Re: A State of Mal Wonder

[Bradley P Lehman <bpl@UMICH.EDU>]

Iori Fujita wrote on 9/21:
>Moreover we should not take Glenn Gould back to the analog age. He for
>the first time in the world tried to do totally digital recording with
>the Goldberg Variations. Why do we need a subtly more comfortable piano
>sound? Gould was satisfied with the digital sound, wasn't he? The new
>false 81 version is a shame.


I disagree that it's a "shame": rather, it presents Gould sounding like a
better _musician_ than the 1982 digital issue did (either on LP or CD)!

A few weeks ago I wrote the posting that is at
http://www.glenngould.org/mail/archives/f_minor/msg07864.html
reviewing that new reissue of the Goldbergs.  After some further
listening I'd like to add to that:

In the 1981 recording the new issue is a TREMENDOUS improvement. I
have one of the early MK 37779 copies, from soon after they changed
it from one long 51-minute track to 32 tracks. The "booklet" was
still a single piece of paper that folds open upwards after being
pulled out of the case. I listened to parts of this disc back and
forth with the new one. The difference is startling. On this old
issue, all-digital, the piano's tone is harsh, glassy, garish, ugly,
artificial, and there isn't much dynamic nuance. All these years I
figured it was just the way Gould played as part of this
interpretation, stressing structure over beauty, mechanical
perfection over nuance, and not caring much if it sounds nasty when
loud. But in the new issue, remastered from analog tapes, it sounds
like a real Yamaha piano with a human being playing it! There is a
more palpable sense of space for each note, a much rounder and warmer
tone, a more musical dynamic inflection, clearer texture, yet without
any real sacrifice of brilliance either.

I also compared the new issue's 1955 performance (reissue credits: de
la Fuente and Meyer) against the Glenn Gould Edition issue, SMK
52594. The sound is indeed different, but here it's harder to make a
qualitative choice of "better" or "worse". The new one has a little
less tape hiss, good clarity, but also doesn't sound quite as natural
to me...a bit less sense of space than I get from the GG Edition disc
(Kazdin, Drake, and Abeling)...but then in other variations I can't
categorically say that the GG Edition is "better." This choice is
triply difficult because I also have the rare special edition CDNK
386 which was prepared for CD by Leroy Parkins and Frank Decker Jr.
(1955 Goldbergs plus the Strauss sonata!). That one sounds good,
too, and it's hard to pick any clear first choice among these three;
they're all just different. Frankly, when any of these three is on,
Gould's performance is so engaging that I forget about the sound
quality. (And I suspect that the Columbia "Masterworks Portrait" CD
issue sounded slightly different from all of these, as well.) Every
set of reissue producers and engineers will bring out something
different.

I didn't get out the LPs for further comparison, because this becomes
pointless after a while. I've heard at least three or four of the
various LP incarnations of the 1955 performance (honest mono, fake
stereo, whatnot), and the original LP of the 1981. Let's not forget:
Gould *was* aware of the LP side break in crafting both these
performances, with variation 15 (his "St Matthew Passion" movement)
forming an end parenthesis, and the variation 16 a fresh beginning.

Anyway: if you care about the 1981 performance, get the new issue.
The sonic improvement is as startling as it was in their (Legacy's)
issue of "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis a few years ago.

If you're just looking to upgrade to a different 1955 sound, it's
more of a toss-up. But you'll probably buy it in any case, being
curious about the interview and the 1955 outtakes.


Bradley Lehman, Dayton VA
home: http://i.am/bpl  or  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl
CD's: http://listen.to/bpl or http://www.mp3.com/bpl

"Music must cause fire to flare up from the spirit - and not only sparks
from the clavier...." - Alfred Cortot