Glenn Gould Discusses His Performances of the Goldberg Variations with Tim Page-Glenn Gould/Not Applicable/Tim Page

[00:00.00][MUSIC] [00:24.26]PAGE: Hello, I'm Tim Page [00:25.09] and the music in the background is the opening segment from one of the most celebrated keyboard discs of all time. [00:31.32] The theme from Bach's Goldberg Variations as recorded by Glenn Gould in 1955. [00:37.14] The man responsible for that recording and for approximately 85 other recordings since is my guest on today's program. [00:45.07] Glenn, thanks a lot for coming by. [00:46.74]GOULD: Tim, it's my pleasure. [00:48.22]P: Glenn Gould has recently rerecorded and CBS has just released a new version of the Goldberg Variations [00:54.39] and I'm sure we'll get around to comparing the two discs in the course of this program. [00:58.36] But first: Glenn, are you one of those artists [01:02.03] who avoids listening to their own early or earlier recordings [01:06.74] or are you the type who positively relishes, basking in the glow of sessions passed? [01:12.64]G: No, I don't think I do much basking, Tim, [01:14.03]but it doesn't really dampen my spirits at least not usually to be confronted with the sins of my youth. [01:19.25] I mean I've never understood -- [01:21.75] I've never even believed this sort of interview that one hears again and again on talk shows, [01:25.88] you know, with actors profess never to see or to have never seen their own films -- [01:30.77] you've heard that sort of thing, haven't you? [01:32.53]P: Oh sure, you mean the sort of thing where the interviewer will begin with something like [01:36.42] "Sir John, how do you feel now about your classic Oscar-winning performance in Bridge on the River Hudson?" [01:44.10]G: "*****, ***** on the River Hudson? [01:48.58] Oh, oh, yes, yes, I see, I see, [01:50.75] that was the film we did in America wasn't it? [01:52.91] Yes. Back in the fifties I think, yes. [01:54.04] Well deucedly awkward location, [01:56.50] you know, thoroughly contaminated streams. [01:58.58] Very, yes, marshy, is swampland indeed. [02:00.65] Mosquitos even, we all had black fly, don't you know? [02:03.15] No sense of landscape architecture, the Americans, badly ruined shoreline, I can tell you. [02:07.73] Nothing like upper Thames, you know. [02:09.98] Oh, Not at all, no." [02:11.34]P: "But did you see the picture, Sir John?" [02:13.87]G: "Oh, the picture. [02:14.71] No. No, I never saw the picture in its entirety, of course not. [02:17.24] Did drop in at the dailies once, [02:19.81] I rather fancied that spot, where Sir Arthur lost a bus load or two of commuters when the center span gave way. [02:25.79] Of course he was a stickler for detail, none of those bathtub mockups for him I can tell you. [02:30.68]No, not at all." [02:31.98]P: "Well thank you, Sir John, don't call us, we'll call you." [02:34.64]G: "Ah, yes, well, please do. Of course they never do." [02:36.91]P: So anyway Glenn, unlike Sir John, you do revisit the scenes of your discographic youth from time to time. [02:43.90]G: Oh, sure, of course I do. Though I will admit that, [02:45.99] specifically, in the case of the Goldberg Variations with a bit more reluctance than is usual for me, [02:50.80] a bit more from a sense of duty than enthusiasm perhaps. [02:54.27]P: This is in fact your very first recording. [02:54.41]G: Yeah, indeed, so I have a lot of revisiting to do, I suppose. [02:59.81]P: I'm surprised that you don't like it better because [03:01.72] I find it -- as I wrote in an article not too long ago, critics always love to quote themselves -- [03:08.53] that it's a performance of originality, intelligence, and fire. [03:13.60]G: Well, I thank you for that comment, I was very touched by it when I read it and I don't quite share it. [03:19.83]P: Well, when did you last quite listen to this record? [03:22.00]G: Oh, let's see, I listened to it about 3 or 4 days before I went to New York to rerecord it and that would be in April 1981. [03:30.06] I just sort of wanted to remind myself of what it was like. [03:32.68] And to be honest -- and I don't mean to sound like our friend Sir John over there -- [03:37.05] it had at that point been so many years since I had heard that I really was curious about what I would find. [03:42.94]P: What did you find? [03:45.07]G: I found that I was a rather spooky experience. [03:46.97] I listened to it with great pleasure in many respects. [03:50.06] I found for example that it had a real sense of humor, I think, [03:53.77]all sorts of crooky, spiky accents and so on, [03:56.80]that gave it a certain buoyancy. [03:58.87]And I found that I recognized at all points, really, [04:02.22]the fingerprints of the party responsible. [04:04.72]I mean, from a tactile standpoint, from purely mechanical standpoint, [04:08.48]my approach to playing the piano really hasn't changed all that much over the years. [04:12.23]It's remained quite stable, I think, static, some people might prefer to say. [04:16.97]So I recognized the fingerprints, [04:18.79]but -- and it is a very big but -- [04:21.39]but I could not recognize or identify with the spirit of the person who made that recording. [04:26.99]It really seemed like some other spirit had been involved and, [04:30.47]as a consequence, I was just very glad to be doing it again. [04:33.15]P: Uh-huh. Now, that's unusual for you because you actually seldom record anything twice. [04:38.47]G: Yeah, that's quite true. [04:39.72] I've only rerecorded two or three things over the years. [04:42.56] I guess the most obvious recent example is the Haydn E-flat Major Sonata No. 59 [04:47.21] which I, oh, originally did back in the mono-only days of the '50s, [04:51.87] but which was digitally updated just last year. [04:55.30]P: Well Glenn, when you look back at a record like that -- [04:58.19] like the early version of that Haydn sonata -- [05:00.65] do you have the same sense of discomfort, the same qualms, [05:05.06] as in the case of the early Goldbergs? [05:07.10]G: No, no, not at all. [05:08.21] I prefer the later version of the Haydn, [05:10.58] not just sonically, but interpretively, [05:12.01] but I understand the early version, you know. [05:14.21] I understand why I did what I did, [05:16.23] even if I wouldn't do it in quite the same way today. [05:18.55] But I'll give you a better example, Tim, [05:20.21] the Mozart Sonata in C Major, K... 330. [05:24.73]P: Which was originally paired with that Haydn sonata back in the '50s. [05:26.58]G: Yeah. That's right, and as you know I rerecorded the Mozart [05:29.97] in 1970, I think it was. [05:31.97]P: As part of your survey of the complete Mozart sonatas. [05:34.04]G: Mm-hm. And in that instance -- in the case of Mozart -- [05:36.66] I really do prefer the early version. [05:38.29]P: That's interesting. [05:39.13] I like them both in their way; [05:40.64] I guess it depends on my mood. [05:42.38]G: Well, of course, as you know, [05:43.29] I harbor -- shall we say -- rather ambivalent feelings for Wolfgang Amadeus and his works. [05:48.38] We better not get into that here because we will never get back to Bach if we do, [05:51.71] but by 1970 -- when the later version was made -- I had already confessed my true feelings about Mozart, of course. [05:57.86]P: Well, you'd called him a lousy composer. [06:00.00]G: I think I used maybe more slightly gentile language, sir, [06:02.45] but words to that affect nonetheless. [06:04.34] Whereas maybe back in 1958 -- [06:06.87] even though my doubts about Mozart were certainly present -- [06:09.27] I nevertheless covered them up somehow. [06:12.07] I managed a leap of faith as the theologians like to say, which I guess I just couldn't manage twelve years later. [06:18.28]P: Well, the most obvious discrepancy between those performances is one of tempi. [06:23.80] And you've pointed this out in various articles actually -- [06:27.24]P: -- the early version of Mozart is very, very slow. [06:29.90]G: Indeed. [06:30.40]P: And the later one -- if I may say so -- goes like the preverbal bat out of hell. [06:35.80]G: Yeah, that's absolutely true. [06:36.91] Well, I have a theory -- vis-à-vis my own work anyway. [06:41.26] Well, something less grand of a theory, really; [06:43.64] it's more like a speculative premise. [06:45.21] But anyway, it goes something like this: [06:46.45] I think that the great majority of the music that moves me very deeply, is music that I want to hear played -- or want to play myself, as the case may be -- [06:54.65] in a very ruminative, very deliberate tempo. [06:58.12]P: That's fascinating. [06:59.15] In other words, you want to savor it, you want to -- [07:02.19]G: I, no, I don't think so, not quite savor, no. [07:04.38] Because -- at least to me -- savor somehow suggests dawdling or lingering over, or something like that. [07:09.96] And I don't mean that. [07:11.00] No, firm beats, a sense of rhythmic continuity has always been terribly important to me. [07:15.43] But as I've grown older, I find many performances -- certainly the great majority of my own early performances -- just too fast for comfort. [07:22.70] I guess part of the explanation is that all the music that really interests me -- not just some of it, all of it -- is contrapuntal music. [07:30.83] Whether it's Wagner's counterpoint or Sch?nberg's or Bach's or Sphaling's (?) or Haydn's indeed, [07:36.14] the music that really interests me is inevitably music with an explosion of simultaneous ideas, [07:41.27] which counterpoint -- you know, when it's at its best -- is. [07:43.91] And it's music where one I think implicitly acknowledges the essential equality of those ideas. [07:50.93] And I think it follows from that with really complex contrapuntal textures, one does need a certain deliberation, a certain deliberateness, you know. [07:59.69] And I think -- to come full circle -- that it's the occasional or even the frequent lack of that deliberation [08:05.53] that bothers me most in the first version of the Goldberg. [08:09.61]P: Well, I think it's time that we offered a example. [08:13.23]Just to refresh your memory, let's hear a few bars of the theme from the original 1955 version of the Goldberg Variations [08:20.96] which we played at the top of the program. [08:23.22] G: Good idea. [08:24.45][MUSIC] [08:44.16]P: Now, by way of contrast, let's hear the whole theme as you played it in the new version. [08:50.14]G: Okay. [08:51.52][MUSIC] [11:57.81]P: Well, Glenn, I put a stopwatch on that. [12:00.82] Do you want to guess the relationship between the two tempi or do you know already? [12:05.72]G: I know approximately; [12:06.69] it's about 2:1, isn't it? [12:08.17]P: Just about. [12:09.21] The original version clocks in at 1 minute, 51 seconds, [12:12.67] and the new version at 3 minutes, 4 seconds. [12:16.13] Let's call it a ratio of -- a little quick math here -- [12:19.07]G: Yes. Pocket calculator. P: 12:7. [12:21.12]G: Well, I think my guess was close enough for government work. [12:23.10]P: Sure? G: But the reprise of the theme, the aria de capo at the end, that's even slower, isn't it? [12:28.45]P: Yes, indeed. [12:29.83]P: Would you believe 3 minutes, 42 seconds, in the new version? G: You've got -- you've got them all there. [12:34.16]G: You did come prepared. Yes, I believe that. [12:36.78]P: Versus, uh -- let me get that. Versus 2 minutes, 7 seconds, in the de capo from the original version. [12:42.78]G: I'm dealing with a stopwatch freak. [12:44.23]P: Well, not really, but I did take a pulse of this recording -- if you don't mind a metaphor there. [12:49.77] As a matter of fact, I timed all the variations in both versions. [12:53.61]G: Good, thanks Tim.[DROPS VOICE] [12:55.25]P: Because when I first heard the new recording -- [12:57.00] specifically when I first heard the tempo of the theme -- [12:59.18] I thought to myself, [13:00.16] "Well, this has got to be a two-record set." [13:02.50]G: Yes. [13:02.97]P: Well, it's obviously not a two-record set. [13:05.01] And I discovered eventually that it's only about thirteen minutes longer than the original 1955 version. [13:11.70]G: That's right. It's about what? 51 minutes? Something like that? [13:13.28]P: 51 minutes, 14 seconds. [13:15.75]G: I stand corrected. [13:17.16]P: Versus 38 minutes, 17 seconds, in 1955. [13:20.08]G: Ahh, I was a speed demon in those days, I tell you. [13:23.30]P: Well, not really, because -- [13:25.72] you know what really puzzled me Glenn, and in fact got me onto this whole timing kick, was that in the new version you observe -- [13:32.16] well, by no means all, but certainly a good number -- [13:35.30] I guess about a dozen of the first repeats. [13:37.88]G: Yeah, that's right. [13:38.69] I did them in all the canons, so that would be -- that'd be nine. [13:41.67] And then in the fuguetta, which is Variation 10, and the quadlivet, which is Variation 30, [13:46.89] and a couple of the other fuguetta- like variations. [13:49.28] I guess about -- I think thirteen in all have first repeats. [13:52.62]P: Yeah, but you see my point. [13:53.75]When you subtract the amount of time devoted to those repeats from the total 51 minutes or whatever, [13:59.65] the overall timing is really not that different from the original version which didn't have any repeats at all. [14:05.10]G: Son of a gun. [14:06.31]P: So you did in fact observe tempi that were not that much slower in many cases in the new version. [14:11.93]G: That's true. [14:13.02]P: And in one or two very notable variations, [14:16.31] you actually played more quickly [14:18.31] and yet the feeling, the mood, the architecture of this performance is just so totally different that, [14:25.32] frankly, I can't figure it out. [14:27.00]G: Well, as a matter of fact, you practically have figured it out Tim. [14:30.79] And I want to say right now, [14:32.20] I was kidding when I asked if you were a stopwatch fetishist, [14:34.25] because the way that this performance was constructed was worked out -- [14:38.34] has in fact actually a great deal to do with something very like a stopwatch, you know. [14:42.06]P: Uh-huh. [14:43.13]G: Let me back up a little bit. [14:45.03] I've come to feel over the years that a musical work -- [14:48.76] however long it may be -- ought to have basically -- I was going to say "one tempo," [14:53.72] but that's the wrong word -- [14:54.75] one pulse rate, one constant rhythmic reference point. [14:58.21] Now obviously there couldn't be any more deadly dull than to exploit one beat that goes on and on and on indefinitely. [15:04.70] I mean, that's what drives me up the wall about, about rock, you know, [15:08.90] and about -- [15:10.57] I say this in the presence of his most committed advocate and art and propagandist -- about minimalism. [15:15.55]P: Oh, I think we should argue that one another time ... [15:19.00]G: Yeah, probably so. [15:19.69] Anyway I would never argue in favor of a inflexible musical pulse. [15:23.69] You know, that just destroys any music. [15:25.60] But you can take basic pulse and divide it and multiply it -- [15:29.13] not necessarily on a scale of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 -- but often with far less obvious divisions, I think. [15:35.05] And make the result of those divisions or multiplications act as a subsidiary pulse [15:39.44] for a particular movement or section of a movement or whatever. [15:41.92] And I think this doesn't in any way preclude blubatti. [15:47.48] If you have an accelerando, for example, you simply use the accelerando as a transition between two aspects of the same basic pulse, you know. [15:52.60]P: Sure, sure. [15:54.28]G: So, in the case of the Goldberg, [15:55.13] there is in fact one pulse which -- with a few very minor modifications, [16:00.24] mostly modifications which I think take their cue from retards at the end of the preceding variation, something like that -- [16:06.36] one pulse that runs all the way throughout. [16:08.87]P: Can you give us an example of that? [16:11.42]G: Sure. Well, maybe I shouldn't be so confident. [16:13.92] I'll try. [16:15.59] Let's see. [16:16.76] Let's take the beginning of side two of the record, okay? [16:19.84]P: Now that would be the French overture, Variation 16? [16:22.49]G: Yeah, yeah. As you know, the French overture is divided into two sections: [16:25.45] The dotted rhythm sequence, [16:27.42] which gave it its name, [16:28.31] which I guess from French opera tradition; [16:30.48] and a little fuguetta for the second half. [16:33.32] The first section is written with four quarter notes to the bar [16:37.78]（humming：puang delililiyang tatamtata diyang dididididididididi） [16:45.45] and the fuguetta, [16:47.39] on the other hand, [16:48.18] is in three-eight time. [16:49.47] In other words, each bar in the fuguetta contains 1 1/2 quarter notes or dotted quarters, as musicians like to call it. [16:56.29]（humming：down depapapapapingpangpang yapapapapabiyangpabidangden） so on. [17:01.44] Now, you'll find, I think, [17:03.19] that the quarter notes in the first half are almost identical to the dotted quarter notes in the second half. [17:08.78] In other words, [17:09.31] four bars of the second half of the fuguetta is approximately equal to one bar of the opening overture section. [17:16.14] So the relationship, then, is something like this: [17:18.70] （humming: puor rederededi tatamtatam dadadadadiyama yatatatata） [17:24.70]P: I see. [17:25.74] Now what happens in the next variation, [17:27.53] in Variation 17. [17:29.53]G: Well, now, that was a bit more complicated, [17:30.36] because it's written in three-quarter time, with three quarter notes to the bar. [17:34.85] There's nothing complicated about that,as Johann Strauss pretty conclusively proved. [17:38.83] But what was complicated was that [17:41.02] I wanted to relate it somehow to the fuguetta from Variation 16 with its three-eight time signature. [17:46.98] And in fact at first, [17:47.97] I considered just taking the beat from the full bar -- [17:51.43] the dotted quarter note of the fuguetta -- [17:53.13] and making that beat equivalent to the beat of the undotted quarter -- [17:57.77] if I can coin a word -- of Variation 17. [18:00.66] Now that would have resulted in a tempo something like [18:04.85]（humming: yababababi babababababababababa ）. [18:08.54] You know, which sounds okay when you sing it, not bad at all. [18:11.43] But Variation 17 is one of those rather skittish, slightly beheaded collections of scales and arpeggios [18:19.24] which Bach indulged when he wasn't writing sober and proper things like fugues and canons. [18:23.39] And it just seemed to me that there wasn't enough substance to it to warrant such a methodical, deliberate, Germanic tempo. [18:29.86]P: In other words, you're basically saying that you didn't like it enough to play it slowly. [18:34.68]G: You got it. [18:35.66] So instead of using the dotted quarter from the fuguetta as my yardstick for Variation 17, [18:40.77] I took two-thirds of it, two-thirds of a bar from the fuguetta and used the actual quarter note, [18:45.55] which that two-thirds represents. [18:47.05] Now, instead of the beat I sang before -- [18:49.49] which was roughly （humming: yababababiyababababa） -- [18:52.89] the new beat gave you three for the price of two and that applied to Variation 17 allowed for a much more effervescent tempo, [19:00.31] something like （humming: bababababi bababababalabababi debaba）. [19:03.82]P: Uh-huh. And then of course, there's Variation 18, which is one of the canons. [19:07.64]G: Yeah, the canon at the Sixth. [19:08.53] I adore it, it's a gem. [19:10.39] Well, I adore all the canons, really. [19:12.02] But it's one of my favorite variations, certainly. [19:14.52] Anyway, it's written with four quarter notes in a bar, but actually only two beats, two half notes to a bar. [19:22.10]（ humming: yangdipangbi yapapang bababangbababangbababangbangbang） [19:27.57]P: So basically what you did is turn the quarter note of Variation 17 into the half note of Variation 18. [19:33.01]G: Exactly, yeah. [19:34.37]P: Oh, well, Glenn. [19:35.83] I don't think I can keep much more of this in my head at the moment. [19:38.61]G: I'm sure that I can't either actually; [19:40.75] it's been a struggle. [19:41.54]P: I think we should listen to those three variations -- [19:44.01] Variation 16 through 18 of Bach's Goldberg Variations -- right now. [19:48.34]G: Good idea. [19:49.90][MUSIC] [23:27.79]P: Those were Variations 16 through 18 from Bach's Goldberg Variations in a new recording by Glenn Gould. [23:34.17] You know something, Glenn? [23:35.27] I felt it. [23:36.19] I don't know if I would have actually been able to spot what you did just listening to it, [23:41.40] but there was a link between those variations. [23:44.35] I could -- oh, I could feel it in my bones. [23:47.75]G: Well, I'm really glad, [23:48.87] it's nice of you to say that, [23:49.64] because I've been sitting here squirming in my chair, [23:52.37] as you know, [23:52.88] wishing I'd never said a word on the subject. [23:54.00]P: Oh, don't be ridiculous. [23:55.24]G: Well, you know, [23:56.00] when one describes a process this way, [23:58.33] it sounds just so relentlessly clinical, so ruthlessly sterile and anti-musical, really. [24:03.66] And I -- [24:04.22] it is at that level; [24:05.67] it's almost embarrassing. [24:06.41] I'm sorry, I apologize for ... [24:07.00]P: Whoa, whoa. [24:07.76] Don't -- please don't be embarrassed, [24:09.00] because I think you've given us a remarkable insight into your working method. [24:12.84]G: Well, thank you. [24:13.47] But you know what I mean. [24:14.65] On the face of it, [24:14.97] it's exactly like analyzing a particular tone row of Schnberg, for example, and saying, [24:18.87] "Well, this is a wonderfully symmetrical tone row, [24:21.22] therefore it must inevitably lead to a wonderfully symmetrical work." [24:23.72]P: I've heard that talk before. [24:25.38]G: Exactly. [24:25.79] And it ain't necessarily so. [24:27.07] I think it's a technique, the idea of rhythmic continuity that's really only useful if everybody does feel it in their bones, [24:34.85] you know, [24:35.33] to use your words -- [24:35.91] experiences it subliminally, [24:37.42] in other words -- and absolutely nobody actually notices what's really going on. [24:42.21]P: Which was exactly the way Schnberg felt about his tone rows. [24:45.25]G: Precisely. [24:46.70]P: Well, now, you didn't just invent this system for the Goldberg Variations on this. [24:50.01]G: Oh, certainly not, no. [24:51.11] I've used it for years. [24:52.20] It's just that I've used it more and more rigorously as the years have gone by. [24:55.04]P: Well, Glenn, I think I'd be doing something less than my duty as an interviewer [24:59.12] if I failed to ask whether this rhythmic system of yours didn't perhaps have some small part to play in a rather celebrated brou-ha-ha -- [25:07.64]G: Ah, I felt it coming. Yes. [25:08.20]P: -- which took place about twenty years ago [25:10.25] and involved you, [25:11.24] the Brahms D Minor Concerto, [25:12.91] Leonard Bernstein [25:14.28] and the New York Philharmonic. [25:15.06]G: It certainly did. [25:16.49] That was one of the first really clear, really thorough demonstrations of this system. [25:20.84] And, you know, Tim, [25:22.00] I maintain to this day that what shocked everybody, vis-à-vis the interpretation -- [25:25.56] of course there was some people who were just shocked by the onstage admission [25:28.35] that a conductor and a soloist could have a profound disagreement, [25:31.05] which everybody knows perfectly well goes on offstage anyway. [25:33.37] But what shocked them about the interpretation, I think, was not the basic tempo itself. [25:37.84] Certainly, the basic tempo was very slow, [25:41.00] it was unusually slow, [25:41.62] but I've heard many other performances which didn't shock anybody with opening themes very nearly as slow, [25:47.40] sort of (humming: Viiiiiyoungpie jiuyangbing) [25:52.39] It was -- to come back to our Goldberg discussion, [25:54.75] the relationship between themes that shocked them. [25:56.67] It was the fact, for example, that the second theme of the first movement of the Brahms -- [26:00.77] (humming: Duadidididongdi) [26:04.94] which, after all, is an inversion of the first theme -- [26:07.00] was not appreciably slower than the first theme. [26:09.51] It was, in fact, played with something like Haydnesque continuity [26:13.66] instead of, I guess, what most people anticipate as Brahmsian contrast, you know. [26:17.05]P: I'm going to anthropomorphize a bit here. [26:19.34]G: Good heavens. [26:21.03]P: And wager a guess that [26:23.35] what they objected to was the fact that it didn't present the -- [26:27.48] well, shall we say -- [26:28.42] masculine-feminine contrast that one has come to expect. [26:30.00]G: Mm-hm, mm-hm. [26:31.92] Exactly. [26:32.69] I -- I'll stick with your terms -- [26:34.00] presented an * sexual or maybe a *** sexual view of the work, you know. [26:35.93]P: Mm-hm. [26:37.88]G: But you see, [26:38.26] in the case of the Goldberg, [26:39.48] I felt there was an ever greater necessity for this system than in a work like the Brahms D Minor. [26:44.95] Because as you know, [26:45.52] the Goldberg is an extraordinary collection of moods and textures. [26:48.75] I mean, think of Variation 15 -- [26:50.37] we haven't heard it yet today, [26:52.15] but think of it anyway. [26:53.00][PAGE BEGINS TO MIMIC PASSAGE OF MUSIC] [26:59.01]G: Exactly. [26:59.32] It's the most severe and rigorous and beautiful canon -- [27:02.40] we didn't sing it all that severely and rigorously, [27:04.39] but it is. [27:04.96] The most severe and beautiful canon that I know. [27:07.76] The canon, an inversion of the Fifth. [27:09.29] To be so moving, [27:10.86] so anguished [27:11.71] and so uplifting at the same time, [27:13.88] that it would not be in any way out of place in the St. Matthew Passion. [27:16.79] Matter of fact, [27:17.41] I've always thought of Variation 15 as the perfect Good Friday spell, you know. [27:20.92] Well, anyway, [27:22.11] a movement like that is preceded by Variation 14, [27:25.05] logically enough, [27:25.66] which is certainly one of the giddiest bits of neo-Scarlattism imaginable. [27:30.67]P: Cross-hand versions and all. [27:32.21]G: Yeah. [27:32.36] And quite simply the trap in this work, [27:35.35] in the Goldberg, [27:36.02] is to avoid letting it come across as thirty independent pieces, [27:38.76] because if one gives each of those movements their head, [27:40.94] it can very easily do just that. [27:42.97] So I thought that here in the Goldberg Variations, [27:45.66] this system was a necessity. [27:47.60] And quite frankly, [27:48.36] in the version on this record, [27:50.00] I applied it more rigorously than I ever have to any work before. [27:53.56]P: Well, you mentioned Variation 15 [27:55.57] and of course it's only one of three variations in the minor key, in G minor. [27:59.92] There is another of that trio, No. 25, [28:03.64] that I'd like to talk about for just a moment. [28:05.76] I guess in many ways it's the most famous -- [28:07.95] well, certainly the longest of all the variations. [28:09.70]G: Absolutely. [28:10.92] It's also the most talked-about among musicians, I think. [28:13.65]P: Well, with good reason. [28:14.62] I mean, what an extraordinary chromatic texture. [28:17.05]G: Yeah, I don't think there's been a richer load of enharmonic relationships any place between Gezhwaldo and Wagner. [28:24.04]P: Well, I remember you used it in your soundtrack for the film Slaughterhouse Five. [28:27.69]G: That's right, [28:28.18] and to accompany -- of all things -- the burning of Dresden. [28:31.23]P: Indeed. [28:31.83] Well, I want to play just a few bars of this variation in both versions. [28:36.40]G: We really have to hear the early one, eh? [28:37.60]P: Oh, I think we must. [28:39.40] The contrast is, mmm, shall we say, striking? [28:43.04]G: That it is. [28:43.81][MUSIC PLAYS UNDER THE FOLLOWING DIALOGUE] [28:49.03]P: Now, this is the 1955 version. [28:51.06]G: Which sounds remarkably like a Chopin nocturne, doesn't it? [28:54.73]P: No. I think on it's own terms though, Glenn, that this is really lovely playing. [28:59.75]G: Well, yeah, it's okay, I guess, [29:00.62] but there's a lot of piano-playing going on there. [29:03.69] And I mean that as the most disparaging comment possible. [29:07.17] You know, the line is being pulled every which way, [29:10.67] there are cute little dynamic dips and tempo shifts -- [29:14.17] like that one -- [29:15.22] things that pass for expressive fervor in your average conservatory, I guess. [29:19.88]P: Do you really despise this version? [29:22.93]G: No, I don't despise it. [29:24.66] I recognize -- you know, it's very well-done of its kind. [29:26.85] I guess I just don't happen to like its kind very much any more. [29:30.26] And I also recognize -- [29:31.40] to be fair -- [29:31.97] that many people will probably prefer this early version. [29:35.26] They might -- people may find the new one rather stark and spare emotionally. [29:39.62] But this variation -- number 25 -- [29:42.76] represents everything that I mistrust in the early, in the early version of -- [29:47.30] it wears its heart on its sleeve. [29:49.85] It seems to say, [29:50.65] "Please take note; this is tragedy." [29:52.94] You know, it doesn't have the dignity to bear its suffering with a hint of quiet resignation. [29:59.09]P: And the new version does. [30:01.00]G: Well, I'm prejudiced, [30:02.50] but I think it does, yeah. [30:03.59]P: Well, we're approaching a cadence, [30:06.02] so why don't we use that excuse to switch over to the new version? [30:10.05]G: It couldn't come to soon for me. [30:11.49][MUSIC CONTINUES SANS DIALOGUE TO END] [31:37.56]P: Glenn, I do see your point. [31:39.26] The 1955 version of this variation is definitely more romantic or, [31:44.09] if you prefer, [31:45.67] more pianistic. [31:46.73]G: Yeah, exactly. [31:47.01]P: And I dare say that no discussion of Bach [31:49.80] would be complete without taking a crack at that old, [31:52.54] somewhat tired question of the choice of instrument. [31:55.52]G: Yeah. [31:55.83]P: The piano versus the harpsichord and so on. [31:57.78]G: Harpsichord and all that, yeah. [31:59.08] No, I dare say not. [31:59.93] You know, somebody said to me the other day that [32:02.52] now that the fortepiano has staged such a remarkable comeback for Mozart and Beethoven and so on -- [32:07.77] nd now that people are playing Chopin on period playelles or whatever -- [32:11.07] in no time at all, [32:12.67] there'll be nothing left for the contemporary piano to do, [32:14.49] except maybe the Rachmaninoff Third. [32:15.96] And even that -- [32:17.13] if you take these archeological pursuits to their illogical extremes -- [32:20.47] should really be played on a turn-of-the-century German Steinway or maybe a Bechstadt. [32:25.00]P: That's really true. [32:26.04]G: Yeah, well, [32:26.47] I think frankly that the whole issue of Bach on the piano is a red herring. [32:31.44] I love the harpsichord. [32:32.75] As you know, [32:33.35] I made a harpsichord record some years ago. [32:34.31]P: Oh, sure, the Handel suites. [32:35.46]G: Yeah. And I'm very fond of the fortepiano in such things as Mozart concertos and so forth. [32:40.98] So I'm certainly not going to sit here and argue that the modern piano has some intrinsic value, [32:46.16] just because of its modernness. [32:47.54] I'm not going to argue that new is better. [32:49.25] You know, new is simply new. [32:50.83]But having said that, [32:52.56] I must also say that the piano, [32:55.05] at its best, [32:56.10] offers a range of articulation that far surpasses any older instrument. [33:00.81] That it actually can be made to serve the contrapuntal qualities of Bach, for example, [33:05.16] the linear concepts of Bach in a way that the harpsichord -- [33:07.88] for all its beauty and charm and authenticity -- [33:11.07] you know, cannot. [33:12.32]P: Well, I feel a little bit like I'm needling you, [33:15.30] but it's been remarked by just about everybody at one time or another [33:19.37] that your piano has actually always seemed to end up sounding a bit like surrogate harpsichords. [33:24.79] And I don't know whether it's because of the way you play these instruments [33:28.09] or the way you have them adjusted or -- [33:28.95]G: Well, I think it's a combination. [33:30.74] You know, I've always believed, [33:32.26] you see, Tim, [33:33.22] that one should start by worrying about the action of the instrument and not the sound. [33:36.80] If you regulate an action with enormous care, [33:39.70] make it so even and responsive and articulate that it just sort of sits there and looks at you and says, [33:45.00] "You want to play this in E-flat, right?" you know. [33:47.04] That it virtually plays itself, [33:48.35] in other words, [33:49.02] then the tone will just take care of itself. [33:51.50] Because the tone,the sound, [33:53.28] whatever you want to call it [33:54.32] that one produces really ought to be part of the interpretive concept of the piece. [33:58.43] And if you are dealing with an action that's totally responsive, [34:01.67] you know, [34:02.00] you are then free to really concentrate exclusively on the concept in all of its facets, which includes the tone. [34:08.08]P: Nevertheless, [34:09.05] the tone quality in all your records -- [34:11.24] and certainly all your Bach records -- [34:12.96] is remarkably similar. [34:14.89] It's consistently crisp, [34:16.06] a little dry perhaps, [34:17.89] astonishingly varied in its detacher (?) way. [34:21.24] As a matter of fact, [34:22.03] it's often been likened to an X-ray of the music. [34:24.62]G: Well, thank you, [34:25.15] I take that as a compliment. [34:26.41]P: Oh, it's actually meant to be. [34:27.54]G: Thank you again. [34:28.52] Well, you know, [34:29.51] there are certain personal taboos, [34:31.27] especially in playing Bach, [34:32.69] that I almost never violate. [34:34.35]P: Well, I know one of them for sure: [34:36.07] You never use the sustaining pedal. [34:36.91]G: That's right. [34:37.33]P: Because I saw that German television film [34:40.21] that was made when you actually recorded the new Goldbergs. [34:43.03]G: Oh, yeah, yeah. [34:43.50]P: And it was honestly rather astonishing [34:45.90] to see you sitting there, [34:47.31] thirteen inches off the floor, [34:49.47] in your stocking feet. [34:50.89] And when the camera pulled back, [34:52.47]they were nowhere near the sustaining pedal. [34:54.82]G: That's true. [34:55.68]P: But you do use the soft pedal a good deal. [34:58.39]G: Yes, I do, [34:59.00] because by playing on two strings instead of three, [35:01.49] you get a much more specific, much leaner quality of sound. [35:04.75] But I think really that the primary tonal concept that I maintain with regard to Bach is that of -- [35:10.04] well, I think you used the word detacher (?), [35:12.82] but it's the idea anyway that a non-legato state, [35:16.58] a non-legato relationship [35:18.02] or a pointillistic relationship, [35:19.38] if you want, [35:19.84] between two consecutive notes is the norm, [35:23.00] not the exception. [35:24.11] That the legato link, indeed, is the exception. [35:27.06]P: You realize, of course, [35:28.53] that you're turning the basic premise of piano-playing inside out. [35:31.61]G: Well, trying to, anyway. [35:33.01] And as far as the question of whether it's appropriate to play this music on the piano is concerned, [35:37.98] I think one has to remember that here was a man, [35:40.24] Bach, [35:40.61] who was himself one of the great transcribers of all time. [35:43.77] You know, a man who took Marcello's oboe concerto, for example, [35:46.82] and made a solo harpsichord piece of it -- [35:48.71] I recently recorded it, so it's on my mind. [35:51.06] Who rewrote his own violin concertos for the harpsichord or vice-versa. [35:55.27] Who rewrote his harpsichord concerto just for the organ. [35:58.01] You know, the list just goes on and on. [35:59.05] Who wrote -- [36:00.70] as his masterpiece, I think -- [36:02.44] The Art of the Fugue [36:03.06] and gave us music that works on a harpsichord, [36:05.61] on an organ, [36:06.76] with a string quartet, [36:08.13] with a string orchestra; [36:08.80] he didn't specify. [36:09.40] Certainly with a woodwind quartet or quintet, with a brass quartet. [36:13.20] It works astonishingly well with a saxophone quartet; [36:15.41] I heard it once that way. [36:15.59]P: No kidding? No kidding. [36:16.50]G: Yep. I just think that all the evidence suggests that [36:19.68] Bach didn't give a hoot about specific sonority or even volume. [36:23.15] But I think he did care-- [36:24.30] to an almost fanatic degree -- [36:25.56] about the integrity of his structures, you know. [36:27.53] I think he would have been delighted by any sound that was born out of a respect for the necessity, [36:32.62] the abstract necessity of those structures and appalled -- [36:36.03] amused maybe, but appalled nonetheless -- [36:38.24] by any sound that was born out of the notion that by glossing over those structures, [36:42.84] it could improve upon them in some way. [36:44.09] I don't think he cared whether the B minor mass was sung by sixteen or 160; [36:48.11] I think he cared how they sang it. [36:50.05] I certainly don't think that [36:51.94] he who transposed practically everything of his own up and down the octave [36:56.19] to suit himself [36:56.72] and the particular needs of the court [36:58.20] and the instruments he was writing for [36:59.30] would have cared whether it was sung in B minor -- [37:01.47] according to our current frequency readings -- [37:03.07] or in B flat plus or minus A did(?), minor as is now the habit in certain Puritan circles. [37:08.83] I think he would have to loved to hear his Brandenberg concertos as Wendy Carlos has realized them on the synthesizer. [37:14.25] I think even delighted with what the Swingle Singers did in the ninth fugue from The Art of Fugue some years ago. [37:19.43] But I think he would have been appalled by the way Arnold Schnberg orchestrally mangled his ... fugue, you know. [37:24.47]P: His Stakovsky (?) and the D minor toccata. [37:26.00]G: Yeah, or the way Busoni or Tosig (?) or some of those characters corrupted the keyboard, whereas -- [37:30.50] I think it's a question of attitude, just that. [37:32.93] I think the question of instrument, per se, [37:35.06] you konw, is of no importance whatsoever. [37:37.84]P: Well, I think that Bach would have been delighted [37:40.24] with what you've done in this new recording of the Goldberg Variations on the piano. [37:44.10] So why don't we just hear a little more of it? [37:46.38]G: Okay. [37:46.56] Well, we've already heard the opening aria at the beginning of the program, [37:48.82] so how about beginning with Variation 1 and just playing on until we run out of time? [37:53.96]P: Sounds good to me. [37:56.29][MUSIC PLAYS FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES, GOING ON TO SECOND SIDE] [47:55.00]P: Those were excerpts from Glenn Gould's new digital recording on CBS of Bach's Goldberg Variations. [48:01.12] Glenn, thanks very much for coming by and talking with us today. [48:04.03]G: I had a great time, Tim, [48:05.27] really enjoyed it, thank you. [48:06.51]P: I'm Tim Page. [48:07.35] Our technician was Kevin Doyle. [48:08.96] I certainly hope you enjoyed this program. [48:10.57][MUSIC] [50:46.34][END]