Top pianists making alot of mistakes.... Why is that accepted?

[gyzzzmo]

Nice example is a Horowitz performance, here's the link:

&feature=related

Can he get away with it, just because he's 'Horowitz'?

[franzliszt2]

Well it's not as if every performance Horowitz did had mistakes in it. Everyone makes mistakes.

[mad_max2024]

Top pianists are also human.
Like my teacher once told me... "There are pretty days and... not so pretty days"

I guess they are top pianists because they make less mistakes than we lesser guys, they disguise the mistakes they do make a lot better and because people enjoy listening to them.
But they must have their days from hell like everybody else.

[gyzzzmo]

I personally think its a humiliation. He makes alot of essential mistakes and tries to cover it up (?) by adding some extra bass notes here and there. Thats no proof of musicality, its covering up lack of concentration and musicality. Maybe the guy was too old to keep performing at that age. Pity, since he did so many much better performances...

[thalbergmad]

I would rather listen to a piece played beautifully with mistakes than ugly without mistakes, so they do not bother me. Playing ugly and still making mistakes is something else. Mistakes can often happen when taking chances. Not taking any chances can lead to boring playing.

Horowitz had bad days, but his bad days were sometimes better than many pianists good days.

Strangely, the Ballade appears to have been one of his "bogey" pieces. Even one his teachers said he never played it correctly, if my memory serves. Therefore, he did not really "get away with it".

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

I would rather listen to a piece played beautifully with mistakes than ugly without mistakes, so they do not bother me. Playing ugly and still making mistakes is something else. Mistakes can often happen when taking chances. Not taking any chances can lead to boring playing.

Horowitz had bad days, but his bad days were sometimes better than many pianists good days.

Strangely, the Ballade appears to have been one of his "bogey" pieces. Even one his teachers said he never played it correctly, if my memory serves. Therefore, he did not really "get away with it".

Thal

At least its comforting my sense of justice that people werent accepting either, because in my opinion, the technical part should be practicly flawless when being performed by a master pianist, the musicality is something in wich you can excel, but only if you keep the technique (and notes) flawless. Thats why those people earned the titel 'Master pianist'.

[argerichfan]

I would rather listen to a piece played beautifully with mistakes than ugly without mistakes

Well that depends on how many mistakes.  Cortot tends to push the envelope a bit too much for me (not to mention rhythmic instability), so I generally stay clear of his recordings. 

But obviously Cortot has some high profile admirers (well known reviewers in Gramophone or Fanfare) and of course people here and on other forums.

[thalbergmad]

Well that depends on how many mistakes. 

Indeed old chap and i guess each individual would have their own boundary as to what is acceptable.

I wonder what a modern piano competition judge would make of Anton Rubinstein?

My guess is that he would be thrown out in the first round and the competition would be won by a note perfect but completely bland performance.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

the technical part should be practicly flawless when being performed by a master pianist, the musicality is something in wich you can excel, but only if you keep the technique (and notes) flawless. Thats why those people earned the titel 'Master pianist'.

I can see where you are coming from, but there are some pretty awful note perfect performances.

Hamelin Rubinstein 4 for instance.

Thal

[gyzzzmo]

Indeed old chap and i guess each individual would have their own boundary as to what is acceptable.

I wonder what a modern piano competition judge would make of Anton Rubinstein?

My guess is that he would be thrown out in the first round and the competition would be won by a note perfect but completely bland performance.

Thal

I find it quite disappointing these days too, how much is focussed on technique and musicality is ignored. But still, Chopin's ballade no1 is technically not THAT hard and its typically something a master should be doing pretty flawlessly, and amazing the public with its musicality. I suppose Horowitz had a bad nose day, dont we all have those?

Btw, time to go to bed, my girlfriend keeps saying she misses my warmth 

[thalbergmad]

But still, Chopin's ballade no1 is technically not THAT hard and its typically something a master should be doing pretty flawlessly, and amazing the public with its musicality.

Perhaps a la Liszt, it did not give him enough to do.

Thal

[argerichfan]

I wonder what a modern piano competition judge would make of Anton Rubinstein?

My guess is that he would be thrown out in the first round and the competition would be won by a note perfect but completely bland performance.

Well since none of us has actually heard Rubinstein play, all we have to go on is what was written about him, of which a fair amount survives. 

I suspect that along with Paderewski, Rubinstein must have been one of the most outstandingly charismatic people ever to touch a piano.  I wouldn't necessarily conclude that a 'modern' judge would throw Rubinstein out in the first round, we don't know how many mistakes he made as a young man, and how much his charisma would have overridden that.

Whatever, since Rubinstein's music so quickly vanished after his death, I can only assume it was his charisma as a performer that kept it alive in the first place. 

[franzliszt2]

I think it is harsh to focus on this performace by Horowitz. I mean, I'd still rather listen to this recording than many many others. At least there are some moments of greatness.

Cortot hits many wrongs notes, and sometimes it is distracting.

I think we should raise some "note perfect" Hamelin live performaces...like in Alkan quassi faust, or in norma fantasy, or Michelangeli's Paganini variations with wrong notes, or Rubinsteins op44 early recording etc....truely great performances (except the Hamelin I mentioned, which are equally as dull as his note perfect playing)

I find it quite disappointing these days too, how much is focussed on technique and musicality is ignored. But still, Chopin's ballade no1 is technically not THAT hard and its typically something a master should be doing pretty flawlessly, and amazing the public with its musicality. I suppose Horowitz had a bad nose day, dont we all have those?

Btw, time to go to bed, my girlfriend keeps saying she misses my warmth 

Hang on....yu just raised the wrong note issue...how can you say to much is focused on technique?? I think there are some very musical moments in the Horowitz video. However, it is nowhere near what he achieved with other pieces, BUT I still think you can tell he is a great pianist from this recording alone...which is why I thinbk he is ne of the greats

[francois8]

For me Horowitz was a great pianist with or without mistakes.
Of course he did some mistakes as a lot of pianists but he was so sensitive and "inside" his music that most of the time it was forgotten really quickly. For me he will stay unique.

[pianowolfi]

Nice example is a Horowitz performance, here's the link:

&feature=related

Can he get away with it, just because he's 'Horowitz'?

If I would criticise this rec it wouldn't be because of the wrong notes. These get only into the focus of attention because there are other things that are at some places out of balance, like dynamics, speed and pedal.

 

I think it is harsh to focus on this performace by Horowitz. I mean, I'd still rather listen to this recording than many many others. At least there are some moments of greatness.

 I think there are some very musical moments in the Horowitz video. However, it is nowhere near what he achieved with other pieces, BUT I still think you can tell he is a great pianist from this recording alone...which is why I think he is one of the greats

Agreed.

[comsmcsc]

Nice example is a Horowitz performance, here's the link:

&feature=related

Can he get away with it, just because he's 'Horowitz'?

Well, let's see how well we play at the age of 78. . .

[daro]

The rap on Gilels was always that his technique wasn't quite up to the standards of other top-level pianists, but I don't think anyone would say he wasn't one of the greatest artists of all time.

I was fortunate enough to hear him play the Tschaikovsky 1st a few years before he died, and despite the fact that he must have played this piece a thousand times, he did slip over some notes here and there. His interpretation was so incredible, though, that even with the mistakes, I still think of that night as the single greatest musical performance I've ever attended in my life.

yd

[javacisnotrecognized]

IMO, If you are ever at a performance from a real top pianist, you'd be far too absorbed in what thery're doing musically to notice a slip here or there. Since the majority of pianists today are very boring (You won't often here a performance that is little more than a [poor] literal translation of the score), we tend to notice it more.

[gyzzzmo]

IMO, If you are ever at a performance from a real top pianist, you'd be far too absorbed in what thery're doing musically to notice a slip here or there. Since the majority of pianists today are very boring (You won't often here a performance that is little more than a [poor] literal translation of the score), we tend to notice it more.

Its true the majority is boring these days, they're to technically and without musicality. But that is also the difference between the average pro and the 'master pro'. The master pro differs himself from the rest because he can do both: great technique AND great musicality.
Ofcourse i know that Horowitz was one of the greatest pianists, but objectivly seen, this performance was pretty bad, probably because of his age. And its pretty funny that people here defend his performance, because i'm sure that when some unknown pianist would have played it like this, everybody WOULD say it was only an average performance.

[pianisten1989]

The thing is: It's not about hitting the right or wrong notes (ofcourse we should aim for hitting all right notes, and no wrong). The thing is to creating a feeling for the audience.

Sure, it's great to hit all notes, but if they aren't more than just the right notes, its' quite boring anyway, and not too many people would listen to it.

[forestdove]

As far as Horowitz is concerned, let's get the big picture in focus...There is a lot more to consider here than just the piano...just look at the awesome history of people throughout his life and as far as his playing...have you listened to his Rachmaninoff 3rd lately with Ormandy at Carnegie? If you can't get past the score and into the transcendancy of the vision...oh well as the old saying goes...you have to crawl before you can walk...

[gyzzzmo]

As far as Horowitz is concerned, let's get the big picture in focus...There is a lot more to consider here than just the piano...just look at the awesome history of people throughout his life and as far as his playing...have you listened to his Rachmaninoff 3rd lately with Ormandy at Carnegie? If you can't get past the score and into the transcendancy of the vision...oh well as the old saying goes...you have to crawl before you can walk...

I dont agree. The people in that concert probably payed ALOT to hear the great Horowitz and expect him to do the same as other great concerts. And Horowitz has to perform over and over with great technique, hardly any flaws and awesome musicality, because that's why he was concidered to be a 'master pianist' and was able to ask 'master prices'.

Almost all of you guys have an argumentation like "it is not (also) about technique, its about his musicality" or,  "The other things he did were awesome". Why cant you guys just say this was a pretty crappy performance, if you compare it with his other performances?

[pianisten1989]

Almost all of you guys have an argumentation like "it is not (also) about technique, its about his musicality" or,  "The other things he did were awesome". Why cant you guys just say this was a pretty crappy performance, if you compare it with his other performances?

I don't like this preformance. I probably wouldn't even if he didn't make the misstakes. I just don't like the interpretation, but When I said "it's about the musicality"-like, I meant in general, not only with this preformance, but with every preformance.

As someone else said: I'd rather listen to someone who plays with a great personality and interpretation, but some notes missing, than to someone who plays all the notes right, but lacking in musicality.

[richard black]

One of the most accurate pianists of the early 20th century was Busoni. On one occasion, he pretty much forced his young student Egon Petri to come with him to a recital by Eugen d'Albert, who (at that time in his career) was becoming notorious for inaccuracy - he was more interested in composing and didn't practise much. Petri wasn't keen, and when Busoni asked him after the gig what he thought of it, he pulled a long face. 'All those wrong notes!'. Busoni looked at him sternly and said, 'My dear Egon, if your right notes had half the conviction of d'Albert's wrong ones, you might become a pianist some day'.

[ramseytheii]

I don't know if I would call Busoni the most accurate pianist, or one of, having heard some of his piano rolls.  Also there are a lot of anecdotes about how not remembering pieces totally, he would reinvent them on the spot.

Charles Rosen that a pianist should be judged by their greatest achievements (paraphrasing Lord Acton).  I have seen performances by historical pianists that were messy, but still conveyed art and poetry.  Stop worrying so much about wrong notes.

Walter Ramsey

[cchamp27]

Violinist Jacha Heifetz said, "I don't have better intonation than everyone else, I just fix it faster than they do."

The invention of sound recording is sometimes seen as the death of individual interpretation and spirit in music. "Perfection" has taken over.

[michel dvorsky]

One of the most accurate pianists of the early 20th century was Busoni. On one occasion, he pretty much forced his young student Egon Petri to come with him to a recital by Eugen d'Albert, who (at that time in his career) was becoming notorious for inaccuracy - he was more interested in composing and didn't practise much. Petri wasn't keen, and when Busoni asked him after the gig what he thought of it, he pulled a long face. 'All those wrong notes!'. Busoni looked at him sternly and said, 'My dear Egon, if your right notes had half the conviction of d'Albert's wrong ones, you might become a pianist some day'.

This story actually involves Godowsky and one of his pupils.

Egon Petri was a fabulous pianist.

[shinerl]

do you know that Yundi Lee made a mistake in his La Campanella...

[daniel patschan]

What people do not seem to realize is that on the technical level Horowitz was indeed mediocre. The only thing which he could do better (=faster) than anybody else were non legato octaves. His recording legacy is full of examples of what he was not capable to play. Moreover, he refused to ever record several Chopin studies (1, 2, 18, 23) - he simply couldnīt play them. I never understood how could people could call him a supervirtuoso.

[gyzzzmo]

What people do not seem to realize is that on the technical level Horowitz was indeed mediocre. The only thing which he could do better (=faster) than anybody else were non legato octaves. His recording legacy is full of examples of what he was not capable to play. Moreover, he refused to ever record several Chopin studies (1, 2, 18, 23) - he simply couldnīt play them. I never understood how could people could call him a supervirtuoso.

Maybe because of his choped 10/4 at insane speed.

[Petter]

I donīt think he should get away with it, in fact I think he should be fired.

[daniel patschan]

Fired ? For expressing an opinion ? Brave new world...

[michel dvorsky]

There are conservatory students who can play difficult pieces more accurately than Horowitz.  Horowitz had a different kind of technique.  He was one of the most colorful, exciting, and intelligent pianists of the century.  That's why his mistakes are acceptable in his better performances.  (there are performances by Horowitz that are both technically and musically terrible, however).

[daniel patschan]

There are conservatory students who can play difficult pieces more accurately than Horowitz.  Horowitz had a different kind of technique.  He was one of the most colorful, exciting, and intelligent pianists of the century.  That's why his mistakes are acceptable in his better performances.  (there are performances by Horowitz that are both technically and musically terrible, however).

Thatīs excatly what i meant ! There is no question that he had unique musical imagination and that could move people in a way (almost) nobody else could do.

[canardroti]

Alright,I am going to be brave and say this. IT was a crappy performance for such a piano legend. All due respect intended . Love many of his other Chopin's pieces though .

[thierry13]

Fired ? For expressing an opinion ? Brave new world...

I think he was talking about Horowitz.

[Petter]

Yes I was. So has someone sacked him yet?

[thierry13]

Yes I was. So has someone sacked him yet?

Nature did her work.

[richard black]

Egon Petri was a fabulous pianist.

He was good, but Busoni, his teacher, found him a little dull and I can sometimes see what he meant.

As for Horowitz, he could do things at the piano that no one could copy. That's why people paid $$ to hear him.

[birba]

I think the young horowitz was the incredible virtuoso to contend with.  He had the fastest octaves of any pianist alive.  If you hear the old Tchaikowsky recording with Toscanini you'll see what I mean.  Also Rach 3.  After he left the career for many many years, he tried to make a comeback starting at Carnegie Hall, I don't remember exactly what year.  And despite the immense difference in quality playing, both technically and musically (he was highly eratic and nervous in his interpretations) he actually DID make a come back and was paid enormous fees for his concerts.  I remember sitting on the stage in Alice Tully hall, practically looking over his shoulder, and I was mesmerized by the intensity of his playing.  At the same time it was almost too much.  The big RAch sonata just laid at the bottom of my stomach after the concert.  I don't know, it just wasn't healthy playing.  There was nothing natural about any of his rubato.  But the difference between before and after was enormous.  And we have the early recordings to prove it.

[claude_debussy]

horowitz near the end was heavily medicated, ruining his performances for several years - i heard a bad concert at Ambassador in Pasadena where he could barely keep it together onstage.  Then someone got him off his meds and he played a lot better apparently -

there are lots of things going on in peoples' lives

but overall his technique did *not* suffer after his comeback in the slightest -

horowitz is always a pleasure to me, if sometimes a guilty pleasure - he couldn't play beethoven very convincingly, but man, those 'carmen' variations are just staggering - 

his greatest record: the rare double LP 1953 25th anniversary recital at the Met - a strangely bewitching Schubert B flat, the last piece you'd think of with Horowitz .. the eeriest Scriabin black mass ever, Prokofiev's 7th last movement as an encore - then, serenade for the doll

these recordings have not, so far as I know, been reissued on CD 

[birba]

I came across the transcription of the star-spangled banner -  thought maybe I could read through it.  Right.  It's impossible.  I remember the first time I heard it on the radio,  I thought, "wow, that's a great duo playing!" He was, undoubtedly, a legend in his time.  But still...

[darnmat]

mistakes and mind slips do happen!

[lemon_aspirins]

Hey, this is my first time here, so I'd thought I would just post to see how the whole system flows and stuff...

Um, I suppose one thing that you need to understand is that everyone after all is human, and there are just those not so great days - that's just life. I don't think anyone can get away with it, I mean there sure must be someone listening to it thinking "Oh my god!" or some critic ready to write an essay on it though. I personally think that mistakes are just honestly part of every day life, you just can't help it. But what you can do is minimise the damage you could make, so just like what every teacher would say when you are sight-reading just simply "look forward" - and that is what you do in life I suppose - it's not really about really getting away with anything.

[mousekowski]

What would life be like if audiences didn't mind occasional splashes (as in Horowitz's G minor Ballade)? Would performing be more fun? Less stressful?

[elider_bento]

The most important in this comments aren't the mistakes.... the most important is that the own way of the bigger pianists when they play is over their mistakes!!! Their fame is because they've got them own way when they're playing!
by the way, they are bigger and generally they don't respect the score, this is very common, but they get the music and they can give us the music, in them way!

[gerryjay]

The most important in this comments aren't the mistakes.... the most important is that the own way of the bigger pianists when they play is over their mistakes!!! Their fame is because they've got them own way when they're playing!

that make me think of richter.
best!

[point of grace]

come on... they are famouse just because we choose them (or our parents)
but yes, they are humans too

[anda]

It's not my fav Ballade #1 recording either (I love Rubinstein for this work), but I wouldn't go as far as dismissing the whole piece! There are fantastic parts, and Horowitz's playing is occasionaly breathtaking. As for "butchering" some passages, let the one of you who has never butchered a passage on stage throw the first stone (people who have played piano for 10 years or less not included).

best luck

[ivoree]

Leave Horowitz alone!