Wes Crone writes in response to me concerning Gould:

>>his best readings are indefinitely memorable and I consider him one of
>>the best Bach interpreters of the 20th century.
>
>When you say best do you mean in the top 3 or top 5, top 10 maybe?

Well, I wasn't thinking of any particular number, but I'd place Gould
in the top tier of pianists/harpsichordists in Bach along with Tureck,
Leonhardt, Gilbert, and Moroney.  I am likely missing one or more others;
this is just off the top of my head.  Also, there are some great artists
in Bach who have not recorded much of his output:  Richter, Horszowski,
Argerich, Pires, Gulda, etc.  I have no doubts that any of these artists
would be at the top level if they had recorded more Bach.

My second tier would have Hewitt, Schepkin, Nikolyaeva, Kroliov, Jarrett,
Aldwell, Robert Hill, Lagace, Levin, Rousset, and Suzuki; I'm sure there
are others.  What's the difference between first and second tier? Some
of it has to do with the passage of time.  I might end up deciding that
Aldwell belongs at the top, but a few more years of listening to his
current recordings and the new ones he might issue is needed.  Another
consideration is a high level of distinctiveness that makes the
interpretations stand out from most others.  So often, I'm reviewing quite
a few versions of a Bach piece, and most of them are fine and quite similar
to one another.  Then, out of the blue, I'm listening to a different
performance from the others, one that's light years ahead as far as I'm
concerned - those are the ones you don't forget.  The five I noted as being
at the top provide those kinds of performances with regularity.

I suppose there could be a third tier with folks like Schiff and Peter
Serkin on it.  Schiff seems to be very highly regarded by quite a few Bach
fans; I don't see it myself, but I assume many would place him on the top
level also.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]