is the horowitz craze over?

[crazy for ivan moravec]

i read somewhere that there was a time in the US, esp NY, that everybody wanted to sound like Horowitz: his mannerisms, ideas, etc... i believe this is so, although we can't deny that there were a number of really individualistic american artists with strong ideas about their music making. but basing it on my teacher who studied in manhattan school during the 80's, ne can tell how horowitz greatly affected him and his music.

im wondering whether it is still the situation in NY?

[franzliszt2]

I went through a stage in my life aged 15ish when I was listening to Horowitz ALL the time, and my teacher told me never to imitate him, because it will be my ulitamte downfall, and say's that peopel always try to copy Horoitzw, and it obviosly cannot be done. I can imagine the craze still exists among many. I never fell into it, but if my teacher hadn;t warned me, I might have, although, we must admit, we've all sat down and played a Rach prelude or summit, and tried to sound like him, in our own homes, with no one around haha

[steve jones]

I find his playing style quite bizarre actually, and would never want to imitate it. No doubt he is a fantastic pianist, but never one I'd try to be like.

Then again, I wish I could play octaves like he did!

SJ

[alzado]

Really, Horowitz was technically "ultimate" and yet had interpretive skills.

He had an amazing range -- he could play Chopin to the adulation of critics, and could play Scriabin, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff (his signature composer), and whole other modes and other centuries of composition. 

He combined technical virtuosity with superb musicianship.

When I see these topics on the board -- who is playing today who is so wonderful?  And then several "wunderkind" are named . . .    I think, is this a joke or what?

Horowitz was in competition for "pianist of the century."  Along with other superb pianists cum musicians.  Artur Rubinstein, for one example.   Rachmaninoff himself, for another, and Anton Rubinstein for a fourth.  And perhaps, not to leave out some eccentric geniuses as Glen Gould.  Who would be worth at least some discussion.  Though their breadth would fail them, I suspect.

[henrah]

What I never knew (before now) is that the recording I have of his Rach 3 is actually his Rach 3! Rachmaninov actually gave him some cuts and changes and allowed him a little bit of freedom, enough to merit him saying: "That's Horowitz's"

But no doubt he was an a-mazing pianist, musically as well as technically. I am in complete awe in the sheer range of emotions and colours he can project, especially in his Cminor (or is it C#minor?) Chopin Mazurka.

But in answer to Ivan's question, yes I would think the Horowitz craze is over. I would much say that the craze has turned into a nostalgia.
Henrah

[crazy for ivan moravec]

well, i'm glad that it's over. i just hate it when my teacher tells me to do this or that, simply because horowitz would do it!!!??!?!?!

sometimes, those ideas work. but most of the time, not... because i'm not horowitz.
i pity him a lot. he was under the spell of horowitz during his college days in manhattan school.

i personally love the fire and emotions that horowitz can bring out. not to mention his superb technique. but i don't like his interpretations that much. i'd choose to see his video (or see him live!) than just listen to his recordings. i have to see the person because i need his personality to go with the music.. that's horowitz for me. i can't listen to his music alone, it will make me laugh. IMO, i think his personality had a lot do with his success. he was a very interesting man.

[zheer]

Horowitz is the pianist that most pianists admire, infact for those who do love Horowitz, listining to Rachmaninoff playing the piano by various composers including his own compositions , sheds knew light on the style that Horowitz was so famous for, one starts to see the very important connection between the composer and the pianist. 

[tompilk]

I have ot say that I have doubts about Horowitz... I don't think he was technically as good as many of today's pianists - for example Volodos, Argerich, Hamelin - Horowitz even said that he found Godowsky's Passacaglia too difficult and gave up, it's not the hardest piece in the world!!!
Anyways, he's still one of my favourite pianists...
Tom

[stevie]

horowitz had amazing technique in his prime, but by no means one of the best of all.

and about the passacaglia, im sure he couldve played it, but maybe just didnt like it enough to put in the extreme amount of work

i think thats one of, if not the most difficult romantic piano work of all

[tompilk]

i would say that most alkan is harder... and some liszt is...
Tom

[henrah]

I have never heard a piece so fast and technically demanding than his Carmen Variations transcription, and I still marvel at how fast he plays the chords near the end. Valentina Lissista (or however you spell her name - the scary woman who) recorded a video of this piece, but she couldn't play it half as fast as horowitz without mistakes or slowing down near the end of them.

But I haven't heard Godowsky's Passacaglia - would anyone be able to point me to a recording?
Henrah

P.S. Alkan is so beautiful, and his portrayal of so many emotions in Etude Op.39 No.12 is awe-inspiring. And I particularly love Etude Op.35 No.10, which is named something along the lines of 'Just when you expect light comes darkness.'

[tompilk]

Im uploading Passacaglia - youll like it i think... very impressive... 20 mins but well worth the time spent listening...
Tom

[henrah]

How big is it? And where might I ask are you uploading it to? Rapidshare has always given me grief, but hopefully not this time if you are using it.

Thankyou kindly,
Henrah

[tompilk]

Here... i hope sendspace is alright...
https://www.sendspace.com/file/autgsh
enjoy it.. it's one of my favourites...
Tom

[Motrax]

I think at this point, Horowitz is understood to have been unique in his recordings and is quite inimitable. However, it's important to realize that there's a lot one can learn and use from his playing - his dynamic contrasts and colorings were (and are still) unmatched, and it would do well for any amateur or professional alike to listen and understand why his playing was so effective in this regard (this applies to many great pianists, such as Rachmaninoff, Kapell, Michelangeli, Cortot, etc... I think listening is equally important to practicing).

tompilk, I agree with Stevie - the Godowsky was probably not quite worth the effort in Horowitz' mind to devote the time and effort required to play it effectively.

[tompilk]

tompilk, I agree with Stevie - the Godowsky was probably not quite worth the effort in Horowitz' mind to devote the time and effort required to play it effectively.

Is that what you really think or is it what you want to think? (i dont mean to be aggressive in this reply)...
Tom

[Motrax]

I've often come to the conclusion that a piece is "too hard' when I play other repertoire that's a good deal more difficult. For me (and I can only speak for myself, I guess), the difficulty of learning a piece really lies in the balance between how difficult it is for me at the time and how rewarding it is to learn it. Of course, I'm just speculating about Horowitz, but that is indeed what I think. 

[elevateme]

thats totally true

[stevie]

i would say that most alkan is harder... and some liszt is...
Tom

no....have you seen the score?

[henrah]

The score doesn't determine whether it's hard or not. The score to Prokoviev's toccata doesn't look that intimidating, but all the chromaticism makes for a very unrepetitive piece, which requires a lot of hard memorisation.

[superstition2]

Different pianists have different strengths. Cortot, a pianist known to make a lot of errors and was considered inferior to Horowitz by most, played a certain piece so fast that Horowitz studied with him, just so he could discover the "secret". Horowitz, particularly when he was young, had high standards, so if he gave up on a piece due to technical challenges, it's probably because his playing didn't meet those standards, standards few could hope to attain. I think Horowitz' retreat from public performance and use of anti-depressant medication was a reaction to his loss of the insane powers of his youth, a loss that he supplemented with increased depth of interpretation/nuance, and occassionally with sloppy performances (Ormandy Rach 3). Despite the flaws of that recording, when I heard it as a kid, I was amazed. I was new to classical, and Horowitz' playing made a powerful impression.

I prefer Rachmaninov's performance (stupid cuts aside) of his 3rd concerto over Horowitz', but Horowitz is much better than Argerich even in his least impressive incarnation. She has a nonchalant "toss off" attitude in her performances that drives me nuts, with the exception of the outstanding performance of Liszt's B minor sonata in her debut (although Horowitz' performance is far superior).

Horowitz was flat wrong about the Rachmaninov second sonata, too. The original version is better than his or Rachmaninov's efforts at revision. He was also wrong when he said the 3rd is his best concerto. The 2nd and 1915 (or 1927) 4th concerto are just as good, although not as pyrotechnic.

I don't think we can truly measure his greatness because we don't have a recording of his exam performance of the original Rachmaninov second sonata where all the judges stood on their feet for the first time in the history of the school.

Rubinstein's 1st Chopin ballade is better than Horowitz's, I think.

As for the "Horowitz craze", I think the digital sound divide will gradually phase him out, even though he's already been phased out by the stereo/mono divide. Most people I know who like classical won't listen to mono recordings, and will choose a lesser digital performance over a superior analog. This is especially an issue with symphonic recordings. Mono symphonic recordings don't sound very good. Luckily for pianists, the piano fares a bit better. Another problem for Horowitz appreciation is that younger generations can't see him perform, except in video.

Listen to his performance of the Scriabin 10th sonata. Then listen to Hamelin's. Then, ask me if it's a craze...

[Motrax]

The craze was not about listening to Horowitz - it was just about imitating him.

I do agree with you about mono symphonic recordings phasing out, because one simply can't hear all the colors of an orchestra well through older recordings. However, I think there will always be people buying mono recordings of older pianists, because, simply put, those recordings are better than most that are being made today.

[superstition2]

The craze was not about listening to Horowitz - it was just about imitating him.

Imitating someone else is never the correct path.

[Motrax]

I didn't really word my previous post well - I just meant to say that this topic is about imitating Horowitz (which, as I explained earlier, I vehemently disagree with) as opposed to a "craze" of listening to Horowitz, which I think it perfectly fine as long as Horowitz doesn't become one's definition for music. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[arensky]

                 Is the Horowitz craze over? Not while I'm around!


                   

[alzado]

I suspect this thread was started by someone young, for whom Horowitz is just a name.

Better that such people just "butt out."  They really have no bona fide interest in Horowitz.  He is back in the past somewhere like for their great grandfather.

For those of us whose lifeline paralleled Horowitz, it was different.  He was a living genius, and a superb pianist. 

In my lifetime, Artur Rubinstein was another -- very different from Horowitz, but a candidate for "best of the century."

[ramseytheii]

I suspect this thread was started by someone young, for whom Horowitz is just a name.

Better that such people just "butt out."  They really have no bona fide interest in Horowitz.  He is back in the past somewhere like for their great grandfather.

For those of us whose lifeline paralleled Horowitz, it was different.  He was a living genius, and a superb pianist. 

In my lifetime, Artur Rubinstein was another -- very different from Horowitz, but a candidate for "best of the century."

Your lifeline may have paralleled Horowitz, but your generation doesn't own him, and his records belong to the world.  Just like all great, terrible, and disturbing things, each generation has the right and the responsibility to interpret him in their own light!  Saying that those who have no "bona fide" interest should "'Butt out'" is just sour grapes, reminding me of Adorno's commenting on hearing a boy whistle Brahms 1st Symphony in the subway, "It is highly doubtful if the boy in the subway whistling the main theme of the finale of Brahms’s First Symphony actually has been gripped by that music."

Walter Ramsey

[crazy for ivan moravec]

I suspect this thread was started by someone young, for whom Horowitz is just a name.

Better that such people just "butt out."  They really have no bona fide interest in Horowitz.  He is back in the past somewhere like for their great grandfather.

For those of us whose lifeline paralleled Horowitz, it was different.  He was a living genius, and a superb pianist. 

In my lifetime, Artur Rubinstein was another -- very different from Horowitz, but a candidate for "best of the century."

yes i am quite young comparatively speaking, but i feel that i'm not getting any younger.

horowitz, FYI, is not just a name for any serious pianist out there. i have totally high respect for the horowitz.

i don't know how it was during your time but i do understand that there was a craze. i know that horowitz was such a sensation during his lifetime. that is why i was able to ask the question of whether the horowitz craze is still out there or not... because IMO, while there was quite a number of American concert pianists who had original style, everybody else during that time seemed to love imitating horowitz's style of playing--- including my teacher.