The greatest pianists are almost always encouraging of one another, and would be shocked to see so many people speaking here so vulgarly of one over another.
The greatest pianists are almost always encouraging of one another, and would be shocked to see so many people speaking here so vulgarly of one over another.
Lipatti superiore e di molto. Horowitz personalizza troppo e perde di vista...Scarlatti ! Senza nulla togliere a Vladimir, il più grande virtuoso di sempre, ma Dinu interpreta meglio.
Detesto questi asini che sparano giudizi come... quel pianista è il milgiore, l'altro che non vale nulla, Scarlatti non lo suiona nessuno come quello ecc ecc. Ma perchè noj asdcoltano e cercano di imparare invece di giudicare..
@ilovescarlatti infatti: sono entrambe divine, nella loro estrema differenza. la grandezza di scarlatti è proprio la sua apparente semplicità che permette grandi interpretazioni. questa sonata, tecnicamente apparentemente elementare, nasconde grandi dilemmi interpretativi, per quanto riguarda le dinamiche: questo video ne è la dimostrazione. la brillantezza di lipatti o l'introspezione divina di horowitz (che preferisco, ma è solo un mio parere) dimostrano l'immortalità di scarlatti
grazie per la risposta. .preferisco anch'io quella di Horowitz. Quella che preferisco è l'incisione,in diretta, Carnegie hall (confanetto Cbs) in cui Horowitz, staccando tempi più lenti e con respiro prodondo, conferisce al pezzo una tensione e una poesia straordinarie. Vi sono alcune sonate interpretate da Gilels, altrettanto magnifiche :alcune addiritura struggenti. Scarlatti immenso.....
Scarlatti (coem del resto Haydn....), non gode della fama che il suo genio s
I can't believe these idiots saying things like "Horowitz was not a first rate musician" or "Horowitz faked playing the piano". Why can't we just accept the fact that both these pianists were excellent in their own ways? Comparing these is like comparing apples and oranges.
@BachScholar Horowitz played it with his heart, all his heart. the problem, in these times we're living in, is that langbangbanglang is supposed to be a great piano player. everyone should make a step back and think about what really music is: divine inspiration or human special effects?
Fascinating comparison, opposite poles, Lipatti's purity a miracle and then Horowitz opening up another universe of color & contrast. How lucky to have heard both and to realise that great music,(yes, even this slender jewel!), is so much greater than any single interpretation of it.
I've never liked Horowitz, who is more brutal than musical. His tone is brittle and brassy as soon as he climbs above mezzo piano. Lipatti, had he lived long enough, would have been right up there with Josef Hofmann and Josef Lhevinne.
Can we pls stop arguments on who is better? The point is to enjoy the performances. Try to enjoy the clarity of Lipatti or the delicay of Horowitz, and stop whining. Also don't forget that Lipatti's is a much older, studio recording. He died in 1950 while the H. is in a live setting in 1968.
Horowitz was a Scarlatti specialist at a time when few others played Scarlatti. Even considering this, he does not impress compared to Lipatti, who excelled at everything. Horowitz probably played this piece a thousand times. Try comparing them with the K9 sonata; no contest, Lipatti by a milestone.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
cut out the mistakes!? shows what you know about piano playing. what Lipatti could do with the piano horowitz couldn't even visualize in his minds ear! the guy can't even keep a consistent tempo, a bedrock of all music let alone scarlatti. don't even get me started on how uneven his playing is....comparison between Lipatti and all these other so called pianists are obscene. there's simply no correlation. i guess you need to have a degree of talent to notice the OBVIOUS!!!!!difference.
That's all quite absurd. Horowitz' ability to keep a steady tempo was simply superhuman in earlier years. By the time of this recording he was well in his eighties; there are some uneven passages, yes (let's see how you play at that age), but miraculously they don't keep the music from living and breathing most beautifully. I am a great admirer of Lipatti's as well, but I don't find his K380 particularly impressive, whereas Horowitz' recording is simply a gem in piano recording history.
@Herxal in his 80's or 20's he couldn't do it.Horowitz's technique is just non-existent when compared to Lipatti(of course he's not alone in this).Horowitz used a special piano(a steinway d) with apparently feather light touch i.e. he couldn't play a normal instrument.also Lpatti's recording is mono.this comparison is ridiculous and discussing it just gives legitimacy to the charlatans such as Horowitz and many others,dead and alive.Horowitz isn't worthy of taking lessons from Lipatti.
@zvelekva I am afraid it has become obvious by now that you have no clue at all of piano playing ... The idea that a pianist would not be able to play any instrument except for his own, or that mono/stereo affects the interpretational matters I was discussing, is plain silly.
@Herxal why a super light and not a deep heavy piano?you're right,compared to Lipatti he can't play any piano including his own.if you don't realize how stereo affects sound as compared to mono than you're clearly an "expert" on sound,let alone piano playing.although you're also right that on this occasion mono/stereo makes no difference for reasons explained ad nauseam in previous comments.p.s.Lipatti reviewed a Horowitz concert and exposed him for the charlatan he is.
@zvelekva You seem to believe a light piano is easier to play than a heavy one: quite wrong. A light touch gives an advantage in speed, but is much more difficult to control in sound. Most pianists would feel very uncomfortable on Horowitz' piano since it would reveal also tiniest inaccuracies in their playing. Horowitz could cope with that because he was probably the greatest natural talent among 20th century pianists regarding sound control.
@Herxal Feel free to ignore the basic principles of physics.the piano action is a leaver mechanism.like an elaborate seesaw.put a kid at one end and 200 pound adult at the other and who controls the movement?why did Horowitz choose a super light shallow keyboard?p.s.if the rest isn't worth replying then i say we all go back to using mono.oh,and your opinion of Horowitz's pianistic skills are in stark contrast to Lipatti's...but what does he know.
Far from "exposing" Horowitz for the charlatan, Lipatti called him "the magician of keyboard" and " extraordinary pianist" He had some critical things to say about overintellectualizing some of the pieces in the first part of the concert, but also said that some pieces "were played more beautifully than one could ever dream of hearing them":
Lipatti concluded the review with "Brahms Valse in A flat was out of this world and words fail me with which to describe the magic. Encores were played most brilliantly and with conviction by fingers of steel. Horowitz will be the most extraordinary pianist of all times the day he is content to accept himself as he is."
In fact, Horowitz held reservations about his final piano, serial number CD443, given its heavy action.
The masterly playing in the Last Recording? Played on the heavy piano that Horowitz supposedly couldn't ope with.
I've sufficiently discredited you and shown your BS for what it is, I'll leave with a parting message: Your support of Lipatti actually makes him look bad. That's how much of an ignoramus you are. If you truly love the Romanian master, I advise you to... be smarter I guess.
You're right. And the keys were narrower to make octaves and larger stretches easier for Horowitz. And if you thought Gould would do a lot of tape splicing to fuse various takes together, H was worst in shear numbers, but in his case to fix wrong notes...and there were plenty.
I like how you (purposefully?) neglected to mention Horowitz received that piano in 1934. He'd already made his first Rach 3 recording, the Paganini etudes, the Marriage of Figaro et al.
"Horowitz's technique is just non-existent when compared to Lipatti".
What a fucking joke, even his greatest critics acknowledged Horowitz as THE technician, barring Hofmann. You're not informed enough musically or factually to contribute to this discussion. That, or you're intentionally being dishonest.
all recorded pianists including horowitz are at best talented amateurs.the only exception is dinu lipatti because he's the only one clearly in control of the instrument,i.e. a professional.lets accept this and move on.lets get out of this century,and more,of mediocrity.lipatti showed us the way and we must recognise this.the music deserves better....so much for the comparison.
Both are extraordinary! Lipatti favors sonic and formal excellence, within certain borders. Horowitz bewitches us with his magicianship, story telling and his color fantasy. His rhythm is more pronounced...
Lipatti's is a studio recording, Horowitz's is a live performance
Les deux versions sont excellentes : deux approches différentes certes mais au final ces deux Fabuleux pianistes montrent que la "perfection" peut être atteinte de différentes manières. Je pense qu'à cette comparaison il manque la version de William Kapell visible sur youtube et qui est tout aussi remarquable... à écouter absolument.
Lipatti's playing is truly delicate and refined -- but I find some phrases rushed.. it's funny... the tempo is uneven in an unintentional and unpleasing way.
I'm a Lipatti man on this occassion, I don't think this particular sonata needs much "nuance". I prefer the cleaner,crisper version as it would sound on the harpsichord.
The greatest pianists are almost always encouraging of one another, and would be shocked to see so many people speaking here so vulgarly of one over another.
magique7771 5 months ago
The greatest pianists are almost always encouraging of one another, and would be shocked to see so many people speaking here so vulgarly of one over another.
magique7771 5 months ago
Lipatti superiore e di molto. Horowitz personalizza troppo e perde di vista...Scarlatti ! Senza nulla togliere a Vladimir, il più grande virtuoso di sempre, ma Dinu interpreta meglio.
federricoilgrande 1 year ago
this comparison is valid... normally it´d be silly but both artists are gone.
Here are two YT speak commentaries that I picked up:
1. Horowitz rulezs , Lipatti suckszs or how about
2. aw , isn´t it terrible that he was taken away from us at such a young age
bonsema1 1 year ago
Detesto questi asini che sparano giudizi come... quel pianista è il milgiore, l'altro che non vale nulla, Scarlatti non lo suiona nessuno come quello ecc ecc. Ma perchè noj asdcoltano e cercano di imparare invece di giudicare..
ilovescarlatti 1 year ago 2
@ilovescarlatti infatti: sono entrambe divine, nella loro estrema differenza. la grandezza di scarlatti è proprio la sua apparente semplicità che permette grandi interpretazioni. questa sonata, tecnicamente apparentemente elementare, nasconde grandi dilemmi interpretativi, per quanto riguarda le dinamiche: questo video ne è la dimostrazione. la brillantezza di lipatti o l'introspezione divina di horowitz (che preferisco, ma è solo un mio parere) dimostrano l'immortalità di scarlatti
nimesse 1 year ago
@nimesse
grazie per la risposta. .preferisco anch'io quella di Horowitz. Quella che preferisco è l'incisione,in diretta, Carnegie hall (confanetto Cbs) in cui Horowitz, staccando tempi più lenti e con respiro prodondo, conferisce al pezzo una tensione e una poesia straordinarie. Vi sono alcune sonate interpretate da Gilels, altrettanto magnifiche :alcune addiritura struggenti. Scarlatti immenso.....
Scarlatti (coem del resto Haydn....), non gode della fama che il suo genio s
ilovescarlatti 1 year ago
@nimesse : cerca i Alexia Danacica K380
octavdanacica 3 months ago
HOLY CRAP!!! That's VLADIMIR??? He was HANDSOME! Wha...???? lol
I love this piece and will start it soon.
lllllllllllllll88 1 year ago
The comments are almost as much pleasure as the music. The intensity and varying precisions of both adds to their refinement.
lithead 1 year ago
I can't believe these idiots saying things like "Horowitz was not a first rate musician" or "Horowitz faked playing the piano". Why can't we just accept the fact that both these pianists were excellent in their own ways? Comparing these is like comparing apples and oranges.
BachScholar 1 year ago 3
@BachScholar
you are right. I hate such kind of people.
ilovescarlatti 1 year ago
@BachScholar Horowitz played it with his heart, all his heart. the problem, in these times we're living in, is that langbangbanglang is supposed to be a great piano player. everyone should make a step back and think about what really music is: divine inspiration or human special effects?
nimesse 1 year ago
Lipatti is way above. Don't compare him to Horowitz.
Lipatti has the best sound, the best sensibility.
Lipatti is pure. Not Horowitz.
pouchichi 2 years ago
@pouchichi. You are correct. And It is most unfortunate that the world lost such an amazing pianist/musician at such a young age.
Frozentoes1 1 year ago
Both are good.
rumpranger65 2 years ago
Fascinating comparison, opposite poles, Lipatti's purity a miracle and then Horowitz opening up another universe of color & contrast. How lucky to have heard both and to realise that great music,(yes, even this slender jewel!), is so much greater than any single interpretation of it.
NOSEhow2LIV 2 years ago 10
And which version, do you suppose, would the composer appreciate more - purity, or a 'universe of color & contrast' ?
organman52 2 years ago
I've never liked Horowitz, who is more brutal than musical. His tone is brittle and brassy as soon as he climbs above mezzo piano. Lipatti, had he lived long enough, would have been right up there with Josef Hofmann and Josef Lhevinne.
malbamope 2 years ago
Horowitz was not a first-rate musician. I totally agree with your comments. Lipatti was infallible as far as I am concerned.
organman52 2 years ago
Can we pls stop arguments on who is better? The point is to enjoy the performances. Try to enjoy the clarity of Lipatti or the delicay of Horowitz, and stop whining. Also don't forget that Lipatti's is a much older, studio recording. He died in 1950 while the H. is in a live setting in 1968.
AlexM1979 2 years ago
I doubt that either Lipatti or Horowitz would have anything bad to say about the other's performance. Both are simply superb.
TemperedWell 2 years ago 4
Horowitz wins by a milestone!! Hundred times more colours than Lipatti!!
katkula 2 years ago 2
Horowitz was a Scarlatti specialist at a time when few others played Scarlatti. Even considering this, he does not impress compared to Lipatti, who excelled at everything. Horowitz probably played this piece a thousand times. Try comparing them with the K9 sonata; no contest, Lipatti by a milestone.
FlashyCat2008 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
cut out the mistakes!? shows what you know about piano playing. what Lipatti could do with the piano horowitz couldn't even visualize in his minds ear! the guy can't even keep a consistent tempo, a bedrock of all music let alone scarlatti. don't even get me started on how uneven his playing is....comparison between Lipatti and all these other so called pianists are obscene. there's simply no correlation. i guess you need to have a degree of talent to notice the OBVIOUS!!!!!difference.
zvelekva 2 years ago
That's all quite absurd. Horowitz' ability to keep a steady tempo was simply superhuman in earlier years. By the time of this recording he was well in his eighties; there are some uneven passages, yes (let's see how you play at that age), but miraculously they don't keep the music from living and breathing most beautifully. I am a great admirer of Lipatti's as well, but I don't find his K380 particularly impressive, whereas Horowitz' recording is simply a gem in piano recording history.
Herxal 2 years ago
@Herxal in his 80's or 20's he couldn't do it.Horowitz's technique is just non-existent when compared to Lipatti(of course he's not alone in this).Horowitz used a special piano(a steinway d) with apparently feather light touch i.e. he couldn't play a normal instrument.also Lpatti's recording is mono.this comparison is ridiculous and discussing it just gives legitimacy to the charlatans such as Horowitz and many others,dead and alive.Horowitz isn't worthy of taking lessons from Lipatti.
zvelekva 2 years ago
@zvelekva I am afraid it has become obvious by now that you have no clue at all of piano playing ... The idea that a pianist would not be able to play any instrument except for his own, or that mono/stereo affects the interpretational matters I was discussing, is plain silly.
Herxal 2 years ago
@Herxal why a super light and not a deep heavy piano?you're right,compared to Lipatti he can't play any piano including his own.if you don't realize how stereo affects sound as compared to mono than you're clearly an "expert" on sound,let alone piano playing.although you're also right that on this occasion mono/stereo makes no difference for reasons explained ad nauseam in previous comments.p.s.Lipatti reviewed a Horowitz concert and exposed him for the charlatan he is.
zvelekva 2 years ago
@zvelekva You seem to believe a light piano is easier to play than a heavy one: quite wrong. A light touch gives an advantage in speed, but is much more difficult to control in sound. Most pianists would feel very uncomfortable on Horowitz' piano since it would reveal also tiniest inaccuracies in their playing. Horowitz could cope with that because he was probably the greatest natural talent among 20th century pianists regarding sound control.
(The rest of your comment is not worth replying.)
Herxal 2 years ago
@Herxal Feel free to ignore the basic principles of physics.the piano action is a leaver mechanism.like an elaborate seesaw.put a kid at one end and 200 pound adult at the other and who controls the movement?why did Horowitz choose a super light shallow keyboard?p.s.if the rest isn't worth replying then i say we all go back to using mono.oh,and your opinion of Horowitz's pianistic skills are in stark contrast to Lipatti's...but what does he know.
zvelekva 2 years ago
I totally agree.
Gould was right, Horowitz "faked" playing the piano.
Frozentoes1 2 years ago
Rofl. Quoting Glenn Gould in a dispute. XD
It was because of his jealousy of Horowitz that he drove him to transcribe Ravle's La Valse.
demosj 1 year ago 3
Far from "exposing" Horowitz for the charlatan, Lipatti called him "the magician of keyboard" and " extraordinary pianist" He had some critical things to say about overintellectualizing some of the pieces in the first part of the concert, but also said that some pieces "were played more beautifully than one could ever dream of hearing them":
vova47 2 years ago 4
Lipatti concluded the review with "Brahms Valse in A flat was out of this world and words fail me with which to describe the magic. Encores were played most brilliantly and with conviction by fingers of steel. Horowitz will be the most extraordinary pianist of all times the day he is content to accept himself as he is."
vova47 2 years ago 2
In fact, Horowitz held reservations about his final piano, serial number CD443, given its heavy action.
The masterly playing in the Last Recording? Played on the heavy piano that Horowitz supposedly couldn't ope with.
I've sufficiently discredited you and shown your BS for what it is, I'll leave with a parting message: Your support of Lipatti actually makes him look bad. That's how much of an ignoramus you are. If you truly love the Romanian master, I advise you to... be smarter I guess.
demosj 1 year ago 3
You're right. And the keys were narrower to make octaves and larger stretches easier for Horowitz. And if you thought Gould would do a lot of tape splicing to fuse various takes together, H was worst in shear numbers, but in his case to fix wrong notes...and there were plenty.
Frozentoes1 2 years ago
I like how you (purposefully?) neglected to mention Horowitz received that piano in 1934. He'd already made his first Rach 3 recording, the Paganini etudes, the Marriage of Figaro et al.
"Horowitz's technique is just non-existent when compared to Lipatti".
What a fucking joke, even his greatest critics acknowledged Horowitz as THE technician, barring Hofmann. You're not informed enough musically or factually to contribute to this discussion. That, or you're intentionally being dishonest.
demosj 1 year ago 4
Horowitz is the best! Also "live play" without any chance to cut out mistakes as Lipattis recording.
Not even a close call for me!
HOROWITZ!
maxhansendk 2 years ago
I love Both!!! I like Horowitz,his precizion, and Lipatti with his frazing and sound!!!
lilia1997 2 years ago 2
Bravo, GREAT VLADIMIR HOROWITZ!!!
saturn6226 2 years ago 2
all recorded pianists including horowitz are at best talented amateurs.the only exception is dinu lipatti because he's the only one clearly in control of the instrument,i.e. a professional.lets accept this and move on.lets get out of this century,and more,of mediocrity.lipatti showed us the way and we must recognise this.the music deserves better....so much for the comparison.
zvelekva 2 years ago
they're maseratti and porsche to me. Horowitz owned this piece; Lipatti wrecked everyone with his Sonetto 104 del petrarca. Cheers.
libetta 2 years ago
Both are extraordinary! Lipatti favors sonic and formal excellence, within certain borders. Horowitz bewitches us with his magicianship, story telling and his color fantasy. His rhythm is more pronounced...
Lipatti's is a studio recording, Horowitz's is a live performance
88Woland 2 years ago 4
Horowitz, no doubt.
amtq 2 years ago 3
i'm not the biggest fan of scarlatti. i always find his music a little too "prancy" so it's hard to judge without some sort of biased opinion.
But if i must judge between the two, i would go for the Horowitz for sure. Lipatti is just too light. the music itself is already a ditty as it is.
dommodpoo1 2 years ago
I think horowitz is the best pianist of every times...he gives to me incomparable emotions...
gabpant 2 years ago 3
Les deux versions sont excellentes : deux approches différentes certes mais au final ces deux Fabuleux pianistes montrent que la "perfection" peut être atteinte de différentes manières. Je pense qu'à cette comparaison il manque la version de William Kapell visible sur youtube et qui est tout aussi remarquable... à écouter absolument.
givemetime123 2 years ago
Lipatti's playing is truly delicate and refined -- but I find some phrases rushed.. it's funny... the tempo is uneven in an unintentional and unpleasing way.
newyorkslim2001 2 years ago
I love both. thanks.
ykmgt 2 years ago 7
I'm a Lipatti man on this occassion, I don't think this particular sonata needs much "nuance". I prefer the cleaner,crisper version as it would sound on the harpsichord.
WolfgangusMozartus 2 years ago
I find the Horowitz version more engrossing.
jacgallo 2 years ago 4
Horowitz wins. Lipatti is immaculately played, Horowitz more nuanced, more moving.
pvonberg 2 years ago 4
Perfection itself is imperfection.
- VH
1fattyfatman 2 years ago
Maybe that's because Lipatti didn't live to nuance his playing... he lived only 33 years, Horowitz 86.
I find quite unique how Lipatti touches the piano... so delicate, so reffined...
viosnake 2 years ago 4