RICHTER VS HOROWITZ

[Bouter Boogie]

Okay, I know this poll terribly sucks, but I’m curious who’ll win, Richter or Horowitz?

Feel free to add comment 

I’d go for Horowitz because of his recordings of Scriabin’s etudes 

[thalberg]

Richter had a massive technique, artistic sense, repertoire, and who knows what else.  Nobody beats him.

[ted]

I don't like either very much so it's a toss-up in the negative sense.

[BoliverAllmon]

Horowitz simply because I haven't heard alot of Richter.

[pianonut]

richter seems more perfectionistic (though i love his artistic sense, too)
horowitz seems to take more risks musically

pollini should have been inbetween because i think he has both - although certain recordings of richter are hard to beat

it's probably unfair to judge pianists by each other.  it really doesn't serve a purpose because as they become more mature pianists, people don't go to their concert to hear them play like someone else, but rather themselves.  if you stay true to yourself, you don't care if you don't match someone else's ideal.

my impression is that if i could have met them both, i'd like to have met richer by going to his concert and seeing him on stage, and horowitz over lunch? (doubt he would have ever had the time) because he liked to talk and once talking would answer a few of my piano questions.

[Kassaa]

https://glumolwiki.free.fr/richy/richter10.4-highres.avi

Necessary for judging.

[pianonut]

pfooey.  it doesn't work on my quick time server.  i know richter isn't flashy, but he holds my attention with his carefulness to detail. 

[steinwayguy]

Uh, Richter...

Judging based on
Richter-
Prokofiev Sonata No. 8
Prokofiev Concerto No. 5
Liszt Sonata in B Minor
Liszt Concerto in E-flat
Liszt Concerto in A
Chopin Etude Op. 10 No. 4
Beethoven Op. 2 No. 3
Beethoven Op. 57
Bach Well-Tempered Clavier
Schumann- Symphonic Etudes
Schumann- Concerto in A Minor
Rachmaninoff- Preludes
Rachmaninoff- Etudes
Brahms- Concerto No. 2

Horowitz-
Liszt- Mephisto Waltz
Liszt- Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2
Bach- Anything?
Beethoven- Anything?

[pita bread]

Richter had an insane Mephisto Waltz.

Horowitz's Scriabin is downright amazing.

My personal preference is for Horowitz though, I like his daring style.

[donjuan]

ummm... who'll win what?

do we really have the choose?

[Waldszenen]

Godammit my favourite two pianists up in a single poll. >_<

[Bouter Boogie]

ummm... who'll win what?

do we really have the choose?

No.. You don't have to  I warned you this poll sucked 

[Bouter Boogie]

Godammit my favourite two pianists up in a single poll. >_<

SORRY! 

[stormx]

I voted Richter. 

But, to be fair, i have to admit that i own many Richter´s recordings, and only 1 CD by Horowitz. The sound in the Horowitz's is bad (recorded around 1940/50), but this is not his fault, naturally !!!
I just cannot stand the poor sound quality of recordings made before 1960 

[alhimia]

The etude op. 10 nr. 4 played by Richter posted here is really insane! I can hardly belief that one can play so fast, although my vote goes to Horowitz... his scarlatti, bach-busoni are genius, no one can play like him (except the dutch pianist frederic Meinders  )

[Waldszenen]

I voted Richter. 

But, to be fair, i have to admit that i own many Richter´s recordings, and only 1 CD by Horowitz. The sound in the Horowitz's is bad (recorded around 1940/50), but this is not his fault, naturally !!!
I just cannot stand the poor sound quality of recordings made before 1960 

I used to hate recordings with poor sound and all that hiss and fuzz of the old records... but I urge you to keep on listening to them because eventually, as I did, you'll just get used to hearing that hiss and it'll become second nature to you.

Many of the greatest recordings, like those by Horowitz, Schnabel, Cortot and Hofmann, were recorded in poor quality. Think about what you're missing out on!

[BoliverAllmon]

I used to hate recordings with poor sound and all that hiss and fuzz of the old records... but I urge you to keep on listening to them because eventually, as I did, you'll just get used to hearing that hiss and it'll become second nature to you.

Many of the greatest recordings, like those by Horowitz, Schnabel, Cortot and Hofmann, were recorded in poor quality. Think about what you're missing out on!

I agree that you get use to the hiss. I recently started buying lots of LPs You can get amazing recordings for pennies.

[Motrax]

Why even ask - isn't it obvious? Richter probably had 100 pounds on Horowitz, not to mention experience in barroom fighting (he broke his pinky once in a brawl). Could probably take out Horowitz in one punch...   

[BoliverAllmon]

LOL

[Bouter Boogie]

Richter is winning 

[BoliverAllmon]

which surprises me. I was unaware of the ability and fame of Richter.

[Kassaa]

I still haven't voted.

Stop those ridiculous polls!

[BoliverAllmon]

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Waldszenen]

which surprises me. I was unaware of the ability and fame of Richter.

 

[steinwayguy]

Uh.
Yeah.
what?

[Bouter Boogie]

I still haven't voted.

Stop those ridiculous polls!

Then make up a good one yourself  Lol 

[BoliverAllmon]

don't get me wrong. I knew of Richter. I have even heard a couple recordings. I just didn't know he was held in such high regard.

boliver

[Waldszenen]

oooooh I thought you didn't know who Richter was.

[BoliverAllmon]

No, I know him.

[pseudopianist]

da Rectum is far more wikid den da Ho.

[BoliverAllmon]

www.hookedonphonics.com

[steinwayguy]

www.hookedonphonics.com

One of the more phenomenally humorous posts I've seen on this forum.

[goansongo]

Richter?  Horowitz?  Who are these people?  Everyone knows the ultimate pianist is Richard Clayderman all the way.  OWNED!


Haha, no seriously, this is a tough one.  I don't want to vote by just using that insane No. 4 recording by Richter, but I can't stop thinking about it either.  I haven't heard that much from the two of them, but from what I've heard so far, it seems like Richter has some pretty fast fingers.  They're aiiiiteee.  Hahaha. 

[galonia]

Right now in my mind, I'm a bit pre-occupied with Richter vs Gilels... I've been listening to the Beethoven sonatas of each, and just can't decide who I like better.

[Waldszenen]

Richter vs Gilels.... now that's a tough one.

[steinwayguy]

Richter vs Gilels.... now that's a tough one.

Very true. Although I find Richter a little more versatile than Gilels. Just a little. Gilels has better Beethoven, but I like neither's a whole lot.

[Waldszenen]

I find Richter more versatile too, he's overall got the more "special" tone compared to Gilels.  Both are phenomenal.

[BoliverAllmon]

Gilels is another pianist that I haven't heard tons from. What I have heard, I thought was ok. I am grateful of his SHostakovich 2nd Piano Sonata. I haven't found another recording of it yet.

[Dazzer]

CaneToad.

nuff said.

[BoliverAllmon]

not enough said, what are you talking about?

[steinwayguy]

not enough said, what are you talking about?

Haha...


I'm glad to see my boy "da Rectum" is currently  "far more wikid den da Ho."

[BoliverAllmon]

ah yes more of the hippedy hop "cool" language.

[mrvladimirhorowitz]

This is an unfair poll. You should be ashamed of yourself. They were both geniuses, and great artists. You are ridiculing both of them. Horowitzs is fames for his firebrand and virtuosic performances, but in later years he had the most amazing tone production and the loudest fffs and the quietest ppps, he retired from the concert platform for nearly 20 years due to his terrible mental health. His wife, "Wanda.. the witch" was a tyrant, she made him have sex with her for children. He was actually gay but she bullied him and abused him. He was a weak and broken man... lets face it she was more masculine than he was. Richter on the other hand played more with his brains than Horowitz playing with his heart. Richter was more consistent than Horowitz, in the sense that he turned up on more occasions for concerts than Horowitz and played flawlessly. They were entirely different... both geniuses... both mentally ill. I suggest u listen to "Horowitz in Moscow" for a true sense of his greatness and watching " Richter, the enigma"... I hope I have helped, I am not angry just confused why you would want a debate between the greatest pianists in the world, and miss out others such as Claudio Arrau, Myra Hess, Martha argerich, Michaelangeli, Pollini, Cziffra, Glenn Gould, Rachmaninoff, Hoffman... etc It is ridiculous even comparing them...

[vandermozart3]

WOW this is hard, my two favourites!!!

I only say Horowitz because that's the phase I'm going through right now But overall I couldn't choose, they're both amazing

[pianisten1989]

This is an unfair poll. You should be ashamed of yourself. They were both geniuses, and great artists. You are ridiculing both of them. Horowitzs is fames for his firebrand and virtuosic performances, but in later years he had the most amazing tone production and the loudest fffs and the quietest ppps, he retired from the concert platform for nearly 20 years due to his terrible mental health. His wife, "Wanda.. the witch" was a tyrant, she made him have sex with her for children. He was actually gay but she bullied him and abused him. He was a weak and broken man... lets face it she was more masculine than he was. Richter on the other hand played more with his brains than Horowitz playing with his heart. Richter was more consistent than Horowitz, in the sense that he turned up on more occasions for concerts than Horowitz and played flawlessly. They were entirely different... both geniuses... both mentally ill. I suggest u listen to "Horowitz in Moscow" for a true sense of his greatness and watching " Richter, the enigma"... I hope I have helped, I am not angry just confused why you would want a debate between the greatest pianists in the world, and miss out others such as Claudio Arrau, Myra Hess, Martha argerich, Michaelangeli, Pollini, Cziffra, Glenn Gould, Rachmaninoff, Hoffman... etc It is ridiculous even comparing them...

It's also a poll from -05...

[m1469]

This is an unfair poll. You should be ashamed of yourself. They were both geniuses, and great artists. You are ridiculing both of them. Horowitzs is fames for his firebrand and virtuosic performances, but in later years he had the most amazing tone production and the loudest fffs and the quietest ppps, he retired from the concert platform for nearly 20 years due to his terrible mental health. His wife, "Wanda.. the witch" was a tyrant, she made him have sex with her for children. He was actually gay but she bullied him and abused him. He was a weak and broken man... lets face it she was more masculine than he was. Richter on the other hand played more with his brains than Horowitz playing with his heart. Richter was more consistent than Horowitz, in the sense that he turned up on more occasions for concerts than Horowitz and played flawlessly. They were entirely different... both geniuses... both mentally ill. I suggest u listen to "Horowitz in Moscow" for a true sense of his greatness and watching " Richter, the enigma"... I hope I have helped, I am not angry just confused why you would want a debate between the greatest pianists in the world, and miss out others such as Claudio Arrau, Myra Hess, Martha argerich, Michaelangeli, Pollini, Cziffra, Glenn Gould, Rachmaninoff, Hoffman... etc It is ridiculous even comparing them...

OMG, Richter is my whole world right now.  I'm presently listening to him playing: Medtner - Sonata Reminiscenza, Op. 38, No. 1

And, I wanted to start crying at the very first note  .  I just feel blown away completely all over again, like the world is being born all new and fresh and everything ... and, yes, with fuzzy bumble bees in it and all.

*heart throbs for Richter*  I feel like he's alive.

After I get myself wrapped around this, I'll listen to Horowitz with fresh ears again (maybe I'll listen to everybody with fresh ears).

[mnmleung]

I was very fortunate to have attended a concert by Richter (1984 Munich) and Horowitz (1988 London).  Sitting right at the front at the Richter concert, I was completely spellbound.  I felt he was breathing in time between movements of a Haydn sonata and the whole sonata was one integrated piece.  With CDs and LPs we often get them separated in tracks and cannot feel the relationship between movements the way the artist intended at a live performance.

I was sitting way back at the RFH for Horowitz, so it is hard to compare the experience.  It was also very memorable.

From recordings, while I really enjoy both, I have to say Horowitz got my vote because I have been listening his Scarlatti and Scriabin.

m1469, if you have not heard this recording of Medtner by Horowitz, you may also enjoy it

Ming

[pianoplayjl]

Definitely RIchter. He has the superior technique. Can learn anything in days.

[pianoplayjl]

I like Horowitz better of the two because Richter plays too fast in many of the pieces he plays while Horowitz has some clarity in his music.

JL

[ignaceii]

What a question.

Horowitz plays 20 pieces.
Richter played hundreds.

Richter fast.
The most beautiful Schubert d960, 1st movement.
Richter almost half an hour. Playing the repeats, at a mystical tempo. Unbelievable.
I treasure that recording.
All others play no repeats.

Horowitz showman
Richter the mystic poet, learning at an incredible speed.

Know their repertoires guys.
Horowitz , Skrjabin, Scarlatti, chopin,....
almost like Brendel, Haydn,Mozart, Beethoven .