[ti:interview in 1982]
[ar:Glenn Gloud]
[al:]
[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: "Bitch, Bitch 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 asexual or maybe a unisexual 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]