What is Horowitz's secret?

[chatoto]

Every time when I look at his video ,I am surprise .How does him make this sound with this weird gestures?  And why could he play ff with no effort ?
I try to imitate his moves ,but it does not work at all....
Someone  know a little about how to play like him?

[faulty_damper]

It's a lot easier to play like Horowitz if you played on his piano.  You can't go 200mph in a Honda Civic but you might be able to in a Ferrari.  (Some people will take issue on this point because they fetishize his technique.)

Anyway, if you mean the flat-fingered playing, that requires practice to extend the fingers and depress them straight.  It does work, but it feels utterly unnatural to contract two opposing muscles.  But with practice, it does get easier. 

[j_menz]

You can't go 200mph in a Honda Civic

Actually, you can.

[g_s_223]

IIRC allegedly he had a custom grand piano with an extremely light action. This would allow him to play extremely fast with less effort that "normal" pianos. But there's a lot more to his artistry than that of course...

[chatoto]

Aha,I did not know hie piano was extremely light . Thanks for this info!

[pianoman53]

Faulty, come on. Have some serious arguments. Do you have any single proof, or do you just keep your ignorant assumptions as proof enough?

[faulty_damper]

If you have ever played on a piano with an incredibly light action, then you'll know that everything is easier.  Runs require less effort; playing loud becomes effortless.  It requires less effort for everything.  Then try playing the way Horowitz did it with the flat fingers and very low seating position, both of which lose mechanical leverage.  Playing this way on a regularly weighted action requires work, but on an extremely light action, it's a breeze.  This is why I say that Horowitz could get away with playing like that because in large part due to his piano.  He had bad technique otherwise and no piano teacher would ever suggest anyone imitate him.

And placing Hororwitz on a pedestal like he's an idol or a god of the piano world is a self-defeating attitude.  He's human like everyone else and anything he could accomplish on the piano anyone can if they simply learned how.  It's piano-playing, not flying like a bird.

[thalbergmad]

He's human like everyone else and anything he could accomplish on the piano anyone can if they simply learned how. 

Surely you do not really believe this??

Thal

[faulty_damper]

Surely you do not really believe this??

You're kidding, right?  I surely do.  He's not that good of a pianist and musician to begin with, just famous.  However, history must be considered for the reasons why he is so praised: limited numbers of pianists in the first place, a culture that trusted authority, and he had enough skill and charisma to fool a lay audience.

[thalbergmad]

One of us is mad, and for a change, I don't think it is me.

Thal

[theholygideons]

He had bad technique otherwise and no piano teacher would ever suggest anyone imitate him.

keep up the wild accusations mate...just because he doesn't abide by conventional methods of technique doesn't mean it's ineffective in achieving note velocity and tone. You're missing the fact that it's not his flat fingers that's the primary cause of his technique but his low wrist instead. When he plays fast runs, you will never see him with flat fingers.   

[awesom_o]

Well, ladies and gentleman, there you have it!

Horowitz's secret:

(it seems he had two)

1. He wasn't that good of a pianist or musician to begin with, just famous.
 
2. He also had a special piano that made it easy to play the way he played.

Ultimately, Horowitz had a bad technique, but he had enough skill and charisma to fool a lay audience.




 

[j_menz]

If you have ever played on a piano with an incredibly light action, then you'll know that everything is easier.  Runs require less effort; playing loud becomes effortless.  It requires less effort for everything. 

I have played on such a piano, and for an extended period.

The only thing I found to be consistently easier were glissandi, especially double ones.

For everything else, it was a case of swings and roundabouts, and relatively minor ones at that.

[pianoman53]

Faulty, there are so many flaws in all your conspiracies! How can you really live with that?

1. To first get a hand made piano, just for yourself, you'd need to either be freakishly wealthy, or quite good to begin with.
2. To play loud and fast might to some extent be easier, but to play that ultra soft is hell.
3. To play his carmen fantasy at any age is quite impressive. He did it when most people lose the ability to walk.

And that's just from one of your replies. You write so much bull in this forum, that I start to think that you're a professional troll.

Only because you ones in your life was a bad pianist, figured out you were a bad pianist, then became a bad pianist again, only to figure it out again 200000 times, really doesn't mean you're suddenly an expert.
If you seriously believe that Yuja Wang and Horowitz had bad technique, I suggest you should stick to something else than piano.

Everyone have a right to their opinion, but there is a limit where an opinion is no longer an opinion, but just a ignorant idea.

[faulty_damper]

Some people like to idolize these kinds of pianists just because they are famous and made some nice music here and there.  To these people, they are gods to be worshipped and any kind of criticism is heresy.  Reality check: they are not gods nor should they be idolized.  They are pianists like any other who've had greater success than most, but that doesn't mean they are without flaw.  Yet you idolize them like Gods claiming that their feats cannot be done by mere mortals.  You continue to state this as fact and provide evidence for this.  I am neither deluded nor are my ears fooled because of the name "Horowitz" is labeled upon a recording.

I state this very clearly because I do not support idol worship nor placing any pianist on a pedestal no matter how well-respected their names once were.  Anything they can do can be learned by ANYONE.  Don't assume that just because you can't, others can't, either.

[pianoman53]

Don't assume that just because you can't, others can't, either.

So I assume you can do everything that's possible on a piano, since it's just about learning it.. right?

I mean, since you clearly know the secret of learning you should know.

If you don't, one can assume that you're either lying, or so incredibly lazy and egoistic (If someone knew how to play a combination of all great pianists ever, and didn't, I'd be pretty pissed).

And in any case, it's not a very good feature in a human.

[louispodesta]

Some people like to idolize these kinds of pianists just because they are famous and made some nice music here and there.  To these people, they are gods to be worshipped and any kind of criticism is heresy.  Reality check: they are not gods nor should they be idolized.  They are pianists like any other who've had greater success than most, but that doesn't mean they are without flaw.  Yet you idolize them like Gods claiming that their feats cannot be done by mere mortals.  You continue to state this as fact and provide evidence for this.  I am neither deluded nor are my ears fooled because of the name "Horowitz" is labeled upon a recording.

I state this very clearly because I do not support idol worship nor placing any pianist on a pedestal no matter how well-respected their names once were.  Anything they can do can be learned by ANYONE.  Don't assume that just because you can't, others can't, either.

Okay, now that most of you have gotten it out of your system, then it is time for my two cents worth.

1)  I first heard of the very light action on Horowitz' piano in the 1970's, and I also was told that there was lacquer on the bass hammers.  The point being is that you could just strike a normal chord in this register, and it would sound like a bomb going off.

2)  My personal Steinway factory trained tuner technician actually worked on this piano.  Further, the one that regularly tours America every year is not Horowitz' piano.

3) Horowitz had a custom built recording studio in his New York apartment.  For real, every time he felt like recording, Thomas Frost would get into a cab and come over with his technician and then they would "run some tape."  Any pianist tends to sound a whole lot better in their recordings under these pampered conditions.

4)  As accurately pointed out by Earl Wild in his Memoir, for the last 40 years of his life, Horowitz' repertoire was tiny compared to with what he started off.  That means he either no longer cared for Beethoven, Brahms, Bach,  or Liszt or he was coasting.

Finally, make no mistake about it, when the man was on, he was a very top rate talent.  However, just like Van Cliburn, he spent the latter half of his life living, to some but not all, the myth.

[lelle]

Some people like to idolize these kinds of pianists just because they are famous and made some nice music here and there.  To these people, they are gods to be worshipped and any kind of criticism is heresy.  Reality check: they are not gods nor should they be idolized.  They are pianists like any other who've had greater success than most, but that doesn't mean they are without flaw.  Yet you idolize them like Gods claiming that their feats cannot be done by mere mortals.  You continue to state this as fact and provide evidence for this.  I am neither deluded nor are my ears fooled because of the name "Horowitz" is labeled upon a recording.

However, if the name "Horowitz" is labeled upon a recording, chances are it is DAMN GOOD SON.

[falala]

Anything they can do can be learned by ANYONE.

What does this statement even mean?

The ability of people to learn various things is massively influenced by their experience prior to commencement of learning - both specific experience connected with the skills concerned, and general experience influencing everything to do with their brain development up to that time. These factors become all the more crucial when looking at something that is extremely difficult and time consuming to learn and which has a very low margin of error, like virtuoso piano playing.

So are you saying that a 65 year old man who has never played music before could learn to play like Horowitz before he dies? (which is obviously untrue). Or that any newborn baby, without specific serious disabilities, could given enough of the right input and practice over time learn to play that well? (which I think is true, but probably pretty meaningless, in practice). Or something in between - and if so, what?

FWIW, I agree that learning to play music virtuosically has got more to do with quite prosaic, definable and learnable skills than the kind of elusive magic some people believe in. I'm just not sure that your statement here actually means anything about the real world. Some brains at some times are such that the mastery of those skills is realistically possible; some almost certainly aren't, going by past empirical evidence.

[classicalnhiphop]

Although I am not viewed on this forum, as I am merely a teenager, as one of the wise sage's, like J_menz or Ajspiano, who I haven't seen posting in a while, I will give my two cents worth.  I believe that Horowitz possessed a formidable technique and touch when he was feeling it.  I mean really, his rendition of pieces like Rachmaninoff's Second Sonata is second to none.  Not only could he nail these virtuosic pieces, he popularized the, at that point, little played Clementi and Scarlatti.  He was able to play intimate pieces as well as anyone, barring his drugged up performances like in Tokyo; that makes me shudder at seeing the poor guy struggle so mightily.  There is no BEST when it comes to this, but he certainly does not put on a meaningless show as Faulty thinks; he's no lang lang.  I really do enjoy his playing, most of the time.

[outin]

Now, I am beginning to feel sorry for Mr. Faulty...He has had a hard time. He had piano teachers (even an internationally acclaimed pianist) who were very bad and taught him all wrong. So he had a terrible technique for a long time. Only after figuring out himself how to play did he become a magnificent player who can easily play all those things that many pros find challenging. He also understood that most pianists cannot actually play well and most known teachers were actually frauds.
He is also naturally a magnificent dancer, but unfortunately has a hard time because some people are envious of his skills. Since people generally have not realized how great he is, he had to do teaching in very bad schools, were no-one appreciated his extensive knowledge of human behavior and learning (far exceeding most scientists who have made a career out of researching it) nor his rare teaching ability. Now he has kindly offered his extensive knowledge for everyone on this forum and is met with such ungratefulness. The world is such a pitiful place with really ignorant people, that it is really hard for those with exceptional genius...

Please Faulty, I'm interested to hear your opinion of my favorite pianist of the old days, Michelangeli? Was his technique as bad as Horowitz's? Was that the reason why he didn't perform or record as much as many others?

[faulty_damper]

Ignorance tends to feed itself until fat.  Those who are the fattest tend to malign knowledge the most and champion even more ignorance.  Ignorance has become epidemic and this epidemic has become mystical.

I get upset when PF members get personal and attack me simply because they hold their own opinions as dogma that everyone else must subscribe to.  These attacks make PF a much worse place for everyone, including the ones who do not post.  You are entitled to believe what you want to believe even if those beliefs came from others' opinions.  You are entitled to believe that Horowitz was a piano god that no other pianist can surpass.  You can also believe that Gould was a piano virtuoso or that Wang Yuja has impeccable technique.  You are also entitled to make logical and rational fallacies.  However, you should realize that your thoughts are yours alone that others may not think the same, especially if you have no evidence to support such beliefs.  And just because you don't agree doesn't give you the right to attack those who hold differing ones.

[pianoman53]

Okay, Fautly. Instead of whining about how everyone in the whole world is against you, and use that as some kind of argument (which it isn't) why don't you explain to us why Horowitz have a bad technique, and why you aren't the most perfect pianist in the whole world?

[hfmadopter]

Ignorance tends to feed itself until fat.  Those who are the fattest tend to malign knowledge the most and champion even more ignorance.  Ignorance has become epidemic and this epidemic has become mystical.

I get upset when PF members get personal and attack me simply because they hold their own opinions as dogma that everyone else must subscribe to.  These attacks make PF a much worse place for everyone, including the ones who do not post.  You are entitled to believe what you want to believe even if those beliefs came from others' opinions.  You are entitled to believe that Horowitz was a piano god that no other pianist can surpass.  You can also believe that Gould was a piano virtuoso or that Wang Yuja has impeccable technique.  You are also entitled to make logical and rational fallacies.  However, you should realize that your thoughts are yours alone that others may not think the same, especially if you have no evidence to support such beliefs.  And just because you don't agree doesn't give you the right to attack those who hold differing ones.

You make a difficult argument to support though, regarding Horowitz. The man spent a lifetime at the piano, was world known, toured the whole world several times, sought after by kings, queens and presidents to have him perform for them. He was not without his critics, no one is without their Critics, not me, not you, no one ! He was donated over his lifetime three different Steinway D pianos by Steinway, that he took on tour with him and brought along his own personal tuner. When I watch and listen to him play in old footage, I don't care about anything you mentioned or even really looked for that because I'm too emotionally stuck by the music he puts out. He is not my idol because I have no human idols, that spot is reserved. Non the less, I aspire to express especially Chopin in a similar way as Horowitz could. Nobody else s performances of Chopin hit me as strongly as his. If I can play half as well when ever in my life as he did when he was 80 I will die a happy man. Yet you tell us he sucked.

[indianajo]

I read all about Horowitz's piano when it toured through Florence KY last year, and nobody mentioned how light the action was for a Steinway grand.  As it is alleged it was not really a Horowitz piano, perhaps that wasn't germaine.  but I find the allegation very interesting. I'm quite envious of a light action grand, as I find the regular grands so unsuitable for my lightly built hands and forearms as to have never bought a house big enough to house a grand.  I'm also envious enough of the middle pedal on grands that sustains only the notes down when it is depressed, I'm likely to install an electric analog on my console piano.  
Ergonomic textbooks agree with Mr. faultydamper, that flat finger technique would not be ideal for a repetitive motion. Thanks for mentioning his flat hand technique.   I certainly don't intend to take that up technique, even on my super light action Sohmer.  I have to use my thumb rather flat due to my hand configuration, and it is that one that gives me tendonitis if I play over ninety minutes.  I find the flat hand discussion interesting as I have achieved youtube video capability quite recently and still can't use it through forum sites because they default to the flashplayer that feeds me five seconds of video at a time over a minute of download.  
I have acquired recently a few used Horowitz original LP's from RCA Red Seal.  I'm not sure he was the world's best pianist, but he was the one that lived down the street from the RCA plaza and Carnagie Hall, and he certainly had good publicity support.  His recordings that I have are quite competent, although since they were recorded with ribbon microphones on monaural machines, they are certainly are not the world's best LP's.  
For the goal of getting as good as he was, I'm not sure it is possible at ninety minutes of practice a day, but for one or the other of his performances, perhaps I'll give it a running try.  My piano certainly sounds better than those old RCA recordings, however weak the person playing it is.  

[fleetfingers]

Check out this video, starting at 23:00 for a couple of minutes or so . . . when he depresses the keys, they are curved and look the way a good teacher would instruct them to look for Mozart. The ones not depressing keys at any given time are almost inverted upward at the ends. In other words, they don't stay curved. If you look at his left pinky in this portion of the video, it stays flat when he plays. With this technique, he can keep that bass note soft and subtle.

Now, there is repertoire (and parts) for which flat fingers are recommended. That has been talked about on the forum at length, and any accomplished pianist knows what that means. So, when he uses flat fingers when it's called for, there is nothing odd or "bad technique" about it. My own observation tells me that it's the uniqueness of his fingers that make his technique look odd.

My husband (who does not play piano) and one of my sons has fingers just like this. They are long, tapered at the ends, double-jointed, and seem to bend upward. It is weird watching them do anything.

[lateromantic]

If you have ever played on a piano with an incredibly light action, then you'll know that everything is easier.  Runs require less effort; playing loud becomes effortless.  It requires less effort for everything.  Then try playing the way Horowitz did it with the flat fingers and very low seating position, both of which lose mechanical leverage....

And placing Hororwitz on a pedestal like he's an idol or a god of the piano world is a self-defeating attitude.

Especially for Horowitz, since with the addition of the pedestal he would no longer enjoy the very low seating position to which he was accustomed. 

[hfmadopter]

Check out this video, starting at 23:00 for a couple of minutes or so . . . when he depresses the keys, they are curved and look the way a good teacher would instruct them to look for Mozart. The ones not depressing keys at any given time are almost inverted upward at the ends. In other words, they don't stay curved. If you look at his left pinky in this portion of the video, it stays flat when he plays. With this technique, he can keep that bass note soft and subtle.

Now, there is repertoire (and parts) for which flat fingers are recommended. That has been talked about on the forum at length, and any accomplished pianist knows what that means. So, when he uses flat fingers when it's called for, there is nothing odd or "bad technique" about it. My own observation tells me that it's the uniqueness of his fingers that make his technique look odd.

My husband (who does not play piano) and one of my sons has fingers just like this. They are long, tapered at the ends, double-jointed, and seem to bend upward. It is weird watching them do anything.

I have watched that video many times and many others as well. I've seen him use everything from almost flat to almost fully curved scratching trills with his fourth and fifth fingers and I've seen him tuck away his fifth finger almost entirely. And I've seen the finger tips curl up but when he plays certain Chopin Pieces I may have my eyes shut actually. As I said, he had his critics, most of which were just snob press people from some social or entertainment rag on the planet at the time.

[j_menz]

.....

You really don't see it, though, do you? 

[chatoto]

  (Some people will take issue on this point because they fetishize his technique.)

I fetishize his technique indeed. Not because he is famous, but that there so many recording which show the almost impossible passages for others to play . For example his gliss of octaves at black key étude. And sometimes I am amazed by his smart ideas.
Yet,he is really not my favorite pianist . Because I have never found that kind of deeply soul-touching interpretation in his recording ,like Arrau's Schumann op.17.
He maybe is not THE best pianist ever, but he is unique indeed,and left us so many fantastic recording with the brilliant ideas ... Most of pianists should thank him for these, I think ...

[j_menz]

One of the things that has been bugging me about this and related threads is that there seems to be a lack of distinction drawn between pianists technique (what they can do) and their interpretations (what they choose to do).

Someone with limited technique obviously has fewer choices, and may in fact mistake an inability to do something for a choice not to. This is unlikely to be the case with many concert level pianists.

There pianist who possess formidable technique, however, who simply do not play a piece in a manner that suits one's taste. 

It seems to me silly to confuse the two.

[outin]

You are entitled to believe that Horowitz was a piano god that no other pianist can surpass.  You can also believe that Gould was a piano virtuoso or that Wang Yuja has impeccable technique. 

I don't. I much prefer other pianists. But I certainly would not go tell any of them that they cannot play the piano. If so many people enjoy their playing and at least Horowitz was able to play up to a very old age, their technique probably was quite sufficient at some point.

You don't have to play as well as them to criticize their technique, but you certainly have to come up with an explanation of what exactly they should do differently and give us examples what kind of a performance can be achieved with those better ways. Otherwise it's difficult to take you seriously.

[indianajo]

I watched 42 minutes of the video "Horowitz in Moscow 1986".  Thanks for the link. Midnight passed at that point and youtube will not continue to deliver past that point.  I got past the two Rachmanoff Preludes into the applause.  
I'm amazed he got away with playing with the heels of his hands, especially the left, below the wooden rail.  When he wants to play loud, he picks up the back of his hands a little, but mostly his arm is angled up from the elbow.  Not too much angle at the wrist, which would be stressful at the joints, but it is amazing a person can do that and play into his eighties without injury.  
The shape of his hands is also amazing.  His five finger appears as long as the wide part of the white keys, about 60 mm perhaps. I think my five finger might be longer at 65 mm.    But his third finger goes all the way from the front edge to the very back of the key! That is 145 mm on my Steinway 40 console! He plays right at the very back of the key often, to give his five and one fingers access to the key at all.  
It is a wonder he and I are from the same planet, much less the same land mass. My three fingers are only 89 mm long.    While his ancestors were rowing longboats up the Neva to Constantinople to trade for Indian Jewels, mine were out in Siberia freezing their fingers and toes off in leather clothes when they weren't poking mammals with spears.  (I'm built like those of my ancestors that were Native American, short appendages, normal size back).  
Anyway, that Mozart K 330 concerto in the video is the first Mozart piano concerto  I have ever found interesting,  Maybe it was the video aspect of this performance, I don't know, but most Mozart other than the eight greatest hits, bores me to tears.  Great close up visuals of the hands, vile MP3 audio.  That audio track had no ping at all when the hammers hit. This computer can sound pretty good on headphones with a CD playing in the slot.   Well, back to my LP collection.  

[chewbacca_90]

Wow, this forum sure has changed. In the old days, we only ever had to put up with pianistimo's religious rants and soliloquy's overzealous defense of serialism. Now there's a whole new breed of enlightened beings that are out here to shed light on the various conspiracies that have plagued the musical world across the centuries. I'm not against critical thinking, I'm quite fond of it and it disappoints me how hard it is to come across in this day and age. However, these people just take it to a whole new level, of ridiculousness that is. You're picking the wrong myths to debunk, guys. Put that intellect to good use instead of pursuing a rather mediocre endeavor such as online forum truth crusades. There's plenty of shady business going on in your every-day life that deserves to be condemned. Go watch some George Carlin stand-up shows, gentlemen. Pretty smart guy, very observational, not one bit afraid of creating awareness in his audience, and damn funny!

Now, back to the actual subject, Vladimir Horowitz DID play on a custom piano, judging by the evidence around. This however, should not be mistaken as being the one reason for his unique sound, nor should one claim anyone can play like that with enough practice. It is worth mentioning he only started playing on light-action pianos from 1965 onwards. Anyone who has spent some time exploring his artistic output can notice he had the same golden tone in every 30's,40's and 50's recording. He may have played on a custom piano, nevertheless, his prodigious palette of tone color, control of dynamics and insane octaves were not a direct result nor a byproduct it. The man had talent, raw, irrefutable talent, and not everyone has it. His hand posture was weird and impractical, not suitable for students, that is also a fact. Why did he play like that? Because he could and he wanted to, end of story.

Seems to me more like these claims about anyone being able to play like him under the right circumstances (practice, custom piano) stem from that self-righteous rejection of idol worship, rather than the pianist's actual capabilities. I'm not putting anyone on a pedestal here, I've grown to be a very objective listener. Idol worship is something I'd do as a teenager, but with maturity comes moderation. Even so, there's still a handful of interpreters that I keep in high regards, and Horowitz is one of them. j_menz also made a very valid point. You can't treat technique and interpretation as one. Playing fast and playing deep are two completely different things. Horowitz could do both, and that deserves recognition. This is also something not everyone can achieve, regardless of the instrument. Hell, the absence of mature, deep artists in this era makes one look back to the 20th century with yearning. Still, the marvelous thing about music is that everyone takes it in and relates to it in a DIFFERENT way. Therefore, differing opinions will forever exist. Discussing opinions can be as fun as unfruitful, because in the end, it all boils down to "I just (dis)like it." You can be the most knowledgeable, savvy motherf****r in the field, still doesn't give you the right to put yourself above others on a sole basis of opinion. Furthermore, do not go around preaching freedom of speech and condemning fallacies while being a supreme exponent of false attribution ("The general audience idolizes Horowitz, therefore he is nothing special"). You are more toxic to this community than the ignorance and mysticism you denounce.

Please refrain yourself from dissing an artist based on personal opinions, it only makes you look bad. You have every right to dislike him, he did make some bad recordings after all (in my opinion!), but do not justify it with weak arguments such as his stardom or his customized piano. The latter, if anything, contributed to his already outstanding ability to communicate to his audience. Moreover, don't slander and discredit artists based on their fame, makes you look like a god damned hipster rather than the free thinker you pretend to be. Grow the hell up.

Thal, how do you deal with these people? 

Best,
Alex

[faulty_damper]

Some things of interest should be highlighted in this thread:
1. Horowitz only had the lighter action in his later age.
2. Horowitz's performing repertoire, which wasn't large to begin with, diminished with age.
3. Horowitz had a unique technique.

If we reversed these points, we get:
Horowitz had a unique technique that, while worked for him when young, began to limit his performing repertoire when old.  As a result, he had a piano built with an even lighter action to help him continue to perform the way he did with his unique technique.

On a related tangent about other pianists with poor technique...
Why did Mikhael Pletnev, who was rather famous in his youth, stop performing and start conducting in his later age?  If you look at his technique, you'll notice he used the "eagle claw" technique, a technique acquired from finger exercises such as Hanon (or from Kung Fu.)  Could it be he just wanted to conduct or is it a direct result of having an unsustainable technique to begin with?

Similar to Pletnev's, is Ivo Pogorelich who also had an "eagle claw" technique and in his late age (now) has significantly slowed down the tempi of many of his performing repertoire.  He has been severely criticized for his recent "interpretations", though you'll still hear some people wax lyrical about what an "artist" or "genius" he is as an excuse for such performances.

And similar to these two, though a much younger version, is Yundi Li, straight out of China and winning the Chopin International Competition, also has a similar "eagle claw" technique which has worn the tips of his fingers down to knubs. He tends to accent certain notes inappropriately, but otherwise sounds very good.  How long can he maintain playing in such a manner (not referring to his musicianship)?  If history provides clues, his capacity should start diminishing in his middle ages. 

And Yuja Wang?  You should also anticipate that her technique cannot be sustained.  It's just as inefficient as the rest.  It requires too much work for the long term.  Youth and vigor cannot outcompete an unsustainable technique.

All roads lead to Rome...
... but the most direct route is the most efficient.  Technique is the same way.  You can have an inefficient one and still sound good, but it will take you longer to get there.  Do not confuse sounding good with having a good technique.  You can sound good with a bad technique.  You can also sound bad with a good technique.

[marik1]

Great post, Alex!

I saw Horowitz live only once--his recital in Moscow. People were crying. Not because they were idolizing an old Maestro (obviously, there would've been reasons), but just for a simple reason--he touched their hearts--there is a very big difference between idolizing and admiration.

While I have to admit, when I was young indeed, in some cases I did idolize him, later, it turned into a simple: "I admire him". And the reason had nothing to do with his technique--he just had a voice of his own. The voice, which can never be mistaken with any other pianist. It is evident from one single chord, or in many cases even one single note--that single note (or chord) could be played only by Horowitz!!! This is a matter of his incredible personality. That kind of voice only a very few pianists had in entire history of pianism. Hoffmann, Friedmann, Rachmaninov, Gould, Horowitz, Gilels... Anybody else?--that's about it. Those greatest personalities who could be guessed from just a couple recorded notes. Can you tell Lang Lang from Yuja Wang? Can you tell Pollini from Perahia?--Don't think so. Can you tell Horowitz from Gilels, or Gould just by one played note?--Absolutely!!!  

On the other hand, obviously if somebody understands something about piano technique would not start questioning that of a man who in his 70's can play Rachmaninov 3rd Concerto like THAT, or in his 80's Rachmaninov 2nd Sonata like there is no tomorrow!

His hand posture was weird and impractical, not suitable for students, that is also a fact. Why did he play like that? Because he could and he wanted to, end of story.

Here, I'd allow myself to disagree. In fact, his hand poster was incredibly practical. While indeed, for some that would not be suited, for Horowitz with his imagination that was the means of achieving his musical image, sound, and execution of entire musical picture he desired to create. That's the case of "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" for a reason.

Best, M

[awesom_o]

Here, I'd allow myself to disagree. In fact, his hand poster was incredibly practical.

+1!

[marik1]

Faulty, I am afraid to tell you have no enough knowledge to judge such matters and have no idea what you are talking about.
As far as Horowitz concerned, I wrote in another post.

About M. Pletnev. I'd suggest to check your sources. While indeed, he started conducting, by no means it meant he stopped performing--his musical personality is much wider than that.

As for "Eagle claw"--clearly you do not know that. After all, Pletnev, Pogorelitch (as well as E. Novitskaya and V. Feltsman) came from the school of E. Timakin. I'd suggest you to study Timiakin's book, as well as his other essays thoroughly to understand what is the school of impeccable technique means--the school where practicing has nothing to do with technique. That also might put some light on the piano technique, which so far you don't have even a primitive idea--indeed Faulty--you even don't realize what kind of fool you show yourself, while it seems that you thoroughly enjoy yourself as an "technique expert".

Best, M
  

Some things of interest should be highlighted in this thread:
1. Horowitz only had the lighter action in his later age.
2. Horowitz's performing repertoire, which wasn't large to begin with, diminished with age.
3. Horowitz had a unique technique.

If we reversed these points, we get:
Horowitz had a unique technique that, while worked for him when young, began to limit his performing repertoire when old.  As a result, he had a piano built with an even lighter action to help him continue to perform the way he did with his unique technique.

On a related tangent about other pianists with poor technique...
Why did Mikhael Pletnev, who was rather famous in his youth, stop performing and start conducting in his later age?  If you look at his technique, you'll notice he used the "eagle claw" technique, a technique acquired from finger exercises such as Hanon (or from Kung Fu.)  Could it be he just wanted to conduct or is it a direct result of having an unsustainable technique to begin with?

Similar to Pletnev's, is Ivo Pogorelich who also had an "eagle claw" technique and in his late age (now) has significantly slowed down the tempi of many of his performing repertoire.  He has been severely criticized for his recent "interpretations", though you'll still hear some people wax lyrical about what an "artist" or "genius" he is as an excuse for such performances.

And similar to these two, though a much younger version, is Yundi Li, straight out of China and winning the Chopin International Competition, also has a similar "eagle claw" technique which has worn the tips of his fingers down to knubs. He tends to accent certain notes inappropriately, but otherwise sounds very good.  How long can he maintain playing in such a manner (not referring to his musicianship)?  If history provides clues, his capacity should start diminishing in his middle ages.  

And Yuja Wang?  You should also anticipate that her technique cannot be sustained.  It's just as inefficient as the rest.  It requires too much work for the long term.  Youth and vigor cannot outcompete an unsustainable technique.

All roads lead to Rome...
... but the most direct route is the most efficient.  Technique is the same way.  You can have an inefficient one and still sound good, but it will take you longer to get there.  Do not confuse sounding good with having a good technique.  You can sound good with a bad technique.  You can also sound bad with a good technique.

[fleetfingers]

I watched 42 minutes of the video "Horowitz in Moscow 1986".  Thanks for the link.   

Wow, you watched a lot. Glad you liked it!

I'm not sure why his wrists are low - but I did notice that, in the same video, at about 46:20 until the end of the piece, his wrists are at least level with the keyboard, if not higher. Maybe he keeps them as relaxed as possible unless they are needed to produce forte or ff. Speaking of which, an above poster mentioned tampering with the instrument to make the bass notes sound "like a bomb going off" with a normal strike of a chord. That does not seem to be the case in the video I referenced, because when he plays soft notes in the lower register, he delicately touches the piano (46:09 and 46:22, and it does not sound like a bomb). Later, when he plays ff, you can see him putting more body weight into the chords to produce a louder sound (46:45, 46:48, 46:50, etc.).

[mjames]

I'd really like to see Faulty play piano. Does he have any videos on this site?

[philolog]

Granted, all are entitled to an opinion and Faulty’s contention that Horowitz was human and hence not infallible, can’t be disputed. Personally, I don’t find all of his recordings beyond reproach, but many reveal pianism of the highest order: to name just a few, his Scarlatti album, the Czerny Ricordanza Variations, his performance of his transcription of the Liszt 19th Hungarian Rhapsody, selections preserved in The Young Horowitz (the dazzling Poulenc Toccata and some beautifully shaded Debussy, among others), the Rachmaninoff Third from 1930 (by the way, the first recording of that daunting piece), his Tchaikovsky First Concerto with Toscanini, his superb Scriabin---the list goes on. In addition, I think special mention should be made of his Carmen Variations for several reasons. Not only is the playing beyond reproach (I’m thinking of the 1968 televised performance), his ability to conceive and master such a complicated piece without committing it to paper is a feat few could emulate.

        Horowitz had a highly individual technique (admittedly one which probably should not be emulated by students, if anyone), however it was perfectly suited to his musical imagination and physical prowess. It’s worth noting that Otto Ortmann, in his mammoth study of the physiology of the piano (if I may refer to it in that way), determined that Horowitz’s unique posture and mechanism constituted an ideal approach to the instrument.

         Addressing the custom piano problem, while a light action may facilitate rapidity and the production of a crashing fortissimo, it is a matter of record, as many here have already mentioned, that the hallmarks of his playing were in place from the very beginning of his career and did not depend on any particular instrument for their actualization.


         If Faulty’s assertion that Horowitz’s popularity was only the result of mass hypnosis or hysteria is correct, how does he explain the admiration of Horowitz’s peers, who appreciated his special qualities? Rachmaninoff famously said, in speaking of his Third Piano Concerto, that Horowitz had “swallowed it whole.” Another composer who admired Horowitz was Samuel Barber, who asked him to premiere his Piano Sonata. I also wish to point out that contrary to Faulty’s claim that there was a paucity of excellent pianists before the public during Horowitz’s ascendency, if anything there were surely as many as today, and perhaps more------Hoffmann, Godowsky, and Rachmaninoff were merely the tip of the iceberg.

          Speaking dismissively of the older Horowitz’s diminished repertoire and claiming that the pianist never possessed an extensive one, Faulty should know that during the 1922-1923 season, Horowitz gave 23 concerts of eleven different programs in Leningrad alone.

          The following portion of an on-line biography puts the case for Horowitz succinctly and well:

“In his prime, he was considered one of the most brilliant pianists of his time. His use of tone color, technique and the excitement of his playing are thought by many to be unrivaled, and his performances of works as diverse as those of Domenico Scarlatti and Alexander Scriabin were equally legendary. Though sometimes criticized for being overly mannered, he has a huge and passionate following and is widely considered one of the greatest pianists of the 20th century.”

          Finally, since Faulty doesn’t consider Horowitz and Glenn Gould worthy of virtuoso status, I’d be curious to know which pianists he believes meet his high standard.

[j_menz]

Why did Mikhael Pletnev, who was rather famous in his youth, stop performing and start conducting in his later age? .... Could it be he just wanted to conduct or is it a direct result of having an unsustainable technique to begin with?

I'm reliably informed that these days in the "classical" world, it's the conductors who get the groupies. Maybe he noticed that. 

[faulty_damper]

... ability to conceive and master such a complicated piece without committing it to paper is a feat few could emulate.

I'm sure many jazz musicians would wonder why you make such a big deal about playing a piece without having written it down since they do it all the time.

Horowitz had a highly individual technique (admittedly one which probably should not be emulated by students, if anyone), however it was perfectly suited to his musical imagination and physical prowess. It’s worth noting that Otto Ortmann, in his mammoth study of the physiology of the piano (if I may refer to it in that way), determined that Horowitz’s unique posture and mechanism constituted an ideal approach to the instrument.

So according to Ortmann and your assertion, EVERYONE should play like Horowitz did since he had the "ideal approach to the instrument."  BUT, you contradict your own statement because Horowitz's technique "probably should not be emulated by students."

... Horowitz’s popularity was only the result of mass hypnosis or hysteria is correct, how does he explain the admiration of Horowitz’s peers, who appreciated his special qualities?

You wouldn't say negative things about your friends in front of the world.  As well, "Social Ties Influence Who Wins Certain Hollywood Awards" and you can be certain that having strong social ties with people who think favorably of you will further your career.  It's not what you do but who you know.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140313134225.htm

[swagmaster420x]

I would disagree with faulty's comment that horowitz has bad technique, but agree that he is human, and that (hopefully) attaining something close to his level is within range of possibility. though I do not necessarily hope this for the purposes of piano playing

[drazh]

his secret=high IQ+underasting music and piano mechanism+practice

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Damn it I wish I threw myself in this dialogue before it got juicy!

But ANYWAYS...

1.  Yeah man, his piano was like overly light!

2.  Actually, if someone's like overly famous, you're more likely to hype yourself up to trick yourself into liking the music as oppose to hearing it but not knowing who it is and then deciding whether or not you like it and then find out it was Horowitz.

3.  The quality on a lot his recordings freaking sucks!

4.  Who cares whether or not he had bad technique?  If he got the job done, he got the job done.  I don't care how you do it, as long as you do it.

5.  Why the heck would you wanna imitate his playing?  I know I wouldn't.  I don't wanna play like Horowitz.  I wanna play like Rachmaninoff_Forever!

6.  Not anyone can learn to play anything.

7.  Yeah man, just because someone's super famous doesn't mean that they're like gods!  I don't care how famous you are, if I don't like you, I don't like you! *cough* *cough* Bach *cough* *cough*.  Huh did someone say something?

[j_menz]

5.  I wanna play like Rachmaninoff_Forever!

Who's he?

6.  Not anyone can learn to play anything.

I think you mean nobody everything.  This lesson is part of your free grammar package.

*cough* *cough* Bach *cough* *cough*. 

Bach actually seems to support faulty 



Oh, and try these:

[philolog]

Dear Faulty,

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was endorsing Ortmann’s analysis----I merely cited it as the opinion of a (respected) person who had made a prolonged effort to understand the mechanics of piano playing.

As to jazz, yes it’s true that some pianists have spontaneously created very impressive improvisations-----Tatum comes to mind but of course there are many others------- but they’re often at least partly reliant on previously evolved patterns-------- accompaniments, habitual runs or harmonic progressions. And yes, there’s ample testimony about the great improvisers of the past, Bach, Beethoven, et al, to support the view that given sufficient genius an improvisation can stand alone as a fully formed composition. Be that as may be, in the end I suppose I’m impressed with Horowitz’s feat because I myself can’t mentally compose a superbly organized fantasy, sonata, or set of variations and then refer to the “mental manuscript” for practice and eventual performance.

[indianajo]

Horowitz's secret is artistry, the expression of emotion with the piano.  IMHO
In the Horowitz @ Moscow 1968 video recording, he succeeded in making Scarlatti and Mozart piano works interesting to me.  That is a first. I've heard hundreds of recordings of Mozart piano pieces on FM radio in 50 years, and was bored them all except Turkish March.  I have no Mozart piano LP's in my 100 kilogram collection.  I won't buy them even at $.50 at the resale shop.  Scarlatti, I have one LP with four pieces, Walter Carlos The Well Tempered Synthesizer. Despite the unlimited tone colors available to Mr. Carlos, I find those pieces to be very forgettable.   So Mr. Horowitz's performance was phenomenal.
As far as his technique, despite the scholarly study quoted by Mr. Philolog,  I would contend that the study of ergonomics in factories has a lot negative to say about Mr. Horowitz's hand position.  He got away with it, at least until his fifties.  When the testosterone dries up in one's late middle age, a lot of problems become painful that were not noticable after early adolescence.  I mowed lawns with a stupid wrist position starting age eleven, and had pains in my wrist age 11-12, and again starting at 58.  In between I theorize the hormones covered up the pain.  I would suggest Mr. Horowitz's purchase of the special Steinway pianos seems to have occurred at about the later age.  
So if one is a northeastern European male with massive hands like Mr. Horowitz, only then would I suggest his hand position could be copied with any success. Despite the ill repute a certain twentieth century dictator gave to study of different ethnic group's physical differences I would say that Mr. Horowitz's ethnic background gave him in part a unique physical ability at playing piano.  By contrast, my ethnic background gives me massively superior endurance at ambulation.  We take the hand we are dealt and do our best with it, instead of complaining about it.  
So what I can take from Mr. Horowitz's performance, and perhaps attempt to emulate, is his emotional content, his expression.  I don't think the timing of the notes, the loudness changes and the articulation, have anything to do with his less than ideal hand position.  Those have to do with emotional depth and communication of those emotions.  

[chewbacca_90]

I'm sure many jazz musicians would wonder why you make such a big deal about playing a piece without having written it down since they do it all the time.

So according to Ortmann and your assertion, EVERYONE should play like Horowitz did since he had the "ideal approach to the instrument."  BUT, you contradict your own statement because Horowitz's technique "probably should not be emulated by students."

You wouldn't say negative things about your friends in front of the world.  As well, "Social Ties Influence Who Wins Certain Hollywood Awards" and you can be certain that having strong social ties with people who think favorably of you will further your career.  It's not what you do but who you know.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140313134225.htm

Conjectures, and more conjectures, just like every other post of yours in this thread. Not only are you blatantly misinterpreting philolog's words, as he obviously pointed out "It's worth noting", but you also defend yourself on a basis of "would be's", "what if's" and "if history provides clues". You are ridiculous, at least show us some hard evidence. Even the most avid conspiracy theorist would present facts rather than assumptions to back up a claim. That's not how you do it buddy, gotta get your facts straight. Seen the Zeitgeist trilogy? Check it out, they sure don't go around throwing conjectures to suggest 9/11 was an inside job. They get experts' opinions, testimonies, studies, conferences, etc. It's called proper research, not weak-ass speculations.

Academy Awards favor those who have the most social ties? Wow, that's big news. Still, that's hardly any proof to assert the same was going on in the classical music circle. Academy Awards have always been known for being the most biased, government-backed, propagandistic awards show. Was never hard to notice that. Jewish Holocaust movies winning 5+ awards every year? Where's the Armenian genocide? Whatever happened to the Kosovo massacres? Never seen any award-winning movie on any of those. Michelle Obama presenting the Best Picture award, which went to ARGO (yet another US marine hero rescue mission in the middle-east movie)? The Oscars are full of crap. They serve the system and the people behind it.

Can you claim every Horowitz admirer chose not to criticize him because of alleged ties of friendship? Now what kind of primitive, short-sighted determinism is that? Are you implying the myriad of artists who held the man in high regards were all his friends? Let's not forget Horowitz did have detractors. Besides Steinberg and Thomson, even Arthur Rubinstein spoke ill of him in his autobiography. So you're saying, based on the article you linked, that his whole carrier was a result of his ties with Rachmaninov and Toscanini, rather than his indisputable talents? It all smells to me like yet another way to manifest that hatred of Vladimir Horowitz, the idol, with no regard to his artistry.

You, sir, are royally full of s**t. Your pretenses of free will and critical thinking aren't gonna get you anywhere, especially on an online forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs

Best,
Alex