Horowitz Piano Re: Pianostreet Blog

[louispodesta]

A recently featured blog related to Horowitz's piano, which the Steinway Company regularly puts on tour to various piano dealers for all to see and sometimes play.  In San Antonio, Texas, I played the Schumann Arabeske on this piano.

When I did, nothing about the sound/intonation of this instrument lined up with what my late teacher, Robert Weaver, taught me about this instrument.  That was: the genuine/original piano had a very bright bass, a very easy action, and certain upper register notes that produced a singing tone, effectuated with a light touch.

So, in that my tuner/technician is Steinway factory trained, I asked him about this. He said: that when he was training in New York, he specifically asked his supervisor to allow him to view Horowitz's piano, shortly after he died.

My technician has stated, and continues to state, that the action he inspected (his words) was "old hammer, new hammer, throughout the keyboard.  This piano had been tweaked and tempered with extensively.

However, when the so-called Horowitz piano made its way to his home city of San Antonio, he determined that it was not the same action or set of hammers that he had viewed in New York at the Steinway factory.

Therefore, if Pianostreet can produce any technician who inspected this piano before Horowitz's death, and the one that has now been presented to the public (as the same exact piano), I will apologize and withdraw this post.

What is the point, Mr. Podesta?   The point is that this pianist, like many others, artificially enhanced his instrument to make his technique "god-like/'superhuman."

[dogperson]

Please advise where I can find a piano technician that can alter my piano so I can sound like Horowitz.  I would be eternally grateful.

[schumaniac]

^^^

I played the Horowitz piano when it last came to my city... I could only have been 10. I did NOT sound like Horowitz.
I don't want to disrespect Horowitz or this piano, but silly me didn't think of its tonal "potential" or how historical it was. I was just like "hey, it's another piano with that 'Steinway sound!' [which I was fascinated by]." I wonder if these are "silly-me" observations, or if other ppl felt them too...

[tenk]

So a world-class pianist had his piano action regulated and voiced the way he wanted. Glad we had you on the case Sherlock, he almost got away with it!

You make a post asking if this forum/site can produce "any technician who inspected this piano before Horowitz's death, and the one that has now been presented to the public", and expect us to accept nothing but hearsay from you. That's rich.

Finally, are you or your tuner/technician accusing Steinway of fraud?

[adodd81802]

.

[louispodesta]

"tenk" and "adodd81802":

1)  There is a forum on that other website, specifically dedicated to piano technicians, wherein this subject has been discussed extensively.  The first thing that is pointed out in these replies is that the Steinway Company had one man exclusively dedicated to working with Horowitz on his piano.  And, yes, for performing and recording in his later years, he had one piano.

2)  Voiced and regulated?:  Among other things, he let the hammers in the lower register age to where they were hard as a rock.  In some cases, if the harshness and brightness was not enough, he instructed this personal factory technician to apply a thin coat of lacquer to the specific hammer/hammers in question, in order to achieve the desired effect.

That is it for now, and I won't even begin to get into how Horowitz had Columbia Records build him (way before the rock stars) a custom recording studio in his spacious New York apartment. 

That way, whenever he so desired, he would just call Columbia, and then they would put Thomas Frost in a cab.  And then, they would cut some tape, which would then be extensively spliced a taped back together again for the desired result.

Do any of you out there really believe that rock and roll producers invented instrument and recording enhancement?  First, George Martin used to do what for a living before he was hired to produce the Beatles?

Secondly, please look up the music conservatory pedigree of the great rock producers of the late 1960's and early 1970's.  Why do you think, when asked, Alicia de Larroccha stated that recordings were (paraphrasing) fakery.

And, the first guy who had the money and the associated staff technical expertise to do so was:   Guess who?

[philolog]

I think it worth remembering that whatever "fakery" Horowitz indulged in in the recording studio (or with the modification of his piano), his fame was predicated on his "live" appearances, beginning in his youth. Whatever the merits of his particular brand of musicianship, he was regarded as a phenomenon at the time.

[pianist1976]

"tenk" and "adodd81802":
That is it for now, and I won't even begin to get into how Horowitz had Columbia Records build him (way before the rock stars) a custom recording studio in his spacious New York apartment. 

I don't think they built a recording studio at his home. Every recording company (now and then) use to have movable equipment. For a price around $800 per day anyone can hire a recording session at any place (a concert hall, a home, whatever). I've seen the (for me) marvelous movie "Horowitz, the last romantic" from 1985 and it looks like his apartment didn't become a recording studio: the technicians shared in the same space with the piano; there weren't a mixing table isolated room, for example. And Charles Rosen talks about a Horowitz's recording anecdote in the 1960's, telling that he moved his piano to the recording studio and, when finish, he moved it back to home. The problem was patching a single wrong note they overlooked at the recording sessions. Horowitz decided to patch it with the studio's Steinway as it wasn't worth to move again the whole piano for patching a note.

That way, whenever he so desired, he would just call Columbia, and then they would put Thomas Frost in a cab.  And then, they would cut some tape, which would then be extensively spliced a taped back together again for the desired result.

Editing a classical music recording is a very common practice since, at least, the 1960's. For instance, you can compare the Arrau's studio recordings of Schumann's Carnaval from 1950's and the one he did in the 1970's, the former with much more errors. Almost every single post 1960 studio recording has patched wrong notes. That's an audience/industry requirement. In the 1930's the audience tolerated Cortot's (and others) wrong notes. Since the era of tape editing, the most evident wrong notes are no longer as easily tolerated. This, in my opinion, don't diminish a little the quality of an artist as everybody does it.

Secondly, please look up the music conservatory pedigree of the great rock producers of the late 1960's and early 1970's.  Why do you think, when asked, Alicia de Larroccha stated that recordings were (paraphrasing) fakery.

Most recordings are, indeed, unrealistically perfect. I quite agree with it. As I said, audience commands... The audience of the last 50 years demands note perfect studio recordings. If the artist wants to sell records and maintain his/her prestige, cannot be the only one who produces records with wrong notes.

And, the first guy who had the money and the associated staff technical expertise to do so was:   Guess who?

I don't think he was the first. As I said before, almost any person can hire a recording studio and/or find a premium technician who may tweak the instrument to your taste. It's not that easy to have a Steinway D at home but any piano can be tweaked up to a point. And there are many recording studios that have a concert piano or can use an university hall. Anyone who has 2000$ in his/her pocket can produce a professional sounding recording. Sounding like a great pianist, even with the best tools, is the really difficult part...

But, for me, the most important point is that Horowitz enchanted the audiences not because of his tweaked Steinway but because of his personality, his musicianship, his soul, his deep understanding and love for the music... I have no doubt he would sound like Horowitz on any piano. In fact, the opening of "Last romantic" is on the Steinway basement. He is trying several pianos (not him's). He is able to play them with ease and power, and every note he extracts from them sounds like Horowitz. As a summary, Horowitz was great because of him, not because of his piano.

[louispodesta]

It is heartwarming to me as a philosopher, when I witness myth.  You see, mythology is how you market (and that is the key word here) a belief.  And that belief, was that Horowitz was god-like in his technique.

Oh, make no mistake about it, in a given performance, the man could play his arse off.  That is not the point.

The point is:  to take a given superb performance and then make everyone believe that he could hit it out the park on every occasion.  That is a lie!

Just listen to his recording of the Rachmaninoff G Sharp Minor Prelude, which I (with my thin spindly fingers can play the hell out of) sounds significantly different in his live Moscow recording.   The original (which was perfect) was tweaked, just like his Scarlatti recording, to deliver this note perfect "elan" effect.

In addition, Earl Wild states in no uncertain terms (in his Memoir), that for the last 30 some odd years of Horowitz's career (if you can call it that, in that he rarely performed) had a repertoire which was miniscule, just like your other god, Cliburn.

And do you know what?:  If one reads my over-recommended book, "After The Golden Age," by Kenneth Hamilton, then they will discover the Horowitz epistemology.  His was one in a long line of classical pianists who "hyped" their careers with their singular associated live performances.

The difference with Horowitz (unlike the pianists of the 19th century) is that he had the best pianos and the best technicians, when he was in New York or in the studio to RECORD!   Conversely, when he was traveling by train, from concert to concert, the pianos were horrific compared to what he had in New York.

That is why he disappeared "twice" for a significant period of time.  As someone, who has spent 30 years studying the mythology of rock and roll performance, I know exactly what is real, and what is not -HYPE!

That means that the mechanical physics associated with the singula live (or recorded), performance of a particular instrument are specific to that situation.

[vansh]

I'm a bit confused here. When you adjust a piano, is there anything you can do that isn't "artificially enhancing" it? These pianos are tuned by humans after all, we're not putting them out in the woods until they sound good or something. Are people not allowed to customize their pianos as they like at the risk of getting on the bad side of some doping agency or something? Are we supposed to just accept whatever factory settings were done for a particular piano?

I'll give a personal anecdote. I play the Chopin Fantaisie-Impromptu (recording in the Audition Room). At my piano at home, I've figured how much to depress the pedal such that the bass notes are sustained, while the treble notes are not. This allows the bass to continue to ring, while the melody stays crisp, during the fast passages of the piece. I thought this was common to all Steinways until I played on one where I couldn't do this no matter how finely I tried press the pedal, thus I couldn't generate this same effect. Eventually I asked a piano technician about it and he mentioned that actually it varies by piano, how uniformly the damper pads on the strings are lifted when I press the pedal.

So if I asked the technician to adjust another piano so that the bass damper pads lift up slightly earlier than the treble pads (to make the same effect happen), would I be accused of "artificially enhancing" the piano?

I'll leave you with a quote "A bad workman always blames his tools"

Reminds me of the old photographer story:

A popular photography joke has a photographer invited to a dinner, where he shows some photographs. “I love these photographs!” the host says. “You must have a great camera.” The photographer replies, “I love your food. You must have great pots and pans.”

(from https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/you_must_have_great_pots_and_pans )

[pianist1976]

It is heartwarming to me as a philosopher, when I witness myth.  You see, mythology is how you market (and that is the key word here) a belief.  And that belief, was that Horowitz was god-like in his technique.

INHO what impress more of Horowitz to his listeners is not his technique but his unique personality, tone, how he could communicate emotions to the audience. And to a dilettante, Horowitz could look to have a god-like technique but more knowledgeable people knows that he hadn't a flawless technique. Horowitz became a myth because of him and his qualities as a man and musician, and then after came the marketing; it doesn't work otherwise. There are lots of marketing failures everyday. In fact he raised from anonymity to instant fame in Berlin because a last time substitution to play Tchaikovsky piano concerto no. 1 (no publicity, that came after).

My point is that publicity can make growing a legend but if the person doesn't have what is necessary to be one, the audience just ignore the hype. You must have the charisma, the musicality, the personality, etc. to be a myth, and Horowitz had it.

The point is:  to take a given superb performance and then make everyone believe that he could hit it out the park on every occasion.  That is a lie!

I agree! I personally don't think Horowitz was the perfect pianist (who is?). Maybe one thing I love from listening great pianists live (or in live recordings) is to realize that while they are great, they are also human like the rest of us and they make (sometimes many) mistakes. And there are better and worse days. I think we quite agree on this point.

Just listen to his recording of the Rachmaninoff G Sharp Minor Prelude, which I (with my thin spindly fingers can play the hell out of) sounds significantly different in his live Moscow recording.   The original (which was perfect) was tweaked, just like his Scarlatti recording, to deliver this note perfect "elan" effect.

Yes, I agree again. But this is not a Horowitz's exclusive sin. Every recording artist tweak and patch his/her recordings.

And Gould was particularly obsessive about this. His Scriabin 5th is a recording tricks and tweaks masterpiece. Also you can compare, for example, the perfect studio ballade 1 of Chopin by Pollini with a few live recordings now available at YouTube.

In addition, Earl Wild states in no uncertain terms (in his Memoir), that for the last 30 some odd years of Horowitz's career (if you can call it that, in that he rarely performed) had a repertoire which was miniscule, just like your other god, Cliburn.

I profoundly respect and admire Wild but I don't think he could be impartial. The fact is that from 1985 to 1989 Horowitz recorded, I think, 8 albums. Not bad for a man in his 80's, and he recorded much more on the former years. He also had a big repertoire of pieces that he no longer played in public and other that he didn't want to play in public or record  (much as Medtner and Miaskovsky sonatas, complete Chopin Op 10 etudes, Gaspard de la Nuit, a few transcendental etudes...). While his repertoire wasn't maybe as gigantic as Richter's, Arrau's or Ashkenazy's, it wasn't by any means small.

Cliburn and Benedetti Michelangeli (two pianists I also admire a lot, although not to the point to consider them "gods", not Horowitz also) had a much smaller repertoire. But that didn't prevent them from being two of the greatest pianists in history. One must admire the artist by his/her qualities and achievements, not by his/her defects or shortcomings or what he/she could have done or others did.

The difference with Horowitz (unlike the pianists of the 19th century) is that he had the best pianos and the best technicians, when he was in New York or in the studio to RECORD!  

Any artist has access to the best pianos and the best technicians. As I said before, any pianist can record with a relatively small budget with a concert piano, using the best microphones, pre amplifiers, mixing tables, etc. And everyone can (must?) patch the wrong notes. The difference, believe me, is how much the artist transmits to and communicates with the audience. At the time of Horowitz many other pianists recorded at the same studios with Steinway D pianos. Some of the can be considered on a par with Horowitz but others simply didn't have the same qualities. To me, just their records aren't that exciting.

Of course there's people who can dislike Horowitz. That's a matter of taste. But his qualities are there.

That is why he disappeared "twice" for a significant period of time.  As someone, who has spent 30 years studying the mythology of rock and roll performance, I know exactly what is real, and what is not -HYPE!

I don't think he intended to disappear to make a hype. Horowitz was a very depressive person and he earned enough money to do a quiet life far from the stage (figuratively as he lived a few yards away from Carnegie Hall...) and to record several albums and doing a living from its royalties, and giving classes to other great artists like Janis and Perahia. I would do it if I could . It was a natural decision for a person who suffered from stage fright, as Gould also did.

A popular photography joke has a photographer invited to a dinner, where he shows some photographs. “I love these photographs!” the host says. “You must have a great camera.” The photographer replies, “I love your food. You must have great pots and pans.”

I think this summarizes it very well.

[louispodesta]

I very much appreciate your details thoughts/responses.  However, what you have not addressed is what the average musician goes through while on tour (physically and mentally).

For some reason, my late teacher, whose first degree was out of Ithaca, had heard all the war stories way before he relayed them to me.  In addition, my Yankee father (who was born in 1905), was also an MD/pianist.

In the early 60's, he told me as a child about Horowitz's two stays in what was referred to then as a mental hospital.  There is certainly no shame in that, but the reason as to why is very important (per this thread's original thesis).

That is, when any artist, regardless of genre, tries to live up to their hype, they usually crash and burn.  Specifically, Horowitz had one great piano when he played in New York, and then when he went on the road, in terms of instrument quality and also audience sophistication/adoration, it was often a different situation.

So, when you find yourself practically out of business because of nerves and instrument quality, you do whatever you do in order to adjust.  In addition, when your "Beard" old lady is Toscanini's daughter, you get the lecture every day as to why you should not be just lying around.

Just today, this website is featuring an article about how a then unknown pianist got a career boost because Yu Wang had to cancel because of a sore arm.  A sore arm:?  I have been sore in certain spots before, but never an entire arm.

What she had was what I term Horowitz syndrome, which means that when the hype rules the artist, the body/mind win, and the artist then suffers the consequences. 

[adodd81802]

.

[dcstudio]

I think hitting that peak and feeling your own decline being aware of this can have a massive detrimental affect on the brain surely?

You stated in another forum that Hoffman who had a the key width of an entire piano made smaller for his hands and you state that as "no big deal" What is the limit in your opinion of the amendments that can be made to personalize an instrument before you suggest it to be artificial or unacceptable?

  ... well said adod but I fear you are only wasting your energies here... best to move along.

[louispodesta]

Thank you both for your insightful comments.

1) Josef Hoffman was an incapacitated/"drunk," for the last 30 years of his life.  Accordingly, the Curtis Institute of Music, whose piano department he founded, fired him and then sent him on his way.  After that, he never played in public again.

2)  Before that, what Steinway did for him, in terms of a narrower width white key, is no different than what they did for Rubenstein or any of their other major "Steinway Artists."  Thank you for asking, and that is exactly the point.

3)  Do I ask my Steinway factory trained my tuner/technician to regulate my action, voice my hammers like everybody else?  Yes, I do.

4)  Then, do I ask him to artificially (and he has asked), if I want particular keys "juiced," in terms of over voicing the corresponding keys adjacent to them?  No I have not.

The point is: regarding Horowitz and now Hoffman, is that:

1)  when they could no longer hit it out the park like they could when they were young, they get the Steinway folks to help them out, and:

2) When the serious piano student hears these recordings (Horowitz and Hoffman), and reads their reviews, then they think that these performances are a reality.  They are not.

And if these students (like thousands before them) think that they can pull off this super-human level of performance with hard practice discipline, then they will crash and burn like their predecessors before them.

That, once again, is the point of this post.

[dcstudio]

Thank you both for your insightful comments.

oh no... thank you Louis...  this one was truly hilarious.