# Vladimir Horowitz



## flamencosketches

I did a search, and oddly, I could not find any single thread dedicated to this giant of 20th century music. There was a thread in the recordings forum asking for suggestions, and a few others comparing and contrasting him to other pianists, but not one thread singly dedicated to discussing his music.

Vladimir Horowitz was a piano sensation on a rarefied plane inhabited also by only such titans as Sergei Rachmaninov, Sviatoslav Richter, Arthur Rubinstein, and Franz Liszt. That being said, I have a feeling he is somewhat of a polarizing figure. How do you feel about Horowitz? Is he a great interpreter, or does he overly romanticize everything he plays? I have heard such criticism leveled at his Scarlatti, for example.

I'm not familiar with everything he has done, not by a long shot. But I'll say this much: his Scriabin is second to none. Well, _maybe_ second to the composer's son-in-law Vladimir Sofronitsky. I believe the young Horowitz once played for Scriabin in the composer's late years, and Scriabin told the boy's parents that their son was exceptionally talented. I think he took this to heart and would grow to always have Scriabin in mind as a musical role model. I think he is also near peerless in the music of his older contemporary Sergei Rachmaninov.

I also really enjoy his Scarlatti; historically informed or not (it's not), I think that he brings an interesting sensibility to this music.

What do you think?


----------



## joen_cph

The Tchaikovsky Concerto 1 with Toscanini in the most well-known studio recording (1943) is not necessarily the best IMO; try Szell 1953 for example, or Toscanini live 1941.

I believe however that there has been a thread or two before ...


----------



## Ras

I'm not a Horowitz fan, but one recording made a big difference for me: his recording with Ormandy on RCA from January, 1978 of Rachmaninov's 3rd piano concerto "won me over" to a work that had previously left me puzzled. Now a few years down the line I can enjoy others like Argerich, Lisitsa and Giltburg.









His Scarlatti on Columbia leaves me just as cold as any other performance of that composer that I have heard. But it is much adored by plenty more dedicated and knowledgeable music fans.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> What do you think?


I think he's very variable, when he's good he's very very good. When he's bad he's dreadful. You can hear it in the Liszt sonata. The one from the 1930s is superb. The one from the 1970s or 80s, isn't.

Fortnately there are a lot of very good thing, even more so if you are prepared to listen to early recordings. This is well worth buying









The biggest style feature is his tendency to play things in an edgy, nervous way. In some music this is a strength, late Scriabin is a good example. But sometimes it's far from being a strength -- famously he battled for years and years with Schumann's _Der dichter spricht_ from Kinderszenen. He played it in his final recital from Hamburg (a recital worth hearing for the Mozart at least) -- Was he finally successful with the Schumann or did it continue to be coloured with a neurotic feeling? For you to judge.









He was a keen Schumann player, and like everything else with him you have to be careful to catch him on the right night, when he was in the right frame of mind. One such night was 24 Novenber 1968, he gave a recital at Carnegie Hall with a fabulous Kreisleriana where there's an sense of risk taking and abandon. It's on youtube with bad sound but it was released a few years ago with excellent sound -- find it, this is a good thing to hear!


----------



## joen_cph

Here's an earlier thread
Horowitz


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> I think he's very variable, when he's good he's very very good. When he's bad he's dreadful. You can hear it in the Liszt sonata. The one from the 1930s is superb. The one from the 1970s or 80s, isn't.
> 
> Fortnately there are a lot of very good thing, even more so if you are prepared to listen to early recordings. This is well worth buying
> 
> View attachment 123585


Thanks for that! Looks excellent, I'll be exploring this for sure.

I've heard others say that in his later years, he got to be pretty bad. I can see him being variable. I may have been lucky to only have heard the good stuff so far. I have also heard others say that his recording of the Liszt sonata from the 1930s is the greatest ever. Might have to purchase this on the strength of that alone.


----------



## joen_cph

Some of his later stuff can be good, including some DG and CBS. I agree that the earlier or say pre-1960 tend to be the most convincing - but not only that.


----------



## flamencosketches

His Scriabin that he cut for Columbia Masterworks in the 1960s-70s (not 100% on those dates) was very good, but the earlier RCA recordings are even better.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I've heard others say that in his later years, he got to be pretty bad.


I think that's not being fair to him at all. He suffered, he was nervous, and so he was variable. Maybe the nerves got worse as he got older, but he got so famous that more was recorded, and so more bad nights were caught. There's a book of interviews with him by David Dubal, maybe worth you looking out for it.

I should say that a lot of his repertoire I haven't explored at all: Rach for example, or Tchaik. And apart from an excellent Mozart concerto I've never heard him play with an orchestra.

Is his first Liszt sonata better than Cortot's, which was released at the same time and was hence upstaged? For you to judge.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> I think that's not being fair to him at all. He suffered, he was nervous, and so he was variable. Maybe the nerves got worse as he got older, but he got so famous that more was recorded, and so more bad nights were caught. There's a book of interviews with him by David Dubal, maybe worth you looking out for it.
> 
> I should say that a lot of his repertoire I haven't explored at all: Rach for example, or Tchaik. And apart from an excellent Mozart concerto I've never heard him play with an orchestra.
> 
> Is his first Liszt sonata better than Cortot's, which was released at the same time and was hence upstaged? For you to judge.


I don't know about fair, but you must admit that it's not uncommon for a virtuoso's skills to deteriorate later in life, whatever the cause, nerves, or what have you. It's a sad fact of life. In any case, this isn't an opinion that I would necessarily share, and maybe this didn't happen to him at all, it's just something I've heard. And of course, the opposite is also not uncommon: an artist's maturity can peak late in life.

I've heard neither but should check them both out. For some reason, my gut is telling me that Horowitz is more the man for the job than Cortot, in this particular case.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I don't know about fair, but you must admit that it's not uncommon for a virtuoso's skills to deteriorate later in life, whatever the cause, nerves, or what have you. It's a sad fact of life. In any case, this isn't an opinion that I would necessarily share, and maybe this didn't happen to him at all, it's just something I've heard. And of course, the opposite is also not uncommon: an artist's maturity can peak late in life.
> 
> I've heard neither but should check them both out. For some reason, my gut is telling me that Horowitz is more the man for the job than Cortot, in this particular case.


I don't think that you can say that Horowitz's later recordings have a sort of wisdom of age, which I think you can say about Arrau and Richter and Gilels for example.

He aged a lot better than Rubinstein IMO.


----------



## DavidA

Ras said:


> I'm not a Horowitz fan, but one recording made a big difference for me: his recording with Ormandy on RCA from January, 1978 of Rachmaninov's 3rd piano concerto "won me over" to a work that had previously left me puzzled. Now a few years down the line I can enjoy others like Argerich, Lisitsa and Giltburg.
> 
> View attachment 123581
> 
> 
> His Scarlatti on Columbia leaves me just as cold as any other performance of that composer that I have heard. But it is much adored by plenty more dedicated and knowledgeable music fans.
> 
> View attachment 123582


This is made a little later on the same tour and is a better performance


----------



## DavidA

Mandryka said:


> I don't think that you can say that Horowitz's later recordings have a sort of wisdom of age, which I think you can say about *Arrau and Richter and Gilels* for example.
> 
> He aged a lot better than Rubinstein IMO.


I certainly wouldn't say any of the three above have the 'wisdom of age'. Their earlier recordings are preferable when they are in middle age.


----------



## DavidA

Horowitz was an incredibly variable artist - I have some of his live recordings unedited:









These give an idea of what he was actually like unlike his studio recordings or his live recordings which were stitched together from takes. At his best he could electrify an audience like no-one else - why people queued round the block to go to his concerts. The problem was he suffered from mental health problems which effected his performances so some are substandard. The repertoire he actually performed in public was very small but when he was on song you had an experience like no-one else. Of course, you didn't go to him for a complete set of Beethoven piano sonatas a la Brendel. But a Horowitz recital could be an experience like none other.


----------



## Mandryka

DavidA said:


> I certainly wouldn't say any of the three above have the 'wisdom of age'.


You may just be wrong about that, but the thing I'd like to hear your opinion of is the later Sofronitsky, the recordings he made in the 1960s, especially Chopin.


----------



## Mandryka

I listened to the Kreisleriana here last night, first time in about 5 years. I think it is really exceptional. Easily found on spotify and the like, an excellent transfer. If there was more Horowitz like this we would all agree that he was one the greatest of pianists on record.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> If there was more Horowitz like this we would all agree that he was one the greatest of pianists on record.


Why do you think there is not? Nerves, etc?

Anyway that looks like a great program, I will have to seek it out.


----------



## Mandryka

Yes the tense nervousness of some performances, and a way of decorating some pieces which may not always be in the best possible taste. 

For a good polarising example compare what Horowitz does with Czerny's variations on La Ricordanza with Alexis Weissenberg's. It's good music, by the way, well worth a bit of time. 

I hope you do try the 1968 Kreisleriana, I want to know if anyone else thinks it's as wonderful as I do.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Well, count me as an ardent fan. He was the outstanding figure in the pianistic world for more than half a century, and I count several of his recordings as some of my most cherished performances in my entire collection by any performer. Throughout his career Horowitz gave us indelible performances that expand our awareness of many works in the repetoire, always revealing new avenues of color and detail. It isn't fair to say his playing was "bad" during his last decade or so -- he was a born showstopper, but as he aged he came to grips with the inevitable slowing down of his marvelous nervous system, and in his final recordings there is some music making there of a rarified nature, poetic and singing, with phrasing of a unique individuality.

Just to touch on a few of my favorite recordings, the 1932 recording of the Liszt sonata is legendary and far exceeds his exaggerated remake from the 1970s. The two early 1940s recordings of Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto with Toscanini are also immortal: steely, edgy, full of strenghth and raw nerve. His rendition of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition is one of his most controversial recordings, and it is certainly an oddity, but it is an example of pianism of awesome impact and deserves to be heard. He felt a bond with the work of Rachmaninoff and the two developed a close relationship; the 1951 recording of the third piano concerto with Reiner is one of Horowitz's most characteristic performances: demonic, searing, and technically incomparable. In his recordings of various solo pieces by Rachmaninoff, he focuses far more on the epic side of the music than the composer ever did in his own playing.

Horowitz's recordings of Scarlatti sonatas employ a large set of dynamics and use the pedal ingeniously in washes and dots and dashes, all etched with a remarkable finger precision and spacing of notes, and are packed with drama. The Clementi sonatas album from the 1950s is vintage Horowitz, and remains the most effective all-around recorded example of Clementi's sonatas that I know. These works are played with a stylistic freedom and pull out all the stops while remaining true to the idiom.

His recordings of Chopin's second piano sonata are the quintessetial "Byronic" Chopin, full of burning frustration, wilfullness and bombast. In Schumann Horowitz's creative imagination was fired. The first recording of the Kreisleriana from the late 1960s is an unforgettable experience, with rubato applied in an instinctive drive and full of sparks. In the 1986 Kreisleriana we get a mellow, almost hallucinatory version of the work.

However, if I had to choose a personal favorite segment of Horowitz's art, it would be his Scriabin. He knew exactly how to bring to life that composer's flamelike spirit in all its quivering eroticism.


----------



## flamencosketches

^Excellent post! Thanks! I agree that his Scriabin is very revelatory. I'm working on getting into more of his music. There is a Columbia Masterworks recording of Rachmaninov's B-flat minor sonata that I've been really enjoying, somewhat later in his career I think. The next step for me is getting that two disc set with all his 1930s recordings.


----------



## Mandryka

If you like his Chopin sonata, then I wonder if you'll also like this. Brand is Brand and Horowitz is Horowitz, but there's a certain romantic intensity which I think they share.


----------



## Roger Knox

Mandryka said:


> I think he's very variable, when he's good he's very very good. When he's bad he's dreadful. You can hear it in the Liszt sonata. The one from the 1930s is superb. The one from the 1970s or 80s, isn't....Fortnately there are a lot of very good thing, even more so if you are prepared to listen to early recordings. This is well worth buying


I agree with your comments -- heard Horowitz play the Liszt B Minor Sonata in 1978, I think it was Carnegie Hall. At one point I just closed my eyes and listened -- it really was pedalled noise, what a thing to say, yet true. His playing was terrific in a Seattle recital a few years earlier, and of course many recordings bear out his greatness. Even playing badly he was still Horowitz, still had the aura.


----------

