Johannes Brahms - Rhapsody in G minor Op.79 No.2 - GLENN GOULD

Played by Glenn Gould, (piano, what else!).

Category:

Music

Tags:

• johannes
• brahms;
• rhapsody;
• minor;
• op
• 79;
• no
• 2;
• piano;
• romantic;
• glenn
• gould

[justice0006]

Should have more shaping. But I can admit, G. Gould is loyal to the manuscript. The beginning can have more music. Like a slight crescendo?

[deviantrake]

You should listen to the version by Julius Katchen, also on my homepage, it's my personal favourite.

[earwasel2]

Glenn Gould is a very robotic pianist, meaning he plays everything as is, without much expression. Somehow, he used this approach to make excellent Bach recordings. However, interpretting Romantic music, such as Brahms, like this makes it sound very mechanical.

If I were to play this for my teacher the way Gould plays it here, my teacher would demand that I play it again, but play it correctly the second time.

[frimoussevigousse]

Le tempo ne permet pas d'apporter suffisamment d'agitation. Mais Gould donne à certains passages* un calme que certains interprètes oublient de donner à Brahms.

*1:30 et 2:45, entre autres

[EMPERORMIKI]

@TedinNY oh thats why you can't answer ... kk I get it.

When you understand that there is no definitive way to play any music you will see how silly your claim.

All you're saying is that Goulds interpretation is different than what is considered a standard approach to Brahms ... but what does that have to do with Bach?

I can answer that I think--some monkey whos been told that Gould can only play Bach flung around some crap that he plays everything like bach and monkey see monkey do

[TedinNY]

@EMPERORMIKI

I took the time and trouble to reply to your comment. Taste is individual. One can "like" or "dislike" something and this not up for discussion.

I gave you an example of a different interpretation by way of clarification that should have been self-explanatory. The difference in style is enormous.

However, now that you have chosen to debase this exchange with insults. I will no longer answer you since you have proved to be unworthy of my attention, Emperor or not.

[EMPERORMIKI]

@TedinNY again this moronic opinion that what Gould plays somehow becomes "Bach" or "Baroque" even if the music is by Brahms or Chopin ... funny thing is i don't see any of these assclowns accusing him of turning Berg into Bach.

Can you explain why you feel this way? No one ever has and when asked usually spew off a bunch of BS about how things "sound" and not much more than that.

Personally I find this recording to be very stirring ... esp. how he brings out lines that no one else does

[TedinNY]

@EMPERORMIKI

To answer requires more space than available here. Gould is playing it almost as if composed by Bach. Baroque not romantic.

I.M.O. this piece should stir the listener's passions. It's a RHAPSODY for crying out loud!

Were you stirred listening to this pleasant reading?

You may or may not like RICHTER's version. But listening to the difference will at least show what I mean.

[EMPERORMIKI]

@TedinNY aside from just "playing the notes" of a score written by a dead composer what really can a performer do aside from regurgitating past practice I suppose to appease your expectations in terms of "understanding the music"?

[rsundare]

Love this piece - and have heard so many renderings including Argerich. This one is pretty much the best, IMO. He exposes every nuance, and makes it sound simple. Wonderful! I cannot hear this version enough.

[TedinNY]

Sorry, but IMHO this is what happens when you just play the notes without understanding the music. Based on this, one would be justified in saying that Gould did not understand Brahms.

[Marsell2000]

terrible! like a 2-year-old playing. this piece needs movement!