1. Listen to Gould’s 1955 recording of the Goldberg Variations. Then listen to his 1981 version of the same piece. You may find it more effective to listen via Spotify instead of YouTube as the individual sections are easier to access.

2. Choose the same section of each version. This is important.

3. Compare and contrast the differences in each performance. Consider SHMRG elements, textural elements, and anything else that serves your interpretation of these very distinct and difference performances. Take your time and try to articulate sound using words.

4. Total word count: 250 words max.

 

I want to talk about the Aria. I know it’s right at the beginning and thus might seem as a cop-out, but right from the get-go you are shown two different worlds.

The 1955’s version had a faster tempo, as well as light, fast attacks on the keys (most of which caused me to feel like they were just personal embellishments and not notes actually written). This almost made the piece seem bounce-y and light like air.  I also think that because the attacks were so light I could easily imagine this being played on a harpsichord (probably because lightly/quickly played notes imitate a ‘pluck’ sort of sound). And because I can imagine a harpsichord, my brain automatically makes a connection with 1800’s music. I’m not too sure why; maybe because all of the Jane Austen movies I’ve seen used it, and since her movies/books are based around such time periods……

(I also don’t have much experience with anything other than modern pop music (shocking and sad, I know))

In the 1981’s version, Goldberg really takes his time with each note. It’s not just the tempo that slowed down, but all those quick movements between each note practically disappears. It sounds like he is really letting each note ring and be heard; like each note is just as important as the next note. This might be cheating, but by simply watching Goldberg play he looks like he’s really listening to the music he’s making.

I’d also like to mention the different qualities in the recordings. 1955 sounds perfect but dead, and I believe that’s because of the lack of reverb? I don’t think that the room sound reflects the music. I think that classical music should be recorded in a way that reflects its natural performing area, like a concert hall, or some sort of resonant chamber; to me, that’s where it sounds best. To be fair, I know reverb wasn’t invented until 1976, so I can see why it sounds the way it sounds (though they might have been able to change the room acoustics, so maybe this was a stylistic choice).

The 1955 sounds like a much more like it fits the space. I can see the room is bigger and the mic placement, so I can see why its sounds that way.

To clarify, I don’t think one recording sounds worse than the other; I just prefer the second because I like how it was recorded.