opinions were his alone. I guess it used to feel like when he expressed an opinion that he was being dogmatic as if his judgements were the end all be all. A music professor of mine once referred to him as "a stick in the mud" which, as much as I love Gould (which is quite deeply), I agree with at times. But gathering from a broad spectrum of interviews and candid film from across his life, I think he had quite a sense of humor about himself and that these are just descriptions of his own sense of taste. As if to say, "by all means if you don't agree with what I say, you do you. But as long as I have a platform do so, I'll express my opinions as fervently as I can get away with."
Yes!!
Glenn Gould was extremely humble about his opinions, if he sounds dogmatic it's only because he firmly believed in his ideas.
THAT says it all...THANKS for saying so...the UNIQUENESS of gould...was that in his expressing what he was persuaded by...and brought to platform...was SUPPORTED by VERY well-though through concepts ...with ENORMOUS musical capital...he didn t speak from just speaking but HAD SOMETHING TO SAY...
HE SPOKE like a CREATOR , not a PERFORMER...
I have read several comments that refer to this as a performance, and the inevitable critiques that follow. This is not a performance. It is a home recording of Gould playing. It was not a statement intended for public scrutiny. It's unfortunate that people take the teenage private Gould so seriously.
There's something wonderful about listening to a pianist who doesn't like Chopin actually play Chopin. Gives perspective.
This is really interesting, especially to hear from gould. Bach was Chopin's inspiration. In fact, he could play every prelude and fugue by him. His students have reported him playing bach in preparing for recitals even when it's not even bach he's preparing.
Přesně.
So what? Everybody who has musical talent is moved and inspired by Bach. That doesn't tell us much about Chopin.
@Graphomaniac not me XD nor for lots of people I know at the conservatory I study at. Everything Glenn says here about Chopin, is exactly how I am with Bach.
@@davisatdavis1 that's strange. Do they have auditions at your conservatory, or do they just allow anybody who has enough money to study there?
@Graphomaniac auditions. This is at UOP. You play a piece from each time period. Regardless, there's a difference between appreciating something and like something. I appreciate bachs music, I just could never feel any connection to it.
GG's performance of the last mvmt of Chopin Sonata 3 is brilliant.
agreed
amazing indeed. the beauty of his performance in that last movement is his not simply the technical clarity and polish he is known for...but in the way he builds up to the CODA...where he lets LOOSE...and has this majestic yet still SONG-LIKE quality...and instead of the usual "brilliant" last movement (which he plays briliantly indeed) ..the MAJESTY arrives at the last ...that began SONG-LIKE in the first page of the Sonata...this is how incredible his CONTROL of IDEA ...AS he CHOSE it at the moment of performing...is...he could have chosen ANOTHER completely different idea ...and it would WORK just as well...
NONE of the famed chopin artists of his age...those who made careers from 1950's through today....have demonstrated this one in many lifetimes talent. i don t care how celebrated they are...and i ve spent my lifetime listening to them ....a few jewels of chopin performances from him...and i am still bowled over....
most , maybe all, are indeed like "classmates left in highschool" ....to glenn gould...by the time he died...he had for many years left the "concert hall" ...and "retired" from its "indulgences"....the applause at "PIANISTIC SKILLS AND TALENT"...simply put: these were all "for the kids"...and what he called "the hollywood. bowl"....
ruclips.net/video/NAHE8PTR8tE/видео.html i Pasted his performance of the 3rd sonata to let GOULD demonstrate...that on the LEVEL of technical efficiency and ELAN alone...he OUTSTRIPS the famed CHOPIN ''WINNER" ARGERICH ...by MILES....(never understood why all the exaggerated clamor about argerich...because of her "ferocity" at the piano....the "speed" ...and all that...hiding what is really lack of DEPTH in her lines...'SUBSTITUTE Speed and brilliance...that should WOW audiences and judges and critics!!) ...
particularly at near the end...listen to how GOULD RE-transitions from the key of A FLAT finishing the SECOND exposition of the theme (e minor re-iteration...passing through a deceptive cadence to E flat major..and on to A- flat section...)
from here the physical demand....shows GOULD not at all BOTHERED while increasing the TENSION IN the passages and chords...30:50.ONWARDS...)
THOSE chords MARTHA ARGERICH is the CLUMSIEST i have ever heard!!! revealing the usually HIDDEN limitations of her hands...she practically BOGS down trying to cope with the huge intensity after so much running passages...i almost fell of my chair when listening...
asking myself : "MAYBE she has a MUSICAL intention to make it sound so AWKWARD and in great difficulty to produce LARGE tones with only a FEW notes of chords in the MIDDLE range of the instrument (a DIFFICULT range, WHEN deprived of a LOW base support... to produce full sounds in without BANGING) ...? but ...NO...i listened a few more times...and she in her recording could NOT keep up HER own pace set at the beginning...and ran up against a TECHNICAL wall...producing such UGLY sounds!!
NOT WITH GOULD...Whose last movement ...and the scherzo by the way (which is amazing in its smooth lines throughout...like SILK or gossamer, spider web refinement)...IMO..is matched only by people like Richter..and another italian that died early..1950 s pianist) ...and also Rubinstein s (with his large tone) ...William Kappel the too early deceased american from 1950.s and lastly Vladimir Sofronitsky in a live recital in 1950 s ....
few had been as impressive with gould...and remember...he didn t even care much for chopin...
did anyone hear his CHOPIN 4th etude op.10...? it s about as FAST (talking about speed) ...as RICHTER S Which outstrips anyone.s
even "SPEEDY MARTHA"...(whose recording of the a minor etude op,10 is ANOTHER example...along with the preceding C MAJOR ..TWO of the most AWKWARD technical "accomplishments" i have ever heard from a GREAT *performer*...(the long-late GERMAN Wilhelm Bachaus would LAUGH at martha s rendition -- so MANY fake "musical phrasing" ...ADUSTMENTS to relieve her TENSION in those hands...you could HEAR it blindfolded!!...I DO NOT UNDERSTAND how people can GLOSS over that...about a supposedly "one of the titans of the keyboard"!!)
THAT S just a sample 'CHOPIN" from gould the FAMOUS BACH player....NOW reverse that comparison...FIND A "sample" BACH by argerich...her MOST fmous....BACH S PARTITA IN C MINOR...the SAME "FAST PLAYING" with NOTHING musical really to offer...once you ve heard even merely GOULD S PRACTICE session at his old house...at a very young age!!
GG is a genius and true artist...great musical mind..and superb pianist...MARTHA represent the ''CONCERT HALL" goddess....with LOTS of ''OOMPH" and COMPARABLY little DEPTH really...not to mention...NEW truly personal ideas...
THAT S the difference...
NOT taking away from HER success and celebrity...but that s what SHE IS....A CELEBRITY of the piano...GOULD is a Talent in every way....FAR beyond the likes of ARGERICH...that everyone likes to emulate for "charisma"..
GOULD is to emulate for the QUALITY of his THOUGHTS.
Wow I did not know that Glenn Gould thought Chopin was a Hanon excercise.
He plays it like so.
Chopin complained there was simply too much rubato in his performances by others
@@zol479 Well there ya go! I will play without rubato.
Really I doubt Chopin used rubato except for the mazurkas/polonaises.
Gould doesn't "get" Chopin….
@@JamesVaughan exactly.
@@JamesVaughan Bruh Chopin is one of the easiest composers to 'get'.
Both the interviewer and Glenn Gould are so well spoken.
Scripted “interview” most likely
There is a 1946 recording of Glenn Gould playing Chopin Impromptu No. 2 op.36 on my RUclips channel.
Thanks for sharing this recording !
No video recording?
I think the best recordings Gould made were his recordings of the three Hindemith piano sonatas.
What an incredible middle section, on a par with Cortot! Who else can play with such an incredibile sense of declamation?
Perfectly put. Declamation yes. I've never heard anything like it, here or everything else Gould touched.
Martin Baldwin-Edwards how many alive?
yes, impression is that chopin got hijacked by liszt and his followers who set the style of today when chopin himself would have played more like rachmaninov or gould - less sturm und drang
He completely changed this piece to the point I almost didn't recognize it, but I did enjoy how he played it a lot! It gets a surprising ragtime feeling when played like this, and that's not something I ever expected to get from a Chopin performance. Gould was truly one of a kind.
The more I hear Gould's Chopin the more I think it sounds the way Chopin himself probably played it--straight, but with marked intonation, which is not the same thing as pedaling. The trouble is that whatever Chopin's original "sound" was, no composer was ever taken up by so many pianists so quickly, because his music lent itself to vast interpretation. The way we think Chopin should sound is largely a matter of taste, and I don't see GG wading into a debate about taste.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards That is exactly what I meant; there are still some words in circulation, like “taste,” which are merely shorthand, in this case, for (as you put it) a socially constructed set of responses. I did not think it needed spelling out, and as I implied, this particular interview was unlikely to lead in such a critical direction. In any case, my comment about taste was an afterthought; it hardly constituted the gist of what I posted.
@@TheRealGnolti - when you look at a score, and prepare to play it, nothing but the note patterns should matter. Not history, or bios or schools of pianism, or humorous anecdotes. That's what I sense every time from Mr. Gould. He was just a little different in the brain, and as he said, he didn't want to think about how he did it (fingering etc.). It just came out and he was grateful (in his own Gouldian way) for what his well-disciplined hands and fingers could pop out.
When I hear some critic who never could play on the level to even get a sense of it, cajoling an artist for not playing from some school of tradition I wonder what their limited experience has been.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards - I love the history of music and music theory and the derivation of intervals from physics and the rise of dissonance. Perhaps we both agree on this?
The way Gould plays Chopin sounds like a parody.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards LOL. Well, maybe not a parody - but a mockery.
He said he disliked the use of pedals to add colors, yet he perfect grasped this very idea of color changing by pedaling in the impromptu. Weird man, but certainly a great artist.
Very interesting!
Cannot imagine a worse "performance,' devoid of feeling, musicianship, thoughtfulness, AND technique, eviscerating Chopin's mastery of harmony, melody, rhythm. polyphony, textutre, form, and pianism.
If only Chopin was in fact a master of most those things, and not a maudlin, corny back that barely learnt to compose.
He manages to make chopin sound like ragtime.
There ya go! If played a certain way Chopin sounds like ragtime.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. In a lot of his music, especially some mazurkas, Chopin was a distant heralder of jazz. Some of his harmonies sound incredibly like Gershwin!
@@lucialp1937 I like that quality in his pieces lol
Oh my.....
it comes across that gould loved chopin but felt he shouldn't, like a guilty pleasure. this plus such fantastic technique, creating drive and cogency, make this a great performance. and just a teenager.
An interesting rendition that is for sure.
I find myself disagreeing with a lot of his opinions, from Chopin to the use of the pedal
But, man, he played the hell out of that impromptu number onel
👀 I can only hear that he pressed the right keys at the time written. Nothing more.
@@gerardostevemunguiawilliam7254 not really, quite a lot of wrong notes, and a lot of struggle with rhythm. Definitely not a Chopinist. 😅
It's not a matter of opinion that pedal was hardly used back in the days. All the compositions were made in dry acoustics. Nothing about modern piano interpretations or modern pianos themselves even resemble what Chopin did.
He also once said that Mozart is a bad composer. Maybe these comments are a sort of click bait, before the advent of the computer
Who should care????
Do I like his Impromptu? Do you? I develop no feeling at all listening. A mechanical dislike thrown at Chopin, even not "trying" entering Chopins world. So, he is right, Chopin was not for him. And he was not made for Chopin... Does it matter? No. He remains possibly the greatest Bach interpreter. Any other composer was not part of his repertoire. The pedal is the soul of a romantic piece of the piano. It was not to his soul. But thanks for sharing such interview of unforgettable Glenn Gould.
Schoenberg fits his aesthetic. I like the impromptu if interpreted by someone else, and it might be the quality of the tape, but his tone was good.
@@glenngouldschair390 Yes, Schoenberg was for him. Glenn tried to open some new chapters of music that fits to him. My interpretation is that he needed clarity, order, distance because of his psychological state. In his own realm he was a genius. He did not want anything else. But he casts a wrong light at Chopin and others, probably even knowingly. It is not important though.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards Sure, it is arguable. By my personal taste, I like Gould playing Bach. There are musical arguments supporting it. But I also love some other players. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to go a bit more into depth arguing...?)))
Which is why Gould generally excluded Chopin from his repertoire. He had no affinity for or interest in it, so why would he program it?
Gould generally had the wrong personality for the Romantic and even the Classical period. Great in Bach and Schoenberg - but he plays this impromptu with no feeling, as if he were in a hurry to get somewhere.
Yeah, he was in a hurry to play Bach.
I do wish I had not heard this interview.i am so disappointed ☹️.to find out that a man I have always admired was ignorant of composers such as Albéniz and I must say that his performance of Chopin impromptu number 1 reminds me of Hanon exercises. Well, nobody is perfect
@@guillermobadell6 that’s glenn gould for you. Good at some things, bad at others.
I partially agree, but I think his recordings of Brahms are quite remarkable! Certainly not played with the flowing, singing quality that others might bring to them, but I think he has his own very convincing interpretation that brings out other qualities.
@@guillermobadell6 I don’t really know whether much pianists know about Albeniz in general. Especially in the time when Gould was alive.
A pianist who doesn't like Chopin, it's a bit surprising, but why not. On the other hand, to say that Chopin is not a great composer is incomprehensible on the part of a performer as prestigious as Glenn Gould. Chopin's imagination, originality and creative power have revolutionized music just like a Bach or a Beethoven. Between Chopin's fourth ballad and certain symphonies whose length is inversely proportional to inspiration, my choice is quickly made.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards Well put.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards
I don't know; I find this rather uncharitable. As per my comments above, nobody else on earth could create this fabulous musical reading but Gould.
IMHO this piece is arced with grace and abandon, capturing a spirit of light whimsy, almost improvisatory and half drunken -- and madly brilliant. It begs off the heavier gravitas approach to Chopin that stays stuck on sonority and instead flittingly plays with the cascade of phrase, etching the piece indelibly, like some ashen cinder falling brilliantly for a few moments before our eyes after a volcano erupts.
Gould could be insufferable in some of his Mozart, but I would not say here. (Nor in half his Brahms.) His Beethoven is fine through and through. Who can quarrel with his classical reading of the early sonatas, nor his expressivity in Opus 109? Nor his structural reading of the Tempest or flawless Appassionata, or razor-sharp Moonlight III?
He was alas most flawed in all his pill popping and insufficient self-care -- or we would have had him for another decade or two, playing like this.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards
I'll largely accede your general thrust, though I think Gould could play romantically, say here:
ruclips.net/video/1-B2KwFS11w/видео.html&ab_channel=GlennGould
I suppose the more congenial rejoinder might be that Gould finds a different prism for some of these pieces that is often very convincing as a kind of absolute mathematical object of transcendent performance, even if period-wise anachronistic.
Like his slow dissection of the marvelous fugue section of the Hammerklavier is a wonderful excavation even if, from another vantage, it's a sacrilege.
Or take Gould's Mozart here, exquisitely expressive even if dramatically slow:
ruclips.net/video/3d07r_E_8Pc/видео.html
Yet exquisitely exploratory in a childlike way that Mozart himself might have delighted in. The courage and rigor of conception here are thrilling -- the sheer bravado and intellectual coherence -- even if it fails as a canonical reading.
IMHO these sorts of takes expand the love for classical music by stretching the possible radius of viable interpretations beyond what people hitherto thought could plausibly work.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Your asseverations are most excellent, Sir, and I appreciate your learned take on these various periods.
Yes I agree Gould's humming especially mars some of his later recordings, an obvious affectation if he could control it in the earlier. (Though I've heard Casals also would hum, so perhaps this was a kind of tradition.) It stands in curious contraposition to Gould's obsession with clarion lapidary recording.
I'll grant your points and perhaps just aver that Gould's musical experiments, to the degree they are, seem more fruitful and vital and thought-provoking than say a French deconstruction of Shakespeare for latent colonial sentiments. What I mean is often a very interesting evocation of the work of art remains (not always, sometimes only contempt is in view, as with some of his Mozart sonatas), which evocation stimulates deeper meditation and questions in the listener of a productive sort.
IMHO Gould gives the listener a chance to engage in critique of a work -- or perhaps more accurately as you put it, a genre or period -- in a way that still preserves a good deal of aesthetics. Why that's important is that listeners are encouraged to not just put the Big 3 on a pedestal, but to become more fluent and rigorous in what they like and what they don't -- and why. And this critical engagement increases intimacy with classical music -- even if people form a more learned aversion to what and why.
Of course Mozart and Beethoven were in love with Bach, though paradoxically Mozart may have had less Bach available to him than later composers due to the state of music publishing and dissemination. There is, by the way, an interesting story I heard that may or may not be true that Mozart, near the peak of his powers, encountered Bach in sheet music form at his strongest, and became overwhelmed by the strength of the counterpoint, had something of an aesthetic breakdown, and started writing more contrapuntally because he realized that for all his fame, he could never touch this completeness of chromatic mastery.
Obviously the WTC was a fixture in their home, so I'm not sure how apocryphal this story is. I will say, having heard some of Mozart's fugues and denser counterpoint, I find it fascinating and rather wish I could travel back in time and finance him to write a good deal more. But Mozart is sweet in many other modes, and he certainly surpasses nearly all other mortals in counterpoint all said.
Love the impromptu. Sounds like a different piece entirely. And why should that be a bad thing.
Because it's awful
Chopin was unique, but he didn t understand Gould
i think it's the other way around..
Indeed. Composer is always superior to interpreter. Interpreter is not originally creative
what are you on about
Glenn Gould still is the most intriguing, irritating and shocking pianist in general, but also the most inspiring, provoking and exciting one in general too.
I would emphasize the word "irritating". He does the world of classical musicians AND COMPOSERS a terrible disservice, and consequently young pianists who are just entering the world of piano and classical music! I'm glad he's gone!!!
@@gothamelliottC U N Texas!
As a young pianist myself, I can confirm Gould lives on in his influence. Please cry about it@@gothamelliott
@gothamelliott okay, Mr Adjective
Gould was not the only pianist who didn't like/play Chopin. Alfred Brendel also rarely played Chopin, as he thought Chopin belonged to Chopin specialists.
He didn't like Beethoven's Emperor and belittled it. So what's more to say?
GG is so clearly making fun of Chopin here. The comments suggesting he can’t play it or misses it or “doesn’t get it” are flat out wrong. He plays the Impromptu without pedaling (I bet he was doing it from memory) as if to say, “you call this music? You see when you strip away all the emotion of the interpreter, not there in the composition itself, this is what is left. Do you want music or performance?” This isn’t a teenager studying the piece who doesn’t “get it”. This is a master technician, saying he doesn’t see value in adding anything whatsoever beyond the notes and notations of the composer. Now, I happen to love Arthur Rubenstein’s Chopin, full of tenderness and emotion. But Gould was a mathematician, an academic, and a strict Constructionist of musical arts, a musician, but not a performer.
I just learned this from reading his obituary. "He felt the standard 19th-century piano repertory - of Chopin, Liszt and Schumann - to be ''a colossal waste of time.'" I think everyone should give it a read as it gives great insight into his view of piano.
Is this a Chopin piece?? I am not familiar with it. If it is, it's the first time I have heard Gould play Chopin.
This is an interesting interview indeed. I would like to dig deeper as to what Gould meant by a "weak" moment: "0:46 I play it in a weak moment maybe once a year or twice a year for myself..."
When he feels weak. Glenn thought non-polyphonic music (like Mozart, Chopin, although Chopin was influenced by Bach and had his own polyphonic quality in his pieces) was weaker. I think Glenn might’ve played Chopin’s miniatures more often than that as a youngster.
Coming home on all four, completely drunk. Without his reasoning. Just pure feeling. Let's say: heart-broken, from a failed date. :)
@@tenno1981 And mind you, Chopin is great for heartbreak, because he experienced it quite a few times in his life.
I think he meant it was hedonistic and shallow and it's like giving into lower passions to play it ... about 2:53 he talks about the 'indulgences' about the piano that he doesn't like and I think this helps to understand his 'weak' comment
Ghastly: sounds like a typewriter. Gould was an extraordinary musician, but I think he enjoyed being provocative.
amazing interpretation.
Gould made a very important point in interview once - what is the point in adding YET ANOTHER peformance of such-n-such a piece to the catalogue UNLESS you're going to do something NEW with it.
F...ery interesting. Indeed!! However, I'm not convinced he just didn't want to play Chopin, for reasons he described here. In the sixties ( early ) he arrived at a get together attended by other famous pianist on the concert platform. And greeted them with, " you play Chopin ". Gould didnt want be typed into their ' category ', curious, regarding the use of the pedal for sustaining the lie ( kind of a golf reference here ). He must have loved Bach's WTC # 20 in a minor ( must be the most difficult fugue) of the 1st book ). If you can handle it smoothly. And at a clip matching his playing. You can play anything. We'll not reference Mr. Horowitz though. Of whom played mostly absence of over pedaling. But, we know how he, Gould felt about him. Funny also that he talked about Arthur Schnable. A classmate of mine used to laugh at the master's performances. Sometimes missing or smudging of notes', Gould saying here, that his over use of the pedal was possibly for this reason. Gould was his own man. And virtually no one could out play him. Except Mr. Horowitz. Certainly others had they put their mind to playing J. S. Bach exclusively. But still, none could match his overall geniuse. As for Chopin. He did record his 2nd concerto in F minor. And his sonata, 3rd in B minor. Gould was sneaky about Chopin. Both these works he deliberately trudged through them, alla his reading of Brahm's 1st concerto in d minor. Much to the chagrin of Lenny Bernstein. As for the b minor sonata. I'm willing to bet he listened to the matchless sound and playing of William Kapell. There is a recording of Kapell playing Bach's D major partita. Way before Gould came around. Case in point of matching him at his own game. If you didnt know who was playing this partita. You might have thought it was Gould himself. Check it out. Sadly however. The final Gigue is missing, due to Mr. Kapell's untimely death. Otherwise, l love this interview.
He played the impromptu like a Bach invention
A BAD invention at that.
@@rogercarroll2551 Whoever invented Glenn’s Chopin was a bad inventor.
Yes Chopin was not for him. Like Ravel or Debussy I guess. Funny to see they were pianists composers. Bach never composed for piano.
I do find myself agreeing with Gould- for miniatures, he's great I guess and in the Chopin dances I do use the pedal just for punctuation.
He's not using pedal playing this Impromptu, am I right?
Mostly
I don’t think so.
04:18 ok, this is probably how J.S.Bach playing Chopin if he had the chance...😆
nope
This is one of the most interesting Gould interviews for me even though I love Chopin. Glenn marched to the beat of a different drum. I hear a little Charlie Parker or Bud Powell here. ruclips.net/user/clipUgkx2j9SVlpYNNvyhhJU9T2BWuWJEd8TNUMr
what a poor fellow!
Agreed Glenn!
"Zagral jak u cioci na imieninach". ("He played it like at the auntie's name day party"). :)
What about Chopin's wonderful timeless piano concerti ???? Hogwash, Mr. Gould. Hogwash.
“Large works”
Which probably meant large scale works. (Sonatas, Variations, Concerti, Cello and Piano Sonata, Piano Trio, Rondo ala Krakowiak?)
I do not like Chopin’s sonatas in C minor and B minor, I like the B flat minor.
Nor do I particularly like the variations.
I like the Rondo ala Krakowiak but I do not like Chopin’s piano concerto no.2, and anyway I like his first one.
I like the Cello and Piano sonata.
The Piano Trio is good as well.
Glenn has a point though. Chopin kinda lost patience with the larger works (sometimes) but his short pieces are excellent
In a hundred years Mozart and Chopin will still be played and Glenn Gould will have been forgotten.
Well yeah? Of course , and Bach will still be played even 500 years from now. No one listens to Glenn because of his composing skills but he’s unique renditions.
Gould is still remembered 41 years after his death. Looks good for him so far.
All his greatness yet he has no love for Chopin. Somethings just can never be figured out.
He plays it a bit mechanical which is more befitting for Bach.
Bach being 'mechanical' is a misconception, his manuscripts are curved not straight, and show an overflow of emotion!
Oh I think Chopin was one of the greatest composers who ever lived and Beethoven's in my opinion wrote absolutely great piano music but everyone's entitled to their own opinions
I think a part of why gould said chopin wasn't a great composer was because, although some of chopin's pieces sound "very beautiful", there exist lot of musical cliches in chopin's melodies vs, say, no cliches in the likes of bach, or mozart, for example... 😮
Come on people, are you deaf? This is obviously a recording by an aspiring pianist who hasn't mastered the score yet. It's technically subpar, which would be totally uncommon for the mature Gould. But he was a late bloomer, even technically. So if this is really Gould as a teenager, this recording should never have been made public. It's awkward at moments, there's quite a lot of technical failures (even wrong notes, most uncharacteristically) and musically it's meh at best. The half dead piano doesn't help either.
Under no circumstances can this be considered as a "real" Gould interpretation, like for example his third Chopin sonata.
Gould simply couldn’t understand human drama, as Chopin manifested it. He could only understand musical-structural drama. Chopin’s Etude op. 25 no. 7 would have made him panic, as it embodies the heart as it moves through time. Gould resisted the heart.
Exactly he could not understand musical heart.
Did you listened to some of his Beethoven sonatas? Tempest? And the Brahms Concerto? Full of drama...
I'd say he couldn't understand melo-drama, hollywood crap.
Listen to his Brahms intermezzi and you can't help but think that's Glenn can be quite hypocritical to the stuff that he says.
@@jonsiiithe opening bars of the ballade 4 have more heart and meaning than entire sonatas of other works.
@@jonsiiiyou think Chopin is akin to melodramatic Hollywood crap?
Are you a psychopath? What planet do you live on
Gould would never have made it if Chopin was his "thing". It is to our good fortune that he was Bach and only Bach; Gould was not really a pianist (and whatever he was playing on is just nominally a piano).
He was a harpsichordist, frankly.
I had hitherto not thought of Chopin as anything less than great composer. After listening to GG's logical reasons for this..he convinced me.
Wow. Gould really butchered that Chopin piece. I suspect he might have played that way on purpose.
It’s nice in a way, because I see things in that piece I don’t see in others interpretations.
And yes, he did butcher it.
He butchered Mozart sonatas, too!
Very unusual pianist who apparently only felt comfortable playing Bach
Some of Gould's opinions strike me as perverse and not terribly well thought out. His recording of Chopin's B minor Sonata, Opus 58, is the most bizarre performance of that great work I have ever heard. Some of Gould's Bach is magnificent, but his interpretations of other composers, not so much…he was a genius, however, if a highly eccentric one.
Contrary to most, I think Gould did understand Chopin's qualities. The problem is that those qualities were out of his reach, as evidently shown in his attempt at the Impromptu.
It's not like he just didn't like this music
Gould's playing of this piece communicates his fundamental feeling about Chopin quite well: does not like at all.
We are the sum total of our contradictions as does Glenn Gould seem to appropriate. And to that, he is not within the moment of the Impromptu. An outsider looking in. Perhaps the question is one of integrity over intelligence where did the blood of Chopin's music surge through Cortot's veins to make an indelible difference.But his correct to the hilt in one thing: no one understood the piano and the physiology of the human hand in playing it more than Chopin which is to say at its most basic, without Chopin not even would Glenn Gould hav become who he became even if only by way of a distant association.
It’s quite ironic that Gould calls Chopin a “master setter of moods” yet insists that his music does not convince him.
If music is not all about setting moods, then what is it? There’s a reason why we have terms like Allegro, Adagio, Andante, Vivace, etc, from the very beginning the composer tells us the mood he is seeking for his piece.
If Chopin is the “master setters of moods” then how can you even dislike his music.
Paradoxically, the musician he most likes, the ultimate master setters of moods is Bach, because he captures the whole range of moods beautifully. How come he doesn’t dislike Bach? Because I’m sensing mood setting is bad argument.
chopins music does not embodies music to it fullest, its egoistic, only thought by oneself, there is music wehre all tones are equal and they all have the potential of symbolism in its old thought
um es deutlicher werden zu lassen. chopins music ist die leichteste, weil sie die einfachste gestalt von musik überhaupt verkörpert. links und rechts, aber obendrein: nichts dialektisches, es muss da ja auch nichts sein, aber wenn seine musik schon so zerissen ist...
Gould didn’t understand Chopin. Period.
Nicely done since he didn’t say anything about his more patriotic side..,mazurkas? Polonaises?
Quite a disastrous impromptu, given the level at which he played other music.
Quite arrogant comments.
Opinions are like A-holes and everyone has one, Gould just certified that statement...😆
I find this very interesting. Always knew that Gould didn't prefer Chopin but never heard why. His explanation is perplexing, yet revealing. I think that Gould was wired for the robotic style of Bach, which ironically is beautiful......if played like a robot; which Gould did as well as anybody. It's funny listening to him play Chopin however.....it's as if he sucked all of the color out of the piece and while played technically perfect, it's like fingernails down a chalkboard. I guess we should all just be happy that regardless of the composer, there is always somebody that we feel has interpreted it correctly. When I think of how Chopin played his works, Gould does not come to mind...... ever....but when I hear a Gould/Bach piece, I think it's very close to Bach's intentions.
@Martin Baldwin-Edwards I love Gould, and Bach....but you might want to read the 138 comments before mine. Bach requires a robotic/mechanical playing style. He was very specific how he wanted his music played. It's very clear in his notations. Gould was wired the same way and thus, played it perfectly; just the way Bach intended it. If Chopin were to play Bach, it would probably sound horrible, and vice versa. Bach abhorred Rubato and Chopin embraced it. That's what makes music so great. Everyone's different!
Robotic? what
Well I get that he didn't like chopin, when he plays it like this. He was a musical genius no question, but he didn't seem to understand chopin as well as he understood bach at all
Gould should have closed his mouth sometimes.
Denying Chopin’s genius is pure foolish.
His prelude n*4 in E minor is an absolute beauty, really close to Bethoven’s Moonlight sonata level tbh
Yes, that's called "miniature", which Gould mentioned. You missed Gould's point.
haha hush child I bet that's all you know
What a terrible recording of Chopin. Clearly one does not like Chopin's music if one plays like this; yes, I know it was an old recording from what, the 1940'ies when G. was a kid? But you can find a recording of Chopin's B-minor Sonata played by Gould which shows how little he can play Chopin, I don't know why, probably because he needed a lighter and more fluent fingerwork (attack, touch).
Glenn: well since I don’t like Chopin why not murder it?
Chopin: No. Don’t murder it.
Glenn: ok I’m gonna play this impromptu
Chopin: No! I don’t like this.
Glenn: first I play like a Hanon excercise
Chopin: NO! Don’t play it like that! I don’t wanna be rude and write torture excercises like Hanon.
Glenn: ignore pedal dynamics and rubato marks
Chopin: NO!!!! YOU IDIOT THAT’S NOT HOW YOU DO IT!
Glenn: Now I’ll play.
Chopin: *NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! Please Glenn don’t murder it. Please.*
Glenn Gould when recording B minor sonata: I swear I heard something while playing that impromptu 30 years ago…
Chopin: At least you can play Bach…
Grumpy piano teacher hard to find Chopin calling Glenn an idiot. He would probably respect his recordings of Bach.
But yes he would tell him not to murder the impromptu lol
as USUAL ,imo....he plays BETTER INFORMALLY...as if just curiously toying with the chopin...all its ''Hidden aspects" that FAMED chopin players are glowingly paraded as "LEGENDARY" in revelations for....after LIFETIMES of study practice,,,preparations...lessons and lessons and more lessons....with REPEATED programs...until they WIN competitions and play carnegie...in the best teams of recording.........on pieces or music that Glenn Gould plays as a matter of almost ''careless" disregard for the "indulgences" that make ENTIRE "great legendary" careers...that is what is unbelievable, not just about GOULD himself in his depth...and the situation of concert performance and the "standards" of excellence....
which are largely built obsessively around ....technical brilliance '"politically correct" playing....PLENTY of media exaggerations and obsession about THE playing...and little to do with the MUSIC or Original perception itself to bring out what GOULD COULD with unbelievable , thoughtul spontaneiety.....ONLY a TRULY great musician , artist, and thinker accomplishes that...in millions of "stars" on the stage.....
Beethoven didn't write great for the piano... WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
he is right tho in the technical aspect beethoven wrote relly akwared runs and paseges/ in many ways beethoven wrote for the piano in a syimphonic way
I agree with this! Especially compared to Chopin, where almost everything fits nicely under the hand (or at least mine!), Beethoven (and most other composers) seem to have written the score first and decided later that it should be played on the piano (not literally, but I hope you understand what I mean).
@@moomoo7437 Chopin wrote mainly for the piano so obviously he should know what he was doing.
@@glenngouldschair390 One of the first composers to do so, it's part of the reason us pianists love him 😉
@@moomoo7437 true
Although sometimes I think chopin does NOT know what he was doing
The people below who comment this is mechanical playing, like Hanons, really do not get it and are not listening.
Gould is playing with a high degree of verve and elan, etching the music with great whimsy -- just on a whole other plane than Chopin is traditionally played.
The music shines through in terms of its composite phrases, like interweaving leaves. That he doesn't indulge in legato pedaling of the sonorities, but rather traces them like a pixie traipsing through star dust, is a feat no other pianist on earth could bring off, before or since.
One commenter gets the perfect word below: Declamation. No pianist ever touched Gould's ability to pronounce a musical phrase.
I've never heard Chopin played so badly by a professional pianist. Either GG dislikes Chopin so is not going to try to play him well, or he so can't grasp Chopin it comes out badly... GG is a literalist. He likes music that is polyphonic, each note has it's purpose in the musical line - Bach, Beethoven. Maybe He can't grasp the romantic concept of forward notes and background notes...
Or maybe that concept is a mind-numbing indulgence and the reason early romantic music is so popular with general audiences is because it's basic and trashy?
Lots of inaccuracies and outright mistakes in that Chopin Impromptu.
Wow I admire Gould but man that performance of the impromptu sucked
he was trolling
He was a teenager, practicing on primitive recording equipment. At home.
Not just me, but most people disagree with his opinion. Thankfully Chopin doesn't need another fan in Glen Gould...., probably since his personality didn't fit in with him, and he didn't sound his best on Chopin, he developed an apathy and aesthetic hostility toward him....his performance here is dreadful....
He isn't trying to perform it seriously. He's making a joke of it.
A super competition of Chopin, very bad playing - Rubinstein!!!!!!!!
Gould qui fait le malin comme toujours, et se ridiculise… comme toujours.
Glenn ne s’en fichera pas. Pendant sa vie, il fait le malin pour attirer l’attention.
The problem is everyone take the opinions of Glen Gould to seriously, because some of his comments make no sense at all.
Apart from Bach, Gould didn't produce anything really convincing either ! For me, he is a sort of taliban of classical music. For instance, he didn't like Mozart and has butchered its sonatas to explain that he was NOT the great genius people say he is. That's just insanity ...
You should hear his recording of Mozart’s 24th piano concerto with Bernstein. He plays it in good faith. He had the perfect technique to play Mozart and it’s a shame he didn’t like him more. To say Gould wasn’t a genius is ridiculous though.
What about his Beethoven?
@@louisvalencia5244 Yeah, probably his recordings of Beethoven’s concertos are as good as anyones - and my favorites.
Michel, I have to disagree! Look for example at Beethoven Op. 109-110-111, La Valse own transcriprion, the superb Shomberg, the genial Berg op.1,
Hayden sonatas, Beethoven Op 1, Hindemits fugas, and many many others. And the intimate Brahms..... I didn't get from other pianists same emotions for the same pieces.
Gould plays a horrible Chopin.
Terrible reading of the Chopin Impromptu.
The piano sounds terrible
His playing of Chopin is terrible, without soul, without emotion.
Its because he hated Chopin
His Chopin playing is awful. It's sounds like a child unevenly cranking a jack in the box. No legato whatsoever ever and too many abrupt pauses. That may work for Bach fugues, but not for Chopin & his "Belle canto" approach. His style is far too jerky.
the worst version I've ever heard of this impromptu. And this guy dares to talk about composers as if he were one of them?
Gould was a barely talented snob. He didn't like Chopin because he wasn't skilled enough. His mechanical playing makes me cringe.
Shockingly for GG, an awful performance, and, even more shockingly, technically deficient.