Gould’s speed is more beautiful than others because he matched it with such intense possession of feeling. He really was remarkable and still an important voice in Bach keyboard music performance today.
+lagunagreg hahaha. "actually Dan, one can say that. it is certainly right for Gould to play it like the piece of junk he thinks it is. But it is equally anyone else's right to say they don't like the way he plays it. " I agree with your view but didn't want to post there because I didn't want to start the argument again. However, I will offer you a new way of looking at Gould's interpretation that you can take if you want. I invite you to explore the possibility that although Gould's rendition of the piece is awful, it is so bold and so striking that it is a pleasure to listen to for me because it provides a sense of nonconformity.
+Yami Bakura - I appreciate your desire not to start the same tired argument again, nor do I wish to myself. But to be clear, I do not find Gould's Bach "bold and striking", as a rule. Almost all his Bach is tasteless and cartoonish to me. The only recording of his Bach I ever liked was the 1965 recording of the Goldbergs. It has been my experience that the same people who insist Gould was the greatest keyboard genius of the 20th century (completely untrue) also insist that Maria Callas was the only great singer during the same time period, which is completely ridiculous and untrue, and very insulting to a lot of other really great singers. My preferred recording of Bach, in most all cases, is Rosalyn Turek on the piano, who Gould knew, studied and copied very assiduously. But that's just me!
I'm used to hearing this piece on the organ. So it's a revelation to hear every note on the piano. Sadly, Glenn doesn't have long to live after this documentary.
C’était vraiment un pianiste exceptionnel doté d’une musicalité hors paire Son interprétation de J S Bach est excellente et franchement c’est bien un des rares qui me fait apprécier Bach Mon cauchemar lors de mes études
What people don't get about GG is he was a contrarian. His interpretations are always offerings to view a piece heard a thousand times played in an entirely new way. Traditionalists have a hard time with that. Glenn seldom tries to deliver the authoritative interpretation, only an alternative one. That's a great gift to music.
Good point. He s impressive but to me it dosent’t seem thath his interpretation is bigger than life like it is with other interpretation of him like the golden variations. And then there are people that made a glenn gould “cult” that will tell you that gg understands bach the best and they will not listen to you.. my father is part of them…
@@giovannispatafora3904 His opinion is on the full video of this recording. Right after playing this, he famously said "this is Bach for people who don't like Bach" He also states that he would never play it again.
He "hated" any piece that he saw as showy, lending itself to self-congratulatory displays of virtuosity or excessive sentimentality... Some saw a degree of insecurity behind this attitude.
@@sugardaddy4714 That coming from Gould is at least curious. He would shred the style of a piece if he felt to, or even changing things that were made literal on scores. Well, I think all of us have the tendency of despising in others what we have in ourselves, like if we felt unmasked. I feel that Bach here was experimenting, like it was a kind of an etude... The piece is really astonishing I can only imagine other keyboard masters of the time blurring by witnessing Bach's ability to, basically, do what the hell he wanted to. Maybe Gould felt Bach's genious overshadowing his own in a measure that was too much. Two genious, of course, but the creator is above the creature.
The caption of the video is misleading. In this video, he simply alters the piece, to make a point. This is not how he played it in his recordings! Mr. Glenn Gould's playing was crystal clear. He played with perfect timing, allowing Bach's harmonies to shine clearly... . He also adjusted the attack of the piano, as to have great control over the sound quality. He would read a score, and play it with relatively little practice. He played all pieces by heart. He also had perfect pitch. Mr. Gould played the works of Bach, and selected works of other composers. His playing was deep, precise, and thought provoking. His playing speed and timing are still baffling. He had a deep understanding of harmony and composition, and had many shows about classical music, on tv and on the radio.
Grande Glenn Gould Bach è solo per lui ha una tecnica che fa paura ,anche in un pezzo veloce fa sentire ogni nota grande ,peccato che se né andato troppo presto
This is controversial, but a medium I heard say Bach mentioned Gould and called him a genius in his own way and felt he interpreted his music the way he intended. I don't know how accurate this is. Bach also mentioned some personal events that I'm trying to research and verify.
Glenn Gould is able to get anyone not calcified in prejudice to hear any composition with new ears, a gift you cannot repay. Excremental comments, I try to not wish to repay . . .
Wow! This guy breathes! His soul and emotion is there! Amazing what he does with the meter, all! I think his attempt for parody failed beautifully! I don't know music and am easily taken with one who can rise above. For me it's the notes he's not playing too. Beauty, emotion, seems inescapable with him. I've never heard of him nor have I listened to his music before. With my sense of it he can over-dramatize all he wants. Really what is over-dramatizing as it seems to enter a realm that works for me. Thanks for sharing this!
The classic comment of all following one of Gould's presentations on TH-cam came from the Cleveland Orchestra conductor who remarked "This nut is a genius." HA !
Most people don't understand how difficult it is to interpret baroque music on a piano, and all piano players play baroque the same way today, high skill but skipping over all the possibilities. And those who are aware of them, play the organ or harpsichord. A good listener always prefer historical correct instrument anyway, right? And why do all the best baroque players not play piano? Gould chose to explore it, which he did his maximum effort to achieve and highlight how many details there are to explore. I think no one have been able to continue where he left, or are willing to try, because we just settle for the fact that baroque belongs to historical instruments
Bart Watts Translation= i have no life, so i go on youtube and pretend i know more than other people. Sorry your life didnt turn out so well there Bart. Cheers.
Friedrich RG: I have absolutely no idea of that which you are speaking. I'm not repeating anyone's opinion. It is my own. I have a master's in music performance in piano. You, apparently, are one of the deluded Gould fans that see him as a Bach God. He wasn't. He isn't. I pity you for feeling you have to defend a dead man and one that would not have given a damn about you or your opinion. Grow-up little boy.
In one of his interviews with Bruno Monsaingeon (its somewhere here on YT), Gould makes the point -- with which I personally agree, for whatever that is worth -- that the purpose of public recitals is to offer something fresh to audiences. Otherwise (and I am paraphrasing) what is the point of paying to listen to more or less identical performances of the "warhorses" of established piano literature? He admits in his interview that upon playing a Mozart piano sonata in such a manner one of his audiences became quite irate (again, paraphrasing). I strongly suspect that this is one of Gould's "fresh" interpretations. His face at the end seems to suggest he had a good time.
Fantasy I guess means the piece is subject to interpretation check out Andrew Lawrence -king play it on harp on recording called the secret of the Semitones.definently changed my opinion on this piece
That might actually work on a period instrument, eccentric as it is, but the ET-tuned Steinway squashes all the colors. How chromatic can you be without tonal or key color? Couldn't they at least have tempered the tuning a bit?
You do know how long it takes to retune a piano, right? They’d have to tune it to some form of well-temperament for every performance of Baroque music, and then go back to equal for everything else. You’re suggesting a nightmare.
It’s not really so chromatic compared to modern music is it? I am too used to chromatic sounds to hear the actual chromaticism and I wonder if it was different for those in Bach’s time?
As someone who listens almost exclusively to 18th century music: yes, it is very -and noticeable so- chromatic. It’s easier to hear the it on the harpsichord; since composers have already inflicted so much unbridled chromaticism on it.
La tecnica è strabiliante. Secondo me non bisogna dar retta a cosa dice; bisogna ascoltar come suona. Ha un po' il gusto del bizzarro, come volesse sorprendere, stupire. Ma c'è più anima di quanto egli stesso non creda. Peccato che l'esecuzione si interrompa.
Tioma Rebeckha Debora Tobing Gould is not arrogant. He is a genius. You and I are not. He is in a class by himself. That's why he may be misperceived as arrogant.
Gould could not abide the chromatic fantasy. He called it a monstrosity. He demeaned Beet hove n's appassionata and butchered it on his recording. Ditto late Mozart sonatas. Like Lucy lousing up a skit or song to get back at Ricky when he tried to pull a fast one on her.
When Gould truly hated a piece, he'd emulate Lucy Ricardo and louse it up royally. His late Mozart recordings attest to this. This clip of Bach sounds reverential. Go figure.
I've played the Mozart sonatas, and I know a good deal of the discography of Mozart sonatas, and I love Gould's view of many of them. Were there shortages of Mozart sonatas recordings, I might have a problem with eccentric interpretations. As it is, Mozart sonatas recordings are legion, and there's plenty of room for all sorts of views, Gould's included. He does seem to have not had much respect for the sonatas, yet, despite this, he produced a weird musicality out of his extreme approaches. I'm glad they exist.
Horrible statement... so ignorant... it is ok if you dont like the interpretation. but you cant say that his interpretation is bad. you just dont like it. it is his right to interpret this piece the way he wants it to and you are probably not the one to judge whether it is good or bad. maybe you are
@joelmcilveen: you are one of the rudest, most I'll spoken individuals. Learn to address people properly. For you information, I happen to have a Master's in music performance in piano from the Sydney conservatorium of music. I don't like this interpretation. It IS a poor rendition, even Gould said that he disliked this piece. Gould was an incredibly arrogant individual that artistically destroyed pieces of composers for which he did not care. Although he adored Bach, he loathed this piece. Listen to his Chopin and Mozart: it is abysmal.
Daniel Schmitz: my statement is neither horrible nor ignorant. Freedom of speech, not just opinion is highly valued in this country, as such, I am exercising said right. This interpretation is a poor one. Gould didn't even like the chromatic fantasy and fugue: he thought it to be a musical naive piece by Bach and didn't find it musically interesting. His playing is indicative of his opinion.
I honestly think Gould simply had no idea how to play the Chromatic Fantasy. I mean, he could play the notes, but the dynamics, rubato, etc. seems all over the place. It's like one part of him is saying "play it like you play Bach", and another side of him is saying "play it as a romantic piece", and the result is a car wreck.
It's lucky that one person in the world, you Mike Keyes, knows how to pace it. Perhaps someday you will share your exclusive knowledge with the rest of us. You must be a god among men.
+Scott C So how much is music in general is open to interpretation, how far fast the boundary of the purists is acceptable? Is the ctriteria for a good performance one that entertains it's audience or one that follows strict etiquette? Not an opinion, just a question to open up a discussion....
+Scott C So that depends on the listener being either open to something beyond the expected norm or not. Hence the variation of comments found here maybe.....
Tjs aussi pénible, voire carrément insupportable, ce Glenn Gould ! A chaque fois que je lui accorde encore qqs minutes, je m'interroge sur son jeu, sur sa présence, qu'idolâtrent, bien sûr, les cultureux : qu'est-il venu faire dans le mde de J S. Bach !!....
Fantasy I guess means the piece is subject to interpretation check out Andrew Lawrence -king play it on harp on recording called the secret of the Semitones.definently changed my opinion on this piece
![ถ้าพี่วุ้นท้อง แป้งจะท้องไปด้วยกัน !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeyEnVMwitA/mqdefault.jpg)
Gould’s speed is more beautiful than others because he matched it with such intense possession of feeling. He really was remarkable and still an important voice in Bach keyboard music performance today.
Genius!!! Playing with abs free interpretation... always from inner true sense... just joy to listen to!
"You know something, thats Bach for people who dont like Bach" Glenn
Glenn Gould's interpretation is so original, yet so approachable ..beautifully played..
Aleksandra Vander Hoek - if you mean awful, there might be some agreement here.
+lagunagreg hahaha.
"actually Dan, one can say that. it is certainly right for Gould to play it like the piece of junk he thinks it is. But it is equally anyone else's right to say they don't like the way he plays it. "
I agree with your view but didn't want to post there because I didn't want to start the argument again. However, I will offer you a new way of looking at Gould's interpretation that you can take if you want. I invite you to explore the possibility that although Gould's rendition of the piece is awful, it is so bold and so striking that it is a pleasure to listen to for me because it provides a sense of nonconformity.
+Yami Bakura - I appreciate your desire not to start the same tired argument again, nor do I wish to myself.
But to be clear, I do not find Gould's Bach "bold and striking", as a rule. Almost all his Bach is tasteless and cartoonish to me. The only recording of his Bach I ever liked was the 1965 recording of the Goldbergs.
It has been my experience that the same people who insist Gould was the greatest keyboard genius of the 20th century (completely untrue) also insist that Maria Callas was the only great singer during the same time period, which is completely ridiculous and untrue, and very insulting to a lot of other really great singers.
My preferred recording of Bach, in most all cases, is Rosalyn Turek on the piano, who Gould knew, studied and copied very assiduously.
But that's just me!
@@lagunagreg , н и к о г д а Гленн никого не копировал
Он всегда следовал с о б с т в е н н о м у видению/пониманию исполняеиого Всегда
OMG the way he starts the Fantasy!! Speechless!
Angelina Kontini - yeah, the opening is really a mess isn't it?
No. It is brilliant.
Oh my goodness no it's not!
lagunagreg how
Forget these meaningless comments posted by incompetents
Pianisti di tutto il mondo, inchinatevi davanti a GLENN GOULD ❣❤❤❤👏👏👏👍👍👍
I'm used to hearing this piece on the organ. So it's a revelation to hear every note on the piano. Sadly, Glenn doesn't have long to live after this documentary.
Cher Glenn, tu étais une merveille vivante
Merci !
Renaud
C’était vraiment un pianiste exceptionnel doté d’une musicalité hors paire
Son interprétation de J S Bach est excellente et franchement c’est bien un des rares qui me fait apprécier Bach
Mon cauchemar lors de mes études
I suspect Gould was more a romantic than he sometimes would like to admit ;')
Не оторваться. Космической силы впечатление. Демиург звуков.
What people don't get about GG is he was a contrarian. His interpretations are always offerings to view a piece heard a thousand times played in an entirely new way. Traditionalists have a hard time with that. Glenn seldom tries to deliver the authoritative interpretation, only an alternative one. That's a great gift to music.
Because he's Canadian, I know right !!
it's fascinating and meditative at once. thanks for sharing your pro view 🙂
what you get is that gould's bach IS tradition now, and it is absurd
Good point. He s impressive but to me it dosent’t seem thath his interpretation is bigger than life like it is with other interpretation of him like the golden variations. And then there are people that made a glenn gould “cult” that will tell you that gg understands bach the best and they will not listen to you.. my father is part of them…
Glen Gould was definitely ONE of a kind!
Boje kak on igraet! Vishe genialnosti….Kosmos!🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤❤
He makes the piano sound like an organ! :O
He's not mocking the music at all; just his style, sometimes directing himself..
Love it ! Love him !
And yet Gould hated this piece... cannot even digest this fact when listening to this masterpiece of an interpretation.
A "masterpiece" of comedy indeed!
where have you read that?
@@giovannispatafora3904 His opinion is on the full video of this recording. Right after playing this, he famously said "this is Bach for people who don't like Bach" He also states that he would never play it again.
He "hated" any piece that he saw as showy, lending itself to self-congratulatory displays of virtuosity or excessive sentimentality... Some saw a degree of insecurity behind this attitude.
@@sugardaddy4714 That coming from Gould is at least curious. He would shred the style of a piece if he felt to, or even changing things that were made literal on scores. Well, I think all of us have the tendency of despising in others what we have in ourselves, like if we felt unmasked. I feel that Bach here was experimenting, like it was a kind of an etude... The piece is really astonishing I can only imagine other keyboard masters of the time blurring by witnessing Bach's ability to, basically, do what the hell he wanted to. Maybe Gould felt Bach's genious overshadowing his own in a measure that was too much. Two genious, of course, but the creator is above the creature.
The caption of the video is misleading. In this video, he simply alters the piece, to make a point. This is not how he played it in his recordings!
Mr. Glenn Gould's playing was crystal clear. He played with perfect timing, allowing Bach's harmonies to shine clearly... . He also adjusted the attack of the piano, as to have great control over the sound quality. He would read a score, and play it with relatively little practice. He played all pieces by heart. He also had perfect pitch.
Mr. Gould played the works of Bach, and selected works of other composers. His playing was deep, precise, and thought provoking. His playing speed and timing are still baffling. He had a deep understanding of harmony and composition, and had many shows about classical music, on tv and on the radio.
What can you mean, "perfect pitch"? That is almost exclusively applied to singers.
Superb
Grande Glenn Gould Bach è solo per lui ha una tecnica che fa paura ,anche in un pezzo veloce fa sentire ogni nota grande ,peccato che se né andato troppo presto
great video
Muchas gracias por compartirlo.
Tellement magnifique..
What happened the whole section at 2:22? It's missing!
Gould had a profound understanding of music...probably closest to the grand composers' level.
Yup ! He were no dummy pertaining in music !!
This is controversial, but a medium I heard say Bach mentioned Gould and called him a genius in his own way and felt he interpreted his music the way he intended. I don't know how accurate this is. Bach also mentioned some personal events that I'm trying to research and verify.
So many ”grandmaster musicians" commenting on youtube.
haha
Love Bach
Thank you! Grazie! Spasibo! Merci! Dankeschööön...(to both o you...;-)-...!.!!
¡Genial!
A genious
Same chair as always ? ;)
Wonderfully played !
this was used beautifully in the film Five Easy Pieces.
Gould el piano y Bach........La obra completa.....!!!!
Divino
grazie
Glenn Gould is able to get anyone not calcified in prejudice to hear any composition with new ears, a gift you cannot repay. Excremental comments, I try to not wish to repay . . .
amazing .............he plays like a Lucifer, .......me love it
Wow! This guy breathes! His soul and emotion is there! Amazing what he does with the meter, all! I think his attempt for parody failed beautifully! I don't know music and am easily taken with one who can rise above. For me it's the notes he's not playing too. Beauty, emotion, seems inescapable with him. I've never heard of him nor have I listened to his music before. With my sense of it he can over-dramatize all he wants. Really what is over-dramatizing as it seems to enter a realm that works for me. Thanks for sharing this!
The classic comment of all following one of Gould's presentations on TH-cam came from the Cleveland Orchestra conductor who remarked "This nut is a genius." HA !
Quasi snervante, la Fantasia
Er sagte:Ich mag diese Fantasie nicht! Gespielt hat er sie göttlich.
True! He said: Bach didn't have his day when he wrote this piece! LOL!
Wie wissen Sie das? A brief explanation if you don't mind.
Wow.
Imagine hearing him on a properly tuned piano, tuned the way Bach would have tuned his keyboard
Люблю 💕
i want to watch his fuga of this fantasy
한국인이다!!
Viktor lee 동무...
godawfull .
Most people don't understand how difficult it is to interpret baroque music on a piano, and all piano players play baroque the same way today, high skill but skipping over all the possibilities. And those who are aware of them, play the organ or harpsichord. A good listener always prefer historical correct instrument anyway, right? And why do all the best baroque players not play piano? Gould chose to explore it, which he did his maximum effort to achieve and highlight how many details there are to explore. I think no one have been able to continue where he left, or are willing to try, because we just settle for the fact that baroque belongs to historical instruments
Dislikes?! Sorry, but who are these unfortunate?
People who know a little more about this piece than the average plebe. You are one of those plebes.
Bart Watts The only pleb here is you repeating what you have heardt to pretend you have a different and more complex opinio. I pitty you
Bart Watts Translation= i have no life, so i go on youtube and pretend i know more than other people. Sorry your life didnt turn out so well there Bart. Cheers.
Guitarwizard: My life didn't turn out well? What a ridiculous and presumptuous statement.
Friedrich RG: I have absolutely no idea of that which you are speaking. I'm not repeating anyone's opinion. It is my own. I have a master's in music performance in piano. You, apparently, are one of the deluded Gould fans that see him as a Bach God. He wasn't. He isn't. I pity you for feeling you have to defend a dead man and one that would not have given a damn about you or your opinion. Grow-up little boy.
The spirit of contradiction in a good way......done in ANOTHER way no matter what
In one of his interviews with Bruno Monsaingeon (its somewhere here on YT), Gould makes the point -- with which I personally agree, for whatever that is worth -- that the purpose of public recitals is to offer something fresh to audiences. Otherwise (and I am paraphrasing) what is the point of paying to listen to more or less identical performances of the "warhorses" of established piano literature? He admits in his interview that upon playing a Mozart piano sonata in such a manner one of his audiences became quite irate (again, paraphrasing). I strongly suspect that this is one of Gould's "fresh" interpretations. His face at the end seems to suggest he had a good time.
I think that he has different version with mine. It seems more easy!
:)
Tell me, the arpeggiated part is easier, isn't it?
@@alejandrom.4680 Yes, WE could Say so, comparing with polyphonic part. Would you hear my execution ? Clic on my logo please. :)
Fantasy I guess means the piece is subject to interpretation check out Andrew Lawrence -king play it on harp on recording called the secret of the Semitones.definently changed my opinion on this piece
GO(ul)D!
That might actually work on a period instrument, eccentric as it is, but the ET-tuned Steinway squashes all the colors. How chromatic can you be without tonal or key color? Couldn't they at least have tempered the tuning a bit?
Very good point, but if Gould was satisfied with ET, then so should the average listener, who wouldn't know the difference anyway!
@@georgesmelki1 Once you get used to the historical tunings the ET sounds a bit squashed . Hard to go back. Growing up, of course , I only knew ET.
You do know how long it takes to retune a piano, right? They’d have to tune it to some form of well-temperament for every performance of Baroque music, and then go back to equal for everything else. You’re suggesting a nightmare.
@@thereyougoagain1280 So? Is that too much to ask for a recording session with such a big star?
0:42 hahahaha
It’s not really so chromatic compared to modern music is it? I am too used to chromatic sounds to hear the actual chromaticism and I wonder if it was different for those in Bach’s time?
As someone who listens almost exclusively to 18th century music: yes, it is very -and noticeable so- chromatic. It’s easier to hear the it on the harpsichord; since composers have already inflicted so much unbridled chromaticism on it.
where is the fugue ?
The comments below me are such a laugh.
Что позволено Юпитеру, не позволено быку... Гульду позволительно всё
La tecnica è strabiliante. Secondo me non bisogna dar retta a cosa dice; bisogna ascoltar come suona. Ha un po' il gusto del bizzarro, come volesse sorprendere, stupire. Ma c'è più anima di quanto egli stesso non creda. Peccato che l'esecuzione si interrompa.
D'accordo
un po' di gusto del bizzarro?!?! è una bizzarra da cima a fondo
I guess the tv anchor leaning above him must have become a salt statue meanwhile...
This is quite different than Brendel.
I play a rough version of this on my channel. Its not even close to being to hardest of JS Bach.
Hey Glen, listen to me play chopsticks !
He looks like Mussolini or someone, ordering those notes to assemble themselves into the best note they can be.
E' interessante, ma giusto interessante.
Allora disse sottovoce: Dio esiste.
Wonderful.
But his emphasis brings out the bass notes too much causing us to ignore the trebel.
Why no fugue?
A thrilling Fantasy. But he has denied the world something truly remarkable by not playing the fugue.
Arrogant man. YEAH, GLENN GOULD the most Arrogant Pianist in this world. He's snobish already...
*snobbish
Tioma Rebeckha Debora Tobing Gould is not arrogant. He is a genius. You and I are not. He is in a class by himself. That's why he may be misperceived as arrogant.
Okay, sir. I will understand. Pardon me for that. Maybe this is his style. Yap, i'm so sorry about it. I'm sorry.. Henry Orloff
But one makes him looks like an Arrogant is his face strucrture. Henry Orloff Okay, pardon me, sir...
And how he gesturing his body. All like arrogant. Once again i'm sorry. Henry Orloff
Gould could not abide the chromatic fantasy. He called it a monstrosity. He demeaned Beet hove n's appassionata and butchered it on his recording. Ditto late Mozart sonatas. Like Lucy lousing up a skit or song to get back at Ricky when he tried to pull a fast one on her.
The interpretation is so original but this is baroque and is Bach
Sorry for my english
When Gould truly hated a piece, he'd emulate Lucy Ricardo and louse it up royally. His late Mozart recordings attest to this. This clip of Bach sounds reverential. Go figure.
I'm trying my damnedest to figure out the I Love Lucy reference.
I've played the Mozart sonatas, and I know a good deal of the discography of Mozart sonatas, and I love Gould's view of many of them. Were there shortages of Mozart sonatas recordings, I might have a problem with eccentric interpretations. As it is, Mozart sonatas recordings are legion, and there's plenty of room for all sorts of views, Gould's included. He does seem to have not had much respect for the sonatas, yet, despite this, he produced a weird musicality out of his extreme approaches. I'm glad they exist.
Looks like someone has some 'splainin to do. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/ILoveLucy
.... a hiccup caricature.....poor Bach.....
This sounds and looks like a headache
it happens if you are pianist and sale your soul to satan :)
I dislike the way he plays the opening bars (ways too complicated, this simply should be a loud shout in the darkness). Then it becomes a miracle.
I didn't know played the piano ....and was a white canadian lad ?
Erratum : I didn't know Usain Bolt played the piano....and was a white canadian lad ?
Really very virtuously performed! But is it beautiful; touching…?
Not for me.
Horrible interpretation..self indulgent and overly rubato. Yes, it is a fantasy, but this is a little too fantastic. So many better recordings.
Horrible statement... so ignorant... it is ok if you dont like the interpretation. but you cant say that his interpretation is bad. you just dont like it. it is his right to interpret this piece the way he wants it to and you are probably not the one to judge whether it is good or bad. maybe you are
Goulds interpretations take J.S Bach works and expose them in a musicological manner rather than artistic.
you have christina aguilera on your channel you dumb fuck
@joelmcilveen: you are one of the rudest, most I'll spoken individuals. Learn to address people properly. For you information, I happen to have a Master's in music performance in piano from the Sydney conservatorium of music. I don't like this interpretation. It IS a poor rendition, even Gould said that he disliked this piece. Gould was an incredibly arrogant individual that artistically destroyed pieces of composers for which he did not care. Although he adored Bach, he loathed this piece. Listen to his Chopin and Mozart: it is abysmal.
Daniel Schmitz: my statement is neither horrible nor ignorant. Freedom of speech, not just opinion is highly valued in this country, as such, I am exercising said right. This interpretation is a poor one. Gould didn't even like the chromatic fantasy and fugue: he thought it to be a musical naive piece by Bach and didn't find it musically interesting. His playing is indicative of his opinion.
I honestly think Gould simply had no idea how to play the Chromatic Fantasy. I mean, he could play the notes, but the dynamics, rubato, etc. seems all over the place. It's like one part of him is saying "play it like you play Bach", and another side of him is saying "play it as a romantic piece", and the result is a car wreck.
Now play something fast!
Self-indulgent in parts and good in others, but overall, like most who tackle this piece, he fails to understand how to pace it.
It's lucky that one person in the world, you Mike Keyes, knows how to pace it. Perhaps someday you will share your exclusive knowledge with the rest of us. You must be a god among men.
Greta Glover Oh indeed, it's such a drag being a god - all those half-gods get under your feet....
I fully agree with you. In addition to your comment, Gould was known to have said how much he disliked the chromatic fantasy.
In my opinion Bach must be played on a harpsicord or an organ. On the piano it is NOT Bach, it is nonsense.
You are perfectly right, we could tolerate it on a pianoforte but on a modern piano it is a not sense
You're both mad.
Mad like Bach was
What instrument should the Art of Fugue be played on?
on a five octave piano
There's something immature about this.
Another musical clown slaughters the same piece of Bach.
+Martin Möller gould a clown?
+Martin Möller Musical Clown,,,, LOL, your sir are a Putz
+Scott C So how much is music in general is open to interpretation, how far fast the boundary of the purists is acceptable? Is the ctriteria for a good performance one that entertains it's audience or one that follows strict etiquette? Not an opinion, just a question to open up a discussion....
A good performance or bad, is the totally subjective opinion of the listener/viewer.
+Scott C So that depends on the listener being either open to something beyond the expected norm or not. Hence the variation of comments found here maybe.....
Tjs aussi pénible, voire carrément insupportable, ce Glenn Gould ! A chaque fois que je lui accorde encore qqs minutes, je m'interroge sur son jeu, sur sa présence, qu'idolâtrent, bien sûr, les cultureux : qu'est-il venu faire dans le mde de J S. Bach !!....
Crap.
Really irritating.
horrible
Eccentric, tedious, and rather unmusical even if he could play the sht out of the piano.
That's not a valid reason for insulting and offending us all.
A little god
Low chair makes him look little.
Fantasy I guess means the piece is subject to interpretation check out Andrew Lawrence -king play it on harp on recording called the secret of the Semitones.definently changed my opinion on this piece