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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.