Classical Music Forum banner

Bach: Goldberg Variations, BWV 988

55K views 158 replies 47 participants last post by  ClassicalMaestro 
#1 ·
#2 · (Edited)
Oh, where do I begin with the Goldberg. I absolutely LOVE the piece. The entire construct, form, architecture of the piece is just pure brilliance. The skill and technique to play it well is also demanding. But, mostly, it moves me to my depths. It is one of my favorite pieces in the entire canon.

I prefer it on the piano over the harpsichord. I have over 17 recordings of the piece. I do believe that Glenn Gould did the greatest performance of it ever (1955 Recording). However, that is not to say there aren't other outstanding performances of this piece.

I think Andrei Gavrilov does an outstanding job on it (perhaps my second favorite). Other excellent recordings:
- Maria Yudina
- Andras Schiff
- Vladimir Feltsman
- Murray Perahia (I get why some people don't like this one, I happen to think he did a great job, if not slightly reserved. But his technique is flawless).

V
 
#4 ·
Oh, where do I begin with the Goldberg. I absolutely LOVE the piece. The entire construct, form, architecture of the piece is just pure brilliance. The skill and technique to play it well is also demanding. But, mostly, it moves me to my depths. It is one of my favorite pieces in the entire canon.
I couldn't have said it better. Bach's ability to create such expression and variety within the constraints of such a tightly constructed work is miraculous.

Hard to name favorites, but I'll try. On piano, Sergei Schepkin, Ekaterina Dershavina, Lori Sims, Giovanni Mazzocchin, Maria Yudina, Alexis Weissenberg. On harpsichord Ottavio Dantone, Bob van Asperen, Blandine Rannou, Pierre Hantai, Robert Hill. And probably a few I'm forgetting....
 
#3 ·
Bach's Goldbergs is one of my favorite keyboard works. I have about 150 versions, mostly a mix of piano and harpsichord.

Favorites off the top of my head -

Piano:
Gould (all of them)
Tureck (all of them)
Schiff (ECM)

Harpsichord:
Hantai (both)
Leonhardt (all of them)
Rousset
Gilbert
Richter
Ross

Fortepiano:
Riemer (NF-Audio)
 
#27 · (Edited)
Bach's Goldbergs is one of my favorite keyboard works. I have about 150 versions, mostly a mix of piano and harpsichord.

Favorites off the top of my head -

Piano:
Gould (all of them)
Tureck (all of them)
Schiff (ECM)

Harpsichord:
Hantai (both)
Leonhardt (all of them)
Rousset
Gilbert
Richter
Ross

Fortepiano:
Riemer (NF-Audio)
One problem I'm having, Don, is that now that I've heard Rubsam all the others are starting to sound the same. It's like there's Rübsam and the rest. So today I listened to Mortensen play it. It is excellent. Even you couldn't rubbish it too much I don't think. I mean, I know you could, but that's because you're looking for darkness . . .

But there's something lacking even for me in the Mortensen, and I'm quite happy to listen to basically celebratory performances. It's too « vertical » As if he's not really seen that the music is contrapuntal.

What Rubsam's taught me is that where music's got two voices it's a duet, and a good performance will make it a duet of two independent, imaginative, responsive musicians. I think this is just as much the essence of Bach as moments of darkness relieved by light.
 
#6 · (Edited)
My advice to you is not to try to listen to all of them at once. Dip in, take it in small doses, like you might do for Art of Fugue. Some people think that the set of variations were never intended for concert performance, performed from nose to tail, and that the music is so complex and subtle that, as a listener, it's hard to appreciate more than a few at a time. This is especially the case if the performer likes to play fast.
 
#7 · (Edited)
One question I have, something that's been on my mind today while listening to Rubsam play it, is why he repeats the aria. Do you people think that the aria should be performed with different expressive nuances each time? Is there any other set of variations where the "theme" as it were, is repeated like this?
 
#8 ·
It's easily one of my favorite works. I only have the two Gould recordings, but for me they suffice, especially the 1981 recording. We had the good fortune to see American pianist Simone Dinnerstein perform the work about a year ago. Her tempo was almost identical to Gould's 1981 recording. She played the work flawlessly and with great feeling.

Here's a link to an interesting website about the nine canons in the work.

http://www2.nau.edu/tas3/goldbergcanons.html
 
#9 ·
This is truly one of the great works for keyboard. I don't like the harpsichord so piano versions only for me.

Gould of course is tremendously exciting and provocative. Think I have four versions by him.
Another great version is by Perahia. As someone has commented why people don't like this peerlessly played version is beyond me.
 
#16 · (Edited)
The Goldberg Variations recordings that I've found myself returning to most over the decades are (& an asterisk *=a great favorite): on piano, *Ivo Janssen, *Edward Aldwell, Glenn Gould *1981 (& *1955--Zenph re-performance), and Tatiana Nikolayeva (*1979 Melodyia, 1986--BBC Legends & 1992 Hyperion). Murray Perahia and Konstantin Lifschitz are good too. (& I'd like to hear Beatrice Rana's recent award winning recording, and Lars Vogt's, and am looking forward to Andrea Bacchetti recording the Goldbergs one day too, as I thought his French Suites for Sony were brilliant.) On harpsichord, I'm partial to *Pascal Dubreuil, *Gustav Leonhardt, *Fabio Bonizzoni, Jory Vinikour, Ignacio Prego, and Blandine Rannou. Ketil Haugsand and Bob van Asperen are good too.








 
#17 ·
I was listening to the Greenberg lectures at around the same time that one of my cats was in decline due to a heart illness. On what would prove to be his last morning, I listened to the full piece (Trevor Pinnock's recording, I think). The next morning and for two more weeks following that, I listened to it to start my day, almost like a ceremony. I found that the aria at the end almost inevitably brought tears and a profound sense of a bittersweet cyclical nature of life. I find the work powerfully sacred. My favourite piano recording is by Zhu Xiao-Mei. Harpsichord is probably Pinnock, but I also love Bob van Asperen's. I have listened to many others and look forward to listening to many more, but I suspect Xiao-Mei will remain unsurpassed for me.
 
#21 ·
...I found that the aria at the end almost inevitably brought tears and a profound sense of a bittersweet cyclical nature of life. I find the work powerfully sacred.
That's a great description of the closing aria and the feeling of the completion of a cycle that it evokes; I can certainly empathize with that. And as a cat lover, I've been down that road more times than I care to recall. It's always awful. Sorry for your loss. I'm not familiar with the recording you mention, but I'll listen to it soon.
 
#30 ·
Well, I listened to Rubsam's new version but do not share the high regard voiced by others. I must admit that I did not listen straight through to every variation as my irritation kept increasing.

My thoughts:

1. Must be about the slowest version I've heard - almost 80 minutes with plenty of repeats not observed (could be a blessing).

2. Minimal forward momentum - sometimes none.

3. Trills all over the place that greatly reduced my enjoyment.

Overall, what I heard was: start/chop/trills/stop - start/chop/trills/stop etc.

It was just one listen, but I don't know if I'll ever want to hear it a second time. Generally, I love Rubsam's Bach, be it organ, harpsichord or piano interpretation. With the Goldbergs, he hits all the elements I don't like in Bach keyboard playing except for one - at least he doesn't go to the highest register in the repeats, a stunt that Felstsman routinely pulled in his recording.

Now I'm going to listen to Rousset's outstanding version and get back the good feelings I had before playing Rubsam's.
 
#33 · (Edited)
Well, I listened to Rubsam's new version but do not share the high regard voiced by others. I must admit that I did not listen straight through to every variation as my irritation kept increasing.

My thoughts:

1. Must be about the slowest version I've heard - almost 80 minutes with plenty of repeats not observed (could be a blessing).

2. Minimal forward momentum - sometimes none.

3. Trills all over the place that greatly reduced my enjoyment.

Overall, what I heard was: start/chop/trills/stop - start/chop/trills/stop etc.

It was just one listen, but I don't know if I'll ever want to hear it a second time. Generally, I love Rubsam's Bach, be it organ, harpsichord or piano interpretation. With the Goldbergs, he hits all the elements I don't like in Bach keyboard playing except for one - at least he doesn't go to the highest register in the repeats, a stunt that Felstsman routinely pulled in his recording.

Now I'm going to listen to Rousset's outstanding version and get back the good feelings I had before playing Rubsam's.
The Rubsam approach seems to me to make the music sound ancient, a keyboard analogue of a Gombert or de Rore motet, but more rhythmically free. Each variation is a motet for keyboard ...

Annother thing Rubsam's style makes me think of is Grete Sultan, playing Cage Etudes. So paradoxically he makes the music sound more modern too.
 
#32 ·
For years and years and years, the Goldbergs performed for me their original function: they put me to sleep. :)

The when I was in my early 50s, they suddenly clicked. The occasion was listening to a CD by a pianist whom I had known when I was younger, Andrew Rangell -- an iconoclast whose specialties included things like late Beethoven and Stepan Wolpe's Passacaglia. I have heard a few, but not a lot of other recordings for comparison (for instance, both of Gould's), but I am happy with Rangell's. It says what I need without a lot of wondering what else they have to offer.
 
G
#40 · (Edited)
Regarding Rubsam, he made a recording, that is enough. He doesn't need a "school." He's the polar opposite of Gould and maybe Rubsam and Gould will become the bookends between which Bach performance lives.

I don't know if it is HIP, and I'm not too concerned. I think the bit about taking account of how the notes are staggered in the manuscript is complete nonsense (why didn't Bach tell the printers to duplicate the note staggering) but it gave Rubsam the idea of playing freely with the time base. I like it as an alternative to the people who do it "properly," be that on piano or harpsichord.

I wish his WTC was on Naxos. I can't bring myself to buy the diced up, overprices downloads from his site.
 
#49 · (Edited)
Concerning Barto's recording on Capriccio, I'm familiar with it and have not thought well of the interpretation. However, I did listen to some of it today to see if my previous opinion was still valid - it is. Barto is rather infuriating with his mannerisms and approach. He loves to play ever so softly and slow down the proceedings; I find it kills the musical flow. At the other end, there are times when his ridiculously powerful bass chords take over a variation. Overall, I find it a mess. Take the 30th variation where he ruins the joy of the music and turns it into a call for arms.

I'm all for a different take on the Goldbergs if it offers some insight and sounds natural. Barto's take just sounds like being different is what matters.

What do you think of Beatrice Rana's version on Warner Classics?

P.S. - Every time I type Barto, it changes into Bartok.
 
#50 · (Edited)
Concerning Barto's recording on Capriccio, I'm familiar with it and have not thought well of the interpretation. However, I did listen to some of it today to see if my previous opinion was still valid - it is. Barto is rather infuriating with his mannerisms and approach. He loves to play ever so softly and slow down the proceedings; I find it kills the musical flow. At the other end, there are times when his ridiculously powerful bass chords take over a variation. Overall, I find it a mess. Take the 30th variation where he ruins the joy of the music and turns it into a call for arms.

I'm all for a different take on the Goldbergs if it offers some insight and sounds natural. Barto's take just sounds like being different is what matters.

What do you think of Beatrice Rana's version on Warner Classics?

P.S. - Every time I type Barto, it changes into Bartok.
I didn't know Barto was playing the Busoni, but I do know the transcription from Tanski's recording. Haven't heard Rana, will do tomorrow if I can!
 
#54 ·
This thread aroused my interest, so I listened to Rübsam's recording. The right hand and the left hand play as if they are two independent players who are improvising, listening to each other carefully, hesitating or rushing at times. Sometimes, it almost sounds like aleatory music. I was reminded of the rhythmically complex pieces of Michael Byron. Amazing.
 
#55 · (Edited)
Which are there more of, Bach cello suite or Bach Goldberg recordings? And so many good ones!

I have the obligatory Gould recording that I can only listen to through speakers because I can't abide the extraneous noises. I have Perahia, which I like. Also from cheap box downloads I have P. Serkin which is surprisingly good and J. Friskin which is a solid B-.
I think those will do OK.
 
#57 · (Edited)
On harpsichord, I like Koopman, Ross and Van Asperen. I don't like the sound of Hantai's and Rousset's harpsichords, nor the latter's ridiculously fast (to me) speeds. I love the sound of Verlet's instrument but not, unfortunately, her interpretation. I've started listening to Rubsam's recording and have enjoyed it streaming on earbuds. (For some reason I suspect it won't work as well on my speakers - perhaps the extreme left/right image separation - and might even be annoying on them. I will try it though.)

On piano, I enjoy Gould ('55 & '81), Tureck (the live VAI recording at W.F. Buckley's - not the DG studio version), Rosen, Dershavina, and, perhaps most of all, Bruno Canino. There is a freedom and joy in his playing that I have not heard to the same extent elsewhere.

Good but below the above, for me, are Aldwell and Rana. Perahia's playing is excellent but what I (and I suspect many others) don't like is his tinkly tone. I've never been able to warm up to Schiff's Bach as much as I recognize his skill: there is something just a little bit willful about his playing. I found Gavrilov and Dinnerstein mannered. And Weissenberg would be excellent save for the glacier pace of the Arias and DG's (correction: EMI's, not DG's) hard bright sound.

I have not heard many of the other versions discussed here and am looking forward to doing so.
 
#60 · (Edited)
One modern piano one which I think is worth hearing is by Risto Lauriola. There’s also Koriolov.

Re Tureck, the one I like is on her Great Pianists edition, I heard her play it in fact, but I can’t remember anything about the concert except that she wore a tent made out of curtains, she came on late, left for five minutes in the middle, and wiped down the piano with a kleenex before strarting.
 
#64 · (Edited)
"The Rubsam approach seems to me to make the music sound ancient, a keyboard analogue of a Gombert or de Rore motet, but more rhythmically free. Each variation is a motet for keyboard ... "

I've only listened to sound clips so far, but had the same thought. The tranquility of Rubsam's playing and mellow sound of the lute harpsichord reminded me of a Renaissance motet that has been arranged for lute duet (as was popular during the middle to late Renaissance). I even started to forget that he's playing a keyboard. Which is intriguing, since I've long thought that Bach's music had strong roots in the Renaissance. Not only do I suspect that Bach maintained an intense interest in Renaissance polyphony throughout his life (as you may recall, I think there's a possible connection between Bach's Art of the Fugue and Josquin's innovative late Missa Sine nomine: ), but also in Renaissance practices as well, such as the common use of one singer (or two) to a part--a tradition that Bach's idol Buxtehude later adopted, along with his friend Telemann (as did Bach himself).

What gives me further pause here is that the lute harpsichord is a very rare instrument. I understand that there are only a few in existence today (Rubsam's being a new instrument built by Keith Hill). Therefore, lute harpsichords couldn't have been widely used during the Bach's era, and yet Bach owned not one, but two lute harpsichords at his death.

After listening to the instrument, I can't imagine that Bach wouldn't have preferred it to a clavichord, as the lute harpsichord doesn't have any of the drawbacks or limitations of the clavichord (i.e., difficult to control and play in tune, etc.). Yet it offers the same intimate, mellow sound. It also has a fuller, more resonant sound than a clavichord and appears to be capable of a greater subtleties. So, how could Bach not have preferred it?

As to whether Bach considered it a suitable instrument to play his Goldberg Variations on, if we trust Johann Nikolaus Forkel's 1802 story that the variations were composed to be played on a harpsichord by the teenaged Count Goldberg for the late night listening of the former ambassador to the court of Saxony, Count Kaiserling (who was ill and had insomnia), the idea that Bach privately played the variations on a lute harpsichord seems unlikely. Although the mellowness of the instrument is arguably more suitable for the intimacy of late night listening than a harpsichord. It would be interesting to know whether the Counts Goldberg or Kaiserling actually owned a lute harpsichord. Of course, Bach does specify on the title page of the Goldbergs that they are intended for a two-manual harpsichord. Therefore, we know that the Goldbergs weren't composed for a single harpsichord, or clavichord, or lute harpsichord (unless there was such thing as a two manual lute harpsichord?). In addition, I have doubts about whether Rubsam's approach would have worked as effectively if he'd taken all the repeats, & Bach does ask the performer to take all the repeats.

What's refreshing about Rubsam's approach is that it's the total opposite of the dogmatic, tightly controlled 'academic' approach to Bach's counterpoint that you find with a lot of the older harpsichordists. Indeed, the rhythms are so free that he seems to almost displace musical lines--in a fugue-like manner--then bring them back together again. The effect is dream-like. However, I don't think this approach would work as well on a piano, as it seems more suited to the inherent qualities of the lute harpsichord. Rubsam's ornamentation also works quite well on the instrument. I felt drawn in. It added interest, & made me listen more keenly.

I was also struck by how, even though Rubsam tends to pull the music apart, his playing isn't at all romantic. Which brings to mind pianist Elizabeth Rich's rhythmically free and varied approach to Mozart's piano sonatas. I look at her approach as very classical, though others may not. Like Rubsam, Rich puts the content of the music ahead of other concerns, and her understanding of the style of the period is so strong that her playing doesn't come off as 'romantic' either, even though she brings a greater rhythmic freedom and contrast to this music than other pianists. Considering the illuminating results, I suspect that Rich's approach is closer to the way Mozart played his own music than any other pianist. As with Rubsam, she draws the listener more intensely into the beauty and meaning of each phrase. There is a sense of time slowing down, which allows the listener to linger and reflect more deeply on the character and meaning of each phrase.

"They all had pupils who followed their ideas. There's no Rubsam "school"."

That's surprising, since Rubsam is a teacher. I recall that he teaches or has taught at Northwestern University. On the other hand, it's not surprising, since in order to most effectively adopt Rubsam's approach, his students would have to play a lute harpsichord, in my view. Personally, I find it hard to separate what Rubsam is doing interpretively from the instrument he's using. With so few lute harpsichords in existence, in order for there to be a genuine "Rubsam school", Keith Hill would have to get busy with many new commissions, & that's not likely going to happen. Although it would be interesting to hear some alternative interpretations of Bach's keyboard music on a lute harpsichord, considering that Bach owned and played the instrument.

I see the Brazilian organist Julia Brown studied with Rubsam at Northwestern. She has recorded the complete organ music of Buxtehude for Naxos (& now lives in Oregon). Have you heard her playing? If so, do you find that her Buxtehude has anything in common with her teacher's Bach?
 
#65 ·
That's surprising, since Rubsam is a teacher. I recall that he teaches or has taught at Northwestern University. On the other hand, it's not surprising, since in order to most effectively adopt Rubsam's approach, his students would have to play a lute harpsichord, in my view. Personally, I find it hard to separate what Rubsam is doing interpretively from the instrument he's using. With so few lute harpsichords in existence, in order for there to be a genuine "Rubsam school", Keith Hill would have to get busy with many new commissions, & that's not likely going to happen. Although it would be interesting to hear some alternative interpretations of Bach's keyboard music on a lute harpsichord, considering that Bach owned and played the instrument.
I believe that Robert Hill made at least one recording for Hanssler of Bach keyboard music on a lute-harpsichord.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top