Who was better: Horowitz or Rubenstein?

[allchopin]

I think we've all wondered this at one point or another.  So who takes the cake?

[tph]

Horowitz was the best; Rubinstein was the only.  

tph

[ThEmUsIcMaNBJ]

It's all by taste...  For me personally I find Horowitz interpretations...  Just... Well...  not my taste...  

Where Rubinstien is my favorite pianist, period.  So musical, so amazing...  THE best...  no one better argue the FACT!  

Horowitz is my least favorite concert pianist.  Although his technique is amazing, I really can't stand his interpretations of just about everything I've heard him play.  

[RhiAnne]

Hey guys,

 Well it depends on the element of music you are asking which is better.  I believe that for technical ability it would be Horowitz.  If it is according to intrepertation I believe that it woudl be Rubenstein.

 See you later.

[allchopin]

who had a bigger repertoir?

[tph]

More seriously, though (than my above posting), the two are great in their own right.  I think Horowitz was a far greater virtuoso, whose demon could electrify his audiences, whereas Rubinstein was arguably an overall greater poet, whose class would seduce his admirers.

tph

[ned]

For me Horowitz was "fascinating" but Rubinstein was "glorious"! This seems to be what you guys are saying also.

I heard them both live in concert and Rubinstein even at a private club in Washinton on the occasion of his younger daughter's debutante party, when he "stole the show" by playing the Chopin A flat Polonaise and Falla's Ritual Fire Dance to a group of surprised and delighted youngsters who sat on the ballroom floor. Horowitz never had such charm or charisma.

I heard Rubinstein in the Waldstein and Appassionata, much Chopin, Debussy, Schumann Carnival, Brahms, etc. It was rich and magnificent and he was very generous with the encores. He could mess up but he always got right back on track.

By the time I heard Horowitz, he was no longer playing things like the Liszt Sixth and Second Rhapsodies or other blockbusters. In fact I found his one concert I heard unsatisfying, sort of stingy, in fact: Schumann - Blumenstuck, Sonata in F minor, Liszt - Valse Oubliee, Au bord d'une souce, Rachmaninoff - Prelude in G, Etude Tableau in E flat minor, - Chopin Waltz in A minor, Scherzo in B minor. The playing seemed cramped and very shrill, particularly in the B minor Scherzo. I never felt the need to hear him again in concert, but some of his recordings are truly diabolical. I listen frequently.
In my opinion, nobody today comes close to these two giants in their chosen repertoire. I find Ashkenazy, Kissin and Perahia, who I have heard in concert, dull and pedestrian by comparison.
Ned

[amee]

Ah yes, Horowitz and Rubinstein - they had been rivals for almost the last two decades of Horowitz's life.  Horowitz was definitely the better virtuoso, he had the technique at his fingertips that Rubinstein could never have had, and Rubinstein knew it.  However, as much as Rubinstein was sure that he could never equal Horowitz technically, he felt he (Rubinstein) was definitely the better musician.  Rubinstein is famous for his singing tone.  Actually, he had a lot of natural talent and an amazing memory and in his younger years he relied too heavily on that, not wanting to practice.  For Rubinstein there was so many good things in life, and he just could not sit down and practice for long stretches.  In those days he made do with a lot of wrong or missing notes, sometimes as much as 30% according to himself.  In fact he didn't really get down to it until Horowitz came to Paris and took the city by storm.  Rubinstein saw a new Liszt in him and his self-confidence was shaken.  In Rubinstein's memoirs, he mentions the first concert of Horowitz he heard.  Afterwards Rubinstein went backstage to congratulate him, and Horowitz said, "Ach, I played a wrong note in the Polonaise-Fantasie."  According to Rubinstein, he would gladly have given 10 years of his life to be able to claim only one wrong note after a concert!

After Horowitz came to Paris, Rubinstein really started practicing diligently.  He did not want it said that he could have become a great concert pianist if only he had worked harder.  He wanted revenge, not on Horowitz, but on himself, as he knew he could have done better if only he had practiced.  In a way Horowitz was a great inspiration to Rubinstein.

Horowitz and Rubinstein were very unlike each other.  Horowitz was suspicious of the world, Rubinstein was optimistic and loved life.  Where Horowitz would stress out over a concert and shy away from the stage, Rubinstein took a light-hearted approach and enjoyed giving concerts, in fact he even saw it as a stimulant for him.

In David Dubal's book Evenings with Horowitz: A Personal Portrait, it talks about the Horowitz - Rubinstein rivalry which I found most interesting.  According to Mr Dubal, Horowitz would dip his feet into the river of life and scream it was too cold, while Rubinstein was like a fish, swiming joyously in and out of its currents.

[la_carrenio2003]

If I see a recording of the same thing by the 2 of them, I'd buy Horowitz...

[eddie92099]

Here here,
Ed

[amee]

I suppose it depends on what pieces are being played.  For example, I personally don't like Horowitz's interpretation of Chopin.  I like Rubinstein's better, but the best I think is still Ashkenazy, at least on Chopin!

[eddie92099]

Listen to Ashkenazy's waltzes - you may change your mind,
Ed

[BuyBuy]

I think that Horowitz has the potential to always amaze you. That's why I'm always wanting to listen to nknown recordings of him. There is always something that surprises you ("how could I not think of doing that too?").

That's why, even if you don't always agree with his choices, you gotta admire him, and you'll never get bored.

[eddie92099]

That also makes Cherkassky and Hoffman great!
Ed

[PeterSlo]

After listening to recordings of those two pianists I always asked myself one question: What is the differnce between musicalitiy and genialty? Probably, the secret lies in the abstract idea, the special way of playing the piece, which in contrast to natural musicality provides a much greater tension and occupies the mind as well. For me, I find Rubinsteins playing too simple, too direct (although those two qualities are positive itself) and not complex enough, while listening to Horowitz I can always admire his vision of a piece as a composer, and not just a musical interpreter.

[pianiststrongbad]

It all depends on what I want to listen to (composer I mean).  Horowitz can play Scriabin and others very well, and Rubinstein can do the same with Chopin, Brahms.  But personally, I have to go with Richter who I regard as a master of technique and interpretations to an extent no other pianist has gone.

[trunks]

In short . . . Horowitz the Devil, Rubinstein the God.
I abide by God.

[thracozaag]

In short . . . Horowitz the Devil, Rubinstein the God.
I abide by God.

   

[Xelles]

I like Rubinstein's better, but the best I think is still Ashkenazy, at least on Chopin!

Ashkenazy is a demond with Rach's music. With Chopin's...did I mention that he can play Rach really well?

[DarkWind]

I listened to Horowitz' and Rubinstein's recordings of the Valse Oubliee by Liszt, and they are totally different in they way they take it. I particurlarly did not like the opening with Horowitz, as he took the 6th chord, which is, if I remember correctly, a staccato quarter note, and played it like a half note. Its was pretty annoying and unusual. I could understand if he was taking a different approach, but this was not the way to go about it. Whereas Rubinstein, he sticks with the rules and goes more softly and poetically about it. After the intro, Horowitz does a fantastic job with the left hand staccatos, making them short yet heard, shorter than usual. Rubinstein makes both hands a little bit more balanced. Rubinstein in the end, is good for Chopin and the likes, whereas Horowitz is good for Liszt. Rubinstein's Mephisto Waltz, for example, is horrid. He takes a very structured view of the song, and lacks the spark and life that the piece deserves. I haven't heard the Horowitz recording of it though. Its like Rubinstein is the Sigismond Thalberg to Horowitz' Liszt. Except Rubinstein doesn't do that thumb thing . In the end, I prefer Rubinstein, however, because his interpretation of Spanish music is incredible. The Ritual Fire Dance is lively, the Dance of the Molinero is pompous and loud, but not in an obnoxious way. He's great!

[erak]

For me definitly Horowitz. Rubinstein was an amazing pianist, but he lacks the devil and especially the fantasy Horowitz had.

[dj]

well, rubinstein has a much more harnessed and controlled energy, and his interpretations are much more intelligent, and i strive more for rubinstein's musical values than horowitz's.....horowitz could however nail certain performances right on the head sometimes with such electrifying virtuosity that the music would leave even the listener feeling out of breath at the end (ie. the 1951 recording of chopin's 1st scherzo)

i have never had the privellege to c either pianist live as horowitz died when i was 4 .....however, both have left recordings of certain pieces which have brought me 2 the brink of tears (rubinstein: chopin nocturne no 1......horowitz: scriabin etude op 8 no 12, op 2 no 1) and recordings that make me overwhelmed with exhuberence (rubinstein: ending of chopin ballade no 4 ....horowitz: chopin Ab polonaise)

well if you haven't guessed already, my favorite composer is chopin by far.....so yeah rubinstein takes the cake as far as im concerned....but these 2 pianists are, in my mind, the greatest who ever lived

-david joe

[onemanband]

me

[dj]

me

keep me posted on how that goes over with the general public  

[88meister]

Although I really love both and had been fortunate to hear both in concert, for me it is not even close:  Horowitz, by a mile, and for artistic, not purely virtuostic reasons.
Why?  Although he had a larger repertoire, was a great ensemble player and played with remarkable gusto and panache, I have to agree with the late great William Kapell who felt that Rubinstein was not truly an artist dedicated to totally giving himself to the piano; that although A.R. dearly loved music, he was really more interested in living the good life and using piano playing as a passport to fame--the best wines, cigars, women etc.  He was content to play many works lightheartedly in public and coast on his remarkable personality and fiery temperament. He had no reservations performing commercially for Hollywood cinema, and because his live stage concert performances were in effect audience 'love-fests', he often got away with obfuscating sloppy playing by holding down the pedal.  (I heard him do this in concert at Avery Fisher Hall in the final movement of the Chopin B Minor Sonata; for another example, go to the live radio performance of the Tchaikovsky Concerto with Rodzinski and the NY Phil on CD.--this is why, unlike VH, Rubinstein refused to release most of his live concert performances)  His studio recordings can often be a shade too careful that could make composers of differing periods sound alike, and sometimes even in spots boring (just listen to the RCA recording of the Liszt Sonata).
In Chopin, his separation of the opening notes of the C#Minor Polonaise weakens the impact of the dramatic opening of the piece.  Also, I do not appreciate his fluctuation of tempo within the phrasing of the great A-Flat Polonaise. And, unlike VH, he does not play the Scherzos in time.  Finally, although often lovely and beguiling, Rubinstein never really had the truly heroic sonority (or technique) of the greatest pianists of the century, such as Hofmann, Moiseiwitsch, Rachmaninoff, Godowsky, Levitzki, Kapell, Gilels and, of course, VH.
In contrast, in terms of solo performance, Horowitz's pianism was far more comprehensive in differing styles--this was due to his remarkable variety of touch as well as tonal control (elements that I feel are frequently overlooked by listeners who are only paying attention to the obvious elements of speed and clarity of articulation).  If you disagree, remember that Rubinstein would never program a Scarlatti or Clementi Sonata in his recitals or for that matter, one by Mozart; I have never heard him venture into anything truly modern, such as the Barber Sonata, a masterpiece as performed and documented in the legendary Horowitz recording.  Finally, it was Horowitz who would truly challenge the listener with his interpretations (unlike AR who frequently opted for the safe road). Sure, he could often miss the mark (I do not at all care for his rendering of the Clementi Sonata quasi Concerto, and don't feel that with the exception of the 3rd movement, the Schumann Concerto w/o Orchestra op. 14 truly ranks with that composer's G minor Sonata as a great piece of music.)  However, when he was "on", the results were so overwhelmingly glorious and transcendent.  Just listen to the recordings (esp. the "bootleg" live performances, like the the 1948 Bruno Walter/NY PHIL of the Tchaikovsky, which far surpasses in warmth, vitality and power of the commercial "race against the clock" versions with Toscanini).  I have to say, the man was in a league of his own.

[pianist1976]

Just for me and for my very personal taste, Horowitz. No doubt.

[danhuyle]

Depends on what they're playing and your taste of interpretation.

Horowitz's interpretation of Scriabin etude Op8 No12 FTW.

[pianoman53]

That's a stupid question. What is better: red or blue?

[birba]

Which is better:   A fine barolo, 2000 or a bottle of dom pérignon?

[werq34ac]

Zombie thread o.o ; anyway rubinstein's interpretations were usually more beuatiful and refined but horowitz could perform like no other.

[ade16]

Questions such as this cannot be absolute and will always come down to opinion, driven by personal preferences and personal taste. It is like saying, what is better, porridge or spinach? They are both healthy foods in their own way, but some people hate one or other or both, some love both! It also depends what you mean by better! Too vague a question as well as being highly subjective!
Which colour is better, yellow or green?

Do you mean better technique, better interpretations (surely this depends on the specific music!), better expression, better stage presence, better piano tone? (yes, the same piano and piece can sound completely different with different pianists... e.g. use of pedals, finger technique etc)

A silly and pointless question really in my opinion! You could pick any names of famous pianists out of the air and ask the same vague question actually!  

[onwan]

I don't like none of them. But both were great pianists. I found out that Horowitz was bigger fool and that made him even better pianist.

[ade16]

I don't like none of them. But both were great pianists. I found out that Horowitz was bigger fool and that made him even better pianist.

Please explain further, particularly about Horowitz being a bigger fool, and how this has anything at all to do with his stature as a pianist! Also, which pianists do you like then and why? Your comment just seems rather pointless and meaningless. If you have a point to make please make it more clearly!
I just don't get the link between 'bigger fool' and 'better pianist'. Please explain the logic of this! I do not mean to be rude, I am genuinely curious as to what you actually mean! 

[onwan]

Please explain further, particularly about Horowitz being a bigger fool, and how this has anything at all to do with his stature as a pianist! Also, which pianists do you like then and why? Your comment just seems rather pointless and meaningless. If you have a point to make please make it more clearly!
I just don't get the link between 'bigger fool' and 'better pianist'. Please explain the logic of this! I do not mean to be rude, I am genuinely curious as to what you actually mean! 

OK. The fool- I meant that he was more imaginative, creative, some kind of craziness I can't find better word how to describe it. When he played forte, it was fortissimo, when he played piano, it was pianissimo. He was more extravagant. It's not like I don't like Horowitz at all, but his interpteration is sometimes kind of frenzy.
And Rubinstein was more sophisticated, more reserved. I found his interpretation a bit boring even the sound is pure. His pianissimo is piano, his fortissimo is forte.
My favourite pianist is Martha Argerich, Ivan Moravec, Valentina Lisitsa, Kissin, Arrau, Luggansky...
I hope It'll help.

[pianoman53]

I find it rather amusing to first say that rubinstein is boring, and then have lisitsa and lugansky as favourites...

[sonata58]

Two of the greatest pianists of the 20th century. Each had his own unique style.

It is like asking, who was a better dancer: Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly?

To me, the difference between Horowitz and Rubenstein is like the difference between Astaire and Kelly. One epitomizes polished elegance, the other exuberant energy.

[j_joe_townley]

Horowitz left his best years behind him when he retired in 1952 or so. He made some good recordings during that time but when he returned in 1965 he was not the same pianist. he was programming all his old material and not learning anything new. In his younger days he learned much more piano music and played it. He did not possess the learning capacity Rubinstein had, so Rubinstein had the much greater repertoire. Hell, anyone who could learn Symphonic Variations on a train w/o a piano and then play it that night had to possess some kind of photographic memory.

Horowitz, I think, was just lazy when it came to learning new repertoire in his later years. He broke his promise to Rachmaninoff to do the Concerto No. 1 for just that reason---too damn lazy to put in the work to learn it. He thought he could coast by on his reputation and a short, carefully-chosen list of a few serious longer works mixed with a bunch of bon-bons. Rubinstein could play just about anything you asked for right on the spot. Horowitz could not. Where Rubinstein knew about 90% of any of the great composer's works, Horowitz knew only about 10% and this severely limited him in his latter years, which is why his programs usually consisted of Scenes From Childhood, Scriabin's Etude in d-sharp minor, and Mozart's Sonata in C, along with an assortment of lesser works like Liszt Consolation, Chopin waltz in a minor and a few Rach preludes, if that. Even when Horowitz tried a comeback to his glory days with something like the Liszt Sonata it was a disaster. Horowitz blamed it on antidepressants, I think I read. His giant technique was definitely gone by 1978 when he did the Rach Three.

[pianoman53]

Do you have any source on that?

[marik1]

Horowitz left his best years behind him when he retired in 1952 or so. He made some good recordings during that time but when he returned in 1965 he was not the same pianist.

Sorry to disagree, but I don't think so. In fact, I believe he made some spectacular recordings after 1965, including Rachmaninov 2nd Sonata from 1968, among others.

He did not possess the learning capacity Rubinstein had, so Rubinstein had the much greater repertoire.

I always thought that pianists are judged by quality, rather than quantity. Following your logic, A.B. Michelangeli would be a lesser pianist just because he had limited repertoire?

Rubinstein could play just about anything you asked for right on the spot. Horowitz could not. Where Rubinstein knew about 90% of any of the great composer's works, Horowitz knew only about 10% and this severely limited him in his latter years...

Any chance to cite the source of those allegations? May I remind, Horowitz had in his repertoire many composers Rubinstein even never touched. Horowitz had pioneered many modern composers of that time, including Barber, Prokofiev, Kabalevsky, Medtner, Zhelobinsky. Horowitz was the one who introduced Scriabin to a wide audience in the West. Also, it is a very well known fact, that Horowitz' repertoire was by far larger than what he played on stage as he was extremely careful and selective with his concert repertoire. For example, he knew all Beethoven Sonatas from memory and could play any of them any time. Less known fact, but by the age of 14 he knew and could play from memory many of the Wagner entire operas (!!!). He was fabulous sight reader and it took him only a few times to play a piece to know it from memory.

Horowitz probably did not have a photographic memory, but by all means his musical memory was rather phenomenal.

Horowitz, I think, was just lazy when it came to learning new repertoire in his later years. He broke his promise to Rachmaninoff to do the Concerto No. 1 for just that reason---too damn lazy to put in the work to learn it.

Again, any chance to cite the source of this allegation? I have very hard time to believe it, esp. considering that only "active" (i.e. played in concerts) Horowitz' repertoire is over 14 pages long (!!!) and he had very little problems to learn new pieces.

which is why his programs usually consisted of Scenes From Childhood, Scriabin's Etude in d-sharp minor, and Mozart's Sonata in C, along with an assortment of lesser works like Liszt Consolation, Chopin waltz in a minor and a few Rach preludes, if that.

This allegation is incorrect. I'd suggest you to study his programs of the later years to see what he had included in his concerts. You might be surprised. In fact, he played quite a few larger scale works, which he never recorded before.

Even when Horowitz tried a comeback to his glory days with something like the Liszt Sonata it was a disaster.

Are you trying to say that Rubinstein never had disastrous concerts? Or are you trying to say that Horowitz did not have triumphant recitals in his later years? Somehow, I believe, the big artists to be judged by their highest achievements, rather than their occasional failures.
 

His giant technique was definitely gone by 1978 when he did the Rach Three.

I'd love to see anybody aged 75 and play Rachmaninov 3rd!--how many historical examples could you give? Even more, I'd love to see somebody aged 75 and play Rachmaninov 3rd with such kind of personality, spirit, fire, and electricity. But if you are looking for something dull and note perfect then I'd suggest to rather watch finals of Tchaikowski, or Clibern competitions.

Best, M

[j_joe_townley]

I'm really not big on quoting actual sources. What i say is from tid-bits I picked up here and there from magazine articles, books, interviews, observations, etc. I cannot trace it all back. But I think much of what I said is factual on its face:

Fact: Rubinstein was playing a greater variety of works in his later years than Horowitz.
Fact: Horowitz rarely, if at all, played all that modern music he learned in his youth after 1965. He officially recorded fewer concertos than any pianist of his stature (5). Rubinstein recorded what...some 100?
Fact: Rachmaninoff did ask Horowitz to do his 1st concerto and Horowitz promised to. About 20 years later he said, "I don't know when I'll keep that promise but I WILL keep it" Shortly before his death: "I never got to do the 1st Concerto but i feel I was of great service to Rachmaninoff. I played his 3rd Concerto before anyone else and it was due to this that much of his music got before the public" (words to that effect) So, no, I don't feel I betrayed Rachmaninoff in any way."

I don't bring other pianists into the conversation, notably Michangeli. This was about Horowitz vs Rubinstein. If we're going to talk about other pianists then yes, you're right quantity does not equate to quality, but some love Horowitz, some love Rubinstein. I have nothing against Horowitz musically. He was a titan.

[dima_76557]

@ j_joe_townley

Your arguments do not prove your point that Horowitz was "lazy". High quality standards, for example, may very well keep a person from recording and issuing stuff. ("Wanda, do you think they still like me?" (c))

Here is an attempt to list all of Horowitz's concert repertoire he is known to have performed before an audience: https://vladimirhorowitz.hostzi.com/1_12_Repertoire.html (*)
There seems to be a full (incredibly huge) list of all the works Horowitz ever touched at Yale University, but unfortunately, the link that is usually given is unavailable from Russia.

EDIT: (*) That server seems to have trouble with all the requests, so as soon as it becomes available again, I could publish the list here if that is not seen as copyright infringement.

[j_joe_townley]

@ j_joe_townley

Your arguments do not prove your point that Horowitz was "lazy". High quality standards, for example, may very well keep a person from recording and issuing stuff. ("Wanda, do you think they still like me?" (c))

Here is an attempt to list all of Horowitz's concert repertoire he is known to have performed before an audience: https://vladimirhorowitz.hostzi.com/1_12_Repertoire.html
There seems to be a full (incredibly huge) list of all the works Horowitz ever touched at Yale University, but unfortunately, the link that is usually given is unavailable from Russia.

I apologize for my rash remark. I reread my comment and never meant to imply that Horowitz was lazy as a musician in general in his later years. I got ahead of myself because I was headed for the comment on Rachmaninoff's 1st Concerto. You see I have a particular affection for Horowitz playing Rachmaninoff. No one ever topped Horowitz's recording of the 3rd with Coates, except perhaps Rachmaninoff himself, and I was so looking forward to Horowitz doing the 1st. Year after year passed with nothing and I wondered, "What happened to that promise he made to Rachmaninoff on his deathbed? Does a sacred promise to the greatest composer of the 20th century mean nothing to him?" Apparently, it didn't. I can think of no reason for why he couldn't have learned the 1st Concerto and performed it to keep his sacred vow, except he just didn't feel like investing the time and energy for a less popular work that requires so much effort, certainly a hundred times more than Mozart's 23rd. You know that famous story where he complained to Rachmaninoff that the reason he didn't like playing the 2nd was because the piano does not carry the theme at the end!!!!! Can you imagine a more venial remark, and from such a great man? I cannot blame Rachmaninoff for exploding with, "Well, then change the ending!!" I think even Rachmaninoff himself was dumbfounded by such a callous remark. I suppose I cannot forgive him for not doing the 1st---I was so looking forward to it and feel utterly betrayed by him.

Anyway, I apologize for offending anyone. I really shouldn't comment on things like this because they usually come back to bite me in the @ss. 

[marik1]

I'm really not big on quoting actual sources. What i say is from tid-bits I picked up here and there from magazine articles, books, interviews, observations, etc. I cannot trace it all back.

Unfortunately, in this case any of your allegations lose any value, as most of what you have presented was your empty conjectures.

Fact: Rubinstein was playing a greater variety of works in his later years than Horowitz.

So what are you trying to say? As I wrote earlier great artists to be judged by their highest achievements, which has nothing to do with somebodies later years. And if you are talking later years, Horowitz in his seventies was still playing Rachmaninov 3rd. To my knowledge, Rubinstein never was able to play it, to start with...

Fact: Horowitz rarely, if at all, played all that modern music he learned in his youth after 1965. He officially recorded fewer concertos than any pianist of his stature (5). Rubinstein recorded what...some 100?

First, please name at least half of those alledged Rubinstein recorded 100 concerti. Second, Horowitz was not a fan of playing with orchestra, to start with, so your message means nothing. Third, if you are so adamant about Horowitz not learning "all that modern music" after 1965 in your agenda of represent Rubinstein as of somebody superior, please list here "all that modern music" which Mr. Rubinstein learned after 1965.

Fact: Rachmaninoff did ask Horowitz to do his 1st concerto and Horowitz promised to. About 20 years later he said, "I don't know when I'll keep that promise but I WILL keep it" Shortly before his death: "I never got to do the 1st Concerto but i feel I was of great service to Rachmaninoff. I played his 3rd Concerto before anyone else and it was due to this that much of his music got before the public" (words to that effect) So, no, I don't feel I betrayed Rachmaninoff in any way."

Again, please cite the source. Otherwise, it is BS.

I don't bring other pianists into the conversation, notably Michangeli. This was about Horowitz vs Rubinstein.

It seems you missed a point that this is not about Michelangeli (please honor that great person by at least spelling his name correct), but the point that the fact of breadth of repertoire doesn't mean anything.

I have nothing against Horowitz musically. He was a titan.

Thank you at least for that! Something tells me he really doesn't care.

Best, M

[j_joe_townley]

Unfortunately, in this case any of your allegations lose any value, as most of what you have presented was your empty conjectures.

So what are you trying to say? As I wrote earlier great artists to be judged by their highest achievements, which has nothing to do with somebodies later years. And if you are talking later years, Horowitz in his seventies was still playing Rachmaninov 3rd. To my knowledge, Rubinstein never was able to play it, to start with...

First, please name at least half of those alledged Rubinstein recorded 100 concerti. Second, Horowitz was not a fan of playing with orchestra, to start with, so your message means nothing. Third, if you are so adamant about Horowitz not learning "all that modern music" after 1965 in your agenda of represent Rubinstein as of somebody superior, please list here "all that modern music" which Mr. Rubinstein learned after 1965.

Again, please cite the source. Otherwise, it is BS.

It seems you missed a point that this is not about Michelangeli (please honor that great person by at least spelling his name correct), but the point that the fact of breadth of repertoire doesn't mean anything.


Thank you at least for that! Something tells me he really doesn't care.

Best, M

Please accept my sincerest apologies. I offended you and I am sorry for that. I gave an extensive explanation in the post above for my great disappointment in Horowitz for not honoring his commitment to Rachmaninoff re the 1st Concerto. It's all above. I really shouldn't give opinions because they always come back to haunt me. I will refrain in the future.

[pianoman53]

You can have whatever opinion you want, but to say something like that, and then saying "nah, i don't like giving sources" is just digging your own grave.

I saw richter play Tchaikovsky's b flat minor concerto while escaping a big potato-bag... Where, you ask? Nah, I don't wanna tell. Okay, fine.. it was a scene from monthy python...

[88meister]

    Regarding Horowitz's performances of the Liszt Sonata in 1978--instead of the souped up RCA commercial recording, you might want to check out the March 19, 1978 live at Carnegie Hall "bootleg" recording posted on Youtube and see if you think he didn't have the artistry as well as the technique to handle the piece--other than a momentary memory lapse in the final explosive section of the sonata, it might very well eclipse all other performances of the work.  I was extremely fortunate to have been there (up in the 2nd tier, keyboard side, for that performance-- an unforgettable experience!)
    Also, if you check out his concertography, almost every year he performed post-1965, he introduced to his audiences a work that he had not previously played. To wit: 1966-the Scriabin Sonata # 10, 1967-the Beethoven Sonata #28, 1968-the Haydn Sonata # 58 and the Chopin F# Minor Polonaise, 1969- the Hungarian Rhapsody #13, 1974- the Scriabin Sonata # 5, 1975-the Schumann Concerto w/o Orchestra,.......etc., etc.  He was frequently exploring new repertory, with an abhorrence of the hackneyed; unlike Rubinstein, who in his later years was pretty much replaying the same pieces in recital---the familiar Chopin, the Beethoven Appassionata, the Schumann Fantasiestucke, the Debussy Ondine and Poissons d'Or, etc . I love these pieces, however I love them even more deeply when played by a pianist who doesn't ignore inner voices (so important in the deeper Schumann) and who is not hesitant to use his imagination and artistry to apply varied shadings and delicate subtle tone color in the Debussy.
     Imo, I think one should take very lightly the often mentioned Rubinstein claim that he had a photographic memory.  If that were really the case, he would not have experienced so many memory lapses (as recounted by colleagues such as Beecham, Reiner, Bernstein and Ormandy) in live performance. (For a classic example of this, go to the disastrous live performance of the Chopin Sonata #2, second movement.)  Amongst musicians, Rubinstein was acknowledged to be one of the biggest, to put it politely, manufacturers of tall tales.  (Example, in disapproving of an interpretation of Brahms that conflicted with his own, he often told students that as a young boy HE played that particular piece for Brahms--very entertaining, but untrue.)
     Btw, although the Rach 3  Horowitz/Coates recording of 1930 is legendary, I feel even more monumental are the live recordings with Barbirolli (incredible sonorities in the second movement!) in 1941 and with Rodzinski in 1944.

[dima_76557]

Imo, I think one should take very lightly the often mentioned Rubinstein claim that he had a photographic memory.  If that were really the case, he would not have experienced so many memory lapses (as recounted by colleagues such as Beecham, Reiner, Bernstein and Ormandy) in live performance.

This seems a bit unfair towards the great Artur Rubinstein, especially keeping in mind at what age those memory lapses started occurring.

First of all, you may want to look up what photographic memory is and compare it to eidetic memory. Yes, in his good days, he learned pieces by heart almost from a first reading, sometimes not even playing them physically, but keeping the sound-movement image ready and clear for recall to play an instrument even 20-70 years later is an entirely different matter.

Medical conditions, tiredness from all that traveling, etc., may easily and temporarily distort tactile, proprioceptive, and auditory recall, even if you have perfect visual memory and certainly if you don't practise much as Rubinstein himself admitted.

Anybody who has a good look at the clip where he is performing Chopin's second sonata can see that Rubinstein wasn't feeling well from the beginning already. You say the second movement was "disastrous". I don't agree. It shows us how brilliantly he got out of trouble; he improvised a bit and played on as if nothing had happened. A true master of his art.

[j_joe_townley]

   Regarding Horowitz's performances of the Liszt Sonata in 1978--instead of the souped up RCA commercial recording, you might want to check out the March 19, 1978 live at Carnegie Hall "bootleg" recording posted on Youtube and see if you think he didn't have the artistry as well as the technique to handle the piece--other than a momentary memory lapse in the final explosive section of the sonata, it might very well eclipse all other performances of the work.  I was extremely fortunate to have been there (up in the 2nd tier, keyboard side, for that performance-- an unforgettable experience!)
    Also, if you check out his concertography, almost every year he performed post-1965, he introduced to his audiences a work that he had not previously played. To wit: 1966-the Scriabin Sonata # 10, 1967-the Beethoven Sonata #28, 1968-the Chopin F# Minor Polonaise, 1969- the Hungarian Rhapsody #13, 1974- the Scriabin Sonata # 5, 1975-the Schumann Concerto w/o Orchestra,.......etc., etc.  He was frequently exploring new repertory, with an abhorrence of the hackneyed; unlike Rubinstein, who in his later years was pretty much replaying the same pieces in recital---the familiar Chopin, the Beethoven Appassionata, the Schumann Fantasiestucke, the Debussy Ondine and Poissons d'Or, etc . I love these pieces, however I love them even more deeply when played by a pianist who doesn't ignore inner voices (so important in the deeper Schumann) and who is not hesitant to use his imagination and artistry to apply varied shadings and delicate subtle tone color in the Debussy.
     Imo, I think one should take very lightly the often mentioned Rubinstein claim that he had a photographic memory.  If that were really the case, he would not have experienced so many memory lapses (as recounted by colleagues such as Beecham, Reiner, Bernstein and Ormandy) in live performance. (For a classic example of this, go to the disastrous live performance of the Chopin Sonata #2, second movement.)  Amongst musicians, Rubinstein was acknowledged to be one of the biggest, to put it politely, manufacturers of tall tales.  (Example, in disapproving of an interpretation of Brahms that conflicted with his own, he often told students that as a young boy HE played that particular piece for Brahms--very entertaining, but untrue.)
     Btw, although the Rach 3  Horowitz/Coates recording of 1930 is legendary, I feel even more monumental are the live recordings with Barbirolli (incredible sonorities in the second movement!) in 1943 and with Rodzinski in 1944.

Well, I obviously don't know my stuff regarding these thing so I shouldn't be talking when I only have second-and third hand information and no credible sources.

Listened to the Barbiroli (fabulous) and the 1977 Sonata---clean octaves. I obviously seriously misspoke about his prowess in later years. Please forgive and forget completely my earlier posts.

[magic_sonata]

For me, I think Rubinstein is much better in the overall interpretation of music. Horowitz is okay, but I find his music too bland in his own interpretation of certain pieces.

[ade16]

Questions such as this cannot be absolute and will always come down to opinion, driven by personal preferences and personal taste. It is like saying, what is better, porridge or spinach? They are both healthy foods in their own way, but some people hate one or other or both, some love both! It also depends what you mean by better! Too vague a question as well as being highly subjective!
Which colour is better, yellow or green?

Do you mean better technique, better interpretations (surely this depends on the specific music!), better expression, better stage presence, better piano tone? (yes, the same piano and piece can sound completely different with different pianists... e.g. use of pedals, finger technique etc)

A silly and pointless question really in my opinion! You could pick any names of famous pianists out of the air and ask the same vague question actually!  

I just thought I'd begin by quoting what I said some time ago, before writing anything new. I stick by what I originally said, and having read all subsequent posts, this just reinforces my opinion in my own mind, whether anyone agrees or not! Namely, that this kind of question/discussion is highly subjective and utterly pointless! Which is better, an apple or an orange? This is all getting rather tedious! Also, it would be really good if anyone were to actually substantiate their arguments with facts (rather than merely opinions based on very little, if any, direct experience); or even an anecdote or two, also based on some direct experience (your own experience, or quoting someone else's; even if from a book written by a far bigger expert than any of us with regard to these two pianists!). I have seen Rubinstein perform live once and Horowitz twice, all many years ago. I am also very familiar with many recordings. I believe they were both great in their own ways, but trying to come to a conclusion as to who was the greater is always going to be a completely futile discussion.