@ifjanna I totally agree !!!! Horowitz always makes a lot of mistakes and to me it sounds like he doesn't trully love playing piano - it's just an opinion !
Whoever plays the first rendition: I feel that his elegance betrays him in expressing this piece... as the piece has a wild and desperate nature that is not well served by fine manners.
i doubt if a person who can play a rachmaninoff very badly could be described as an amateur . if he can play a rachmaninoff , at ANY level , then hes NO amateur .
Amazing how some people comment on Cliburn sounding amateurish? Who is this person? Another talks about Horowitz as if he was still learning. I never knew there were so many authoritarians on classic piano. I mean, we're talking about 2 of the 5 greatest pianists of the 20th century as if they were grade school rejects. You like them or you don't like them. I don't think any of you really have the credentials to pass judgement on their skills.
Rigel48 - thanks for pairing these two renditions. They are my two favorites. Van Cliburn's is note perfect, clean, and technically brilliant. Horowitz's is full of fire and passion backed with pure mastery! I enjoy listening to them back-to-back. Thanks again.
As fantastic as Horowitz is, I think it's safe to say some of his recordings here on YouTube aren't his best. I'm sure he was unbeatable in his prime though.
Both are genius. I prefer Horowitz, although he makes a lot of mistakes on this record, but his interpretation here is beautiful. Better than his earlier records where he plays is faster than Rachmaninoff himself.
Van Cliburn plays it with very "Russian soul" couldn't find any better performance. He plays so juicy. Horowitz sounds plane and really tired a lot of mistakes (((((
@ifjanna I totally agree !!!! Horowitz always makes a lot of mistakes and to me it sounds like he doesn't trully love playing piano - it's just an opinion !
andreea140794 1 month ago
Whoever plays the first rendition: I feel that his elegance betrays him in expressing this piece... as the piece has a wild and desperate nature that is not well served by fine manners.
VelikyUstyug1 4 months ago
i doubt if a person who can play a rachmaninoff very badly could be described as an amateur . if he can play a rachmaninoff , at ANY level , then hes NO amateur .
olliephelan 7 months ago
Amazing how some people comment on Cliburn sounding amateurish? Who is this person? Another talks about Horowitz as if he was still learning. I never knew there were so many authoritarians on classic piano. I mean, we're talking about 2 of the 5 greatest pianists of the 20th century as if they were grade school rejects. You like them or you don't like them. I don't think any of you really have the credentials to pass judgement on their skills.
lamontlewis 9 months ago
Rigel48 - thanks for pairing these two renditions. They are my two favorites. Van Cliburn's is note perfect, clean, and technically brilliant. Horowitz's is full of fire and passion backed with pure mastery! I enjoy listening to them back-to-back. Thanks again.
originalmooster 11 months ago
@ifjanna
As fantastic as Horowitz is, I think it's safe to say some of his recordings here on YouTube aren't his best. I'm sure he was unbeatable in his prime though.
keetner 11 months ago
Caraaaaaakaaaaaaaaaaaa, Chookeeei ' = O
rafaelasperandio 11 months ago
it hurts my eyes to read your words
whitfield12 1 year ago
Both are genius. I prefer Horowitz, although he makes a lot of mistakes on this record, but his interpretation here is beautiful. Better than his earlier records where he plays is faster than Rachmaninoff himself.
planetarysign 1 year ago
Van Cliburn plays it with very "Russian soul" couldn't find any better performance. He plays so juicy. Horowitz sounds plane and really tired a lot of mistakes (((((
ifjanna 1 year ago