Re: Bach Toccata's

["Andrew Lance" <aklance@cyberhighway.net>]

Overall, Bradley, I would agree with your analysis of the toccata's.  
But I'll throw in my comments now and then...

> Now, the bad news: the rest of them, from 1976.  The d minor is a boring
> performance (by GG standards).  I listened to it three times and still
> kept wandering away.  Somehow it seems like a "contractual obligation"
> performance, like some of his Mozart. GG doesn't sound particularly
> involved with or committed to the music.

I couldn't agree more.  In fact, I purchased the set of Toccata's to 
hear a version of this piece that I thought would be "definitive", as I 
think most of Gould's performances of Bach are.  But I was 
disapointed with this interpretation.  It's interesting that Gould 
chose this piece to perform for a CBC recital on Nov. 23, 1967, 
according to the liner notes of my CD.

> His performance of the D major is frustratingly anti-physical, and this is
> Bach's most obviously exuberant toccata!  It needs the flash, the
> flourish, the panache.  Instead GG reprises his "Appassionata" mode of ten
> years earlier: he slows it way down, dissects it, drains the lifeblood out

Yes, again, I would agree.  If any of the toccata's are supposed to 
have "exuberance" it is this one.  And yet Gould plays it slow, 
holding back.  I always loved the character of the first fugal part 
played with a jovial, allegro-like speed.  But Gould's lacks any of 
this.  

> The f# minor is a "train wreck."  First there's that huge problem of
> pitch: there are at least ten very noticeable occasions where the pitch
> jumps up or down from splices.  (Did they fix this in the latest GG

This is an interesting observation.  I never heard these splices--I'll 
have to listen to it again.  

Thanks for your insite into Gould's playing.  I think your critique's 
are very intriuging.  So, I'll ask again--does this mean that Gould's 
playing of the toccata's ARE unorthodox?

Andrew