Double Double. (The Music).

Long-time readers may have noticed by now that Tom Lyle and I are fans of large-scale orchestral music; the symphonies of Mahler, Shostakovitch, and Bruckner have been the subjects of many of our comparisons, with a very occasional (indeed, maybe it was only one!) foray into the string quartet literature. This issue's column, then, is something of a departure, as we are going to compare recordings of solo piano music. The musical selection is Bach's Goldberg Variations, and the two recordings we have selected for comparison have both been the subject of rave reviews in the musical press -- Glenn Gould's 1982 CBS Masterworks release (MK 37779) and Murray Perahia's 2000 Sony Classical release (SK 89423).

As is our customary practice, Tom and I have refrained from discussing these two recordings with each other and have written our remarks entirely independently. Because this is an even-numbered issue, Tom will lead off with his comments and then I will present things from my point of view.

TL: For the first time since we began writing Double Double I was tempted to ask Karl what he thought of these two CDs before organizing my thoughts. But this was only after listening to each disc once. After that my opinion became quite clear, and I don't really understand how I could have doubted myself. In retrospect I would have hated to "ruin" things by chickening out and asking for help forming an opinion of these two fine CDs.

That said, I'll linger a bit longer by telling you how I listened to these CDs. From its digital audio output, a Pioneer DV-525 DVD player feeds, via an MIT 75-ohm cable, a Perpetual Technologies P-1A upsampler/D to D processor that increased the resolution to a 96-kHz/24-bit signal. This is hooked-up via a short I2S cable to a PT P-3A Digital-to-Analog converter that decodes the 96/ 24 signal. Does it sound as good as my very expensive analog set-up? Not quite. One might assume that if I spent as much money on my digital front-end as my analog front-end CDs would sound as good as LPs -- but of course there's no guarantee. Plus, I'm in no hurry to spend that kind of money on a format that is changing on what seems like a daily basis. But CDs sound very good on my system, so we'll have to see whether I'm ready to start paying $25 a disc on the new formats that are being offered, none of which is guaranteed to be a success.

Back to Bach. I spent about half my listening to these two CDs glued to the sweet spot of my system, and the other half listening to them from another room. That's how I listen to lots of piano music -- for some reason I get a thrill from listening to it this way. No other solo instrument sounds as if it is actually being played in another part of the house as piano. The Gould CD was much better at this because it is a much more "up front" recording. The acoustic space in which it is recorded is barely audible. The Perahia, when listened to in front of the stereo is an excellent recording; however, the sound of the hall is much more prevalent. It is a sonic observation into the proceedings, if you will. This isn't a bad thing, especially since the recording as a whole is as just about as good as it gets.

Now, my opinion of the playing of Gould vs. Perahia has to be considered. If I could own only one of these CDs it would be the Gould. That shouldn't be that surprising. His 1955 recording was the definitive interpretation, and once again many a listener has deemed this version considered here definitive. So good is the playing it is much easier to overlook the metallic taste in my ears due to the "primitive" digital methods. It is even easy to overlook Mr. Gould's incessant humming along with the music. But, again, I often listened to this CD in a "off-axis" manner while in other parts of the house where neither of these factors really came into play very much.

Even when listening casually one can tell Glen Gould has mastered this work like no other. Murray Perahia, as good a pianist as he is (and there is no denying this fact), and with as much understanding of the piece as he has (and his excellent liner notes attest to this fact) he cannot compete with the years upon years of playing this piece that Gould had under his belt at the time of this early '80s recording. While listening I could see in my mind's eye Perahia hunched over the keyboard painstakingly deciphering the score. Just as easily, I could imagine Gould throwing his head back in musical ecstasy playing the piece from memory. What's more, during the fast sections (as there are quite a few) Gould seems to sail through them, and to Perahia they seem much more of a challenge.

Am I over-simplifying things to make my point? Yes, because it would take lots more space to analyze these two versions with the meticulous fashion they both deserve. Plus, when it comes down to it -- a new version of the Goldberg Variations would have to be awfully darn good to unseat Gould's version. The Perahia is very good, but it isn't awfully darn good.

KWN: A quick note on how I acquired these two releases: The Gould CD is the first CD I ever purchased. Digital recording had just begun back in the early '80s, and the reclusive Gould returned to New York City to re-record the Goldbergs. Not only would this be his first digital recording of the work, it would also be his first stereo recording of the work, his fabled 1955 recording being in mono. The Perahia CD was given to me as a Christmas gift after I dropped several not-so-subtle hints with my family. I had seem Perahia perform in concert in the early '80s, and had been enthralled by the beauty of his playing; consequently, I was excited to see that he had finally recorded the Goldbergs, one of my favorite pieces for solo piano. I was also excited at the prospect of doing this comparison.

It had been quite some time since I had listened to the Goldbergs, so it was running into an old friend when I started playing these two disks. I played them in the car, I played them at work, and I played them at home. But no matter how many times I played them, or on what system, my conclusion about them was always the same. One was really, really, nice -- very beautiful, very reflective, quite poetic, but the other simply blew the first one away. The second version was energetic, exciting, and just flat sounded more like Bach. The first version sounded very pianistic, the second at times sounded downright harpsichordal.

In terms of recording quality, both were good. The first was recorded to sound more distant, with more of a halo to the sound, and a warmer, smoother sound. The second was recorded more closely, with a drier acoustic and a clangier sound. The first sound seemed better suited for the music of, say, Chopin; the second sound seemed more suited to Bach.

One final note about the sound, which for most readers will reveal (in case they have not already guessed) which pianist recorded the first version and which recorded the second. The first version featured the sound of the piano, augmented by the sound of the space in which it was recorded. The second recording featured the sound of the piano, augmented by the humming of the pianist.

Yes, the second recording was by Glenn Gould, and it is my clear favorite in this comparison. Rest in peace, Mr. Gould ...