Glenn Gould is a complete nutter.... But what a nutter. Absolutely love him. I'm sure this whole thing is firmly tongue in cheek. Nobody could play Mozart so brilliantly without being a lover of him. Just watch him as he plays. Just my humble opinion.
He thankfully belonged to a more real life and world where virtual social media was still not destroying and turning numb all the new generations coming after. Mr Gould was breathing to connect people with the essence.
Gould's comment about Mozart "knocking out a divertimento" reminds of something I recently read by Virgil Thomson, in which he said of a Hindemith string quartet--the third I think--, that it sounded like the composer just awoke one morning and decided to write a string quartet. He didn't think much of Hindemith like Gould apparently didn't think much of Mozart...or did he, given all of his Mozart recordings?
I never realized Glenn's powerful striking blue eyes. I consider him as one of my mentors in spirit, right next to J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin.
His points on improvisation remind me of how Amadeus portrayed Mozart. Writing music down that he'd already come up with in his head.The movie makes it look like pure genius, while Gould makes it sound like writing a rough draft and never polishing it.
Pardon de ne pas savoir m'exprimer en anglais, toutefois je tiens à m'exprimer en français, cet homme grand musicien est venu sur terre pour nous transmettre de magnifiques messages ! que je pourrais énumérer ; sauf les principaux que j'ai reçu ! les vibrations ! restez ouverts quant aux vibrations qui nous transportent dans des mondes différents même s'ils sont inconnus !
One thing is that Mozart's piano concertos were his bread and butter for a number of years, literally his most important income as he received commissions and played them himself. He did indeed produce a large number of them in short order. He grew tired of this and in the last 5 years of his life only wrote 2 or 3 piano concertos. So it is true that a number of the concertos were by-the-numbers affairs. Mozart always had to write voluminously to survive. But he put his heart and soul into his most important works, such as the Da Ponte operas, the last 3 symphonies, and a number of other works. These date from after the "decline" that GG claims. Just a bit of context for those who suspect that GG is trolling but are not sure to what extent.
I thought exactly the same. Every artist has their hits with great ideas and much work, and their filler, forgettable work. I would have liked to hear his thoughts on the Requiem, Don Giovanni or the Jupiter symphony.
@@halneufmille I hope you don't find the Mozart piano concertos "fillers". That's nuts. There is nothing close to it. The Beethoven ones are not as interesting at all. GG is trolling; there wouldn't be a commercial concert culture at the moment, without these Mozart pieces.
"He grew tired of this and in the last 5 years of his life only wrote 2 or 3 piano concertos" - yes, because of social changes in Vienna which meant that there were fewer opportunities for performances. The idea that he 'stopped writing concertos as he was bored with the form' is obvious bullshit. Gould is trolling, yes, but he really should've stuck to tunelessly singing over his playing and imposing his own overbearing personality on Bach's music.
@@richsw possibly, but I would argue that a number of the late piano concertos do show a falling off in creativity, consistent with boredom. It's only really K.595 that I keep on coming back to
I tatally agree and would add the Clarinet Quintet as a particularly good example of a serious piece he wrote for friends and himself, full of imagination and no improvisational stuffing.
He has changed nothing about my opinion on the greatness of late Mozart, nor on the C minor concerto he singled out for that matter. He has however changed my estimation of the works by the younger Mozart, which I regarded as merely preliminary to the late masterpieces, but Gould proves they were just as brilliant and deserving in their own right. And that’s far more important in my opinion
Uh, no. Even a few of Mozart's late piano concertos exhibited a simplicity which never once characterized Bach. Simplicity meaning, in this context, doing things like repeating unnecessary cadenzas within the same piano concerto, or whatever it was which Gould said quite precisely which I cannot..
@@villain7140 - Gould made no specific comment comparing Mozart's early works with his late works. The comment he made, which is the only one that matters, is something with regard to Mozart not being able to maintain a high level of quality within the same composition, because he was always in the habit of repeating himself unnecessarily, rather than developing his composition into something better as he went along. Mozart essentially took no notice of how to make his compositions great, rather than merely good. He was just hired help, rather lazy, and he pumped out his compositions to get some fame and a paycheck. Well known for being a spend thrift - On the other hand, Bach signed his works with the following words ... "To the glory of God alone." Mozart was great. But Bach was much greater.
@@villain7140 - Your "proof" with regard to Gould has nothing to do with Gould's own comments. You've made an unwarranted conclusion. I'm simply pointing that out.
No way ! the content of his sarcastic rhetoric is healthy and grounded in serious rational analysis. Whereas that tv series script is unhealthy, degenerate, mind crass for the purpose of it. Don't confuse a gem stone and a dried dung written by Hollywood with the mentality of that particular group that runs hollywood.
@@ericastier1646 is right. Gould was a once-in-a-generation genius, and this type of comparison (even if it's a "joke") is in bad taste, and shows your ignorance of the man's talent.
yes very eloquent and refined, never pedantic and often sounds purely serious and the next word is funny then serious. That is a real talent in comedy.
Très intéressante comme perception de Gould sur Mozart. Après, il ne faut pas confondre la personnalité et caractère du compositeur ou compositrice par rapport à sa musique car ce sont deux choses complètement différentes. Et dans la musique savante, quand on utilise le terme « populaire », cela n’a rien à voir avec la musique pop qu’on écoute de nos jours. Le terme populaire va aller dans le sens où une personne musicienne ou non musicienne peut mémoriser facilement une mélodie non pas la pauvreté de la musique. Certes, quand on écoute une sonate la plus connue de Mozart, la mélodie, on peut presque la chanter mais quand on analyse l’harmonie, la forme, la modulation, etc, il y a pleins de choses à découvrir . . . Concernant, la personnalité de Mozart, comme tous les compositeurs, ils ont tous des caractères et personnalités différentes : Beethoven, Mahler, Stravinsky, Wagner, etc et y compris Mozart.
If his talking about the evolution of the piano works, he's not talking about opera. Also he's talking about what he knows about : piano. If this doesn't doublt dismantle your complain, I don't know what will. Mozart became a shitty piano composer.
@@rusticagenerica Mozart didn’t become a shitty piano composer. Unfortunately, the triteness of his later compositions comes from stress + being overworked. He was a good composer, but he used improvisation as a tactic to fill time while also carrying his concertos with very powerful themes. Also, your response to this guy was needlessly rude.
@@intergalactic4323 being trite means being shitty. Mozart was a god among composers...but he laid a few turds. It happens. Doesn't diminish his greatness really at all
@@bobjones-bt9bh mozart last piano concertos are good. the symphonies/operas are another proof he was like very very far from bad. you and the other dude are unable to formulate personal opinions. Gould the one who laid a turd here
Well before this I had an aversion to Mozart, finding him childish, the one exception being his swan song, the requiem. I would like to find the Toronto segment of the (6? 8?) part series on great cities, each narrated by someone closely tied to the featured city. Gould narrated the TO episode. Such dry wit! Such personality. Everyone dies too young in someone's eyes. Gould certainly did.
@@Alix777. Mozart doesn't dig deep, he shows off. And I have collected more than enough decades to have no reason to justify my opinions. If you happened to like "Amadeus" I can only offer my condolences.
@@Alix777.Mozart is filled with tropes, and hedonism. His piano work contributed almost nothing to the scene. His orchestral works and bigger works sure but his keyboard works were always weak.
Gould approach to Mozart was oriented more toward harmony and structure and in the last sonata he uses too accentuated staccatos which was his signature style of course, but what works in Bach doesn’t necessarily work with other composers. However, in my opinion best interpreters of Mozart use more legato in their approach, making his harmonious works sound smooth and ethereal, and less cerebral.
Good point, but piano is such an instrument that one can only master either a detached technique or a legato technique. GG is in the detached and often staccato group, it's not possible to move between these groups at will for one pianist.
I appreciate many of Gould's interpretations but here he's missed the mark, the opus 333: he doesn't phrase, he doesn't breathe, every note sounds the same. Is this the youtube quality of sound or Gould playing Mozart as a bad composer ? Many of his arguments are valid, but then came the interpretation. That first movement redeemed only very slightly by the second movement.
Ironic considering I felt the same way about Bach, a lot of his music always sounded to me as "inter-office memos". Like the guy's so good that they just kind of fall out, and can all sound the same. However, I always felt that was a failure on my part to really appreciate the music, as opposed to reflecting on Bach himself.
Fascinating 😎 I have often felt the Mozart often (but not always, of course) said almost nothing in a very dazzling and beautiful way 😂 Unlike Haydn, who was always saying something fascinating in a brilliant way 🎶
His amazing facility allowed him to do anything he liked with the music. But he could use it both to create wondrous things, and to undermine what was wonderful. In Bach, he had no peer - but even there, after creating something unique, memorable, completely convincing, he couldn't resist going back, later, tampering with it, tampering with the instrument, the tuning, the tempi, the conviction, seeking what? He could also play Beethoven wonderfully, and much, much more. But Mozart! Mozart's magical simplicity seems to have defeated him; perhaps he resented it.
hahaha, what a bitter comment. I don't think there is any undermining in GG analysis of Mozart compositional style evolution only a lament and fascinating deduction. He makes a very solid point that anchors deeply in harmonical analysis and structure of the c minor concerto. He delivers it in an amused and entertaining sarcastic staged theatrical way but the exact same material could be written in a very serious academic music research article by a respected scholar without any of the playfull amusement Gleen is providing and be absolutely completely valid. Don't assume that because GG is having some fun and giving us fun watching that his material is not well thought, unless you are a superficial scholar which is actually common and standard rather than the exception. Furthermore geniuses are often misunderstood by the people in the same field who harbor jealousy and envy especially when the genius sticks out from norms and conventions.
What's the point of dividing the show up first and then sending the full show ? At least upload the full show _first_ so we don't have to waste time with the parts, rather than having to calculate whether the parts add up to the same length as the full show.
In my previous comment I described Mozart as "childish." By that I don't mean simple but rather that the works have an overall sound of, "look what I can do, Daddy!"
Well, he tried to be as popular as possible, while keeping the quality as high as possible. What's wrong with that? You expected him to be a Beethoven, but before revolutionary times?If Wagner does the same, it is OK with you?
@@castheeuwes1085before revolutionary times? The best composers stepped out the box very often in order to explore which Glenn noted clearly that he did this more in his teens years yet he bent his knees in the end to trends and tropes. In another video he mentioned how much he respected Bach for when he wrote the art of fugue it was something very rare in that later time period. Nobody else was doing it therefore proving that Bach pretty much did whatever he wanted in the end while also not being mundane
@@oniryujin4162 You're mixing up progressive with quality. Late-Bach is just extremely good. Exploring all aspects of the fugue was however not a progressive thing to do. Late Beethoven didn't compose for any living audience; he didn't need that and he didn't want that. I don't know other examples of composers like this (Schubert was definitely looking for fame). Beside the fact that there was no late Mozart as he died young, his work is all quality. All without being progressive. By the logic of Gould, van Gogh was a better painter than Leonardo. I don't think so.
@@castheeuwes1085 I wouldn’t use Van Gogh as an example because Glenn clearly prefers a contrapuntal, variation based, counterpoint, and polyphonic focused style which very much is closer to Baroque and Renaissance and the near antithesis of the styles Mozart went on to influence. Glenn didn’t even see Chopin and others after as a great composer so I am sure by his logic he would prefer renaissance art over the more modern and abstract styles.
@@castheeuwes1085 it is impossible to know now but I wouldn’t of been surprised if Mozart continued his gimmicky tropes till death. He began the showboating mentality in my opinion. It existed before him of course but within a limit which I believe he exploited till it led to the damnation of music
And I agree with him. I believe Mozarts tropes whether intentional or not led to the downfall of music. Everyone after just went the homophonic showboating route. Only very few pieces are enjoyable in the period outside of Beethoven and Mendelssohn but in the romantic period? It starts to push it until it died completely:
What "period"? Overly complex and contrapuntal music was already going out of style in the mid 18th century. Mozart was writing the most harmonically complex music of his time.
@ period as in the eras yeah he was probably the only guy of relevance during that time period too. There was almost nobody else and of course I am mainly referring to keyboard works for that is my focus. I’ve actually relistened to Mozart and I change my mind a on him I stand by most the rest of what I said though
Glenn Gould is talking such utter hogwash here. I love Glenn and his genius and his unique contribution to music - which changed our understanding half a century ago.
so much arrogance in applying 20th century criterias which had no relevance to composers like Mozart. Thankfully Mr. Gould didn't dare to talk about Haydn
Ahh … a self-absorbed provocateur. Don’t get me wrong, his first recording of the Goldberg Variations is superb, but his many dissertations on music in general are just a manifestation of his narcissistic persona. Mozart a bad composer 😂
Do not believe this NONSENSE, especially amateurs or beginners in music. It's a pathetic but clever provocation, so it's very funny. Mozart and Bach are two of the greatest UNIVERSAL composers in the history of music, two MASTERS. "The two main teachers." This is not my subjective opinion, not my choice, but surprisingly - Schoenberg’s! and as we know Gould was crazy about him. They would have to have a duel for Mozart's honor and dignity, I suppose. WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD WIN?
uh- this is so typical of listeners to Gould; they insist that what he is saying is absolute for all time..."Mozart is bad" NO. What he is saying in a provocative way is that late Mozart on the piano was a bit played out and silly. Gould comes out and expresses his astounding LOVE for the guy and yet people think that you cannot criticize Mozart ever for anything or else you hate him in the absolute.
@@bobjones-bt9bh Yes... but if Gould has an intimate love/hate for Mozart's music, then why to get things out in the open? Moreover, he criticizes “late” Mozart. Did he really pass by quintets and quartets, trios, because in piano music there are all the same features, the same means - a single physiognomy. To reject Mozart's piano music is to reject all of Mozart without understanding him. It would be correct to say right away: I do not accept Mozart's idiostyle instead of childishly judging: this is bad and this is good. Criticism is also an art, and it does not tolerate amateurs and provocateurs.
@@paulina3201 Mozarts genius in fact grows the older he gets. It gets even more warmth which Gould is obviously unable to deliver or maybe afraid of. There is a quite big number of masterpieces in his later work. Gould was a pianist with insane abilities but limited himself by loving himself much more than any composer he played. He did not realise that he is in music history a very small figure compared to Mozart or any great composer. And what he is doing here is just going through a few passages of a single piece and saying that Mozart became different -bad in his opinion, not regarding the fact that Mozart in fact anticipates Beethoven here and the following romantic period and with that a new style of piano playing.
Is it really "in your honest opinion" if you haven't seriously listened to what you're talking about? Some of Mozart's music is undeniably pop, but the greatest works are anything but that. The Haydn quartets, string quintets, operas, masses, late symphonies, etc. are all incredibly complex, often with very dense counterpoint.
Listen to the Horn Concerto No. 2 in E flat Maj. K. 417 all 3 parts but in particular part 2 Adagio That piece of divinity that Adagio look for the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra version (William Purvis Channel)
...a computer could compose them with a minimum of programming and so could a five year old after a few weeks of theory lessons... The arrogance of this man astounds me. His lauded interpretations of JS Bach still hold the attention of most but his interpretations of Beethoven are desperately pathetic...(Pun intended).
Think, Gould had an ego problem. Just as he often doesn't play Bach but rather Gould (there are exceptions for him), he also doesn't understand Mozart because he often doesn't breathe inside. If Gould really played a musical Mozart and not an artistic one, I could listen to him. But like that...
Interesting enough that you're talking mainly about yourself, talking about Gould is talking about himself... but in fact Gould is giving not just a few arguments to prove his point, but lots of them, and with demonstrations. What are your arguments exactly?
@@JulioLeonFandinho What are you accusing me of? That I criticize Gould? It's obvious that he doesn't understand Mozart when he plays Mozart so badly. Only, that's his problem, not Mozart's. And if you don't understand that, it's not my fault. Glenn Gould was a very virtuoso pianist. But he himself wasn't the most musical person. Sometimes, when he was young, he surprised me in a positive way, but often unfortunately not. Listen to Bach's Preludes and Fugues with Gould. Awful. Is this Bach's fault? No!
@@ScaramouchedaVincithat is a childish point to say “oh he doesn’t like it therefore he must not understandddd” He clearly does understand Mozart and he gave examples of what he DID like from Mozart. It’s just not what you like
@@oniryujin4162 No, it's just the other way around. He doesn't like it because he doesn't understand it. He plays it very unmusically. But you are welcome to have an opposite opinion.
@@ScaramouchedaVinci everything you’re saying is highly subjective. “He doesn’t play it musically” Why? Because he doesn’t use tons of legato ? Every “good” interpretation is based off stereotypes of what we believe to be the true style of their time periods. The fact is we don’t know, he played mainly on piano forte and earlier on harpsichord not a Steinway. Having the space between the notes the way he does is probably more realistic objectively anyways
Moot point to be honest. Comparing a composer to a pianist who serves to interpret? Is one not allowed to critique or comment simply because you believe Mozart to be god?
I love listening to Glenn Gould talk.
Even when he's talking shit.
@@richswnah
It is _uncanny_ how Sir Humphrey Price-Davies resembles Glenn!
Just twins.❤
Glenn Gould is a complete nutter.... But what a nutter. Absolutely love him. I'm sure this whole thing is firmly tongue in cheek. Nobody could play Mozart so brilliantly without being a lover of him. Just watch him as he plays. Just my humble opinion.
He would have been a twitter God.
I’d like to think he would shun social media but instead have a website where he replies to letters to him like Nick Cave is doing with Red Hand Files
He thankfully belonged to a more real life and world where virtual social media was still not destroying and turning numb all the new generations coming after. Mr Gould was breathing to connect people with the essence.
@@waterdragon2012 they even look alike, somehow.
Gould perfect fits
Not at all, he would have rejected all that demagogic gutter fluff that your generation wallows in their heads in a miniature screen.
Excited for this
Gould's comment about Mozart "knocking out a divertimento" reminds of something I recently read by Virgil Thomson, in which he said of a Hindemith string quartet--the third I think--, that it sounded like the composer just awoke one morning and decided to write a string quartet. He didn't think much of Hindemith like Gould apparently didn't think much of Mozart...or did he, given all of his Mozart recordings?
I never realized Glenn's powerful striking blue eyes. I consider him as one of my mentors in spirit, right next to J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin.
not so blue ...almost grey...
@@LeoGuerra-sf2qimaybe you would say... battleship grey?
Gould’s oratorical skills are almost as impressive as his skill at the piano!
at the same level, not almost.
Играет, как молится.. Единственный и неповторимый Маэстро Гленн ❤
Да!
Very well said
Ironically it was hell for his back
welcome back Mr gould
His points on improvisation remind me of how Amadeus portrayed Mozart. Writing music down that he'd already come up with in his head.The movie makes it look like pure genius, while Gould makes it sound like writing a rough draft and never polishing it.
his radio special on 'chance music' is well worth digging up for a deeper dive on his views here.
The way he plays the piano and orchestral parts together... wow!😮
Pardon de ne pas savoir m'exprimer en anglais, toutefois je tiens à m'exprimer en français, cet homme grand musicien est venu sur terre pour nous transmettre de magnifiques messages ! que je pourrais énumérer ; sauf les principaux que j'ai reçu ! les vibrations ! restez ouverts quant aux vibrations qui nous transportent dans des mondes différents même s'ils sont inconnus !
aww the good old sunday morning classical listenings
One thing is that Mozart's piano concertos were his bread and butter for a number of years, literally his most important income as he received commissions and played them himself. He did indeed produce a large number of them in short order. He grew tired of this and in the last 5 years of his life only wrote 2 or 3 piano concertos. So it is true that a number of the concertos were by-the-numbers affairs. Mozart always had to write voluminously to survive. But he put his heart and soul into his most important works, such as the Da Ponte operas, the last 3 symphonies, and a number of other works. These date from after the "decline" that GG claims.
Just a bit of context for those who suspect that GG is trolling but are not sure to what extent.
I thought exactly the same. Every artist has their hits with great ideas and much work, and their filler, forgettable work. I would have liked to hear his thoughts on the Requiem, Don Giovanni or the Jupiter symphony.
@@halneufmille I hope you don't find the Mozart piano concertos "fillers". That's nuts. There is nothing close to it. The Beethoven ones are not as interesting at all. GG is trolling; there wouldn't be a commercial concert culture at the moment, without these Mozart pieces.
"He grew tired of this and in the last 5 years of his life only wrote 2 or 3 piano concertos" - yes, because of social changes in Vienna which meant that there were fewer opportunities for performances. The idea that he 'stopped writing concertos as he was bored with the form' is obvious bullshit. Gould is trolling, yes, but he really should've stuck to tunelessly singing over his playing and imposing his own overbearing personality on Bach's music.
@@richsw possibly, but I would argue that a number of the late piano concertos do show a falling off in creativity, consistent with boredom. It's only really K.595 that I keep on coming back to
I tatally agree and would add the Clarinet Quintet as a particularly good example of a serious piece he wrote for friends and himself, full of imagination and no improvisational stuffing.
He has changed nothing about my opinion on the greatness of late Mozart, nor on the C minor concerto he singled out for that matter. He has however changed my estimation of the works by the younger Mozart, which I regarded as merely preliminary to the late masterpieces, but Gould proves they were just as brilliant and deserving in their own right. And that’s far more important in my opinion
Uh, no. Even a few of Mozart's late piano concertos exhibited a simplicity which never once characterized Bach. Simplicity meaning, in this context, doing things like repeating unnecessary cadenzas within the same piano concerto, or whatever it was which Gould said quite precisely which I cannot..
@@scotthullinger4684 What? Nothing of this has anything to do with my comment
@@villain7140 - Gould made no specific comment comparing Mozart's early works with his late works. The comment he made, which is the only one that matters, is something with regard to Mozart not being able to maintain a high level of quality within the same composition, because he was always in the habit of repeating himself unnecessarily, rather than developing his composition into something better as he went along. Mozart essentially took no notice of how to make his compositions great, rather than merely good. He was just hired help, rather lazy, and he pumped out his compositions to get some fame and a paycheck. Well known for being a spend thrift -
On the other hand, Bach signed his works with the following words ... "To the glory of God alone."
Mozart was great. But Bach was much greater.
@@scotthullinger4684 Nothing you are saying - which by the way is wrong -has anything to do with my comment. Why are you replying to me?
@@villain7140 - Your "proof" with regard to Gould has nothing to do with Gould's own comments. You've made an unwarranted conclusion. I'm simply pointing that out.
He's the Sheldon Cooper of musicians. Respect!
Not an unwarranted comparison 😂 Gould knew what he wanted, knew what he liked, and had the intellect to defend his position tooth and nail
No way ! the content of his sarcastic rhetoric is healthy and grounded in serious rational analysis. Whereas that tv series script is unhealthy, degenerate, mind crass for the purpose of it. Don't confuse a gem stone and a dried dung written by Hollywood with the mentality of that particular group that runs hollywood.
@@ericastier1646 is right. Gould was a once-in-a-generation genius, and this type of comparison (even if it's a "joke") is in bad taste, and shows your ignorance of the man's talent.
I loooove GG
I wasn't planning on listening to one of the finest talks about Art y creativity
What a sense of humor!
yes very eloquent and refined, never pedantic and often sounds purely serious and the next word is funny then serious. That is a real talent in comedy.
Très intéressante comme perception de Gould sur Mozart.
Après, il ne faut pas confondre la personnalité et caractère du compositeur ou compositrice par rapport à sa musique car ce sont deux choses complètement différentes.
Et dans la musique savante, quand on utilise le terme « populaire », cela n’a rien à voir avec la musique pop qu’on écoute de nos jours. Le terme populaire va aller dans le sens où une personne musicienne ou non musicienne peut mémoriser facilement une mélodie non pas la pauvreté de la musique. Certes, quand on écoute une sonate la plus connue de Mozart, la mélodie, on peut presque la chanter mais quand on analyse l’harmonie, la forme, la modulation, etc, il y a pleins de choses à découvrir . . .
Concernant, la personnalité de Mozart, comme tous les compositeurs, ils ont tous des caractères et personnalités différentes : Beethoven, Mahler, Stravinsky, Wagner, etc et y compris Mozart.
I don't share this vision. What about the Magic Flute? He's only talking about the evolution of his piano works.
+ this
If his talking about the evolution of the piano works, he's not talking about opera. Also he's talking about what he knows about : piano. If this doesn't doublt dismantle your complain, I don't know what will. Mozart became a shitty piano composer.
@@rusticagenerica Mozart didn’t become a shitty piano composer. Unfortunately, the triteness of his later compositions comes from stress + being overworked. He was a good composer, but he used improvisation as a tactic to fill time while also carrying his concertos with very powerful themes. Also, your response to this guy was needlessly rude.
@@intergalactic4323 being trite means being shitty. Mozart was a god among composers...but he laid a few turds. It happens. Doesn't diminish his greatness really at all
@@bobjones-bt9bh mozart last piano concertos are good. the symphonies/operas are another proof he was like very very far from bad. you and the other dude are unable to formulate personal opinions. Gould the one who laid a turd here
Well before this I had an aversion to Mozart, finding him childish, the one exception being his swan song, the requiem. I would like to find the Toronto segment of the (6? 8?) part series on great cities, each narrated by someone closely tied to the featured city. Gould narrated the TO episode. Such dry wit! Such personality. Everyone dies too young in someone's eyes. Gould certainly did.
Maybe one day you will understand Mozart's musical depth, when you get older than 16 yo
@@Alix777. Mozart doesn't dig deep, he shows off. And I have collected more than enough decades to have no reason to justify my opinions. If you happened to like "Amadeus" I can only offer my condolences.
@@ThisTrainIsLost blabbering
Most of the requiem is not written by Mozart.
@@Alix777.Mozart is filled with tropes, and hedonism.
His piano work contributed almost nothing to the scene.
His orchestral works and bigger works sure but his keyboard works were always weak.
Only Glenn Gould could have an argument to say that Mozart became a bad composer, what would be a blasphemy for most musicians.
And in my opinion it also is for him
I was thinking the same thing haha
Mozart was BORING; but even worse was Haydn (and Schubert) … to say nothing of Beethoven
@@rrrrrr-kb9sb boring for those who doesn't understand him.
@@rrrrrr-kb9sb So what is not boring in your ears? Bach, or the Sex Pistols?
This sounds like Rod Stirling about to show me an improviser becoming unable to write anything in this episode of the Twilight Zone
Who? I know of Serling. Stirling was a mathematician in the 18th century or so.
Gould approach to Mozart was oriented more toward harmony and structure and in the last sonata he uses too accentuated staccatos which was his signature style of course, but what works in Bach doesn’t necessarily work with other composers. However, in my opinion best interpreters of Mozart use more legato in their approach, making his harmonious works sound smooth and ethereal, and less cerebral.
Good point, but piano is such an instrument that one can only master either a detached technique or a legato technique. GG is in the detached and often staccato group, it's not possible to move between these groups at will for one pianist.
I teared up after listening to nice soft sound.
MESMERISING 😲
А почему возвращение волшебника? Он никуда не уходил 🥰
This video is a great explanation of why I prefer Beethoven to Mozart.
Whoosh 😂
For me ! he is the best ! excuse me i'am french and my "english" is very bad ! sorry !
I appreciate many of Gould's interpretations but here he's missed the mark, the opus 333: he doesn't phrase, he doesn't breathe, every note sounds the same. Is this the youtube quality of sound or Gould playing Mozart as a bad composer ? Many of his arguments are valid, but then came the interpretation. That first movement redeemed only very slightly by the second movement.
14:06 - Almost a prediction of AI vs. Mozart.
🤣🤣🤣 One can't help love this beautiful madman.
Well, I, for one have never liked Mozart's album fillers. He had a couple of good hits and just started phoning it in.
Machine...
Period of the documentary?
Гениальный❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥
Ironic considering I felt the same way about Bach, a lot of his music always sounded to me as "inter-office memos". Like the guy's so good that they just kind of fall out, and can all sound the same. However, I always felt that was a failure on my part to really appreciate the music, as opposed to reflecting on Bach himself.
Fascinating 😎 I have often felt the Mozart often (but not always, of course) said almost nothing in a very dazzling and beautiful way 😂 Unlike Haydn, who was always saying something fascinating in a brilliant way 🎶
Aw... too short!
So… Gould actually adjusted my point of view about Mozart. Corrected it, actually
It won't last long, believe me. I was listening to Mitsuko Uchida the other day and she converted me back.
@@rad-guidance7 lol give it some time and Glenn will pull you back again😂
Mozart died age 35. The late Mr. Gould uses "in his later years...Referring to Mozart!
Well his later years are still later than his earlier ones!
Considering that Mozart started writing at the age of 6 or 7...
what is the year for thisbrodcast?
Великий Гульд!
Mr Gould must have been maybe the best pianist in the world at his time
How.jesus was a below average carpenter next on CBC! Haha Gould is hilarious for doing this!!!
His amazing facility allowed him to do anything he liked with the music. But he could use it both to create wondrous things, and to undermine what was wonderful. In Bach, he had no peer - but even there, after creating something unique, memorable, completely convincing, he couldn't resist going back, later, tampering with it, tampering with the instrument, the tuning, the tempi, the conviction, seeking what? He could also play Beethoven wonderfully, and much, much more. But Mozart! Mozart's magical simplicity seems to have defeated him; perhaps he resented it.
hahaha, what a bitter comment. I don't think there is any undermining in GG analysis of Mozart compositional style evolution only a lament and fascinating deduction. He makes a very solid point that anchors deeply in harmonical analysis and structure of the c minor concerto. He delivers it in an amused and entertaining sarcastic staged theatrical way but the exact same material could be written in a very serious academic music research article by a respected scholar without any of the playfull amusement Gleen is providing and be absolutely completely valid. Don't assume that because GG is having some fun and giving us fun watching that his material is not well thought, unless you are a superficial scholar which is actually common and standard rather than the exception. Furthermore geniuses are often misunderstood by the people in the same field who harbor jealousy and envy especially when the genius sticks out from norms and conventions.
Mozart just isn’t that interesting.
Wasnt Mozart quite unwell in his later years? And drinking too much? If so, Glenn can hear it.
There's a certain Zaius-ness about Gould's fictional eminence gris character.
What year is this?
Only Glenn can convince you that Mozart could ever be considered a bad composer
Even then Glenn Gould claimed to love some of Mozart's works in his late teens to early 20s.
@@manco828 Yes he obviously loved a lot of his work, who couldn't
No, i already convinced myself prior.
sure, if one is not used to formulate his own personal opinions
@@io8488 what
👏👏👏
Would have fit in Monty Python's Flying Circussss
What's the point of dividing the show up first and then sending the full show ? At least upload the full show _first_ so we don't have to waste time with the parts, rather than having to calculate whether the parts add up to the same length as the full show.
The original troll - Gould loves Mozart, clearly...singing along as he plays etc...genius 😂
In my previous comment I described Mozart as "childish." By that I don't mean simple but rather that the works have an overall sound of, "look what I can do, Daddy!"
Well, he tried to be as popular as possible, while keeping the quality as high as possible. What's wrong with that? You expected him to be a Beethoven, but before revolutionary times?If Wagner does the same, it is OK with you?
@@castheeuwes1085before revolutionary times?
The best composers stepped out the box very often in order to explore which Glenn noted clearly that he did this more in his teens years yet he bent his knees in the end to trends and tropes.
In another video he mentioned how much he respected Bach for when he wrote the art of fugue it was something very rare in that later time period.
Nobody else was doing it therefore proving that Bach pretty much did whatever he wanted in the end while also not being mundane
@@oniryujin4162 You're mixing up progressive with quality. Late-Bach is just extremely good. Exploring all aspects of the fugue was however not a progressive thing to do. Late Beethoven didn't compose for any living audience; he didn't need that and he didn't want that. I don't know other examples of composers like this (Schubert was definitely looking for fame). Beside the fact that there was no late Mozart as he died young, his work is all quality. All without being progressive. By the logic of Gould, van Gogh was a better painter than Leonardo. I don't think so.
@@castheeuwes1085 I wouldn’t use Van Gogh as an example because Glenn clearly prefers a contrapuntal, variation based, counterpoint, and polyphonic focused style which very much is closer to Baroque and Renaissance and the near antithesis of the styles Mozart went on to influence.
Glenn didn’t even see Chopin and others after as a great composer so I am sure by his logic he would prefer renaissance art over the more modern and abstract styles.
@@castheeuwes1085 it is impossible to know now but I wouldn’t of been surprised if Mozart continued his gimmicky tropes till death.
He began the showboating mentality in my opinion.
It existed before him of course but within a limit which I believe he exploited till it led to the damnation of music
Mozart had to earn a living and became trite on the piano in his later years. It happens. It's the business of music.
Glenn is not about cookie cutter music and I find that refreshing
And I agree with him.
I believe Mozarts tropes whether intentional or not led to the downfall of music.
Everyone after just went the homophonic showboating route.
Only very few pieces are enjoyable in the period outside of Beethoven and Mendelssohn but in the romantic period?
It starts to push it until it died completely:
What "period"? Overly complex and contrapuntal music was already going out of style in the mid 18th century. Mozart was writing the most harmonically complex music of his time.
@ period as in the eras yeah he was probably the only guy of relevance during that time period too.
There was almost nobody else and of course I am mainly referring to keyboard works for that is my focus.
I’ve actually relistened to Mozart and I change my mind a on him
I stand by most the rest of what I said though
@@oniryujin4162 Haydn was pretty great in that era
@@Tolstoy111 True i would agree that generally he was great i mean he needed to exist and do what he did for much more to occur
Mozart was safe and a little too perfect.
Mozart was an innovator and wrote the most complex music of his time.
Gould is missing forest for the trees.
Glenn Gould is talking such utter hogwash here. I love Glenn and his genius and his unique contribution to music - which changed our understanding half a century ago.
12:15
He was so right about older Mozart but i think, some of what he said is true also for the younger one. So boring and predictable most of the time.
Twatty hipster snob. Older Mozart???
gould was an amazing pianist but as a person, strange i´d say, any way what would pianists do without mozart, beethoven, haydn, schubert and so on,
Good god I would love to be rid of Haydn & Schubert
モーツァルト考は、本でよみましたが、
この映像のユニークで、温かみ そしてグレンにしか
出来ない内容 悲しいかな 英語がわからない！
誰か 助けてください！
ディビス卿が笑いを誘います、
大筋 教えていただけませんか 宜しくお願いします
The imperialist culture (or rather, ignorance) never dies.
Gould is cold
so much arrogance in applying 20th century criterias which had no relevance to composers like Mozart. Thankfully Mr. Gould didn't dare to talk about Haydn
This is the most stupid thing Gould ever said, and he said a lot of stupid things.
And many more stupid people said that about him.
Does anyone really give a shit what a charlatan like Gould thinks about Mozart?
Ahh … a self-absorbed provocateur. Don’t get me wrong, his first recording of the Goldberg Variations is superb, but his many dissertations on music in general are just a manifestation of his narcissistic persona. Mozart a bad composer 😂
I like Gould, but yes, he was annoying in that since. He just liked to hear himself pontificate.
Do not believe this NONSENSE, especially amateurs or beginners in music. It's a pathetic but clever provocation, so it's very funny. Mozart and Bach are two of the greatest UNIVERSAL composers in the history of music, two MASTERS. "The two main teachers." This is not my subjective opinion, not my choice, but surprisingly - Schoenberg’s! and as we know Gould was crazy about him. They would have to have a duel for Mozart's honor and dignity, I suppose.
WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD WIN?
uh- this is so typical of listeners to Gould; they insist that what he is saying is absolute for all time..."Mozart is bad"
NO. What he is saying in a provocative way is that late Mozart on the piano was a bit played out and silly.
Gould comes out and expresses his astounding LOVE for the guy and yet people think that you cannot criticize Mozart ever for anything or else you hate him in the absolute.
@@bobjones-bt9bh Yes... but if Gould has an intimate love/hate for Mozart's music, then why to get things out in the open? Moreover, he criticizes “late” Mozart. Did he really pass by quintets and quartets, trios, because in piano music there are all the same features, the same means - a single physiognomy. To reject Mozart's piano music is to reject all of Mozart without understanding him. It would be correct to say right away: I do not accept Mozart's idiostyle instead of childishly judging: this is bad and this is good. Criticism is also an art, and it does not tolerate amateurs and provocateurs.
@@paulina3201 Mozarts genius in fact grows the older he gets. It gets even more warmth which Gould is obviously unable to deliver or maybe afraid of. There is a quite big number of masterpieces in his later work. Gould was a pianist with insane abilities but limited himself by loving himself much more than any composer he played. He did not realise that he is in music history a very small figure compared to Mozart or any great composer. And what he is doing here is just going through a few passages of a single piece and saying that Mozart became different -bad in his opinion, not regarding the fact that Mozart in fact anticipates Beethoven here and the following romantic period and with that a new style of piano playing.
Mozart wrote pop music, mostly pretty lame pop music. His work is greatly overrated imho.
Hahahaha! Really?
Is it really "in your honest opinion" if you haven't seriously listened to what you're talking about?
Some of Mozart's music is undeniably pop, but the greatest works are anything but that. The Haydn quartets, string quintets, operas, masses, late symphonies, etc. are all incredibly complex, often with very dense counterpoint.
Not eve Gould was this ignorant in this program about hating Mozart
Listen to the Horn Concerto No. 2 in E flat Maj. K. 417 all 3 parts but in particular part 2 Adagio That piece of divinity that Adagio look for the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra version (William Purvis Channel)
Calling it "pop" is a hot take that you can argue. I'll give you that. "Mostly lame" is simply wrong, though. Nice try!
Stfu
EVERYBODY wants to be Mozart
Come on...
I love Mozart, but I want to be Beethoven.
Nobody can “be” Mozart but by copying the tropes you can sound like him thanks to how predictable he is
Loads of bullshts just cause he couldnt accept he was good. In his last years mozart composed a lot of of his best pieces
Schoolboy response
...a computer could compose them with a minimum of programming and so could a five year old after a few weeks of theory lessons... The arrogance of this man astounds me. His lauded interpretations of JS Bach still hold the attention of most but his interpretations of Beethoven are desperately pathetic...(Pun intended).
ok, Seymour. Go have a matzah
Think, Gould had an ego problem. Just as he often doesn't play Bach but rather Gould (there are exceptions for him), he also doesn't understand Mozart because he often doesn't breathe inside. If Gould really played a musical Mozart and not an artistic one, I could listen to him. But like that...
Interesting enough that you're talking mainly about yourself, talking about Gould is talking about himself...
but in fact Gould is giving not just a few arguments to prove his point, but lots of them, and with demonstrations.
What are your arguments exactly?
@@JulioLeonFandinho What are you accusing me of? That I criticize Gould? It's obvious that he doesn't understand Mozart when he plays Mozart so badly. Only, that's his problem, not Mozart's. And if you don't understand that, it's not my fault.
Glenn Gould was a very virtuoso pianist. But he himself wasn't the most musical person.
Sometimes, when he was young, he surprised me in a positive way, but often unfortunately not. Listen to Bach's Preludes and Fugues with Gould. Awful. Is this Bach's fault? No!
@@ScaramouchedaVincithat is a childish point to say “oh he doesn’t like it therefore he must not understandddd”
He clearly does understand Mozart and he gave examples of what he DID like from Mozart.
It’s just not what you like
@@oniryujin4162 No, it's just the other way around. He doesn't like it because he doesn't understand it. He plays it very unmusically.
But you are welcome to have an opposite opinion.
@@ScaramouchedaVinci everything you’re saying is highly subjective.
“He doesn’t play it musically”
Why? Because he doesn’t use tons of legato ?
Every “good” interpretation is based off stereotypes of what we believe to be the true style of their time periods.
The fact is we don’t know, he played mainly on piano forte and earlier on harpsichord not a Steinway.
Having the space between the notes the way he does is probably more realistic objectively anyways
Who the hell is Glenn Gould compared to Mozart?
You just habe to Listen and think and you will see that his Genius was just aß gratis!
Moot point to be honest.
Comparing a composer to a pianist who serves to interpret?
Is one not allowed to critique or comment simply because you believe Mozart to be god?
This is unwatchable.
Total stupid.
Why
you
Explain why otherwise you’re just an immature individual stamping their feet in the face of another opinion
Интересно, кто дал право ему судить о гениальных композиторах? Отсутствие мозгов?
Playing Mozart as he does , I think he could be authorized to say his opinion .
он рассуждает. и правильно делает, что рассуждает
Is Mozart your god?