The insanity of abundance!

[Ken B]

You are again missing the point. I think I described the situation sufficiently clearly above. In former times one walked into a record store to buy stuff. It was a hassle to buy something that was not in stock (e.g. you had to pay a bloody deposit because the store wanted to make sure that you took the stuff they ordered for you).
Because major labels and well known artists were the best distributed (and had the best marketing, usually good reviews in magazines etc.) one tended to buy their recordings. If one was a poor teenager one might try other stuff if it was cheap. But precisely because one could not afford to buy a lot one wanted to get the good (= standard recommendations by magazines etc.) stuff and this was mostly stuff by well known artists on major labels.

Basically all the reasons why you were buying Naxos, only this was before Naxos became a major player.

Yes. Seraphim, Vox, cut-outs. Back in the days of vinyl only there were new issues (pricey), reissues (cheaper) and Vox(cheapest). Luckily the reissues included boatloads of Szell, Klemperer, Cluytens!

[Mandryka]

The big thing that Gould was well known for was the first The Goldberg Variations. It's a recording which changed the way people thought about the music radically, general public and musicians alike. Here's a comment Richard Egarr made about it

It is perhaps time, before further analysis and remarks, to acknowledge
the influence that recording has had in our world's reception, perception and
performance of this work. Presently, we are faced with a conception by both players
and listeners alike that is absolutely and inescapably affected and effected by Glenn
Gould and his recorded performances on the piano. The only pre-Gould recorded
performances in common circulation today are the two made by Wanda Landowska
and that of Claudio Arrau. However, today's collective consciousness on the matter
seems not to trouble itself with these earlier approaches. Gould's first studio recording
of the variations from 1955 radically readjusted everyone's perception of what Bach
could sound like with its devastating speed, brilliance and Gouldian intellectual
deconstruction. From that point on, the performance and recording of Bach on any
keyboard, and the Variations in particular, was changed both for performers and
listeners alike. Love it or hate it, Gould's individual genius is impossible to ignore.

Apart from that I'm not convinced that the general public appreciated his Bach or his anything else, at least out of Canada. But they knew he was a Bach musician because of the Goldbergs.

The only recording I can think of which is similarly influential in the reception history of the music is Schnabel's 1st op 111 -- there are probably others I'm forgetting.

But I think among musicians he had a big impact in the USSR, and that's again something which makes him an important figure. More than just a marketing phenomenon, though marketing is an important part of his story.

[Todd]

You are missing the point and seem to have a very poor idea of the situation I (and almost everybody not living in a large city) was in 25-30 years ago. It is not about "being serious about Bach" (or anything else).

This simply reinforces that your experience does not translate to anything even remotely close to universal.  Living in a mid-sized, consumer product saturated American city, I've never had a problem finding recordings.  Indeed, the local classical specialist routinely special ordered items otherwise not readily available.  My problem has always been insufficient disposable income to buy everything I wanted to buy.  Depending on when you were buying, LPs may still have been dominant.  Where I live, the Tower Records outlets and local shops had large numbers of LPs of varying age until about the mid- to late-90s.  I understand that my experience is not universal, outside of mid-size and large American cities.

None of this establishes Gould as a default for anything.  Indeed, you wrote that even his Bach is divisive, which seems to be the opposite of a default recommendation.  Generally, default recommendations are safer performances.  Again, maybe in your experience, where you lived, that was the case.  It was not where I live.

I understand why some people like or love Gould, and I also understand why others don't, and why some people, including some from this board, have called him a charlatan.  I don't think he was a charlatan, just an eccentric who had a lot of marketing muscle behind him starting no later than the 60s.  The decision to pair him with Bernstein was not made on accident, for instance.

Incidentally, VAI is an independent label that has done reissues for decades.  Every once in a while, I buy a recording from them.  Their reissue of Gieseking's 1930s Debussy is one of their better issues.

[Ken B]

The big thing that Gould was well known for was the first The Goldberg Variations. It's a recording which changed the way people thought about the music radically, general public and musicians alike. Here's a comment Richard Egarr made about it

Apart from that I'm not convinced that the general public appreciated his Bach or his anything else, at least out of Canada. But they knew he was a Bach musician because of the Goldbergs.

The only recording I can think of which is similarly influential in the reception history of the music is Schnabel's 1st op 111 -- there are probably others I'm forgetting.

But I think among musicians he had a big impact in the USSR, and that's again something which makes him an important figure. More than just a marketing phenomenon, though marketing is an important part of his story.

So basically, Richard Eggar and the Russians were dupes of Madison Avenue.

[PerfectWagnerite]

I understand why some people like or love Gould, and I also understand why others don't, and why some people, including some from this board, have called him a charlatan.  I don't think he was a charlatan, just an eccentric who had a lot of marketing muscle behind him starting no later than the 60s. 

Going back and relistening to some Gould lately there is no way he is a charlatan. The fact that his recordings are dry, claustrophobic and manipulated does not make him a charlatan.

I didn't know the guy wrote a fugue, and a very funny one at that. Check this out it is a real screamer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZM4yxbE0ZE

[Todd]

Going back and relistening to some Gould lately there is no way he is a charlatan. The fact that his recordings are dry, claustrophobic and manipulated does not make him a charlatan.

I'm not of the opinion he was a charlatan.  I'm generally not a fan of his playing, either.  Why spend time listening to even his Bach when I can listen to Schiff, Perahia, De Maria, Anderszewski, Levinas, Gulda, Richter, Horszowski, Sheppard, Ashkenazy, and Sonoda, just off the top of my head?  Why listen to his Mozart or Beethoven at all?

[71 dB]

I'm not of the opinion he was a charlatan.  I'm generally not a fan of his playing, either. Why spend time listening to even his Bach when I can listen to Schiff, Perahia, De Maria, Anderszewski, Levinas, Gulda, Richter, Horszowski, Sheppard, Ashkenazy, and Sonoda, just off the top of my head?  Why listen to his Mozart or Beethoven at all?

Some people ARE fans of his playing. Simple as that.

[Todd]

Some people ARE fans of his playing. Simple as that.

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious.

[Jo498]

Yeah, and sorry for flogging a lame horse, none of your list but a little Gulda, Richter and Horszowski (so basically only options for WTC with Gulda being in some respects similarly excentric, and so was/is J C Martins) was recorded/available in Gould's heighday (or when he died in 1982). So it is not so surprising that many listeners formed their impression of Bach from Gould's recordings (for better or worse) and some actually liked what they heard.

[Todd]

Yeah, and sorry for flogging a lame horse, none of your list but a little Gulda, Richter and Horszowski (so basically only options for WTC with Gulda being in some respects similarly excentric, and so was/is J C Martins) was recorded/available in Gould's heighday (or when he died in 1982).

Strictly speaking, that's factually inaccurate.  Takahiro Sonoda was around and recording core rep, including his first batch of Bach, in the 60s and 70s.  However, he was unknown outside Japan at the time except to an adventurous few.

That written, the other names I mentioned are around now, and they are better than Gould.  There's no reason anymore to cling to a relic sustained at least as much by marketing, and probably more so, than underlying musical merits.  It's not too late for people to breakaway from the imprint Gould may have left.  But if they are happy enough to listen to Gould and believe in some great truth to be divined from his playing, that's fine, too.

And generally, it's "beat a dead horse" not "flog a lame horse" in English, though "flog a dead horse" is used as well.  The horse must be dead, though.  There's no reason not to flog a lame horse; it might get a little more work out of it before shipping it to the dog food factory.

[71 dB]

That written, the other names I mentioned are around now, and they are better than Gould.

Them being "around now" does not automatically mean people have access to their recordings.

There's no reason anymore to cling to a relic sustained at least as much by marketing, and probably more so, than underlying musical merits.  It's not too late for people to breakaway from the imprint Gould may have left.  But if they are happy enough to listen to Gould and believe in some great truth to be divined from his playing, that's fine, too.

Maybe Gould is all some people have? I have (J.S. Bach on solo piano) one dics by Gould, Feltsman, Jeno Jando and Hewitt and several discs by Rübsam. That's what I have. It would be financially hard to get Schiff, Perahia, De Maria, Anderszewski, Levinas, Gulda, Richter, Horszowski, Sheppard, Ashkenazy, and Sonoda as you suggest as the "better" options. 

[Todd]

Them being "around now" does not automatically mean people have access to their recordings.

This is only true if you don't know how to use YouTube and other free sites of less repute.  You can literally listen to hours of Andras Schiff playing Bach, and lecturing on Bach, right now on YouTube.  Lectures were not previously available for the most part, it should be noted. 

Streaming services have also significantly reduced the price of listening to a wide array of core rep and even obscure rep.

There is literally no excuse at all for a person to only have Gould today, or any other artist of the past, unless a person actively chooses to cut off other listening options.  There is more music available now at a lower cost than ever before in the history of recorded music.  The financial burden argument doesn't hold water.

[PerfectWagnerite]

This is only true if you don't know how to use YouTube and other free sites of less repute.  You can literally listen to hours of Andras Schiff playing Bach, and lecturing on Bach, right now on YouTube.  Lectures were not previously available for the most part, it should be noted. 

Streaming services have also significantly reduced the price of listening to a wide array of core rep and even obscure rep.

There is literally no excuse at all for a person to only have Gould today, or any other artist of the past, unless a person actively chooses to cut off other listening options.  There is more music available now at a lower cost than ever before in the history of recorded music.  The financial burden argument doesn't hold water.

Yes, almost anything, and I mean anything you want is on youtube now. Listening to Gould I really have a hard time believing that this was some kind of reference recording. The earlier Goldberg was driven, humorless, and pretty bow-wow of a performance. It was as if he was interested in getting through it as fast as he could. No repeats and quick tempo meant a lot of the variations last no more than 30 seconds or so and really detracts from the continuity of the piece. The later one is almost exactly the opposite - as slow as you can get, but with him doing his annoying humming all the time. Anyway really strange.

[71 dB]

This is only true if you don't know how to use YouTube and other free sites of less repute.  You can literally listen to hours of Andras Schiff playing Bach, and lecturing on Bach, right now on YouTube.  Lectures were not previously available for the most part, it should be noted. 

Streaming services have also significantly reduced the price of listening to a wide array of core rep and even obscure rep.

There is literally no excuse at all for a person to only have Gould today, or any other artist of the past, unless a person actively chooses to cut off other listening options.  There is more music available now at a lower cost than ever before in the history of recorded music.  The financial burden argument doesn't hold water.

Yes, streaming services provide almost unlimited sources of music (if one doesn't care about the sound quality limitations), but time is limited. I can't listen to Schiff on Youtube or Spotify now, because I am starting to watch a Blu-ray. In fact I should be sleeping (2 am here)...

[Todd]

Yes, streaming services provide almost unlimited sources of music (if one doesn't care about the sound quality limitations), but time is limited.

You're moving the goalposts.  At least you recognize that you are actively limiting your own choices.

[Todd]

Yes, almost anything, and I mean anything you want is on youtube now.

There have been times where I've bought a recording, not thought too highly of it, and then looked on YouTube only to discover it was there the whole time.  For new repertoire, I often check YT first to see if it's worth exploring.

I've thought about starting my own YT channel to fill in the gaps of some recordings, especially of Japanese market LvB sonata cycles.  I just have to find the time. 

[PerfectWagnerite]

There have been times where I've bought a recording, not thought too highly of it, and then looked on YouTube only to discover it was there the whole time.  For new repertoire, I often check YT first to see if it's worth exploring.

I've thought about starting my own YT channel to fill in the gaps of some recordings, especially of Japanese market LvB sonata cycles.  I just have to find the time.

Good idea.

Hey your girl Claire Hangci's Chopin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LTY46f5n58&list=PLJRfuVi-Sl_UFbrCx5zFX6vSSG56Fq47K

[Todd]

Good idea.

Hey your girl Claire Hangci's Chopin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LTY46f5n58&list=PLJRfuVi-Sl_UFbrCx5zFX6vSSG56Fq47K

In her case, I had no problem plumping for the recording.  I'll buy anything else she records sight unseen, sound unheard.

[PerfectWagnerite]

In her case, I had no problem plumping for the recording.  I'll buy anything else she records sight unseen, sound unheard.

What do you think of the youtube sound quality? I think it is pretty good.

Rather remarkable for a 27 yr old. Close your eyes you might think it is Cortot in good sound.
$25 for 2 cds is actually not a bad price.

[Todd]

What do you think of the youtube sound quality? I think it is pretty good.

Rather remarkable for a 27 yr old. Close your eyes you might think it is Cortot in good sound.
$25 for 2 cds is actually not a bad price.

YouTube is fine for rock/pop most of the time, and it is sufficient for OOP classical and for making a buy/no-buy determination for in-print discs for me.  In the case of this disc, the high-res download is $16, so that's the bargain I went for.