Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
The Op. 53 Polonaise was his preferred encore show piece in his later years (he would also turn to Etincelles by Moszkowski). I heard him twice play the Op. 53, and it sounded somewhat like this in the concert hall but nowhere near as distorted. It may depend a lot on what equipment was used for the recording or where the mike was positioned. But some things can be said about Horowitz that were consistent throughout his career.
1). His dynamic range was extraordinary, possibly the greatest of any recording artist so far. This gave him the ability to shape phrases to an exquisite degree of precision. But there was something else Horowtiz could do like no other: he could drop the tone down from fortissimo to pianissimo in a second, even in very fast passage work. You hear that at work in this recording. His playing is almost inaudible at one point. An instant later and he is producing thunderous chords.
2). As a superstar pianist, he could travel with his personal piano, or have Steinway's top technician travel with him and bring a D that met Horowitz's specifications. Those specs were quite different from company recommendations. He wanted a very light action to assist in rapid passages, yet not so light that he couldn't control it. He had the hammers juiced for brightness, including in the bass notes, which allowed him to exploit the Steinway bass "growl." This characteristic of Steinway pianos has many supposed causes, but one likely one is that Steinways are constructed to allow overtones to shine through whenever a note is struck. This runs the risk of muddying the tone, and that's exactly what Horowitz wanted in exciting, loud climaxes. He didn't care if you couldn't tell the notes apart; his purpose was to overwhelm the audience with a sonic blast that was visceral in nature. I can tell you, in a concert hall setting, it was absolutely thrilling to hear this. In this recording, from the get-go you hear it as almost grotesque distortions of sound. It probably has to do with the recording itself, but there is also something else going on.
3). I expect that something else had to do with deterioration in his hearing. In the 1930's he recorded a famous interpretation of the Liszt Sonata. Every phrase is shaped beautifully with his characteristic wide dynamic range, careful sense of balance, and intelligent attention to the melodic line or any harmonic modulations of interest to him. At his peak in the 1940's and 50's, he would occasionally sharply accent a group of notes as a 2nd melodic line, such as you might find in Bach, but it was both unexpected in the composition as it was usually played, and it was disturbing to some critics. He developed the reputation as a somewhat neurotic artist with these strange accents. By the end of his career, this propensity was becoming frequent. The opening alone of this Polonaise is bizarre, with his pounding out the beginning octaves. He later rerecorded the Liszt Sonata at the end of his career, and it is a distorted mess of ugly sounds throughout. I think at an advanced age his hearing was damaged. He had the same extraordinary dynamic range and juiced up piano at his finger tips, and what he was hearing he thought was just as balanced and sensitive as the work he had done as a youth. He couldn't hear what the audiences were hearing.
If he played like this at the Chopin Competition, of course he would shock the jurors. But there is something you can't get from a recording that might shock the jurors in another way. I have never heard a pianist command the complete attention of the audience as Horowitz did. His concerts were orgies of tonal beauties, shaped cohesively with attention to the overall structure of the music, and thrilling at critical moments. You couldn't turn your attention away from what he was playing, it was simply so beautiful and compelling. If someone with the superhuman capabilities of a Horowitz showed up at a competition, they would probably award the gold medal immediately and close down the rest of the proceedings.
The Op. 53 Polonaise was his preferred encore show piece in his later years (he would also turn to Etincelles by Moszkowski). I heard him twice play the Op. 53, and it sounded somewhat like this in the concert hall but nowhere near as distorted. It may depend a lot on what equipment was used for the recording or where the mike was positioned. But some things can be said about Horowitz that were consistent throughout his career.
1). His dynamic range was extraordinary, possibly the greatest of any recording artist so far. This gave him the ability to shape phrases to an exquisite degree of precision. But there was something else Horowtiz could do like no other: he could drop the tone down from fortissimo to pianissimo in a second, even in very fast passage work. You hear that at work in this recording. His playing is almost inaudible at one point. An instant later and he is producing thunderous chords.
2). As a superstar pianist, he could travel with his personal piano, or have Steinway's top technician travel with him and bring a D that met Horowitz's specifications. Those specs were quite different from company recommendations. He wanted a very light action to assist in rapid passages, yet not so light that he couldn't control it. He had the hammers juiced for brightness, including in the bass notes, which allowed him to exploit the Steinway bass "growl." This characteristic of Steinway pianos has many supposed causes, but one likely one is that Steinways are constructed to allow overtones to shine through whenever a note is struck. This runs the risk of muddying the tone, and that's exactly what Horowitz wanted in exciting, loud climaxes. He didn't care if you couldn't tell the notes apart; his purpose was to overwhelm the audience with a sonic blast that was visceral in nature. I can tell you, in a concert hall setting, it was absolutely thrilling to hear this. In this recording, from the get-go you hear it as almost grotesque distortions of sound. It probably has to do with the recording itself, but there is also something else going on.
3). I expect that something else had to do with deterioration in his hearing. In the 1930's he recorded a famous interpretation of the Liszt Sonata. Every phrase is shaped beautifully with his characteristic wide dynamic range, careful sense of balance, and intelligent attention to the melodic line or any harmonic modulations of interest to him. At his peak in the 1940's and 50's, he would occasionally sharply accent a group of notes as a 2nd melodic line, such as you might find in Bach, but it was both unexpected in the composition as it was usually played, and it was disturbing to some critics. He developed the reputation as a somewhat neurotic artist with these strange accents. By the end of his career, this propensity was becoming frequent. The opening alone of this Polonaise is bizarre, with his pounding out the beginning octaves. He later rerecorded the Liszt Sonata at the end of his career, and it is a distorted mess of ugly sounds throughout. I think at an advanced age his hearing was damaged. He had the same extraordinary dynamic range and juiced up piano at his finger tips, and what he was hearing he thought was just as balanced and sensitive as the work he had done as a youth. He couldn't hear what the audiences were hearing.
If he played like this at the Chopin Competition, of course he would shock the jurors. But there is something you can't get from a recording that might shock the jurors in another way. I have never heard a pianist command the complete attention of the audience as Horowitz did. His concerts were orgies of tonal beauties, shaped cohesively with attention to the overall structure of the music, and thrilling at critical moments. You couldn't turn your attention away from what he was playing, it was simply so beautiful and compelling. If someone with the superhuman capabilities of a Horowitz showed up at a competition, they would probably award the gold medal immediately and close down the rest of the proceedings.
1. I'm going to practice this, wish me luck lol...
I understand exactly what you mean. And, wow intuitively there is so much that I align with here in terms of piano choosing. I always at the practice rooms pick the ones with the bass growl (like if you bang on some pianos bass octaves, it will give a mellow sound, vs the growl, the growl I love!!!) Busoni is a great banger as well btw. This is definitely a really important part of Horowitz' greatness, his piano was really special. Before, I even understood this stuff I naturally gravitated towards it. And I am so happy I appreciate these pianists the most: I only listen to horowitz, cortot, sofronitsky, richter, and a few other interesting ones like Ginzburg, Oborin, etc. just check out truecrypt's channel or one of the ones that have all the vintage recordings. For violin, I prefer to listen to Kreisler and Kogan, Milstein isn't horrible either, but I need more recommendations...
I love the pounding in the beginning octave for the Polonaise, for a piece that is tilted Heroic -- I feel like it gives it a good kickstart.
Also, the thing you mean about him being able to control the mood of a room. I understand what you mean, and something that pissed me off when I went to my first ever concert (this Sunday), was the people who were playing did not understand this. Their dynamic range and transitions were not mood changing, or controlling of the atmosphere. I never really understood what people meant by the mood stuff, but now I clearly get it.
One played the Beethoven Sonata 16 in G major, and the staccato part or the like fortissimo da da da part or whatever, the contrast was there, but not enough to change the mood in the room. I feel like if you have the energy and the personality, to be careless in your demeanor, you can achieve this effect. I think you need a great confidence, and to be an artist in the sense that Rubinstein and such was. In every aspect, you must appreciate literature, have experiences, etc.
The person who was playing is my teacher, who is being watched by his teacher, and if he wanted to do something flamboyant and bring the energy that's needed to change the mood for the contrast in the sonata, I think he would honestly get yelled at. So I don't even blame him for giving a relatively boring performance, even though it was great technically. I think you need an IMMENSE technical foundation, and the ability to show it off without giving a single fvck, and be confident that your interpretation is the truth.
Thank you for your comment, I hope this is true. I honestly believe if this playing happened at today's Chopin competition, the pragmatists would complain about wrong notes, banging, etc. but, who really knows.
Best!
My gods are: Cortot, Horowitz, and Sofronitsky,
Started piano during COVID, hopefully I can play Rachmaninoff, Rubinstein, and Scriabin compositions one day...
If his performance really sounded like that it was quite horrible IMO. Incredibly willful. Why play fff when Chopin doesn't write that? I have heard other Horowitz performances of this piece that were not so extreme although not particularly to my liking either. Why are some people impressed by what for any other pianist would just be called a sever case of banging? I think so many other pianists play this piece so much better.
If his performance really sounded like that it was quite horrible IMO. Incredibly willful. Why play fff when Chopin doesn't write that? I have heard other Horowitz performances of this piece that were not so extreme although not particularly to my liking either. Why are some people impressed by what for any other pianist would just be called a sever case of banging? I think so many other pianists play this piece so much better.
I think a lot is due to the distortion and what seems to be saturation of the mic. Here is another version, there is still some distortion but it is much better. Still quite some banging but due to the poor recording quality, it is difficult to say how it actually sounded origianlly.
Also, the thing you mean about him being able to control the mood of a room. I understand what you mean, and something that pissed me off when I went to my first ever concert (this Sunday), was the people who were playing did not understand this. Their dynamic range and transitions were not mood changing.
One played the Beethoven Sonata 16 in G major, and the staccato part or the like fortissimo da da da part or whatever, the contrast was there, but not enough to change the mood in the room. I feel like if you have the energy and the personality, to be careless in your demeanor, you can achieve this effect. I think you need a great confidence, and to be an artist in the sense that Rubinstein and such was. In every aspect, you must appreciate literature, have experiences, etc.
Controlling the mood of the room through your playing is very difficult and most artists don't achieve it, though the great ones work at it. I remember Horowitz playing a Chopin Nocturne, and in one phrase he created this very delicate pianissimo which made the audience gasp it was so lovely [you had to be there to believe such a thing could happen]. Later I came across an interview with Horowitz in which he said in every concert he created one special moment like that which would leave the audience with an ecstatic feeling. I realized that phrase in the Nocturne must have been prepared and practiced by Horowitz and done exactly that way in every performance. In fact, his friends said most all of his phrasing was well-thought-out before an appearance publicly. In that respect he was the complete opposite of Rubinsten, who liked to improvise his dynamics during a concert, and even change his fingerings just to stay on his toes.
BTW, in the 19th century there was far less emphasis on note accuracy or fidelity to the score, and more freedom for an artist to create a mood. That ended once the phonograph came into use. Once an artist was committing a performance to posterity forever on a record, pianists began aiming to perform without making any mistakes. Mood-creation took a back seat.
Also, the thing you mean about him being able to control the mood of a room. I understand what you mean, and something that pissed me off when I went to my first ever concert (this Sunday), was the people who were playing did not understand this. Their dynamic range and transitions were not mood changing.
One played the Beethoven Sonata 16 in G major, and the staccato part or the like fortissimo da da da part or whatever, the contrast was there, but not enough to change the mood in the room. I feel like if you have the energy and the personality, to be careless in your demeanor, you can achieve this effect. I think you need a great confidence, and to be an artist in the sense that Rubinstein and such was. In every aspect, you must appreciate literature, have experiences, etc.
Controlling the mood of the room through your playing is very difficult and most artists don't achieve it, though the great ones work at it.
I don't think "controlling the mood of the room" has anything to do with being a great pianist or great musician. I've never read or heard of any great pianist talking about playing piano in those terms. And in the thousands of posts I've read on PW, I can't recall anyone mentioning this.
If his performance really sounded like that it was quite horrible IMO. Incredibly willful. Why play fff when Chopin doesn't write that? I have heard other Horowitz performances of this piece that were not so extreme although not particularly to my liking either. Why are some people impressed by what for any other pianist would just be called a severe case of banging? I think so many other pianists play this piece so much better.
I think a lot is due to the distortion and what seems to be saturation of the mic. Here is another version, there is still some distortion but it is much better. Still quite some banging but due to the poor recording quality, it is difficult to say how it actually sounded origianlly.
This sounds far better, and I thought it was very good except for what is for me a beyond ridiculous introduction with its willful and outrageously out of place pianissimos or ff playing. I think sometimes Horowitz was afraid of boring the public and so played some inappropriate dynamics just to shock or keep the audience "interested". But I don't think they are musically justified at all. He can't seem to play some pieces without making some huge dynamic change every ten seconds.
The OP's choice to post what I think is such a terrible recording, whether due to the playing or the recording conditions, shows that some people are impressed by crass banging and dynamics that IMO have little to do with the music.
For me, the dynamic choices Horowitz sometimes makes have nothing to do with "dynamic range". Why play fff if the composer writes f or play pp with composer writes mp?
If his performance really sounded like that it was quite horrible IMO. Incredibly willful. Why play fff when Chopin doesn't write that? I have heard other Horowitz performances of this piece that were not so extreme although not particularly to my liking either. Why are some people impressed by what for any other pianist would just be called a severe case of banging? I think so many other pianists play this piece so much better.
I think a lot is due to the distortion and what seems to be saturation of the mic. Here is another version, there is still some distortion but it is much better. Still quite some banging but due to the poor recording quality, it is difficult to say how it actually sounded origianlly.
This sounds far better, and I thought it was very good except for what is for me a beyond ridiculous introduction with its willful and outrageously out of place pianissimos or ff playing. I think sometimes Horowitz was afraid of boring the public and so played some inappropriate dynamics just to shock or keep the audience "interested". But I don't think they are musically justified at all. He can't seem to play some pieces without making some huge dynamic change every ten seconds.
The OP's choice to post what I think is such a terrible recording, whether due to the playing or the recording conditions, shows that some people are impressed by crass banging and dynamics that IMO have little to do with the music.
For me, the dynamic choices Horowitz sometimes makes have nothing to do with "dynamic range". Why play fff if the composer writes f or play pp with composer writes mp?
Just move farther away...
And then you will understand why..
Horowitz was not a moron.
My gods are: Cortot, Horowitz, and Sofronitsky,
Started piano during COVID, hopefully I can play Rachmaninoff, Rubinstein, and Scriabin compositions one day...
If his performance really sounded like that it was quite horrible IMO. Incredibly willful. Why play fff when Chopin doesn't write that? I have heard other Horowitz performances of this piece that were not so extreme although not particularly to my liking either. Why are some people impressed by what for any other pianist would just be called a severe case of banging? I think so many other pianists play this piece so much better.
I think a lot is due to the distortion and what seems to be saturation of the mic. Here is another version, there is still some distortion but it is much better. Still quite some banging but due to the poor recording quality, it is difficult to say how it actually sounded origianlly.
This sounds far better, and I thought it was very good except for what is for me a beyond ridiculous introduction with its willful and outrageously out of place pianissimos or ff playing. I think sometimes Horowitz was afraid of boring the public and so played some inappropriate dynamics just to shock or keep the audience "interested". But I don't think they are musically justified at all. He can't seem to play some pieces without making some huge dynamic change every ten seconds.
The OP's choice to post what I think is such a terrible recording, whether due to the playing or the recording conditions, shows that some people are impressed by crass banging and dynamics that IMO have little to do with the music.
For me, the dynamic choices Horowitz sometimes makes have nothing to do with "dynamic range". Why play fff if the composer writes f or play pp with composer writes mp?
Just move farther away...
And then you will understand why..
Horowitz was not a moron.
??? What on earth does move farther away mean? "Understand why" about what?
This is the one I usually listen to, but the one with the shitty audio quality has something special to it. Maybe because it feels like I'm in the hall because the person recording seemed like they were in the front row.
The reason I appreciate the one I posted, is because there is a different kind of energy or bravado to the performance, it takes much more balls to play that way.
Also, I think the contrasts, and some of the tempi he chooses are much more ballsy in the Ann Arbor recording. I think maybe because it is at a college, he tried to play it more youthfuly way to impress younger audience (just speculation, talking out my ass here).
My gods are: Cortot, Horowitz, and Sofronitsky,
Started piano during COVID, hopefully I can play Rachmaninoff, Rubinstein, and Scriabin compositions one day...
Also, the thing you mean about him being able to control the mood of a room. I understand what you mean, and something that pissed me off when I went to my first ever concert (this Sunday), was the people who were playing did not understand this. Their dynamic range and transitions were not mood changing.
One played the Beethoven Sonata 16 in G major, and the staccato part or the like fortissimo da da da part or whatever, the contrast was there, but not enough to change the mood in the room. I feel like if you have the energy and the personality, to be careless in your demeanor, you can achieve this effect. I think you need a great confidence, and to be an artist in the sense that Rubinstein and such was. In every aspect, you must appreciate literature, have experiences, etc.
Controlling the mood of the room through your playing is very difficult and most artists don't achieve it, though the great ones work at it.
I don't think "controlling the mood of the room" has anything to do with being a great pianist or great musician. I've never read or heard of any great pianist talking about playing piano in those terms. And in the thousands of posts I've read on PW, I can't recall anyone mentioning this.
Have you ever been to a concert? I think it's really easy to feel this out and understand what this means. I never understood it, until I went to my first concert this Sunday. And, INSTANTLY, I noticed what everyone means by it. If you're a great pianist, you are able to control the mood in the room, its a visceral feeling that is sent across the whole room. The concert I went to, the pianists who played couldn't really control the mood or change it. Although technically, their performance was solid and likely followed score to a tee, to me it was a bit lackluster, because I don't feel the level of artistry that is shown in these recordings. Listen to any pianist from Chopin Comp today play this piece, I listened to nearly all of them, and was not impressed with one.
The thing that is special about this performance, is due to the 'crappy' recording, is the fact that you FEEL like you're in the room in front row, or it's as close as you can get (in my opinion), to what Horowitz sounded like in real life. Remember, a recording is completely different than seeing someone live, not only based off how the artist plays, but, the actual experience.
What I mean by step farther back is, imagine I put my piano in a closet and you hear me play inside the closet. It will sound like banging ofc.. Then step farther back, and you will hear my banging sound much different..
The same logic applies to a concert hall.
What truecrypt said about this in regard to Sofronitsky's tone. "Actually you "touched" a very interesting subject! Sofronitsky's touch was incredibly fast and intense. Every single sound produced this way is like a burst of energy... Such playing would seem rough and even distorted while listening in close proximity, but should you move couple yards farther and separate bursts would connect into wonderful lines and deep perspective. it's like seeing a great painting - get close and it turns into random spots... Just "move farther"!
Another rough quote about Horowitz, is that he would bang so mercilessly on the keys when he was younger, that you wouldn't even be able to listen to him play in a small room. Now, to me, that's what I consider music. The pianist who likes to bang, tends to be more passionate, interesting, and creative in my personal opinions. Some examples: Busoni, Horowitz, Friedman, Hoffmann, etc.
I think we just have a fundamental difference in beliefs on what makes this art interesting. I'd guess that you're a: Michelangeli, Schiff, Zimmerman, and maybe Rubinstein fan.
There is nothing wrong with that either, I love all those pianists, and for certain rep/certain moods they are great.
But, the ones I love the most are people like Cortot, Busoni, Horowitz, Neuhaus, Sofronitsky, etc. because they weren't afraid to put their own individuality into the art, and I think that's what elevates it. Anton Rubinstein said you should follow the score exactly yes, and I agree with that, but once you are able to play the composition in a way like that, which all of these masters can. There is a point where you can take liberties, in a good taste. You may think these are distasteful liberties, but, if everyone played the same what would the point be?
My gods are: Cortot, Horowitz, and Sofronitsky,
Started piano during COVID, hopefully I can play Rachmaninoff, Rubinstein, and Scriabin compositions one day...
Also, the thing you mean about him being able to control the mood of a room. I understand what you mean, and something that pissed me off when I went to my first ever concert (this Sunday), was the people who were playing did not understand this. Their dynamic range and transitions were not mood changing.
One played the Beethoven Sonata 16 in G major, and the staccato part or the like fortissimo da da da part or whatever, the contrast was there, but not enough to change the mood in the room. I feel like if you have the energy and the personality, to be careless in your demeanor, you can achieve this effect. I think you need a great confidence, and to be an artist in the sense that Rubinstein and such was. In every aspect, you must appreciate literature, have experiences, etc.
Controlling the mood of the room through your playing is very difficult and most artists don't achieve it, though the great ones work at it.
I don't think "controlling the mood of the room" has anything to do with being a great pianist or great musician. I've never read or heard of any great pianist talking about playing piano in those terms. And in the thousands of posts I've read on PW, I can't recall anyone mentioning this.
Have you ever been to a concert? I think it's really easy to feel this out and understand what this means. I never understood it, until I went to my first concert this Sunday. And, INSTANTLY, I noticed what everyone means by it. If you're a great pianist, you are able to control the mood in the room, its a visceral feeling that is sent across the whole room. The concert I went to, the pianists who played couldn't really control the mood or change it. Although technically, their performance was solid and likely followed score to a tee, to me it was a bit lackluster, because I don't feel the level of artistry that is shown in these recordings. Listen to any pianist from Chopin Comp today play this piece, I listened to nearly all of them, and was not impressed with one.
The thing that is special about this performance, is due to the 'crappy' recording, is the fact that you FEEL like you're in the room in front row, or it's as close as you can get (in my opinion), to what Horowitz sounded like in real life. Remember, a recording is completely different than seeing someone live, not only based off how the artist plays, but, the actual experience.
What I mean by step farther back is, imagine I put my piano in a closet and you hear me play inside the closet. It will sound like banging ofc.. Then step farther back, and you will hear my banging sound much different..
The same logic applies to a concert hall.
What truecrypt said about this in regard to Sofronitsky's tone. "Actually you "touched" a very interesting subject! Sofronitsky's touch was incredibly fast and intense. Every single sound produced this way is like a burst of energy... Such playing would seem rough and even distorted while listening in close proximity, but should you move couple yards farther and separate bursts would connect into wonderful lines and deep perspective. it's like seeing a great painting - get close and it turns into random spots... Just "move farther"!
Another rough quote about Horowitz, is that he would bang so mercilessly on the keys when he was younger, that you wouldn't even be able to listen to him play in a small room. Now, to me, that's what I consider music. The pianist who likes to bang, tends to be more passionate, interesting, and creative in my personal opinions. Some examples: Busoni, Horowitz, Friedman, Hoffmann, etc.
I think we just have a fundamental difference in beliefs on what makes this art interesting. I'd guess that you're a: Michelangeli, Schiff, Zimmerman, and maybe Rubinstein fan.
There is nothing wrong with that either, I love all those pianists, and for certain rep/certain moods they are great.
But, the ones I love the most are people like Cortot, Busoni, Horowitz, Neuhaus, Sofronitsky, etc. because they weren't afraid to put their own individuality into the art, and I think that's what elevates it. Anton Rubinstein said you should follow the score exactly yes, and I agree with that, but once you are able to play the composition in a way like that, which all of these masters can. There is a point where you can take liberties, in a good taste. You may think these are distasteful liberties, but, if everyone played the same what would the point be?
Your post is filled with so much, to put it bluntly, nonsense it's hard to know where to begin and will only comment briefly. I will certainly not take the time to address all your points because I'm sure I wouldn't convince you.
You are a beginner pianist who has been studying for a year or two. You say you went to your first concert recently. You are talking to someone who has played for more than six decades at a high amateur level and has been to many hundreds of concerts including several by Horowitz. I was at a level where I studied the Polonaise more than 50 years ago.
You posted a recording that you think is good but most people would find terrible for its sound and absurd banging. You find that exciting.
On top of all this you began your post with the sarcarstic "Have you ever been to a concert?"
The thing that is special about this performance, is due to the 'crappy' recording, is the fact that you FEEL like you're in the room in front row, or it's as close as you can get (in my opinion), to what Horowitz sounded like in real life.
It actually does not sound like Horowitz, what you seem to like is just the result of distortion and poor recording. I dont know how it was recorded. In 1977 there werent any cell phone (since you were not yet born, you should know that our cell phone capability are fairly recent) and to get such a banging, you must have the mic very close to the piano, even front row is not close enough. The recording equipement in 1977 was cumbersome, so no way it could have been recorded by an amateur.
