Hearing him live was a revelation. The recordings never did him justice. Even in the last row in the highest balcony, his pianissimo felt like he was sitting next to me, whispering in my ear. And the fortissimo? Thunder and lightning.
Dear Sarah, i exactly lived the same thing at his 1985's concert in Paris. At the end of Moszkowsky, an unreal pppp which sounded near me, as if he was playing the seat next to me... magical, superhuman and charismatic!
Which Paris concert did you attend? I was at the second one. At the first one he played Kreisleriana. For me the greatest moment was the ending of the Scriabin Etude op 8 no 12. The darkness and power of those bass notes! They seemed to blow the roof off the hall.
Some are good. Try May 1965. I've always found the sound to be remarkably realistic. Same for the other Carnegie Hall recordings from the 60s. Also 1953, though it's mono. And all the recordings from 1985 onward are quite good, sound-wise. The last one, from 1989, is beautifully intimate.
Yes, that "thunder and lightening" had a lot to do with how his piano was voiced. He would routinely ask his tuner to shave the felt off the hammers to produce a more brilliant sound - on the already bright sounding NY Steinway (compared to the Hamburg). Michael Ponti had the biggest sound I have ever witnessed, and he produced that sound on a regularly voiced concert grand. He was THE powerhouse pianist.
@@franksmith541 I heard Horowitz live five times, in 1978, 1980, 1982, 1985, and 1986. What struck me the most about his fortissimi was not their brilliance but rather their darkness, richness, dramatic power. They had a frightening, thundering, abyss-like quality that would shake you to the bones. And at any rate, they were only one of many facets of his technique. The pianissimi were, if anything, even more stunning - velvety, disembodied, floating, like a world-class string quartet. All in all, I think your comments about the preparation of his piano has as much explanatory power as comments about Federer's or Nadal's or Djokovic's preparation of their respective rackets.
@@filipekon8020 Olga Kern is so underrated - mostly because there's hardly any recordings of her. If I was a record label I'd have her recording everything.
I love how he modifies the score and makes the final run down the piano keys an extra octave lower, just so he can show off his ability to produce massive sound.
Many great pianists modify their instruments. Michelangeli comes to mind, or Pollini, or Rubinstein (who preferred a heavy key action). And the very act of choosing a piano from a particular maker is in itself a kind if modification. Gieseking's sound is that of a marvelous Bechstein. Backhaus embodies the warmth of Boesendorfer. Hewitt's clarity and precision are enhanced by her Fazioli. The whole thing is no different than tennis players optimizing their rackets. It's not the racket modifications that make Djokovic the best in the world. Rather, the modifications allow him to play his best.
No pianist had the vast range of tonal colors of Horowitz, allowing him to bring out inner voices and contrapuntal melodies with remarkable clarity. His use of rubato was superb, and his clarity and technique were without compare. Fanboys can throw out the names of many fine pianists, but Vladimir Horowitz was the greatest.
Not True! More colorful beautiful piano sound than Horowitz=Wilhelm Kempff Emil Gilels Radu Lupu Artur Rubinstein Vladimir Ashkenazy Grigory Sokolov! More genius than Horowitz=Sviatoslav Richter Solomon Cutner Grigory Sokolov Maurizio Pollini Stanislav Bunin Maria Grinberg! More powerful louder than Horowitz=Mikhail Pletnev(Prokofiev piano concerto no 1 by Pletnev) The Second Loudest ever was Lazar Berman! The 3rd Loudest was Erwin Nyiregyhazi!!
It's not true, Horowitz had no good ear, he couldn't improvise even the simplest things, he was really a keyboard acrobat, but not a complete musician. CZIFFRA was immensely superior to Horowitz in technique, and he was also a brilliant musical improviser. Horowitz was more of a commercial phenomenon at his time (does the Grammy Awards tell you something?)
Not close. The 7th chords in that decending run are not that dissonant. He doesn't attempt to hit the correct keys but just bangs the wrong keys. He's actually my favorite performer of this piece but it's incredibly difficult to play the 7th chords correctly and he doesn't try here.
@@debussy843 Well... this is the first time I've ever heard someone say that a given performance is their favourite of that piece, even though it has wrong notes and the performer didn't even try to get them right. Why does Horowitz change the score as often as he does? I've heard him turn notes written in the score as single notes into octaves, I've heard him pplay octaves an octave or two below what was written, and I've heard him turn octaves into full crashing chords low in the bass, just giving a crude effect - bang, crash, thump, bang, crash - it seems to impres some audiences. But he sometimes seems to lack respect for what the composer wrote.
@@michaeledwards1172 The 1968 audio of his live performance is my favourite, not what's shown above. I'm not sure when the above video was. Regardless, he smashed the 7th chords in both performances, not attempting to his the correct keys. Also, I've commented before in other videos of his arrogance to think he knows better than the composers. I've settled with him as my favourite performer of this piece despite that because everyone else is substantially worse. Hamelin and Lasista are good examples of hitting the correct notes and it sounding like trash from start to finish. Complete waste. Lugansky does not sound like trash, but it's sooooooo boring!!!!
One of the few pianists show limited body movement and yet producing such a sublime sound. I remember a remarkable quote of Vladimir Horowitz as ''I don't need to show off my emotions through my body, they are inside my soul'' something like that...
I LOVE sounds like this. Cataclysmic textures that include 'wrong notes' - but sound 'right' - because they add sonority, colour, and sheer bombast. Nyiregyhazi was the king of it though - check out his Dohnanyi Rhapsody!
@@herobrine1847 Surely not the only reason . There are legendary pianists who have displayed extraordinary pianism, for example Dinu Lipatti, Gieseking etc. U dont listen Nyeregazi performances of that level.
I went through a Horowitz-phase back in the 80s when he was all the buzz because of his return to health and the Moscow concert. Some really wonderful moments of music he created. I will always admire his playing, but experience has made me appreciate him without fawning. There are simply too many great pianists that could do things Horowitz could not or didn't try. Once I heard Josef Lhevinne and Rachmaninoff and Hoffman I realized there was a whole generation of people before him that appreciated what he brought to the table without being intimidated. And Horowitz himself expressed sorrow that he wasn't able to play the great German repertoire which he considered more serious than the Romantic repertoire he specialized in to the level of Serkin or Arrau. He was also frustrated that he couldn't technically match the power, drive, clarity and spontaneity of Hoffman (who can? the guy was inhuman) And there are criticisms from people that are worth noting. Arrau said that Horowitz created a lot of great excitement with his octaves but he could only do them for a short span. He contrasted that with Teresa Carreno who he said could create as big a sound and go all day. He said he thought the walls of the theater would cave in when she played. And he had his equals among his own super virtuoso generation. Earl Wild had better overall control of sound and Jorge Bolet could polish off a giant piece like the Wagner-Liszt Tannhauser Overture paraphrase in a way I doubt Horowitz would have been able to hold together. And then there's Cziffra. Among the younger men, Marc Andre Hamelin crossed timellines in his career with Horowitz and would have made a young Horowitz take him seriously. Horowitz was exceptional for what he did and he was unique but he did have limitations and he knew how to emphasize what he did the best most of the time.
Simply taking what's being given; a wonderful humility, actually, in a richest world of repertoire and performers. Happily past are the days when one was expected to choose between a Gould or a Rubinstein, and yet happily here are the days when we can still freely do so if our authenticity demands it of us, after seeing all that has past. The polarities, contrasts and parallelisms held appropriately make it an even "goldener" age, if we seek it out. Cheers.
@@cmaxwellmusic80 With a permanently mangled hand. He was a genius. But having seen Horowitz live about 20 times I don’t completely agree with the criticism above.
@@leeringduckling Scriabin. He was untouchable in Scriabin's works. His strengths also according to Harold C. Schonberg and I think he's correct is that Horowitz was at his best in miniatures. Chopin Mazurkas, Schumann Kinderzenen, individual preludes and etudes.
Rachmaninoff gave Horowitz permission to do with his Sonata #2 whatever he wished. The Sony CD won 2 Gramophone Awards. This clip is from London available on an RCA CD.
@@thelostgenius1212 Yes, his Rach 2 really does nothing for me.I wish more people would watch Cyprian Katsaris whos recording of Chopins Polonaise in F# minor opus 44 is I believe the greatest piano recording ever made.
Perhaps people should stop referring to what Rachmaninoff have said to Horowitz as a sign of greatness. The options in his time were limited. They are not today. Stop patronizing fossilized performers, when there's just as good (if not better) talent today.
To think that Horowitz knew Rachmaninoff during his lifetime, and that my own piano tutor met and engaged with Horowitz in London during the 1980s. He played on Horowitz's Steinway at the Festival Hall. True piano royalty.
@@estesfox That "labienus9968" is not me-but this came to me So rather than saying anything of your own, you take the time to condescend to people who have an enthusiasm for a pianist-which seems a pretty benign "flaw" in this world
@@alanpotter8680Yes, there is. Of course, this particular passage does not call for humility. Quite the contrary. Even the most humble and ego-free pianist would seek to produce a cataclysmic sound when playing this. On the flipside, even Horowitz was capable of musical humility, as shown by his excellent recordings of Mozart and Schubert over the decades.
@gerry30...one other thing you mentioned, your hearing him, Horowitz during the 80ties. You need to go back, my friend. When we were hearing this guy during the late fifties via recordings prior to his first Sabatical. And subsequent return in Nineteen sixty five. The Album: Homage to Liszt, the " Funerail" and 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody. Saints Saens, " Danse Macabre", a really early recording say, from the late thirties or early nineties. The Tschaikowsky concero, B flat minor with Toscanini conducting. Find everything you can lay hands on of his playing prior to the fifties and late forties. This is the Horowitz we know of. And there is ( was ) nothing he could'nt do that Arrau, Serkin ( who by the way played very little romatic stuff ). Just Beethoven and Schubert. Truth be told, there was a lot he did that most of them would not have even dared to try. Because of their Limitations. Horowitz had No Limitations at the piano. None. Listen to Solomon and Arturo Benedetti Michaelangeli. Rubinstein who after meeting up with Horowitz and hearing him said. " I must start practising ". Earlier Horowitz, dude. In the eighties, he was getting very old. And died in 1989. Your local libraries can get these works via inter library loans, should they not have them amoungst their own collections.
I totally Agree! Middle and late Horowitz has special and very private repertoire and digitally recorded for those who prefer modern recordings. But his early stuff and mono recordings are just supreme and absolutely stunning! Intact his best Rach 3, in my opinion, are all the Mono recording s, mainly the 1940's❤
@@jimarthur2647 : My apologies for responding so late to your comments. Most afficionatos prefer the old records by RCA and even Columbia, though later. As for these younger folks thinking they're listening to a Light Weight, Horowitz' in the eighties. They'd be astounded if they could hear his pressing of Liszt's Rakoczy March, remastered via today's technology. As one writer said of Horowitz, if they thought he could have been matched. This piece alone would convince them otherwise, guaranteed!! When I heard him ( Homage to Liszt ) play the Funerail by Liszt. That left hand sequence? I said, " I thought it was Rubinstein who Is left handed. My teacher Hipped me on this piece, he'd first heard it performed by Artur Rubinstein. Nobody, none made the bass of the piano sound like Mr. Horowitz. Nor could anyone play more softly. He mastered the use of pedaling, an Art in itself. Harold Schoenberg in his book " The Great Pianist " said of Rachmaninoff's third D minor. At a live performance in the finale, the ending. " He, Horowitz swamped the orhestra" . Leaving some with an envious look on their faces. He also said, when Horowitz came to America. His playing had some thinking that he was possessed by a Demon. Nah, these guys haven't heard the Horowitz we're talking about.
@Ili Widmaier. Absolutely, your perfect analysis here. With one exception however. Ervin Nyiregyhazi's power. He returned to the scene after a long hiatus due to personal problems. His sound was wonderful to say the least. But, Columbia set up a recording session for him at some church or small Cathedral. Then afterwards, claimed that the decibles he produced surpassed those of Horowitz. Some pushed back on this assessment, due to the shall we say, the spaciousness of church quality, Acoustic wise. My words here. ' Kind of insulting at the time in my opinion, since Mr. Horowitz was also contracted by Columbia at the same time. Hence, the lust for money gone haywire. They tried to do the same thing with Lazar Berman, at least one well known classical radio station in Chicago. As for Glenn Gould. It's funny how he befriended Artur Rubinstein and Sviatoslav Richter, but couldn't stomach Horowitz for of course obvious reasons. As for other comparisons you've made. Certainly complimentary to these great Artist. Alfred Cortot was highly acclaimed as the greatest interpreter of this music. Hoffman, Michelangeli, and others you mentioned. I could add some other names,but why bother.
Richter, Horowitz, Gilels. They were all above top pianists for me. My subjective opinion is: Richter = best Schubert performance, Horrowitz = Chopin, Gilels = Rachmaninov. Horowitz's Marcha Funebre (Chopin) performance is extraordinary and spectacular.
I agree with the Richter/Schubert combination, but I've also loved Richter's Rachmaninov. I've never listened to Gilels. I'm so over Chopin. Alfred Cortot is the only one I can enjoy with that stuff.
@gerry30: Only a portion of your analysis of Mr. Horowitz here, is true. Teresa Carreno was born in 1853. And only from eye witnesses could she have been the monumental pianist described by so many. Levine and Hoffman were born in 1874 and ' 76. Thus, Horowitz could not possibly have heard any performances by either of these Giants. Rachmaninoff was a Super Virtuoso. But after hearing Horowitz's performance of his own concerto no.3 in d minor. He gave the piece to Vladimir. As for Arrau's assessment of Ms. Careno. I read about her power and probably manly strength in Harold Schoenberg's book, " The Great Pianist ". And it is possible that Claudio Arrau was like so many pianist, jealous of Horowitz. Of whom with all of their attributes just couldn't match what Horowitz brought to the table. That being aside from that tremendous sound he produced from the instrument without banging: His unique phrasing and touch. Horowitz threw out the Curved finger approach to playing the piano, with his literall Flat fingers over the keys. Employing the weight of the whole hand. As for his being reticent of the great German works, Beethoven being an example. We had the critics of music to thank for that. Some attempting to shame him from the transcriptions he enjoyed playing so much. No one else was trying them. As for Earl Wild. Technically to some extent, Horowitz's equal. But not in the production of that massive sound Horowitz drew out of the piano. No one else did in fact. Georgy Cziffra and Simon Barere were probably stronger than Horowitz. Certainly Cziffra after spending all of those years laboring in Russia's Gulags. But his natural genius at the instrument can't be denied. Still, he was never accepted as Horowitz's better. He never had the musical mind. Marc Andre Hamlin' s technical geniuse is just that. He falls into the same catagory of Mr. Cziffra. That quip about Horowitz's octave playing? Just plain silly. And a bold faced lie. Horowitz was reputed to be the best by all critics, professional and Lay people. Simply because of what he Said to his listeners over the entire lifetime of his performances. No one did it better. This is why no greater a keyboard player than Glenn Gould was so jealous of him. With all ofhis brilliance at J. S. Bach. He knew he couldn't out play Horowitz. And no one would have wanted to bear him even attempt to try. One of my own teachers did say, that all or most of the great pianist back in the early nineteenth century played like Hirowitz. Hoffman included, of course. But none were ascribed the label of Out Lisztian Liszt. And that's saying something.
Well put. There's a range and complexity to H's playing that no one else can match. He has Gould's polyphonic abilities, Michelangeli's elegance and smoothness, Kempff's intelligence and imagination, Cziffra's mechanical abilities, Hofmann's dynamic range, Cortot's penetration of the musical text, Ervin Nyiregyházi's power (almost), and a control and smoothness in the softest ranges that has no equal at all. And he combines all of that into a totally unique musical personality that, as you say, communicates the profoundest things about music.
Considering that he was almost 80 years old at the time and that this was about an hour and a half into this recital, this is incredibly impressive. He always played on the very limit of what he could do and that's why he often hit wrong notes. His wrong notes sound better than most pianists right notes!
@@Fritz_Maisenbacher Hello Fritz - firstly, I’d like to introduce myself. My name is Sam and I am doing some work on a Horowitz documentary that I wish to post this year…I am very excited to start working on it, as my research is nearing the end. I have seen many of your comments and know you are very passionate about Horowitz’s performances (as everyone should). I’d like to show you a document which has been practically hidden from the public for so long: Horowitz’s Schumann Carnaval from Philadelphia 1983. Michael Brown posted this a while back, but the document was a pitch higher and too fast - so I did the work of remastering the document as much as I could. I hope you enjoy it and encourage you to share this absolute hidden and misunderstood gem with as many Horowitz lovers as you can, as I will certainly do my best to do the same: we must not allow this hidden and misunderstood gem of a performance hide from the public eye any longer! ruclips.net/video/XSBeOm2YsGo/видео.html
Es Bahn, I thank you for posting this short snippet (and for all your other awesome videos). It's given rise to some really interesting comments. If you want to see my take on Horowitz, please see my two responses to Michael Davison, who sincerely asks what makes Horowitz so special. I tried my best to answer that excellent question. Also, I love your name. Es Bahn. Welche denn? München - Freising? Stuttgart - Schorndorf? I am a Southerner, as you can tell.
You do know that Horowitz had his piano voiced very brilliantly, don't you? He would ask his tuner to shave felt off the hammers to produce that bright, glassy sound. Once he asked for too much of that and his tuner refused. Yes, he had a big sound, but a lot of that had to do with his piano. Also, the NY Steinway already has a more brilliant sound than the Hamburg. Give him a regularly voiced Hamburg and see if he could produce that sound. Nope.
You're still making that argument? If hardening the hammers is responsible for H's specialness, how do you explain the piano and pianissimo ranges that he could access, producing a sound of unparalleled velvety warmth and string-quartet-like legato? See, for instance, the second movement of the Bach Toccata 1965, the Schubert Gb Impromptu and the Kinderszenen Vienna 1987, the middle part of the Chopin Funeral March 1978 (pirated recording), the Chopin E Minor Nocturne (several recordings). There are very many additional examples. The truth is (this can easily be verified by reading the reviews over the decades) that Horowitz has from his earliest days been legendary for his coloration, smoothness, and tonal control in the soft and softest ranges of the piano. Yes, he could - and did - bang around. But many of his greatest moments come at the other end of the spectrum.
I got to perform on Horowitz’s piano once after his death. It was with orchestra, too, in San Francisco. I found the instrument very odd. I agree that he had special modifications. The thing that struck me was that you could play a full four voice chord and do a glissando up and down and all the notes will easily sound. It would be the best piano for the octave glissandos in the Waldstein and Brahms Paganini Variations- effortless. That being said, I found the lightness of the action actually made it more difficult to control the sound. It did roar quite easily, but I don’t think I would want to play everything on it. It would take a lot of adjustment to handle it properly. There is a good reason why he only played that piano in concert. It was basically his one and only, like a violinist and their Stradivarius. They were attached. Of all the pianists I’ve heard in my lifetime, he stands out as the best of the best. Just nobody like him. The gradations of colors and tone were something totally unique.
I've never bothered to listen to Horowitz. Was it his repertoire, or the fact that he has been so favoured by the music establishment? Brendel, Richter, Berman, Gieseking, Lupu, Cortot, Jacobs ..... these are the pianists I have found most satisfying.
You might give his 1987 Vienna recital a try. The Mozart Bb Major Sonata is marvelous, and quite in the spirit of a Kempff or Lupu. There are also several excellent live recordings of Schubert's Bb Major Sonata dating to the 1940s and early 50s. Finally, his recordings from the 30s, before he became a legend, are fascinating because he was so artistically serious and disciplined back then. Not at all "romantic" in the over-the-top way that he so often cultivated later. On the contrary, back then he was a modernist, very much in the "Neue Sachlichkeit" spirit of the time. His Liszt Sonata from 1932 is exemplary in its architectural clarity and radical avoidance of self-indulgence. As a matter of fact, the critics in the 20s and 30s sometimes accused him of playing too dry and not expressively enough.
@@russellparratt9859 No. not at all. The click bait, overstatement that "I've never bothered to listen to Horowitz. Was it his repertoire, or the fact that he has been so favoured by the music establishment?" Clearly you have "bothered" to listen, etc.The fact that you said it that way makes the immensity of H's career and influence apparent. I don't know what the "music establishment" is-and especially anymore-but the reverse was true, because H also had a popular appeal, and did not have the German school at the heart of his repertoire the "intellectuals" or some of them disdained him.
@@labienus9968 It may have been his repertoire initially that didn't interest me. Furthermore, there is SO MUCH music, and so many artists, that I find it more useful to focus on certain areas of particular interest. Not listening to Horowitz has been no loss at all. Why are you so hung up on him? There are many others you probably haven't bothered with. Tell me this.... What areas of his repertoire show him at his best?
Why in the world someone thinks it’s a good idea to say that Horowitz “DESTROYS THE WORLD” when playing piano? Limited vocabulary? A helpless hope of being more relevant? Biased thinking?
The title "God of music Vladimir Horowitz destroys the world with his orchestral, cataclysmic sound:" has nothing to do with the art of music. Shame on you.
I agree, everybody thinks that Horowitz is a "legend",while he was simply a virtuoso that didnt understand the music at all,just smashing keys with "emotion"
![[UNBANNED] A SCANDALOUS Theory about Horowitz's peculiar Piano Playing Technique](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C6iVT1qyj_8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNBANNED] A SCANDALOUS Theory about Horowitz's peculiar Piano Playing Technique](/img/tr.png)
Hearing him live was a revelation. The recordings never did him justice. Even in the last row in the highest balcony, his pianissimo felt like he was sitting next to me, whispering in my ear. And the fortissimo? Thunder and lightning.
Dear Sarah, i exactly lived the same thing at his 1985's concert in Paris. At the end of Moszkowsky, an unreal pppp which sounded near me, as if he was playing the seat next to me... magical, superhuman and charismatic!
Which Paris concert did you attend? I was at the second one. At the first one he played Kreisleriana. For me the greatest moment was the ending of the Scriabin Etude op 8 no 12. The darkness and power of those bass notes! They seemed to blow the roof off the hall.
Some are good. Try May 1965. I've always found the sound to be remarkably realistic. Same for the other Carnegie Hall recordings from the 60s. Also 1953, though it's mono. And all the recordings from 1985 onward are quite good, sound-wise. The last one, from 1989, is beautifully intimate.
Yes, that "thunder and lightening" had a lot to do with how his piano was voiced. He would routinely ask his tuner to shave the felt off the hammers to produce a more brilliant sound - on the already bright sounding NY Steinway (compared to the Hamburg). Michael Ponti had the biggest sound I have ever witnessed, and he produced that sound on a regularly voiced concert grand. He was THE powerhouse pianist.
@@franksmith541 I heard Horowitz live five times, in 1978, 1980, 1982, 1985, and 1986. What struck me the most about his fortissimi was not their brilliance but rather their darkness, richness, dramatic power. They had a frightening, thundering, abyss-like quality that would shake you to the bones. And at any rate, they were only one of many facets of his technique. The pianissimi were, if anything, even more stunning - velvety, disembodied, floating, like a world-class string quartet. All in all, I think your comments about the preparation of his piano has as much explanatory power as comments about Federer's or Nadal's or Djokovic's preparation of their respective rackets.
That's his signature piece. No one can play it like him. High & low bells.
Kocsis better
Olga Kern
Kocsis is really the best version of this piece
lol
@@filipekon8020 Olga Kern is so underrated - mostly because there's hardly any recordings of her. If I was a record label I'd have her recording everything.
I love how he modifies the score and makes the final run down the piano keys an extra octave lower, just so he can show off his ability to produce massive sound.
You mean show off his modified piano’s ability to produce massive sound.
@@herobrine1847 Lets see you play like Horowitz on a good piano, then.
Many great pianists modify their instruments. Michelangeli comes to mind, or Pollini, or Rubinstein (who preferred a heavy key action). And the very act of choosing a piano from a particular maker is in itself a kind if modification. Gieseking's sound is that of a marvelous Bechstein. Backhaus embodies the warmth of Boesendorfer. Hewitt's clarity and precision are enhanced by her Fazioli. The whole thing is no different than tennis players optimizing their rackets. It's not the racket modifications that make Djokovic the best in the world. Rather, the modifications allow him to play his best.
I’m not trying to insult his playing ability.
Mb I’m wrong but it’s sounds like a BMW kid with x6m bragging about his exhaust
this has the best thumbnail image I've ever seen.
that piano just aged a year
When asked why he plays his octaves so fast he said “because he could”, a one of a kind showman
No pianist had the vast range of tonal colors of Horowitz, allowing him to bring out inner voices and contrapuntal melodies with remarkable clarity. His use of rubato was superb, and his clarity and technique were without compare. Fanboys can throw out the names of many fine pianists, but Vladimir Horowitz was the greatest.
Not True! More colorful beautiful piano sound than Horowitz=Wilhelm Kempff Emil Gilels Radu Lupu Artur Rubinstein Vladimir Ashkenazy Grigory Sokolov! More genius than Horowitz=Sviatoslav Richter Solomon Cutner Grigory Sokolov Maurizio Pollini Stanislav Bunin Maria Grinberg! More powerful louder than Horowitz=Mikhail Pletnev(Prokofiev piano concerto no 1 by Pletnev) The Second Loudest ever was Lazar Berman! The 3rd Loudest was Erwin Nyiregyhazi!!
@@RaineriHakkarainen You left out Liberace.
It's not true, Horowitz had no good ear, he couldn't improvise even the simplest things, he was really a keyboard acrobat, but not a complete musician. CZIFFRA was immensely superior to Horowitz in technique, and he was also a brilliant musical improviser. Horowitz was more of a commercial phenomenon at his time (does the Grammy Awards tell you something?)
@ Zzzz
Those staggered seventh chords are legendary. Never lost it in his old age.
YES EXACTLY
idk about that
Not close. The 7th chords in that decending run are not that dissonant. He doesn't attempt to hit the correct keys but just bangs the wrong keys. He's actually my favorite performer of this piece but it's incredibly difficult to play the 7th chords correctly and he doesn't try here.
@@debussy843 Well... this is the first time I've ever heard someone say that a given performance is their favourite of that piece, even though it has wrong notes and the performer didn't even try to get them right.
Why does Horowitz change the score as often as he does? I've heard him turn notes written in the score as single notes into octaves, I've heard him pplay octaves an octave or two below what was written, and I've heard him turn octaves into full crashing chords low in the bass, just giving a crude effect - bang, crash, thump, bang, crash - it seems to impres some audiences. But he sometimes seems to lack respect for what the composer wrote.
@@michaeledwards1172 The 1968 audio of his live performance is my favourite, not what's shown above. I'm not sure when the above video was. Regardless, he smashed the 7th chords in both performances, not attempting to his the correct keys. Also, I've commented before in other videos of his arrogance to think he knows better than the composers. I've settled with him as my favourite performer of this piece despite that because everyone else is substantially worse. Hamelin and Lasista are good examples of hitting the correct notes and it sounding like trash from start to finish. Complete waste. Lugansky does not sound like trash, but it's sooooooo boring!!!!
One of the few pianists show limited body movement and yet producing such a sublime sound. I remember a remarkable quote of Vladimir Horowitz as ''I don't need to show off my emotions through my body, they are inside my soul'' something like that...
I LOVE sounds like this. Cataclysmic textures that include 'wrong notes' - but sound 'right' - because they add sonority, colour, and sheer bombast. Nyiregyhazi was the king of it though - check out his Dohnanyi Rhapsody!
Imagine if the two of them got together to play the two piano La Valse! Haha
Nowhere near at the same level of artistry. Nyiregyhazi is a gimmick..not sitting on the same table with the giants.
@@nickcy27 the only valid reason is because his name is too complicated
@@nickcy27 That's actually facts
@@herobrine1847 Surely not the only reason . There are legendary pianists who have displayed extraordinary pianism, for example Dinu Lipatti, Gieseking etc. U dont listen Nyeregazi performances of that level.
I went through a Horowitz-phase back in the 80s when he was all the buzz because of his return to health and the Moscow concert. Some really wonderful moments of music he created. I will always admire his playing, but experience has made me appreciate him without fawning. There are simply too many great pianists that could do things Horowitz could not or didn't try. Once I heard Josef Lhevinne and Rachmaninoff and Hoffman I realized there was a whole generation of people before him that appreciated what he brought to the table without being intimidated. And Horowitz himself expressed sorrow that he wasn't able to play the great German repertoire which he considered more serious than the Romantic repertoire he specialized in to the level of Serkin or Arrau. He was also frustrated that he couldn't technically match the power, drive, clarity and spontaneity of Hoffman (who can? the guy was inhuman) And there are criticisms from people that are worth noting. Arrau said that Horowitz created a lot of great excitement with his octaves but he could only do them for a short span. He contrasted that with Teresa Carreno who he said could create as big a sound and go all day. He said he thought the walls of the theater would cave in when she played. And he had his equals among his own super virtuoso generation. Earl Wild had better overall control of sound and Jorge Bolet could polish off a giant piece like the Wagner-Liszt Tannhauser Overture paraphrase in a way I doubt Horowitz would have been able to hold together. And then there's Cziffra. Among the younger men, Marc Andre Hamelin crossed timellines in his career with Horowitz and would have made a young Horowitz take him seriously. Horowitz was exceptional for what he did and he was unique but he did have limitations and he knew how to emphasize what he did the best most of the time.
Simply taking what's being given; a wonderful humility, actually, in a richest world of repertoire and performers. Happily past are the days when one was expected to choose between a Gould or a Rubinstein, and yet happily here are the days when we can still freely do so if our authenticity demands it of us, after seeing all that has past. The polarities, contrasts and parallelisms held appropriately make it an even "goldener" age, if we seek it out. Cheers.
Beautiful comment. I appreciate the passing mention of the great Cziffra, who could improvise things most great pianists could never learn to play.
@@cmaxwellmusic80 With a permanently mangled hand. He was a genius. But having seen Horowitz live about 20 times I don’t completely agree with the criticism above.
So what was Horowitz good at then?
@@leeringduckling Scriabin. He was untouchable in Scriabin's works. His strengths also according to Harold C. Schonberg and I think he's correct is that Horowitz was at his best in miniatures. Chopin Mazurkas, Schumann Kinderzenen, individual preludes and etudes.
Rachmaninoff gave Horowitz permission to do with his Sonata #2 whatever he wished. The Sony CD won 2 Gramophone Awards. This clip is from London available on an RCA CD.
Carl, have you heard of Ervin Nyiregyhazi?
Listen to his recording of Valle D’obermann,it’s the most powerful playing in music history.
@@thelostgenius1212 Yes, his Rach 2 really does nothing for me.I wish more people would watch Cyprian Katsaris whos recording of Chopins Polonaise in F# minor opus 44 is I believe the greatest piano recording ever made.
Perhaps people should stop referring to what Rachmaninoff have said to Horowitz as a sign of greatness. The options in his time were limited. They are not today. Stop patronizing fossilized performers, when there's just as good (if not better) talent today.
@@alanpotter8680how wrong can you be…?
@@alanpotter8680So I presume the same can be said for the likes of MJ, Elvis Presley, Freddie Mercury, Whitney Houston, etc.?
There are only few chosen ones, Horowitz is one of them.
Most powerful seventeen seconds video I have ever seen
I think the piano should extend more keys to accomodate Horowitz.
what a legend
To think that Horowitz knew Rachmaninoff during his lifetime, and that my own piano tutor met and engaged with Horowitz in London during the 1980s. He played on Horowitz's Steinway at the Festival Hall. True piano royalty.
Some smashing going on there..
Love the thumbnail
Impressive. His hands were actually moving too fast to be filmed at one point. Pretty good reflexes for an old guy.
Greatest thumbnail of all time 💀
Yes, I’ve heard that kind of sound a million times.
Wow!Winderbar gespielt!! 😊
verily, what a master of music; Vladimir Horowitz do be destroying the world with his calamitous sound
He is a god, but just imagine what Anton Rubinstein would've played like. It's crazy there is even higher feat than this.
Imagine is all we can do-or imagine Liszt-but who knows Horowitz may be the ultimate of a certain kind of playing
@@estesfox That "labienus9968" is not me-but this came to me
So rather than saying anything of your own, you take the time to condescend to people who have an enthusiasm for a pianist-which seems a pretty benign "flaw" in this world
There's much higher tier of performing than this. One that calls for humility.
@@alanpotter8680Yes, there is. Of course, this particular passage does not call for humility. Quite the contrary. Even the most humble and ego-free pianist would seek to produce a cataclysmic sound when playing this. On the flipside, even Horowitz was capable of musical humility, as shown by his excellent recordings of Mozart and Schubert over the decades.
no, for pure piano histrionics, there are none like him
I agree. Rubenstein is for me.
Man of steel fingers!
@gerry30...one other thing you mentioned, your hearing him, Horowitz during the 80ties. You need to go back, my friend. When we were hearing this guy during the late fifties via recordings prior to his first Sabatical. And subsequent return in Nineteen sixty five. The Album: Homage to Liszt, the " Funerail" and 2nd Hungarian Rhapsody. Saints Saens, " Danse Macabre", a really early recording say, from the late thirties or early nineties. The Tschaikowsky concero, B flat minor with Toscanini conducting. Find everything you can lay hands on of his playing prior to the fifties and late forties. This is the Horowitz we know of. And there is ( was ) nothing he could'nt do that Arrau, Serkin ( who by the way played very little romatic stuff ). Just Beethoven and Schubert. Truth be told, there was a lot he did that most of them would not have even dared to try. Because of their Limitations. Horowitz had No Limitations at the piano. None. Listen to Solomon and Arturo Benedetti Michaelangeli. Rubinstein who after meeting up with Horowitz and hearing him said. " I must start practising ". Earlier Horowitz, dude. In the eighties, he was getting very old. And died in 1989. Your local libraries can get these works via inter library loans, should they not have them amoungst their own collections.
I totally Agree! Middle and late Horowitz has special and very private repertoire and digitally recorded for those who prefer modern recordings. But his early stuff and mono recordings are just supreme and absolutely stunning! Intact his best Rach 3, in my opinion, are all the Mono recording s, mainly the 1940's❤
@@jimarthur2647 : My apologies for responding so late to your comments. Most afficionatos prefer the old records by RCA and even Columbia, though later. As for these younger folks thinking they're listening to a Light Weight, Horowitz' in the eighties. They'd be astounded if they could hear his pressing of Liszt's Rakoczy March, remastered via today's technology. As one writer said of Horowitz, if they thought he could have been matched. This piece alone would convince them otherwise, guaranteed!! When I heard him ( Homage to Liszt ) play the Funerail by Liszt. That left hand sequence? I said, " I thought it was Rubinstein who Is left handed. My teacher Hipped me on this piece, he'd first heard it performed by Artur Rubinstein. Nobody, none made the bass of the piano sound like Mr. Horowitz. Nor could anyone play more softly. He mastered the use of pedaling, an Art in itself. Harold Schoenberg in his book " The Great Pianist " said of Rachmaninoff's third D minor. At a live performance in the finale, the ending. " He, Horowitz swamped the orhestra" . Leaving some with an envious look on their faces. He also said, when Horowitz came to America. His playing had some thinking that he was possessed by a Demon. Nah, these guys haven't heard the Horowitz we're talking about.
Gilels il suono più grande
i like how he barely moves his body. just, makes it look routine for him..
The title, LOL!
A performance that would make Lang Lang blush, lol. Great, though.
@Ili Widmaier. Absolutely, your perfect analysis here. With one exception however. Ervin Nyiregyhazi's power. He returned to the scene after a long hiatus due to personal problems. His sound was wonderful to say the least. But, Columbia set up a recording session for him at some church or small Cathedral. Then afterwards, claimed that the decibles he produced surpassed those of Horowitz. Some pushed back on this assessment, due to the shall we say, the spaciousness of church quality, Acoustic wise. My words here. ' Kind of insulting at the time in my opinion, since Mr. Horowitz was also contracted by Columbia at the same time. Hence, the lust for money gone haywire. They tried to do the same thing with Lazar Berman, at least one well known classical radio station in Chicago. As for Glenn Gould. It's funny how he befriended Artur Rubinstein and Sviatoslav Richter, but couldn't stomach Horowitz for of course obvious reasons. As for other comparisons you've made. Certainly complimentary to these great Artist. Alfred Cortot was highly acclaimed as the greatest interpreter of this music. Hoffman, Michelangeli, and others you mentioned. I could add some other names,but why bother.
Can't touch Vlad for his interpretations.
Bad posture , poor hand position, pure mastery.
Wow!!!!!!!!😮😮😮😮😮
Epic!
Richter, Horowitz, Gilels. They were all above top pianists for me. My subjective opinion is: Richter = best Schubert performance, Horrowitz = Chopin, Gilels = Rachmaninov. Horowitz's Marcha Funebre (Chopin) performance is extraordinary and spectacular.
I agree with the Richter/Schubert combination, but I've also loved Richter's Rachmaninov.
I've never listened to Gilels.
I'm so over Chopin. Alfred Cortot is the only one I can enjoy with that stuff.
@@russellparratt9859 Richter's Rachmaninov is also amazing.
He and Led Zeppelin are my 2 favorite artists
That must surely be the drug-addled, over-indulgent Led Zeppelin of the mid to late 1970's?
It's his piano of course.
Piano: “yamete kudasai! 🤭”
....what the.....
Horowitz the human jukebox,got a quarter?
😮😮😮😮 Amazing!!!!
Which piece is it?
Rachmaninov 2nd piano sonata, final movement =)
@@davidwijkman1722 Thank you! 😊
God of music? no, pope of music! Beethoven, God of Music!
Beethoven and Liszt are the true gods of music.
@@Dylonely_9274 Bach?
I would like to add to the description of the video: “…or with as many wrong / extra notes.” 😂
The title of the video is 10/10😊
Do not say god, no one able to be like god!!
What is the name of this piece
Rachmaninoff Sonata no. 2 in Bb Minor. This is the end of the coda of the last movement.
😍😍😍😍😍
@gerry30: Only a portion of your analysis of Mr. Horowitz here, is true. Teresa Carreno was born in 1853. And only from eye witnesses could she have been the monumental pianist described by so many. Levine and Hoffman were born in 1874 and ' 76. Thus, Horowitz could not possibly have heard any performances by either of these Giants. Rachmaninoff was a Super Virtuoso. But after hearing Horowitz's performance of his own concerto no.3 in d minor. He gave the piece to Vladimir. As for Arrau's assessment of Ms. Careno. I read about her power and probably manly strength in Harold Schoenberg's book, " The Great Pianist ". And it is possible that Claudio Arrau was like so many pianist, jealous of Horowitz. Of whom with all of their attributes just couldn't match what Horowitz brought to the table. That being aside from that tremendous sound he produced from the instrument without banging: His unique phrasing and touch. Horowitz threw out the Curved finger approach to playing the piano, with his literall Flat fingers over the keys. Employing the weight of the whole hand. As for his being reticent of the great German works, Beethoven being an example. We had the critics of music to thank for that. Some attempting to shame him from the transcriptions he enjoyed playing so much. No one else was trying them. As for Earl Wild. Technically to some extent, Horowitz's equal. But not in the production of that massive sound Horowitz drew out of the piano. No one else did in fact. Georgy Cziffra and Simon Barere were probably stronger than Horowitz. Certainly Cziffra after spending all of those years laboring in Russia's Gulags. But his natural genius at the instrument can't be denied. Still, he was never accepted as Horowitz's better. He never had the musical mind. Marc Andre Hamlin' s technical geniuse is just that. He falls into the same catagory of Mr. Cziffra. That quip about Horowitz's octave playing? Just plain silly. And a bold faced lie. Horowitz was reputed to be the best by all critics, professional and Lay people. Simply because of what he Said to his listeners over the entire lifetime of his performances. No one did it better. This is why no greater a keyboard player than Glenn Gould was so jealous of him. With all ofhis brilliance at J. S. Bach. He knew he couldn't out play Horowitz. And no one would have wanted to bear him even attempt to try. One of my own teachers did say, that all or most of the great pianist back in the early nineteenth century played like Hirowitz. Hoffman included, of course. But none were ascribed the label of Out Lisztian Liszt. And that's saying something.
Well put. There's a range and complexity to H's playing that no one else can match. He has Gould's polyphonic abilities, Michelangeli's elegance and smoothness, Kempff's intelligence and imagination, Cziffra's mechanical abilities, Hofmann's dynamic range, Cortot's penetration of the musical text, Ervin Nyiregyházi's power (almost), and a control and smoothness in the softest ranges that has no equal at all. And he combines all of that into a totally unique musical personality that, as you say, communicates the profoundest things about music.
Was almost expecting an explosion meme at the end.
Too much Mistakes, I don’t know why Horowitz always did, but I like his playing style!
probably cuz of his older age, he made less mistakes when he was younger probably
Considering that he was almost 80 years old at the time and that this was about an hour and a half into this recital, this is incredibly impressive. He always played on the very limit of what he could do and that's why he often hit wrong notes. His wrong notes sound better than most pianists right notes!
Discussing the wrong notes of Horowitz instead of listening the music.
Poor guys ................
@@Fritz_Maisenbacher Hello Fritz - firstly, I’d like to introduce myself. My name is Sam and I am doing some work on a Horowitz documentary that I wish to post this year…I am very excited to start working on it, as my research is nearing the end. I have seen many of your comments and know you are very passionate about Horowitz’s performances (as everyone should). I’d like to show you a document which has been practically hidden from the public for so long: Horowitz’s Schumann Carnaval from Philadelphia 1983. Michael Brown posted this a while back, but the document was a pitch higher and too fast - so I did the work of remastering the document as much as I could. I hope you enjoy it and encourage you to share this absolute hidden and misunderstood gem with as many Horowitz lovers as you can, as I will certainly do my best to do the same: we must not allow this hidden and misunderstood gem of a performance hide from the public eye any longer!
ruclips.net/video/XSBeOm2YsGo/видео.html
Poor piano
Mine. Search Rachmaninov sonata 2# Alberto Cobo
the (false) god of music was Tubal-cain, if I am not mistaken.
slay
So many wrong notes
Na
Howw??????.
I think he was,better than Yuja Wan here?
music-circus j agree no classical music difference between demonstrative pianist and the real composer's mucic
I prefer an angel on piano (Rubinstein).
Perhaps only Nyiregyhazi goes far beyond Horowitz. You think this is powerful? (It is, but Ervin crushes better!)
Yes. True. Ervin is unparalleled. I couldn't believe it at first. But it's true.
The devil's pianist. Paganini be like :)
not God at all...but certainl y the ONE TRUE GOD gave him the pianistic gift.
Es Bahn, I thank you for posting this short snippet (and for all your other awesome videos). It's given rise to some really interesting comments. If you want to see my take on Horowitz, please see my two responses to Michael Davison, who sincerely asks what makes Horowitz so special. I tried my best to answer that excellent question.
Also, I love your name. Es Bahn. Welche denn? München - Freising? Stuttgart - Schorndorf? I am a Southerner, as you can tell.
I worked in Nürnberg for many summers!!
Absolutely not.
God of Piano.
Not Music please
NY Steinway and Hardner Chemical effect ! and his Original signature version. No one seet .....!
Messy.
You do know that Horowitz had his piano voiced very brilliantly, don't you? He would ask his tuner to shave felt off the hammers to produce that bright, glassy sound. Once he asked for too much of that and his tuner refused. Yes, he had a big sound, but a lot of that had to do with his piano. Also, the NY Steinway already has a more brilliant sound than the Hamburg. Give him a regularly voiced Hamburg and see if he could produce that sound. Nope.
And still, he was the best pianist of all time. Before speaking, you should at least try to play ONE piece like horowitz. Could you? Nope.😢😢
You're still making that argument? If hardening the hammers is responsible for H's specialness, how do you explain the piano and pianissimo ranges that he could access, producing a sound of unparalleled velvety warmth and string-quartet-like legato? See, for instance, the second movement of the Bach Toccata 1965, the Schubert Gb Impromptu and the Kinderszenen Vienna 1987, the middle part of the Chopin Funeral March 1978 (pirated recording), the Chopin E Minor Nocturne (several recordings). There are very many additional examples. The truth is (this can easily be verified by reading the reviews over the decades) that Horowitz has from his earliest days been legendary for his coloration, smoothness, and tonal control in the soft and softest ranges of the piano. Yes, he could - and did - bang around. But many of his greatest moments come at the other end of the spectrum.
I got to perform on Horowitz’s piano once after his death. It was with orchestra, too, in San Francisco. I found the instrument very odd. I agree that he had special modifications. The thing that struck me was that you could play a full four voice chord and do a glissando up and down and all the notes will easily sound. It would be the best piano for the octave glissandos in the Waldstein and Brahms Paganini Variations- effortless. That being said, I found the lightness of the action actually made it more difficult to control the sound. It did roar quite easily, but I don’t think I would want to play everything on it. It would take a lot of adjustment to handle it properly. There is a good reason why he only played that piano in concert. It was basically his one and only, like a violinist and their Stradivarius. They were attached. Of all the pianists I’ve heard in my lifetime, he stands out as the best of the best. Just nobody like him. The gradations of colors and tone were something totally unique.
That stupid argument that his piano was the source of his playing
I've never bothered to listen to Horowitz. Was it his repertoire, or the fact that he has been so favoured by the music establishment?
Brendel, Richter, Berman, Gieseking, Lupu, Cortot, Jacobs ..... these are the pianists I have found most satisfying.
You might give his 1987 Vienna recital a try. The Mozart Bb Major Sonata is marvelous, and quite in the spirit of a Kempff or Lupu. There are also several excellent live recordings of Schubert's Bb Major Sonata dating to the 1940s and early 50s. Finally, his recordings from the 30s, before he became a legend, are fascinating because he was so artistically serious and disciplined back then. Not at all "romantic" in the over-the-top way that he so often cultivated later. On the contrary, back then he was a modernist, very much in the "Neue Sachlichkeit" spirit of the time. His Liszt Sonata from 1932 is exemplary in its architectural clarity and radical avoidance of self-indulgence. As a matter of fact, the critics in the 20s and 30s sometimes accused him of playing too dry and not expressively enough.
Such a silly statement
@@labienus9968 What's silly?
The pianists that I prefer?
@@russellparratt9859 No. not at all. The click bait, overstatement that "I've never bothered to listen to Horowitz. Was it his repertoire, or the fact that he has been so favoured by the music establishment?" Clearly you have "bothered" to listen, etc.The fact that you said it that way makes the immensity of H's career and influence apparent. I don't know what the "music establishment" is-and especially anymore-but the reverse was true, because H also had a popular appeal, and did not have the German school at the heart of his repertoire the "intellectuals" or some of them disdained him.
@@labienus9968 It may have been his repertoire initially that didn't interest me.
Furthermore, there is SO MUCH music, and so many artists, that I find it more useful to focus on certain areas of particular interest. Not listening to Horowitz has been no loss at all.
Why are you so hung up on him?
There are many others you probably haven't bothered with.
Tell me this....
What areas of his repertoire show him at his best?
Why in the world someone thinks it’s a good idea to say that Horowitz “DESTROYS THE WORLD” when playing piano?
Limited vocabulary? A helpless hope of being more relevant? Biased thinking?
The world was destroyed, we’re living in hell ❤️
@@ArgerichStan Live your reality, which is not anyone’s else. Enjoy your personal hell.
@@TheGuggo ok flop ❤️
'God of music'? A piano player? not Bach or Mozart who wrote hundreds of hours of the greatest music in history?
The title "God of music Vladimir Horowitz destroys the world with his orchestral, cataclysmic sound:" has nothing to do with the art of music. Shame on you.
okay ❤️
I love that you have posted it! Praise for that! ❤️
Welcome! The video is amazing, by the way! ❤️
God of music? God of charlatanism, more likely.
NY steinway. Impossible this perform Hamburg Steinway.
What an horror ... It's not even music at this state
I agree, everybody thinks that Horowitz is a "legend",while he was simply a virtuoso that didnt understand the music at all,just smashing keys with "emotion"
on the contrary, this is exactly the essence of music..
Romanticism was all about the extremes. It's exactly how this should be played
Music is expression. This is music.
You need to listen to the whole performance before you say something like this.
Vulgar beyond belief.
kocsis better
Would you like to explain? Did Kocsis play this piece?