thoughts on Horowitz

[William Sommerwerck]

I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.

I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.

But...

The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.

I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.

* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

[Bozo]

I have few Horowitz recordings.ld molestation. Most were made in the last >years of his life.

6 earlier in his life I would recommend:

Private Collection, Vol.2 , on RCA cd (BMG ? )

Horowitz Plays Scriabin, the original Columbia ( not RCA ) lp , now on an Alliance (?) cd.

The original Homage to Liszt RCA lp from the 50's , not sure made it intact into one cd ?

The 1966 Carnegie recital

The " 25th Anniversary" Carnegie recital ( 1953 ? )

The original RCA Soria series lp set, "The Horowitz Collection", again not sure it made intact to cd ?

[Bozo]

Post by Bozo
Private Collection, Vol.2 , on RCA cd (BMG ? )

The contents :
Poulenc Intermezzo No. 2
Poulenc Novellette No. 1
Debussy Etude No. 6, Book 1
Kabalevsky Sonata No. 2, Op. 45
Debussy Etude No. 4, Book 1
Prokofiev Cinderella, Op. 95: Intermezzo
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 1, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 17, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 3, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 16, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 22, Op. 38
Prokofiev Cinderella, Op. 95: Valse lente
Kabalevsky prelude No. 10, Op. 38
Barber Excursions, Op. 20
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 8, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 24, Op. 38
Debussy Etude No. 1, Book 1

[JohnGavin]

Post by Bozo

Post by Bozo
Private Collection, Vol.2 , on RCA cd (BMG ? )

Poulenc Intermezzo No. 2
Poulenc Novellette No. 1
Debussy Etude No. 6, Book 1
Kabalevsky Sonata No. 2, Op. 45
Debussy Etude No. 4, Book 1
Prokofiev Cinderella, Op. 95: Intermezzo
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 1, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 17, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 3, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 16, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 22, Op. 38
Prokofiev Cinderella, Op. 95: Valse lente
Kabalevsky prelude No. 10, Op. 38
Barber Excursions, Op. 20
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 8, Op. 38
Kabalevsky Prelude No. 24, Op. 38
Debussy Etude No. 1, Book 1

This sounds like something to get. All items that Horowitz would play wonderfully.

Thanks Steve.

[Bozo]

Post by JohnGavin
This sounds like something to get. All items that Horowitz would play wonderfully.
Thanks Steve.

I think you'll find very little of the later career traits which concern you, a real enjoyment of the music he was playing here.

[Bozo]

Post by Bozo
Private Collection, Vol.2 , on RCA cd (BMG ? )

Now at YT :

[Andy Evans]

The gaping hole in Horowitz's recordings is Debussy. He was a wonderful Debussy pianist and i value everything he put on record. Unfortunately it's almost all encores and in mediocre sound with a lot of clapping and coughing.

Oh, for an integral recording of Debussy's major works.... what could have been....

[HT]

Post by Andy Evans
Oh, for an integral recording of Debussy's major works.... what could have been....

I would have loved a recording of Ravel's Mirrors.

Henk

[HT]

Post by William Sommerwerck
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.

Although I believe that he was very often unique as a pianist and as a musician, when he was bad he was insufferably bad - and he was even worse when he repeated for the umpteenth time old war horses like Chopin's first ballade, the Kinderszenen etc. etc.

Henk

[tomdeacon]

Post by HT

Post by William Sommerwerck
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.

Although I believe that he was very often unique as a pianist and as a
musician, when he was bad he was insufferably bad - and he was even worse
when he repeated for the umpteenth time old war horses like Chopin's
first ballade, the Kinderszenen etc. etc.

Earl Wild used to quip that Horowitz kept recording the G minor Ballade and
still couldn't get it right.

Earl was spot on, of course.

[Bozo]

Post by tomdeacon
Earl Wild used to quip that Horowitz kept recording the G minor Ballade and
still couldn't get it right.

Post by tomdeacon
Earl was spot on, of course.

There is nothing wrong to my ear with Horowitz' 1968 televised Carnegie Ballade.

Perhaps an off-day , but Wild should not have been talking after his wooden 1946 recording :

[Bozo]

Chopin Ballade # 1 :

Horowitz, live, 1968 :

Wild, live,1981 :

[O]

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

Most of his playing is stylistic and anachronistic. Your inclination
about when he was good, &etc. is spot on. Of course, it's also a
matter of taste, like his father-in-law Toscanini.

Like anyone else, he had some nights where he was hitting on all
cylinders and could do nothing wrong. This was one of them:

I generally hate most of his Beethoven, others here love it. The
exception for me was his Emperor with Reiner. Interestingly, it's very
conservative (for him, anyway). I've never heard a better one.

-Owen

[William Sommerwerck]

Post by O
Like anyone else, he had some nights where he was hitting on
http://youtu.be/Pdc5xkGj5E8

Indeed.

[Bozo]

Post by William Sommerwerck
Indeed.

That same 1968 (?) TV recital also has a splendid Chopin G minor Ballade, in addition to the great Op.44 Polonaise. I heard him do it live in 1977 , not as good.

[Bozo]

Post by William Sommerwerck
Indeed.

That same 1968 (?) TV recital also has a splendid Chopin G minor Ballade, in >addition to the great Op.44 Polonaise. I heard him do it live in 1977 , not as >good.

Sorry, " it " being the Ballade.

[Bozo]

The exception for me was his Emperor with Reiner. Interestingly, it's very
conservative (for him, anyway). I've never heard a better one.

Agreed, it's a great reading, although not my fav.

[O]

Post by O
Most of his playing is stylistic and anachronistic. Your inclination
about when he was good, &etc. is spot on. Of course, it's also a
matter of taste, like his father-in-law Toscanini.
Like anyone else, he had some nights where he was hitting on all
http://youtu.be/Pdc5xkGj5E8
I generally hate most of his Beethoven, others here love it. The
exception for me was his Emperor with Reiner. Interestingly, it's very
conservative (for him, anyway). I've never heard a better one.

After I watched the Chopin, I started watching this, and I ended up
staying with it all the way through:

It's not bad. Obviously, this is pretty late in life for Vlad, and
he's not the magician he used to be, but he's still flirting with
everybody and having mostly a good time, and the performance he got
down was the performance he wanted to have. Tempi are a bit brisk, but
suit the pianist.

What I found most interesting is that whenever Vlad got near the piano,
he just couldn't leave it alone. Oh, gotta wait for the technicians,
I'll fritter with a Mozart sonata - hmm.. think I like the sonata
better than the concerto. His fingers still have that special spark
that he always had, and he knows just when to soften it up for the best
effect.

-Owen

[Norman Schwartz]

Post by O
It's not bad. Obviously, this is pretty late in life for Vlad, and
he's not the magician he used to be, but he's still flirting with
everybody and having mostly a good time, and the performance he got
down was the performance he wanted to have.

So long as many folks lined up and slept on sidewalks to get tickets to one
of his performances, I always felt him entitled to be bit of an arrogant
sob. In many ways full of himself he thought he was a cult figure.

Post by O
-Owen

[Bozo]

Horowitz in Iowa, from the Des Moines Register, Jan.23.1977 :

* http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/19931125/

" Horowitz: compleat and forever young By LARRY ECKHOLT/Photos by DAVID L. FINCH It seemed almost inconceivable, but it was true.. Vladimir Horowitz, the legendary pianist, was sitting on the back of a Nagle Lumber Co. truck in Iowa City while he watched mini-skirted pompon girls and high-stepping musicians prance in the University of Iowa Homecoming parade. Later it was grandmaster Horowitz sticking his head through the iron bars of a railing at Maxwell's, an Iowa City night spot, to get a better look at the dance floor below, where jeans-clad bodies undulated to the blaring music of the rock group, Ian Quail. In retrospect, it still seems inconceivable, but indeed it was true. Virtuoso pianist Vladimir Horowitz first discovered Iowa City in October, 1975, when he performed a memorable concert at Hancher Auditorium. He was so impressed with the Iowa response that he returned last fall for a second concert within a year. Unlike most artists who perform in college towns, Horowitz does not retreat to a hotel room until concert time, then promptly depart after making a formal appearance. Horowitz goes where the action is: Like the Homecoming parade, where a crowd of 20,000 lined the downtown streets of Iowa City. Like Maxwell's, a discotheque where college students drink beer and dance to schreeching electric guitars. A close associate reports that Horowitz is a night owl who enjoys going to nightclubs. He doesn't drink the hard stuff, but he soaks up the atmosphere. Picture this: The word "DRUNK" stamped in black ink on Horowitz' long-fingered right hand. "DRUNK" was the password used that night to denote that Maxwell's $2 cover charge had been paid. -- Or this: Vladimir Horowitz silhouetted against a backdrop of pink pools of light, sticking rubber ear plugs into his ears to cut down the noise of the rock music. Or this: r -' Wanda Horowitz -- whose father conducted the great symphonies of the- Above: Horowitz at Maxwell's, an Iowa City nightspot. What's he peering at through the railing? The Iowa marching band (below) playing the Iowa fight song. The rock group, Ian Quail, is on stage. Right: He's finally overcome by the noise and resorts to earplugs. Mrs. Horowitz fa at right - Or this: Horowitz and the rest of his party passing notes and communicating, in pantomime because Quail's music was so loud. --Jaek-Vreeland, a-U of I music "This is strange. This is so strange." But it really wasn't, because Horowitz likes young people, and Maxwell's was brimming with them. "I am young, too," said Horowitz, who is 72. The Horowitz presence was felt by another young person -- Jim Flynn, Ian Quail's 23-year-old piano player. When Flynn was told.-earlier that evening that Horowitz would be in the audience, he nearly panicked. He immediately ordered that his upright piano be tuned -- even though it delayed the band's opening set for a short while. " Copyright Des Moines Register,1977

[JohnGavin]

It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and supremely well, and others not so much so. He was the master of a kind of spring-coil technique that could generate fantastic energy and excitement. I'm thinking of things like his own transcriptions, and various cadenza-like passages". He projected brilliance fantastically by a sort of dynamic exaggeration, which always made him sound far greater live than on recordings. I suspect his effectiveness relied somewhat heavily on his pianos with their hyper-responsive regulation and light actions.

Where he becomes exasperating is in his calculating for effect rather than directly expressing the musical essence of whatever he was playing. And he seemed to become more removed from the musical content of what he played as he aged. He also seemed to be more musically cohesive in his young years.

[h***@btinternet.com]

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and supremely well, and others not so much so. He was the master of a kind of spring-coil technique that could generate fantastic energy and excitement. I'm thinking of things like his own transcriptions, and various cadenza-like passages". He projected brilliance fantastically by a sort of dynamic exaggeration, which always made him sound far greater live than on recordings. I suspect his effectiveness relied somewhat heavily on his pianos with their hyper-responsive regulation and light actions.
Where he becomes exasperating is in his calculating for effect rather than directly expressing the musical essence of whatever he was playing. And he seemed to become more removed from the musical content of what he played as he aged. He also seemed to be more musically cohesive in his young years.

What you say is spot on for the Liszt sonata, for example.

And yet that very late recording from Hamburg has some fine Schumann -- surely his best Der Vogel als Prophet, and the Mozart isn't bad. And some of his most valuable things, like the Wieck Variations and the Czerny and the video of Mozart concerto 23 and Beethoven op 10/3 -- hardly early.

I listened to the Chopin that Tom put on Great Pianists very recently, just to remind myself what he did with the mazurkas.

[h***@btinternet.com]

Sorry, meant Der Dichter Sprect. Not vogel als prohet.

[Peter Lemken]

Post by h***@btinternet.com
And yet that very late recording from Hamburg has some fine Schumann -- surely his best Der Vogel als Prophet

He never played that piece - and I was in both of his Hamburg recitals...

Peter Lemken
+43-1

[arri bachrach]

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and supremely well, and others not so much so. He was the master of a kind of spring-coil technique that could generate fantastic energy and excitement. I'm thinking of things like his own transcriptions, and various cadenza-like passages". He projected brilliance fantastically by a sort of dynamic exaggeration, which always made him sound far greater live than on recordings. I suspect his effectiveness relied somewhat heavily on his pianos with their hyper-responsive regulation and light actions.
Where he becomes exasperating is in his calculating for effect rather than directly expressing the musical essence of whatever he was playing. And he seemed to become more removed from the musical content of what he played as he aged. He also seemed to be more musically cohesive in his young years.

every word above is the truth and well said ( except POSSIBLY the comments about the piano). BRAVO

AB

[JohnGavin]

Post by arri bachrach

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and supremely well, and others not so much so. He was the master of a kind of spring-coil technique that could generate fantastic energy and excitement. I'm thinking of things like his own transcriptions, and various cadenza-like passages". He projected brilliance fantastically by a sort of dynamic exaggeration, which always made him sound far greater live than on recordings. I suspect his effectiveness relied somewhat heavily on his pianos with their hyper-responsive regulation and light actions.
Where he becomes exasperating is in his calculating for effect rather than directly expressing the musical essence of whatever he was playing. And he seemed to become more removed from the musical content of what he played as he aged. He also seemed to be more musically cohesive in his young years.

every word above is the truth and well said ( except POSSIBLY the comments about the piano). BRAVO
AB

Thanks.

From George Fiore, Steinway Technician:


Yes the original set-up of Horowitz's D averaged a 41 gram downweight across the keyboard as opposed to the graduated standard of 52 to 47grams. Why would you want a touchweight that is that low? It is not easier to handle, It is very hard for 98% of pianists to control thier playing on anything under 48 grams.

For more detail, read Mohr's book (Horowitz' technician) on Horowitz and his piano.

[piano4tay]

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and supremely well, and others not so much so. He was the master of a kind of spring-coil technique that could generate fantastic energy and excitement. I'm thinking of things like his own transcriptions, and various cadenza-like passages". He projected brilliance fantastically by a sort of dynamic exaggeration, which always made him sound far greater live than on recordings. I suspect his effectiveness relied somewhat heavily on his pianos with their hyper-responsive regulation and light actions.
Where he becomes exasperating is in his calculating for effect rather than directly expressing the musical essence of whatever he was playing. And he seemed to become more removed from the musical content of what he played as he aged. He also seemed to be more musically cohesive in his young years.

It seems like an over-simplification to detect a generally declining trajectory in Horowitz's musicianship, but obviously this is matter of taste. I find it hard to see how this performance, from 1980, could be described as less musical - and anything less than highly musical overall - than his earlier performances, for instance:

Personally I tend to avoid, having listened to death, the virtuoso glitter and brilliance in favour of the exquisitely perfumed performances that can be found throughout his career, including his final years.

AMN

[tomdeacon]

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and
supremely well, and others not so much so.

He was, in effect, a miniaturist.

So, Scarlatti sonatas, Mozskowski frippery, Chopin Mazurkas, and such like.

He invariably got lost in long forms, unless he had the Italian bandmaster
beating him forward mercilessly.

[Willem Orange]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and
supremely well, and others not so much so.

He was, in effect, a miniaturist.
So, Scarlatti sonatas, Mozskowski frippery, Chopin Mazurkas, and such like.
He invariably got lost in long forms, unless he had the Italian bandmaster
beating him forward mercilessly.
--
TD

I love when Deacon pontificates as if he really knew what he was talking about - so entertaining.

[Herman]

Post by Willem Orange
I love when Deacon pontificates as if he really knew what he was talking about - so entertaining.

You would never do something like that, obviously.

[Willem Orange]

Post by Herman

Post by Willem Orange
I love when Deacon pontificates as if he really knew what he was talking about - so entertaining.

You would never do something like that, obviously.

Correct

[tomdeacon]

Post by Willem Orange

Post by Herman

Post by Willem Orange
I love when Deacon pontificates as if he really knew what he was
talking about - so entertaining.

You would never do something like that, obviously.

Correct

HaHaHaHaHa

[dk]

Post by Willem Orange

Post by tomdeacon

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and
supremely well, and others not so much so.

He was, in effect, a miniaturist.
So, Scarlatti sonatas, Mozskowski frippery, Chopin Mazurkas, and such like.
He invariably got lost in long forms, unless he had the Italian bandmaster
beating him forward mercilessly.
--
TD

I love when Deacon pontificates as if he really
knew what he was talking about - so entertaining.

Would you rather listen to a Bishop?

dk

[O]

Post by dk

Post by Willem Orange

Post by tomdeacon

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and
supremely well, and others not so much so.

He was, in effect, a miniaturist.
So, Scarlatti sonatas, Mozskowski frippery, Chopin Mazurkas, and such like.
He invariably got lost in long forms, unless he had the Italian bandmaster
beating him forward mercilessly.
--
TD

I love when Deacon pontificates as if he really
knew what he was talking about - so entertaining.

Would you rather listen to a Bishop?

No, I'd prefer a Kovacevich.

-Owen, Shaken not stirred, please.

[music lover]

Hearing Horowitz live for the first time, in the 70's, was a revelation. The opening of Schumann Arabeske revealed a totally different sound than I'd been used to. Can't say he convinced me about the Concerto Without Orchestra sonata but his dynamic range and power were thrilling. However the gentler moments may be the most memorable.

[JohnGavin]

Post by music lover
Hearing Horowitz live for the first time, in the 70's, was a revelation. The opening of Schumann Arabeske revealed a totally different sound than I'd been used to. Can't say he convinced me about the Concerto Without Orchestra sonata but his dynamic range and power were thrilling. However the gentler moments may be the most memorable.

Yes, I heard him live at the same time, with the same Schumann Sonata and my impression was similar. After having heard his recordings for many years, I was surprised at how much more I liked his sound live - much less caustic and pointed. It really projected to Ann Arbor's large Hill Auditorium.

Here's my general observation about Horowitz - he packs a powerful impression on young aspiring pianists in general - perhaps more than any other single pianist, yet as one ages, I think pianists and pianophiles tend to grow away from him. Rosina Lhevinne once said about him, "a little more of a magician than a musician".

[arri bachrach]

Post by JohnGavin

Post by music lover
Hearing Horowitz live for the first time, in the 70's, was a revelation. The opening of Schumann Arabeske revealed a totally different sound than I'd been used to. Can't say he convinced me about the Concerto Without Orchestra sonata but his dynamic range and power were thrilling. However the gentler moments may be the most memorable.

Yes, I heard him live at the same time, with the same Schumann Sonata and my impression was similar. After having heard his recordings for many years, I was surprised at how much more I liked his sound live - much less caustic and pointed. It really projected to Ann Arbor's large Hill Auditorium.
Here's my general observation about Horowitz - he packs a powerful impression on young aspiring pianists in general - perhaps more than any other single pianist, yet as one ages, I think pianists and pianophiles tend to grow away from him. Rosina Lhevinne once said about him, "a little more of a magician than a musician".

I think that is a very clever comment, but not really accurate nor fair.. Her husband could be described the same way from what I have heard in his recordings...........

AB

[arri bachrach]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and
supremely well, and others not so much so.

He was, in effect, a miniaturist.
So, Scarlatti sonatas, Mozskowski frippery, Chopin Mazurkas, and such like.
He invariably got lost in long forms, unless he had the Italian bandmaster
beating him forward mercilessly.
--
TD

more bullshit from the resident idiot.... I suppose Brahms PC 2, Tchaikovsky PC 1,Rach 3, Chopin sonata, among others are 'minatures' He played them 'big'....
TD, you have a minature for a brain.

AB

[dk]

Post by arri bachrach

Post by tomdeacon

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things
uniquely and supremely well, and others not so much so.

He was, in effect, a miniaturist.
So, Scarlatti sonatas, Mozskowski frippery, Chopin
Mazurkas, and such like.
He invariably got lost in long forms, unless he had
the Italian bandmaster beating him forward mercilessly.

more bullshit from the resident idiot.... I suppose Brahms
PC 2, Tchaikovsky PC 1,Rach 3, Chopin sonata, among others
are 'minatures' He played them 'big'....

He didn't play them "big". He played them fast, loud and
quirky, with a ghastly metallic sound made unbearable by
CBS' idiotic recording. If you want to hear "big", listen
to Richter, Berman, Gilels, Sokolov.

dk

[arri bachrach]

Post by dk

Post by arri bachrach

Post by tomdeacon

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things
uniquely and supremely well, and others not so much so.

He was, in effect, a miniaturist.
So, Scarlatti sonatas, Mozskowski frippery, Chopin
Mazurkas, and such like.
He invariably got lost in long forms, unless he had
the Italian bandmaster beating him forward mercilessly.

more bullshit from the resident idiot.... I suppose Brahms
PC 2, Tchaikovsky PC 1,Rach 3, Chopin sonata, among others
are 'minatures' He played them 'big'....

He didn't play them "big". He played them fast, loud and
quirky, with a ghastly metallic sound made unbearable by
CBS' idiotic recording. If you want to hear "big", listen
to Richter, Berman, Gilels, Sokolov.
dk

for my ears they are big. Sokolov, who I admire tremendously is an example of 'small' playing in the Brahms. Of course he had his limitations like all the greatst pianists...
Berman, for all his huge technique, often played like a musical midget.

AB

[dk]

Post by tomdeacon

Post by JohnGavin
It's worth considering that Horowitz did some things uniquely and
supremely well, and others not so much so.

He was, in effect, a miniaturist.

Bingo!

Post by tomdeacon
So, Scarlatti sonatas, Mozskowski frippery, Chopin
Mazurkas, and such like.

Well, some Debussy and Mozart too.

Post by tomdeacon
He invariably got lost in long forms, unless he had the
Italian bandmaster beating him forward mercilessly.

We seem to be agreeing too much lately....

dk

[Norman Schwartz]

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of
his life. None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved
"Kinderszenen", but his interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I
think you can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally
enjoying these performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I
remember recording from the live broadcast), and an early
"Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best I've ever heard. Horowitz's
interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too
often Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the
notes, but misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin).
There's an album of Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least
bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When
he wasn't good, he was blah.

IIRC as re-told by VH, during an encounter with a lady who disagreed with
him in some matter following his performance, he responded by saying
'Madame, that doesn't matter'. Not that it's entirely applicable here,
recalling it brought a little smile to my face.

Post by William Sommerwerck
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always
correspond to the original release.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

The following 2008 discussion may be of interest:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Forum/2/topic/019224/Number/0/site_id/1#import

[Barny Miller]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Forum/2/topic/019224/Number/0/site_id/1#import

Sorry, but you come too late to talk about that topic. You are probably too young to have apprecciated the living Horowitz and the live element is essential for building a deeper relationship to the art of Horowitz. If you think he missed the music in Scriabin, Clementi and Schumann, how come that he influenced generation of young pianists. You better check again your references for these composers.

[Bozo]

From his 1976 or 1977 last appearance in Iowa I attended :

Hancher Auditorium on the University of Iowa campus (Carnegie- sized) filled quickly; by 3:55 pm that Sunday the audience was completely seated,no usual late-comers,no stragglers,no "chatters", a palpable air of expectation. By 4:00 pm, the hall was nearly silent,tense, the expectation almost unbearable as the house lights went down. At 4:05 (?), a stage hand's yell shattered the silence and audience nerves, the stage door opened, and He strode out grinning. The house lights went up (!) ,surely at His command, and He went to the fronts of the stage, each side and middle, at least 1/2 way down front from the piano, and bowed and gestured and smiled glowingly to each audience section, then back to middle and looking up, shielding his eyes from the lights,gesturing to the balconies, all amidst thundering applause . Then to the piano. The lights remained up (!).

A brief moment to allow the audience to quiet, and then into the leaping figures of the Clementi Op.33 , # 3 C major Sonata. In the slow movement, a bel canto aria not bettered by Bellini or Donizetti, not a stir, nor rustle,nor cough ( not one), a transfixed audience. Recognizing the magic and audience's attention, He occasionally leans toward the audience to emphasize certain passages. A brief pause to allow audience coughs,and then the spirited finale, the audience spellbound. Thunderous applause again ; for this Iowa premiere of the Clementi.

Then, the magic of the Schumann "Arabasque", which all amateur pianists should try to play just to be able to do the last page. One senses Maestro is really at ease, truly enjoying himself.

Then, another Iowa premiere, the Scriabin 5th Sonata, the audience convinced because it is Horowitz advocating, the usual University - types feigning knowledge, some still present souls from the 60's swaying and reveling in the rhythms as if In Da Goda Davida were being played, a sole "bravo" at the conclusion ( probably a music Prof) letting the audience know the piece was concluded, then roar and more thunder as He is recalled 4 times.

After the pause, the Chopin Nocturne Op.72, the rare but welcome Chopin Op.16 Variations, 2 Mazurkas, and then ,audience in the palm of his hand, the Op.23 G minor Ballade, not the definitive, live 1968 "TV" rendering, but very good . The audience, on its feet, is rewarded with " Enticelles", and before the audience can rise again, He does not even rise from the piano bench, but rather leans toward the audience with right index finger raised, as " if you liked that,wait until you hear this", and we enter the "Traumeri". Reverential silence, many tears, then another standing ovation. I dont think He planned another encore, but after the reception to "Traumeri" , a Rachmaninoff Prelude (same as the later Moscow program, Op.32,# 12 I think). A few brief bows to a seated,exhausted audience, and ---- He is gone.

We exit to a cool October evening with the joys, and pain, of only memories.

[f***@gmail.com]

Post by Bozo
Hancher Auditorium on the University of Iowa campus (Carnegie- sized) filled quickly; by 3:55 pm that Sunday the audience was completely seated,no usual late-comers,no stragglers,no "chatters", a palpable air of expectation. By 4:00 pm, the hall was nearly silent,tense, the expectation almost unbearable as the house lights went down. At 4:05 (?), a stage hand's yell shattered the silence and audience nerves, the stage door opened, and He strode out grinning. The house lights went up (!) ,surely at His command, and He went to the fronts of the stage, each side and middle, at least 1/2 way down front from the piano, and bowed and gestured and smiled glowingly to each audience section, then back to middle and looking up, shielding his eyes from the lights,gesturing to the balconies, all amidst thundering applause . Then to the piano. The lights remained up (!).
A brief moment to allow the audience to quiet, and then into the leaping figures of the Clementi Op.33 , # 3 C major Sonata. In the slow movement, a bel canto aria not bettered by Bellini or Donizetti, not a stir, nor rustle,nor cough ( not one), a transfixed audience. Recognizing the magic and audience's attention, He occasionally leans toward the audience to emphasize certain passages. A brief pause to allow audience coughs,and then the spirited finale, the audience spellbound. Thunderous applause again ; for this Iowa premiere of the Clementi.
Then, the magic of the Schumann "Arabasque", which all amateur pianists should try to play just to be able to do the last page. One senses Maestro is really at ease, truly enjoying himself.
Then, another Iowa premiere, the Scriabin 5th Sonata, the audience convinced because it is Horowitz advocating, the usual University - types feigning knowledge, some still present souls from the 60's swaying and reveling in the rhythms as if In Da Goda Davida were being played, a sole "bravo" at the conclusion ( probably a music Prof) letting the audience know the piece was concluded, then roar and more thunder as He is recalled 4 times.
After the pause, the Chopin Nocturne Op.72, the rare but welcome Chopin Op.16 Variations, 2 Mazurkas, and then ,audience in the palm of his hand, the Op.23 G minor Ballade, not the definitive, live 1968 "TV" rendering, but very good . The audience, on its feet, is rewarded with " Enticelles", and before the audience can rise again, He does not even rise from the piano bench, but rather leans toward the audience with right index finger raised, as " if you liked that,wait until you hear this", and we enter the "Traumeri". Reverential silence, many tears, then another standing ovation. I dont think He planned another encore, but after the reception to "Traumeri" , a Rachmaninoff Prelude (same as the later Moscow program, Op.32,# 12 I think). A few brief bows to a seated,exhausted audience, and ---- He is gone.
We exit to a cool October evening with the joys, and pain, of only memories.

As famous as Horowitz still is and as glorified and as vilified as he is, I believe he is grossly misunderstood. This is obviously a highly personal opinion.

Horowitz was a subjectivist from a tradition that emphasized highly individualized viewpoints. His approach to piano was coloristic and above all vocal. This was the center of his artistry, and all of his tools were means toward that end. These objectives elicited (and still elicit) highly polarizing reactions Horowitz' approach to music was his way, and it was never meant to be "the" way. He strove to be the best Horowitz he could be and he was enormously successful at achieving that goal. He was extremely self-aware. He knew his strengths and weaknesses as a performer and he chose his repertoire accordingly for the most part. He left Beethoven cycles to Schnabel, Kempff, and Serkin. Even amongst the composers he had an affinity for (Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Schumann, Liszt) he was still highly selective.

The popular image of Horowitz focuses on his technique but he was never primarily a technician. He was never phenomenally accurate or pinpoint-precise in the way of Michelangeli, Barrere, or Argerich even in his prime, but technical prowess was no more his primary focus than it was Schnabel's. Younger pianists tried (and still try) to ape the outward manifestations of the flashier side of Horowitz, but they are largely blind to his true artistry. Very tellingly, when he would invite younger colleagues over to his apartment for coaching sessions, he would play for them his collection of vintage opera 78's. This was what he wished to impart. Instead, they would try to ape his octave passages from the Tchaikovsky Concerto rather than his infinitely variable and coloristic approach to "Traumeri". IMHO the latter would be far, far harder to do and I've never heard an imitator come remotely close, not that this would be a worthwhile artistic goal either.

So to say "I liked Horowitz when I was younger but now that I'm older I've grown out of him" is like saying the same thing ice cream. Ice cream is wonderful but it is not dinner. I ate more of it when I was younger than I do now, but I still enjoy it. I would never make ice cream the center of my diet, but I never hope to grow out of it either. And wouldn't it be pointless to expect it to be more than it is, or to rejected and denigrated it for not being a viable entree? It's not better than steak, but it makes a far better dessert.

DF

[JohnGavin]

Post by f***@gmail.com

Post by Bozo
Hancher Auditorium on the University of Iowa campus (Carnegie- sized) filled quickly; by 3:55 pm that Sunday the audience was completely seated,no usual late-comers,no stragglers,no "chatters", a palpable air of expectation. By 4:00 pm, the hall was nearly silent,tense, the expectation almost unbearable as the house lights went down. At 4:05 (?), a stage hand's yell shattered the silence and audience nerves, the stage door opened, and He strode out grinning. The house lights went up (!) ,surely at His command, and He went to the fronts of the stage, each side and middle, at least 1/2 way down front from the piano, and bowed and gestured and smiled glowingly to each audience section, then back to middle and looking up, shielding his eyes from the lights,gesturing to the balconies, all amidst thundering applause . Then to the piano. The lights remained up (!).
A brief moment to allow the audience to quiet, and then into the leaping figures of the Clementi Op.33 , # 3 C major Sonata. In the slow movement, a bel canto aria not bettered by Bellini or Donizetti, not a stir, nor rustle,nor cough ( not one), a transfixed audience. Recognizing the magic and audience's attention, He occasionally leans toward the audience to emphasize certain passages. A brief pause to allow audience coughs,and then the spirited finale, the audience spellbound. Thunderous applause again ; for this Iowa premiere of the Clementi.
Then, the magic of the Schumann "Arabasque", which all amateur pianists should try to play just to be able to do the last page. One senses Maestro is really at ease, truly enjoying himself.
Then, another Iowa premiere, the Scriabin 5th Sonata, the audience convinced because it is Horowitz advocating, the usual University - types feigning knowledge, some still present souls from the 60's swaying and reveling in the rhythms as if In Da Goda Davida were being played, a sole "bravo" at the conclusion ( probably a music Prof) letting the audience know the piece was concluded, then roar and more thunder as He is recalled 4 times.
After the pause, the Chopin Nocturne Op.72, the rare but welcome Chopin Op.16 Variations, 2 Mazurkas, and then ,audience in the palm of his hand, the Op.23 G minor Ballade, not the definitive, live 1968 "TV" rendering, but very good . The audience, on its feet, is rewarded with " Enticelles", and before the audience can rise again, He does not even rise from the piano bench, but rather leans toward the audience with right index finger raised, as " if you liked that,wait until you hear this", and we enter the "Traumeri". Reverential silence, many tears, then another standing ovation. I dont think He planned another encore, but after the reception to "Traumeri" , a Rachmaninoff Prelude (same as the later Moscow program, Op.32,# 12 I think). A few brief bows to a seated,exhausted audience, and ---- He is gone.
We exit to a cool October evening with the joys, and pain, of only memories.

As famous as Horowitz still is and as glorified and as vilified as he is, I believe he is grossly misunderstood. This is obviously a highly personal opinion.
Horowitz was a subjectivist from a tradition that emphasized highly individualized viewpoints. His approach to piano was coloristic and above all vocal. This was the center of his artistry, and all of his tools were means toward that end. These objectives elicited (and still elicit) highly polarizing reactions Horowitz' approach to music was his way, and it was never meant to be "the" way. He strove to be the best Horowitz he could be and he was enormously successful at achieving that goal. He was extremely self-aware. He knew his strengths and weaknesses as a performer and he chose his repertoire accordingly for the most part. He left Beethoven cycles to Schnabel, Kempff, and Serkin. Even amongst the composers he had an affinity for (Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Schumann, Liszt) he was still highly selective.
The popular image of Horowitz focuses on his technique but he was never primarily a technician. He was never phenomenally accurate or pinpoint-precise in the way of Michelangeli, Barrere, or Argerich even in his prime, but technical prowess was no more his primary focus than it was Schnabel's. Younger pianists tried (and still try) to ape the outward manifestations of the flashier side of Horowitz, but they are largely blind to his true artistry. Very tellingly, when he would invite younger colleagues over to his apartment for coaching sessions, he would play for them his collection of vintage opera 78's. This was what he wished to impart. Instead, they would try to ape his octave passages from the Tchaikovsky Concerto rather than his infinitely variable and coloristic approach to "Traumeri". IMHO the latter would be far, far harder to do and I've never heard an imitator come remotely close, not that this would be a worthwhile artistic goal either.
So to say "I liked Horowitz when I was younger but now that I'm older I've grown out of him" is like saying the same thing ice cream. Ice cream is wonderful but it is not dinner. I ate more of it when I was younger than I do now, but I still enjoy it. I would never make ice cream the center of my diet, but I never hope to grow out of it either. And wouldn't it be pointless to expect it to be more than it is, or to rejected and denigrated it for not being a viable entree? It's not better than steak, but it makes a far better dessert.
DF

I enjoyed your description of Horowitz, which is very interesting and sympathetic to his strengths, but I disagree with the basic premise that he was misunderstood. The problem isn't that people expect his playing to be "more than it is". It's more that as one ages it just isn't enough anymore.
Most listeners hear the virtues that you point out - the vocal line, the colors, qualities that he was quite spectacular at expressing and executing - but the objections have more to do with mannerisms and calculating-qualities that become more glaring on repeated listenings.

So it his brilliant qualities outweigh the minuses, then he is a pianist not to be missed.

[arri bachrach]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Forum/2/topic/019224/Number/0/site_id/1#import

how does one know how Schumann is 'supposed to sound'? He is supposed to sound like they way YOU think it should sound.

AB

[f***@gmail.com]

Post by arri bachrach

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Forum/2/topic/019224/Number/0/site_id/1#import

how does one know how Schumann is 'supposed to sound'? He is supposed to sound like they way YOU think it should sound.
AB

I did qualify all of the below at the outset as a "highly personal opinion." Actually, I don't have a hard-and-fast notion of how Schumann is supposed to sound. I was making the point that if someone were to attempt an imitation of Horowitz, they'd be better to start with "Traumeri" rather than the Tchaikovsky PC1.

OTOH you seem to have very strong opinions of how a piano is supposed to sound which you reference regularly.


DF

[arri bachrach]

Post by f***@gmail.com

Post by arri bachrach

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Forum/2/topic/019224/Number/0/site_id/1#import

how does one know how Schumann is 'supposed to sound'? He is supposed to sound like they way YOU think it should sound.
AB

I did qualify all of the below at the outset as a "highly personal opinion." Actually, I don't have a hard-and-fast notion of how Schumann is supposed to sound. I was making the point that if someone were to attempt an imitation of Horowitz, they'd be better to start with "Traumeri" rather than the Tchaikovsky PC1.
OTOH you seem to have very strong opinions of how a piano is supposed to sound which you reference regularly.
DF

Of course, but i am talking about the QUALITY of the sound of the piano, not the interpretation of the pianist......
what did you think I meant anyway??

AB

[dk]

Post by arri bachrach

Post by f***@gmail.com

Post by arri bachrach

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Forum/2/topic/019224/Number/0/site_id/1#import

how does one know how Schumann is 'supposed to sound'?
He is supposed to sound like they way YOU think it
should sound.

OTOH you seem to have very strong opinions of how
a piano is supposed to sound which you reference
regularly.

Of course, but i am talking about the QUALITY of the
sound of the piano, not the interpretation of the pianist......
what did you think I meant anyway??

Nothing else seems to matter for AB. At the end of the
day, the taste of the steak is determined by the meat,
not by the chef's skills... anyway they can only ruin
it! ;-)

Cheers,

dk

[Peter Lemken]

Post by dk

Post by arri bachrach
Of course, but i am talking about the QUALITY of the
sound of the piano, not the interpretation of the pianist......
what did you think I meant anyway??

Nothing else seems to matter for AB. At the end of the
day, the taste of the steak is determined by the meat,
not by the chef's skills... anyway they can only ruin
it! ;-)

Rubbish. A good steak is, of course, determined by the quality of the meat,
but preparing it to real perfection is another story.

Very few restaurants actually can give you a *real* 'Black and Blue' steak,
that is, black, crusty from the outside and rare, raw and yet warm on the
inside.

And even then you get the chefs who can do that with a fillet and maybe a
rib eye, but have no idea about preparing a hanger, skirt or flank steak.

Michelangeli was the kind of pianist who could prepare you a hanger steak
Black and Blue at perfection. Any Debussy of his was like that and every
other interpretation pales to this and coming back to the analogy, that's a
a perfect piece of beef done on a low flame and done well.

Yuck.

Peter Lemken
+43-1

[Lionel Tacchini]

Post by Peter Lemken
Michelangeli was the kind of pianist who could prepare you a hanger steak
Black and Blue at perfection.

He didn't have a clue when it came to horse lasagne.

[piano4tay]

Post by Lionel Tacchini

Post by Peter Lemken
Michelangeli was the kind of pianist who could prepare you a hanger steak
Black and Blue at perfection.

He didn't have a clue when it came to horse lasagne.
--
Lionel Tacchini

Dishes preserved in aspic more his speciality , I think......
AMN

[JohnGavin]

Post by piano4tay

Post by Lionel Tacchini

Post by Peter Lemken
Michelangeli was the kind of pianist who could prepare you a hanger steak
Black and Blue at perfection.

He didn't have a clue when it came to horse lasagne.
--
Lionel Tacchini

Dishes preserved in aspic more his speciality , I think......
AMN

I don't think that's true. He was a pianist for those who don't crave heart-on-the-sleeve emotions or huge portions of sentimentality. At his best he went way beyond those more commonly found qualities.

[Herman]

Post by Peter Lemken

Post by dk

Post by arri bachrach
Of course, but i am talking about the QUALITY of the
sound of the piano, not the interpretation of the pianist......
what did you think I meant anyway??

Nothing else seems to matter for AB. At the end of the
day, the taste of the steak is determined by the meat,
not by the chef's skills... anyway they can only ruin
it! ;-)

Rubbish. A good steak is, of course, determined by the quality of the meat,
but preparing it to real perfection is another story.

Arri is always right. The only thing you have to do is reverse what he's saying.

[arri bachrach]

Post by Herman

Post by Peter Lemken

Post by dk

Post by arri bachrach
Of course, but i am talking about the QUALITY of the
sound of the piano, not the interpretation of the pianist......
what did you think I meant anyway??

Nothing else seems to matter for AB. At the end of the
day, the taste of the steak is determined by the meat,
not by the chef's skills... anyway they can only ruin
it! ;-)

Rubbish. A good steak is, of course, determined by the quality of the meat,
but preparing it to real perfection is another story.

Arri is always right. The only thing you have to do is reverse what he's saying.

at least people pay attention to what i say even if they dont always agree with me....
Herman, NOBODY pays attention to your comments because your musical ignorance is perfectly obvious and renders your views invalid.. You are just an ignorant music lover, not a musician.

AB

AB

AB

[dk]

Post by arri bachrach

Post by William Sommerwerck
There's an album of Schumann, but most of it doesn't
sound the least bit like Schumann.

how does one know how Schumann is 'supposed to sound'? He
is supposed to sound like they way YOU think it should sound.

Schumann is supposed to sound the way Clara heard his music.
Don't anyone dare disagree! ;-)

dk

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

According to this recent article:

- Thomson took on such sacred cows as conductor Arturo Toscanini and instrumental superstars Vladimir Horowitz...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/vonrhein/ct-classical-bernstein-thomson-20150113-column.html#page=1

[Barny Miller]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

- Thomson took on such sacred cows as conductor Arturo Toscanini and instrumental superstars Vladimir Horowitz...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/vonrhein/ct-classical-bernstein-thomson-20150113-column.html#page=1

Welcome, Virgil Jr.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by William Sommerwerck
I have few Horowitz recordings. Most were made in the last years of his life.
None particularly grabbed me. He apparently loved "Kinderszenen", but his
interpretations verged on child molestation.
I recently bought the "little box" of original-cover reissues. * (I think you
can get it for $12 on Arkiv.) I found myself generally enjoying these
performances, especially the Rachmaninov 3rd (which I remember recording from
the live broadcast), and an early "Kinderszenen", which is perhaps the best
I've ever heard. Horowitz's interpretation is simple and unaffected.
But...
The more-difficult and less-familiar works are problematical. Too often
Horowitz sounds like the stereotypical virtuoso who plays the notes, but
misses the music (Clementi, Prokofieve, even Scriabin). There's an album of
Schumann, but most of it doesn't sound the least bit like Schumann.
I'm inclined to say "When he was good, he was very, very good. When he wasn't
good, he was blah.
* Though the covers are original, the contents do not always correspond to the
original release.

According to this article:

- It is that fusion of mythicism and modernism that set Horowitz apart and that keep him relevant today. In an era dominated by technical perfectionism and the increasingly anonymous showmanship of ubiquitous piano competitions, we cannot afford to ignore Horowitz's protean artistry.

Virtuosity is not all about pace and dexterity. It must also involve danger and risk.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/music/2013/12/12/album-review-disc-set-vladimir-horowitz-recordings/bdQ5wghYTid0IdRkam43XN/story.html

[Tony]

I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

[AB]

Post by Tony
I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

I have less than zero interest in your comment........

AB

[Frank Berger]

Post by AB

Post by Tony
I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

I have less than zero interest in your comment........
AB

Trying to figure out what negative interest would mean.
Just colorful language, I guess. Like giving 110%.

[Bozo]

Post by Frank Berger
Trying to figure out what negative interest would mean.

I think there were , maybe still are, some financial institutions that charge you for keeping your account, i.e. essentially safekeeping, with no interest paid you.

[Herman]

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
Trying to figure out what negative interest would mean.

I think there were , maybe still are, some financial institutions that charge you for keeping your account, i.e. essentially safekeeping, with no interest paid you.

banks

[AB]

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
Trying to figure out what negative interest would mean.

I think there were , maybe still are, some financial institutions that charge you for keeping your account, i.e. essentially safekeeping, with no interest paid you.

banks

only in Holland:-)

AB

[Tony]

Post by Frank Berger
Trying to figure out what negative interest would mean.

It means he's paying me. Easy money.

[AB]

Post by Tony

Post by Frank Berger
Trying to figure out what negative interest would mean.

It means he's paying me. Easy money.

should pay you in BitCoins..

[s***@hotmail.com]

Negative interest has been adopted by several central banks in Europe. Negative interest on certain mortgage loans are in fact a reality - i.e. property owners are paid interest for borowing money. It's been that way for some time, at least where I am from. They still pay a percentage as a fee, so there isn't a profit - yet. If the interest rates become more negative that could change. And conversely banks charge interest for deposits. Not in general but for certain clients.

Personally I think investing in Horowitz box sets is great, perhaps even financially :-)

Soeren

[AB]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by AB

Post by Tony
I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

I have less than zero interest in your comment........
AB

Trying to figure out what negative interest would mean.
Just colorful language, I guess. Like giving 110%.

like 110% of what Trump says is lies, or is it even more than that:-)

AB

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Tony
I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

I don't understand if you have zero interest why post anything????

[Frank Berger]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Tony
I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

I don't understand if you have zero interest why post anything????

Since when is there something wrong with sharing?

[Frank Lekens]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Tony
I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

I don't understand if you have zero interest why post anything????

Since when is there something wrong with sharing?

bloody commies

[Tony]

Post by m***@gmail.com
I don't understand if you have zero interest why post anything????

The subject is 'thoughts on Horowitz'. Those were mine.

[HT]

Post by m***@gmail.com
I don't understand if you have zero interest why post anything????

Most people I met who didn't like Horowitz were members of the LTMSFI movement. Tony is not one of those. That's why his post surprised me. Perhaps Tony can tell us more.

Henj

[AB]

Post by HT

Post by m***@gmail.com
I don't understand if you have zero interest why post anything????

Most people I met who didn't like Horowitz were members of the LTMSFI movement. Tony is not one of those. That's why his post surprised me. Perhaps Tony can tell us more.
Henj

Horowitz before his 'retirement' around 1953, his prime years, was a fabulous pianist, held in awe by all his professional peers.

AB

[Tony]

Post by HT
Most people I met who didn't like Horowitz were members of the LTMSFI movement. Tony is not one of those. That's why his post surprised me. Perhaps Tony can tell us more.

LTMSFI = flat earth society. My 'why' won't interest anyone, it's only personal taste. I love Horowitz's early Rach PC 3 with Barbirolli. However his later (post '60s I suppose) commercial releases sometimes sound like caricatures. The same bin as Earl Wild's Chopin Nocturnes. In any case, I haven't heard his recently leaked 1950s Yale recitals, though I've been told they're incredible.

[AB]

Post by Tony

Post by HT
Most people I met who didn't like Horowitz were members of the LTMSFI movement. Tony is not one of those. That's why his post surprised me. Perhaps Tony can tell us more.

LTMSFI = flat earth society. My 'why' won't interest anyone, it's only personal taste. I love Horowitz's early Rach PC 3 with Barbirolli. However his later (post '60s I suppose) commercial releases sometimes sound like caricatures. The same bin as Earl Wild's Chopin Nocturnes. In any case, I haven't heard his recently leaked 1950s Yale recitals, though I've been told they're incredible.

yes, the ARE incredible, though some recitals were better than others.

AB

[HT]

Post by Tony
LTMSFI = flat earth society. My 'why' won't interest anyone, it's only personal taste. I love Horowitz's early Rach PC 3 with Barbirolli. However his later (post '60s I suppose) commercial releases sometimes sound like caricatures. The same bin as Earl Wild's Chopin Nocturnes. In any case, I haven't heard his recently leaked 1950s Yale recitals, though I've been told they're incredible.

Your why would interest me. I'm a member of RMCR to be confronted with other personal tastes than my own.
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of his recordings and in particular his live performances. And there are the Horowitz specialties I cannot listen to anymore, regardless of the performer (Chopin's 1st Ballade, Schumann's Kinderszenen, Moszkowski's Etincelles, his Carmen variations, etc..).

Henk

[Andy Evans]

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of his recordings and in particular his live performances.
Henk

My main problem is like I said before all the repertoire he could have recorded in good studio recordings - starting with Debussy. I would have loved all the Preludes, the Etudes, Images.

Like Rachmaninov he just dangled brilliant encores in front of us, when he could have made major contributions to the repertoire. Makes you wonder what's more important - mesmerising a concert hall or leaving a real legacy.

[HT]

Post by Andy Evans
Like Rachmaninov he just dangled brilliant encores in front of us, when he could have made major contributions to the repertoire. Makes you wonder what's more important - mesmerising a concert hall or leaving a real legacy.

Would we be interested in his legacy if we hadn't been mesmerized by his performances? <g>

Henk

[O]

Post by Andy Evans

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of his recordings and
in particular his live performances.
Henk

My main problem is like I said before all the repertoire he could have
recorded in good studio recordings - starting with Debussy. I would have
loved all the Preludes, the Etudes, Images.
Like Rachmaninov he just dangled brilliant encores in front of us, when he
could have made major contributions to the repertoire. Makes you wonder
what's more important - mesmerising a concert hall or leaving a real legacy.

<rhetorical Questions>
What is the responsibility of a concert pianist? To make major
contributions to the repertoire? To pay the bills? To enjoy a
comfortable life? To give concertgoers what most of them came to see?
</rhetorical Questions>

-Owen

[Frank Berger]

Post by O

Post by Andy Evans

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of his recordings and
in particular his live performances.
Henk

My main problem is like I said before all the repertoire he could have
recorded in good studio recordings - starting with Debussy. I would have
loved all the Preludes, the Etudes, Images.
Like Rachmaninov he just dangled brilliant encores in front of us, when he
could have made major contributions to the repertoire. Makes you wonder
what's more important - mesmerising a concert hall or leaving a real legacy.

<rhetorical Questions>
What is the responsibility of a concert pianist? To make major
contributions to the repertoire? To pay the bills? To enjoy a
comfortable life? To give concertgoers what most of them came to see?
</rhetorical Questions>
-Owen

Apparently, a rhetorical question is
asked "in order to produce an effect or to make a statement
rather than to elicit information."

Not sure what that means, by they elicit the following
statement from me: None of the above, unless, I suppose his
training was provided conditional on some performance
behavior. Not likely, of course. Why would anyone think an
artist has any responsibility to any particular audience?

[Andy Evans]

Post by O
What is the responsibility of a concert pianist? To make major
contributions to the repertoire? To pay the bills? To enjoy a
comfortable life? To give concertgoers what most of them came to see?
-Owen

Good questions. Maybe the fault is mine for being a completist. Someone who never quite worked out why Richter recorded all Debussy's Book 2 Preludes, but in Book 1 refused to play Minstrals and La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin. Do works like Preludes and Etudes exist in their entirety as the "plat du jour" or is it fine to just choose what you want off the menu...? What price bleeding chunks?

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by O

Post by Andy Evans

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of his recordings and
in particular his live performances.
Henk

My main problem is like I said before all the repertoire he could have
recorded in good studio recordings - starting with Debussy. I would have
loved all the Preludes, the Etudes, Images.
Like Rachmaninov he just dangled brilliant encores in front of us, when he
could have made major contributions to the repertoire. Makes you wonder
what's more important - mesmerising a concert hall or leaving a real legacy.

<rhetorical Questions>
What is the responsibility of a concert pianist? To make major
contributions to the repertoire? To pay the bills? To enjoy a
comfortable life? To give concertgoers what most of them came to see?
</rhetorical Questions>

In VH's case, to please his wife?

Post by O
-Owen

[Frank Berger]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by O

Post by Andy Evans

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of his recordings and
in particular his live performances.
Henk

My main problem is like I said before all the repertoire he could have
recorded in good studio recordings - starting with Debussy. I would have
loved all the Preludes, the Etudes, Images.
Like Rachmaninov he just dangled brilliant encores in front of us, when he
could have made major contributions to the repertoire. Makes you wonder
what's more important - mesmerising a concert hall or leaving a real legacy.

<rhetorical Questions>
What is the responsibility of a concert pianist? To make major
contributions to the repertoire? To pay the bills? To enjoy a
comfortable life? To give concertgoers what most of them came to see?
</rhetorical Questions>

In VH's case, to please his wife?

Post by O
-Owen

Please let's not confuse the reason(s) a person has for
making choices with responsibility. In the absences of
responsibility choices will still be made, and choices may
be made that are inconsistent with responsibility.

[Bozo]

Post by n***@gmail.com
In VH's case, to please his wife?

I read somewhere, don't know if true or not , that when Wanda and Horowitz visited Samuel Barber at his Conn. home he then maintained with Gian Carlo Menotti, to review Barber's Piano Sonata he had written for Horowitz to premiere, Wanda expressed concern the work was not flashy enough as it then ended with the now 3rd slow mov. In anger, Barber added the 4th mov. Fugue to challenge even Horowitz , who premiered it in Havanna,Cuba .

[Da Zecret Archivz]

Make sure to grab all the 1945-1950 recitals from Symphony share. They could change your opinion of VH.

[AB]

Post by Da Zecret Archivz
Make sure to grab all the 1945-1950 recitals from Symphony share. They could change your opinion of VH.

yes, some incredible playing, H. in his prime.

AB

[dk]

Post by O

Post by Andy Evans

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of his recordings and
in particular his live performances.
Henk

My main problem is like I said before all the repertoire he could have
recorded in good studio recordings - starting with Debussy. I would have
loved all the Preludes, the Etudes, Images.
Like Rachmaninov he just dangled brilliant encores in front of us, when he
could have made major contributions to the repertoire. Makes you wonder
what's more important - mesmerising a concert hall or leaving a real legacy.

<rhetorical Questions>
What is the responsibility of a concert pianist? To make major
contributions to the repertoire? To pay the bills? To enjoy a
comfortable life? To give concertgoers what most of them came to see?
</rhetorical Questions>

To showcase the latest fashion! ;-)

dk

[dk]

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of
his recordings and in particular his live performances.

Can you name any other pianist at this level who was more
"even" than VH?

dk

[HT]

Post by dk

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of
his recordings and in particular his live performances.

Can you name any other pianist at this level who was more
"even" than VH?
dk

Brendel, Casadesus and Gilels - for example. Horowitz was also musically uneven, not just technically.

Henk

[Bozo]

Brendel, Casadesus and Gilels - for example. Horowitz was also musically uneven, >not just technically.

Rubinstein,Argerich,Serkin.

[AB]

Post by HT

Post by dk

Post by HT
My main problem with Horowitz is the uneven quality of
his recordings and in particular his live performances.

Can you name any other pianist at this level who was more
"even" than VH?
dk

Brendel, Casadesus and Gilels - for example. Horowitz was also musically uneven, not just technically.
Henk

the above 3 are nowhere on H's level, musically nor technically. At H.'s best, they would not come close to his playing (till 1953)

AB

[HT]

Post by AB

Post by HT
Brendel, Casadesus and Gilels - for example. Horowitz was also musically uneven, not just technically.
Henk

the above 3 are nowhere on H's level, musically nor technically. At H.'s best, they would not come close to his playing (till 1953)

It's a matter of definition. I took the GPOC to determine who was on Horowitz's level in the 20th century. Strictly speaking every great pianist is sui generis. I wouldn't trade Casadesus' Mozart or Brendel's and Gilels' Beethoven sonatas for Horowitz's.

Henk

[Mike]

I'm always amused, but never surprised, by the absoluteness with which some in this group categorize the abysmal awfulness of performers they don't like or don't understand (or both).

Post by AB
the above 3 are nowhere on H's level, musically nor technically. At H.'s best, they would not come close to his playing (till 1953)
AB

[AB]

Post by Mike
I'm always amused, but never surprised, by the absoluteness with which some in this group categorize the abysmal awfulness of performers they don't like or don't understand (or both).

Post by AB
the above 3 are nowhere on H's level, musically nor technically. At H.'s best, they would not come close to his playing (till 1953)

how does one 'understand' a performer?? A rather pompous statement, no??

AB

AB

[Bozo]

Post by Tony
I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

Respect your views, although disagree, but would suggest the particular " Private Collection- Vol.2 " cd at YT worth your hearing. Regards !

[Terry]

Post by Tony
I'm in a minority of having basically zero interest in this pianist.

What is it that you find offensive/dull/incompetent/unmusical/or...or...?