# Arthur Rubinstein vs Vladimir Horowitz



## Crystal (Aug 8, 2017)

Arthur Rubinstein 
Vladimir Horowitz 
Both of them 
I don't like both of them 
Who cares


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I myself prefer Rubinstein's interpretations.

Chopin's Nocturnes, Scherzos, Polonaises. Schumann's Fantasie in C and Carnaval. Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 23. Assorted Debussy solo works. Rubinstein's my man.

Horowitz? Too glitzy for me. Some of his Scarlatti is okay.

I wish Rubinstein recorded Rachmaninov 3. I don't care for any of Horowitz' recordings of it.

For me, I dare say, Vladimir Horowitz was "over-rated", not for technique, but as a reliable interpreter.

I could choose Rubinstein for practically anything-Brahms Concertos, Beethoven's Concertos, Chopin's Concertos, etc; and I know I will be getting fine performances, never perhaps the most exciting performances, but always among the most satisfying, musically and emotionally.

Rubinstein's tone and rubato were incredible. His performance of Schumann's Arabesque demonstrates this. In a class by itself.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

trolling thread


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Both of them will do for me, slight preference towards Rubinstein.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Rubinstein. Effortlessly elegant.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

hpowders said:


> I myself prefer Rubinstein's interpretations.
> 
> Chopin's Nocturnes, Scherzos, Polonaises. Schumann's Fantasie in C and Carnaval. Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 23. Assorted Debussy solo works. Rubinstein's my man.
> 
> ...


I often dip into the RCA Red Seal 9CD collection of his Brahms and it was Rubinstein who converted me to Debussy (I wish I could find more of his Debussy recordings). And more of Schubert. Apparently he played him for his own pleasure but perhaps there wasn't the demand. Late in life (April 22 1965) he made my favourite of all the recordings I possess of the B-Flat sonata (D 960). It was also issued on RCA Red Seal. I believe there are people on this forum who are not lovers of Schubert (can such things be?)

Rubinstein acknowledged the superior pianism of Horowitz (who dazzles me BTW) but said he himself was the superior musician. An article in Limelight magazine the other month said that Rubinstein would improvise in performance when he forgot the notes and the improvisations were often better than the music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Horowitz was a unique musician (and head case) whose skill lay in the fact that he could dazzle and thrill an audience like no-one else with a high voltage interpretation. He had a small public repertoire but what and when he did play was often stupendous.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

jenspen said:


> I often dip into the RCA Red Seal 9CD collection of his Brahms and it was Rubinstein who converted me to Debussy (I wish I could find more of his Debussy recordings). And more of Schubert. Apparently he played him for his own pleasure but perhaps there wasn't the demand. Late in life (April 22 1965) he made my favourite of all the recordings I possess of the B-Flat sonata (D 960). It was also issued on RCA Red Seal. I believe there are people on this forum who are not lovers of Schubert (can such things be?)
> 
> Rubinstein acknowledged the superior pianism of Horowitz (who dazzles me BTW) but said he himself was the superior musician. An article in Limelight magazine the other month said that Rubinstein would improvise in performance when he forgot the notes and the improvisations were often better than the music.


I am one of the lucky people who owns the RCA Rubinstein big box which includes the D960 you mention. It was never released on LP and has only come to light in the CD era as part of the Rubinstein Collection volume 54. Most people only know the 1969 recording but this one beats it hands down.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

jenspen said:


> I often dip into the RCA Red Seal 9CD collection of his Brahms and it was Rubinstein who converted me to Debussy (I wish I could find more of his Debussy recordings). And more of Schubert. Apparently he played him for his own pleasure but perhaps there wasn't the demand. Late in life (April 22 1965) he made my favourite of all the recordings I possess of the B-Flat sonata (D 960). It was also issued on RCA Red Seal. I believe there are people on this forum who are not lovers of Schubert (can such things be?)
> 
> Rubinstein acknowledged the superior pianism of Horowitz (who dazzles me BTW) but said he himself was the superior musician. An article in Limelight magazine the other month said that Rubinstein would improvise in performance when he forgot the notes and the improvisations were often better than the music.


Well, Horowitz had the better technique, but his performances were never in sync with my musical taste. Rubinstein's playing was, as was Van Cliburn's.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Crystal said:


> Arthur Rubinstein
> Vladimir Horowitz
> Both of them
> I don't like both of them
> Who cares


If I may be so bold, who do you prefer yourself Crystal?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

jenspen said:


> I often dip into the RCA Red Seal 9CD collection of his Brahms and it was Rubinstein who converted me to Debussy (I wish I could find more of his Debussy recordings). And more of Schubert. Apparently he played him for his own pleasure but perhaps there wasn't the demand. Late in life (April 22 1965) he made my favourite of all the recordings I possess of the B-Flat sonata (D 960). It was also issued on RCA Red Seal. I believe there are people on this forum who are not lovers of Schubert (can such things be?)
> 
> Rubinstein acknowledged the superior pianism of Horowitz (who dazzles me BTW) but said he himself was the superior musician. An article in Limelight magazine the other month said that Rubinstein would improvise in performance when he forgot the notes and the improvisations were often better than the music.


I'm with you all the way, especially for his late great Schubert B-flat sonata on RCA. He had recorded it before, but this version is incandescent. I've read he made it just after a confrontation with his son that was clearly going to be the last time they would speak. 
Rubinstein was the opposite of Horowitz in many ways. It's easily to forget that when he began his career as a child prodigy, there was no commercial sound recording at all, and it was still the era of private concerts for wealthy aristocrats. He regarded acoustic recording when it arrived at the turn of the century as a worthless novelty, and never recorded with it. When electrical recording arrived with its much higher fidelity in the mid 1920s, and he was already over 40, he had to take time off to perfect his technique so he would sound good on record. That he had to do that tells one a lot about his personality, musical and otherwise, and that was able to do that tells one a lot about his staggering talent. 
Horowitz, on the other hand, had spectacular technique from day one and chose much of his repertoire to showcase that technique, even going so far as to have a piano specially made with hardened hammers to take best advantage of his capabilities.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

It's no comparison.

Rubinstein, stiff, calculated and boring. Barely able to play the most difficult repertoire. Pretty good for Chopin and that's it. 

Horowitz, a true romantic and one of the greatest pianists and virtuoso's of all time, could make pieces his own like no other, unique interpretations, dared to add a personal touch, unmatched dynamic range and color, fantastic emotional depth where called for. Not compatible with Beethoven and could go overboard in some cases.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Rubinstein, who thought he was the cat's meow early in his career, said that he allowed his artistry to stagnate for a number of years, and coasted on his reputation. Then he was exposed to Horowitz, and was shocked at how good Horowitz was. He was then galvanized into feverishly re-examining his own pianism, and rededicated himself to his art, becoming finally a superb musician. The story reminds me of the influence upon Liszt of seeing and hearing Paganini. 

My own preference is for Rubinstein


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Rubinstein over Horowitz in nearly every circumstance. Vladimir may have been the more technically proficient pianist, but for all his precision, somehow his playing lacked soul, or perhaps bravura. Horowitz was sort of a wunderkind, with less emotional involvement than Rubinstein perhaps.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

What impresses me about Rubinstein is that no matter what he played it always sounded good. I don't feel the same way about Horowitz.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Antiquarian said:


> Rubinstein over Horowitz in nearly every circumstance. Vladimir may have been the more technically proficient pianist, but for all his precision, somehow his playing lacked soul, or perhaps bravura. Horowitz was sort of a wunderkind, with less emotional involvement than Rubinstein perhaps.


Yes, perhaps so. Horowitz wasn't "shallow", though. He had a remarkably keen understanding of how to use his phenomenal technique to produce his unique dazzling effects. It must have been amazing to hear him in person in his youthful prime, and judging by his later recordings (I have many of them), even in his final years he could still produce the same brilliant and exciting, yet sophisticated sound.
Rather than emphasizing technical virtuosity, brilliance and excitement, Rubinstein sought and achieved a wonderfully free-flowing and seemingly effortless musicality that you seldom hear today. I think it very significant that he belonged to the last generation of musicians raised before the era of recordings.
When I think of Rubinstein, I think first of his iconic recording of the Chopin waltzes, or the Ballades and Scherzos, or even the Beethoven piano concertos. When I think of Horowitz, I think first of his spectacular encore piece, Moszkowski's Etincelles. Perhaps not the most profound piece, but perfect for capturing his special sound.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I love Horowitz's Mozart, so I'll vote for him.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I love Horowitz's Mozart, so I'll vote for him.


Yes, great A major concerto with Guilini and the La Scala orchestra. There's a documentary about it that's also worth seeing.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2017)

How many of these threads are you going to open?


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Both great pianists, but some of those recently issued live concerts by Horowitz where he struggles through, among other works, a horror-show 'Carnival' demonstrate how the mighty technician had fallen. Rubinstein could never play as badly as this in concert.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I have always had the greatest respect for pianists who take the most care over the technically simple pieces. On that criterion, neither Horowitz nor Rubenstein scores compared with e.g. Gilels or Andsnes. Technique is only a means to an end.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

jenspen said:


> I often dip into the RCA Red Seal 9CD collection of his Brahms and it was Rubinstein who converted me to Debussy (I wish I could find more of his Debussy recordings). And more of Schubert. Apparently he played him for his own pleasure but perhaps there wasn't the demand. Late in life (April 22 1965) he made my favourite of all the recordings I possess of the B-Flat sonata (D 960). It was also issued on RCA Red Seal. I believe there are people on this forum who are not lovers of Schubert (can such things be?)
> 
> Rubinstein acknowledged the superior pianism of Horowitz (who dazzles me BTW) but said he himself was the superior musician. An article in Limelight magazine the other month said that Rubinstein would improvise in performance when he forgot the notes and the improvisations were often better than the music.


Rubinstein's "The Brahms I love" album was a classic. His Debussy recorded from Carnegie Hall concerts was magnificent. It's a shame Rubinstein didn't record a few all Debussy albums. He was a natural.

I have never loved any of Horowitz's performances. I will acknowledge that no pianist had greater control over the keyboard than Horowitz-terrific shading and rubato, but never winning me over.


----------



## alan davis (Oct 16, 2013)

Horowitz had astonishing technique but Rubinstein is the pianist to mellow out on with a good red.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Very different styles. Each superb in his own right. That's the best I can do.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Horowitz just didn't have the beautiful sensual tone that Rubinstein possessed.

Rubinstein playing Scarlatti? He would have been arrested for pre-meditated anachronism.

However Horowitz with his leaner tone, got away with it.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Pat Fairlea said:


> I have always had the greatest respect for pianists who take the most care over the technically simple pieces. On that criterion, neither Horowitz nor Rubenstein scores compared with e.g. Gilels or Andsnes. Technique is only a means to an end.


I disagree. Both Horowitz and Rubinstein had a number of technically simple pieces in their repertoire, and they played those pieces with great musical sensitivity and tenderness. Examples include Horowitz's recording of Traumerei and Rubinstein's recording of Chopin's Waltz in B Minor (Op. 69 No. 2).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> I disagree. Both Horowitz and Rubinstein had a number of technically simple pieces in their repertoire, and they played those pieces with great musical sensitivity and tenderness. Examples include Horowitz's recording of Traumerei and Rubinstein's recording of Chopin's Waltz in B Minor (Op. 69 No. 2).


Yes. For me the greatest test of virtuosity involves a pianist playing the 2 1/2 minute Traumeri from Schumann's Kinderszenen and causing me as a result, to have tears in my eyes. Horowitz and Kempff, no problem. Rubato and delicate shading, the name of the game.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

hpowders said:


> Yes. For me the greatest test of virtuosity involves a pianist playing the 2 1/2 minute Traumeri from Schumann's Kinderszenen and causing me as a result, to have tears in my eyes. Horowitz and Kempff, no problem. Rubato and delicate shading, the name of the game.


Add one more vote for Horowitz's Traumerei and his Kinderszenen in general. He certainly understood how to play Schumann


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

hpowders said:


> Yes. For me the greatest test of virtuosity involves a pianist playing the 2 1/2 minute Traumeri from Schumann's Kinderszenen and causing me as a result, to have tears in my eyes. Horowitz and Kempff, no problem. Rubato and delicate shading, the name of the game.


OK fair point. I'm not familiar with that Horowitz recording, not least because I was inoculated against Traumeri at an early age by having to practice it week after week.....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Holden4th said:


> Add one more vote for Horowitz's Traumerei and his Kinderszenen in general. He certainly understood how to play Schumann


Yes and the recording of Traumeri many of us are familiar with, wasn't even recorded in his prime.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Horowitz could bring out the melody and inner melodies of pieces with an incomparable singing tone. His dynamic range and control is also quite unmatched, probably from the way his piano was custom made for him. 
I love the sound of the piano on the recordings such as the ones below and have never heard anything quite similar.

Schubert/Liszt - Ständchen





Scriabin - Etude Op. 8 No. 8





And here's one of his finest live performances which shows how good he still was at an old age. There's a warmth and organic, natural quality to his playing that is hard to find elsewhere.

Schubert/Liszt - Valse


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Most of the time I prefer Rubinstein over Horowitz.

One exception: the solo piano music of Robert Schumann.

Vladimir Horowitz may have been the finest Schumann pianist ever.

Everybody who loves solo piano music should hear Horowitz's performance from the 1960's of Schumann's Kreisleriana.
The almost supernatural control of the keyboard; the shading of dynamics, the bewitching rubato....

So often we accept the "latest and greatest" pianist to come out of Juilliard or Curtis, with great technique, who can't even move a stone. We fool ourselves into believing this is great piano playing.

Listening to Horowitz play Schumann reveals what genuine greatness sounds like, attainable by the very rare few.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Most of the time I prefer Rubinstein over Horowitz.
> 
> One exception: the solo piano music of Robert Schumann.
> 
> ...


I agree. Horowitz take on Schumann's Fantasy in C is my favorite version too. And his final version of Kinderszenen the one I listen to most.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

jdec said:


> I agree. Horowitz take on Schumann's Fantasy in C is my favorite version too. And his final version of Kinderszenen the one I listen to most.


A shame about the tape hiss, but it was the 1960's.

Imagining being able to hear him play this music when he was in his prime-the 1940's.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I have honestly never spent the time with Horowitz in comparison to Rubinstein. 

I have the "142 CD RCA Rubinstein Complete Recordings Box Set" and I have listened to every CD in it, and many of the recordings I've heard countless times. Rubinstein may not have been the technical virtuoso in comparison but he was a wonderful communicator and was able to play with wonderful heart.

By contrast I don't have anywhere near as much Horowitz in my collection. I really enjoy Horowitz's Tchaikovsky 1st with Toscanini from 1941. I like some of his Liszt recordings. I've heard some live recitals I've really liked and others not as much. If I were to find a super deal on all his recordings I might pick them up, but it's never been a priority and I've never seen them for a song and a dance.


----------



## Genius of many (6 mo ago)

hpowders said:


> I myself prefer Rubinstein's interpretations.
> 
> Chopin's Nocturnes, Scherzos, Polonaises. Schumann's Fantasie in C and Carnaval. Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 23. Assorted Debussy solo works. Rubinstein's my man.
> 
> ...


You definitely can’t play the piano at all and barely have a good and right taste


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Genius of many said:


> You definitely can’t play the piano at all and barely have a good and right taste


Do you play piano yourself?
Welcome by the way


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I remember an old episode of Frazier, where Niles comes to his brother breathlessly saying, "I just heard Rubenstein playing Chopin on the radio. I had to turn the car around and go home to make love to my wife." 

I guess we know where Niles stands.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Horowitz strikes me as belonging to a somewhat older school of pianism, playing with an uninhibited sense of expression. He is certainly more variable, but his best work, in Scriabin, Liszt and Rachmaninov is extraordinary. Rubinstein is more subtle and while I like a lot of what he has done I can usually always find performances that I prefer from other pianists.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

I would say Rubenstein is better overall ,although Horowitz I think played faster,there both good.

I personal favorite all time for me is Gould though.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Op.123 said:


> Horowitz strikes me as belonging to a somewhat older school of pianism, playing with an uninhibited sense of expression. He is certainly more variable, but his best work, in Scriabin, Liszt and Rachmaninov is extraordinary. Rubinstein is more subtle and while I like a lot of what he has done I can usually always find performances that I prefer from other pianists.


Patrician is the word I would use for Rubinstein.

By coincidence I listened just yesterday to Horowitz playing Mozart K330, just the studio recording on DG, and really liked what I heard. Fresh, light and almost spontaneous sounding playing. And I also listened to Rubinstein play Debussy in Carnegie Hall and enjoyed that too. In fact a couple of weeks ago I went back to Rubinstein’s first Mazurkas recording, the one from the 1930s. It is excellent and, in its way, revolutionary.

The idea that Horowitz is old school is an interesting one I’ll have to think about. In a way I think he’s totally unique because of a sense of nervous tension which pervades everything he did almost. And his sonority is distinctive too.


----------

