Simone Dinnerstein

by on August 30, 2007 at 8:12 pm in Music | Permalink

Is her Goldberg Variations as good as The New York Times (and other reviews) claims?  In a word, yes.

No, it doesn’t displace Gould for me, but it comes closer than I thought any recording ever would.  I’m a Gould-obsessive who resold his Murray Perahia recording of the Goldbergs in disgust and never cottoned to the Goldbergs on harpischord (Egarr and Hantai being truly splendid, however).  Schepkin, Hewitt, Tipo, and Peter Serkin were fine, Pi-hsien Chen was surprisingly good, Schiff wasn’t so hot, and then there was Gould, Gould, Gould.  After Gould, I was just as happy to hear the transcribed version for guitar.

Now there is another.

paul August 30, 2007 at 9:39 pm

what do you think of rosalyn tureck?

Steve Sailer August 30, 2007 at 11:04 pm

Tyler,

Do you ever make comments about works of art that aren’t just some sort of ranking or thumbs up – thumbs down evaluation? You’re a smart guy and you can absorb cultural works extremely fast, but most of your blog comments don’t offer much at all in the way of analysis of why you like something.

To cite an astonishing example of analytical criticism on a blog, here’s Michael Blowhard on “300″:

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/03/300_2.html

Henrik Mintis August 30, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Sorry, I don’t see it. Dinnerstein’s variation 5 is a disaster. Other variations are too Romantic. She has a very nice touch and I can see why it might remind one of Gould’s unique and irreproducible bouncing Baroque style, but I don’t think the work succeeds as a whole. If I could combine the two, I’d mix Gould’s later Goldberg recording with Pinnock’s harpsichord version. The harpischord is brutal on many of the variations, but Pinnock’s playing is quite perfect on some of them. His variation 1 is my favorite.

Paul Homchick August 31, 2007 at 12:09 am

Tyler,

Which Gould version do you prefer, the early version, or the later one?

Henrik Mintis August 31, 2007 at 9:07 am

Paul and Steve: I don’t think asking deeper questions will be profitable. Tyler is on record as saying he skims books and reads only their beginnings in most cases. He is also on record as being interested in deception (to wit, his recent experiment about the secret blog). Most of his lists of favorites could have come from a Top Ten list published by any existing critic. What I’m saying is, he probably knows as much about Gould and the Goldberg Variations as anyone else would learn by reading the New York Times. Also never forget that the name of this blog is Marginal Revolution. Tyler only needs to commit the tiniest fraction of time and effort to extract the majority of influence and intellectual power. He is leveraging our tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt, by saying superficial things and forcing us to assume there’s an iceberg beneath the tip. He has shown time and again a very deep knowledge of economics, and on economic subjects I would trust him almost implicitly. But on cultural matters I think he’s playing the odds and making you blink. I apologize if this comment seems harsh, but my diplomatic neurons have not yet begun this morning to fire.

Bernard Guerrero August 31, 2007 at 12:27 pm

De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.

Steve Sailer August 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Dear Henrik Mintis:

Thanks. That explains a lot. It seems kind of adolescent to try to impose your tastes on other people rather than to explain why you like one thing more than another.

Richard Green September 6, 2007 at 3:39 pm

I have a bit of an obsession with the Goldbergs. I’ve been working on playing them for while (even though I am not a particularly good pianist), and am yet constantly surprised by them.

As it happens, I love the Schiff recording. The Aria grabs you, and the first variation really grabs you–the sharpness of the playing and the subtle differences when he does the repeats are breathtaking to me.

I will give Dinnerstein some more chances, but it is not working for me.

world of warcraft November 26, 2007 at 11:32 pm
BOb December 5, 2007 at 9:07 pm

i found in the 翻譯社 of a work now,I like the translation work is also.I will work hard and hope that understanding more friends.
Refueling!Refueling!Refueling!

翻译公司 February 13, 2008 at 6:58 am
flash games May 10, 2009 at 1:30 am

I don’t think there’s a single Brandenburg set out thre with the “best” version of every variation. For example I don’t like its variation number 1, but Gould 2 contains in my opinion the definitive versions of many of the others.

となり日本を沸 March 10, 2010 at 12:12 pm

lxq
どのジャージにおいても、タテに走るネイビー色のラインは生地に直接染めてありますNIKE ジャージ。
レプリカジャージはナイロンメッシュ生地です。NIKE ジャージほぼ同じ倍率にも関わらず、メッシュ穴の大きさが他の2つに比べて、小さく非常にきめ細かに入っていることがわかります。またナイロン独特のテカつきがあるのも特徴ですNIKE ジャージ。
一方、スウィングマンジャージはポリエステルメッシュ生地で出来ていますNFLジャージ。レプリカジャージよりもメッシュ穴が大きく、目を凝らすと生地の織り目まで見えます。オーセンティックジャージ(≒実使用)にも同じ生地素材を採用してい用いるチームが多いため、より選手が着用する実使用の物に近い仕様になっております。また、手触りはレプリカジャージと異なり、reebok ジャージザラザラしているのも特徴です。
オーセンティックジャージは、reebok ジャージ同じチームでもホーム・アウェイ・3rd(現オルタネート)の種類ごとに生地の素材が異なる場合が多く、レイカーズ ジャージ今回は偶然にも、スウィングマンジャージの生地素材と同じでした。見た目はほとんど変わりませんが、オーセンティックジャージの方がメッシュ穴がきめ細かに入っています。また、触った感じではオーセンティックジャージの方が厚手に感じられます。

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: