Gulda plays Bach Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue

[chichi123xx]

sounds almost romantic in places

[chichi123xx]

such odd chords to add, Bach!! 

[xakoviski]

I can only imagine the level of difficulty of this piece! Beatifully played, thanks for the upload.

[BigBiff88]

gulda was an apprentace when compared to glenn gould

[PaulinaColombia]

Can you have a heart attack from hearing this? Amazing!

[cualquie]

so good

[cualquie]

qué bueno

[zongi8]

an the Bösendorfer piano! :)

[ChenWhiteHorse]

it is such a hard scale! no one uses it. brilliant

[n64wilbert]

What a great interpretation of this composition!!!

[darkblueangel1956]

Interessante! Gulda ha dato a questa interpretazione una tale miscela di elementi esecutivi che lascia incantati ! In certi fraseggi sembra moderno e libero, in altri sembra talmente rifinita la dizione lirica, che appare quasi statica, ma in realtà ne "fotografa" il climax dell'ispirazione, immortalandola come una scultura di bronzo, rifinita e lucidata all'infinito ! Davvero particolare e singolare questa esecuzione !!! Merita di essere studiata e analizzata a lungo !!!

[ApppleMilkk]

If somethign was played unfinished on the piano, Beethoven jumped out of bed, RAN down the stairs and pressed the final note before he could sleep again,

If someone whistleled something outside, Bach jumped out of bed

RAN down the stairs to his desk, and made a fugue of it becore he could sleep again

[Arsen2488]

I think its too difficult to understand comments-dialogue. Youtube must think to make its easier.

Bach is Greatest, Gulda is unique. But I prefer version of another pianist without last letter))))

[Ingot49]

@Arsen2488 gulda is teacher of argerich. exceeds gould in many ways

[afertyus1000]

@Ingot49 smudged at 2.05 trill gould was better

[erroll9621]

@afertyus1000 WTF? That's your qualification?

[afertyus1000]

@erroll9621 YEA ! my qualification so what!

[angietihi]

@afertyus1000 I think he also smudged at 4.26 but so what? This was a live performance. Gould avoided live performances.

[afertyus1000]

@angietihi yea it was nothing, great performance

[rdonoian]

@Arsen2488

and possibly an "o"?

[maternalheart66]

Sighh, those were the golden days of concert pianists.

[peteacher52]

So, what do all the learned armchair critics think that Bach would have done if he had been seated at the great Bosendorfer Imperial as seen in this video? Left the pedals untouched and tried to play it like a harpsichord?

Yeah right! He would have loved it and exploited its resources to the maximum and in a way that would leave our jaws agape!

[MortiCarthago]

@peteacher52 Amen motherfucker! The reason Bach was so fucking good was because he borrowed from other people and LEARNED from them. He read about Rameau's playing style and hand positions and started implementing it. Not to mention he took italian, french, and english music and studied them, mastered them, and then wrote pieces in their style (french suites, english suites and italian concerto). I have little doubt that Bach would've taken full advantage of the piano.

[florafox]

@MortiCarthago Bach tried to learn from Nicolas de Grigny, who was the greatest organ master in France at that time.

[MonkeyRufy]

@florafox where do you take this information?

[florafox]

@MonkeyRufy from my musicology studies at cologne and bonn universities. Read about de Grigny in wikipedia and get some basic information.

[lambaman]

When the Fugue starts....it's....MAGICAL

[ycooreman]

As different a Bach as Gould would do a Mozart... and quite interesting because of it. The best interpretation of this particular piece, in my opinion, is played by Rosalyn Tureck. And that's coming from a major Gould fan.

[vivafra87]

@ycooreman Interpretation is a matter of taste. A good interpretation needs especially coherence; then, we can like more or less some interpretations, but you can't say "this one is the best", you should say instead "I feel better with this", because Gulda, Gould, Tureck, Bernstein, Stravinskij and so on are all musicians of an extremely high level. They don't actually make mistakes, they make choices. Unless a lack of coherence in their Interpretations, they are all wonderful.

[ycooreman]

@vivafra87 You are absolutely right, that is why I added the "in my opinion". It is of course, just my opinion and thus according to my taste. So maybe I should have said "that is the one that suits my taste the best".

[vivafra87]

@ycooreman No offense intended, of course. ;-)

[ycooreman]

@vivafra87 It's sometimes harder to convey meaning through language than we think it is :) Meaning is often added to words or taken away, especially when typing on the internet where we try to say as much as possible with as few words as possible. No offense taken at all :)

[b00i00d]

There's too much noise in the comments, when all there should be is: Beautiful!

[orreguin]

este hombre nos demuestra que hay Bach más alla de Glenn Gould...this man demonstrates us that there is Bach beyond Glenn Gould...

[animumaurarium]

Ah calm yourself guys, this is an INTERPRETATION of the piece. In Bach's time, one surely played much much more differently. But times have changed... This you can see in this interp.

[Benjamingecom]

Bach makes it amazingly tonal (feeling major or minor) considering the all the accidentals that come in chromatic pieces, it's really quite an achievement!

[Aapton]

this is incredible

[dosergiobr]

I imagine the scores of this piece. Must be almost unreadable. Too many accidents (# or b) along it. Only real masters can play that for instance Glenn Gold.

[SmackUp7778888]

I love people who try to prove how intelligent they are on youtube.com. It makes you wonder what else they try to prove to themselves in their individual lives...

[TheCitybike]

Great interpretation!!

[mynameismred]

i really like this

[Robotman42]

I wouldn't give it a 5/5. It's technically a very good performance. Still, I hear the organ in my head and I can't hear it in his playing.

[sirdelrio]

It is embarrasing that the most voted comments are the most incredibly stupid, narrow minded, and iliterate. That's an evidence of the superficiality of our time, and classical music has not being inmune to it.

[The55555SSSSS]

Bach's music added colour to this Black & White video!

[parallax2001]

if it ain't baroque, don't fix it.

[classicalalways]

A very interesting performance, and what a treasure to have on Youtube for everyone to enjoy. For anyone who followed Gulda from his days wearing headpieces, we should all remember that he was very focused on so much of the great traditional German repertoire. In all fairness, the performance is a bit hurried at times and abrupt, but one could argue that he also created a harpsichord effect with the abrupt chords et al. But the performance has such vibrance - a treasure.

[june22u]

wow............ i lost my words... great

at first he looks quite hilarious ,so i didnt l expect these amazing playing

omg... great. amazing.

[simcha181818]

After hearing Gulda's Chromatic Fantasy, I understood why Martha Argerich referred to him as the greatest musical talent that she met.

[hamblettamaud]

He did hum, a little bit, in the fantasia,

[Ianthe22]

@hamblettamaud Can you blame the guy? it's ahrd not to hum along any of those funny chromates when you play the piece:D. It starts with a light wiggling of your head. after some 86 nots you start simulating the chromatic with you lips and suddenly you hum it.

[pianogus]

Not only does he not hum, he plays like a genius. Thanks for posting this vintage Gulda video.

[simcha181818]

Don't refer to him as dude. He has a name: Friedrich Gulda.

[nolanola]

how perceptive of you.

[nolanola]

this dude rules. esp. 9:39.

[Neotonalguy]

He also plays Jazz....amazing artist

[timpani25]

check out his 'vibrato' right at 2:30 . he is good, indeed.

a 42

[spasticteapot]

....holy fark. That's epic.

[TJFNYC212]

wasn't he a teacher of Martha Argerich?

[vova47]

@TJFNYC212 Yes,indeed, she was his only pupil. And she called him "the most gifted person I know"

[TJFNYC212]

@vova47 he certainly had that right. I really like Gulda. 

[chamade216]

Extremely beautiful! How good technique he had!!

[helerota]

es absolutamente extraordinario,genial!!!

[helerota]

es absolutamente extraordinario,genial!!

[lovesGenet]

Gulda is also as interesting pianistically as anyone ever. Musically , this guy has it all and his logic and anti- logic is sophisticated.He knew philosophy,economics ,psycho-analytic. So shut up dog face! Did the toilet say let it go!

[MgcMrMistoffelees]

This guy is a genius. In the black-and-white era, he wore black-and-white. When a colar TV was available, he wore colorfully.

[metteholm75]

great

[metteholm75]

comment

[metteholm75]

comment

[flurmflam]

Great playing.

[aaabbbccc5]

Bach/Busoni good work indeed! Gulda is my friend!

[snaaptaker]

@aaabbbccc5 Not Bach/Busoni. Just BACH.

[aaabbbccc5]

@snaaptaker

I thought it´s a transcription by Busoni! Ask google!

[snaaptaker]

@aaabbbccc5 Yes, there is a transcription of this piece by Busoni. This isn't it. This is the original version by Bach. That's why Gulda announced "Johann Sebastian Bach", and not "Bach/Busoni".

You can't hear the difference between Bach and Bach/Busoni?

[aaabbbccc5]

@snaaptaker

You´re right doc!

Bach is world!

[snaaptaker]

@aaabbbccc5 Absolutely, doc.

Bach is the Universe!!! :-))

[metteholm75]

oooooh! I like her! I actually own a recording very close to this. At the moment I am not sure, but I think it is with Trevor Pinnock.

[metteholm75]

Imsorryimsorry! It just sounds so in my ears, because I never heard it played like that before before.

[brodsky96]

BACH is playing BACH...

[eugeneherman]

Well, only brilliant overall! I like this performance a lot! This piece has many students. I am one.

[metteholm75]

That was fantastic. The way he shows the structure by playing the full harmonies in that "sforzando" -like manner is highly unsusual, but the idea is clear. Gulda is no less eccentric than Gould.

[VictorMLudwig]

it has nothing to do with eccentric behaviour. gulda uses the sforzato to pronounce chromatically declining lines. which is a logical approach rather than an eccentric one.

[pickymoon]

@metteholm75 , actually he's not the only one to play this manner (which is my favorite). Try listening to Jaccottet's version.

[JamesonTrish]

fantastic!

[beoufd]

i cant believe this is bach!

[feanando]

Indeed... but as it is a Fantasy, Bach seems to have allowed himself all possible and imaginable freedom... Just amazing.

[Mozeroscar]

no mames

[answersquestioned]

I love how he keeps the momentum going from the first to the last note, creating a beautiful flow throughout. A most satisfying performance

[klausknulp]

@answersquestioned

that time he really had been one of the greatest artists!

[rolandonavarro]

there is not word. this man isn´t from this planet

[injacowetrust]

awesome!

[LIiutaio]

Muito melhor que o Glenn Gould!

[y1g1tcn]

good performance but he is using the pedal a lot so it becomes something out of Bach.

[THEbuchalski]

@y1g1tcn but that's kinda the point. he's playing a song for harpsichord (?) on piano. This is the problem with playing Bach on piano... he wrote no piece for piano, because obviously it wasn't invented yet. Often this means little to no pedal, but most especially in this piece, it is up for interpretation. I like to use some pedal in the arpeggios toward the beginning of the fantasie and none in the fugue. but, in essence, the performer is already making the piece their own by switching instrs

[fiandrhi]

Also, your use of the word "vanity" is strange. Actually, I think seeing music as a display of human ability (a stunt) is vain. Humility is removing the issue of human accomplishment altogether and focusing on nothing but the music as an expression of pure aesthetic experience (heart). If virtuosity were the point of music then whoever could play at the fastest tempo would be the "best". Chopin's Op. 10/3 played vivace possibile, etc.

[lexo30]

@fiandrhi I also agree that if virtuosity were the point of music then the fastest music would be the best (such as that Hindemith viola sonata where the tempo marking is unplayably fast). I can play the aria from the Goldberg variations on the piano because it's quite slow, but I'm not a virtuoso pianist and a virtuoso pianist would undoubtedly play it better.

[fiandrhi]

Interesting how he plays a mordent with two hands at 1:19.

As to the virtuosity issue...maybe I don't have it (point taken), but I would say it's a tool, necessary in some passages, even for some entire pieces, in order to play them as written and up to speed, but otherwise of no concern at all, except to people who see music as a kind of stunt or a circus act...a display of human ability. Anyone who sees music this way misses the point of music, which is beside issues of human solipsism.

[jtguzman]

I can`t disagree more. Vituosity is the only way musitians can open their minds to inner ways of expresion.

It's not just a tool, is THE tool that allows exploration and invention for those who really have passion, not just vanity.

So be humble and true, not just another musitian wanabe that belives that playing with "heart" he is good at what he is doing.

And music is a stunt, it should be a stunt, something beyond ordinary to be shown, otherwise its just vanity.

[fiandrhi]

JT, actually you seem to agree with me. I acknowledged that virtuosity was necessary as a means of making music but otherwise of no concern "except to people [like you, apparently] who see music as a stunt or circus act".

No, I don't believe that merely playing with heart is enough to make a competent musician (because competent musicians must be able to handle difficult pieces and passages), but I do think the heart is the point, not the stunt.

[lexo30]

@fiandrhi I agree with you that isn't a stunt, although I disagree that virtuosity is necessary as a means of making music. It's necessary for making this music and a lot of other kinds of music as well, but there has been plenty of great music made by people who were not virtuoso players, but who were good enough to play the music that was theirs to make. For example, the Beatles were not virtuoso musicians and neither are most punk bands, but they still made some great music.

[Stehnz]

jtguzman your views about music are so narrow minded

let me guess you are some kind of nerdy geek who likes computer programming or some shit like that, arent you ?

[korglove]

not bad, but he is no glen gould. to many mistakes at the end of runs. this piece is close to romantic music as you can get and gulda does not deliver the feel. to rushed.

[henripche]

Well, at least he doesn't hum during recordings.

[sirdelrio]

@henripche if the humming bothers you so much maybe your ears are not focused on what they should: THE MUSIC.

[sirdelrio]

@henripche Mediocre minds find a morbid pleasure in trying to reduce the genius with non musical arguments, like complaining about the guy's humming. A master of the instrument, an insightful performer, a musical oracle played to you, but your simplistic sensibility couldnt see more than one small, irrelevant detail: he hums. so what. he plays like a god, showed you new lands of expression, and all you see is that he hums? there is always the strive towards censorship in mediocre critics.

[KABRIS1]

@sirdelrio Thank you for articulating this point in a brilliant manner.

[sirdelrio]

@henripche I apologize. I admit i got carried away. I extrapolated from comments of this sort usually made to censure gould, which i find absurd. i'm sorry.

[henripche]

@sirdelrio Thanks. It was a bit childish of me to be so cynical as well, so sorry about that. I guess it was just a misunderstanding.

[zeira9]

@henripche

No doubt Gulda was a world class pianist, but not a good interpret of Bach. His interpretation is too romantic, using the pedal way too much. His range of pianissimo-fortissimo is not applicable for Bach, who wrote this for the clavecin, which has no piano or forte, all notes have the same tonal strength regardless of how hard the keys are hit. That's what many contemporary pianist forget, but not Gould. That's why I prefer Gould much more even if he hums.

[JakeandElwoodBlues]

@henripche Five Easy Pieces

[rusupersic]

He had a rushed day :). Every interpreter can sing each day other stile on the same piece. He is brilliant like every jew .

[bushinarin]

This is actually baroque music. Not quite romantic.

[invertedchords]

Romantic period is 1950's cheyekosky and what not, stravinksi, leonardi di capinci, joe satriani and what not, jeremy kyle, jimi hendrix, neyegel keneddie and what not,

[JohannesKuenel]

@bushinarin

Your're right, I just have to add: In 1964, it's neither really baroque nor romantic. When interpreting old music, we can try our best in making it sound authentic, but we will never be able to do it like the then interpreters, since our lifestyle is so different, and so are e.g. our musical impressions. Gulda, Gould, etc. have heard e.g. romantic music and can't erase this memory. Or, maybe even Bach would have wanted us to play romantically, if he had known what it meant ;-) ?

[bushinarin]

@JohannesKuenel Yeah this is true. I don't even remember correcting the guy. It basically served no purpose and I feel as though I was internet ego-stroking.

I probably shouldn't do that.

[sirdelrio]

@bushinarin It is evident that you belong to that breed of pseudo-musicologists, amateurish classical music fans, for whom a problem so complex like interpreting a musical composition is as narrow and simple as play romantic slow, baroque fast, dont use pedal in harpsichord pieces, dont make ritardando, and so on. The baroque spirit has nothing to do with not expressing or playing impersonally. the baroque spirit is about exhuberance, saturation, a longing for the divine.

[henripche]

@sirdelrio You could infer all that from just one jocular comment? I'm impressed. What's more, I am in profound awe and hereby submit to your every wish and fancy, o all-knowing Master of the Universe!

[bushinarin]

@sirdelrio I'm going to go out on a limb here and call you a dick. I think it;s silly to go hunting for comments from months ago to post a lot of big words about. Also I don't think fans can be 'amateurish'. If you like something you do and if you don't you don't.

Also as for the harpsichord comment, they don't have pedals. I like both fast romantic pieces, and slow baroque pieces.

Yeah dude seriously, you're a douche.

[sirdelrio]

@bushinarin i apologize. i was in a rage rant at the moment. i know harpischords dont have pedals. what i meant was that since they dont, some people think you shouldnt use them if you play baroque music on a piano. what motivated my rant was that I completely disapprove the whole notion of "authentic performance" or the notion of historically acurate performances as necessarily superior. anyway, i apologize.

[bushinarin]

@sirdelrio It's fine. I shouldn't have sworn at you, and I apologize for that. I understand disagreeing with historically accurate performance being inherently superior, although I do enjoy it. I also like little nuances of difference put into a piece of music by different performers, and Gould is usually one who really makes a song his own.

[oloindafolo]

CLOSE TO ROMANTIC MUSIC AHAHAHAHHA

[gaugin1903]

@oloindafolo Bach is the most romantic composer ever!

[felix0911176727]

Thank you for this !

[PointyTail]

The fugue is brilliant!

[taviona]

Absolutely, I love the steady pulse it has.

[Babejuda]

In response to some of the comments here: Bach was a musician. So is Gulda. I would not limit this to tempo-mechanical-instrumental sides. Gulda's playing on a clavichord has sensitivity adopted to the instrument before him. As long as he conveys Bach's musical-ideas, well - Bravo!

[berlinzerberus]

wanda landowska war eine cembalistin,gulda ein pianist.seine bach aufführungen,vor allem die des wohltemperierten klaviers waren legendär.ich habe nichts gegen die pianistische durchdringung von bach,wenn sie auf einem solch hohen musikalischen niveau sind.sein temperament war manchmal groß aber ihn als draufdrescher und geschwindigkeitsfanatiker zu bezeichnen,ist total verfehlt.

seine bach-interpretationen auch der chromatischen fuge sind luzide und überaus genial und einzigartig!

[Pischnaholic]

Ich kann Sie nicht gut verstehen, Belrinzerbrus. Moegen Sie auf English schreiben, bitte?

Bach schreibt nich fuer das modernisches Klavier -- nur Orgel und Cembalo. Aber, Edwin Fischer, Agi Jambor, Myra Hess, Glenn Gould, Angela Hewitt haben wunderschoenes Bach gespielt -- manchmal aber nicht ewig. (Gould war manchmal ganz verrueckt!)

Ich liebe nicht Friedrich Gulda's Bach. Es ist sehr insensitiv.

[berlinzerberus]

...das ist nicht ganz richtig,bach hat für tasteninstrumente geschrieben.neben dem cembalo und dem spinett gab es aber zu seiner zeit auch noch das hammer-bzw.tafelklavier [piano-forte]

dort konnte man wie beim modernen klavier die dynamik direkter beeinflussen als beim cembalo.

[simcha181818]

@Pischnaholic Es (Gulda's playing of Bach works) ist sehr insensitiv." That's really not so. Don't mistake uncontrolled and mindless rubato for artistic expression.

[Pischnaholic]

A problem with professional pianism in general since the mid-nineteenth century:

"EVER FASTER --- NEVER BETTER."

I forget who said that first, but it came from a recognized authority, and remains a most astute observation.

"Just because one CAN doesn't mean one SHOULD."

Listen to Wanda, if you can find her historic performance of The CF&F, and listen to Agi Jambor - available here on YouTube. If the immense difference doesn't affect you positively, it says more about you than them.

[demosj]

That's what everyone that can't really play the piano says when they want to sound profound and intellectual.

If you can play faster and have enough technique to play with clarity, then yes, it might in fact be better.

To provide another example, "Those that say virtuosity has no place in music do not have it themselves." -Moritz Rosenthal.

[JEESherazi]

I agree. Well, to a certain point, of course I don't find it appealing when someone tries to play bumble bee at 600 bpm, you know what I mean ;D

As for the video, I greatly enjoyed it.

[berlinzerberus]

g u l d a... yes,he was great indeed!!

[Pischnaholic]

Fine! Excellent pianism!

BUT, it's speedy to the point of being BRUSQUE and too many chords are punched out harshly with dissonances resolved insensitively. And I'm sorry but the fugue suffers from a loss of power and majesty at this wicked, galloping pace. Once again, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Agi Jambor's performance is much finer, far more sensitive and intriguing, while Wanda Landowska's historic 1936 recording remains SUPREME.

[berlinzerberus]

completely nonsense!

[Stukov16]

I really admire his easiness at playing! His fingers move so light as if there was no obstacle, no physical barrier between notes and chords. (I'm a pianist)

[VictorMLudwig]

actually, this piece is not that difficult (I'm practising it for my entrance exam next tuesday). The difficulty lies in not making the virtuosity sound emotionless. Gulda's play sounds exactly that to me. Imo his play remains wooden. It lacks attention to polyphony, chromatics and emotion. Like my piano teacher (a student of Arrau) said: "I don't like Gould's interpretations, but he pays attention to every note, every note is important to him. Unlike Gulda, to whom only he himself is important"

[Stukov16]

Thank you for your interesting comment.

I'm still about to start with the two-part inventions so...

[Gandalf71]

Marvellous Bach from Gulda!!

Thanks for this Video.

[Babejuda]

Amazing piece and performance!!! I also agree with BrunoJazzmanLeicht and drjekyII66's comments.

[drjekyll66]

This is indeed galactical.

And I think that the Gulda- Beethoven-Sonatas probably are unmatched !

[psatch]

What do you think about Claudio Arrau's interpretation of the sonatas?

[taviona]

I'm not him but I think that it's mainly a matter of taste.

Gulda is more objective I think, he doesn't do as much rubato, he doesn't use the pedal a lot and he is said to be very close to the score.

Arrau has a different tone (at least in the videos that are on YouTube) and usually plays slower.

[taviona]

Uhh, I forgot to add that, in my opinion, both are grrreat pianists and both interpretations are equally valid. Just in my opinion Gulda sounds more modern (I guess he was closer to the way Beethoven is usually played today)

[danceofthegoblins]

Why do "they" always teach that emotion, subjectivity, freedom of form, breaking rules etc. didn't come until the Romantic period!?....

That said, very Baroque performance and divine interpretation by the supreme Gulda; but I'll always love him for his Beethoven first!

[BrunoJazzmanLeicht]

That's the Gulda I admire! Thanks a bunch for that great one. It's a hell of an interpretation. What a difficult piece of eternal music. It will survive the coming centuries.

Thanks,

Bruno Leicht, a connaisseur of all good music