Gould or Horowits Style?

[nero21]

So yeah, 2 very different pianist, 2 very different repertoires. what do you think?

[lisztwasgod]

horowitz was spellbinding and initally inspired me to begin playing piano...he made it look so easy and so, when i was 17, i began playing, thinking (oh, yeah, that horowitz wasnt working too hard on this piece)...and thats whne i realized...HOLY SH** piano can be hard! But it took someone like Horowitz to humble the rest of us and make all of our hard work and liters of sweat poured out over the piano insignificant...his hands were incredible...i encourage anyone who can find a video of him playing to watch it...it is truly a privilege to hear and watch him play

[lisztisforkids]

I acually prefer Gould. I beleive he was the most differnt of all the great pianist of the 20 th century. No one ever played bach or anything like he did. he was probaly the more crazy of the two also.

[prometheus]

I never liked Horowitz. For every work he played I know at least two other recordings I prefer over Horowitz.

I can't say the same about Gould's piano Bach.

[da jake]

They're both wonderful pianists with a style all their own. They are so different, however, that comparison in this manner is as pointless as as asking "which is the better country, Italy or France?"

Dumb topic. 

[phil13]

This topic would be better if you could pick between two pianists who specialized in the same thing. Gould's strong point was obviously Bach, and not many of his other recordings are worth the time and expenses IMO. However, Horowitz specialized in Chopin, Liszt, and the Russian composers. They are very different because of the types of piano music they chose to pursue.

If you were to pick two pianists with the same strong points, this would be a more interesting topic. It would be less like Italy vs. France and more like: "Which part of Italy do you prefer, Sicily or Rome?"

Just a thought.

Phil

[larse]

I want to back up phils thoughts..It's hard to compare these two pianists...

But all in all, no matter how much I love certain(not all) of Glenn Goulds Bach recordings, I really tend to despise the rest.

I was never a great horowitz fan either. But I would rather vote for him than Gould..partly because he has given us things like the Mendelsohn Variations, Carmen Variations and other fantastic transcriptions.

[jeremyjchilds]

Maybe it's because I;m from canada, but I can't help but love Gould (and hate)

[da jake]

Exactly my thought, Phil. 

[princessdecadence]

I'm Gould's Girl all the way but Horowitz is truly an amazing one!

Am not so sure if this is an effective method to compare the two but I have a recording of Beethoven's Pathetique by both and I compared them.  In my opinion, Horowitz playing of that certain piece is more conventional - you can sleep hearing it because it's played slower and gentler (don't know if that's the right word for it).  Whereas, Gould's playing is considerably faster and more dramatic.  Horowitz Adagio is very serene whereas Gould's is a much more decorated.  In some parts, decorated with his...um...singing. 

[wintervind]

Gould was much more unpredicitable. With Horowitz, one can read into exactly how and why he did the things he did (musically I mean)
I guess which you choose would depend on this factor, IMO.
 

[Bouter Boogie]

Horowitz with no doubt!

[burstroman]

Comparing apples and oranges, except if you want to compare their performances of the Prokofiev 7th Sonata.  I think it's what you are in the mood for.  Both have a valid approach.  Frankly, Gould's still sticks in my memory, while I don't have a clear memory of the Horowitz version.