I guess all the other performers know more than Mozart? No one can say for sure, everyone is guessing. Notice that Gould is accused of playing too slow or too fast. For me he has great musical logic for what he does. He is explaining his whole concept for the entire variations. Like it or not, the man was a genius.
"Whatever the notes are...", hahaha, you just gotta love Glenn Gould, the way he so highly respects the old composers yet does the very opposite of what maestro Mozart wrote. I persoally don't think Mozart, of all people, would mind. He'd probably find it interesting and amusing.
@@benr7882 haha funny comment but historically unfounded. Chopin was a bit what we would call a snob. He would be cold, unapproachable and despondant to people not in his circle but very amicable, considerate even childishly innocent and a talented pantomime to those inside it. Most people only dreamed to get to know him. He was also known to hold grudges and not forgive. His temperament must have spanned the whole spectrum just like his music.
The whole reasoning behind his unorthodox interpretations is explained sufficiently when he says that all the basic statements have been made for posterity of the classical repertoire by other pianists up until his time. Written by Mozart or not, the music is a sequence of notes, and many of his sonatas have become so stereotypical, so familiar, that his Baroque-inspired approach is interesting. Jazz music is often re-invented in this way, and in improvisations. The truth is that technique is the backbone to the music. The statement itself can be modified with the technique, and Gould has the means of doing that so he did.
God Genius. The piano was part of him literally. A perfect extension of him. Even that is not a good description of it. The piano is an integral part of him, like anything else in his body and mind.
@unpodimusica1 FYI, there is an important part of this interview missing from the video clip: prior to playing this work, Gould is explaining to Bruno Monsaingeon that the entire piano repertory has already been played according to convention -- that is, all standard interpretations have been performed and recorded countless times, and that -- as he shows us with this sonata -- it is incumbent upon the artist to break new ground, according to the demands of the public. This was how he did it.
@DaGuittarMan He said, "Whatever the notes are. And gradually the whole thing took off". My comment: He is really enjoying the music. He is being playful and inventive. Music is a joy for those who make it so.
This person from heaven did the Classical Music Revolution of the century. And the world needed it because everyone was loosing interest in classical music with things such as jazz, blues, early rap etc. taking over the music industry.
My admiration for GG is close to unbounded. But his charming, articulate and enthusiastic justification for such a perverse approach to this unsuspecting Mozart Sonata really borders on the surreal. I have to think that GG was seeing just how far he could go in "stringing along" his audience. This is not to say that many of the other Mozart Sonatas he recorded weren't also performed in a revisionist way -- consider some of the extremely fast tempi, for example -- but pianists could at least gasp in disbelief at Gould's incredible facility. I remember one critic who reviewed Gould's recording of K. 284 and said he thought the turntable was on 45 rather than 33. Someone else once described his immaculate passagework as sounding like holding down the space bar on an old IBM Selectric. Let's just be thankful that we had GG for as long as we did.
Very amusing comment and insightfully accurate. GG was playing here in a most polite way and it was not deprecating but purely musical prooving that music is a play of the mind.
I can't believe Gould disliked Mozart as much as he implied. His slow interpretation of the theme implies something entirely different, he seems to be positively lingering on it, as though he couldn't let it go. He often plays Mozart in this extreme slowness of tempo and it may sometimes sound tongue-in-cheek but to me it indicates a lingering affection for the music. In any case it has something. I personally might not play it so slowly but I love it nevertheless!
It's a song, why not play it like a song. The wonder of the variations is making so much out of a simple song with its lilt and popular appeal. Then get cerebral.
@@ciri151 You're right that it's not a song, I shouldn't have said that. But it IS a dance, a siciliana. Most popular dances of the time had words. People sang when they danced, for the most part, they provided their own music. My point was that it is a popular tune in character, it has a lilt of a dance. Who knows if Mozart actually made up the tune or not, it's not that important, what he does with it is important. Variations after that become abstractions. Gould himself can't resist singing along but only after playing the actual melody like a stiff. He treats the set of variations like one long string, ignoring Mozart's tempos, turning the piece into his own playground for his own scheme. In Gould's playing whatever's in his own head is more important than the listeners.
@@ignacioclerici5341 I'm not making my comments because I wish Gould had played it the way I like it. An artist has a certain leeway with what the composer wrote, and some things are not OK, things that the composer clearly did NOT intend with their notation. A manuscript is not a blank slate, it carries with it implicit traditions and understandings the composer assumes the performer will have. A score is a recipe, but a recipe does not define the boundaries of what's OK to add to the ingredients or how to cook it. IN Mozart's time recipes wouldn't have included precise cooking temperatures or a lot of other instructions we expect to find in modern cookbooks. So if an 18th-century recipe doesn't define what temperature to use, is it OK to cook the dish at whatever temperature we find interesting? No, You have to have an idea of how the dish is supposed to come out. If you know how a siciliana is supposed to feel, it's NOT OK to play it at a tempo that fulfills an abstract concept of the set of variations as a whole that is from Gould's mind alone. There is such a thing as original intent in music, which still leaves tons of room for interpretation, but a recreation artist, which is what an interpreter of other peoples' music is doing, has to at least start with an idea of what the composer had in mind as the starting point and Gould ignores that with so many composers in so many instances because he chooses to remake someone else's work in his image. He was a capable composer, if he wanted things his own way he should have performed more of his own music. It's a dangerous path to tread deciding you know better than the composer about their music.
I often listen glenn gould and I have heard many pieces thanks to Gould. But when I later hear the older performances or traditional performances I always prefer Gould. The only player that gives me the same satisfaction as Gould is Richter.
Frickin' heck.....there is something special about his playing. I've never been much into pianists except Chopin and Beethoven, but Gould has a spirit in his playing that is unmatched.
t i find that some people try to play exactly the way a piece is written, it is of course fine to do so but the part that i hate is when they do that without trying something new.
He had to follow his musical logic. I don't see what else an artist can do. Thankfully it gave us something new to enjoy. We have tons of recordings of it being played the hollywood way. what's the point of having more.
@biorythme232 The only thing is John Carmack has an American accent and Glenn Gould was decidedly Canadian with a Torontonian accent. (I assume Torontonian, because he was born and raised there. I don't really know what a Torontonian accent, LOL).
@marilyncrosbie That is what I thought he said too, but my friend kept telling me that he said "forgot the notes there". And I'm not american, so I just wanted a second opinion. Thanks
Gould outright proclaims that the only reason he plays it so appallingly in bad taste is that "he had to get a reaction". Sums up his career quite well.
The video is missing his statement that he feels the need to play it differently, because a lot of people had already performed and recorded the "correct" versions and the audience seeked something new. And I can't see why this different taste is a bad one. We should reinvent the music to keep it alive.
@@aimilios439 new =/= good. Different =/= good. For the record, I'm the supreme champion of being original, but what Gould does is a deliberate provocation, altering even the most basic stylistic substance of given music, just to bolster his idiotic worldview of unnecessary iconoclasm. He's an egotist of the highest order - what music he couldn't fathom, he modified beyond recognition.
@@Kris9kris I didn't say any new or different thing is good. I said it could be good. And if you've put your thought on it, it certainly isn't dull or tasteless to all of people. You can't just delete a man's taste, because it's a taste. He put his compositional mind on the notes of Mozart and thought of a different way it would work. In this case he made it a climactic movement. I don't believe you think every piece with a straight unending climax is bad. Let me put put this way: if Mozart wrote it as Gould performed and Glenn performed as Amadeus wrote (the opposite than reality), what would you say, as the most original interpreter? That Mozart himself was tasteless and Gould was right? I don't think so. We shouldn't cancel musical creation in the name of originality. You don't like it? Fine, but a man read those notes and tried as a composer to think in how many ways the piece could work with reasoning. And a lot of people, not all tasteless ones, like it. As long as you say it's not Mozart but Mozart-Gould and you don't mislead people (as Gould clearly states), it's alright.
@@aimilios439 You make a lot of blanket statements “We shouldn't cancel musical creation in the name of originality”, as well as presuppositions/non-sequiturs like “And if you've put your thought on it, it certainly isn't dull or tasteless to all of people”. How can I make sense of these half-formed assertions? They don’t even reflect on my earlier comment. “if Mozart wrote it as Gould performed” This sentence is especially baffling to me. Up until maybe Liszt, composers rarely wrote detailed performance instructions, because composers, contrary to popular belief, didn’t write music for posterity, they wrote for their own time. Robert Levin explained this perfectly: composers only wrote down what wasn’t instantly obvious to a well-educated musician of their time. What *was* obvious to a bloke living in 1780 are all the little stylistic details that were intrinsically linked to the music and that particular era. 100-200 years from now on, people will learn about internet lingo in a history book and as time goes on, this vernacular will be extinct in the lingua franca. And yes, I’m aware that there were differences even then, you’re not supposed to play Clementi like Haydn, but I digress. To give you an example: in the 18th century, it was not only customary but expected to decorate repeats in a sonata movement. I can accept with charity that you find Gould’s untrammelled ego a fascinating subject, but these stylistic elements are intrinsically linked to the music and deliver the message of the composer much more truthfully and authentically. Yes, I believe that is a very important key element to a good performance - you can’t say you have an absolute authority to perform a piece of music if you don’t understand/involved yourself in the fundamentals of the piece’s genesis. Then you can invoke your own persona. We should stop the charade of hiding behind the barrier of “subjectivity” and not call out the likes of high profile performers like Gould who make tasteless, ill-appropriate arrangements (as you said) of Mozart *then* sell them as the “correct” way of interpreting it. Gould doesn’t understand anything about the classical style, moreover, he routinely boasts about his utter ignorance with great pride! That’s why historical performers hate him. Would you be comfortable with a microbiologist publishing a paper on sociology?
@@Kris9kris I'm sorry if my statements aren't crystal clear, English is not my mother tongue and you are right in this part. I'll try to be better. I've never seen Gould sell his interpretations as "the" correct. Yes, I think the classicist style doesn't really reasonate in him and it's pretty understandable, as he was a raw 20'th century composer. I don't really know why you think his practice is wrong. Not of your taste, not of Mozart's, but why wrong? It's an all or nothing situation. Or we play exactly what Mozart thought (or we think he thought), with period tempo, tuning, instruments, halls, or what to do with his music is completely free. Gould wasn't selfish. His grand wish was to have only recordings and no performances, and the recordings to have an interface so the listener make his own mix, tempo, dynamics and master in his own taste. Eccentric full, selfish not. He has his own opinions an market them as such. I can't think what is wrong with that, changing a composition aside.
you call me mad lol? after you use fourletter words.. mozart was german, as salzburg was alway belonging to bayuvaria germany before napoleon... only after 1800 salzburg became first an austrian town,, so if you know mozars birth and deathdate, you will realize that your wrong. not even to mentiojn that mozart himself wrote that he isproud to be german
I guess all the other performers know more than Mozart? No one can say for sure, everyone is guessing. Notice that Gould is accused of playing too slow or too fast. For me he has great musical logic for what he does. He is explaining his whole concept for the entire variations. Like it or not, the man was a genius.
we don't have markings for the time for mozart and the markings for beethoven don't make much sense.
Rhythm, poetry, a uniquely resounding pace for each of us, in our endless, yet infinitesimally minute spaces n ting
There was certainly method to Gould's madness. He knew exactly what he was doing.
He was just an eccentric and an unconventional figure. Nothing mad about it
No genius about it either.
Mari Christian why “mad”? Does every genius have to be considered “mad”? I personally don’t think so.
@@-dash " Method to madness" is a figure of speech. The implication is that Gould did nothing at random.
"Whatever the notes are...", hahaha, you just gotta love Glenn Gould, the way he so highly respects the old composers yet does the very opposite of what maestro Mozart wrote. I persoally don't think Mozart, of all people, would mind. He'd probably find it interesting and amusing.
"The performer is not the composer's humble servant, but a collaborator.." (George Malcolm)
moltoallegro19
👏👏👏
Chopin would kill him is he did that to his music. Lol Chopin was an amazing person but no one really liked him. He is Chopin after all…
@@benr7882 Chopin owes me $10 from a few yrs ago. A real deadbeat.
@@benr7882 haha funny comment but historically unfounded. Chopin was a bit what we would call a snob. He would be cold, unapproachable and despondant to people not in his circle but very amicable, considerate even childishly innocent and a talented pantomime to those inside it.
Most people only dreamed to get to know him. He was also known to hold grudges and not forgive. His temperament must have spanned the whole spectrum just like his music.
The whole reasoning behind his unorthodox interpretations is explained sufficiently when he says that all the basic statements have been made for posterity of the classical repertoire by other pianists up until his time. Written by Mozart or not, the music is a sequence of notes, and many of his sonatas have become so stereotypical, so familiar, that his Baroque-inspired approach is interesting. Jazz music is often re-invented in this way, and in improvisations. The truth is that technique is the backbone to the music. The statement itself can be modified with the technique, and Gould has the means of doing that so he did.
I love unconventional interpretations, it lets us see the same music in a new light
God Genius. The piano was part of him literally. A perfect extension of him. Even that is not a good description of it. The piano is an integral part of him, like anything else in his body and mind.
Its a shame that "extension" included his vocal chords ...
@@SearchBucket2 I bet you are not fun at the parties you are accidentally invited to.
@@JackBirdbath Even his record producer wanted to mute him. lol
he is lovely
I think Mozart would have liked Glenn Gould
He was excellent - but no Liberace!!!!!!
Bucky Brown ha!
Sure!
definitively, Mozart has an intelligent and playful sense of humor as well.
@unpodimusica1 FYI, there is an important part of this interview missing from the video clip: prior to playing this work, Gould is explaining to Bruno Monsaingeon that the entire piano repertory has already been played according to convention -- that is, all standard interpretations have been performed and recorded countless times, and that -- as he shows us with this sonata -- it is incumbent upon the artist to break new ground, according to the demands of the public. This was how he did it.
@DaGuittarMan He said, "Whatever the notes are. And gradually the whole thing took off". My comment: He is really enjoying the music. He is being playful and inventive. Music is a joy for those who make it so.
One amazing human being. I am speechless.
This person from heaven did the Classical Music Revolution of the century. And the world needed it because everyone was loosing interest in classical music with things such as jazz, blues, early rap etc. taking over the music industry.
Can't help but have the biggest grin across my face while watching this.
Man, this is so beautiful! ❤
My admiration for GG is close to unbounded. But his charming, articulate and enthusiastic justification for such a perverse approach to this unsuspecting Mozart Sonata really borders on the surreal. I have to think that GG was seeing just how far he could go in "stringing along" his audience. This is not to say that many of the other Mozart Sonatas he recorded weren't also performed in a revisionist way -- consider some of the extremely fast tempi, for example -- but pianists could at least gasp in disbelief at Gould's incredible facility. I remember one critic who reviewed Gould's recording of K. 284 and said he thought the turntable was on 45 rather than 33. Someone else once described his immaculate passagework as sounding like holding down the space bar on an old IBM Selectric. Let's just be thankful that we had GG for as long as we did.
Very amusing comment and insightfully accurate. GG was playing here in a most polite way and it was not deprecating but purely musical prooving that music is a play of the mind.
I can't believe Gould disliked Mozart as much as he implied. His slow interpretation of the theme implies something entirely different, he seems to be positively lingering on it, as though he couldn't let it go. He often plays Mozart in this extreme slowness of tempo and it may sometimes sound tongue-in-cheek but to me it indicates a lingering affection for the music. In any case it has something. I personally might not play it so slowly but I love it nevertheless!
It's a song, why not play it like a song. The wonder of the variations is making so much out of a simple song with its lilt and popular appeal. Then get cerebral.
@@davidmdyer838 It's a piece. Not a song.
@@ciri151 You're right that it's not a song, I shouldn't have said that. But it IS a dance, a siciliana. Most popular dances of the time had words. People sang when they danced, for the most part, they provided their own music. My point was that it is a popular tune in character, it has a lilt of a dance. Who knows if Mozart actually made up the tune or not, it's not that important, what he does with it is important. Variations after that become abstractions. Gould himself can't resist singing along but only after playing the actual melody like a stiff. He treats the set of variations like one long string, ignoring Mozart's tempos, turning the piece into his own playground for his own scheme. In Gould's playing whatever's in his own head is more important than the listeners.
@@davidmdyer838 the listeners are supossed to listen to the artist, it's not the artist who has to do what the listeners want. Pretty obvious.
@@ignacioclerici5341 I'm not making my comments because I wish Gould had played it the way I like it. An artist has a certain leeway with what the composer wrote, and some things are not OK, things that the composer clearly did NOT intend with their notation. A manuscript is not a blank slate, it carries with it implicit traditions and understandings the composer assumes the performer will have. A score is a recipe, but a recipe does not define the boundaries of what's OK to add to the ingredients or how to cook it. IN Mozart's time recipes wouldn't have included precise cooking temperatures or a lot of other instructions we expect to find in modern cookbooks. So if an 18th-century recipe doesn't define what temperature to use, is it OK to cook the dish at whatever temperature we find interesting? No, You have to have an idea of how the dish is supposed to come out. If you know how a siciliana is supposed to feel, it's NOT OK to play it at a tempo that fulfills an abstract concept of the set of variations as a whole that is from Gould's mind alone. There is such a thing as original intent in music, which still leaves tons of room for interpretation, but a recreation artist, which is what an interpreter of other peoples' music is doing, has to at least start with an idea of what the composer had in mind as the starting point and Gould ignores that with so many composers in so many instances because he chooses to remake someone else's work in his image. He was a capable composer, if he wanted things his own way he should have performed more of his own music. It's a dangerous path to tread deciding you know better than the composer about their music.
Love his breath of fresh air WAM!
I often listen glenn gould and I have heard many pieces thanks to Gould. But when I later hear the older performances or traditional performances I always prefer Gould. The only player that gives me the same satisfaction as Gould is Richter.
I love you, Glenn
I love this man! He challenges all our conventional wisdom...
Frickin' heck.....there is something special about his playing. I've never been much into pianists except Chopin and Beethoven, but Gould has a spirit in his playing that is unmatched.
Ah yes, I love lisztening to Chopin & Beethoven's playing
@@erezsolomon3838 So do I. They haven’t released many new records for a while now, I wonder why.
Glenn, why are you so cute?
Because he didn't know, the cutest peoples are the one forgetting themselves.
Yes, definitely
Yes! He's automatically charming. So intelligent, so creative and playful and yet capable of making profound music. A timeless treasure!
from 1:30 to 1:40 Gould at his BEST!
the whole clip really.
@DaGuittarMan It's not very likely that Glenn Gould forgot the notes. He was brilliant and had an amazing memory for music.
Lol Don't You just Love this guy haha...
Agree or not agree with him he was so special and suburb.
GENIUS!!
thank you for inspiring me and encouraging me with a mind. be an artist everyone!
I LOVE Gould & agree that Mozart would be amused (laugh his head off) at hearing his music condemned by another arrogant musician. PS. I ADORE Mozart.
I'm not agreed with Mr Gould approach, but I can see why he plays this sonata in that way.
grazie
"whatever the notes are.." loll i love Glenn Gould
i like it.
"Whatever the notes are..."
:D
❤️
t i find that some people try to play exactly the way a piece is written, it is of course fine to do so but the part that i hate is when they do that without trying something new.
I always thought Ethan Hawke would make a great Glenn Gould in a biopic movie
Love the inimitable GG…..young Pogorelich had some interesting ideas also.
"whatever the notes are" HA!
he is just the business!
That clarity tho
He had to follow his musical logic. I don't see what else an artist can do. Thankfully it gave us something new to enjoy. We have tons of recordings of it being played the hollywood way. what's the point of having more.
😍😍😍
pls make a video titled the SEXINESS of glenn GOULD
Wait, I thought everyone played that last variation quickly?! Even my mother did!
Are you a family of musical gerbils, by any chance? I'd like to see a performance from those tiny hands!
@biorythme232 The only thing is John Carmack has an American accent and Glenn Gould was decidedly Canadian with a Torontonian accent. (I assume Torontonian, because he was born and raised there. I don't really know what a Torontonian accent, LOL).
❤️❤️❤️
Yes he was!
What did he mean by that? Surely he knew what the notes were.
Poh poh poh PAHH
It is clear Gould thought the later Mozart was a bad composer
does anyone know where this is from?
Which piece of Mozart is ?
Yes, "so perverse."
@marilyncrosbie That is what I thought he said too, but my friend kept telling me that he said "forgot the notes there". And I'm not american, so I just wanted a second opinion. Thanks
he says. "whatever the notes are." (I'm Canadian).
What piece is this? Thank you
Mozart, Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 (300i)
heh.. even though he didn't know the notes, he just improvised..
Hehe.
He speaks like John Carmack... Coincidence ? :]
Man.... He's like schizophrenic... Two different people when he plays and isn't playing. I don't mean that as an insult.
@marilyncrosbie Oh, I bet you're right!
Gould outright proclaims that the only reason he plays it so appallingly in bad taste is that "he had to get a reaction". Sums up his career quite well.
The video is missing his statement that he feels the need to play it differently, because a lot of people had already performed and recorded the "correct" versions and the audience seeked something new.
And I can't see why this different taste is a bad one. We should reinvent the music to keep it alive.
@@aimilios439 new =/= good. Different =/= good. For the record, I'm the supreme champion of being original, but what Gould does is a deliberate provocation, altering even the most basic stylistic substance of given music, just to bolster his idiotic worldview of unnecessary iconoclasm. He's an egotist of the highest order - what music he couldn't fathom, he modified beyond recognition.
@@Kris9kris I didn't say any new or different thing is good. I said it could be good. And if you've put your thought on it, it certainly isn't dull or tasteless to all of people. You can't just delete a man's taste, because it's a taste. He put his compositional mind on the notes of Mozart and thought of a different way it would work. In this case he made it a climactic movement. I don't believe you think every piece with a straight unending climax is bad. Let me put put this way: if Mozart wrote it as Gould performed and Glenn performed as Amadeus wrote (the opposite than reality), what would you say, as the most original interpreter? That Mozart himself was tasteless and Gould was right? I don't think so. We shouldn't cancel musical creation in the name of originality. You don't like it? Fine, but a man read those notes and tried as a composer to think in how many ways the piece could work with reasoning. And a lot of people, not all tasteless ones, like it. As long as you say it's not Mozart but Mozart-Gould and you don't mislead people (as Gould clearly states), it's alright.
@@aimilios439 You make a lot of blanket statements “We shouldn't cancel musical creation in the name of originality”, as well as presuppositions/non-sequiturs like “And if you've put your thought on it, it certainly isn't dull or tasteless to all of people”. How can I make sense of these half-formed assertions? They don’t even reflect on my earlier comment. “if Mozart wrote it as Gould performed” This sentence is especially baffling to me. Up until maybe Liszt, composers rarely wrote detailed performance instructions, because composers, contrary to popular belief, didn’t write music for posterity, they wrote for their own time. Robert Levin explained this perfectly: composers only wrote down what wasn’t instantly obvious to a well-educated musician of their time. What *was* obvious to a bloke living in 1780 are all the little stylistic details that were intrinsically linked to the music and that particular era. 100-200 years from now on, people will learn about internet lingo in a history book and as time goes on, this vernacular will be extinct in the lingua franca. And yes, I’m aware that there were differences even then, you’re not supposed to play Clementi like Haydn, but I digress. To give you an example: in the 18th century, it was not only customary but expected to decorate repeats in a sonata movement. I can accept with charity that you find Gould’s untrammelled ego a fascinating subject, but these stylistic elements are intrinsically linked to the music and deliver the message of the composer much more truthfully and authentically. Yes, I believe that is a very important key element to a good performance - you can’t say you have an absolute authority to perform a piece of music if you don’t understand/involved yourself in the fundamentals of the piece’s genesis. Then you can invoke your own persona. We should stop the charade of hiding behind the barrier of “subjectivity” and not call out the likes of high profile performers like Gould who make tasteless, ill-appropriate arrangements (as you said) of Mozart *then* sell them as the “correct” way of interpreting it. Gould doesn’t understand anything about the classical style, moreover, he routinely boasts about his utter ignorance with great pride! That’s why historical performers hate him. Would you be comfortable with a microbiologist publishing a paper on sociology?
@@Kris9kris I'm sorry if my statements aren't crystal clear, English is not my mother tongue and you are right in this part. I'll try to be better.
I've never seen Gould sell his interpretations as "the" correct. Yes, I think the classicist style doesn't really reasonate in him and it's pretty understandable, as he was a raw 20'th century composer. I don't really know why you think his practice is wrong. Not of your taste, not of Mozart's, but why wrong? It's an all or nothing situation. Or we play exactly what Mozart thought (or we think he thought), with period tempo, tuning, instruments, halls, or what to do with his music is completely free.
Gould wasn't selfish. His grand wish was to have only recordings and no performances, and the recordings to have an interface so the listener make his own mix, tempo, dynamics and master in his own taste. Eccentric full, selfish not. He has his own opinions an market them as such. I can't think what is wrong with that, changing a composition aside.
@Dirkovic80
obvious troll
He may be a genius but a tune is a tune, it's silly to play it like a skeleton instead of a natural song.
You call that pure
either he was being humorous or he thinks of the songs in terms of chords and is quasi-improvising.
What does he say at 1:58??
"Whatever the notes are.."
Definitely not "Grab the nutsack," if you're watching this with subtitles! :D
you call me mad lol? after you use fourletter words..
mozart was german, as salzburg was alway belonging to bayuvaria germany before napoleon...
only after 1800 salzburg became first an austrian town,, so if you know mozars birth and deathdate, you will realize that your wrong.
not even to mentiojn that mozart himself wrote that he isproud to be german
yu wil relize tat yur speling is rong (being sarcastic)
Glenn Gould should have sticked to Bach.
Improving on Mozart?... Dubious at best. Gould's admirers too often conflate eccentricity with artistry.
This is just wrong haha