Goldberg Variations

Ferdi · « **on:** 12 Jun 2004, 09:28 pm »

Watched a bit of TV tonight and happened to see a bit of Silence of the Lambs, the bit where Lecter sits in the big cage and listens to the Bach's Goldberg Variations on decidedly non-audiophile bit of equipment.

Off to listen to the Goldberg Variations.....

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Jun 2004, 11:46 pm »

Funny, I just had a lecture on Bach and learned serial killers in Hollywood. I think there's a third Lecter film coming out. You'll have a hoot when you hear the name. I think Terminal Man has a good scene in it. Schindler's List has a bach scene too.

http://www.siranthonyhopkins.com/archives/000070.shtml

Goldberg #25

kyyuan · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 05:18 am »

I listend to both of Glenn Gould's versions last night, and enjoyed both. At times I enjoyed the slower tempo of the 1980s version, and at times the 1950s version.

Tyson · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 03:24 pm »

There's a couple of recent Goldbergs on piano that I like better than the Gould accounts. 1st is by Schiff (love his complete Bach solo keyboard survey), the other is by Hewitt. If you like Bach on the piano, you gotta hear these 2

JoshK · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 03:45 pm »

I have Murray Perahia - Bach Goldberg Variations on SACD. Neither my wife nor I really dig it all that much. I guess it is just not what I thought it would be. If anyone is interested I'd be willing to sell it.

Tyson · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 03:52 pm »

I'd buy it but I already have it. . .

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #6 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 04:24 pm »

Are any of the others as precise as Gould I? After hearing Gould I, I couldn't help but feel that the other ones I heard were sloppy.

Tyson · « **Reply #7 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 04:39 pm »

Precise compared to the 50's gould, or the 80's gould? No one really sounds very precise next to the 50's gould, unless they are playing it on harpsichord. Hewitt definitely has a more stacatto sound than Schiff, who is very flowing. However, both Hewitt and Schiff bring much more color and variety of sound to the work than 50's gould, who sound very much like an "x-ray" presentation of the music.

kyyuan · « **Reply #8 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 04:55 pm »

Quote from: Tyson

There's a couple of recent Goldbergs on piano that I like better than the Gould accounts. 1st is by Schiff (love his complete Bach solo keyboard survey), the other is by Hewitt. If you like Bach on the piano, you gotta hear these 2

Tyson---thanks for the Schiff recommendation. It sounded great on Amazon's site. I may have to get it.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #9 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 06:12 pm »

Cool. I meant the 55 gould when I said gould I. You know, I hate it when the only embellishment someone makes is trills. I mean...I could come up with that, you know? In a way, Gould I neatly sidesteps it all by not taking repeats. I think I still prefer Gould, so far. I have heard Blandine Verlet play it on harpsichord, and it just sounds sloppy as heck to me. IMO, Gould's microdynamics from note to note and the clarity I feel he brings to the two manuals, hands, voices, whatever, is more enjoyable. Rather than the music as a single rather amorphous entity, I hear and feel the multiple parts weaving throughout each other more distinctly.

Tyson · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 08:16 pm »

ooheadsoo,
Schiff definitely has a level of precision that is very high, plus he uses very little sustain pedal, but he does play in a much more relaxed and pianistic manner than 55 gould. I think both approaches, while opposite, are valid. Hewitt is much more in the "gould school" of interpretations, but even she is more of a pianistic interpretation. For my money I like her better than Gould in the whole "stacatto and ultra clarity" type of rendition. Besides, once you get to this level of performance, there's really no "best", just personal preference. Anyway, you might want to check out Hewitt if you haven't heard her yet.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Jun 2004, 11:58 pm »

Heh, in school, I'm basically being trained to be able to say that ANY and EVERY form is "valid!"

I do get weary of trills though. Too french

Tyson · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Jun 2004, 04:16 am »

Not all interpretations are good. Perahia for example, is one of my favorite pianists, but I really think his Goldberg set is boring and, well, bad. For me Bach's music demands energy, clarity of counterpoint, and a singing line without the need for excessive use of the pedal. Schiff and Hewitt do all of this and more, Perahia and Gould do not (Perahia doesn't have energy, gould doesn't have a singing line, unless you count his vocal accompaniment). JMHO of course.

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Jun 2004, 05:41 am »

I don't necessarily feel that Bach needs to be all that cantabile. After all, he never left Germany, though he did love Vivaldi and the Italian style. Still, for my personal tastes, I like Gould's 55 style. Each note and figure seems to have its place and meaning. The aria is the only one where I think a cantabile style is clearly called for, and I feel Gould actually does the aria slower and with more tasteful rubato than the other performances I have heard. Many of the free variations I find Gould actually playing slower and with more taste than many other versions, as well. It's mainly in the virtuosic variations where Gould breaks loose and shows his chops. Well, it's supposed to be virtuosic. That's my take, at least.