vladamir horowitz = lifeless

[matt_haley]

i have many cd's of horowitz and in my opinion i find many of works absoloutely lifeless!!

i hear many people in this forum say how good he is,okay he was a great pianist, put there are many better.
I find the greatest pianist at this time to be evgeny kissin,an absolute prodigy.
U have fantastic pianists in alfred brendal and daniel barenboim for there incredible interpretations of the beethoven sonatas.
the most naturaly born lizst performer in kun woo paik.

you have younger extremely talented pianists like lang lang.

but evgeny kissin is the most complete package around.he may be slightly odd with his famous haircut.if seen him in many concerts.someone here said they found his version of mussorskys pictures and an exhibition poor-are u insane,that program was one of the best recitals ive ever seen which included bachs extrordinary toccata adagio and fugue in c majore,as the whistful glinkas the Lark.

i posted this topic just to show my opinion on horowitz,and how many better performers are around,everytime i listen to his music it seems dull and boring,his rach 3 concerto is awful-the most impressive version if heard has been by leiv ovn..        
hope to
hear your opinions
thank you all
matt

[f0bul0us]

Well he's certainly never broken a sweat during any live performances. A lot of what you say is true but even with all that being said, it's Horowitz.  I haven't heard enough Horowitz to say he's boring, ever since being introduced to this artist all everyone's said is, you would have to be their live to get the real experiance. But, idk, from what I've heard so far he seems like another pianist that everyone has to like just because his name is world-renowned. The same with Martha Argerich, who's talent wasn't discovered until the release of the Legendary 1965 recording. Only with her the general consensus was, she's young, she's talented, she's sexy, and she knows it. Not really something you could say about Horowitz.

[JK]

http://matt_haley wrote:

i listen to his music it seems dull and boring,his rach 3 concerto is awful-the most impressive version if heard has been by leiv ovn..    

Which of his recordings have you heard? His very early recording is not my favourite I have to say, he makes too many cuts and there are loads of wrong notes in the finale, HOWEVER he made a live recording when he was seventy which is available on video. On this he plays at a good tempo and I have to say that it is the most incredible piano playing I have seen or heard. The rubato is so natural and technically almost perfection. I have not heard enough of his other recordings to be able to say any more.

[pianiststrongbad]

Considering that Rachmaninoff stated that Horowitz played his third concerto better than he did, I don't think he played lifeless in the least.  I have seen his 3rd concerto video, and it is in fact quite remarkable.  His interpretation of the cadenza in the first mov just blows my mind everytime i hear it, it is very well thought out.  Kissin is very good indeed I have to agree... but I have always preferred Richter.

[JK]

Kissin is very good indeed I have to agree... but I have always preferred Richter.

I'll second that!!!

[Stolzing]

He's been quite lifeless for about 15 years actually.

[JK]

He's been quite lifeless for about 15 years actually.

If you mean Richter then, yes I do realise that he's been dead for a while!!, if you mean Kissin, then....explain?!!

[thracozaag]

i have many cd's of horowitz and in my opinion i find many of works absoloutely lifeless!!

i hear many people in this forum say how good he is,okay he was a great pianist, put there are many better.
I find the greatest pianist at this time to be evgeny kissin,an absolute prodigy.
U have fantastic pianists in alfred brendal and daniel barenboim for there incredible interpretations of the beethoven sonatas.
the most naturaly born lizst performer in kun woo paik.

you have younger extremely talented pianists like lang lang.

but evgeny kissin is the most complete package around.he may be slightly odd with his famous haircut.if seen him in many concerts.someone here said they found his version of mussorskys pictures and an exhibition poor-are u insane,that program was one of the best recitals ive ever seen which included bachs extrordinary toccata adagio and fugue in c majore,as the whistful glinkas the Lark.

i posted this topic just to show my opinion on horowitz,and how many better performers are around,everytime i listen to his music it seems dull and boring,his rach 3 concerto is awful-the most impressive version if heard has been by leiv ovn..        
hope to
hear your opinions
thank you all
matt

 Why don't you post this drivel over on the chopinfiles forum and see what kind of response you get.  

koji

[JK]

He's been quite lifeless for about 15 years actually.  



If you mean Richter then, yes I do realise that he's been dead for a while!!, if you mean Kissin, then....explain?!!

Sorry, sorry, I've just got the joke, shows how slow I am!!!

[Hmoll]

 Why don't you post this drivel over on the chopinfiles forum and see what kind of response you get.  

koji

^^^^^^^^^^^^

What he said.

Also, comparing Horowitz and Richter to Kissin??? Gimme a break!

[Saturn]

i have many cd's of horowitz and in my opinion i find many of works absoloutely lifeless!!

i hear many people in this forum say how good he is,okay he was a great pianist, put there are many better.
I find the greatest pianist at this time to be evgeny kissin,an absolute prodigy.

Yeah seriously, Horowitz wasn't all that.  Many pianists today are much better, like Maksim!

- Saturn

[benji]

i have many cd's of horowitz and in my opinion i find many of works absoloutely lifeless!!

Which works, pray tell?

[Baron_Clavier]

Honestly, I used to believe that educated musicians were smarter.
But this constant "I think (infamous legendary) pianist XXX is just crap" just proved the opposite, together with those online music reviewers that gives 1 star to 5 star recordings.

Let's let "the other side" rate our music: "I think classical music is so boring/crap/whatever".

If you don't have the skill to identify what makes a special musician great, then just admit it without bashing him/her to pieces.

Baron

[newsgroupeuan]

I say whatever you think is good,  is good.

Most people think horowitz is good therefore he is good for most people.  QED

If you think he is bad that is your opinion which is not most people. However you are entitled to your opinion.

Are you just saying this to be controversial?

[matt_haley]

Why don't you post this drivel over on the chopinfiles forum and see what kind of response you get.  

koji

what u dont like someones opinion. sorry but ive read a few peolpe in this forum calling evgeny kissin and talk so much about horowitz well i thought id address my opinion on the matter, some may not agree but kissin is far the better performer.
ive seen many many russian pianists,and two stood out,they were pletanov and kissin- outstanding.

and koji to call it drivel get real,just because someone does not voice the same opinion as yourself is not the end of the world,classical music is everything to me and this is how i feel towards different pianists thats all.

Matt h

[pianiststrongbad]

Well Matt, I think you should provide some evidence of Horowitz being a bad performer compared to Kissin before making this sort of brash claim.  I don't think saying that his 3rd concerto recording or Rachmaninoff is necessarily wise either, since Rachmaninoff stated that Horowitz played it better than he did.  Horowitz was known more for his technique than his interpretations in my opinion, but that is not implying in the least that his interpretations are poor.  Did you have any particular recordings in mind that was poor quality other than the Rach 3?  That is not really sufficient evidence to say something like that.  Did you ever see Horowitz play live?  I didn't, but I heard that he was quite the showman.  The ONLY reason I am attacking your opinion here is because you did not provide enough evidence.  Just a side note, I have felt the exact opposite about Kissin that you have.  I do think he has extremely fine technique, perhaps as brilliant as Pollini, but his interpretational skills are rather limited I believe.  I have heard his recordings of some of the Liszt transcendental etudes and the Spanish Rhapsody, among many others, and they all sound technically fabulous but with no interpretation compared to that of Cziffra.  And when he does interpret something such as the Moonlight sonata by beethoven- the 3rd mov, the tempo changes SOOO much, it doesn't even seem like it is from the classical era.  When i think of a piece from the classical era, i think of a pretty strict tempo, unless if the page says otherwise.  Anyway, all I ask is for more evidence before criticizing one of the greatest artists of all times, and one of my great influences.  

[thracozaag]

Why don't you post this drivel over on the chopinfiles forum and see what kind of response you get.  

koji

what u dont like someones opinion. sorry but ive read a few peolpe in this forum calling evgeny kissin and talk so much about horowitz well i thought id address my opinion on the matter, some may not agree but kissin is far the better performer.
ive seen many many russian pianists,and two stood out,they were pletanov and kissin- outstanding.

and koji to call it drivel get real,just because someone does not voice the same opinion as yourself is not the end of the world,classical music is everything to me and this is how i feel towards different pianists thats all.

Matt h

 I certainly have no quibbles over a differing opinion, provided it's half-way intelligent.  Questionable posts like yours are the reason why I stopped visiting this forum.

koji

[willcowskitz]

Horowitz wasn't a showman.

To make a comparison, I'll take Arthur Rubinstein who was a famous performer simultaneously with Horowitz. Whereas Rubinstein was a life-enjoying, happy and extrovert personality, Horowitz was the total opposite. Though Horowitz seemed "cool" to the outside, he was actually sensitive and inwards turned as a person, in private life. His charisma and massive appearance (he was a big man, including his hands of course) was not only reason why he appeared in public as a confident and determined person, but also a curtain behind which he hid his uncertainty and (relatedly,) sensitivity. He used to make remarks of people using the word "fool" (I might not be accurate here), I don't think this actually derives from his arrogance, but his surprisingly low self esteem. He secretly thought the audience was fools for thinking he was such a great musician, for his standards were in the realm of genius, and this prevented him from ever constructing the actual confident ego what Rubinstein - who loved people and life - was. Horowitz was also very depressive as a person, but this doesn't necessarily show to the public when his cool and calculating appearance messages anything else.

Of course, a lot of what I'm saying is plain speculation, and I'm here only summing up the impressions I got from this great artist when I read a book on him. But take it into consideration.

[ahmedito]

WHAT???

This is almost as bad as the guy that posted that Mozart was prissy and gay and absolutely horrendous!

You can say all you want about Horowitz but there is not a pianist alive or recorded that can even begin to compare to his sound. Id rather hear Horowitz play a C major scale for 40 minutes than many other pianists play the 3rd Rachmaninov concerto.

[Chrysalis]

i like vladimir ashkenazy more then horowitz..

[Fandrews]

      When he was still young Vladimir Horowitz left his home to come to America. He started a tour around the country and people's eyebrows raised and hearts were touched immediately by the "promising" pianist and his funny bowtie. It wasn't long before people started to recognize an incredible amount of talent and he was soon being interviewed by many music and piano enthusiasts.
     It was all going very well for Horowitz until he suddenly announced that he would stop his tours and performances for 10 years-to practice.
    10 years later he came to do a performace in carnegie hall in which everyone was amazed and blown away by the music that horowitz was creatinig.
    When horowitz played he was seemingly motionless on his bench however his hands were both more controlled and faster than almost all of the other pianists in the field. One good example is his chopin polonaise in g sharp minor op. 26 no. 1, or chopins "revolutionary" etude, one of the many many recordings in for which he would become known as a "master."
    When Horowitz was in his 70's, Horowitz decided it was time to return home. There was only one notice posted outside the relatively small concert hall printed only with his name and the date of the performance on it. Within an hour the news had spread like wildfire. Horowitz the famous russian pianist was to come home and give a performancefor the first time in almost 50 years! People were lined up all night, before the performance day, to come and see him.
     Music students, esteemed government officials and many eager piano pupils came. Unfortunately, there was a large portion of the hall reserved for prestigious figures and the building was small. So many people waited to hear their "hero" even if they could only be hearing it from outside. "Horowitz in Moscow" would come to be known as one of the most memorable performances ever.
     Somewhere in that period after his ten year break my piano teacher was one of many esteemed college pianists chosen from her class to visit a seminar by the now legendary horowitz. She said he was "a very queer man with a very very weird bowtie.." Now my piano teachers and their colleagues were no small fries. They were were all "prodigies" of a sort and had come to see how the "master" worked. There was only very little she told me of how he had performed for them. She said "Not only did he know every piece we showed him, but he could play them 10 times better then us."
   After the seminar Horowitz made a very odd request to the piano students, he asked them to take him to a disco dance near by and insisted with dancing with every girl.

Vladimir Horowitz does not = lifeless, Vladimir Horowitz = one of the greatest pianists ever

In his music vladimir horowitz offered two things, his heart, and his technical mastery of the instrument known as piano.

[ahmedito]

Amen!

[dlu]

I prefer Horowitz's earlier recordings. But Horowitz has never been "lifeless" that is, until Nov. 5, 1989. Bwahaha...ok...sorry....I will keep my day job...wait....I don't have one....

[in_love_with_liszt]

Um...I think Horowitz was one of the greatest musicians of all time. True, early on he may have been a bit bland, and hit a few klinkers, but isn't that what it's all about? Finding your own identity in the musical sense? I'd have to say that his live performance of Rach. 3 is one of the best ever. And all of you people goo-goo for Kissin, it doesn't make someone a good musician if they simply play everything twice as fast as everybody else. I must say that Richter is definitely one of the greatest musicians, his performance of Liszt's sonata is a pillar of excellence.

[mh88]

Vladimir Horowitz...child whiz and that's about it.  Early in his career he was an amazing pianist to watch, simply because of his ability.  But, much like Pollini, he lacks emotion.  However, his popularity alone allows him the ability to win over an audience on a Sun. afternoon no matter what he plays or how he plays it.  
It has been sad that Horowitz "owns" the Rach 3 much like Van Cliburn "owns" the Tchaikovsky 1.  Needless to say, neither of his 2 famous recordings are much to listen to.  Horowitz in his later years has been keen to let more notes fall to the floor error and this is evident in his recording of the Rach 3.
Personally, the best version of the Rach 3 is by a relatively unknown....Alexei Orlovetsky.  Check it out and decide for youself.  His first movement is wonderfully played...including the often neglected Ossia.  The second movement is played better than any other recording out there simply put.  The music seems to flow and captivate you.  The third movement is quite good, but does falter a bit with tempo in a few places, but still....is wonderfully played.

There was some mention to Lang Lang.  I've seen him 3 times, most recently a receital in Chicago.  Technically speaking, the young performer is unparalled.  However, he sometimes wanders into uncharted territoy with his interpretations.

[benji]

If don't even know that Horowitz is dead (and has been that way for the past 15 years), you obviously don't know enough him to be making these claims.

It has been sad that Horowitz "owns" the Rach 3 much like Van Cliburn "owns" the Tchaikovsky 1.

Yes, it has been said that Horowitz "owned" Rach 3, by Rachmaninov himself. Apparently he was so amazed at how well Horowitz played his 3rd Concerto that he actually ceded  it to Horowitz. He refused to play it and answer questions about it, simply saying"That's Horowitz's." If anyone has the right to say who "owns" a piece it is the composer himself, and Rachmaninov actually said Horowitz "owned" it.

Horowitz in his later years has been keen to let more notes fall to the floor error and this is evident in his recording of the Rach 3.

Most people will never have the technical abilities that Horowitz had in his 80's! When listening to his '78 Rach 3, it is important to realize the man who recorded it was 75. Most people at that age do not have the mental capacity or the physical stamina to play even a Chopin Etude, let alone RACH 3, and still Horowitz did.

Lang Lang... If he captivated audiences the way Horowitz did, we would be discussing him, not Horowitz.

[scarbo87]

I can understand why you would say such a thing about Horowitz. I have always thought he was a little overrated.
Argerich can play octaves just as fast, Pletnev can change
colos just as creativlely, and Pogorelich can bring new
ideas to new works more persuasivly.

But what you must remember was that It was HOrowitz who
really Started all this.....the true interpertation of an
artist. Were Howotiz a young artist today, maybe he would
not have met with such luck.

BTW_ in my opinion, his rach 3 is OKAY...I much prefer the
blazing recording of Cuban genius Santiago Rodriguez, and
prefer the Tchikowsky of Argerich

[thracozaag]

Vladimir Horowitz...child whiz and that's about it.  Early in his career he was an amazing pianist to watch, simply because of his ability.  But, much like Pollini, he lacks emotion.  However, his popularity alone allows him the ability to win over an audience on a Sun. afternoon no matter what he plays or how he plays it.  
It has been sad that Horowitz "owns" the Rach 3 much like Van Cliburn "owns" the Tchaikovsky 1.  Needless to say, neither of his 2 famous recordings are much to listen to.  Horowitz in his later years has been keen to let more notes fall to the floor error and this is evident in his recording of the Rach 3.
Personally, the best version of the Rach 3 is by a relatively unknown....Alexei Orlovetsky.  Check it out and decide for youself.  His first movement is wonderfully played...including the often neglected Ossia.  The second movement is played better than any other recording out there simply put.  The music seems to flow and captivate you.  The third movement is quite good, but does falter a bit with tempo in a few places, but still....is wonderfully played.

There was some mention to Lang Lang.  I've seen him 3 times, most recently a receital in Chicago.  Technically speaking, the young performer is unparalled.  However, he sometimes wanders into uncharted territoy with his interpretations.

 

koji (STSD)

[sparks]

It is not true of all Horowitz's playing is lifeless, but in regards to Rachmaninoff's third, everyone mentions Horowitz as one of the greatest performances of the concerto but I disagree. Horowitz's technical ability is faultless and at the age he played the Rach 3 at was incredible but there is no emotion in his recording and has an irritating habit of an overpower left hand where he strikes bass notes which ruins the piece on the whole. There are far greater performances of the Rach 3 including Sokolov who played an excellent live performance at the proms, he plays consistently with beautiful phrasing and has a sense of the pieces as a whole. Kissin also plays the third well. Although Rachmaninoff himself said Horowitz played the Rach 3 better than he did that was probably due to his own insecurity and doubt of his own playing. Rachmaninoff himself was subject to criticism in which almost ended his career. Horowitz is a great but is certainly not the best.

[DarkWind]

The Rachmaninoff concertos nowadays are played with too much emotion. They aren't supposed to be like that. People never listen to Rachmaninoff's recordings, he set the example. They aren't suppose to be extremely sensitive, as Rachmaninoff wasn't that kind of person. Anyways, I used to think Horowitz was lifeless, and I'm incredibly stubborn. But I just say a video of him playing, and  , he's amazing!

[mh88]

wrong...rachmaninoff was so devastated with the seemingly unsuccessful release of the 1st concerto (unsuccesful then, has turned around since obviously)...and the death of his mother...that he poured all of his emotion into the 2nd concerto.........this is especially seen in the 2nd movement

the 3rd is very powerful...but again, rachmaninoff's emotion really is portrayed in the 2nd movement....this is evident in one of his own recordings of it...where he seems to alienate himself entirely from the work in the 2nd movement....the 1st is powerful and moving....the third is very fast, over powering, and dominant.....but the 2nd is soothingly played

[DarkWind]

Oh really? Gyorgy Sandor and a few other highly esteemed pianists and researchers who made The Art of Piano video say otherwise...

[mh88]

pick up a copy of this...quite good

Sergi Rachmaninoff: A Bio-Bibliography, Vol. 81

extensive look at every work of his and the reason for it's composition...considerable amount of info on his 2nd concerto and his battle with depressiong throughout its composition

very good book

[DarkWind]

pick up a copy of this...quite good

Sergi Rachmaninoff: A Bio-Bibliography, Vol. 81

extensive look at every work of his and the reason for it's composition...considerable amount of info on his 2nd concerto and his battle with depressiong throughout its composition

very good book

Sounds interesting. I guess you might be right this time. Anyways, in that documentary, when they said that there was a pianist who Rachmaninoff considered could play his works better, it was Horowitz. I forget the name though.

[mh88]

i don't mean to make it seem like i'm right or you're wrong...or my source is right or your source is wrong, everyone has a different opinion on composers and why they wrote the way they did...rachmaninoff was a very powerful composer who made very powerful works...there are several well known pianists and researchers who feel that his music was somewhat unemotional and seemingly too loud and powerful...which many of us like to play...but there are many people that seem to think that rach's life experiences produces some very dark and moving music...but if you can get a hand on that book it's quite interesting, the art of piano also brings out some very good points and is quite good

all in all....to each his own
for me, rach's music is very very powerful, and some of it...albeit very little of it...is quite moving

[steinwaymodeld]

i have many cd's of horowitz and in my opinion i find many of works absoloutely lifeless!!

i hear many people in this forum say how good he is,okay he was a great pianist, put there are many better.
I find the greatest pianist at this time to be evgeny kissin,an absolute prodigy.
U have fantastic pianists in alfred brendal and daniel barenboim for there incredible interpretations of the beethoven sonatas.
the most naturaly born lizst performer in kun woo paik.

you have younger extremely talented pianists like lang lang.

but evgeny kissin is the most complete package around.he may be slightly odd with his famous haircut.if seen him in many concerts.someone here said they found his version of mussorskys pictures and an exhibition poor-are u insane,that program was one of the best recitals ive ever seen which included bachs extrordinary toccata adagio and fugue in c majore,as the whistful glinkas the Lark.

i posted this topic just to show my opinion on horowitz,and how many better performers are around,everytime i listen to his music it seems dull and boring,his rach 3 concerto is awful-the most impressive version if heard has been by leiv ovn..        
hope to
hear your opinions
thank you all
matt

horowitz = Lifeless?
kissin = greatest?

You are outta your mind.

Quoted from Koji:
"There is taste, and there is plain ignorance."

[larse]

wow. so much opinion and enthusiasm.

I usually prefer the recording to the performer. I've heard recordings of Richter that suck ass, and I've heard recordings of Horowitz that do the same. But I've also heard the oposite. I don't think one should judge whether he's 'the best' or 'better than' anyone. Rather try to find the interpretation in which you yourself agree with. Of course, you can spot a hopeless performer, but neither of these are. Not Horowitz, not Kissin, not Ashkenazy, usw..

But, to tell a different story, I grew up with the Ashkenazy recording of all the Rach piano Concertos. I remember my father used to shush me whenever he put on the Rach 2, and for some reason, it just grew into me. That IS rach 2. Then, all of a sudden I heard the Kissin recording from when he was 17, which is absolutely marvelous. However, I could'nt listen to it, because I was so used to Ashkenzy I thought Kissin did it wrong.

[matt haley]

WHAT???
 Id rather hear Horowitz play a C major scale for 40 minutes than many other pianists play the 3rd Rachmaninov concerto.

 In that case you must have serious issues

[opuswriter]

I don't think Horowitz's interpretation is lifeless - but granted, he's a bit uneven. Whenever I listen to Horowitz playing a "worn-out" piece he always shows me something new.

My favourite pianist is Vladimir Ashkenazy - remarkable musician always showing creativity and giving due attention to the slightest detail. His performances of Rachmaninov's concerti are epic in my view and nobody else can muster so much music out of each Chopin mazurka. Unfortunately he doesn't play much nowadays (is he still conducting?)...

// Jason Lee

[nicco]

In that case you must have serious issues

ur right. 10 minutes is absolutely sufficient...and maybe some arpeggios

[mila5405]

Vladimir Ashkenazy is the best ,, in my opinion ,, and some young pianists like Yundi LI and Lang Lang,,but Evgeny Kissin is the best teqhnically...

[pianowelsh]

HOROWITZ ' lifeless'!!! - He's dead!    I have to say I disagree that his playing is lifeless. au contrer his transcriptions positively sparkle with life even until he was really pretty old. Agreed perhaps some of his very late recordings did show some signs that things had lost their spark a little and may have been phsyically a bit more taxing than they used to be but of all the pianists I could describe as 'lifeless' Horowitz wouldnt be one of the prime contenders.

[da jake]

Horowitz = Lifeless

This is like calling Newton a crappy physicist. Or Hemingway an illiterate. Or Da Vinci uncreative. You get the picture. The claim is pure ignorance.

Horowitz was quite sloppy at times. In my opinion, this is for two reasons:

1. Though a tremendous virtuoso, he didn't have the same kind of technique to handle a piece like Islamey as, say Barere.
2. He was more concerned with making music than hitting all the keys very quickly.

#2 seems to be lost on many pianists today. Kissin and Lang Lang are excellent at hitting the keys, but I would rather hear Horowitz play with all his f*ck ups than hear an absolutely flawless, but BORING performance from either of the two pianists I mentioned. My idea of lifeless is Kissin playing the Rach 3. He mastered the piece technically, but has absolutely nothing of interest to say in it. How, after listening to Horowitz with Reiner or Ormandy, could anyone with a soul say Horowitz is boring?

Conclusion

I love Horowitz's playing. People who don't ought to do an exhaustive exploration of all the piano recordings they can get their hands on. They should then come back to the Horowitz for another listen. If, after this process, you can't appreciate Horowitz's tone, mastery of colour, and the excitement he pours into so many of his recordings, then maybe the piano just isn't the instrument for you.

[musik_man]

Calling Horowitz lifeless is like saying Bach doesn't have enough counterpoint, or that Mahler's symphonies are much too short.  Strange.

[soliloquy]

Does this thread remind anyone else of pianoworld?

WORST
THREAD
EVER


Usually when people say such stupid, stupid, idiotic, stupid crap, it turns out funny and at least has comedic value.  This is just sad.  Nay, depressing.


Anyone who has taken the time to argue about the merits of Horowitz vs. Kissin fails.  Fails at life.  You lose.

[chocolatedog]

Isn't it wonderful how music is so subjective, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion? (Even if it's the wrong one!!!!  )

[matt haley]

Horowitz = Lifeless

 My idea of lifeless is Kissin playing the Rach 3. He mastered the piece technically, but has absolutely nothing of interest to say in it.

  How can you say this is anything but PLAIN IGNORANCE.............

   As i said horowitz was a fantastic pianist,dont just jump at some of my points...

   horowitz early rach 3 recording was shocking and full of errors however his late recording was great......

  Im expressing a general opinion,nothing more

  i do apologise maybe the word lifeless is harsh............

   But if you can say you only apprectiate kissins technical ability but hear nothing in his music then you are DEAF and maybe........  surley piano playing isn't for you....

    END

  Matt Haley

[nicco]

I have a video of kissin playing the rach 3. I have seen it 1 time. I have a video of Horowitz playing the rach 3. I have seen it 500 times.

[matt haley]

I have a video of kissin playing the rach 3. I have seen it 1 time. I have a video of Horowitz playing the rach 3. I have seen it 500 times.

 Nicco what is your opinion of kissin ?
 
  Matt Haley

[nicco]

Nicco what is your opinion of kissin ?
 
  Matt Haley

From my previous post that should be pretty clear, no?

Kissin hits, amazingly enough, 99% of the notes, but OMG its so boring! Horowitz hits like 85%, but every note is so passionate, every phrase is labeled "horowitz quality", he does these "magical" things that makes your eyes and ears not leave the screen for a second. He brings the music to life (Ironically enough from the topic title)