|
[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] |
|