Glenn Gould Goldberg Variations 1955 & 1981: 0 - Aria

[lightfootosolage]

I'm going to say this even though I think I'm alone in this: I hear the same thing in both. If you look at the piece as pure energy both renditions seek to translate that spark into something audible. Like translating a thought to words. The 1955 version does so with a heart and mind unique to his evolution in 1955. In the 1981 version we hear a more skilled linguist. Its like comparing Gia Fu Feng's Tao Te Ching to Thomas Cleary's. Communication increases as the linguists understanding improves

[dfranklin70]

I imagine in my head Gould playing both of these version to Bach. Gould begins playing the 1955 version to which Bach replies, "That was perfect." Then Gould plays the 1981 version, and when Gould finishes he is met only with silence until Bach looks at Gould and says, "That was what I meant!"

[TripleRhu]

I can hear loneliness, sadness and coldness from the first recording. I don't, for the second recording. It is full of joy and warmth. Glenn Gould sure was the best interpreter of Bach. R.I.P Gould.

[KingMinosxxvi]

.......:) words i suppose

[KingMinosxxvi]

Whoever has posted this thank you . such an imaculate piece of music. the first spirit evocative of a bubbling brilliant young man freshly in tune with evolving gifts shining in youth and the cusp of genius. The second of a man in many ways well past his age, the fires flickering in the embers of ten thousand solitary nights and the decay of nervous constituion. of course the latter piece is so muchmore. as i stae out into trees blown by gale force winds i am enrapture by it to poignantly for

[Rattywotin]

We are always evolving musicaly, I think his later recording shows more passion, more humility, more understanding of himself and therefore of Bach, it is always personal and personal development

[helemisphere]

fascinating, thanks so much!

[helemisphere]

fascinating, thanks so much!

[bunnyandbandicoot]

check out the arpeggio at 0:34.

The very definition of sublime.

[liranrok1]

first part is a bit sped up, on the second it has just the right tempo

[pyramidiot1]

lol 2:30 he is singing along

[elortza1980]

thankyou for posting the comparison. i think the second one is deeper, inspires such a sweet and serene sadness! i find the 1955 version too mechanic

[llyranor]

The part starting at 1:24 vs 4:15 is why I prefer the 1981 version. 1955 is a tad too fast.

[wawa314159]

Mr. BachScholar may be a bit arrogant, but his suggestion is reasonable. "Playing Bach on Keyboard" by Richard Troeger says, "The speed of M. M. =88 is a reasonable basis for the pulse rate of most of the triple- and quadruple- meter movements,...the theme would use M. M. =88 for the eighth notes."The 1955 version's tempo is very close to M. M. =88, while the 1981 version is more or less M. M. =66. But I agree that everyone has the right to interpret the work freely.

[aljoscha24]

Wie hätte JSB dies gespielt? Zeigen die zwei Interpretationen nicht das "Wunder Musik"

[jerste]

The 55 is more Bach, and the 81 is more Gould.

I would prefer the 55 version but Gould has always been a great companion who takes care of all my moods.

[KABRIS1]

@jerste Did you know Bach?

[jerste]

@KABRIS1

Not personally.

[KABRIS1]

@jerste Right! We don't know if Bach himself would have approved of Gould's interpretations, or which is more Bach and more Gould. I cannot seperate the two. The production of music is a collabortion between composer and interpreter. Both Gould and Bach are fused together in this production of Bach's music.Based on how Gould brings Bach's music to life like no other, I would tend do believe that Bach would approve of any of Gould's interpretations, regardless of any tempo changes.

[jerste]

@KABRIS1

I don't think that Gould and Bach ever fused as Bach was dead. But if you say so..

[KABRIS1]

@jerste They are both dead, but they are fused as one in this recording. Be well.

[lopper12345]

While I believe that there is no right and wrong when it comes to tempo in Bach's music, I too prefer his older recording if the Goldberg variations, not only of the Aria - it is more youthful and original while the 81 recording is more mature.

[Ruchfun]

I absolutely prefere the first recording! :)

[paradoxicus]

Caben tantas interpretaciones como lecturas.

"Panta rei".El eterno dilema y la divina paradoja.

Nadie se baña dos veces en el mismo rio.

Sin embargo,el hecho artístico es inmutable.

Nada cambia.Cambia la percepción.

[EsotericEggplant]

The version of this piece my piano instructor is urging me to develop is much like Gould's first version- my ideal is more like Gould's 1981, with that slow, almost mournful/reminiscent application... I have always thought of the Goldberg Aria to be a memorial. To what, I don't know.

[frankipoux]

The second is perfect  tempo a bit slow but so fresh...and true....

Both are very diff. and beautiful.

[0bambi0deer0]

the second one is much more mature...

[sam0xin]

Bach is Genius,Goldberg V-s are 1 of Wonders of the World & Glen Gould was born to perform it ! .

1955 is brilliant ...but 1981 + wisdom !

[hyunsoc]

1981 recording, as Glenn said, represents the spiritual matureness of his life in music. Other pianists may immitate his first recording but it would be extremely difficult to play in 1981 way. I am really happy to hear and compare both performance easily. Thank you so much polyphony

[BachScholar]

My research shows that the tempo of the 1955 Aria is perfect, at 54 per quarter, which was the most common speed for most of Bach's less ornamental sarabandes. Why Gould slowed it down so much in 1981 is a mystery. I think the 1981 version, even though well-played, distorts Bach's intentions.

[ric55]

Well, I never in all my 52 years of musical life knew or heard that there was a common speed or even an ideal one for a Sarabande. Have you written and told Professor Donald Tovey about this, by any chance? Nice to know-I wonder what the great pianist and Bach-editor Busoni wuoud have said to you about that-something unprintable I guess.

[BachScholar]

I guess there's a first for everything. The concept of ideal tempos is really not so revolutionary, especially considering Bach's student Kirnberger wrote in describing Bach's practice, "Every piece has a definite tempo that is determinable by the meter and note values employed in it". Tovey and Busoni were both products of 19th-century esthetics, which stressed personal freedom over idealistic rules like in Bach's time.

[J35U5P0W3R]

I think that Gould wasn't trying to recreate Bach's intentions but use his showmanship to project something else, which while a little self-indulgent, is why Gould was the genius he was.

[BachScholar]

I agree. Gould didn't care so much for composers' intentions because he marched to the beat of a different drummer.

[fiandrhi]

@BachScholar I would argue that there is no reason to honor composers' intentions. There is room for both "strict" interpretations and free ones. I don't understand why people feel we should honor intentions...or, once having honored them (usually much more than once), we must go on and on honoring them, never deviating. Besides, I disbelieve the "intentions" are ever clear. Listen, e.g., to Mahler's Welte-Mignon "recordings". Any conductor who did Mahler that way would be called wayward.

[BachScholar]

All I'm saying is that Gould's first version was much better tempo-wise than his later version. There are right tempos and there are wrong tempos. The first version is a good tempo and the later version is a wrong tempo.

[AngelinaTaylor]

Bull...

Tempo is subjective, especially with bach. Who are you to say what's a right or wrong tempo with Bach? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

[BachScholar]

Who am I? Probably the world's leading authority on tempo in Bach's music. What do you mean by "it"? I said earlier that his first version was the perfect tempo and he should have never changed it.

[AngelinaTaylor]

I don't care about your title. The content of your comments says it all. Authority? On music? So you arrest people for playing things slower....?

What the hell happened to art? Anyway.

By "it" I meant the tempo. Therefore: Just because you don't seem to like a particular tempo, does not mean it's wrong.

[BachScholar]

But we are talking about two tempos, so "it" can only refer to one of them. I didn't know which tempo you were referring to. It is not true that I don't like "it", since I said the first tempo was perfect. It' not that I don't like the second tempo (his later recording), it's just that this extremely slow tempo is not what Bach intended for this type of sarabande. I'm not arresting anyone, but just using YT comments as they are meant to be used.

[FlashyCat2008]

I doubt that the world's leading authority on anything is posting on YouTube.

[Lity10]

@BachScholar you're a bit noob actually

[Kurtyoungblood]

I have the zenith re-recording of the '55 but I like the sound of the piano in the original better.

[Ellinidara]

Start and sad end of magnificent,incredible,spectac­ular genius like fabulous Glenn....

[nicodagger]

@Ellinidara This type of genius cannot abide the Earth.

[Kurtyoungblood]

Oh My God, thanks.

[nleytman]

Awesome! 1981 version

[yelloworangered]

Thank you for this and for including the interview at the end.

[mguse123]

great interview at the end. thanks.