For years I've wanted to know what it would sound like to hear Gould play this. Look at his face during the cadenza, especially around 11:30. His mind is no longer on this planet. He's in another world. Perhaps he's simultaneously in heaven, with the composer himself in the audience.
Bach's introduction to this concert literally says. "À une Traversiere, une violino principale, une violino e una Viola in Ripieno, Violoncello, Violone e Cembalo Concertato". This curious mixture of Frenchified Italian introduces us to the first cembalo concert in history, since until then this instrument had only been used as a companion bass. How smart is GG!: Very good introduction showing that if he played Bach so well it was because he knew very well what he played. To notice some mismatch at the beginning of the allegro by the ripieno violins, but all venial sins are justly pardoned when the rest are so excellent.
One feels like his ornaments, as well, are part of the notation, so meticulously blended into the music as they are! I never listen to any of Bach’s piano interpreters other that Gould.
Gould’s performance is astounding! I could watch this daily and never tire of it. For those of you that want to focus on his humming/singing along or sweating at the end...what is wrong with you? Are you not listening to the genius that is Gould? You are missing the best part!! I’m not!
I love his singing. He always said it was an involuntary contribution he felt coming out of him to complete his understanding of the music. I feel that's true and I'm glad it's there.
Why are two other great soloists not mentioned? They are the famous flutist Julius Baker and incomparable Oscar Shumsky, one of the greatest violinists of the 20th century.
A question for those purists who harp on about restricting all renditions of Baroque music to the harpsichord. What would Bach have chosen to express his genius if he had been given the choice to utilise the pianoforte?
Y yo misma que una vez mientras escuchaba una música vi en mi living , con ventanas abiertas por la calor,meterse un panadero que recaló en el piso y bailaba de aquí para allá al son de la música, así a mí me pareció. Qué belleza! Exclamé. Es lo que tiene el arte.
I think it's actually the first Cadence in classical music. Definitely my heart and ly hears go to glenn Gould. For the people who love him, you can check Vinlingur Olafson. I just Recorded the most incredible Golberg Variations x x
"By the way, this gadget...it's a neurotic piano that thinks it's a harpsichord. " Uniquely genius. Then it gives a shut to it. "I must close it now, because it is too noisy.
Sounds like the piano hammers were messed with, that is, the crowns were hardened, by either shellacking or by inserting thumb tacks. Gould was trying to piano to sound like a harpsichord.
after his not so small feud with the Steinway brand because of his injury, they developed this instrument solely for him, because he always preferred the quick and gentle response of the harpsichord over the piano. Gould actually wanted to record the WTC with his harpsipiano but was convinced not to by Columbia Records.
9:40 - 13:00 is easily my favorite moment in music. You think the melody is going to resolve - but it doesn't. Instead, Bach builds the tension over and over again, deconstructing the melody through different methods until it becomes like a fractal. When that section does finally resolve, the melody sounds totally different - more complete, more fulfilling. It's hard to describe, but it makes every part of my body vibrate every time I listen to it.
I keep coming back to this performance for that in particular, Gould’s execution is perfect and the resolution of some 5 minutes of rising tension gives me chills every time.
I wonder if Gould didn't have a piano, but a harpsichord to play. He would be very frustrated. Bach on the piano is much better than on the harpsichord.
@@ruyperini But he's using a prepared piano here, with the hammers modified to change the tone to something closer to a harpsichord. So apparently Gould thought that something other than a normal piano sound was appropriate for this work. I think it sounds great.
@@ruyperinionly if you have a pianist who understands how to play Bach on a piano. Back then, most didn’t. You can see it in the editions of Bach that were being published back then. Full of dynamics, phrasings, tempo markings, even pedal markings that didn’t come from Bach and didn’t present the music’s character appropriately at all.
That gyroscopic movement that he’s doing while playing Bach! I have felt that playing Bach! I know exactly what that feels like, it’s gyroscopic! I love you Glenn Gould FOREVER!
Yes! It’s the koru; the unwinding; Fibonaci’s spiral; the fractal, spiraling expansion of the universe itself! Something higher of which we can not know but of which we all “know”, deeper than speech or even thought forms themselves. It is the essence of all that was, that is, and that ever will be 💛🙏🕉
I’ve watched this video countless times and just realized what brings me back over and over....it’s the cadenza in the first movement! You can listen to other magnificent performances but the cadenza goes unmatched in my opinion. Gould is just my hero!
Find the Igor Kipnis recording of #5 on RU-vid...He makes quite the argument that the candenza should be more dramatically focused, driving and alert to opportunities to increase intensity... which is an argument one could make (rightly or wrongly) in choosing Charles Rosen's Beethoven opus 109 over Gould's
Richter's performance is of comparable virtuosity. Every other recording I have heard of cadenza shows broad variation in tempo and pausing for effect. Richter believed that Baroque music was played with far more disciplined tempos. You could be beat a metronome to this piece - right through cadenza! Gould is far closer in interpretation to what Richter does than other performances on the web.
Yeah, this and Green Acres and the Jetsons on your three channels. Now look: you can watch it, as well as anything else Glenn Gould ever recorded, on RU-vid, whenever you want.
@@ericdovigi7927 I think the point was that ordinary, everyday people were exposed to great music on a regular basis back then, not that it's less available now. I'm grateful that it is more available now, but still lament that so many people grow up without ever hearing it.
@@albertopa58 definitely agree... Geniuses never seem to live long. I was kid when died n didn't know who he was back then but as a pianist myself, I love his music.
For me No 5 is a conversation between three instruments each with it's story to tell joyous and sorrowful, but ultimately joined together in harmony speaking with one voice.
Bach composed for and til God,..at his time in Europe there was no higher influence and inspiration. In our time we can listen to his music as free individuals and look out with science into space and ask ourselves all the questions Bach unknowingly was departed from. It’s obvious his Musical gift included a highly Mathematical mind....and just think of him..Bach, Leonardo de Vinci, Gallilei, Newton, Kirkegaard, Nietche, Madame Curiè, Bohr, Einstein, Sartre, de Beauvoir and all the others this planet has been gifted with,...FREE-THINKING together...! It’s sadly only an experimental thought...and shamefully also an insult..a self inflicted one on us the Human Race. Greed, exploitation, belief in superior political systems and religious misconduct has brought our Planet to a state of despair. It will always be the simple philosophical fight between human beings capable of “Seeing and thinking” ...as Scientist, Artists and freethinkers do, and then the “ Non and never seeing Escapists”, the narrow-minded conscious less Dictator-led masses and the misleded thirdworld who wants to copy the catastrophic lifestyle of us,..measuring success in having the most convenient lifestyle...whatever it takes. We..the species of Human Beings...deserve all the vira from now and a long time in the future,...Our Planet tries to kick back, and if it’s not obvious that we must change our way of living...? I don’t know what can ...
As I recall, it's even more terrifying than that. Gould studied the paper sheet music until he had memorized it. Only then did he play it on the piano. I don't think that human beings can do this. But Gould could.
@@soaringvultureUnbelievable, right? Gould’s idea of studying a piece was “read the score and play it mentally until you’re able to sit down and nail the entire thing.” How I imagine Beethoven’s mind must have operated once his hearing went.
I enjoyed seeing him playing hunched over with no sheet music because all the other concert pianists sit upright staring at sheet music and I could never comprehend how on earth they manage to play like that - isn't the sheet music a distraction?! Aren't they uncomfy? I play like this guy, just not to this level of insane skill! But I can memorise pieces as long as this and would never be able to perform well with sheet music. I guess some people just have really good music memory. I can't remember which way is left or right though!
First of all , Listening to this performance I perceive a correlation of the whole music as an specific entity of Bach himself. Greatest and expanding harmonic in a galaxy of myriad of galaxies that are in the universe. His music is sublime achieved the highest peak of human consciousness. Bach remains non-dual composer ever in this world .
I love the deliberate tempo. He never had show that he had unsurpassable technique. Whilst others have to show how fast they can play Gould never had to worry about that.
@@patriciap6519 I am afraid that you probably did not exactly understand what is said by lamc... I think he is talking about the surprises in the music, that the listeners do not expect. But maybe I am wrong
How can Gould be this great, and down to earth? he never brags about his playing he rarely even mentiones his own genius its truly a delight because i hate people that brag all the time.
To think that this was the type of regular programming on CBC, without advertising (except for other programs on the station).... The "standard" of public TV broadcasting. There was Hockey Night in Canada for the sports-oriented public, and a number of high-quality series for all age categories. CBC had a mission, a simple one back then: informing while entertaining. Both went hand in hand. How did it go from such delightful programs to ... the type of television it has become, which cannot be distinguished from that of any private network? Granted, such high-quality programs were fairly costly, but there is a price to pay for quality. The real issue in fact was a truly sad one.... It was gradually considered too "elitist", and since this was a budget item rather easy to reduce when the economy was unfavorable, it underwent massive budget cuts, which the CBC had to compensate by allowing private advertising. And that was the beginning of the end: once they opened the door to advertising dog food or dishwasher soap, the target public they had to aim for became less interested in Bach by Glenn Gould than in sitcoms and various " popular" choices. The picture today has been radically transformed. However, there is no basic reason why CBC couldn't return to its original mission: it's only a matter of choice. Where we see almost unsurmountable odds, though, is how politics is played out on such issues. Try to "sell" the idea that classical music should become an item on CBC's regular programming ! It all comes down to finances. Unless we also provide CBC with a budget that would allow it to do without private advertising, they're not going to include such programs because few advertisers would back it up. Why not? And this is where a hard, unmerciful reality hits us like a slap in the face: the place society in general reserves for classical music is considerably smaller today than in the '50s-early '60s. The truth is: there has been a dumbing down of society's culture decade after decade. Music still occupies a large part in the life of virtually everybody. However, the dumbing down phenomenon has resulted in treating classical music more and more like a museum exhibit. The funny thing is that back in the era when this program was recorded, classical music was as elitist as it is today, if not more so. The important difference is that CBC's mission was precisely to generate fervor and interest to make it less elitist, which it doesn't need to be. My experience with classical music and children is that if you expose them to that type of music at an early age, they don't perceive it anymore as smtg reserved for the snobs and high society, but as just better music played by people dressed 'classy' who read what they're playing on sheets in front of them... The whole 'elite' aura vanishes. All it would take is the political will to use publuc funding to improve the quality of the entertainment Canadians (or Americans, with PBS, although PBS is now closer to what CBC used to be!) are exposed to. And that would be fairly easy to "sell" in the Parliament. Why? Because if public television programming cannot be differentiated from private networks, thete is no point whatsoever for using millions of tax dollars to finance something already available everywhere in private stations. The selling value of the original CBC, i.e. something close to what it was when education and high quality entertainment were what made it so unique and special. And the cost? Honestly, I don't see why that would be an issue, as the production costs of a program such as this one is likely well within those of most CBC drama/comedy series or sitcoms. Take "The Nature of Things": yes, it is probably fairly expensive to produce, but its educational value is worth it, many times over. That series is a perfect example of a program to enhance public awareness to science and technology, to the environment. Its niche could hardly be filled by private networks, and it's an excellent illustration of how to CBC fulfills its mission with our tax dollars.
From this point all the way to the end of movement (13:00 or so) is just breathtaking ...and all from memory! I don’t want to see the rest of the orchestra or even Gould’s face. I just want to see his fingers!
For all the GG-plays-too-fast people, he plays this at quite a restrained pace compared to other recordings on youtube. (Not saying he doesn't interpret things too fast from time to time. But he's not just about playing everything crazy fast.)
The restrained tempo is what sets the good pianist from the excellent. Crystal clear and every note is perfectly synchronized. Too many recordings I hear are muddied with excessively hastened playing.
This is obviously one of the greatest concerti ever written, especially the magnificent cadenza in the First Movement which is just breath-taking. Thank you very much for sharing this priceless gem.
The solo in the first movement is really amazing. I've watched it so many times and it's always beautiful to watch. I only just realised this time that his head nods towards the end are to bring the orchestra in at the right time.
Cuando escuchas esta sublime interpretación, olvidas que está tocada en un harpsipiano ¿podríamos decir que se trata de un triple concierto? Violin, Flauta, clavecin y continuo.
По русски не вижу комментов, исправим дело). Радостная сущность бытия - это оно. Ты все правильно сказал, Гленн. А сыграл еще лучше. Сыграл божественно. Как же иначе? Ведь когда Бог пролетал над Торонто, он задержался на мгновение и поцеловал младенца 😇🙏. Аллелуйя!
