Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Vladimir Horowitz's Technique

I agree that he changed musically from the 40s to the 60s. But the performance I was talking about was from 1952 or 53. He was already on the road to a more refined musicianship. But what he gives us at the end of the 4th Chopin Ballade is beyond anybody's "technical" capabilities before or since. So even then he brought out the fireworks when needed. Funny thing is that I'm being put on the side I'm not really on. I love Horowitz, beyond love Horowitz, even at the end, even when he's making a disastrous mess. He was sui generis.

I have never said that Horowitz's technical abilities didn't decrease with age. Of course they did. It is natural. But I was talking about the great transformation that happens to very few performers and Horowitz was the lucky one here. In his early years, he was fighting the piano and almost all the time he was a 'winner'. When he grew older and matured, he stopped fighting and 'winning' and instead realized that piano was an INSTRUMENT to communicate what you/he are/is. And when you have technical ability to win and also you have enlightened yourself by learning art, philosophy, literature, theater and a few other things, you become an Artist to the point that it no longer matters which medium you are using to communicate: piano, violin, voice or trumpet. And I am not sure that you can find many pianists, certainly not in the 20th-21th centuries, who have crossed that Rubicon. Perhaps Liszt in the 19th century (it helps to be a composer) is closest to us. If you have noticed, there are historical references pointing to a similar transformation in Liszt.

Interestingly I don't feel that's what Horowitz does at all half the time. But we can agree to disagree. The pianist who comes closest to what you describe is Zimerman IMO. There's a level of narcissism in Horowitz's playing that interferes with the communication you describe. I love him but look how soft, look how loud, is not communication when it's done for the point of look how soft, look how loud. We can disagree about why he was doing what he was doing but again to his Mephisto Waltz. Why? And YUCK. Again, it must be noted that Horowitz spent much of his life in the throes of mental illness. I think that does come through in his playing. Live, he just came off as a character from an absurd play. And yet, how could you not love him?

My favorite pianist is Dezso Ranki. He's so straightforward that he never got the recognition he deserved (he was criticized at every turn for his honest, no frills approach to interpretation) and he could/can do anything at the keyboard and he's 66 and still absolutely perfect. He just never felt/feels the need to show off in any way. His straightforward approach to the music goes right to my heart. To others he is cold and doesn't do enough. It's what makes the world go around.

I love Liszt but I think he suffered from overthinking. His music is cerebral and thoughtful and sometimes that gets in the way of the music. Much of Liszt is some of my favorite music to play. It's fun in a way that a lot of other composers are not. With Liszt I am incredibly flexible in my approach. But I've never made myself cry at the piano playing Liszt like I have with Chopin or Bach (for the right reasons).

Never heard Horowtiz playing piano or forte for their sake.

Ranki is good, but he is small (not technically or musicianship wise), but rather I am not sure there is a message there at all, except for pleasure/enjoyment...

Zimmerman - I can't get rid of a feeling I am submerged in a sugary syrup, no matter what he is playing. But he is definitely aware that there are 'other' things...

But of course, everything here is subjective...

Ranki for me just conveys what is written. Example, there are accents that everybody ignores in Mephisto Waltz 1 (can you tell I'm learning it now). My teacher said he ignored the accents and he doesn't know why Liszt put them there (they are in the first edition, but not the manuscript). I pushed him as to why he felt he had the right to ignore them. He really had no answer. Almost everybody ignores them. Ranki does not. His message is just to get to you what is written on the page in the best way he can. Some find that small. I find that it opens my imagination. His Liszt b minor is my favorite. I also approach the music in very much the same way. I am always told to do more. When I played Ranki recently for a friend who was at music school with me, she said, "he sounds just like you." Don't know whether that was a compliment or not. LOL.

Zimerman's Chopin IMO is sublime. I feel like I've been given the key to a room I've never been allowed in before. But as you say, it is all subjective.

As for your first comment, that's your impression of what he is or is not doing. I have heard him blow up the keyboard to great effect. Other times I have just asked myself why there? So much noise for no reason. But you don't attain rockstar status in any field without being a little bit over the top, sometimes on purpose.

I feel about today's pianists the way I feel about today's opera singers. I'll stick to my recordings from the past. The three most successful in the world now are unlistenable and the greats who are around now are ignored. Wish we had anything like the personality, charisma and uniqueness of a Horowitz that didn't rely on a minidress.

You never heard play an octave in the bass way louder than most anyone else and not necessarily to good effect?

Louder than most anyone else - yes, but never for the sake of playing Forte. When he was 60-80+, he no longer needed to prove anything just for the sake of it. Yes, Horowitz could play louder and also softer than anyone, but it was always for a reason, such as, to show contrast between emotions. And his emotions had always been controlled. Yes, tremendous Forte, but still grand piano sound, as opposed to broken glass. And whether it was thunderous Forte or the softest piano, he always remained calm (above thunder) unlike Barenboim, who, while squeezing 3 pianos out of Liszt's Consolations, almost blew up like a balloon. Horowitz said it himself: Music is a controlled emotion.

"unlike Barenboim, who, while squeezing 3 pianos out of Liszt's Consolations, almost blew up like a balloon."

Well, maybe Barenboim wasn't going to blow up, like a baloon, but to see the difference between him and Horowitz: Barenboim's left hand had more piano, but as far, as his emotion, there was one only, Look how well I can play 'pppp'. And his right hand had sound similar to that of someone moving crystal wine glasses in a kitchen cabinet. There was no consolation at all. When Horowitz played, there was a gentle rocking sound (powerful accents) in the left hand and crying piano in the right hand: someone big and powerful was consoling another, weaker one. That was Horowitz's emotion...

Have any of you seen or heard him live? In concert he had a definite impish "did you see what I can do?" quality that pervaded his performances. I don't know who this person is you're describing, but it isn't Vladimir Horowitz in concert. And no his fortes were not always thunderous rich sounds. Half the time it was just pure banging noise. And yes, he used to display huge contrasts in dynamics and then stare right at the audience as if to say "did you hear that?" His performances alternated between this incredible nervous energy where he was filled with tension (no, he wasn't always relaxed), and this strange humorous creature who tried to get a rise out of the people listening. Peppered in between was a sensitive musician who usually came out in Scarlatti, traumerei and the like. I don't know what he was like earlier in his life, but later in life this sensitive soul being described was not on display, and I can say with confidence, that person is not who the audiences went to hear.

It's interesting what has happened to his reputation over time. At the time of his death he was almost dismissed entirely by the serious musical community (not by me). Gould was also out of favor. Luckily they both returned to prominence but I don't think either of them is being remembered how they actually were.

Possibly my strong disagreement with some here has something to do with the fact that I saw him perform live so many times. He was most serious with orchestras. In recital, however, he was somewhat of a joker. He reminded many of their crazy old uncle at holidays. That's the image indelibly etched in my mind. His concerts always had a "what will he do next?" aspect to them. That doesn't jibe with what a lot of you are saying.

I have, in the 80s, but not in the 60s. And I was referring to his playing in the 80s. As far as dismissal by 'serious' musical community, he said it best in the taping of Mozart Concerto 23 documentary: It doesn't make any difference...

I only heard him in the 70s and 80s. But I flew all over the place to do so. I did not hear him in the 60s. I have seen videos from the 60s and he is much more serious in videos than he ever was when I saw him live. I was heavily criticized in the 70s and 80s for loving him so much. Now I'm heavily criticized for finding any flaws in his performances. It is funny to me and you're right it doesn't make any difference. Just as, conversely, every person who ever lived could insist Richter is the best who ever lived and I would still continue to dislike and have absolutely no use for his playing. Ironically, every pianist I admire picks Richter as their favorite. It's all incredibly subjective and the quality of the playing really does depend on the listener to a great extent. Horowitz will always have a special place in my heart but as I get older I find him to be an extremely flawed musician.

"I believe Horowitz's performance of Mephisto Waltz #1 does point out the things that I and karvala believe he did. His interpretation is interesting and worth hearing . . . . once. Truthfully and upon reflection, it's ridiculous and it's just a showcase to reveal how loud and soft and eccentric he can be. The one true test in that piece is played at such a slow tempo as to be embarrassing. That was no choice. That was survival. One is left in kind of a daze after listening to it and I suppose that was his goal. But, and this is not just my opinion, it is not what Liszt wrote nor is it very good. In fact, it's insulting. Maybe had he practiced more he could have displayed his old ability to play fast and accurately, but I doubt it."

Couldn't disagree more! I am yet to hear someone else's performance who has a slightest idea of what actually Mephisto Waltz is: it is NOT another transcendental etude where you can show how fast you can play. It is the Dance of MEPHISTOPHELES. HELLO! Modern piano players! Heard of Goethe?

Not trying to offend anyone on this forum...

That might be true, but he does not play what is written, in any manner of speaking, notes or music. And I would agree as to some music (polonaise opus 44 where he is the only pianist who really gets it), but not Mephisto Waltz. It's a satanic dance for sure, but not the one Liszt wrote.

Me2, in all of his last 3 decades.

Richter is a very interesting case to me. You're right in that he's now widely admired, to the extent that it's decidedly fashionable. It was not always so; he was dismissed by a critic as second rate after his London debut. He shares some features with Horowitz I think - a formidable technique at his best not always in evidence, a frailty that was very real at times, but a musical insight that could be profoundly moving (much more so than Horowitz to me, but that's subjective). To me, Richter only periodically showed the precise and almost mechanical fluidity we have come to expect of all modern virtuosi, and in between times sounded distinctly human. He very often sounds in danger, and sometimes he clearly was, but he could also play a simple four-bar phrase with more convincing depth that defies explanation than almost anyone else.

So I'm sort of with you in that too; I do admire Richter, but not for the reasons that other people seem to, and neither he nor the Horowitz of the 60s onwards are the pinnacle of technique in my view.

We don't know what Liszt wrote. Plus Liszt himself was known for disregarding his own remarks in music score. And not only Liszt. Rachmaninoff did that too. Certainly, we are not going to characterise a modern production of Hamlet (which they move into 21st century) as something not Shakesperian. Plus, that goes to my point of communicating something other than abilities to play fast and with good sound, which is the difference between an Artist and Piano player...

EDIT: I think what we have on recording is not exactly Liszt Mephisto Waltz, but rather a paraphrase by Busoni and Horowitz. So, that should explain different notes..

We know what Liszt wrote. We do not know what Liszt played.

I'm really basing my opinion on the Mephisto on one specific section. There is one way to play it, IMO, and not the way Horowitz does. I don't think a piano performance is supposed to elicit laughter but that's exactly what happened when I heard it, one huge guffaw.

As for Richter, there is one section of a piece I play that everybody seems to play differently. I wanted to hear what Richer had to say. He takes it at break neck speed and misses pretty much every note along the way. Another guffaw. Richter appears to be the piano version of Rosa Ponselle. She was great for sure, but then one day it became conventional wisdom that she was the greatest soprano of all time. Nonsense.

Don't want to beat a dead horse. Interesting discussion for sure. I actually didn't realize Horowitz had many ferocious supporters left. I'm happy that he does. The things they said about him in school almost brought me to tears on multiple occasions.

I will add I'm not a fan of paraphrases. Write your own music. THAT, for sure, is just my visceral reaction to the concept of the musical paraphrase.

We only know what's written on paper, which is a skeleton: no muscles, tissues and nerves. And those are up to a performer.

Also, speaking about how a particular place should be played is as meaningless, as discussing a work of a tendon or a particular muscle in a finger, while playing a passage. That particular muscle is of no consequence at all, as it is directed by a thought transposed into emotion. What is meaningful is the thought and emotion, as opposed to the muscle. When you have a sentence expressing something, there is no point in discussing letters that compose that sentence: they simply have no meaning.

I don't consider myself a ferocious supporter of Horowitz, nor do I care about his private life. He is a stark example of the difference between piano playing/piano players and making art. He was making art. Nobody (not one) modern living piano player is making art. Horowitz was not alone, obviously. Richter, with all his problems, was making art. Arthur Rubinstein was making art. Stanislav Neuhaus too. But they are no more and we have lost it.

Look at young performers: Daniil Trifonov, the winner of the last Tchaikovsky Competition. Great technique, beautiful sound, but the guy has no concept of making art, not a clue. Can't even control his emotions. He looks like a masturbating clown when playing (excuse my language).

There aren't even very many teachers who would say that about anything....