I think Barere had a better technique than Horowitz did, as did many pianists. Horowitz's strengths are his colorful musicianship, though he did have a solid technique. Barere had one of the biggest techniques in history.
Poor chap dying on stage - never heard of him before - brilliant performance - coming to think of it he must have raised his cardiac output a fair bit to play like this
@marcxopoco Horowitz was the best pianist, dead or alive, the media or no media- Horowitz had a magnetism and stage presence that matched his exquisite musicianship- and it is true that the business of music over looked many deserving artists, but such is natural selection.
I liked Horowitz's rendition of Islamey, and his changes to the end make sense. This Barere is definitely one of the greats, but he takes the beginning so fast that he has to slow down less than a minute in.
One of the old time great recordings of this piece. Never heard the middle section played so beautifully: it is not just Barere's gorgeous tone but also his ability to bring out the oriental flavour of this music. Truly a classic recording!
I went to a piano festival in NY a few years ago, and a roomful of pros, including concert artists and Juilliard professors, listening to a Barere recording, just laughed helplessly in wonderment (and envy). He wasn't trying to play fast--it came easily for him. His son, Boris, talked about it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
too fast, just because it CAN be done doesn't mean it should be. This piece is about finding the maximum level of exciting speed while keeping the balance and clarity. This just sounds hectic even though he is getting the notes mostly. Try Berezovski for the perfect example.
berezovski articulates with clarity all the notes in the fast sections, his tone is crisp and sharp with a beautifully clear staccato. his middle section is projected simply but beautifully. other pianists try too hard for speed in the outer sections and put too much uneccessary distortion in the slow middle.
How strange to want to set great interpreters against one another.After hearing Horowitz' Islamey,it reminded me what a naturally exciting andLIVEmusician he was,even with faults,and tho I was upset by the cuts and changes,I was deloght by color,details,etc.Barere is v fine inother ways;the intro 2 2nd section is most sensitive and is probably a better version to"live with"The piece can bring out the best in otherwise uninspore pinists;Bore-is-Bear-is-off-his-key,for example,fine athlete!
Horowitz's, though extremely interesting, is for me, nowhere near as convincing as Barere's. Indeed, a proper comparison is not justified as Horowitz makes two very significant edits during the closing sequence - and alters the coda to such a degree that it could almost be said to evolve into a paraphrase. Many have speculated this might have been the reason why Wanda (his wife) did not authorize its release.
Like I said, it's only speculation. Though I must say, I feel his alterations in Islamey seem to have far less logic behind them than those he makes in Pictures. The two edits don't make any sense to me, he cuts part of the middle section and then the entire passage leading upto and including the octave glissando just prior to the coda.
What he does with the coda itself is more arguable but I still find it very difficult to make constructive comparisons between his version and that of other pianists who don't take such unexpected detours.
By contrast, in his Pictures - which I adore -he adds things, especially towards the climax, he makes it sound more like Ravel's orchestration. That I can comprehend.
There are still wonderful aspects to it I grant you, those razor sharp octaves, the unmistakable and hair-raising dynamic range, but the assertion that he renders all other interpretations pale is surely an overstatement. Barere, Gavrilov, Berezovsky, Katchen, Pletnev, Cziffra, Kuzmin, Judd and Kissin are all, in my view, more than a match.
Dear Razaak, I agree with you that the cuts/alterations towards the end and especially in the coda aren't an improvement of the original. But what remains is simply out of this world in terms of sound, contrasts, emotion, style, excitement, passion, rhythmic drive, sutbleties etc. etc.
Gavrilov, Kissin and Pletnev are peasants in comparison.
The recording of Barere here is virtuosic and technically secure, but, and I have to agree with cziffra1980, musically not very inspiring; there is a little bit of daily round creeping in, so it seems, and all the sudden changes of tempo (often due to too much temperament) in musically unlogical places don't help.
Again, this is obviously a question of taste. Some virtuosos and humble connoisseurs (like myself!) view this work as a "relentless" assault course of progressively treacherous obstacles, never allowing the pianist a chance to back out once committed. As far as tempo changes in musically illogical places go, that is once more pure opinion.
Horowitz sacrifices speed in the turbulent outer sections to emphasize rhythm (not a bad thing) but by contrast, his middle section is dashed off too quickly and to my ears, lacks significant tenderness and charm, Barere is beautifully sensual here, which more intensely accentuates the subsequent drama.
I don't think H. is playing that slower, just more rhythmically, and Balakirev notated "il ritmo ben marcato" on the third page, so that's the right thing to do. The score is full of dynamic contrasts, and Horowitz really respects this.
The middle part is notated "Andantino espressivo" and "poco scherzando" and that's exactly what H. is doing. Barere is too slow here, and lacks nostalgia and passion.
As for the cuts in the last pages, well, I'm not even sure if it such a bad thing to do. There is a certain fatigue too listen again to some virtuosic passages based upon the same two themes, and the particular pages are full of ossia's anyway. It is certainly in the Lisztian tradition to skip a few passages.
Only the very end of Islamey in Horowitz' version is maybe a little weaker (with the "blind octaves" chromatically added), the original by Balakirev is powerful enough - but I'm quite sure that Horowitz wouldn't have played it like this in the recording-studio...
He may observe most-though by no means all-of the written dynamics more accurately than Barere, but his middle section, though perhaps in tempo (it's by far the fastest I've ever heard) is to me, inconsiderate, full of self-indulgence - not to mention superfluous crescendi - and does not merge at all well with the rest of his performance, indeed, I find it almost annoyingly wilful.
He may observe most-though by no means all-of the written dynamics more accurately than Barere, but his middle section, though perhaps in tempo (it's by far the fastest I've ever heard) is to me, inconsiderate, full of self-indulgence - not to mention superfluous crescendi - and does not merge at all well with the rest of his performance, indeed, I find it almost annoyingly wilful.
As for the finale, ossias or otherwise, it is scarcely the same work, one can't have it both ways. What you appear to be saying is, where Horowitz does observe the score, he is more correct and where takes such huge liberties, these are wholly justifiable and arguably superior to the original. I find it almost impossible to argue on that basis. Also, what he would have done in a studio is pure speculation and hence, wholly irrelevant, we must rely on what evidence we have.
At any rate, it would seem our respective views are unshakable, so if you prefer Horowitz, I quite understand and fully respect your tastes. Others too, shall no doubt form their own opinions. By far the most important thing is that we both appear to love the music these wonderful musicians are interpreting. My utmost thanks for the discussion!
(No, I'm not saying that Horowitz' alterations are superior to the original, only that in the Romantic [post]Liszt-tradition - and this piece is belonging to this tradition - there is a lot of freedom and indiviuality allowed, and to me the cuts/alterations do make sense musically...)
I agree. Horowitz plays faster, bur as usual his performance sounds slower then it is, because of great readability. Horowitz nowhere lost pulse - fundamental element of Islamei. And the first tempo is Allegro agitato, not Prestissimo.
I ask this in all humility since vocal music is much more my expertise (as a listener) than piano, does Alfred Brendel's early version of Islamey at all compare with any of the others mentioned?
I am an avid reader of the comments you make on singers which undoubtedly must be the product of decades of concentrated listening. It is always a delight to read them. By the way, I was curious to hear, if possible, your own views on the Brendel recording, and which, if any, you liked among the many versions.
Thank you for the compliment. I have indeed been listening to vocal music, particularly opera singers, for several decades, and never tire of it. I also have a modest collection of famous pianists and some knowledge of their style and technique, but not a great deal. I have my personal preferences though, and admire Brendel's playing for a variety of composers, including this piece. I either have not heard or do not remember other performances of the work. However, Horowitz is always a favorite.
Thank you for the reply. I was not a Brendel fan until I came across some of his early recordings here on youtube. I had known for some time the Brahms #2 Concerto he recorded with Abbado and the Berlin Philharmonic. That, definitely, is a great recording for me. But it rather made me a reconfirmed Abbado admirer. As for the early Brendel recordings, Petrouchka and Islamey among others have become my favorites. (Though I must be quick to add that I do not like ISLAMEY, the piece itself I mean.)
I don't find it particularly hard to compare the orchestral variety and the tonal beauty of Horowitz's rendition with Barere's flatter version. So what if he left out a few sections? That is supposed to stop me from noticing the level of musicality involved?
Look for Horowitz's unreleased Carnegie Hall performance online. Musically speaking there is just no comparison at all. Horowitz makes every single occurence of the repetitions different. This sounds as dead as a piano roll, half the time. The tediously metromical lyrical sections sound like most modern pianists would play them. Not a breath throughout...
Your critiques of Barere are essentially the regurgitated ignorance of critics from the 40s. Very dated. Barere's live Carnegie Hall performance is even better than the present one (which, I might add, is still far more technically secure than Horowitz's). It's one thing to be a fan of Horowitz (I am too), but to spew vitriol about other artists who have blatantly surpassed Horowitz in a couple corners of the repertoire is just embarassingly partisan.
So what if it's more technically secure than Horowitz? I didn't criticise it on those grounds. I said that it's not particularly interesting musically. I love the old-school players, but Barere came as a massive let down, compared to the real greats. The lyrical sections are very ordinary here.
PS. I'm not quite sure how I have 'regurgitated' this 'ignorance' that I have never even read.
That's a bit too harsh, although I also prefer Horowitz...it's brilliant virtuosic playing (which suits the music), maybe a little superficial, but to my ears not "dead"...
Barere makes Horowitz look like a schoolboy in this piece. Barere's tempo is MUCH faster than Horowitz'.
Barere's recording of Islamey puts Horowitz to shame.
Barere puts Horowitz in the same embarrassing position in a comparison of their recordings of Schumanns Traumeswirren, the Schumann Toccata, the Liszt Sonata in B minor.
Barere's recording of Blumenfeld's Etude for the Left Hand Alone made Horowitz stop playing the piece.
Except contrast. Barere's recordings can be terribly monochromatic. This isn't a bad performance by any means, but it doesn't even approach Horowitz' lyricism. A great deal of it is just note-spinning by comparison.
A do not agree. This performance is almost colorless "need for speed" only. In Horowitz's speed has various emotional expression - humour, movement, power etc. The middle part is far better performed by Horovitz, too.
Barere changes tempo depending on complexity of score. He even "eats" endings with dotted semiquarters (3 sixteenths, metrum is 12/16). It is virtuoso performance, but as musical creation is Horowitz' is far, far better. The Barere's middle part id too slow (Adagio, not Allegretto) and nowhere scherzando. It is good in legato, but has this one dimension only.
As far as technique goes, Barere's octave fragments have "clusters" and he must slow down there a lot, not be able to keep the pulse.
The fact that Horowitz promoters like mesina have to try to put attention on the middle section is proof they know Barere embarrasses their Horowitz badly here.
Barere plays what are known as 'phrases'--EIGHT bars at a time. That is why he leaves Horowitz in the dust..
I've put attention to border parts as well. Phrases are musical breathing, and in Bareres performance there is unsufficient time control between neither 2-bars-modules, nor 8-bars phrase segments. He changes termpo to "fastest possible" depending on structure complexity. Therefore also there is no corespondence between phrases in 1-voice and their octaves variants. This phrase pulsation is basic in performance construction, particularly modular, like Islamey.
Horowitz is sold as a great virtuoso. But Barere is a much greater virtuoso and pianist. That is mesina's problem. Barere plays octaves BETTER than Horowitz, scales better than Horowitz, trills better than Horowitz, double notes better than Horowitz and plays much faster than Horowitz. All the gibberish in the world by shills like mesina cant change that. Poor mesina. The media-brainwashed Horowitz contingent cannot change the fact that Barere plays better than their Horowitz.
I still believe disputing between which pianist is better in such a agitating and arrogant demeanor is useless and full of trite. So dear marc, please keep your insults to yourself and continue the discussion.
Anyway, I personally prefer Horowitz because I think it has more clear and effective tempos - Barere needs to slow down a bit. And could someone clear why Barere was a greater pianist than Horowitz? :)
Compare Horowitz' time for the middle-section of the middle-section of his Schumann Toccata to Barere's. There, Barere's octaves were nowhere close to Horowitz's. Compare their Scriabin etudes 8/12. Barere plays everything as fast as possible until the climax. He plays everything not-so-difficult fast until he's forced to slow down at the most virtuosic passages, where Horowitz surpassed him effortlessly.
So no, Barere was not Horowitz's equal or superior. Don't even joke about that.
Horowitz salesman demosj falsifies to sell his product.
Barere's octaves put Horowitz to shame. And Horowitz was sold as the 'octave player.' Compare Horowitz and Barere in the Liszt Sonata octave passages and Horowitz is badly embarrassed. And Barere's was a live performance while Horowitz recorded it in a studio.
Chill. I respect Barere (and have uploaded recordings by him). He had great fingers and was an underrated musician. But there's no way his octaves were better than Horowitz's. In fast octave passages Barere either slows down or becomes messy. Barere's musicianship is unfairly criticised because he plays fast, but saying that he's better than Horowitz in this department is untenable. Listen to both of them play the Schumann Toccata.
misina, Thank you for your regurgitation of the media 'talking points' on their product--Horowitz.
In the real world Barere was Horowitz' master in every aspect of pianism. Horowitz knew it---and dropped a number of pieces from his repertoire after hearing Barere play them--including this one.
Rofl, conspiracy theory much? It isn't as if Barere didn't have any publicity - he died on stage, while performing the . That kind of pr stunt trumped anything Horowitz could ever pull off.
Horowitz only dropped the Blumenfeld left-hand etude after hearing Barere play it. Nice exaggeration though, turning a single study into a "number of pieces".
Anyway, I guess every obscure pianist must have their fanatic supporter. I guess it just shows that Barere's playing needs to be defended, huh?
See? Only unfocused ad-hominem attacks, no rebuttal to my pointing out Horowitz never dropped pieces. BARERE of all people making Horowitz change his repertoire? Lol.
What does your "franticness" reveal when you rage about Horowitz in Barere videos A lot of desperation there...
Here's more: Horowitz graduated at the age of 16 with the Don Juan fantasy, it took Barere YEARS of splicing and studio pyrotechnics to record a competent performance of it.
Super!!
helenlinpiano 4 months ago
I think Barere had a better technique than Horowitz did, as did many pianists. Horowitz's strengths are his colorful musicianship, though he did have a solid technique. Barere had one of the biggest techniques in history.
glic7236 6 months ago
Bravura playing.
gerardbedecarter 8 months ago
Do yourself the favour of listening to this as played by Kissin (yes, Kissin) live in Amsterdam, 2002.
JoFrSc 1 year ago
Poor chap dying on stage - never heard of him before - brilliant performance - coming to think of it he must have raised his cardiac output a fair bit to play like this
! - thanks so much for posting
daithom14 2 years ago
demosj is the ultimate Horowitz groupie.
demosj's hero is DESTROYED by Barere
In every area Horowitz was touted as the best by the bought and paid for media.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
@marcxopoco Horowitz was the best pianist, dead or alive, the media or no media- Horowitz had a magnetism and stage presence that matched his exquisite musicianship- and it is true that the business of music over looked many deserving artists, but such is natural selection.
Bruce88keys 4 months ago
@Bruce88keys is the best panderer for Horowitz, dead or alive.
marcxopoco 4 months ago
I liked Horowitz's rendition of Islamey, and his changes to the end make sense. This Barere is definitely one of the greats, but he takes the beginning so fast that he has to slow down less than a minute in.
hophmi 2 years ago
Incredible playing! Bravo!
paulostroff99 2 years ago 4
really the best!
framaulo 2 years ago 6
One of the old time great recordings of this piece. Never heard the middle section played so beautifully: it is not just Barere's gorgeous tone but also his ability to bring out the oriental flavour of this music. Truly a classic recording!
ginzburgfan 3 years ago 11
incredibile!!!!
sugarve 3 years ago 7
I went to a piano festival in NY a few years ago, and a roomful of pros, including concert artists and Juilliard professors, listening to a Barere recording, just laughed helplessly in wonderment (and envy). He wasn't trying to play fast--it came easily for him. His son, Boris, talked about it.
quodlibette 3 years ago 9
Cet artiste avait une pression énorme sur les épaules,et il en est littéralement mort.
Il a été le parfait produit d'une époque engagée dans la surenchère pianistique.
antoinezygfryd 3 years ago
tu veux dire quoi exactement?
framaulo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
too fast, just because it CAN be done doesn't mean it should be. This piece is about finding the maximum level of exciting speed while keeping the balance and clarity. This just sounds hectic even though he is getting the notes mostly. Try Berezovski for the perfect example.
englishplayer40 3 years ago
Berezovski?
he is an perfect example?
why you say that
Tiszt 3 years ago
berezovski articulates with clarity all the notes in the fast sections, his tone is crisp and sharp with a beautifully clear staccato. his middle section is projected simply but beautifully. other pianists try too hard for speed in the outer sections and put too much uneccessary distortion in the slow middle.
englishplayer40 3 years ago
well, it says on the score: allegro agitato.
aewanko300 3 years ago
eh, this is to englishplayer.
aewanko300 3 years ago 2
How come he can play so fast?
Besides he plays it fast, he also plays it so clear, unbelievable!
Tiszt 3 years ago 5
How strange to want to set great interpreters against one another.After hearing Horowitz' Islamey,it reminded me what a naturally exciting andLIVEmusician he was,even with faults,and tho I was upset by the cuts and changes,I was deloght by color,details,etc.Barere is v fine inother ways;the intro 2 2nd section is most sensitive and is probably a better version to"live with"The piece can bring out the best in otherwise uninspore pinists;Bore-is-Bear-is-off-his-key,for example,fine athlete!
fartlestucks 3 years ago
If you're looking for the fastest player that ever lived my vote is for Simon Barere. However, this is an incredibly exciting performance.
heathersma 4 years ago 3
By the way, volodya2, the exact title of the piece is "Islamey".
pianopera 4 years ago
Horowitz's, though extremely interesting, is for me, nowhere near as convincing as Barere's. Indeed, a proper comparison is not justified as Horowitz makes two very significant edits during the closing sequence - and alters the coda to such a degree that it could almost be said to evolve into a paraphrase. Many have speculated this might have been the reason why Wanda (his wife) did not authorize its release.
Razaak 4 years ago 4
If that was true, then why was Horowitz' rendering of Mussorgsky's "Pictures", full with (disputable) alterations, released a long time ago?
Horowitz' version of Islamey is full of nostalgia, colour, splashes of sound, it makes every other performance look pale in comparison.
Btw interesting that Barere and Horowitz had the same Jewish background and teacher, Felix Blumenfeld.
pianopera 4 years ago
Like I said, it's only speculation. Though I must say, I feel his alterations in Islamey seem to have far less logic behind them than those he makes in Pictures. The two edits don't make any sense to me, he cuts part of the middle section and then the entire passage leading upto and including the octave glissando just prior to the coda.
Razaak 4 years ago 2
What he does with the coda itself is more arguable but I still find it very difficult to make constructive comparisons between his version and that of other pianists who don't take such unexpected detours.
Razaak 4 years ago
By contrast, in his Pictures - which I adore -he adds things, especially towards the climax, he makes it sound more like Ravel's orchestration. That I can comprehend.
Razaak 4 years ago
There are still wonderful aspects to it I grant you, those razor sharp octaves, the unmistakable and hair-raising dynamic range, but the assertion that he renders all other interpretations pale is surely an overstatement. Barere, Gavrilov, Berezovsky, Katchen, Pletnev, Cziffra, Kuzmin, Judd and Kissin are all, in my view, more than a match.
Razaak 4 years ago
Dear Razaak, I agree with you that the cuts/alterations towards the end and especially in the coda aren't an improvement of the original. But what remains is simply out of this world in terms of sound, contrasts, emotion, style, excitement, passion, rhythmic drive, sutbleties etc. etc.
Gavrilov, Kissin and Pletnev are peasants in comparison.
pianopera 4 years ago
The recording of Barere here is virtuosic and technically secure, but, and I have to agree with cziffra1980, musically not very inspiring; there is a little bit of daily round creeping in, so it seems, and all the sudden changes of tempo (often due to too much temperament) in musically unlogical places don't help.
pianopera 4 years ago
Again, this is obviously a question of taste. Some virtuosos and humble connoisseurs (like myself!) view this work as a "relentless" assault course of progressively treacherous obstacles, never allowing the pianist a chance to back out once committed. As far as tempo changes in musically illogical places go, that is once more pure opinion.
Razaak 4 years ago
Horowitz sacrifices speed in the turbulent outer sections to emphasize rhythm (not a bad thing) but by contrast, his middle section is dashed off too quickly and to my ears, lacks significant tenderness and charm, Barere is beautifully sensual here, which more intensely accentuates the subsequent drama.
Razaak 4 years ago 2
I don't think H. is playing that slower, just more rhythmically, and Balakirev notated "il ritmo ben marcato" on the third page, so that's the right thing to do. The score is full of dynamic contrasts, and Horowitz really respects this.
The middle part is notated "Andantino espressivo" and "poco scherzando" and that's exactly what H. is doing. Barere is too slow here, and lacks nostalgia and passion.
pianopera 4 years ago
As for the cuts in the last pages, well, I'm not even sure if it such a bad thing to do. There is a certain fatigue too listen again to some virtuosic passages based upon the same two themes, and the particular pages are full of ossia's anyway. It is certainly in the Lisztian tradition to skip a few passages.
pianopera 4 years ago
Only the very end of Islamey in Horowitz' version is maybe a little weaker (with the "blind octaves" chromatically added), the original by Balakirev is powerful enough - but I'm quite sure that Horowitz wouldn't have played it like this in the recording-studio...
pianopera 4 years ago
I hardly think we can now revert to the specifics of the score when Horowitz makes so many obvious alterations -- both dynamically and materially.
Razaak 4 years ago 3
He may observe most-though by no means all-of the written dynamics more accurately than Barere, but his middle section, though perhaps in tempo (it's by far the fastest I've ever heard) is to me, inconsiderate, full of self-indulgence - not to mention superfluous crescendi - and does not merge at all well with the rest of his performance, indeed, I find it almost annoyingly wilful.
Razaak 4 years ago 2
He may observe most-though by no means all-of the written dynamics more accurately than Barere, but his middle section, though perhaps in tempo (it's by far the fastest I've ever heard) is to me, inconsiderate, full of self-indulgence - not to mention superfluous crescendi - and does not merge at all well with the rest of his performance, indeed, I find it almost annoyingly wilful.
Razaak 4 years ago
As for the finale, ossias or otherwise, it is scarcely the same work, one can't have it both ways. What you appear to be saying is, where Horowitz does observe the score, he is more correct and where takes such huge liberties, these are wholly justifiable and arguably superior to the original. I find it almost impossible to argue on that basis. Also, what he would have done in a studio is pure speculation and hence, wholly irrelevant, we must rely on what evidence we have.
Razaak 4 years ago
At any rate, it would seem our respective views are unshakable, so if you prefer Horowitz, I quite understand and fully respect your tastes. Others too, shall no doubt form their own opinions. By far the most important thing is that we both appear to love the music these wonderful musicians are interpreting. My utmost thanks for the discussion!
Razaak 4 years ago
You're welcome, Razaak!
(No, I'm not saying that Horowitz' alterations are superior to the original, only that in the Romantic [post]Liszt-tradition - and this piece is belonging to this tradition - there is a lot of freedom and indiviuality allowed, and to me the cuts/alterations do make sense musically...)
And I understand completely if you prefer Barere!
pianopera 4 years ago
Weaker? I cannot express my astonishment at your statement.
mishima1974 4 years ago
I agree. Horowitz plays faster, bur as usual his performance sounds slower then it is, because of great readability. Horowitz nowhere lost pulse - fundamental element of Islamei. And the first tempo is Allegro agitato, not Prestissimo.
misina101 2 years ago 2
I ask this in all humility since vocal music is much more my expertise (as a listener) than piano, does Alfred Brendel's early version of Islamey at all compare with any of the others mentioned?
meltzerboy 2 years ago
I will have to listen to it first!
But generally, I am not really a fan of Brendel in the (late) Romantic repertoire, I like him more in the Viennese Classics.
pianopera 2 years ago
Hello.
I am an avid reader of the comments you make on singers which undoubtedly must be the product of decades of concentrated listening. It is always a delight to read them. By the way, I was curious to hear, if possible, your own views on the Brendel recording, and which, if any, you liked among the many versions.
himitsunosallychan 2 years ago
Thank you for the compliment. I have indeed been listening to vocal music, particularly opera singers, for several decades, and never tire of it. I also have a modest collection of famous pianists and some knowledge of their style and technique, but not a great deal. I have my personal preferences though, and admire Brendel's playing for a variety of composers, including this piece. I either have not heard or do not remember other performances of the work. However, Horowitz is always a favorite.
meltzerboy 2 years ago
Thank you for the reply. I was not a Brendel fan until I came across some of his early recordings here on youtube. I had known for some time the Brahms #2 Concerto he recorded with Abbado and the Berlin Philharmonic. That, definitely, is a great recording for me. But it rather made me a reconfirmed Abbado admirer. As for the early Brendel recordings, Petrouchka and Islamey among others have become my favorites. (Though I must be quick to add that I do not like ISLAMEY, the piece itself I mean.)
himitsunosallychan 2 years ago
I don't find it particularly hard to compare the orchestral variety and the tonal beauty of Horowitz's rendition with Barere's flatter version. So what if he left out a few sections? That is supposed to stop me from noticing the level of musicality involved?
cziffra1980 4 years ago
Look for Horowitz's unreleased Carnegie Hall performance online. Musically speaking there is just no comparison at all. Horowitz makes every single occurence of the repetitions different. This sounds as dead as a piano roll, half the time. The tediously metromical lyrical sections sound like most modern pianists would play them. Not a breath throughout...
cziffra1980 4 years ago
Nobody cares what you think.
Schnabel87 4 years ago
However, undoubtedly there is a considerable mass of people who feel that your own comment has provided a valuable contribution...
cziffra1980 4 years ago
and apparently you 'cared' enough to reply?
cziffra1980 4 years ago
Your critiques of Barere are essentially the regurgitated ignorance of critics from the 40s. Very dated. Barere's live Carnegie Hall performance is even better than the present one (which, I might add, is still far more technically secure than Horowitz's). It's one thing to be a fan of Horowitz (I am too), but to spew vitriol about other artists who have blatantly surpassed Horowitz in a couple corners of the repertoire is just embarassingly partisan.
Schnabel87 4 years ago
So what if it's more technically secure than Horowitz? I didn't criticise it on those grounds. I said that it's not particularly interesting musically. I love the old-school players, but Barere came as a massive let down, compared to the real greats. The lyrical sections are very ordinary here.
PS. I'm not quite sure how I have 'regurgitated' this 'ignorance' that I have never even read.
cziffra1980 4 years ago
You're do the name "Cziffra" a profound disservice.
Schnabel87 4 years ago 3
Really? Of course, Artur Schnabel was known to be a massive fan of the style championed by Barere...
cziffra1980 4 years ago
That's a bit too harsh, although I also prefer Horowitz...it's brilliant virtuosic playing (which suits the music), maybe a little superficial, but to my ears not "dead"...
pianopera 4 years ago
Barere makes Horowitz look like a schoolboy in this piece. Barere's tempo is MUCH faster than Horowitz'.
Barere's recording of Islamey puts Horowitz to shame.
Barere puts Horowitz in the same embarrassing position in a comparison of their recordings of Schumanns Traumeswirren, the Schumann Toccata, the Liszt Sonata in B minor.
Barere's recording of Blumenfeld's Etude for the Left Hand Alone made Horowitz stop playing the piece.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
I was talking about music, not a sprint. Barere only had speed. His orchestration is minimal.
wayneredhart 2 years ago
Wayne,
You are clueless.
Not to mention totally tone deaf.
Barere's colors and pedaling are the best.
He put Horowitz to shame in every area of pianism.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
Except contrast. Barere's recordings can be terribly monochromatic. This isn't a bad performance by any means, but it doesn't even approach Horowitz' lyricism. A great deal of it is just note-spinning by comparison.
wayneredhart 2 years ago
A do not agree. This performance is almost colorless "need for speed" only. In Horowitz's speed has various emotional expression - humour, movement, power etc. The middle part is far better performed by Horovitz, too.
misina101 2 years ago
There is nothing wrong with Horowitz' playing of the middle section.
Bur Barere's is far better., Barere was twice the pianist that Horowitz was.
And Horowitz was no slouch.
Horowitz got all the pr.
And Barere was shut out of the career the should have had by those who controlled the US music scene.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
Barere changes tempo depending on complexity of score. He even "eats" endings with dotted semiquarters (3 sixteenths, metrum is 12/16). It is virtuoso performance, but as musical creation is Horowitz' is far, far better. The Barere's middle part id too slow (Adagio, not Allegretto) and nowhere scherzando. It is good in legato, but has this one dimension only.
As far as technique goes, Barere's octave fragments have "clusters" and he must slow down there a lot, not be able to keep the pulse.
misina101 2 years ago
What gibberish from mesina.
The fact that Horowitz promoters like mesina have to try to put attention on the middle section is proof they know Barere embarrasses their Horowitz badly here.
Barere plays what are known as 'phrases'--EIGHT bars at a time. That is why he leaves Horowitz in the dust..
Poor mesina doesn't have a clue what that means.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
I've put attention to border parts as well. Phrases are musical breathing, and in Bareres performance there is unsufficient time control between neither 2-bars-modules, nor 8-bars phrase segments. He changes termpo to "fastest possible" depending on structure complexity. Therefore also there is no corespondence between phrases in 1-voice and their octaves variants. This phrase pulsation is basic in performance construction, particularly modular, like Islamey.
Who is 'mesina' you attack?
misina101 2 years ago
Horowitz is sold as a great virtuoso. But Barere is a much greater virtuoso and pianist. That is mesina's problem. Barere plays octaves BETTER than Horowitz, scales better than Horowitz, trills better than Horowitz, double notes better than Horowitz and plays much faster than Horowitz. All the gibberish in the world by shills like mesina cant change that. Poor mesina. The media-brainwashed Horowitz contingent cannot change the fact that Barere plays better than their Horowitz.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
No, marcxopoco, I think it is just the other way about. I see any substancial discussion makes you a little furious, so will stop. ;-)
But could you calm down for a while and answer the question, who is "poor mesina", that still appears between your Barere's dogmas?
misina101 2 years ago
I still believe disputing between which pianist is better in such a agitating and arrogant demeanor is useless and full of trite. So dear marc, please keep your insults to yourself and continue the discussion.
Anyway, I personally prefer Horowitz because I think it has more clear and effective tempos - Barere needs to slow down a bit. And could someone clear why Barere was a greater pianist than Horowitz? :)
Sinfoniette 2 years ago
Compare Horowitz' time for the middle-section of the middle-section of his Schumann Toccata to Barere's. There, Barere's octaves were nowhere close to Horowitz's. Compare their Scriabin etudes 8/12. Barere plays everything as fast as possible until the climax. He plays everything not-so-difficult fast until he's forced to slow down at the most virtuosic passages, where Horowitz surpassed him effortlessly.
So no, Barere was not Horowitz's equal or superior. Don't even joke about that.
demosj 2 years ago
Horowitz salesman demosj falsifies to sell his product.
Barere's octaves put Horowitz to shame. And Horowitz was sold as the 'octave player.' Compare Horowitz and Barere in the Liszt Sonata octave passages and Horowitz is badly embarrassed. And Barere's was a live performance while Horowitz recorded it in a studio.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
@demosj Horowitz did exactly the same - as fast as possible and then realized that it was too fast.
TsarBovov 1 year ago
Chill. I respect Barere (and have uploaded recordings by him). He had great fingers and was an underrated musician. But there's no way his octaves were better than Horowitz's. In fast octave passages Barere either slows down or becomes messy. Barere's musicianship is unfairly criticised because he plays fast, but saying that he's better than Horowitz in this department is untenable. Listen to both of them play the Schumann Toccata.
whatsmylogin 2 years ago 2
misina, Thank you for your regurgitation of the media 'talking points' on their product--Horowitz.
In the real world Barere was Horowitz' master in every aspect of pianism. Horowitz knew it---and dropped a number of pieces from his repertoire after hearing Barere play them--including this one.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
Impossible, because Horowitz has played Islamey even after Barere's death.
misina101 2 years ago
Rofl, conspiracy theory much? It isn't as if Barere didn't have any publicity - he died on stage, while performing the . That kind of pr stunt trumped anything Horowitz could ever pull off.
Horowitz only dropped the Blumenfeld left-hand etude after hearing Barere play it. Nice exaggeration though, turning a single study into a "number of pieces".
Anyway, I guess every obscure pianist must have their fanatic supporter. I guess it just shows that Barere's playing needs to be defended, huh?
demosj 2 years ago
demosj has it backwards.
Horwitz has a walking army of the clueless like demosj who swallow every word their media feeds them.
They know that that Barere destroys Horowitz in the very areas Horowitrz is sold by the clueless media as the 'best.'
Their franticness on display here on a thread that has nothing to do with Horowitz reveals their hatred and fear of Barere.
marcxopoco 2 years ago
See? Only unfocused ad-hominem attacks, no rebuttal to my pointing out Horowitz never dropped pieces. BARERE of all people making Horowitz change his repertoire? Lol.
What does your "franticness" reveal when you rage about Horowitz in Barere videos A lot of desperation there...
Here's more: Horowitz graduated at the age of 16 with the Don Juan fantasy, it took Barere YEARS of splicing and studio pyrotechnics to record a competent performance of it.
Don't be frantic, argue your case.
demosj 2 years ago