Horowitz in New Haven 1966 - 13b - Liszt - Vallée d'Obermann pt 2

[martaKetamin]

Charisma

[kasyapa]

it was one of the things he mastered the most - or it mastered him?

[kasyapa]

i think you need to study piano history a bit better - it is the opposite of amateurish. you choosing brendel as part of your y/t name may be significant here.

the small things you point out are unimportant.

[FABrendel]

Piano history is on my side. Listen to any piano master other than Horowitz and you will notice that their re-recordings don't "vary in a very considerable extent". Doing so, is as stupid as contradicting yourself, as an interpretation is a stablished statement.

Your argumentation of my nick is very foolish, indeed.

What i pointed out is very important as far as interpretation goes. At this level, what makes one better than the other are details.

What are the important things, then?

[kasyapa]

you are factually incorrect about history. listen to hofmann - there is an ever-shifting variety, and he was hailed a master by the masters. even godowsky and rachmaninoff were not etched in stone. an interpretation is not necessarily eternal - chopin himself said he never played anything twice the same way! beethoven varied things, too. mozart ornamented varyingly too. i'm afraid you'll just have to educate yourself out of modernism and cease bailing out a sunken ship (or engulfed cathedral).

[FABrendel]

With due respect to Mr. Horowitz this is not only an awful arrangement, it is also a bad interpretation.

[kasyapa]

i think the arrangement is good but h's interpretation not so good - the one he released on records is far better. i see this pirate as an interesting document of horowitz working out his interpretation, with of course some wonderful moments - and, in this case, some not-good ones.

[FABrendel]

I haven't heard his studio recording. I guess it may be better as you are pointing out. However, at this level, pianists should sound the same recorded or live, at least on the interpretative side.

[ric55]

If people did a bit of research by listening to Horowitz's "pirated" recordings they would soon perceive that he varied his performance of a piece on different occasions to a very considerable extent. Good for him-exactly what Busoni, Anton Rubinstein, and Josef Hofman did in recital. Perhaps persons could enumerate what is bad or wrong about this performance? I have studied this piece in its original form, final form and the various combinations played by others-and I think this is great.

[FABrendel]

Well, to "vary a performance of a piece to a very considerable extent", is something really amateurish, to me.

I also play this piece and what i dislike is:

0:44-0:53 he plays the mordents really loud for the melody which isn't "appassionato" as the score says.

0:54 He changes that same dynamic for that horrible waltz-like melody and the bass isn't FF as it should.

That same problem is carried till 1:09.

3:31-3:50 no arpeggios.

That's just for part 2 and without counting slips, which are a lot.

[kasyapa]

on the contrary, pianists from his school did not want to sound alike and should not try. that's true of most of the old masters, too.

[jefftam1234]

go back and jerk off to Brendull

[xujia1001]

I certainly haven't done much research in a professional perspective. But I did some readings about his life and ofc, I know the french novel which is the literature origine of this piece. Despite the funny stories you made about Liszt which are based nowhere, what's your point towards this performace after all? Do you agree or disagree with Horowitz?

[deandusk]

well of course horowitz is fun.

for me he's kind of a circus man.

he's brilliant of course !

but i myself couldn't do anything he does, so practically he's nothing to learn from

[xujia1001]

Horowitz built up his career over technical brilliance. That being said, other pianists could do what he could, Rachmaninoff, Cortot, Hoffmann, Lipatti, etc. the list is long. But they cared more about music. Horowitz had some wonderful musical moments too, but frankly, any piece he played, you can find another better version. Like this piece of Liszt, Richter's rendition is much better.

[deandusk]

richter recorded this ? do you have the recording ??

[xujia1001]

Yea he did, some time around 1954, Moscow. I will see if I can upload that. Meanwhile, you can perhaps check out Trucrypt's channel, he has plenty of Richter.

[123mortimer456]

If "other pianists could do what he could" and "cared more about music", then why did musicians venerate him so? Why did Brendel, Argerich, Pogorelich, Mutter, and many others sit star-struck in his recitals? Why does Zimerman still spend time in his master classes marveling about a 1985 recital? Why did mature, professional pianists break down crying in his recitals? Why did Rachmaninov and Toscanini worship him? By all means, criticize, but do show some respect!

[xujia1001]

I have not shown disrespect to Horowitz. You have taken my point quite badly. But I understand your point. He was a legend in terms of pianism, and no wonder younger pianists venerated him. His comtemporains had a quite different view over him. But they didn't survive longer enough, Lipatti died at the age of 31.

[xujia1001]

The names of other pianists I mentioned were all great musicians, and if by chance you only know Horowitz so far, it would be pity. Comparision is easy to make. Give yourself a chance. I have posted Richter's version of this performance.

[xujia1001]

Rachmaninoff and Toscanini were a generation older than Horowitz, it was normal they showed some kindness towards a brilliant young man. Cortot gave lessons to Horowitz, but he gave up after having witnessed Horowitz's disregard towards ideal music. Lipatti wrote articles critising Horowitz for the same reason. Yes, I certainly have preferences towards other old pianists. If you insist Horowitz champion Rachmaninoff, Cortot, Lipatti, Hoffman, I wouldn't think there is a base to talk to you.

[123mortimer456]

You distort the historical record. Rachmaninoff and Toscanini did not merely show "some kindness" toward Horowitz. They had the deepest respect, even veneration, for his artistry, as do many great musicians today, such as Perahia and Pollini. Horowitz had great flaws, but your blanket dismissal of his musicianship (other pianists "care more about music"; he has "disregard towards ideal music") is both false and disrespectful of this musical giant.

[123mortimer456]

I agree with you, by the way, on the greatness of Rachmaninoff, Cortot, Lipatti, Hoffman, and Richter. Horowitz is not "greater" than they. But admiration for others does not justify disrespecting Horowitz. The cheap shots you take at his musicianship are neither original nor accurate.

[xujia1001]

I don't deny he was a piano giant. His infulence is huge and many people consider him as the best and the only pianist. But it wouldn't be bad for Horowitz gospels to hear other pianists and give them a chance.

[crazypianistik]

Horowitz was one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. You cannot deny this. But, I believe, that once an artist reaches a certain level of greatness (genius perhaps), he cannot be compared to others in the same level. For this reason, you cannot compare Richter to Horowitz, Gilels to Richter. They're all of the same level, they just have different abilities, and some pieces one brings out more in and in others he brings less.

[xujia1001]

Well, this is a comment I can accept. But still, for this performance, Horowitz is not that good.

[crazypianistik]

This is all relative, that is your opinion. I, for one, believe that Horowitz brings something out in this piece that no one else does. Is this his best performance? I wouldn't say so. But please don't try to diminish his greatness.

[cziffra1980]

Because he changed a dynamic? Or do you have a valid reason for criticism?

[RAINZHOU09]

I agree

he speed up too at end part and made a lot of mistakes

but it's still nice, 5 stars also

This is piece is one of the hardest piece

[cziffra1980]

"Funny stories" about Liszt? I agree with Horowitz's right to change a handful of dynamics entirely and I also find the performance extremely emotionally powerful and orchestrally realised. Check out the published account of Liszt's masterclasses. If you knew a little more, you might think twice, before claiming this is 'not Liszt'- on comically naive grounds.

[xujia1001]

It's so Horowitz, but not Liszt.

[cziffra1980]

Bullshit. Go and read up on Liszt- because you obviously know very little about him.

[xujia1001]

So tell me what you know.

[cziffra1980]

For a start, he fact that he didn't give a damn if a student wished to alter a few notes within his texts. He was not a man of pedantic 20th century ideals.

However, the onus is on you here. If this is 'not Liszt', perhaps you could define a basis as to why?

[xujia1001]

His treatment of the Piu mosso section is very careless. Liszt puts FF on each group of 3 octaves on the left hand, clearly for a sort of musical and rythmical emphasis. But it is not what Horowitz did. On the high notes, we barely hear the melody and thus, no development is well enough demonstrated.

But I know that Horowitz fans can never accept the fact he could play crap too. So whatever...

[cziffra1980]

Sure, and the many modern pianists who can treat every instruction as gospel (but manage very little else) are more representative of what Liszt wanted, I suppose? As I already pointed out, he didn't care if people changed his notes and neither did he care about minor alterations to dynamics. If you think you're in a position to judge what is 'not Liszt, you should really go and do some research, rather than depend on twenieth century ways of literalism that are totally alien.

[cziffra1980]

Also, despite your implication, I think that some Horowitz performances are awful. However, if you seriously think you're in a position to speak on Liszt's behalf (about what he supposedly would have considered invalid) you ought to do some research. Presumably you've never heard the story about how he famously inverted the dynamics in a Chopin Etude? I'm afraid you've been brainwashed with a set of ideals that Liszt had no interest in. What he valued were CHARACTER and SOUND. Not pedantry!

[JakWho92]

I would better shut up if my name would include cziffra

[AChrisL]

3 months later, I am in total agreement with you. Liszt was definitely sound and performance over pedantry. He transcribed Beethoven's Symphonies to piano for crying out loud...I would venture to guess that there is at least one dynamic marking on one of the piano scores in contradiction to Beethoven's as well...

[Jerrez]

I read in a biography of liszt that he changed his technique when he was about 30 years old. He started to play with flat fingers so maybe horowiz has a littlebit the sound that Liszt had...think about that