not bad, but good is different; and: richter is better???? richter never understood the music he played, had no creativity and could only reproduce the notes, sometimes in a very nice way but it stays reproducing, just like pollini. I think the best performance of this piece is still horowitz: daring, creative, emotional... that's what music needs, not robotplaying.
Gould certainly has an interesting idea of what "Presto" is :P
I feel like he is trying to sense something that probably isn't there with the slow tempo...IMO Richter for example still brings out all the colors and you can hear all the notes, but it makes sense whereas this one sounds confused.
It's definitely a unique interpration. At times I felt Gould was playing with the precision of a Bach piece, then there are passages like the Presto con Allegrezza which are very dreamy.
Where does interpretation start and end? Dynamics and tempo are indications by the composer but musicians are "allowed", even expected, to deviate. But changing notes...is it "wrong" or can it be called interpretation too?
I wonder what Scriabin would have made of this..."Are you mad?" or "Magnificent!"
Far too literal a reading, of this, sorry. With all due respect to Glenn, it just doesn't have any sense of abandon, and this piece almost really screams for it. Richter's performance is probably the best, for my money. This just doesn't bring out that mystical quality so evident in Scriabin's music.
Glad this is up. I like Gould's take on this a lot. You should probably put a link to part 2 in the description; it's not showing up in related videos.
@New4785689 Gould's temperament is quite different than that of Horowitz or Richter, but I've always felt that Gould has a great affinity with Scriabin. I may be in a minority, but, to me, the fact that I am moved by Scriabin when played by Horowitz, Gould, Richter, Sofronitsky and others is a striking testament to both composer and the great interpreters.
@New4785689 I've got to disagree with that comment. Just listen to the perfect handling of all the different melodic lines. All the coloring. The new and refreshing approach. To me, it's better than most, if not all, other recordings.
@Steinwaytoday i dunno why gould played all these pieces, i see no melodic lines, no coloring, and it's not better than neuhaus or richter or horowitz, it's just the master of bach gg trying to play something he hates
@New4785689 I'm sorry, but you can't say that there's no melodic lines or coloring. They are all perfectly audible in the recording. Maybe you like the other recordings more because they are faster and more virtuosistic, and you can't get used to this slower version. But the musical planification in this recording, to my taste, is much better than in other recordings.
This performance is completely anti-idiomatic. So many people want to make Gould what he was not!
nestorar 2 weeks ago
not bad, but good is different; and: richter is better???? richter never understood the music he played, had no creativity and could only reproduce the notes, sometimes in a very nice way but it stays reproducing, just like pollini. I think the best performance of this piece is still horowitz: daring, creative, emotional... that's what music needs, not robotplaying.
onlymusiciansallowed 2 weeks ago
Gould certainly has an interesting idea of what "Presto" is :P
I feel like he is trying to sense something that probably isn't there with the slow tempo...IMO Richter for example still brings out all the colors and you can hear all the notes, but it makes sense whereas this one sounds confused.
trigalg693 4 weeks ago
It's definitely a unique interpration. At times I felt Gould was playing with the precision of a Bach piece, then there are passages like the Presto con Allegrezza which are very dreamy.
Where does interpretation start and end? Dynamics and tempo are indications by the composer but musicians are "allowed", even expected, to deviate. But changing notes...is it "wrong" or can it be called interpretation too?
I wonder what Scriabin would have made of this..."Are you mad?" or "Magnificent!"
ukdavepianoman 3 months ago
Far too literal a reading, of this, sorry. With all due respect to Glenn, it just doesn't have any sense of abandon, and this piece almost really screams for it. Richter's performance is probably the best, for my money. This just doesn't bring out that mystical quality so evident in Scriabin's music.
originaltommy 4 months ago
He uses an A flat at 3:26 for some reason... kind of odd but nice, though it doesn't really fit with the harmony the rest of the piece is using.
Sakanakao 4 months ago
Glad this is up. I like Gould's take on this a lot. You should probably put a link to part 2 in the description; it's not showing up in related videos.
Sakanakao 4 months ago
Strangely beautiful...
coaster1000 5 months ago
how about the rubato measures before the imperioso where he the flats the third of those major seven chords?
tuopadrino 6 months ago
r u kidding? hamelin's infinitely better than goulds!
patricioapaez 9 months ago
Glenn Gould always has a reason for everything he does. I just wonder why oh why did he play it so slowly?
zhangensprachen 1 year ago
This is soooo weird.
BOSOX9004 1 year ago
i'm sorry but gould's scriabin is terrible, anyway, i was looking for it, thanks!
New4785689 1 year ago 3
@New4785689 Gould's temperament is quite different than that of Horowitz or Richter, but I've always felt that Gould has a great affinity with Scriabin. I may be in a minority, but, to me, the fact that I am moved by Scriabin when played by Horowitz, Gould, Richter, Sofronitsky and others is a striking testament to both composer and the great interpreters.
micheldvorsky 1 year ago 6
@micheldvorsky completely agree! thanks for the upload :)
clubsandwedge 10 months ago
@New4785689 I've got to disagree with that comment. Just listen to the perfect handling of all the different melodic lines. All the coloring. The new and refreshing approach. To me, it's better than most, if not all, other recordings.
Steinwaytoday 1 year ago
@Steinwaytoday i dunno why gould played all these pieces, i see no melodic lines, no coloring, and it's not better than neuhaus or richter or horowitz, it's just the master of bach gg trying to play something he hates
New4785689 1 year ago
@New4785689 I'm sorry, but you can't say that there's no melodic lines or coloring. They are all perfectly audible in the recording. Maybe you like the other recordings more because they are faster and more virtuosistic, and you can't get used to this slower version. But the musical planification in this recording, to my taste, is much better than in other recordings.
Steinwaytoday 1 year ago
@Steinwaytoday in YOUR taste :D
New4785689 1 year ago
@Steinwaytoday Agree totally, Steinwaytoday!
micheldvorsky 1 year ago
This is so much better than Hamelin's.
morvensky 1 year ago 6
@morvensky Agreed!
micheldvorsky 1 year ago