LRC歌词下载
[00:00.00] 作曲 : Not Applicable[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: "*****, ***** 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 * sexual or maybe a *** sexual 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]