Horowitz: genius or charlatan?
Posted by: herm on 04 October 2003
Reading about the new unexpurgated edition of Horowitz's 1965 Carnegie Hall recital made me listen to a couple of Horowitz discs - the 1965 and 1966 Carnegie recitals, the 1975 'rediscovered' Carnegie Hall recital and the 1982 London and Met recitals.
Sometimes I can’t help but laugh at the absurdities - the completely weird way the coda starts in the Chopin Fourth ballade (Met recital), and lots of other silly points made in Chopin pieces all through these performances, the sad mess the Schumann Fantasie is; but there's also a firestorm of a Schumann 3d sonata (1975). I love his Haydn Fmajor sonata at the 1966 recital, and of course the 9th and 10th Scriabin sonatas are great. His eighties studio Kreisleriana is my favorite recording.
However it is funny to read (between the lines) that the new edition of the 1965 recital mostly has more booing which was previously edited out. With Horowitz there seems to be no middle ground. So what do you think? Is the man a genius or a charlatan? What, if any, (apart from Rach 3) are your favorite pieces?
Herman
Sometimes I can’t help but laugh at the absurdities - the completely weird way the coda starts in the Chopin Fourth ballade (Met recital), and lots of other silly points made in Chopin pieces all through these performances, the sad mess the Schumann Fantasie is; but there's also a firestorm of a Schumann 3d sonata (1975). I love his Haydn Fmajor sonata at the 1966 recital, and of course the 9th and 10th Scriabin sonatas are great. His eighties studio Kreisleriana is my favorite recording.
However it is funny to read (between the lines) that the new edition of the 1965 recital mostly has more booing which was previously edited out. With Horowitz there seems to be no middle ground. So what do you think? Is the man a genius or a charlatan? What, if any, (apart from Rach 3) are your favorite pieces?
Herman
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by Todd A
He's a charlatan.
Yes he can play fast and furious, but I've yet to hear a musically convincing performance by the man. Granted I don't own any discs by him, but I've borrowed some and heard him on the radio a number of times. I've also had the bad fortune of being stuck in a car with nothing better to listen to but Horowitz on the radio. (Silence ultimately won out.) I also suffered through one speaker audition where the only available piano music was of his final recital.
Haydn, Scarlatti, Rach, Chopin: it is all bad. (His Scarlatti is absolutely terrible.) His Schumann in the Andante box I have is barely tolerable. He's pretty much my last choice as a pianist. I guess I fall into the “hate him” category.
"The universe is change, life is opinion." Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Yes he can play fast and furious, but I've yet to hear a musically convincing performance by the man. Granted I don't own any discs by him, but I've borrowed some and heard him on the radio a number of times. I've also had the bad fortune of being stuck in a car with nothing better to listen to but Horowitz on the radio. (Silence ultimately won out.) I also suffered through one speaker audition where the only available piano music was of his final recital.
Haydn, Scarlatti, Rach, Chopin: it is all bad. (His Scarlatti is absolutely terrible.) His Schumann in the Andante box I have is barely tolerable. He's pretty much my last choice as a pianist. I guess I fall into the “hate him” category.
"The universe is change, life is opinion." Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by Cheese
He's a genius.
Todd, you sure know what you're talking about when it comes to interpretation, and I agree that his Beethoven, for instance, is awful, and his Chopin is bad too. There are some fine interpretations of Scriabin and Rachmaninov (yes, yes, I do like his Rach recital on CBS). Still, stylistically correct interpretation has never been his cup of tea.
But his sound ! It makes up for everything else. His Moscow recital is painful, technically speaking, but the magic is definitely there, and there are very few people who managed to keep the audience spellbound as he did. Horowitz definitely played Horowitz showpieces and not Mozart or whatever.
His nickname "The Last Romantic" was IMO very apt, and I definitely prefer Horowitz' atmosphere to the playing of any young, brilliant and accurate prizewinner. We all complain about the lack of 'myths' in today's music business, so why don't we tolerate the eccentricities and occasional tastelessness of the ultimate sound creator ?
Oh, his Scarlatti. Scott Ross does a great job, but at times I still prefer Horowitz' set on his 'Met'. I know I'm wrong.
Cheese
Todd, you sure know what you're talking about when it comes to interpretation, and I agree that his Beethoven, for instance, is awful, and his Chopin is bad too. There are some fine interpretations of Scriabin and Rachmaninov (yes, yes, I do like his Rach recital on CBS). Still, stylistically correct interpretation has never been his cup of tea.
But his sound ! It makes up for everything else. His Moscow recital is painful, technically speaking, but the magic is definitely there, and there are very few people who managed to keep the audience spellbound as he did. Horowitz definitely played Horowitz showpieces and not Mozart or whatever.
His nickname "The Last Romantic" was IMO very apt, and I definitely prefer Horowitz' atmosphere to the playing of any young, brilliant and accurate prizewinner. We all complain about the lack of 'myths' in today's music business, so why don't we tolerate the eccentricities and occasional tastelessness of the ultimate sound creator ?
Oh, his Scarlatti. Scott Ross does a great job, but at times I still prefer Horowitz' set on his 'Met'. I know I'm wrong.
Cheese
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese:
We all complain about the lack of 'myths' in today's music business, so why don't we tolerate the eccentricities and occasional tastelessness of the ultimate sound creator?
I agree with this. I do crave more unique performers. Fortunately, there are some eccentric or unique pianists out there - Ivo Pogorelich, for instance. No one would call him mainstream. But it is impossible to doubt his pianistic ability, even if one doubts his interpretations. Piotr Anderszewski can also play familiar works in a new way. I've only heard his Beethoven - the Diabelli on CD and the C major concerto in concert - and he fits the bill nicely if you want uniqueness.
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese:
Oh, his Scarlatti. Scott Ross does a great job, but at times I still prefer Horowitz' set on his 'Met'. I know I'm wrong.
<Gasp!>
"The universe is change, life is opinion." Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by herm
<Gasp!>
Guys, keep a lid on the hot stuff. The mods won't have any of this.
I agree about that magic sound. Listening to Horowitz makes you realize again that every pianist is a alchemist with a magic formula for the piano tuner to make for the the correct action. Horowitz has a unique blend of lingering cantabile and a fast growl in the bass.
Really Pogo can't hold a candle to Horowitz. And, Todd, if you like Volodos (I do too), you should realize that he's modelled himself on Horowitz - including Horowitz's Carmen variations encore.
Most of his Chopin is pretty bizarre indeed. However the three pieces in the 1968 Carnegie recital are wonderful; and contrary to a lot of folks I think the London Polonaise-Fantaisie is exquisite. Different from his (then) great competitor Rubinstein he loved to bare complexities in the score; the listener has to put it together him/herself. Usually I prefer the supreme raconteur Rubinstein, but sometimes Horowitz can give these pieces a brave exhilarating new sound.
And of course the Scriabin and the Rach is truly outstanding. Cheese, do you like the 1965 Haydn sonata, too, or am I alone in this one?
Herman
Guys, keep a lid on the hot stuff. The mods won't have any of this.
I agree about that magic sound. Listening to Horowitz makes you realize again that every pianist is a alchemist with a magic formula for the piano tuner to make for the the correct action. Horowitz has a unique blend of lingering cantabile and a fast growl in the bass.
Really Pogo can't hold a candle to Horowitz. And, Todd, if you like Volodos (I do too), you should realize that he's modelled himself on Horowitz - including Horowitz's Carmen variations encore.
Most of his Chopin is pretty bizarre indeed. However the three pieces in the 1968 Carnegie recital are wonderful; and contrary to a lot of folks I think the London Polonaise-Fantaisie is exquisite. Different from his (then) great competitor Rubinstein he loved to bare complexities in the score; the listener has to put it together him/herself. Usually I prefer the supreme raconteur Rubinstein, but sometimes Horowitz can give these pieces a brave exhilarating new sound.
And of course the Scriabin and the Rach is truly outstanding. Cheese, do you like the 1965 Haydn sonata, too, or am I alone in this one?
Herman
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by Cheese
Herm
This 1965 Carnegie set is good but still somewhat overhyped - the Chopin Ballade in G minor sounds almost funny, it's the ultimate Horowitz sound but in the bad sense this time. The Bach-Busoni Toccata is a slap in JSB's face both in terms of composition as well as interpretation. Oh and soooo boring ! Debussy's piano work might, in theory, suit to Horowitz but it definitely doesn't here - any decent Frenchie plays it better. And, as herm already pointed out, one doesn't really catch what the Schumann Fantasy is about.
Some gems do exist of course, the Scriabin Etude is really worth it, and what Horowitz does with the classic Moszkowski candy is just a delight. I also liked the Träumerei, Horowitz sound at its best - I agree though that Kempff was far more charming.
Outside Carnegie Hall, there ARE monuments, like Tchaikowski's Concerto (BTW thank you Arturo) and, even more so, Liszt's B minor. On the whole I prefer Richter's dark atmosphere, but good old Vladimir shows the tension at the end of the work in a way only he could.
Oh and don't forget he was (and has always been) a thoroughbred Russian, with a deep understanding of his country's music. If you know of a better painter of endless russian landscapes, please let me know.
Cheese
quote:I can't answer here because I apparently have a pathologic aversion for anything remotely connected to Haydn (sorry Todd). I just can't listen to it more than thirty seconds. Therefore other people might write a more sensible comment about it.
Cheese, do you like the 1965 Haydn sonata, too, or am I alone in this one?
This 1965 Carnegie set is good but still somewhat overhyped - the Chopin Ballade in G minor sounds almost funny, it's the ultimate Horowitz sound but in the bad sense this time. The Bach-Busoni Toccata is a slap in JSB's face both in terms of composition as well as interpretation. Oh and soooo boring ! Debussy's piano work might, in theory, suit to Horowitz but it definitely doesn't here - any decent Frenchie plays it better. And, as herm already pointed out, one doesn't really catch what the Schumann Fantasy is about.
Some gems do exist of course, the Scriabin Etude is really worth it, and what Horowitz does with the classic Moszkowski candy is just a delight. I also liked the Träumerei, Horowitz sound at its best - I agree though that Kempff was far more charming.
Outside Carnegie Hall, there ARE monuments, like Tchaikowski's Concerto (BTW thank you Arturo) and, even more so, Liszt's B minor. On the whole I prefer Richter's dark atmosphere, but good old Vladimir shows the tension at the end of the work in a way only he could.
Oh and don't forget he was (and has always been) a thoroughbred Russian, with a deep understanding of his country's music. If you know of a better painter of endless russian landscapes, please let me know.
Cheese
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by herm:
Really Pogo can't hold a candle to Horowitz. And, Todd, if you like Volodos (I do too), you should realize that he's modelled himself on Horowitz - including Horowitz's Carmen variations encore.
I disagree about Pogo. His technique is, if anything, even more assured than Horowitz's, and what he can do is magic. (Sometimes.) I'm also very aware of Volodos' super-virtuoso persona, but his more restrained stuff is better. His Schubert disc and the Bunte Blatter are sublime, but I find his playing of the Horowitz and Cziffra transcriptions tiresome. In general, I dislike and avoid virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity.
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese:
I can't answer here because I apparently have a pathologic aversion for anything remotely connected to Haydn (sorry Todd). I just can't listen to it more than thirty seconds.
<Gaasspp!>
"The universe is change, life is opinion." Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Posted on: 05 October 2003 by Peter Litwack
Well, I have to join in here. Anyone who says Horowitz was a charlatan is simply foolish, if not ignorant.
Todd-I know you're not ignorant, but you apparently have never developed a love of Horowitz's playing. You should give him another chance, listening to his interpretations of the music he played best:
Rachmaninoff - Rach himself thought Horowitz his greatest interpreter. Check out the 1967 recording of the 2nd Sonata. Also his readings of the Études-Tableaux and Preludes are among the best in the catalog (along with Richter and Berman).
Scriabin - Here again, Horowitz amply demonstrates his mastery of the late romantic Russian school. In addition to the Sonatas #3, #5 #9 and #10, the various Préludes, Études, Poemes, and the Vers la Flamme are all brilliant. I heard him play the great Étude in d-sharp minor, Op. 8, #12 at a concert in Oakland, and it was incredible!
Chopin - The Scherzi, IMHO, are definitive. Nobody ever generated the excitement this music contains like Horowitz. He took risks in these pieces that today's pianists won't even try, always pulling them off to great effect. The Mazurkas are without peer, really capturing their mysterious atmosphere and dance origin. His Études are exciting (which they should be). He was usually compelling the the big stuff too. The G minor Ballade, from the 1965 Carnegie Hall Recital is my favorite recording of that piece, and though I prefer Richter in the Polonaise-Fantasie, Horowitz did a great job. The Barcarolle may not equal Lipatti's, but it's very close. I'm not a big Chopin Polonaise fan (except for the Polonaise-Fantasie, which is one of my favorite Chopin pieces), so I can't really offer a helpful comment on them.
Liszt - I think everyone concedes Horowitz's mastery of the B minor sonata, but not everyone agrees on which performance is the one to own. I'm partial to the 1933 version, but the sound is pretty "historical". Any opinions here? The Vallé d'Obermann and the Sonetto 104 del Petrarca are similarly definitive.
Schumann? - I'd rather listen to Cortot (although Horowitz's lovely interpretation of the Blümenstuck from the 1966 Carnegie Hall Recital is worth owning)
Scarlatti? - I'd rather listen to Scarlatti on the harpsichord - I have a vinyl disc of Ralph Kirkpatrick playing 3 Scarlatti Sonatas that is fantastic. The same disc also has some great Couperin, Rameau, and Handel. I've got a box of some of the Scott Ross set, which I like also. Any other Scarlatti harpsichord recommendations?
Bach? - I prefer Gould and Pogorelich (although he has not done much) on the piano, and am still looking for a good Bach on the harpsichord recommendation.
Beethoven? - I'm a Schnabel fan
To sum up, I think you really have to listen to Horowitz playing composers who were true "piano composers" to hear him at his best. In these works, he is a true genius - one of the greatest pianists who ever lived!
For your reference:
Horowitz Discography
Now - how about a discussion about Richter and Berman?
Todd-I know you're not ignorant, but you apparently have never developed a love of Horowitz's playing. You should give him another chance, listening to his interpretations of the music he played best:
Rachmaninoff - Rach himself thought Horowitz his greatest interpreter. Check out the 1967 recording of the 2nd Sonata. Also his readings of the Études-Tableaux and Preludes are among the best in the catalog (along with Richter and Berman).
Scriabin - Here again, Horowitz amply demonstrates his mastery of the late romantic Russian school. In addition to the Sonatas #3, #5 #9 and #10, the various Préludes, Études, Poemes, and the Vers la Flamme are all brilliant. I heard him play the great Étude in d-sharp minor, Op. 8, #12 at a concert in Oakland, and it was incredible!
Chopin - The Scherzi, IMHO, are definitive. Nobody ever generated the excitement this music contains like Horowitz. He took risks in these pieces that today's pianists won't even try, always pulling them off to great effect. The Mazurkas are without peer, really capturing their mysterious atmosphere and dance origin. His Études are exciting (which they should be). He was usually compelling the the big stuff too. The G minor Ballade, from the 1965 Carnegie Hall Recital is my favorite recording of that piece, and though I prefer Richter in the Polonaise-Fantasie, Horowitz did a great job. The Barcarolle may not equal Lipatti's, but it's very close. I'm not a big Chopin Polonaise fan (except for the Polonaise-Fantasie, which is one of my favorite Chopin pieces), so I can't really offer a helpful comment on them.
Liszt - I think everyone concedes Horowitz's mastery of the B minor sonata, but not everyone agrees on which performance is the one to own. I'm partial to the 1933 version, but the sound is pretty "historical". Any opinions here? The Vallé d'Obermann and the Sonetto 104 del Petrarca are similarly definitive.
Schumann? - I'd rather listen to Cortot (although Horowitz's lovely interpretation of the Blümenstuck from the 1966 Carnegie Hall Recital is worth owning)
Scarlatti? - I'd rather listen to Scarlatti on the harpsichord - I have a vinyl disc of Ralph Kirkpatrick playing 3 Scarlatti Sonatas that is fantastic. The same disc also has some great Couperin, Rameau, and Handel. I've got a box of some of the Scott Ross set, which I like also. Any other Scarlatti harpsichord recommendations?
Bach? - I prefer Gould and Pogorelich (although he has not done much) on the piano, and am still looking for a good Bach on the harpsichord recommendation.
Beethoven? - I'm a Schnabel fan
To sum up, I think you really have to listen to Horowitz playing composers who were true "piano composers" to hear him at his best. In these works, he is a true genius - one of the greatest pianists who ever lived!
For your reference:
Horowitz Discography
Now - how about a discussion about Richter and Berman?
Posted on: 07 October 2003 by herm
Hi Peter,
thanks for the link to the Horowitz site. It looks like pretty much every recital of his was surreptiously recorded. I had no idea he toured this extensively in the seventies and eighties.
I agree with you on Scriabin and Rachmaninov. Chopin is the problem. So many of his accounts sound contrived. There's a completely weird first Scherzo on the 1975 Carnegie recital, for instance. In other cases he's interesting, but very rarely natural, to my mind. Some of the Mazurkas I have are fascinating indeed, but they do have a dreaminess (your "mysterious") that I'm not sure about. Are you by any chance familiar with the fifties Rubinstein Mazurkas?
I should try to get hold of the Richter Polonaise-Fantaisie. It's an utterly fascinating piece. (The funny thing is, on that website there's a mr Hank Drake who sez the Horowitz London P-F is a disaster (apparently H wasn't feeling too hopping that day) compared to the 1966 Carnegie Hall P-F. But Horowitz didn't do the P-F in Carnegie Hall. Just goes to show ya.)
Todd, I'm afraid I will always be puzzled by the way you like the Volodos Schubert G-major Sonata (Fantasie), considering you're a big Kempff fan. However we both like Volodos' Bunte Blätter.
Herman
thanks for the link to the Horowitz site. It looks like pretty much every recital of his was surreptiously recorded. I had no idea he toured this extensively in the seventies and eighties.
I agree with you on Scriabin and Rachmaninov. Chopin is the problem. So many of his accounts sound contrived. There's a completely weird first Scherzo on the 1975 Carnegie recital, for instance. In other cases he's interesting, but very rarely natural, to my mind. Some of the Mazurkas I have are fascinating indeed, but they do have a dreaminess (your "mysterious") that I'm not sure about. Are you by any chance familiar with the fifties Rubinstein Mazurkas?
I should try to get hold of the Richter Polonaise-Fantaisie. It's an utterly fascinating piece. (The funny thing is, on that website there's a mr Hank Drake who sez the Horowitz London P-F is a disaster (apparently H wasn't feeling too hopping that day) compared to the 1966 Carnegie Hall P-F. But Horowitz didn't do the P-F in Carnegie Hall. Just goes to show ya.)
Todd, I'm afraid I will always be puzzled by the way you like the Volodos Schubert G-major Sonata (Fantasie), considering you're a big Kempff fan. However we both like Volodos' Bunte Blätter.
Herman
Posted on: 07 October 2003 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by herm:
Todd, I'm afraid I will always be puzzled by the way you like the Volodos Schubert G-major Sonata (Fantasie), considering you're a big Kempff fan. However we both like Volodos' Bunte Blätter.
I can't quite pin down the specific reasons why I like his Schubert disc, either, but I sure do. I've been playing it quite a bit lately. (Well, four times in the last three weeks. That's a lot for me.) Kempff is better, though.
As to Horowitz: I've given him a number of tries with a pretty broad range of music, including (some of) his Scriabin and Rachmaninov, neither of which I liked. (Of course, I'm not a Rach fan, so that's possibly why I don't like Horowitz's recordings.) I guess I'm just fated to disdain his pianism. Oh well. At least there are a few alternatives out there.
"The universe is change, life is opinion." Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Posted on: 07 October 2003 by DJH
I've recently been listening to Hakan Austbo in Scriabin's sonatas; this is great stuff (in the later sonatas especially) and certainly better than Pletnev. Best of all, the 2CD set only cost Yen900. Herm - I know you like Scriabin, so let me know if you would like a copy of this.
David
David
Posted on: 10 October 2003 by herm
Hi Peter,
I've managed to get hold of a Richter Polonaise-Fantaisie now, on DG. It's a live recording dating from 1962, taped on an Italian date, most likely in an instution for ancient Garibaldi veterans who can't stop coughing to save their decrepit lives.
I'm not sure I like it better than the radically different Horowitz. Perhaps that's the downside of getting to know the more dramatic version first.
However, quite possibly this is not the Richter performance you were referring to. I noticed there are two other versions on Doremi 'Legendary Treasures' discs - one from Warsaw, 1954, and one from Helsinki 1976. So which one do you have, if I may ask?
Herman
I've managed to get hold of a Richter Polonaise-Fantaisie now, on DG. It's a live recording dating from 1962, taped on an Italian date, most likely in an instution for ancient Garibaldi veterans who can't stop coughing to save their decrepit lives.
I'm not sure I like it better than the radically different Horowitz. Perhaps that's the downside of getting to know the more dramatic version first.
However, quite possibly this is not the Richter performance you were referring to. I noticed there are two other versions on Doremi 'Legendary Treasures' discs - one from Warsaw, 1954, and one from Helsinki 1976. So which one do you have, if I may ask?
Herman
Posted on: 10 October 2003 by Cheese
Horowitz In London
I just listened to this recital again and I'm asking myself why it was so badly received by the press back then. Vladi's playing is indeed somewhat over-romantic but there are undoubtedly some gems on the disc.
The opening 'God save The Queen' is extremely heavy-handed, and I don't like the Polonaise-Fantasie either (but I guess I don't really appreciate the work itself).
A few posts earlier I criticised Horowitz' reading of the Ballade op.23 at Carnegie Hall (his 'bell sound' was just too much), but this later version is a lot better. A very soft interpretation in which Chopin seems to have left Poland heading for Moscow instead of Paris. But the architecture is definitely there, my reference still being Pollini's first reading on EMI in the early seventies.
And the Kinderszenen! So beautiful sound, too bad the work is so short. The Träumerei, of course, tops the list. Some (Kempff) displayed a more playful child, though I'm still waiting for the ideal interpretation. Maybe Rubinstein ?
Oh, and the Scriabin showpiece par excellence, the Etude op. 8. Strangely I prefer the technically shaky Moscow version, but the sparks fly !
But most of all, live recordings are one thing, attending the performance is another. Horowitz (like Rubinstein) were apparently great in communicating with their public - who matches them today ?
Cheese
I just listened to this recital again and I'm asking myself why it was so badly received by the press back then. Vladi's playing is indeed somewhat over-romantic but there are undoubtedly some gems on the disc.
The opening 'God save The Queen' is extremely heavy-handed, and I don't like the Polonaise-Fantasie either (but I guess I don't really appreciate the work itself).
A few posts earlier I criticised Horowitz' reading of the Ballade op.23 at Carnegie Hall (his 'bell sound' was just too much), but this later version is a lot better. A very soft interpretation in which Chopin seems to have left Poland heading for Moscow instead of Paris. But the architecture is definitely there, my reference still being Pollini's first reading on EMI in the early seventies.
And the Kinderszenen! So beautiful sound, too bad the work is so short. The Träumerei, of course, tops the list. Some (Kempff) displayed a more playful child, though I'm still waiting for the ideal interpretation. Maybe Rubinstein ?
Oh, and the Scriabin showpiece par excellence, the Etude op. 8. Strangely I prefer the technically shaky Moscow version, but the sparks fly !
But most of all, live recordings are one thing, attending the performance is another. Horowitz (like Rubinstein) were apparently great in communicating with their public - who matches them today ?
Cheese
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by herm
Hi Cheese,
the way I listen to Horowitz's London recital the Kinderszenen would come on top, for execution and expression. I like this performance better than the 1987 DG (live) recording, which lacks a little in atmosphere. After the Schumann I'd place the Polonaise-Fantaisie and the Scriabin. The Chopin Ballade is marred by a couple of rather spectacular glitches, and we don't need to talk about the ridiculous opening GSTQ.
I have tried to reconstruct why this concert is supposed to be so bad, and what I came up with is one of those 'stories behind the story' typical of people who talk about the arts (yes, even before the internet). Round the time of the London recital Horowitz was supposed to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and "hence" he played badly. The problem of course is he doesn't play any worse than the 'legendary' 1965 Carnegie Hall recital (I'd say the playing is better), and what the hell is being "on the verge of a nervous breakdown" anyway? I might be on the verge too, as I'm writing this. Didn't you notice?
Of course this disc only gives us half the London recital, which is a big shame. It would be nice if RCA made a new, remastered and complete Horowitz edition (like DG), but I don't think they will.
It's funny you should wonder about Rubinstein's Kinderszenen. I don't think he recorded one. His preferred shorter Schumann cycle was the Phantasiestücke op 12, which he recorded a couple of times.
Herman
the way I listen to Horowitz's London recital the Kinderszenen would come on top, for execution and expression. I like this performance better than the 1987 DG (live) recording, which lacks a little in atmosphere. After the Schumann I'd place the Polonaise-Fantaisie and the Scriabin. The Chopin Ballade is marred by a couple of rather spectacular glitches, and we don't need to talk about the ridiculous opening GSTQ.
I have tried to reconstruct why this concert is supposed to be so bad, and what I came up with is one of those 'stories behind the story' typical of people who talk about the arts (yes, even before the internet). Round the time of the London recital Horowitz was supposed to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and "hence" he played badly. The problem of course is he doesn't play any worse than the 'legendary' 1965 Carnegie Hall recital (I'd say the playing is better), and what the hell is being "on the verge of a nervous breakdown" anyway? I might be on the verge too, as I'm writing this. Didn't you notice?
Of course this disc only gives us half the London recital, which is a big shame. It would be nice if RCA made a new, remastered and complete Horowitz edition (like DG), but I don't think they will.
It's funny you should wonder about Rubinstein's Kinderszenen. I don't think he recorded one. His preferred shorter Schumann cycle was the Phantasiestücke op 12, which he recorded a couple of times.
Herman
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Peter Litwack
Herm-
I'm pretty sure the 1962 Italian performance is the one I have on vinyl. Is was on DGG, and also had a pretty good 4th Ballade, Revolutionary Étude, some gorgeous Debussy, and a hair-raising Scriabin 5th Sonata. Does your CD have all these performances? I'd like to pick it up. Where'd you find it?
I'm pretty sure the 1962 Italian performance is the one I have on vinyl. Is was on DGG, and also had a pretty good 4th Ballade, Revolutionary Étude, some gorgeous Debussy, and a hair-raising Scriabin 5th Sonata. Does your CD have all these performances? I'd like to pick it up. Where'd you find it?
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by herm
S.R. In Memoriam
Hi Peter,
the DG cd I purchased at Concerto last Thursday seems to feature half your Italian 1962 LP. It's got the Debussy Estampes, the Chopin P-F, the 4th Ballade, the 1st and last Op 10 Etude. Does your LP feature 5 Bach WTC items? The cd doth.
However there's no Scriabin. Plus there are a 3d Chopin Ballade, Haydn's g-minor sonata (44), and some Debussy Preludes from a 1959 London recital.
I checked Tower's US website, and they quote low stock for this double cd, entitled "In Memoriam - Legendary Recordings 1959 - 1965", so it may be on its way out already.
One of those Doremi discs had a really irresistible program; I think I'll have to get it, what with the four Scherzi, the Polonaise Fantaisie, and a bunch of latish Mazurkas.
Herman
Hi Peter,
the DG cd I purchased at Concerto last Thursday seems to feature half your Italian 1962 LP. It's got the Debussy Estampes, the Chopin P-F, the 4th Ballade, the 1st and last Op 10 Etude. Does your LP feature 5 Bach WTC items? The cd doth.
However there's no Scriabin. Plus there are a 3d Chopin Ballade, Haydn's g-minor sonata (44), and some Debussy Preludes from a 1959 London recital.
I checked Tower's US website, and they quote low stock for this double cd, entitled "In Memoriam - Legendary Recordings 1959 - 1965", so it may be on its way out already.
One of those Doremi discs had a really irresistible program; I think I'll have to get it, what with the four Scherzi, the Polonaise Fantaisie, and a bunch of latish Mazurkas.
Herman
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Peter Litwack
Herm-
I'm not able to find this CD on the Amazon US web site. Do you have the DGG serial#? TIA. BTW, my LP has no Bach.
I'm not able to find this CD on the Amazon US web site. Do you have the DGG serial#? TIA. BTW, my LP has no Bach.
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by herm
At the risk of making this thread unreadably wide I'll post a link to the Richter disk (which has a different title in the US):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/B000001GZZ/qid=1065912847/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6930859-9618201?v=glance&s=classical
And this one might be interesting too (though at Tower's it's five dollars less):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/B00000F1UR/qid=1065913156/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6930859-9618201?v=glance&s=classical
(wish someone would tell me how to put an 'alias' in place of the long URLs)
Herman
[This message was edited by herm on SUNDAY 12 October 2003 at 04:02.]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/B000001GZZ/qid=1065912847/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6930859-9618201?v=glance&s=classical
And this one might be interesting too (though at Tower's it's five dollars less):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-
/B00000F1UR/qid=1065913156/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6930859-9618201?v=glance&s=classical
(wish someone would tell me how to put an 'alias' in place of the long URLs)
Herman
[This message was edited by herm on SUNDAY 12 October 2003 at 04:02.]
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Peter Litwack
Thanks Herm. Both look great! Glad to see there's some Rach on the first set - I'll order both right away!
Peter
Peter
Posted on: 18 October 2003 by garth
"Pianistic" Genius.
I'm really not ready to post yet, as Herm has inspired me to troll a selection of my sizeable collection of Horowitz records. At least now this excellent topic - thanks Herm - is back where it belongs at the top of the list.
Some early thoughts though:
-Horowitz has such a strong personality which marks, to varying degrees, his interpretations that he will always evoke strong reactions.
- I think what is really remarkable about his technique are the range of tone colour that he can produce, his sound and control of articulation and dynamics. I heard him play the black-key etude. It was absolutely unbelivable the way he played it so softly and quickly with that unbelievable non-legato pppp touch, but with every not defined, and then absolutely brought down the house with the thunderous concluding octaves. Someone once said to him that his student Byron Janis appeared to have faster octaves than him, to which he smiled a replied, "maybe, but mine are better."
-He comes from the romantic tradition of the virtuoso performer as such his interpretations of works are as much - and sometimes more - about Horowitz than the composer.
- Certain repertoire seems more resilient to the Horowitz treatment than others, particularly that of composer/pianists from the same tradition and sharing much the same temperment - Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Scarlatti (yes Scarlatti). - Personally I feel has few, if any, equals in this repertoire. These are all composers/pianists/virtuosi, as Horowitz wanted to be - he wrote a number of compositions such as valse eccentrique.
-I think that Horowitz doesn't age particularly well. It seems as he got older his strong and highly individualistic musical temperment became so over-done that he sounded like a kind of caracature of his earlier self. - Kind of like Mick Jagger in his "elderhostel" years still trying to prance about, he doesn't jump as high but the pouting and posturing are more exagerated. I think the earlier and later Liszt Sonatas show this. I listened to the earlier one the other night and was quite spellbound. I really don't see anything anyone could take exception to. Compare similar passages in the 2 Sonatas - the build up and resolution that preceed the first statement of the big lyrical theme is a good example. I also found this with the early recording of the Scarlatti Sonatas compared to the Scarlatti on the later Met recording.
For the record, I love Horowitz, there are some things that, for me, no one else can really touch. The other night I listened to the early Scarlatti recording, the early liszt Sonata, some Scriabin Etudes. All brilliant. But every thing is so maxed out, whether it's tender and lyric, or percussive, or heroic, it is always pulled or pushed to maximum dramtic effect. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but after awhile it is just too intense. A Pianist friend remarked that he never just lets the music speak for itself.
- Some favorite recordings, Anything by Scriabin or Rachmaninoff. Pictures. Chopin mazurkas. Shumann, particularly the smaller pieces, Kinderszenen, Arabesque. Liszt, particularly the early recording of the Sonata.
All for now. I'll report back after compiling more data. Maybe the rachmaninoff 2nd Sonata record tonight.
Cheers,
Garth
I'm really not ready to post yet, as Herm has inspired me to troll a selection of my sizeable collection of Horowitz records. At least now this excellent topic - thanks Herm - is back where it belongs at the top of the list.
Some early thoughts though:
-Horowitz has such a strong personality which marks, to varying degrees, his interpretations that he will always evoke strong reactions.
- I think what is really remarkable about his technique are the range of tone colour that he can produce, his sound and control of articulation and dynamics. I heard him play the black-key etude. It was absolutely unbelivable the way he played it so softly and quickly with that unbelievable non-legato pppp touch, but with every not defined, and then absolutely brought down the house with the thunderous concluding octaves. Someone once said to him that his student Byron Janis appeared to have faster octaves than him, to which he smiled a replied, "maybe, but mine are better."
-He comes from the romantic tradition of the virtuoso performer as such his interpretations of works are as much - and sometimes more - about Horowitz than the composer.
- Certain repertoire seems more resilient to the Horowitz treatment than others, particularly that of composer/pianists from the same tradition and sharing much the same temperment - Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Scarlatti (yes Scarlatti). - Personally I feel has few, if any, equals in this repertoire. These are all composers/pianists/virtuosi, as Horowitz wanted to be - he wrote a number of compositions such as valse eccentrique.
-I think that Horowitz doesn't age particularly well. It seems as he got older his strong and highly individualistic musical temperment became so over-done that he sounded like a kind of caracature of his earlier self. - Kind of like Mick Jagger in his "elderhostel" years still trying to prance about, he doesn't jump as high but the pouting and posturing are more exagerated. I think the earlier and later Liszt Sonatas show this. I listened to the earlier one the other night and was quite spellbound. I really don't see anything anyone could take exception to. Compare similar passages in the 2 Sonatas - the build up and resolution that preceed the first statement of the big lyrical theme is a good example. I also found this with the early recording of the Scarlatti Sonatas compared to the Scarlatti on the later Met recording.
For the record, I love Horowitz, there are some things that, for me, no one else can really touch. The other night I listened to the early Scarlatti recording, the early liszt Sonata, some Scriabin Etudes. All brilliant. But every thing is so maxed out, whether it's tender and lyric, or percussive, or heroic, it is always pulled or pushed to maximum dramtic effect. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but after awhile it is just too intense. A Pianist friend remarked that he never just lets the music speak for itself.
- Some favorite recordings, Anything by Scriabin or Rachmaninoff. Pictures. Chopin mazurkas. Shumann, particularly the smaller pieces, Kinderszenen, Arabesque. Liszt, particularly the early recording of the Sonata.
All for now. I'll report back after compiling more data. Maybe the rachmaninoff 2nd Sonata record tonight.
Cheers,
Garth
Posted on: 27 October 2003 by herm
aging well
It's funny, but I seem to feel to quite the opposite, Garth. Maybe it's my ignorance, but in a lot of cases I prefer the later (post CBS / Sony) recordings, as being less circus- contrived. The DG Kreisleriana and the RCA London Kinderszenen are cases in point.
The other funny thing is, Peter, my researches into Richter's Polonaises-Fantasie, have only shown I like the Horowitz better. It turns out I own three P-Fs by Richter: the Italian one from the early sixties on the "In Memoriam" disc (12:15); one from a German live date 1992 (13:58), and the Doremi disc, from 1954 Warsaw (11:24). The faster they go the worse the sound gets, it seems, and yet the Fifties Warsaw is the one I like best. But the London Horowitz is more to my taste, being more fully realized, without having that overly ponderous "searching" quality late Richter sometimes has.
Herman
It's funny, but I seem to feel to quite the opposite, Garth. Maybe it's my ignorance, but in a lot of cases I prefer the later (post CBS / Sony) recordings, as being less circus- contrived. The DG Kreisleriana and the RCA London Kinderszenen are cases in point.
The other funny thing is, Peter, my researches into Richter's Polonaises-Fantasie, have only shown I like the Horowitz better. It turns out I own three P-Fs by Richter: the Italian one from the early sixties on the "In Memoriam" disc (12:15); one from a German live date 1992 (13:58), and the Doremi disc, from 1954 Warsaw (11:24). The faster they go the worse the sound gets, it seems, and yet the Fifties Warsaw is the one I like best. But the London Horowitz is more to my taste, being more fully realized, without having that overly ponderous "searching" quality late Richter sometimes has.
Herman