Post by Andy EvansThey seem to me now like expressive gimmicks needed to compensate for
some deeper deficiency. >
I don't see it that way - I think he was a real musician, but not of
the modern type. He didn't use his musicianship to 'plumb the depths of
the score' - for which I'm rather grateful given the humourless way
some pianists do that - but to re-interpret, in the way that
Rachminanov did.
Rachmaninov - now there's a pianist I can agree on wholeheartedly.
There was something about the way he did things that was always big, he
illuminated everything he played - he saw the big picture and never
stooped to mere coquettish effects. If Rachmaninov and Horowitz
re-interpreted, then at least for me, Rachmaninov illumined by his
treatment while Horowitz often USED the music in a somewhat
narcissistic way.
(Incidentally, a pianist-friend once told me about a letter, written by
Rachmaninov in which he praised the young Horowitz, but warned that he
needed to develop more both as a man and a musician. This letter is in
the possession of Steinway and Sons - they chose not to display it.)
I don't think this is shallow or heretical - I'd like
Post by Andy Evansto use the word imaginative, or creative in its own way. I think the
reference to humour is appropriate, since there is a kind of humour in
creativity. I can see how many would dislike the tendency to
re-interpret.
Re-interpreting the music, humour and creativity are not the reasons
I've grown out of Horowitz.
Without going into LTMSFI territory, there are plenty of
Post by Andy Evansgood pianists who do plumb the depths (Richter etc).
The fact that Horowitz wasn't a deep poet-philosopher pianist is not
the reason I've grown to dislike most of his playing.
Post by Andy EvansWith Horowitz I began to feel that he very often calculated effects >
So did Rachmaninov - again, I don't see too much wrong with this.
But Rachmaninov did it artlessly with convincing spontaneity and always
in a musically-driven context.
Post by Andy Evansrather than letting his heart probe into the music. There were some
exceptions - moments in Kreisleriana, or times where he seemed to
intuit Scriabin's musical language well.>
Agree entirely about Scriabin and Schumann. I kind of know what you
mean. There was a conspicuous charm, rather than any intellectual
rigour, so I don't think he strayed far from emotion in his playing.
Maybe in an age of realism we don't quite know what to do with charm -
we see it as mannerism?
Horowitz' charm worked well in Chopin's Introduction and Rondo, or
Rachmaninov's Polka. More power to anyone who derives listening
pleasure from his work - I'm only describing why the considerable spell
of Vladimir Horowitz wore off on me - motivated by an interest in
precisely articulating what it is about him that I've parted ways with.
I think it has to do with a musician's relationship to simplicity and
directness. I tend to agree with Arri - that early Horowitz is the
most listenable, because for me his musicianship had not yet become so
distorted - so unrelated to the simple and natural. In Rachmaninov's
playing I can always feel the simplicity that underlies his
re-creations- the same with Michelangeli and others. I came to the
conclusion that complexity is delightful only if you can sense the
simplicity that underlies it. Walking into Tower Records a few years
ago, I heard the Fantasy in F Minor by Chopin on the speakers. The
interpretation actually made me angry!! I felt that the music was
being USED. I walked over to the counter to see who was playing and
sure enough, it was Horowitz.
I'm sure the bottom line is that this is all completely subjective.
One listeners charm is anothers affectation.