Is this 'GOLD CD' of Bach Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould 1981) any better?

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,430
2,518
1,448

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
I have the original CD and it sounds awful, like all Sony's.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
I have the original CD and it sounds awful, like all Sony's.

OK, I was curious to see why this CD supposedly sounds so bad, so I had a listen on Spotify in headphones.

spotify:track:5bu9A6uphPWg39RC3ZKeku

I agree that it does sound terrible, but maybe not for the reasons people might imagine. I am curious as to what my fellow audiophiles find acceptable and what they don't. If you have Spotify (or the original CD) and listen to the first track, can you tell me if you are hearing something that might make it unacceptable?
 

Keith_W

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2012
1,024
95
970
Melbourne, Australia
www.whatsbestforum.com
1. You don't want the 1981 Gould, unless you are a Gould collector. You want the 1955 Gould.

2. For this version there are at least two remasters I am aware of, both sound decent. But the best one, IMHO, is the "Zenph re-performance". They used a computer to listen to Gould's playing, then a robot replayed the piece on a piano (!) using Gould's exact timing and phrasing. The whole thing was recorded on SACD. When I told my pianist friend about this recording, his reaction was "no way!!!". We listened to both versions back to back and both of us agreed that it's almost impossible to know that it's not Glenn Gould playing if you weren't told beforehand.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
They used a computer to listen to Gould's playing, then a robot replayed the piece on a piano

This would definitely not suffer from the problem I am alluding to in my post above.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
You mean, they could have gotten someone to hum along to the music for added authenticity? ;)

Precisely. I find it to be quite a common problem. I presume it is known about as they make the recording, but no one wants to mention it for fear the maestro loses his mojo..?
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
Precisely. I find it to be quite a common problem. I presume it is known about as they make the recording, but no one wants to mention it for fear the maestro loses his mojo..?
I read that for the 1981 recording they thought about removing the humming but Gould said it impacted the Piano too much so they left it in.

By the way, what am I supposed to not like about this performance? I am such a fan of Bach that I found the previews I found quite enjoyable. They seemed more mellow than the 1955 version.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
By the way, what am I supposed to not like about this performance?

Does this mean that you don't mind the humming? Personally, I just couldn't listen to it because of that.
 

Keith_W

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2012
1,024
95
970
Melbourne, Australia
www.whatsbestforum.com
By the way, what am I supposed to not like about this performance? I am such a fan of Bach that I found the previews I found quite enjoyable. They seemed more mellow than the 1955 version.

It is a good example of late Gould style, really dry sound, treating the piano like a giant harpsichord. Deliberately avoiding the use of any musical options available to him - no variation in loudness, no variation in tone, no pedal use, staccato notes. Some people might like this, but I find it eccentric, unmusical, and unlistenable. The earlier 1955 recording sparkles with an energy that this one lacks.

I think there are far better Goldbergs than Gould, but since both Gould recordings are so famous, I have three of them in my collection - the 1955, the 1981, and the Zenph.

As for the humming, yes it is irritating. Far worse on the 1981 than the 1955. But I could forgive the humming if the playing was any good, which it isn't.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
Does this mean that you don't mind the humming? Personally, I just couldn't listen to it because of that.
I was asking outside of that. Is the humming the only issue people have with this recording?

But answering anyway, I listened to Aria just now (in CD format) which is a quiet track and the humming is barely noticeable in that. The piano dominates. I also hear it very faintly in Variations 3 (track 4) and it just lasted a second and the rest is quite enjoyable.

I should also note that I am a fan of rustling and other sounds of the performance as I find it a sign of good fidelity that such noises are picked up. But obviously don't want them to rise up to the level of music in any fashion.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
It is a good example of late Gould style, really dry sound, treating the piano like a giant harpsichord. Deliberately avoiding the use of any musical options available to him - no variation in loudness, no variation in tone, no pedal use, staccato notes. Some people might like this, but I find it eccentric, unmusical, and unlistenable. The earlier 1955 recording sparkles with an energy that this one lacks.

I think there are far better Goldbergs than Gould, but since both Gould recordings are so famous, I have three of them in my collection - the 1955, the 1981, and the Zenph.
Thanks a bunch. With that read, I went and just compared the two and you are right on the money as far as differences. I see all of that but I also appreciate the much better fidelity of the 1981 version and the new interpretation. I agree the harpsichord sound is a bit much in 1981 but it is all Bach and I enjoy them both. :)
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
1. You don't want the 1981 Gould, unless you are a Gould collector. You want the 1955 Gould.
Loyd is the master collector. I think he has a dozen of the variations in every form and style. I am surprised he is asking us for input before buying it anyway :).
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,430
2,518
1,448
Well, you could try this one, Amir! All of Gould's works remastered this year! (BTW, i think gould's Bach 1981 Goldberg Variations is excellent, and it remains my favorite of 14 versions which i own and have played back to back as part of comparison over the years.)

Bach.jpg
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
Holy Toledo Loyd! Love that cover on the box. Wish I looked that cool standing in front of a gray wall! :D

With no turntable though, it is not of huge value to me but it is tempting just for packaging!

And thanks for the confirmation on the 1981. It is definitely a keeper for me.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,430
2,518
1,448
Holy Toledo Loyd! Love that cover on the box. Wish I looked that cool standing in front of a gray wall! :D

With no turntable though, it is not of huge value to me but it is tempting just for packaging!

And thanks for the confirmation on the 1981. It is definitely a keeper for me.

These are CDs!!! (they have a 180-gram version and a usb version...but these are CDs)
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,430
2,518
1,448
so i decided to get this...just released about 2 months ago. a little over 1.50 per CD...i like Gould on Bach and am interested to hear [some] of his Beethoven, though not convinced he will necessarily deliver on the Mozart. Nevertheless, am a big fan of his Bach and will report back on the remasterings which apparently were all recently done over the last 3 years using original Analogue master reels. Done by Andreas Meyer on B&W 802s, Krell Amps...certainly 'seems' like they tried to go a proper job, and the various 'reviews' from the various Amazon sites (have checked several) seem generally positive vs older versions.

Bach.jpg

From the website:

"The availability of digital tools for remastering and restoration has never been greater, or more refined. Yet everything starts with the original masters. Columbia Records kept very good archives of session logs, documenting which takes were recorded on which job reel, and to which musical work they belong. Gould often worked with the producer on choosing how the takes would be edited together, marking directly in the score where one take would end and the next would begin. The session reels were assembled into a “master edit reel.” If the master edit reel was mono or stereo, it would go directly to mastering, where the proper EQ (equalization) was applied for generating a “vinyl master.” If the master edit was three-track or higher, a master stereo mix would be made; this might be a generation before the vinyl master, should further vinyl EQ be necessary for LP manufacturing. Thankfully, the archives have preserved previous generations, so today we can ignore the numerous later copies and work with the original master edits.

In the remastering studio, we maintain original analogue Studer A80, A820 and A807 machines for playback of the Gould recordings. Most of these machines are modified by JRF Magnetics in order to ensure perfect reading from the playback head stack. The signal is converted to DSD via Mytek digital converters, all the while being monitored through Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus 802 series speakers (powered by Krell 600 watt amplification). This level of professional playback ensures that we hear exactly what was recorded at the studio without coloration and with greater clarity than even Glenn Gould had heard. The audio is treated in the computer using Cube-Tec restoration tools when needed, tools that allow us to remove such noises as electrical tics, pops, random studio noises, or even electrical buzzing.

Now, in 2015, we have accomplished a project that took more than three years: the analogue (and digital) remastering of Gould’s entire recorded legacy for Columbia. Remastering and restoration is not, however, a process of creating something new, but the art of bringing clarity and enhancement to the original masterpiece. Just as the restoration of the Sistine Chapel brought new life to Michelangelo’s paintings, so we’ve tried to bring new life to Glenn Gould’s recordings."
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,430
2,518
1,448
Anyone heard this? Supposedly this used the original Analog masters (vs the 1981 original CD which used the digital recorder).

1708369056520.png
 

astrotoy

VIP/Donor
May 24, 2010
1,551
1,020
1,715
SF Bay Area
I have a tape (actually 2 reels 15ips 2 track) of the 1955 Gould Goldberg Variations. It is a dub from a European engineer's copy of the CBS distribution master. Don't have his 1981 redo. Critics are mixed on which they prefer in terms of performance. I'll give the tapes a listen today. Larry
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing