Bach: Well-Tempered Clavier

[Mandryka]

He revolutionized Bach playing despite what anyone here dreams up.

Can you explain that a bit? How did he revolutionise Bach playing? What was the revolution about? Who followed in his footsteps?

[Mandryka]

  The description that has been used of "sewing machine" style is not one I would use, nor recognize in Gould's playing.

Many of the pieces in WTC 2 are fast and mechanical.

[San Antone]

Many of the pieces in WTC 2 are fast and mechanical.

Are you accusing Bach of writing fast and mechanical music?

[Mandryka]

Are you accusing Bach of writing fast and mechanical music?

Belle esquive.

[George]

For what it is worth, I really enjoy Gould's Bach, except his WTC.

[Marc]

[...] He revolutionized Bach playing despite what anyone here dreams up.

Despite what one thinks of Gould's Bach playing, I think it's because he's still one of a kind explains his popularity until today.
But I truly doubt he caused a revolution.
There are no followers.
Gould is unique.

[prémont]

Gould is unique.

But not everything he touched turned into gold, only into Gould.

 

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

The author Nassim Taleb wrote: For pleasure, read one chapter by Nabokov. For punishment, two. A similar phrase would sum up my attitude toward Gould after over a quarter century of listening--For pleasure, listen to ten minutes of Gould. For punishment, twenty.

I greatly respect Gould--both the man and musician. I usually (not always) enjoy his interpretations of Bach's music, if not the way it translates into actual sound. I enjoy his videos, ideas, and eccentricities. I am even somewhat sympathetic to his views about recorded vs. live music (put your pitchforks down, people), as well as his fascination with northern latitudes.

However, when it comes down to it, I find his actual sound to be difficult to listen to. I am not even sure whether Premont and I are referring to the same thing here, but I think his tone is often harsh, articulation overly staccato, and his choice of instrument a bit too much on the bright side for my tastes.

In my early days as a classical music lover (late 80s, early 90s) I was very excited about Gould's recordings. But then my piano teacher expressed her lack of enthusiasm about his tone (she is a fanatic for Solomon, Myra Hess, Curzon, et al.--and not a baroque specialist), if not his musicianship. As my tastes--both as an amateur pianist and a collector of recordings--advanced, I started to really appreciate people like Richter and Feinberg on piano, (to say nothing of Walcha and Kirkpatrick on harpsichord). These days, when I want to hear WTC on piano, I usually reach for Richter or Feinberg--both idiosyncratic in their own ways, and surely not HIP-approved. (I was enamoured with Fischer for many years, but for better or worse, that wore off.) But, I don't let that bother me; they were both enormously talented musicians with a great feeling for the music, and both had a much richer and more beautiful tone than Gould. Apples to oranges? Yes, probably, but my preferences nonetheless.

Nevertheless, Gould DOES show more than a flash or two of sheer genius in the WTC, especially in Bk I (really haven't listened to much of his Bk. II). In agreement with one poster above, he really does have a great talent for bringing out the various voices in some of those preludes and fugues. In any case, my favorite Bach recordings of Gould are the Partitas, found on a 1960s Columbia 2 LP set (and, I'm sure on CD as well).

One can probably never have too many recordings of the WTC (or anything by Bach), so I am really looking forward to listening to the Schiff set (EMC) I just received, and am also looking at the harpsichord set Mandryka suggested above.

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

[asin]B00J4ZQL0U[/asin]

Thanks! The CDs didn't come up in my search, but all the separate MP3s did.

[zamyrabyrd]

However, when it comes down to it, I find his actual sound to be difficult to listen to. I am not even sure whether Premont and I are referring to the same thing here, but I think his tone is often harsh, articulation overly staccato, and his choice of instrument a bit too much on the bright side for my tastes.
In my early days as a classical music lover (late 80s, early 90s) I was very excited about Gould's recordings. But then my piano teacher expressed her lack of enthusiasm about his tone (she is a fanatic for Solomon, Myra Hess, Curzon, et al.--and not a baroque specialist), if not his musicianship... In agreement with one poster above, he really does have a great talent for bringing out the various voices in some of those preludes and fugues.

Gould's articulation predicated on what may be perceived as a rather dry tone is exactly what I admire in his playing of Baroque music. Myra Hess, Solomon, et al, can save a warm tone for Schumann and other Romantics.

[Mandryka]

The author Nassim Taleb wrote: For pleasure, read one chapter by Nabokov. For punishment, two. A similar phrase would sum up my attitude toward Gould after over a quarter century of listening--For pleasure, listen to ten minutes of Gould. For punishment, twenty.

I greatly respect Gould--both the man and musician. I usually (not always) enjoy his interpretations of Bach's music, if not the way it translates into actual sound. I enjoy his videos, ideas, and eccentricities. I am even somewhat sympathetic to his views about recorded vs. live music (put your pitchforks down, people), as well as his fascination with northern latitudes.

However, when it comes down to it, I find his actual sound to be difficult to listen to. I am not even sure whether Premont and I are referring to the same thing here, but I think his tone is often harsh, articulation overly staccato, and his choice of instrument a bit too much on the bright side for my tastes.

In my early days as a classical music lover (late 80s, early 90s) I was very excited about Gould's recordings. But then my piano teacher expressed her lack of enthusiasm about his tone (she is a fanatic for Solomon, Myra Hess, Curzon, et al.--and not a baroque specialist), if not his musicianship. As my tastes--both as an amateur pianist and a collector of recordings--advanced, I started to really appreciate people like Richter and Feinberg on piano, (to say nothing of Walcha and Kirkpatrick on harpsichord). These days, when I want to hear WTC on piano, I usually reach for Richter or Feinberg--both idiosyncratic in their own ways, and surely not HIP-approved. (I was enamoured with Fischer for many years, but for better or worse, that wore off.) But, I don't let that bother me; they were both enormously talented musicians with a great feeling for the music, and both had a much richer and more beautiful tone than Gould. Apples to oranges? Yes, probably, but my preferences nonetheless.

Nevertheless, Gould DOES show more than a flash or two of sheer genius in the WTC, especially in Bk I (really haven't listened to much of his Bk. II). In agreement with one poster above, he really does have a great talent for bringing out the various voices in some of those preludes and fugues. In any case, my favorite Bach recordings of Gould are the Partitas, found on a 1960s Columbia 2 LP set (and, I'm sure on CD as well).

One can probably never have too many recordings of the WTC (or anything by Bach), so I am really looking forward to listening to the Schiff set (EMC) I just received, and am also looking at the harpsichord set Mandryka suggested above.

It may well be true that Gould's Bk 1 is more successful, it was recorded at a different time and at a different venue. I haven't heard it for years.

As far as piano recordings go, my own favourites are Bernard Roberts and Tatiana Nikolayeva.

And as far as harpsichord only versions go, you only have one I know right now - Walcha (which one? I haven't heard Kirkpatrick play it on harpsichord.) There have been loads of excellent ones since then -- imaginative, stylish and expressive. To some extent it doesn't matter whether  you take the plunge with Weiss, or with Leonhardt, Asperen, Egarr, Belder, Gilbert, Wilson  etc etc,

[Jo498]

It can hardly be denied that before Gould recording choices for Bach on the piano were fairly limited. (There were probably more options for the WTC than for most other pieces, OTOH I think some now famous recordings like Feinberg's were not easily available in the West). And if the music was played it was often either "romanticized" or on harpsichord. I think I read once that Brendel played no Scarlatti and only a little Bach because he had been convinced that it was better served on harpsichord.

So it seems in a sense true that Gould was the most famous musician who put Bach's keyboard music beyond a few pieces "on the map" for many listeners and accordingly his quirky style might have one people who might not have been so fascinated by, say, Tureck (who to my ears seems similarly "dry" but without the infectious energy of many Gould recordings).
Of course, he also gained a "cult following" and apparently his music is still selling so well that Sony makes money putting out another "Gould edition" or another mono broadcast "discovery" every few years whereas they neglect (or neglectec until recently) large parts of their back catalogue of other artists.

(My favorite Bach by Gould are probably the partitas.)

[Marc]

[...]
(My favorite Bach by Gould are probably the partitas.)

'Off-topic' agreement here.

[Mandryka]

Despite what one thinks of Gould's Bach playing, I think it's because he's still one of a kind explains his popularity until today.

In WTC 2 is he really one of a kind? I mean, most of the time isn't he just playing piano a bit like Karl Richter or (better) Helmut Walcha played harpsichord?

Another explanation of his popularity today is the marketing (top of the list when you type BWV 870 in spotify I notice); his reputation for being a bit nutty; the fact that he has a good back story with his early death; his looks.

[Marc]

In WTC 2 is he really one of a kind? I mean, most of the time isn't he just playing piano a bit like Karl Richter or (better) Helmut Walcha played harpsichord?
[...]

I don't know their entire careers, but did K. Richter and Walcha also played the piano in this manner?
And if so, are there recordings available of them doing so?

If not, then IMO Gould's Bach playing on the piano was still unique or one of a kind.

Btw, to me the harpsichord is an entirely different instrument, because of the 'plucked' instead of the 'hammered' mechanism and sound.
Therefore I don't really think that one can play the piano like a harpsichord, or in a 'harpsichord' manner.

[...] Another explanation of his popularity today is the marketing (top of the list when you type BWV 870 in spotify I notice); his reputation for being a bit nutty; the fact that he has a good back story with his early death; his looks.

Well, like XB-70 Valkyrie, I have watched one or two documentaries/movies about Gould with great interest (years ago).
And it's true that, if an artist differs from the average (in his/her performance and/or presence), it can be a good basis for an enduring cult status.

But personally I agree with what Bernard Haitink once said in an interview: the composers are the true geniuses.

(And if the genius Bach is concerned: for his keyboard music, I prefer Leonhardt playing the harpsichord to Gould playing the piano.)

[milk]

Seems like there a so many great recordings of WTC besides Gould. I agree with the sowing machine analogy (at least sometimes). I find Gould to be almost unbearable sometimes on WTC. Today, I happened to be listening to this:

Just some excerpts from WTC I on there. But captivating stuff.

[Mandryka]

I don't know their entire careers, but did K. Richter and Walcha also played the piano in this manner?
And if so, are there recordings available of them doing so?

If not, then IMO Gould's Bach playing on the piano was still unique or one of a kind.

Btw, to me the harpsichord is an entirely different instrument, because of the 'plucked' instead of the 'hammered' mechanism and sound.
Therefore I don't really think that one can play the piano like a harpsichord, or in a 'harpsichord' manner.

Well, like XB-70 Valkyrie, I have watched one or two documentaries/movies about Gould with great interest (years ago).
And it's true that, if an artist differs from the average (in his/her performance and/or presence), it can be a good basis for an enduring cult status.

But personally I agree with what Bernard Haitink once said in an interview: the composers are the true geniuses.

(And if the genius Bach is concerned: for his keyboard music, I prefer Leonhardt playing the harpsichord to Gould playing the piano.)

All I meant really was that Walcha and Richter play fast and stiff.

[prémont]

I don't know their entire careers, but did K. Richter and Walcha also played the piano in this manner?
And if so, are there recordings available of them doing so?

As far as I know there are no existing commercial piano-recordings by these two.

Their hammering harpsichord touch was common from 1950 to ca. 1975 with the revival harpsichords, where the feeling of contact with the string through the quill is as well as non-existent, and which for that reason did not allow any inflection of the tone. See how Karl Richter uses his fingers here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMSwVf_69Hc

This is the kind of touch I most often hear in Gould's Bach-playing on piano, a relentless, hammering and unvaried touch unsuited for piano. Therefore I think Gould's model was the common revival harpsichord sound, and I have never understood, why he did not choose to play harpsichord instead of trying to play harpsichord on piano. 

[prémont]

All I meant really was that Walcha and Richter play fast and stiff.

Stiff, but not as fast as Gould I think - without having made AB tests.

[Marc]

All I meant really was that Walcha and Richter play fast and stiff.

I see.
Understood.

Building on that, I agree with this:

[...] I think Gould's model was the common revival harpsichord sound, and I have never understood, why he did not choose to play harpsichord instead of trying to play harpsichord on piano.

That's also the reason why I prefer to listen to pianists who, also in baroque music, use the piano as a piano, i.c. a 19th century instrument.
Just because...

[...]
Btw, to me the harpsichord is an entirely different instrument, because of the 'plucked' instead of the 'hammered' mechanism and sound.
Therefore I don't really think that one can play the piano like a harpsichord, or in a 'harpsichord' manner.
[...]