Gould: "Uh, yeahhh.....I mean, yes that is the other side of the argument." Face.
Hey, there's another part of this conversation, I think, where Gould is talking about unorthodox, though successful, re-conceiving of a Mozart piece. Are you familiar with this?
Those argument are moot. A truly great piece of music can be played on many different instruments and still be great in its own right. On youtube alone, Goldberg Variations are played by string ensemble, on piano, harpsicord, guitar, electric guitar, harp, etc., all have their own flavors yet universally reflect the greatness of the original composition. Bach would not have objected to any of those.
I am seeing, when I tried to download this and other Gould (and other stuff, like Argerich" that sometimes/often the darned videos stop only notes/chords before the proper ending of each piece. This is very disheartening
The only relevant article is the transcendent or abstract nature of Bach's music. It can be played on virtually any instrument or combination of instruments and loses nothing (often "gains" something depending on its audience). Whereas music of Debussy -as well as other great colorists- is highly contingent on the instruments for which it was written.
BTW, I agree with ipmoic. By cutting off this lively discussion, one gets the impression you're trying to manipulate one's conclusion.
@MrChirpsky Beethoven is a great colorist. I think it's because Bach managed to be so productive that he made music that was beyond his own subjectivity. His early works were all much more personal. Later on he gets so good at writing and the whole capacity of it makes it more or less a genre itself.
On one hand, you could think of the piano as a further expression of what Bach may have intended.
But on the other, as Gould has said, people should be free to play the music however they like it best. Culture changes, continually advances really; and so would have the composers, if they could have lived all the way to our time.
I think you're right. Bach's music is organ music in my view. I can't help but think of the organ's colours when I hear it on piano or am learning Bach.
@Matthewfawr Indeed. I love Bach and I am selftaught pianist and I love to play Bach. When I began my musical education I saw an organ in the assembely hall at the school. And I tought: "Im going to learn how to play the organ". And today I have learnt the piano for about one year! xD
@HerrWarja Playing Bach is all very niece, but what's even nicer is composing your own music. Don't get to bogged down in the interepreation of other composers music......do your own stuff. Self experimentation is a must in a musicians life....wouldn't you agree????
Okay. I withdraw the word 'idiot.' However...I think this man sounds like one of the many pompous purists around - especially on the BBC - in those days.
My point is that Bach used the technology available to him. I too am sure he would have used a piano and any other instrument available. Didn't he have more of a reputation as an improviser than a composer during his own lifetime?The many transcriptions for instruments not available in his time demonstrate how flexible baroque 'style' and Bach in particular can be. It seems purism is of the modern age - not that I've a problem with the excellent contemporary-instrument recordings available now.
@mozgren The "idiot" probably isn't actually disagreeing with Gould so much as he's giving him questions that allow Gould to say things he'd like to say. It's not like a political interview where the reporter walked out and grilled the subject into submission; the interviewer's just asking Gould questions that allow him to say interesting things. If he just said "Yep, you're right," the interview wouldn't have let Gould say anything interesting.
@mozgren A more direct answer to your question, however, is that the idiot in question is Bruno Monsaingeon, director of the 1981 film "Glenn Gould Plays Bach" (which, in my humble opinion, is the single greatest classical piano performance ever recorded ever ever).
These "dialogues" are really a monologue because they were scripted by Gould and the "interviewer" basically read the script - this is why they both sound like Glenn Gould speaking! Still, very interesting stuff.
Why talk about harpsichord vs piano, when we can talk about the emotions music stirs in us? Do people really think a good composer writes music for a specific instrument? I don't think so. But on the other hand i do think that a piano can stir our emotions in a different way then a harpsichord could. Every individual can listen to this music, played by different instruments, and hear different things. And that's OK folks!
You guys do know that this whole conversation was written beforehand by Gould right? That's what Gould did when he did interviews. Notice how Bruno Monsaingeon looks so awkward trying to act like he's having a real conversation-he's staring at cue cards the whole time.
Of course they used it.... by reading just the last posts you are missing the point of the whole thing,
It was about interpretation, speed, dynamic etc...
Someone was saying that you must follow the marking, ornamnets on the score of Bach music, I simply replied that there is nothing on it, no speed, no ornaments no dynamic because it was simply not in use in Baroque music to write them down.
I doubt Bach was limited by his instruments; he was most imaginative genius that ever lived. However, I do think the instruments affected this imagination he had for his compositions. He believed the piano had a good tone, but lacked power in upper registers and was too heavy. This whole debate is pointless.
8aetroya8, this is bulls**t. Gould just tries to understand Bach's way of thinking. I believe that too, that Bach would've used a piano, because he exploited fully the properties of each instruments, so, why not the piano, that has something that the harpsichord doesn't: A DYNAMIC RANGE!
I am a fan of Glenn Gould's Bach playing, he is seriously one hell of a Bach player, he plays Bach like a genius. When he plays another composer, he turns it into Baroque music. That's not right. That's like taking Baroque furniture and putting modern stickers on it. Sure, you have the ability to do it, but you're ruining an antique. If you don't like the way the music is written, then just don't play it!
I'm sorry you're used to today's standards which are "play music however you like, who cares what the composer intends," but their music should stay the way they wrote it. That's why every little tempo marking, ornament, etc. is there in the first place. :)
But this ass comment that Gould somehow changes music into "baroque" is complete horseshit.
I would ask your reasoning but I doubt it will extend beyond monkey see monkey do. Some ass said what you said concerning Gould and his apparently magical ability to change music into something "baroque" simply by playing it—regardless of the composer.
@Jitpring I personally believe that J S Bach wrote for the ages. It is why his Harpsichord, Organ, and all his other music works equally on original instruments to synthesizers. On Gould's playing of Bach (or Gibbons) on the piano, unlike so many other pianists, he did not over use the damper pedal. Some of Bach's music really comes alive on the Harpsichord. Glen Gould's playing of Bach ran the full course from inspired to mediocre. Fortunately most often the former and rarely the latter.
I love Bach, and I like Gould's Bach playing. I also love Mozart and I am less keen on Gould's Mozart. But Gould was an intelligent guy and even when he played with extreme eccentricity, he was usually making a coherent argument about the music. Whereas most of the "historically informed performance" school seem to be far less coherent in their thinking. But then musicians generally talk a lot of shit, and Gould was no exception. (Bach was not a great talker.)
you're such a snob....its people like you that are the reason the art is dying! Music (yes even classical music) is art intended for everyone; as with any art, after it is submitted to the public eye (or ear) it is subject to interpretation. I applaud Gould for offering his new (and coincidently modernized) interpretation. To me it makes Bach less foreign.
Foreign, not foreign. We're missing the point here. He plays in such a way to best use his natural aura as a person and musician to bring clarity to what exactly Bach was thinking when he made the piece. Some play with driving rhythmic clarity, and graceful precision, while others rely more on tasteful use of phrasing, sonorities, and emphasized singing tone rather than a balance of each element in Bach's music. If art was subject to the times, then it would be hideously superficial.
@stephenykevin Please upload THE WHOLE conversation. You will get a ton of views and every around the world will thank you for letting us hear Goulds thoughts like this. Come on, dont be lazy!
Just as one can sense divinity in a person by his/her demeanor and tone of voice, one can do the same by listening to his/her music playing.
Divinity is not something that the brainy and eccentric Gould could or would attain. He is more intrigued by the art of precision playing, contrapuntal symmetry, and clarity.
Gould's rigorously clean interpretations remind me (albeit on a rather abstract level) somewhat of Tantric Buddhism -- the idea of purity, divinity, through severe, almost painful clarity.
Said like a person who only enjoys the sound of the Piano forte. I love the sound of the piano as well, and just could NEVER even imagine Beethoven's music on anything else. His thunderous chords and many subtle nuances are virtually impossible on other keyboard instruments. Likewise, the fluidity and the "delicate' effect produced by the harpsichord in most baroque music, as well as its character -to my ears- is lost somehow when interpreted on a piano forte.
I personally prefer the harpsichord, but Gould raises a good point. I don't think Bach would have been a slave to the instrument for which he wrote music.
Composers before the puritanism of the classical period and modern times frequently recycled and transcribed music. Vivaldi's concerto for 4 violins in Bm was transcribed by Bach for 4 harpsichords - clearly the respect of "imagined sonority" then is a concern of modern pretentiousness and not historical practices.
Think of the Art of Fugue, where the melodic lines are written in SATB. It is 100% playable on a keyboard instrument, but clearly Bach didn't want the music to be limited
I partly agree with you, BUT, i believe that Bach's Vivaldi harpsichord interpretations when put beside the original string orchestra pieces by Vivaldi, almost sound like brand new pieces. His intent was to put his own mark on them, drive them forward using the different sonority and tone colour of HIS own favorite instrument(clavier). That is not a valid excuse for us today, because our intent is NOT to CHANGE the music and make it "modern" in any way, but to enjoy it in its original form.
Interestingly, the film "Triplets of Belleville" features an animated Gould character playing the C minor prelude from WTC Book 1 on television - this piece reprises twice in the film, once by a jazz band and once on a bicycle tire. And yes, it does work!
This is a curious--almost surreal-- conversation, half-semi-literate drivel and half subtle scholarship. I urge you to watch the conversation between Gould and Menuhin on YouTube as an object lesson on how to conduct a discussion. Fuzzfactory, ukillodu take heed; though I like what you, ukillodu, say about "how he understands music".
uohhjojo, crude vocabulary... Well, I do not deny his shining interpretations, but truth is someting that you will understand if you were a scholar musician, if not, your gona be fascinated with his gestures and pieces of buffoonery.
It's all about 'tamber' isn't it? I mean, no two clavichords sound exactly the same, do they? So if you take the 'specs' argument: one of "violating the music" by using different instruments from Bach. One could easily argue that it is all a violation...
I have never been overly concerned by this purist argument for 'authentic' instruments. After all if it sounds good, it sounds good, and we are playing the same music Bach wrote (that is, frequency of vibration) only the tamber is different.
It's a pity GG was cut off before he could finish that last insight about Bach.
I expect he was going to say something like - Bach's compositions were Platonic in their perfection, rather than restricted by the technology of the day (or any day!).
BTW - that interviewer rocks! He's straight out of the Simpsons!
I always get the sense when Gould talks about recording, and importantly, the relation between audience and performer, and furthermore, viewing himself as a composer, that he doesn't attempt to achieve the 'platonic form' of Bach.
I'm imagining Gould considering himself as an audience of Bach, and given what Gould says about passive audiences, Gould would probably view it as inappropriate to attempt to achieve Bach's pure vision, and rather more appropriate to find a personal vision through Bach
I looked at this video's title, "Glenn Gould explains his use of the piano for bach" and I said "How can such a genius explain this in under two minutes?" You could get about two hundred books on this title!!!
Of course not, Bach 'imagined' his music in terms, I think, of his tonality but not sonority mainly. It is the arrangements of the musical notes (harmony]/counterpoint/etc) which gives Bach's music such ineffable characteristics. Therefore, the use of the clavicocemballo piano e forte is completely justified.
There are some people who are living caricatures of themselves - a cartoonist could not imagine a more perfect drawing - and this moderator is one who fits that bill.
By the way Bruno is Glenn's friend and is just playing devils advocate for this. Gould thought makes the perfect point that, the music does not dictate a certain sonority for a specific instrument. I have heard Bach fugues for 4 saxophones that sounded great. I love the orchestra transcriptions of the organ works. I have heard Bach on the steel drum and the guy told me that Bach was the best practice on the steel drum because it was so difficult. In any case, Bach rearranged his own music a lot.
nice glasses dude... I wonder whether Bach would have approved of them had he been introduced to them? Do you think it would be appropriate to wear them now while we listen to Bach's music?
While I'm a complete advocate of historically informed performance whenever possible, I certainly don't think Gould butchered the music by playing it on piano. I can love any tasteful performance of a piece, even if it's not as authentic as I would normally prefer. Gould made the piano SING BACH, and that's what worked for him. That doesn't make him any less a musician than the period specialists we can thank for groundbreaking performances of Bach and other early music.
Any speaker of German would tell you that the "ch" in Bach's name is almost invariably pronounced by Germans from ALL regions with the soft sound you call pretentious. I'm not sure why you think it's pretentious to use a sound not found in English in the context of pronouncing a foreign word or name correctly. It's that kind of thinking that is contributing to the increasingly anti-intellectual nature of society and the linguistic laziness that grows more severe every day. Shame on you.
Yeah we actually need access to research into German as it was spoken in late seventeenth century Thuringia in order to make a properly informed and justifiable pronounciation of Bach's name.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
With all respect to Gould, he should have learned to pronounce Bach's name properly - "Bah", not "BaK" as many people in America do today... it is Incorrect!!!
Guys, the whole interview's on here in HD: watch?v=sWwi5M_F9Gs&feature=related
plunkza 5 months ago
Gould: "Uh, yeahhh.....I mean, yes that is the other side of the argument." Face.
Hey, there's another part of this conversation, I think, where Gould is talking about unorthodox, though successful, re-conceiving of a Mozart piece. Are you familiar with this?
aculturemind 11 months ago
Bach was a musical beast
30inventionman 1 year ago
this baloney is just that ... it's all about
Gould as Gould was all about Gould
he used Bach as a stalking horse for
his ideas just as he stayed clear of Chopin
who couldn't be bent to suit the Gould nonsense .Anderszewski is much more
to serving the music minus the nut case baloney .
dziady1 1 year ago
@dziady1 my dear, it is obvious, that your musical education ended in chopin's valses...pity...
anaximenis1951 11 months ago
@anaximenis1951 -I know you want to appear clever but as your presumption concerning my musical education is
based on ignorance ,may I suggest it is the same when
speculating on other musical matters .
dziady1 11 months ago
@anaximenis1951 Oh, shut up. You really are a tosser!
You're even more a tosser than the tosser you're tossing!
What an annoying person you are!
What a waste of energy this is! Damn you!
JAYASEKERA 5 months ago
@dziady1
anaximenis1951 11 months ago
f*cked up glasses, the other guy has ;-)
spr1ng0ni0n 1 year ago
lol.
'baack', 'bak', 'bark'.
an expert on bach couldn't pronouce 'bach' correctly. how ironic.
fuckshitass911 1 year ago
@fuckshitass911 at least he could play Bach better than anyone else ever to live :P
LFZ15 11 months ago
Those argument are moot. A truly great piece of music can be played on many different instruments and still be great in its own right. On youtube alone, Goldberg Variations are played by string ensemble, on piano, harpsicord, guitar, electric guitar, harp, etc., all have their own flavors yet universally reflect the greatness of the original composition. Bach would not have objected to any of those.
meowziklvr 1 year ago
NONONON!!!!.... He says Bakk, or Back... its pronaunds... Bach.... (Ba hr)....
Ironik that my spelling suck :p
BenjaminTheHolyDiver 1 year ago
i think bach just sounds better on a harpsichord
thesir27 1 year ago
Gould's reaction at 1:30 is priceless.
hanssvoboda 1 year ago
I am seeing, when I tried to download this and other Gould (and other stuff, like Argerich" that sometimes/often the darned videos stop only notes/chords before the proper ending of each piece. This is very disheartening
outoftunefiddler 1 year ago
Hahahaha...:!
physikphilosoph 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gosh, that humming clown is soooo empty and yet full of himself. It makes him pretty much a fart ?
totalannihilator99 1 year ago
is this goulds voice?
BassicStorm 1 year ago
Gould's entire point at the end, Bach was about the music not the instrument.
hattube 1 year ago 2
this is great!
Premananda1382 1 year ago
Hahaha sweet glasses bra
eeuzzy 1 year ago 5
@eeuzzy You can hear him now: "GeekForce5, assemble!!!"
Thilindel 1 year ago
where do I get a pair of prescription glasses like those?
narhem123 1 year ago
@narhem123 in museums
PlancksTime 1 year ago
Who's the twit wearing Edith Head's glasses?
gtimny 1 year ago
"I don't think Bach was......."........what? Was what? Where the hell is the rest of the video?
fdsaman123 1 year ago
LOL what a shame.
vtyw93 1 year ago
Which DVD is this from!??!?
zinpgh 1 year ago
@zinpgh i dont knw. from ares ... or emule
stephenykevin 1 year ago
@zinpgh I think it is in the extras of the Goldberg Variations, the DVD, from 1981.
codonauta 7 months ago in playlist Everything to know about Gould
the guy with the glasses is gay
madmax123ization 1 year ago
The only relevant article is the transcendent or abstract nature of Bach's music. It can be played on virtually any instrument or combination of instruments and loses nothing (often "gains" something depending on its audience). Whereas music of Debussy -as well as other great colorists- is highly contingent on the instruments for which it was written.
BTW, I agree with ipmoic. By cutting off this lively discussion, one gets the impression you're trying to manipulate one's conclusion.
MrChirpsky 1 year ago
@MrChirpsky Beethoven is a great colorist. I think it's because Bach managed to be so productive that he made music that was beyond his own subjectivity. His early works were all much more personal. Later on he gets so good at writing and the whole capacity of it makes it more or less a genre itself.
Ianthe22 1 year ago
On one hand, you could think of the piano as a further expression of what Bach may have intended.
But on the other, as Gould has said, people should be free to play the music however they like it best. Culture changes, continually advances really; and so would have the composers, if they could have lived all the way to our time.
Yoshi5020 1 year ago
To conclude, I'm suggesting it's possible that Gould plays Bach in a more sophisticated manner than even Bach himself might have :O
Yoshi5020 1 year ago
Forgive me for souding like a ridicolous peacemaker, but I like Bach on both the harpsichord and piano. (But above all the organ!) :-D
HerrWarja 1 year ago
@HerrWarja
I think you're right. Bach's music is organ music in my view. I can't help but think of the organ's colours when I hear it on piano or am learning Bach.
My humble views :)
Matthewfawr 1 year ago
@Matthewfawr Indeed. I love Bach and I am selftaught pianist and I love to play Bach. When I began my musical education I saw an organ in the assembely hall at the school. And I tought: "Im going to learn how to play the organ". And today I have learnt the piano for about one year! xD
HerrWarja 1 year ago
@HerrWarja Playing Bach is all very niece, but what's even nicer is composing your own music. Don't get to bogged down in the interepreation of other composers music......do your own stuff. Self experimentation is a must in a musicians life....wouldn't you agree????
lakecomo33 1 year ago
@lakecomo33 Of course. But sometimes one have to respect the composer aswell.
HerrWarja 1 year ago
@lakecomo33 i agree...but i think that u cannot ever compose something as bach, because he was...bach....
madmax123ization 1 year ago
Don't talk like that about Bruno Monsaigeon!!
robertabiondi 1 year ago
Okay. I withdraw the word 'idiot.' However...I think this man sounds like one of the many pompous purists around - especially on the BBC - in those days.
mozgren 1 year ago
@mozgren yep. i agree
GaryNewmann0709 1 year ago
My point is that Bach used the technology available to him. I too am sure he would have used a piano and any other instrument available. Didn't he have more of a reputation as an improviser than a composer during his own lifetime?The many transcriptions for instruments not available in his time demonstrate how flexible baroque 'style' and Bach in particular can be. It seems purism is of the modern age - not that I've a problem with the excellent contemporary-instrument recordings available now.
mozgren 1 year ago
I love these guys
corovanmoro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh, how adorable. This odd creature is pretending to be a real artist....
Lady Gaga>Bach/Gould
MrTootler 1 year ago
@MrTootler
your a shithead
go kill yourself
averageviolinist 1 year ago
who it the idiot Gould is talking to?
mozgren 1 year ago
@mozgren The "idiot" probably isn't actually disagreeing with Gould so much as he's giving him questions that allow Gould to say things he'd like to say. It's not like a political interview where the reporter walked out and grilled the subject into submission; the interviewer's just asking Gould questions that allow him to say interesting things. If he just said "Yep, you're right," the interview wouldn't have let Gould say anything interesting.
BenMcCormack91 1 year ago
@BenMcCormack91 Thanks for being intelligent and also for existing
NickManor 1 year ago
@mozgren A more direct answer to your question, however, is that the idiot in question is Bruno Monsaingeon, director of the 1981 film "Glenn Gould Plays Bach" (which, in my humble opinion, is the single greatest classical piano performance ever recorded ever ever).
AppreciativeListener 1 year ago
i want glasses like that
msa1985 1 year ago
who cares about the instrument having the music by Bach
1973gs 1 year ago
These "dialogues" are really a monologue because they were scripted by Gould and the "interviewer" basically read the script - this is why they both sound like Glenn Gould speaking! Still, very interesting stuff.
troppofiato 2 years ago 11
@troppofiato is that a fact? hmmm... any way i think of it... it sounds cuckoo for him to do that lol...
happyman 1 year ago
harry potter in his mid 50s
sethweb500 2 years ago 3
Who's interviewing him? Alfred Brendel?
biduca2 2 years ago 2
Good editing. Nice place to cut off.
LazlosPlane 2 years ago 73
lol i read your comment before it happened. that was pretty funny
NorskTorsk 2 years ago
@LazlosPlane hahahahahahhaaah!!!!
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
Why talk about harpsichord vs piano, when we can talk about the emotions music stirs in us? Do people really think a good composer writes music for a specific instrument? I don't think so. But on the other hand i do think that a piano can stir our emotions in a different way then a harpsichord could. Every individual can listen to this music, played by different instruments, and hear different things. And that's OK folks!
Exarification 2 years ago
nice glasses^^
kKpeaceKk 2 years ago 6
You guys do know that this whole conversation was written beforehand by Gould right? That's what Gould did when he did interviews. Notice how Bruno Monsaingeon looks so awkward trying to act like he's having a real conversation-he's staring at cue cards the whole time.
garthhudson 2 years ago 2
@garthhudson Ba(c)h! And there I sat impressed at how well spoken Gould seemed to be.
lebensraum 2 years ago
blah blah blah....
A lot of talking but unfortunately not a lot of writing (music)....
Asamusic69 2 years ago
to mario:
"That's why every little tempo marking, ornament, etc. is there in the first place. :) "
There were no such things in Baroque period, they started in classical and exploded in romantic.
And so no one knows how the music should be played.
And so, especially in Baroque everyone do what they want.
Asamusic69 2 years ago
no ornaments in Baroque music?? Baroque had the MOST ornaments, that's even why it's called Baroque!
kerumble 2 years ago
Ok then, please provide a link to an original manuscript, of Bach for example, where you can see any ornament, tempo or dynamic marking.
Nowadays is played with ornaments but was not written with it.
BIG difference.
We can only suppose it was played with ornaments, since we dont have any recordings...
Asamusic69 2 years ago
Bach was late Baroque anyways. Perhaps his music didn't employ that many ornaments, but Baroque as a whole absolutely did.
Japadian 2 years ago
@Japadian
Of course they used it.... by reading just the last posts you are missing the point of the whole thing,
It was about interpretation, speed, dynamic etc...
Someone was saying that you must follow the marking, ornamnets on the score of Bach music, I simply replied that there is nothing on it, no speed, no ornaments no dynamic because it was simply not in use in Baroque music to write them down.
A pp or FF on harpsychord??
Asamusic69 2 years ago
@Japadian
But just for the sake of curiosity... how you know that they used ornamnets?
No on the music, no original records to listen to..
how you are so sure??
Just teasing ... ;-)
Asamusic69 2 years ago
I doubt Bach was limited by his instruments; he was most imaginative genius that ever lived. However, I do think the instruments affected this imagination he had for his compositions. He believed the piano had a good tone, but lacked power in upper registers and was too heavy. This whole debate is pointless.
Enix5548 2 years ago
To Emperormiki, How about the American Composer John Paine Knowles seeing that you have mentioned Carter and Ives
PeteTheSnowDog1 2 years ago
8aetroya8, this is bulls**t. Gould just tries to understand Bach's way of thinking. I believe that too, that Bach would've used a piano, because he exploited fully the properties of each instruments, so, why not the piano, that has something that the harpsichord doesn't: A DYNAMIC RANGE!
KTMSX125cc 2 years ago 3
amazing how patronizing these people can utter on about J.S.Bach. Creeps.
I respect Goulds dedication and madness, but there is no genius.
sertuerner 2 years ago
Comment removed
Asamusic69 2 years ago
I am a fan of Glenn Gould's Bach playing, he is seriously one hell of a Bach player, he plays Bach like a genius. When he plays another composer, he turns it into Baroque music. That's not right. That's like taking Baroque furniture and putting modern stickers on it. Sure, you have the ability to do it, but you're ruining an antique. If you don't like the way the music is written, then just don't play it!
mario54671 2 years ago
Oh for christs sake ... more of this horseshit.
EMPERORMIKI 2 years ago
I'm sorry you're used to today's standards which are "play music however you like, who cares what the composer intends," but their music should stay the way they wrote it. That's why every little tempo marking, ornament, etc. is there in the first place. :)
mario54671 2 years ago
Are you aware of the discussion that just took place in this video clip? You should watch it again.
Some people will never appreciate Bach, or Ives, or Carter ... some will.
Same with interpretation.
EMPERORMIKI 2 years ago
But this ass comment that Gould somehow changes music into "baroque" is complete horseshit.
I would ask your reasoning but I doubt it will extend beyond monkey see monkey do. Some ass said what you said concerning Gould and his apparently magical ability to change music into something "baroque" simply by playing it—regardless of the composer.
So strange this simpleton nonsense.
EMPERORMIKI 2 years ago
I think Gould was right here. After all, Bach seemingly didn''t hesitate to transcribe certain of his works for other instruments.
Jitpring 2 years ago 5
@Jitpring I personally believe that J S Bach wrote for the ages. It is why his Harpsichord, Organ, and all his other music works equally on original instruments to synthesizers. On Gould's playing of Bach (or Gibbons) on the piano, unlike so many other pianists, he did not over use the damper pedal. Some of Bach's music really comes alive on the Harpsichord. Glen Gould's playing of Bach ran the full course from inspired to mediocre. Fortunately most often the former and rarely the latter.
Renshen1957 2 years ago
I don't think there has been a true genious born since Gould. Oh my god.
MasterAzunai 2 years ago
Speeks too fast!!
JLorz84 2 years ago
fortissimo
bullo07 2 years ago
I love Bach, and I like Gould's Bach playing. I also love Mozart and I am less keen on Gould's Mozart. But Gould was an intelligent guy and even when he played with extreme eccentricity, he was usually making a coherent argument about the music. Whereas most of the "historically informed performance" school seem to be far less coherent in their thinking. But then musicians generally talk a lot of shit, and Gould was no exception. (Bach was not a great talker.)
lexo30 2 years ago 2
What are they sitting on?
A pair of hand-knitted cardigans?
.
Yah, mmm, Yah if I may say so Bruno.
.
cheers.
from,
del-boy.
NoNotALaughingMatter 2 years ago 3
hilarious.
1:30
he was imitating his German accent.
imslicc 2 years ago
Dear imslicc,
Yah! Yah, yah; you are absolutely right.
.
Cheers.
from
del-boy.
OohGoshYoureRight 2 years ago
I mean yeah
hahahaa
fetymann 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you love bach, you cannot admire gould. They are uncompatible things.
dani1978el 2 years ago
you're such a snob....its people like you that are the reason the art is dying! Music (yes even classical music) is art intended for everyone; as with any art, after it is submitted to the public eye (or ear) it is subject to interpretation. I applaud Gould for offering his new (and coincidently modernized) interpretation. To me it makes Bach less foreign.
brutusbassoon 2 years ago 2
Foreign, not foreign. We're missing the point here. He plays in such a way to best use his natural aura as a person and musician to bring clarity to what exactly Bach was thinking when he made the piece. Some play with driving rhythmic clarity, and graceful precision, while others rely more on tasteful use of phrasing, sonorities, and emphasized singing tone rather than a balance of each element in Bach's music. If art was subject to the times, then it would be hideously superficial.
Lukecash12 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
gg was a huge dork.
weenosu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how did this get 90,000 views?
and why am i watching this?
jrossmoss 2 years ago
Maybe because you ask yourself how is it possible that this pianist is so famous and well-recognized?
dani1978el 2 years ago
What's the point of uploading this stephenykevin if you're going to cut it off during the meat of the discussion?
ipmoic 2 years ago 40
@ipmoic yes i understand, but i do not cut the video, it was so. was only to enjoy it for a while.
stephenykevin 1 year ago
@stephenykevin Please upload THE WHOLE conversation. You will get a ton of views and every around the world will thank you for letting us hear Goulds thoughts like this. Come on, dont be lazy!
PlancksTime 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"He was a very practical man in most ways as we know." And in which ways WASN'T he a practical man?
Every syllable out of this man's motor mouth is despicable.
organman52 2 years ago
lol - so true - looked at in this light, this video is hilarious!!!
HolyMotherofGrid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He was a hypocrite, a liar, a motor mouth and completely out of his mind.
organman52 2 years ago
And that makes you.....???
HolyMotherofGrid 2 years ago 2
Gould plays with his style of precision but the problem with him is he doesn't play divinely. Tureck, his idol, plays divinely.
freeqwerqwer 2 years ago
And how exactly does one play divinely?
xenolalia 2 years ago 3
Tureck plays Bach with divinity, not Gould.
Their sense of space are quite different.
To play divinely one must feel divinity.
Just as one can sense divinity in a person by his/her demeanor and tone of voice, one can do the same by listening to his/her music playing.
Divinity is not something that the brainy and eccentric Gould could or would attain. He is more intrigued by the art of precision playing, contrapuntal symmetry, and clarity.
in playing
leopianotuner 2 years ago
I think both are divine
rubik56 2 years ago
Gould's rigorously clean interpretations remind me (albeit on a rather abstract level) somewhat of Tantric Buddhism -- the idea of purity, divinity, through severe, almost painful clarity.
xenolalia 2 years ago
Bach NEVER saw the piano because he was too blind as a result of a botched eye operation, gutted :( Still had a wee shot of playin it tho :P
469611 2 years ago
that other dude looks kinda like john lennon
aybns 2 years ago
eh. no
kuchuk1 2 years ago
these two talk WAY too fast.
emperorIng360 2 years ago
Maybe you think WAY too slow.
WehttamNenait 2 years ago 4
they talk to fast it doesn't sound god
Heeey333 2 years ago
hah, good one, agreed :}
kamiljj 2 years ago
Comment removed
tr23shortstop 2 years ago
Said like a person who only enjoys the sound of the Piano forte. I love the sound of the piano as well, and just could NEVER even imagine Beethoven's music on anything else. His thunderous chords and many subtle nuances are virtually impossible on other keyboard instruments. Likewise, the fluidity and the "delicate' effect produced by the harpsichord in most baroque music, as well as its character -to my ears- is lost somehow when interpreted on a piano forte.
mindaflame7 2 years ago
I personally prefer the harpsichord, but Gould raises a good point. I don't think Bach would have been a slave to the instrument for which he wrote music.
humphriedboswell 2 years ago 6
@ 1:25
Composers before the puritanism of the classical period and modern times frequently recycled and transcribed music. Vivaldi's concerto for 4 violins in Bm was transcribed by Bach for 4 harpsichords - clearly the respect of "imagined sonority" then is a concern of modern pretentiousness and not historical practices.
Think of the Art of Fugue, where the melodic lines are written in SATB. It is 100% playable on a keyboard instrument, but clearly Bach didn't want the music to be limited
cchamp27 2 years ago
I partly agree with you, BUT, i believe that Bach's Vivaldi harpsichord interpretations when put beside the original string orchestra pieces by Vivaldi, almost sound like brand new pieces. His intent was to put his own mark on them, drive them forward using the different sonority and tone colour of HIS own favorite instrument(clavier). That is not a valid excuse for us today, because our intent is NOT to CHANGE the music and make it "modern" in any way, but to enjoy it in its original form.
mindaflame7 2 years ago
Interestingly, the film "Triplets of Belleville" features an animated Gould character playing the C minor prelude from WTC Book 1 on television - this piece reprises twice in the film, once by a jazz band and once on a bicycle tire. And yes, it does work!
cdj87 2 years ago
Absolutely!! That was the first time I really fell in love with Bach's music and Gould's playing...
artvandelay13 2 years ago
This is a curious--almost surreal-- conversation, half-semi-literate drivel and half subtle scholarship. I urge you to watch the conversation between Gould and Menuhin on YouTube as an object lesson on how to conduct a discussion. Fuzzfactory, ukillodu take heed; though I like what you, ukillodu, say about "how he understands music".
princeandrey 2 years ago 3
That's very perceptive. You make a strong point in that good music IS good music!
ragsiruh 2 years ago
lo que daria por saber ingles y enteder lo que dice- alguien me puede ayudar? Help me!!!!! i can undertand
pradochiqui 2 years ago
Egghead brit fellow can eat a dick. No one wants to hear that flat 'ching ching chang' of the harpsichord all the time, for christ's sake.
fuzzfactory 2 years ago
these people sound like pompous asses trying to be personable.
I don't care about Bach's personal vision, I love his music and I love the way it sounds on piano.
It's not gospel
bullbunnies 2 years ago
Music means many different things to many different people.
---It's all about interpretation.
In my opinion,
(and many other opinions as well) Agree that Glenn Gould was a great interpretor of the music of J.S.Bach.
Wheather you personally agree or disagree is only a matter of your opinion.
----'You don't have to know how to prepare a great meal in order to be qualified to enjoy it.' (think this is what you mean, eh?)
...Then, I agree with you.
oldedrum 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
bla, bla, bla. I hate how this men plays Bach!
zirianos 2 years ago
wow...you against the world...
I think that no one understands Gould's interpretation of the music, If you did I wouldn't have to hear this shit you say.
ukillodu 2 years ago
uohhjojo, crude vocabulary... Well, I do not deny his shining interpretations, but truth is someting that you will understand if you were a scholar musician, if not, your gona be fascinated with his gestures and pieces of buffoonery.
zirianos 2 years ago
it's not about how he plays, but how he understands music.
ukillodu 2 years ago
It's all about 'tamber' isn't it? I mean, no two clavichords sound exactly the same, do they? So if you take the 'specs' argument: one of "violating the music" by using different instruments from Bach. One could easily argue that it is all a violation...
I have never been overly concerned by this purist argument for 'authentic' instruments. After all if it sounds good, it sounds good, and we are playing the same music Bach wrote (that is, frequency of vibration) only the tamber is different.
MilitantScience 2 years ago 3
it's not all about 'tamber', because that does not exist, I think you are referring to 'timbre'.....
sfxrules 2 years ago
it's really about timbre, which is sound.
freadingster 2 years ago
Największy z pianistów świata !
justap19 3 years ago
I give you 1000$
youknowImsaying 3 years ago
I'll sell mine for $3 (will listen to interesting offers).
MilitantScience 2 years ago
it doesnt make any sence,
any fuckin sence!
youknowImsaying 3 years ago
Why? Why people like him dies? And stupid fucking politicians lives for FUCKIN' CENTURIES.
lemmyjericho 3 years ago 5
It's a pity GG was cut off before he could finish that last insight about Bach.
I expect he was going to say something like - Bach's compositions were Platonic in their perfection, rather than restricted by the technology of the day (or any day!).
BTW - that interviewer rocks! He's straight out of the Simpsons!
emann1066 3 years ago 5
I always get the sense when Gould talks about recording, and importantly, the relation between audience and performer, and furthermore, viewing himself as a composer, that he doesn't attempt to achieve the 'platonic form' of Bach.
I'm imagining Gould considering himself as an audience of Bach, and given what Gould says about passive audiences, Gould would probably view it as inappropriate to attempt to achieve Bach's pure vision, and rather more appropriate to find a personal vision through Bach
shackleton12 3 years ago 2
I looked at this video's title, "Glenn Gould explains his use of the piano for bach" and I said "How can such a genius explain this in under two minutes?" You could get about two hundred books on this title!!!
64ftContraBombarde 3 years ago 3
Is there any other pianist who can be be recognised through their pace of SPEECH?
mj1890 3 years ago 6
Glenn Gould was a great pianist. Where is he right now? I would like to offer him congragulation for his years as a pianist.
dmana3172 3 years ago
he's dead and alive at once ;).dead physicaly - alive in music :)).
cccpredarmy 3 years ago 6
sadly he's gone from this world already. for 26 years
ryanyee1234567890 3 years ago
ha!
MilitantScience 3 years ago
lol
Mod74 3 years ago
Of course not, Bach 'imagined' his music in terms, I think, of his tonality but not sonority mainly. It is the arrangements of the musical notes (harmony]/counterpoint/etc) which gives Bach's music such ineffable characteristics. Therefore, the use of the clavicocemballo piano e forte is completely justified.
ultranom 3 years ago 3
very good comment, and right on the dot.
Weimartoccata 3 years ago 2
There are some people who are living caricatures of themselves - a cartoonist could not imagine a more perfect drawing - and this moderator is one who fits that bill.
hermanzoon 3 years ago
By the way Bruno is Glenn's friend and is just playing devils advocate for this. Gould thought makes the perfect point that, the music does not dictate a certain sonority for a specific instrument. I have heard Bach fugues for 4 saxophones that sounded great. I love the orchestra transcriptions of the organ works. I have heard Bach on the steel drum and the guy told me that Bach was the best practice on the steel drum because it was so difficult. In any case, Bach rearranged his own music a lot.
trevjr 3 years ago
Bach`s music sounds good on any instrument, but it is not the case for other composers.
vokshumana 3 years ago 2
nice glasses dude... I wonder whether Bach would have approved of them had he been introduced to them? Do you think it would be appropriate to wear them now while we listen to Bach's music?
senikle 3 years ago 4
oui, oui....pardon, garçon, sil vous plaît, je suis un tosser extrême...oui, oui.....
SpottyDorsord 3 years ago 2
Wow!, i couldn't understand a single word they said!!
jcpascal27 3 years ago
hahaha...good one.
ultranom 3 years ago
baroqueboy, I'm sorry I accidentaly marked your comment as spam, sorry.
andmarkcg 3 years ago
While I'm a complete advocate of historically informed performance whenever possible, I certainly don't think Gould butchered the music by playing it on piano. I can love any tasteful performance of a piece, even if it's not as authentic as I would normally prefer. Gould made the piano SING BACH, and that's what worked for him. That doesn't make him any less a musician than the period specialists we can thank for groundbreaking performances of Bach and other early music.
baroqueboy 3 years ago 7
Any speaker of German would tell you that the "ch" in Bach's name is almost invariably pronounced by Germans from ALL regions with the soft sound you call pretentious. I'm not sure why you think it's pretentious to use a sound not found in English in the context of pronouncing a foreign word or name correctly. It's that kind of thinking that is contributing to the increasingly anti-intellectual nature of society and the linguistic laziness that grows more severe every day. Shame on you.
baroqueboy 3 years ago 4
Yeah we actually need access to research into German as it was spoken in late seventeenth century Thuringia in order to make a properly informed and justifiable pronounciation of Bach's name.
n14e5o15 3 years ago
hahaha i agree!!!
goodridgewinners 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
These two need to get laid fast, lol!!!! Just kidding. Gould is a superstar!
RabbitDeberry 3 years ago
Is there another part to this interview? I'd love to hear the rest of it.
00bean00 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
With all respect to Gould, he should have learned to pronounce Bach's name properly - "Bah", not "BaK" as many people in America do today... it is Incorrect!!!
sheikov1979 3 years ago