Glenn Gould - Bach: Goldberg Variations (Zenph Re-perf...

Enjoy high maximum transfers into more than 20 currencies while saving up to 90% over local banks! The cheap, fast way to send money abroad. Free transfer up to 500 USD!

It's a tremendous achievement, the extraction of the performance from an acoustic recording. The playback on a Yamaha with such a different tone than the original is off-putting, however. It sounds like Gould performing on a toy piano (forgive me). Of course, Gould would probably be pleased at this! (He did switch to a Yamaha later in his career, although one with greater sustain and character than this one). The clarity is tremendous, and it is entirely in keeping with Gould's style, even if I vastly prefer the tone of the Steinway in the original 1955 recording. Now that Zenph has a high resolution MIDI file of the performance, it will be possible to re-create it with many 'tones' -- that is the point of the exercise. If it were just a 'Gould plays same piece on a different piano', there would be no point. This is a technology exercise. The ability to 'liberate' the performance from a particular frozen artifact, to allow it to breathe in future realizations is awesome. This particular playback on Yamaha leaves me a bit cold, but the playback is in some degree, fixable. Although I prefer the original, and this version will probably remain a little-touched curiosity in my collection, I can easily imagine a young person coming to this version first, and deriving immense enjoyment. I adore Wendy Carlos' Bach performances, which my wife can't abide, because we came to Bach through different doors (synthesizer for me, piano for her). There is something of Carlos in this album too, in the sense that the particular orchestration is almost removed from the picture and the beautiful musical architecture is delineated more clearly. It's almost like listening to the score directly. Long and short -- it's not as bad as some of the earlier reviews make out. I would recommend the original 1955 and 1981 recordings however. A great 5th or 7th version of the Goldbergs to add to a collection, or a good vehicle for a Bach naif to enter the cathedral, attracted by the technical backstory.

It's like buying a Monet poster. Maybe that's being generous. I like Glenn's humming. I hum too. His intonation is not always on but he's not trying for that. Besides, one learns to tune it out if needed. I have no problem with mono recordings from this period. I may not agree with his choice of pianos but one buys a performance from an artist to hear that performer. Right? If you want a "perfect" recording of a work (whatever that is), find a performer who sets out to achieve that result. Would it have been nice to sit next to Glenn as he played? Yes, indeed. But, that's a mystery for the imagination that I enjoy. This is no substitute. I don't mind experimentation, and I love technology, and there are some reasons for listening to this, but it's not my thing. I'm also afraid that this is a bit of a marketing ploy. I do like binaural recordings, but this piano was a bad choice for this. It's sounds like it's coming out of my nose.

Get a life people. Mr. Gould was taken far too early in his life... but via technology we can allow his talent to be further shared by all... An amazing recording. Bar none.

Gould -- who was more than a little obsessive about the recordings he put out -- never heard or approved this "improvement" of his 1955 masterpiece. I guess it's good that Sony can wring a few more bucks out of the recording. But it's sort of weird and sad that -- as the keepers of Gould's recorded legacy -- they're willing to bring in other technology and other ears to "fix" it.

I'll tell you what's wrong. There is no Glenn Gould here. This type of technology serves no purpose. Real people please, real musicians please. Aside from Glenn's vocal absence (it's a part of him, and I wouldn't listen to him any other way), this lacks so much of what he put into a recording. Buy the real thing(s). The older recording reflects a young, insanely gifted musician, while the later recording reflects a man who has accumulated a plethora of understanding of life to go with that gift. Computers cannot replicate humans, let's just agree on that at once and move on.

This recording uses computer software that samples a piano recording and captures precise volume and attack data for each note played. This performance data is then fed into a digital grand piano controller that can realize every combination of volume and attack so transcribed. It's a promising technology, and it's easy to imagine Gould himself toying with it. Unfortunately, this recording doesn't deliver on the promise. This is not the '55 Goldbergs in stereo without Gould's humming. It's a good performance that''s Gould-like in many ways, but there are many obvious differences beyond stereo, no humming, and a different piano timbre (a Yamaha instead of the Steinways Gould preferred). First and most important is the tone: Gould played non-legato with little or no pedal. That's not just Gould's approach to the Goldbergs, but his approach to the piano, and it's not subtle. The tone in the Zemph is definitely legato and the sustain pedal is engaged at times. This suggests human editorial interference rather than a software shortcoming. Second: there are many obvious departures from Gould's 1955 interpretation. If you know the '55 recording well (and many people do), this can make listening to this an exercise in frustration: you expect a crescendo at a certain point, and it's missing; you know the phrasing in one hand is about to change from non-legato to out and out staccato, yet it doesn't come; the emphasis in voices is about to change, but it doesn't happen. Since these aren't subtleties and cumulatively make for a smoother but less engaging performance--and Gould is all about engagement with the complexity of polyphony--this seems like more human editorial interference. What does the Zemph get right? The tempi, the phrasing (insofar as it can be preserved without Gould's distinctive tone), the overall dynamics. That's not bad, but it doesn't make for a compelling performance: it does, however, make for a "nice" one, one that doesn't grab your attention as Gould's '55 Goldbergs do--and that might be the point. My guess is that what came straight out of the Zemph was much more like Gould's 55 recording than what we have here: dry tone, no pedal, small scale dynamic changes, etc. The marketeers who see "classical" music as high-end easy-listening/new age didn't like it and sent it back to the software and recording engineers with orders to make it "more beautiful," i.e., lush and smooth sonic soup, rather than engaging and variegated polyphony. Perhaps that's cynical of me, but it strikes me as very odd that the Zemph technology could get as much right as it did while missing other obvious things: it has the largest and most miniscule aspects of Gould's '55 Goldbergs right while missing everything in the middle. This peculiar absence is what I think other reviewers mean when they say the recording lacks soul. Maybe someday we'll have Gould's '55 performance in stereo and without his humming (although I don't mind it). Until then, monaural sound, Gould's humming, and tape hiss are what the listener has to put up with to hear Bach played by his most exciting keyboard interpreter. It's a small effort to make, and after 15 seconds, you won't notice anyway.

The really odd and interesting things about Glenn Gould's recordings is that he actually sings along on his recordings -- you can hear it in the background. The duality of a perfectionist who wanted the fidelity of the recording to be great who sang along to the track is important to getting the full impact of his interpretation.   Also, technically, this recording just isn't as interesting as the original and the actual sound of the piano that he used was also critical to Gould.    Want more? Get the original 1955 recordings then compare it to his 1981 recording of the same piece.  Artists never record something twice, and Gould makes it worth the comparison. 

I don't know if this counts, but I got the 2 free comparision downloads offered. I listened and was horrified. It basically sounds like Glenn on a better piano. The point is... Glenn liked that sound (in his original recordings). He engineered for that sound. And that sound can be characterized (perhaps) as a "harpsi-piano". But that is the sound he wanted. And divorcing the humming from any Gould recording is just plain wrong as far as I am concerned. There is a "Nachtmusik" feel to his recordings that is not duplicated here. Glenn was a pioneer in creating "an album" as an end unto itself. He was not content to merely have a record of a particular performance. On the other hand, he was always interested in what the newest technology could acheive... but this is merely a recording of his fingertips.

This is an amazing recording! Play it side by side with the original, and you'll be blown away with the aural quality. This Gould recording is a superb find for fans of the 50-year old recording, as well as anyone with sophisticated hi-fidelity sensibilities. AMAZING!

What a travesty! Re-performance? Hah! How ridiculous. They're using a machine to re-create Gould's playing technique and squeeze a few more bucks out of him, even in death. Sony BMG should be ashamed of itself. Don't buy this. Buy a genuine performance by Gould. You won't regret it like you will with this blasphemic album.

Originally, i strongly disapproved of this recording, but then I watched a documentary on the making of the Zenph recording, and now I believe that this remake is at least something to consider. The reason they did this was not to "correct" Gould's editing, or eliminate his humming. It was made so the recording could be heard in stereo, as opposed to the original mono. Listening to the original 1955 recording, you realize it's not the best quality and its quality was one of the reasons I enjoyed the 1981 recording more. Being able to listen to the 1955 recording under the same/compareable recording techniques as 1981, though, has made the 1955 more enjoyable (though i still think 1981 is better). I would say buy the original mono recording, but if poor sound quality bothers you, consider getting this Zenph re-recording.

I like this recording because it encompasses three painstaking accomplishments that add up to one great recording. A great composer, a great performance by a twentieith century artist and a great modern producer/engineer that can capture the true essence of the piece well enough to listen time and again. I admire John Q. Walker's attempt with binaural techniques for my headphones as I know this piece inside and out. I want to "re- hear" it again because I'm sure Bach wouldn't mind!!!!!

If this is supposed to be a technically superior recording, why I can I hear rather intrusive distortion in the second track? Also, they forgot to simulate Gould's muttering, hah! It was a mistake to try this technology on this recording. I bought it in error thinking it was the original, so I tried to enjoy it, but it's just simply not an improvement in any way shape or form. I'm bitterly regretfull of my purchase.

Gould just doesn't have it in him. It's mechanical--lacks soul. I agree with previous reviewer--buy the real thing.

The original from 1955 is vastly superior. They had the right idea, but they flunked it. We need to wonder why they failed. I think the method they used could have worked really well in case of a piano. Of course his wonderful humming would not be included, but we could accept this if the rest was living up to the promise. What we really would like to have are the MIDI files they created as described on their website. Then we could let it play on a piano closer to Glenn's original. Guys (referring to Zenph) please release those MIDI files, at least for one variation. That would be a really good deed.

This is my first bad review, so please hear me out because I do not enjoy giving anything by Glenn Gould only one star. Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations is one of the greatest recordings of all time. This is the 1955 recording, which revolutionized the way that Bach is played. Mr. Gould plays the variations at a breakneck pace using very little pedal. Though these were originally written for a Clavier (harpsichord) the recording still sound distinctly Baroque because of Mr. Gould's virtuosity and interpretation. I do not know a lot about Zenph, but I do know that it is very controversial. Using Zenph means that actually a computer, like here, can replace performers like the pianist (Mr. Gould) is being replaced. The positives of such a machine are that we can listen to great recordings like Mr. Gould's 55 Goldberg Variations, it is also a lot cheaper for struggling composers to get their compositions recorded in hopes of becoming known and being able to record with real musicians. It also allows for smaller cities to be able to enjoy symphonies because a smaller orchestra can be used, using computers to replace the empty seats. The negative effect is that it could create more empty seats in orchestras. The demand for instrumentalist will decline as such machines gain more acceptance. And I personally think that is a very slippery slope. For me, if the choice is between paying $50 to see a real performer as I recently did to see Murray Perahia's piano recital or say $20 to see a Zenph concert, even it is of such a great recording as the 55 Variations, I will happily pay the extra amount for the real performer. I recommend buying the real thing, Mr. Gould's 55 Goldberg Variations, this really is just a recording of a recording. Glenn Gould had, what many people consider, a number of very annoying qualities. His humming, one of his most memorable, is of course removed from this recording. I find his humming charming and enjoyable, it is one of the things that makes a Gould recording a 'Gould recording.' If you are looking for a recording of the Goldberg Variation without any of Mr. Gould's 'annoying' habits, then don't buy a Gould recording. I recommend Angela Hewitt, she is today's most highly acclaimed Bach pianist, and her recording is also very beautiful.

Wow! I just finished listening to the binaural version of the album (tracks 33-64), and was treated to a listening experience like none I can remember. The liner notes explain that those tracks were recorded using a dummy head seated at the keyboard with two microphone capsules built into its ears. Anyone who has ever played piano will be stunned by how all of the notes come from the just the right place in the stereo field, and how vividly Gould's interpretation of Bach's counterpoint comes to life. To be immersed in the music from that perspective is truly amazing. You may have read about it in the recent press. Zenph's technology starts with an original recording and extracts several distinct parameters for each note and pedal in the piece. That data (describing when to press each key on the piano, how loud to press it, how long to hold it down, and how to release it) is then played back by an advanced robotic piano. A new recording team then uses today’s best microphones and audio equipment to record Zenph's "re-performance" in a variety of stereo and surround-sound formats. Some people, as expressed by a couple of the earlier reviewers on this site, will dismiss this album without even listening to it, on the grounds that it is not really Glenn Gould pressing the keys, or that music technology will somehow evolve into a beast that will starve the lowly musician. I, for one, enjoy thinking about the musical possibilities that arise from the ability to liberate a great performance from the specific, dated medium on which it was originally recorded. In this case, Gould's performance is elevated from a somewhat hissy, single-channel recording into well recorded stereo and binaural stereo versions. (If one has access to a SACD player and surround system and has purchased a physical copy of the disc from another source, the first 32 tracks can also be played as a 5.0-channel SACD surround version. I'm not fortunate enough to own such a setup, but I can't wait to hear that surround version as well.) I have a feeling that this album with rack up huge "Play Count" numbers on my iPod/iTunes, and wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who loves Gould, Bach, or great sounding piano recordings.

I was really looking forward to the Zenph, as I know the work that went into the "copy process", and if there was a 2008-sound quality of the '55 recording, well, why not? Knowing the '55 (and the other 6 'Gouldberg' recordings) by heart, I could immediately hear a number of shortcomings that at least for me made it rather soul-less. Having said that, my wife wasn't able to hear them... - The '55 recording (and most of Gould's recording as a whole), uses close-up michrophones which gives a more direct, more precise sound. The Zenph uses a more conventional approach which makes it a bit more fluffy. - The Zenph enginers may argue against this, but I can swear that I hear numerous differences in the microtempi that for some reason makes the Zenph more laidback, less exciting. Gould has a number of ways to change the tempo within a phrase, and even within trills, that engages and adds a drive. - They should have opted for a piano that was setup in the same way as Gould's. He was very peculiar about his choices which added to the unique sound. I am looking forward to Zenph version 2.0 of this recording (with hopes there will be one). The technology holds promise, it just isn't precise enough to carry it beyond 90%.

First off, I want to say that I fully embrace technology and all of its benefits, but to my ear, the Zenph recording is vastly inferior to the original. This computerized recreation is an amazing technical achievement with vastly improved recording quality over the 1955 recording, but lacks soul. What struck me when I listened to the Zenph recording was the complete lack of nuance and phrasing that the original recording posseses. Two highlights of the 1955 recording were the amazing colors that Glenn Gould was able to pull out of the piano, as well as his ability to voice the music to reveal Bach's incredible counterpoint. The Zenph version is a computerized recreation, and that's exactly what it sounds like. There is no trace of the genius of Glenn Gould in this recording; there is no subtlety, no shading, no beautifully tapered phrase endings, just a cold, hard rendition that drains the life out of this incredible music. The recording quality may be better, but that's all this has to offer. Listen to the original, deal with a little static, and revel in the beauty and genius of the REAL Glenn Gould.

As a professional organist and pianist, I have spent a good part of my life in awe of Glenn Gould's 1955 recording of the Goldberg variations. His interpretations may not be to everyone's taste, but he is undeniably any keyboardist's point of departure when undertaking this monumental work. I was intrigued by the idea of 're-recording' using computer technology. I have certainly wished that the recording quality of the original was a bit better, and Glenn Gould himself complained vehemently about the poor quality of the aged Steinway he was given to record on. Contrary to what other reviewers have stated, this was NOT a piano that Gould had modified in any way. It was the stock piano that was in the recording studio and had certainly seen better days. However, when I gave the Zenph re-recording a listen, I was horribly disappointed. Yes, the tempi are Gould's, the notes are all in the same places, and the dynamics are roughly the same. However, the recording completely lacks Gould's personality - or any personality at all. The computer fails to bring out any of Bach's contrauntal genius - something at which Gould was unparalleled - and in addition, the articulations are muddy at best, and certainly lack the 'edge' that makes Gould recordings so distinct. Oddly enough, especially for a computer, the rhythms are executed rather unevenly at fast tempi. The overall effect is that of a decent pianist with poorly trained fingers doing an uncanny impression of Gould - but with no feeling or personality whatsoever. Do yourself a favor and just buy the real thing. If recording quality is an insurmountable issue for you (and the 1955 Gould isn't all that bad!), he made another recording in 1982 which many people feel is a superior interpretation in any case. (Gould himself later called his 1955 recording "overrated", though I and millions of others would tend to disagree). This Zenph re-recording is little more than an interesting sonic experiment.

I bought this recording a couple days ago and have listened to it a few times, comparing them to the original 1955 recording which is among the most prized recording in my vast library, and have noted some interesting things which I shall transcribe in the folloeing lines. I shall start out with my beefs with the Zenph recording, my biggest of which is the piano used for the re-performance. I have versed myself in the life and history of Glenn Gould (as is essential for every lover of classical music to do), and know enough to say with confidence that Glenn Gould was picky man in all aspects of his life, not least of all in the musical aspect of his life. He spent many hours in a large Steinway store testing out all of its fine pianos and finally found the piano that fit his character, meaning a piano who's timbre was eccentric as Glenn Gould's personality. The Yamaha used in the Zenph recording, though a fine piano, produces a sound not even close to that of Gould's Steinway in the mounumental recording of 1955. My other beef the absence of Gould's characteristic humming. Now for my acclaim of the Zenph recording. The sound quality of the recording is so lifelike it is hair-raising, and, in the binaural recording, makes you hear the music as though you were the pianist, as is intended. Another tidbit from the booklet that I found amazing, and made me confident in the recording's authenticity is that: In one test of a re-preformance, original and re-performed recordings are played back simultaneously on seperate channels, in ehich circumstances the ear detects even a microscopic discrepancy in timing as a disturrbing 'echo'. A re-performance is considered finished only when it can pass this unforgiving test." This means that the only differences between the 1995 and 2007 recordings are the lack of humming and static, and the difference in timbre of the pianos used. This also proves that those who say the recording is dead and desolate of phrasing are either indulging their prejudices and biases or trying to sound smart. I think this is another great and monumental recording, and that it is not as essential as the '55 recording. I also think it would be better if Glenn Gould's name weren't on the cover.

Good things about this album: - It prompts me to learn what a great innovation Zenph is. - The publicity will bring Bach's great work to more people who never heard it. Not so good: It doesn't sould like Gould. The technology might be able to replicate the precise duration of each note, maybe the relative volume, the level of the key etc. But two main differences I found b/w this album and the original are: 1. The piano this albume uses is too creamy for a "Gould" performance. It's not as crisp as the ones Gould would choose, usually after hour of trying one after another. 2. More importantly, it lacks the sense of multiple parallel dimentions which Gould is so famously good at creating. The "Gould" sound is a combination of too many factors: the piano, the subtle differences in the strenths, acceleration, timing of strokes, maybe the unique way he put his hands on the keyboard, and even the anatomy of his hands and body. There are just too many parameters we need to take into account, when we want to make a true "re-performance". And too many of those parameters, usually the most important ones, are forever gone with the great musicians. And those, unfortunately, are usually the ones even great technology such as Zenph not able to replicate.

I think Gould would have been fascinated by the technology but I can hear him saying something like, "Interesting, but it isn't quite right you know; it's lacking a quintessential interaction between the performer and the technology. I mean being dead and I don't have much of a chance to tweak this passage here, shade a phrase there and enhance my own performance." This is what Gould would have done if you know how he recorded after giving up publc performances. As a result, the recording is flat and lacks the vibrancy that Gould would have sought. We should be happy that Gould will not hear this example of triteness not homage.

Listen to variation 20 on the original 1955 recording, then the same on this "re-recording". Form your own opinion first and then read below. The re-recording is lifeless and mechanical. It sounds quantized, like a computer playing back a midi file, which is exactly what it is. The technology is amazing though, but it should be used for transcriptions of Art Tatum, or other jazz masters, and not for re-recordings which don't convey the musical feeling or even sound as accurate in terms of phrasing and nuance as the original. If all you care about is "sound quality" then perhaps this album is for you. But if you are looking for something beyond the mere mechanics of an instrument being played, a transcendent musical experience, then get the original recording or the 1981 video. And the second review by Disc Doctor - tell me he is not financially or otherwise affiliated to this project.

The Tech-heads at Zenph automatically get a star just for attempting something so breathtakingly audacious (while running the risk of losing two for falling on their... faces). Those not familiar with the original 1955 mono recording will hear a wondrous interpretation of Bach's deep yet playful contrapuntal riddle. Those familiar with the original may get a jolt. But not because of any flaw in execution -- all the subtlety and phrasing is there. But our memories recall not just the execution, but the timbrel nuances of the old Steinway as well. Here on a rounder Yamaha, it's just plain eerie. And wouldn't a living artist take into account the very audible differences in timbre, attack/release dynamics etc., and shape his interpretation around that? I mean, wouldn't the Gould of 1955 have played the Goldbergs differently on a different sounding Yamaha? But you will be distracted from contemplating such esoterica when you listen to the binaural version. Treble on the right and bass on the left as though you were sitting at the piano. And oh how the cross-hand variation jumps! From the opening aria to its reprise -- so familiar, yet so different ... so free of blemish. It's like waking up in the morning with a Stepford version of your spouse. Well Gould is gone and some of us our lonely. No one can tell me this Stepford Goldberg is too smooth or too perfect.

Glenn G would have loved this tribute to his original 1955 recording and the ingenious Zenph re-performance process that created it. The original recording can never be bettered; it's a work of genius, and this album isn't in competition with it, it's an homage and exploration of the original. This album explores two possible worlds: one where Gould had access to the latest recording technology, and another where you the listener are sitting where the pianist would have sat at the keyboard, hearing the audio image that Gould would have heard (the binaural version). The sound is fantastic, and I heard some new aspects of Gould's interpretation in this version that were obscured by the more limited sound in the original. So, give it a try and listen with an open mind, you may just hear something new from old Glenn! This review is of the Japanese CD but it is as far as I can tell identical to the US release. I couldn't wait two months for the US release so I had someone in Tokyo buy and email me the CD, on getting it at the post office I liked it so much I listened to the entire stereo version in the car on the way to campus. A nice counterpoint to Angela Hewitt's monumental live performance of the Goldbergs I heard the previous week at Spivey.

Quite an accomplishment ... this CD is extraordinary. The sound is perfect and Gould is, of course, amazing. Thanks Zenph, what's next?

I understand the review that says don't buy this in that this is essentially a simulation, not Glenn Gould and I wish that Sony BMG, Zenph and iTunes were a bit clearer about this. Somehow this makes the playing of the song a little to technical/mechanical and removes the art and the artist. As stated you don't hear Gould but a "masterful replication" of his technique. So you do get a sonically solid, modern recording that is of beautiful music that will sound stupendous on your system but you won't get the real thing. It is an interesting way to "bring back" classic performances and thinking beyond this CD over time it isn't just the difference of paying to go see someone current but someone that you may never have had the chance perform. We don't have recordings of Bach, etc. to go back to but would it not be amazing to witness a virtual performance, in essence a digital clone? As long as you have the product correctly categorized I think this would be great. So, I am sold on this as a great test of the audio of your system, a clear and clean sound but not a perfect recording/remastering of the original.

Get $69 off on your first stay at travels. Claim your $69 Airbnb free credit by clicking here!

Wondering how you could earn $25 by just signing up? Earn $25 for free by joining Payoneer. Sign Up!

Start your future on coursera today! Build skills with courses, certificates, and degrees online from world-class universities and companies. Join for Free!

Mind Lab Pro® boosts work performance and productivity with nootropics for focus, multitasking under stress, creative problem-solving and more. Buy Now!