4 ms·

Am I alone in finding Gould intolerable? I don't have the musical expertise to criticize him technically in depth, but I can best describe his interpretations a

Am I alone in finding Gould intolerable? I don't have the musical expertise to criticize him technically in depth, but I can best describe his interpretations as "robotic" sounding. Like listening to a player piano.

jacquesm 4y ago
Gould played Bach the way it is written, perfect tempo, minimal ornamentation, that may come across as 'robotic' to you but it's actually the style that most people that are into baroque favor. If you don't like Gould for Bach may I suggest Dinu Lipatti? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7PNFDrcqmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7PNFDrcqmY And if you had not heard about him maybe dive a bit deeper and see what else you like, he's an amazing pianist that unfortunately was born before really great quality recordings were made but what's there is well worth listening to. His '(unfortunately)Last Recital' is a masterpiece. Enjoy!
- easybake 4y ago
  > Gould played Bach the way it is written, perfect tempo, minimal ornamentation, that may come across as 'robotic' to you but it's actually the style that most people that are into baroque favor. Indeed! These compositions were ...composed "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study".[1], which I don't think is directly mentioned in the article except maybe from this quote by Gould: > ...“according to the musical disposition of that day, he was generations behind it”. It takes skill to play these compositions the way they were written. Piano is not my forte but what effort I have put into learning these tunes was well worth it. > If you don't like Gould for Bach may I suggest Dinu Lipatti? When I compare the two different performers, Gould sounds like he's playing to a metronome and Dinu Lipatti is playing to a pendulum. > And if you had not heard about him maybe dive a bit deeper and see what else you like, he's an amazing pianist that unfortunately was born before really great quality recordings were made but what's there is well worth listening to. Enjoy! Thank you for sharing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-Tempered_Clavier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-Tempered_Clavier
drivebycomment 4y ago
Which Gould performance ? He himself changed quite a bit in his many Bach performances over time, so it's interesting to listen and contrast his earlier, younger performances with his later works. I find many of Bach's music simultaneously "robotic" (brainiac, rational, calculating, etc) and extremely emotional at the same time and for me, that's one of the main draws of his music.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The difference between his first recording of the Goldberg variations and his last is a story all by itself, such difference in interpretation. Also have a look at the runlength.
olau 4y ago
I'm not into Gould because I too find much of his playing misguided and awful, so my understanding may be incorrect, but I think back in Gould's days, the general piano style was much more virtuoso. I think Gould provided some needed push back on that through his provocateur search for something different. He does have some great insights here and there - take the first movement of the tempest sonata: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIQH9OVH_MM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIQH9OVH_MM You can feel the raw wind in that.
lofatdairy 4y ago
I absolutely adore Gould, and while he's known for his Bach, I'd recommend his Mozart interpretations to better understand what makes him so unique and controversial. The irony of your "player piano" statement is that his famous 1955 Goldberg variations were redone by a company called Zenph to demonstrate the power of their software to re-perform any performance. Probably Gould was chosen because he's so famous and I _think_ the recording was in the public domain and convenient, but also Gould actually has a lot of idiosyncrasies that make his playing instantly recognizable and if anything more human.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOD1p4dGbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOD1p4dGbs That's a nice technical accomplishment (and probably it was very hard to get it to this stage). It makes me wonder if you had had Gould on a Yamaha Disklavier and recorded the MIDI stream how the two would compare.
  - lofatdairy 4y ago
    Probably one of the main differences would be due to re-digesting the MIDI back into sound. I think Zenph's tech actually plays the piano and physically records it. For MIDI, you'd probably use samplers like NI's Kontakt, and while the huge amount of collections available on that platform definitely are closer to real-world sound and variability, if you're just bouncing the raw to audio without re-recording in a physical space, there's probably at least some number of people who could tell the difference. I think there are physical modeling-based VSTs and instruments available, but it's been a really long time since I looked into that space. The biggest difference is that I'm sure if you introduced Gould to the world of MIDI and DAWs he probably wouldn't stop fiddling with it for months or years. Even back in the 60s and 70s I think he was well known to obsess over his recordings, and his practice of occasionally splicing performances to get the best from each take was/is pretty controversial. The irony also being that he was notoriously a pain to record because he often sang overtop his playing.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
ohthehugemanate 4y ago
Whoah that's a complaint I've never heard before! Do you know which of his 2 recordings you're listening to? The one from the 80s is much "straighter" than the original from 1962. Usually people complain - listening to the earlier version - that Gould plays fast and loose with the source. He makes opinionated choices throughout and even recomposes parts! All that being said, there are no wrong answers with this stuff. If you prefer it more freely played than Gould 62, that's perfectly valid and no music expert (worth listening to) will bat an eye. This thread has some good suggestions of other interpreters you may like more.
poulsbohemian 4y ago
I wouldn't say "intolerable" but there are certainly different interpretations. I like Schiff better than Gould, and I like Dinnerstein the most of all.

jacquesm 4y ago

Gould played Bach the way it is written, perfect tempo, minimal ornamentation, that may come across as 'robotic' to you but it's actually the style that most people that are into baroque favor. If you don't like Gould for Bach may I suggest Dinu Lipatti? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7PNFDrcqmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7PNFDrcqmY And if you had not heard about him maybe dive a bit deeper and see what else you like, he's an amazing pianist that unfortunately was born before really great quality recordings were made but what's there is well worth listening to. His '(unfortunately)Last Recital' is a masterpiece. Enjoy!

easybake 4y ago
> Gould played Bach the way it is written, perfect tempo, minimal ornamentation, that may come across as 'robotic' to you but it's actually the style that most people that are into baroque favor. Indeed! These compositions were ...composed "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study".[1], which I don't think is directly mentioned in the article except maybe from this quote by Gould: > ...“according to the musical disposition of that day, he was generations behind it”. It takes skill to play these compositions the way they were written. Piano is not my forte but what effort I have put into learning these tunes was well worth it. > If you don't like Gould for Bach may I suggest Dinu Lipatti? When I compare the two different performers, Gould sounds like he's playing to a metronome and Dinu Lipatti is playing to a pendulum. > And if you had not heard about him maybe dive a bit deeper and see what else you like, he's an amazing pianist that unfortunately was born before really great quality recordings were made but what's there is well worth listening to. Enjoy! Thank you for sharing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-Tempered_Clavier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-Tempered_Clavier

drivebycomment 4y ago

Which Gould performance ? He himself changed quite a bit in his many Bach performances over time, so it's interesting to listen and contrast his earlier, younger performances with his later works. I find many of Bach's music simultaneously "robotic" (brainiac, rational, calculating, etc) and extremely emotional at the same time and for me, that's one of the main draws of his music.

jacquesm 4y ago
The difference between his first recording of the Goldberg variations and his last is a story all by itself, such difference in interpretation. Also have a look at the runlength.

olau 4y ago

I'm not into Gould because I too find much of his playing misguided and awful, so my understanding may be incorrect, but I think back in Gould's days, the general piano style was much more virtuoso. I think Gould provided some needed push back on that through his provocateur search for something different. He does have some great insights here and there - take the first movement of the tempest sonata: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIQH9OVH_MM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIQH9OVH_MM You can feel the raw wind in that.

lofatdairy 4y ago

I absolutely adore Gould, and while he's known for his Bach, I'd recommend his Mozart interpretations to better understand what makes him so unique and controversial. The irony of your "player piano" statement is that his famous 1955 Goldberg variations were redone by a company called Zenph to demonstrate the power of their software to re-perform any performance. Probably Gould was chosen because he's so famous and I _think_ the recording was in the public domain and convenient, but also Gould actually has a lot of idiosyncrasies that make his playing instantly recognizable and if anything more human.

jacquesm 4y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOD1p4dGbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOD1p4dGbs That's a nice technical accomplishment (and probably it was very hard to get it to this stage). It makes me wonder if you had had Gould on a Yamaha Disklavier and recorded the MIDI stream how the two would compare.
- lofatdairy 4y ago
  Probably one of the main differences would be due to re-digesting the MIDI back into sound. I think Zenph's tech actually plays the piano and physically records it. For MIDI, you'd probably use samplers like NI's Kontakt, and while the huge amount of collections available on that platform definitely are closer to real-world sound and variability, if you're just bouncing the raw to audio without re-recording in a physical space, there's probably at least some number of people who could tell the difference. I think there are physical modeling-based VSTs and instruments available, but it's been a really long time since I looked into that space. The biggest difference is that I'm sure if you introduced Gould to the world of MIDI and DAWs he probably wouldn't stop fiddling with it for months or years. Even back in the 60s and 70s I think he was well known to obsess over his recordings, and his practice of occasionally splicing performances to get the best from each take was/is pretty controversial. The irony also being that he was notoriously a pain to record because he often sang overtop his playing.
  - jacquesm 4y ago

ohthehugemanate 4y ago

Whoah that's a complaint I've never heard before! Do you know which of his 2 recordings you're listening to? The one from the 80s is much "straighter" than the original from 1962. Usually people complain - listening to the earlier version - that Gould plays fast and loose with the source. He makes opinionated choices throughout and even recomposes parts! All that being said, there are no wrong answers with this stuff. If you prefer it more freely played than Gould 62, that's perfectly valid and no music expert (worth listening to) will bat an eye. This thread has some good suggestions of other interpreters you may like more.

poulsbohemian 4y ago

I wouldn't say "intolerable" but there are certainly different interpretations. I like Schiff better than Gould, and I like Dinnerstein the most of all.