Once again, fascinating perspective. Both Gould and Celibidache shared the vision of an artist recreating a work each time it is played, scorning those who merely carbon copy the written score. Yet while the former sought the recording studio as his preferred medium, the latter used spontaneity of performing before live audiences to realize his vision.
He is so charismatic and engaging as a speaker, as much as a pianist. I think he made the right decision focusing on media and portraying classical music through media rather than continuing as a concert pianist.
I totally agree with John Culshaw, and he was proven right by what actually happened since those interviews with Glenn Gould. And I don't really understand why this video is titled "Glenn Gould and Humphrey Burton on Bach"! They are talking as much, if not more, about Beethoven...
If this is what he thinks of live cocerts, I wonder what he thinks of piano competitions, lol! What a treasure, to hear his thoughts. I believe you can become smarter just by hearing this genius speak. 💕🎵
Gould was a genius and his eloquence is astonishing. I understand there are issues with people coughing, but unless you have ultra high end audio equipment, you cannot easily capture the sound of the hall. The reverb.
todos queremos verlo tocar!!!!!. No sòlo porque es fascinante, tambièn porque queremos retenerlo en nuestra memoria, en nuestras vidas. Te amo Glenn, viniiste a hacer sublime la mùsica
Eu sou médico e pianista, toca tocata e fuga em ré menor de Bach e seguramente nunca vi nenhum pianista tocar com alma e técnica as obras de Bach. Acho um pianista fenomenal.
I really wish modern interviewers were more like Humphrey. He pushed when he had to, he gave way when he had to, but overall he just let Gould be Gould and the interview was all the better for it.
Why on earth do we need the summing up at the end? isn't it a supreme irony- to include such a pomposo after the wonderfully creative and centrifugal fugue of ideas which precedes it ? One cannot decide if whoever put the video together was utterly unaware of how ridiculous the ending was, or did it deliberately.
Au contraire, a recapitulation in a different mode or key revisits the earlier material, tying the whole together in a particular kind of way. I would have welcomed a bit more pomposo in the the fugue as it went along, by the way :)
To hell with Einstein's brain, we gotta study Glenn Gould's brain! Okay it is not unprecedented for a pianist to commit to memory a massive amount of music, but with Gould it is like 3D chess. The musical score is to him merely a blueprint to a greater extent than any musician in history.
As an amateur musician, who was inspired to take up the keyboard--and music itself--by the published works and persona of Mr. Gould, I know now that he was not smarter or better than others. No, he poured a great deal of effort into crafting an image of exactly what you describe. This worked until it didn't. Mr. Gould's image as a genius was permanently cast upon his death; we can still access his celebrity and videos and presence while being saved the neurological decline of Mr. Gould's last few years.
@@aelfrice There's no image, he's an actual genius. What nonsense are you talking about? The guy barely practiced and yet had a ridiculously wide repertoire memorized, with perhaps the greatest technique among pianists. You're an amateur for a reason.
@@anonymousl5150 Dear Anonymous, Mr. Gould stands as a great example. I am but a mere lover of mysic. Glenn was also a mere lover of music. I reject setting impossible standards; the greatest music is available to us all. Excuse me inelegance here: Mr. Gould was a gifted musician, but his gift was his love of music in a supportive environment rather than some impossible gift.
I love Gould's playing. Could he just be justifying, intellectualizing, why he gave up live performances because he just hated them for some unspoken reason(s) ?
Nope. He stated over and over again the exact same reasons why he hated concertizing. What it all boils down to, is, as a performer and as a listener, he preferred a very direct, very one on one, connection between the music and the listener.
While I do disagree with Gould about the value of live concerts - I do love them - I'm sort of happy HE felt this way. I think we'd have LESS of Gould if he would have toured..... tons of CBC performances, interviews like this, 80+ recordings, many documentaries.....
Nearly everybody DOES disagree, of course. Did the point about the herd escape you entirely? And why would you rather have "live footage" than lecture/dialogues like these?
What is there to disagree about? Gould is 100% right. Live concerts have elements that are superficial distractions to listening to music fully. Distractions that may *feel* good, like seeing your idol virtuoso soloist in person or the feeling of sitting in a gorgeous concert hall with friends. But they're distractions nontheless. And Gould is right in his prediction as most orchestras are going bankrupt.
I’m not really sure- I mean, the atmosphere of the concert hall- what is it mainly-public showcasing? I don’t know- on one hand, it’s showing your music to the world, which of course, you can buy recordings for, but on the other hand, the atmosphere of sound that can be obtained while listening to it live, just pure making music-this is what it should be all about.
Never noticed before but Glenn seems defensive around 8:35. Lots of fidgeting etc, like a kid told not to do something... the topic is what Beethoven would have intended.
I see it as discomfort because he knows how controversial his views are and how much pushback he got. I still think he was very convicted in his beliefs though
@@samaritan29 I will say, as a piano student I loved Chopin and he was one of my favorites. As a music LISTENER, I find there are a tiny handful of his works that reward me, and the rest do indeed go in one ear and out the other for me, as Gould once put it, and they come across to me when I am not playing them as merely so much florid finger exercise.
@@neil7137 Been to a concert hall recently? Conversely, have you made a mix-tape or used TH-cam, for example, to listen to music that fits your own idiosyncratic tastes? Gould was ahead of his time and proposed concepts his contemporaries couldn't even fathom.
@@ahujeffrey To answer your question, indeed I've never been to a concert hall in my life as I live in a 3rd world country that doesn't really put arts on its priority. I discover many music through TH-cam and websites alike. But, pre-COVID talking, I don't think that there are more people who really committed to cut a section of a performer's recording and joins them in other performers' recording (or in Culshaw's term, do-it-yourself Beethoven), than the people who occasionally go to concert halls. I'm saying Culshaw is not entirely wrong in saying: first, concert halls will still exist (albeit may evolve) and GG is wrong in his idea of total decline of concert halls; and second, GG is right that there will be a huge expansion in home listening and the listener will take more trouble to create the sound he wants (as you said, to listen to music that fits our own idiosyncratic tastes).
@@neil7137 I appreciate your thoughtful response. After listening again to the conclusions provided by Culshaw at the end of the programme, his thoughts are more balanced (thanks in part to my consideration of your comments). There will, truly, always exist a demand for/ interest in live performances. In the days of this pandemic, such luxuries seem more precious than ever. However, having access to technology, no matter where you live, undoubtedly enhances the listeners' participation in the arts and fosters a creative force perhaps even beyond what Gould imagined. Thanks again for the thoughtful response. I am glad to soften my critique and consider this issue in greater depth.
Was Gould right or the pompous git at the end? Concerts continue, and will always continue, for a few reasons. One is because snobs like to prove how snobby they are by attending concerts, whether they like the music or not. Then there are the people who enjoy going out with friends, simply as a social pleasure - these would only go to music they actually enjoyed. And finally, there are some, like me, who actually find the sound just clearer live, in front of them. But I have to admit, I don't have an expensive system at home. So score 1 for the snobby git. But I would have to say that in terms of the sheer proportions of people, that live concerts have become almost extinct. Certainly their role as the main purveyor of standard performances with a secondary role for recordings has been massively overturned. Now it is the recording industry that is the goliath, with live performances quite secondary. There is also something that Gould never considered - many people want to go to hear XYZ play because XYZ is a "star". If Gould were playing on one side of the street and Liberace on the other, you would have many going to one and not the other, for reasons mainly that they want to see that particular performer, and people would have a definite preference. As to what Gould envisioned about the listener's role, I think that this has not yet been realized. The technology is possible, but it is not widespread or even widely available. But all it would take would for it to become a fad and it would "go viral". We can certainly speed up or slow down music without altering the pitch today, as well as selectively removing players based on how far they are to the left or right. And I have no doubt that its possible to take a music score and to have a computer play it in the style of any performer. I myself inserted the score of a piece of music into a music program, and tweaked it to my preference - selecting the instruments, changing the volume here and there to bring out an entry, and choosing the overall tempo I liked. I even had some notes go staccato. While the software I was using was pretty basic - a demo version - I can imagine what I might do with the "pro" version. Short of learning how to play the piece myself and equipping myself with a 20-ton organ, I can now achieve somewhat what Gould visualized - that each of us have the same freedom to explore a piece of music in the way that he could, as a performer. Creativity then belonged exclusively in the hands of the performer, but what Gould saw, and these music critics did not, is that there is no reason that this has to stay there; there is no right of a performer, or a conductor, to dictate how a piece of music MUST be played. And the development of tools that allow us all the same creativity without the entry fee of learning how to perform or how to land a job as a conductor is surely a positive step forward. Where the critics were right is that most of the herd just want to listen to Furtwangler. They dont WANT to take the initiative of deciding for themselves how the piece should be; they want to be told how it should be. Gould was rather disappointed when Burton expressed this of himself, and I can see why. Gould wanted everyone to have what he had - the ability to tinker with a piece and to play it how he or she sees fit.
Gould didn't deny there are attractions to going to a concert - seeing a star virtuoso, the social pleasures associated with 'hanging out', etc. That's not difficult to consider. What he is saying is those are superficial distractions that has nothing to do with the music. They produce an entirely different pleasure response that distract from the music. You can easily download free software that allows control of tempo, pitch, reverb, frequency control, etc. There are even free DAWs that will allow you to manipulate articulations with plug-ins. Gould was not too optimistic that future generations would take control over as creative 'composers'.
I disagree with the narrator's closing conmrents at the end of this video. The narrator suggests Glenn Gould is wrong to " splice up" and incorporate different techniques of interoretstion when interpteting a composer's piece. Gould is right and the narrator is wrong in my opinion. The fact that modern classical performers are afraid to find their own Beethoven or Bach or Chopin and instead of try to replicate another perforner's rendition is proof in of itself that the modern classical performer has lost whst Gould refers to as the conposer's insight.
As a child practicing at home, Glenn’s musical mother would prod him to always “sing” each note, thus, I see it sort of as a sweet way of fulfilling the Commandment (no.#5) of ‘Honor your Mother’, …and, his incessant clinging to ‘that’ folding-chair was “honoring his Father”, …who actually, improvisingly [sic], put that chair, `ahem, togεthεr.
I think Glenn was a suffering a little overdose of Marshall McCluhan with his ideas about concerts vs. recordings. Cant really blame him though, McCluhan's ideas at this time were all the rage in intellectual circles of that period.
The problem is that the audience that Gould had at the time was very parasitic. Nowadays maybe less so, like in this youtube channel. It's more interactive now.
glenn's argument about the concert hall is so wrong... a symphony/piano concerto is infinitely better than a recording, if the performance and acoustics are good. he was obviously an introvert, but I think whenever he says concerts are worse than recordings he's extremely biased.
Why is the concert hall better? In a hall, you cannot control the acoustics. You get completely differences depending on where you sit, the performers have absolutely no control over what you hear. Gould also rightly discusses the whole pointlessness of this herd mentality. Going to a concert may be exciting but that excitement (seeing a celebrity performer, hanging out with people, etc.) is a distraction to the music. Gould was simply superior to sheep like you.
How charming that Gould is as interesting to listen to as his music.
Fascinating. Can watch this for hours...
You can't, you gotta practice.
I will continue to give standing ovations and yell bravo as hard as I can after listening to his recordings at home. And finger conduct during them.
Once again, fascinating perspective. Both Gould and Celibidache shared the vision of an artist recreating a work each time it is played, scorning those who merely carbon copy the written score. Yet while the former sought the recording studio as his preferred medium, the latter used spontaneity of performing before live audiences to realize his vision.
He is so charismatic and engaging as a speaker, as much as a pianist. I think he made the right decision focusing on media and portraying classical music through media rather than continuing as a concert pianist.
Thank you for the video,u-tube,for the possibility to listen to the music and Glenn playing and speaking ,with gratitude from Ukraine.
I totally agree with John Culshaw, and he was proven right by what actually happened since those interviews with Glenn Gould. And I don't really understand why this video is titled "Glenn Gould and Humphrey Burton on Bach"! They are talking as much, if not more, about Beethoven...
Wow, what great insights into the creative process! Riveting and fascinating!
If this is what he thinks of live cocerts, I wonder what he thinks of piano competitions, lol! What a treasure, to hear his thoughts. I believe you can become smarter just by hearing this genius speak. 💕🎵
He detested them, competition of any sort for that matter.
Glenn Gould was many steps ahead of the public and he will continue to teach us with all the goodies he left for us
Gould was a genius and his eloquence is astonishing. I understand there are issues with people coughing, but unless you have ultra high end audio equipment, you cannot easily capture the sound of the hall. The reverb.
todos queremos verlo tocar!!!!!. No sòlo porque es fascinante, tambièn porque queremos retenerlo en nuestra memoria, en nuestras vidas. Te amo Glenn, viniiste a hacer sublime la mùsica
Eu sou médico e pianista, toca tocata e fuga em ré menor de Bach e seguramente nunca vi nenhum pianista tocar com alma e técnica as obras de Bach.
Acho um pianista fenomenal.
I really wish modern interviewers were more like Humphrey. He pushed when he had to, he gave way when he had to, but overall he just let Gould be Gould and the interview was all the better for it.
Very interesting video right through to the analysis of Gould's thinking by the narrator at the end.
Why on earth do we need the summing up at the end? isn't it a supreme irony- to include such a pomposo after the wonderfully creative and centrifugal fugue of ideas which precedes it ? One cannot decide if whoever put the video together was utterly unaware of how ridiculous the ending was, or did it deliberately.
Au contraire, a recapitulation in a different mode or key revisits the earlier material, tying the whole together in a particular kind of way. I would have welcomed a bit more pomposo in the the fugue as it went along, by the way :)
Humphrey Burton: Don't go away. Go back. Glenn Gould: Oh alright. Very well (Goes back to the piano).😄😄😄
Fantastic lesson. Sufisticated!
grazie
6:21 Don't go away
Lmao
8:19 *"YAA TI TAA YAN TADA"*
❤❤❤
To hell with Einstein's brain, we gotta study Glenn Gould's brain! Okay it is not unprecedented for a pianist to commit to memory a massive amount of music, but with Gould it is like 3D chess. The musical score is to him merely a blueprint to a greater extent than any musician in history.
haha 'blueprint' good one!!
Admit an element of borrowing, in a different context, from musicologist Irving Kolodin in his describing the score of Mahler's Eighth Symphony.
As an amateur musician, who was inspired to take up the keyboard--and music itself--by the published works and persona of Mr. Gould, I know now that he was not smarter or better than others. No, he poured a great deal of effort into crafting an image of exactly what you describe. This worked until it didn't. Mr. Gould's image as a genius was permanently cast upon his death; we can still access his celebrity and videos and presence while being saved the neurological decline of Mr. Gould's last few years.
@@aelfrice There's no image, he's an actual genius. What nonsense are you talking about? The guy barely practiced and yet had a ridiculously wide repertoire memorized, with perhaps the greatest technique among pianists. You're an amateur for a reason.
@@anonymousl5150 Dear Anonymous, Mr. Gould stands as a great example. I am but a mere lover of mysic.
Glenn was also a mere lover of music. I reject setting impossible standards; the greatest music is available to us all.
Excuse me inelegance here: Mr. Gould was a gifted musician, but his gift was his love of music in a supportive environment rather than some impossible gift.
Спасибо! С любовью из России!
I love Gould's playing. Could he just be justifying, intellectualizing, why he gave up live performances because he just hated them for some unspoken reason(s) ?
I believe it was about control. In recording he controls the end product. It is not possible in live performances.
Nope. He stated over and over again the exact same reasons why he hated concertizing. What it all boils down to, is, as a performer and as a listener, he preferred a very direct, very one on one, connection between the music and the listener.
Mmmm, when he demos a piece two different ways- and I can't even hear a difference.
who's here after Spotify's CEO critique on musicians who take "long breaks" in between their online content release?
Absolutely disagree with Gould regarding live concerts. Too bad he felt this way, or we would have had a lot more live footage of him.
While I do disagree with Gould about the value of live concerts - I do love them - I'm sort of happy HE felt this way. I think we'd have LESS of Gould if he would have toured..... tons of CBC performances, interviews like this, 80+ recordings, many documentaries.....
Nearly everybody DOES disagree, of course. Did the point about the herd escape you entirely? And why would you rather have "live footage" than lecture/dialogues like these?
What is there to disagree about? Gould is 100% right. Live concerts have elements that are superficial distractions to listening to music fully. Distractions that may *feel* good, like seeing your idol virtuoso soloist in person or the feeling of sitting in a gorgeous concert hall with friends. But they're distractions nontheless. And Gould is right in his prediction as most orchestras are going bankrupt.
I’m not really sure- I mean, the atmosphere of the concert hall- what is it mainly-public showcasing? I don’t know- on one hand, it’s showing your music to the world, which of course, you can buy recordings for, but on the other hand, the atmosphere of sound that can be obtained while listening to it live, just pure making music-this is what it should be all about.
Never noticed before but Glenn seems defensive around 8:35. Lots of fidgeting etc, like a kid told not to do something... the topic is what Beethoven would have intended.
I see it as discomfort because he knows how controversial his views are and how much pushback he got. I still think he was very convicted in his beliefs though
It. S. So. Pity. That. Is. Not. Transl atemn.. He. Is. Very. Interesting. Think.. Speeking.. About.. Musik. And... Others.... 😮😢🎉..
Thank. You. So. Much... 😮🎉
I wish Gould would have recorded Chopin's etudes and large-scale works, e.g. the ballades and scherzi. Chopin loved Bach's music.
and glenn hated chopins music
it is better than he focused his energy on bach and beethoven.
@@samaritan29 I will say, as a piano student I loved Chopin and he was one of my favorites. As a music LISTENER, I find there are a tiny handful of his works that reward me, and the rest do indeed go in one ear and out the other for me, as Gould once put it, and they come across to me when I am not playing them as merely so much florid finger exercise.
Pompous git at the end: wrong and UNinformed. GG:enlightened, as always!
Why do you think Culshaw's commentary is wrong and uninformed, if I may ask?
@@neil7137 Been to a concert hall recently? Conversely, have you made a mix-tape or used TH-cam, for example, to listen to music that fits your own idiosyncratic tastes? Gould was ahead of his time and proposed concepts his contemporaries couldn't even fathom.
@@ahujeffrey To answer your question, indeed I've never been to a concert hall in my life as I live in a 3rd world country that doesn't really put arts on its priority. I discover many music through TH-cam and websites alike. But, pre-COVID talking, I don't think that there are more people who really committed to cut a section of a performer's recording and joins them in other performers' recording (or in Culshaw's term, do-it-yourself Beethoven), than the people who occasionally go to concert halls. I'm saying Culshaw is not entirely wrong in saying: first, concert halls will still exist (albeit may evolve) and GG is wrong in his idea of total decline of concert halls; and second, GG is right that there will be a huge expansion in home listening and the listener will take more trouble to create the sound he wants (as you said, to listen to music that fits our own idiosyncratic tastes).
@@neil7137 I appreciate your thoughtful response. After listening again to the conclusions provided by Culshaw at the end of the programme, his thoughts are more balanced (thanks in part to my consideration of your comments). There will, truly, always exist a demand for/ interest in live performances. In the days of this pandemic, such luxuries seem more precious than ever. However, having access to technology, no matter where you live, undoubtedly enhances the listeners' participation in the arts and fosters a creative force perhaps even beyond what Gould imagined. Thanks again for the thoughtful response. I am glad to soften my critique and consider this issue in greater depth.
WOULD RATHER LISTEN TO GOULDS OPINION THAN THIS POMPOUS IDIOT AT THE END.
Was Gould right or the pompous git at the end? Concerts continue, and will always continue, for a few reasons. One is because snobs like to prove how snobby they are by attending concerts, whether they like the music or not. Then there are the people who enjoy going out with friends, simply as a social pleasure - these would only go to music they actually enjoyed. And finally, there are some, like me, who actually find the sound just clearer live, in front of them. But I have to admit, I don't have an expensive system at home. So score 1 for the snobby git. But I would have to say that in terms of the sheer proportions of people, that live concerts have become almost extinct. Certainly their role as the main purveyor of standard performances with a secondary role for recordings has been massively overturned. Now it is the recording industry that is the goliath, with live performances quite secondary. There is also something that Gould never considered - many people want to go to hear XYZ play because XYZ is a "star". If Gould were playing on one side of the street and Liberace on the other, you would have many going to one and not the other, for reasons mainly that they want to see that particular performer, and people would have a definite preference.
As to what Gould envisioned about the listener's role, I think that this has not yet been realized. The technology is possible, but it is not widespread or even widely available. But all it would take would for it to become a fad and it would "go viral". We can certainly speed up or slow down music without altering the pitch today, as well as selectively removing players based on how far they are to the left or right. And I have no doubt that its possible to take a music score and to have a computer play it in the style of any performer. I myself inserted the score of a piece of music into a music program, and tweaked it to my preference - selecting the instruments, changing the volume here and there to bring out an entry, and choosing the overall tempo I liked. I even had some notes go staccato. While the software I was using was pretty basic - a demo version - I can imagine what I might do with the "pro" version. Short of learning how to play the piece myself and equipping myself with a 20-ton organ, I can now achieve somewhat what Gould visualized - that each of us have the same freedom to explore a piece of music in the way that he could, as a performer. Creativity then belonged exclusively in the hands of the performer, but what Gould saw, and these music critics did not, is that there is no reason that this has to stay there; there is no right of a performer, or a conductor, to dictate how a piece of music MUST be played. And the development of tools that allow us all the same creativity without the entry fee of learning how to perform or how to land a job as a conductor is surely a positive step forward.
Where the critics were right is that most of the herd just want to listen to Furtwangler. They dont WANT to take the initiative of deciding for themselves how the piece should be; they want to be told how it should be. Gould was rather disappointed when Burton expressed this of himself, and I can see why. Gould wanted everyone to have what he had - the ability to tinker with a piece and to play it how he or she sees fit.
Wow you're special!
Gould didn't deny there are attractions to going to a concert - seeing a star virtuoso, the social pleasures associated with 'hanging out', etc. That's not difficult to consider. What he is saying is those are superficial distractions that has nothing to do with the music. They produce an entirely different pleasure response that distract from the music.
You can easily download free software that allows control of tempo, pitch, reverb, frequency control, etc. There are even free DAWs that will allow you to manipulate articulations with plug-ins. Gould was not too optimistic that future generations would take control over as creative 'composers'.
I disagree with the narrator's closing conmrents at the end of this video. The narrator suggests Glenn Gould is wrong to " splice up" and incorporate different techniques of interoretstion when interpteting a composer's piece. Gould is right and the narrator is wrong in my opinion. The fact that modern classical performers are afraid to find their own Beethoven or Bach or Chopin and instead of try to replicate another perforner's rendition is proof in of itself that the modern classical performer has lost whst Gould refers to as the conposer's insight.
Is Gould’s singing meaningfully related the music he’s playing, or is he just sort of moaning?
He's singing one of the lines in the music or voices in the music, one of its parts, yes part of the music
As a child practicing at home, Glenn’s musical mother would prod him to always “sing” each note, thus, I see it sort of as a sweet way of fulfilling the Commandment (no.#5) of ‘Honor your Mother’, …and, his incessant clinging to ‘that’ folding-chair was “honoring his Father”,
…who actually, improvisingly [sic], put that chair, `ahem, togεthεr.
I think Glenn was a suffering a little overdose of Marshall McCluhan with his ideas about concerts vs. recordings. Cant really blame him though, McCluhan's ideas at this time were all the rage in intellectual circles of that period.
I doubt it. GG seemed to think pretty well for himself.
The problem is that the audience that Gould had at the time was very parasitic. Nowadays maybe less so, like in this youtube channel. It's more interactive now.
glenn's argument about the concert hall is so wrong... a symphony/piano concerto is infinitely better than a recording, if the performance and acoustics are good. he was obviously an introvert, but I think whenever he says concerts are worse than recordings he's extremely biased.
And can you demonstrate that it is not you yourself that is 'biased'? What nonsense.
Why is the concert hall better? In a hall, you cannot control the acoustics. You get completely differences depending on where you sit, the performers have absolutely no control over what you hear. Gould also rightly discusses the whole pointlessness of this herd mentality. Going to a concert may be exciting but that excitement (seeing a celebrity performer, hanging out with people, etc.) is a distraction to the music. Gould was simply superior to sheep like you.