Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Horowitz's Octaves

Horowitz was not at his best in 1983. In fact, I think that was probably the rock bottom for him. He was heavily medicated and was prone to memory lapses. He recovered by about 1986 and his last recitals are marvelous.

I have to nominate this jaw-dropping recording of Funerailles.

Hi guys,

Here's a link to the Heroic Polonaise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lmJuAM_GvU

Starting around 4:00 there's a good top-down view of his hands. It seems he had a pretty wide palm, spanning a fifth or six on its own so octaves look like they fit really comfortably. It's surprising then that, according to David Dubal, Horowitz claimed he was unable to play Scriabin's etude in ninths because it would "break his hand." It looks to me that he shouldn't have problems with it physically.

I have to say I find Argerich's octaves more impressive than Horowitz's.

They actually are, and in some respects she is a lot more sophisticated and intelligent musician than Horowitz. She certainly has more respect for the printed note, and has shown us that it always works as advertised.

Nevermind that Liszt always played free, that was back then. Like Liszt, Horowitz was just too technically rich to behave himself. But Argerich simply does not see it this way.

Rumor has it that Horowitz acknowledged la Martha's virtuosic skills, knowing that he was not particularly generous about other performers'achievements, right??

I've heard Horowitz drop a thumb or a pinky here and there in octaves (not that it really matters, but I'm just saying).

Thanks! I have a recording of him playing that (different performance) but I've never "seen" him play it.

I wondered a couple of things:

Did he finger those bottom notes of the L.H. octaves "2-3-4-5"? (Which I think I heard somewhere that he did.)
He didn't.

Did he "help out" with the R.H. (as written) in the 'intro' to the section and the little interlude before the repetition, or whether he takes it all with the L.H.
He helped out.
It's all fine, of course (and NORMAL)......just wondered.

I do not know if Horowitz ever heard Argerich -there is a lot of conflicting info here- but IMO there is no possible case for him being a greater musician than Argerich.

Horowitz was a showman with AWESOME technical address, but it was all self-absorbed. Argerich has proven to be a fantastic collaborator in chamber music, just listen to her Schumann Piano Quintet- then compare with pedestrian pianists such as Pressler. It is so obvious as to be a bit of a joke.

Good that you said IMO.

Look....."greater musician" is a very subjective thing. I doubt it's possible for anyone to ever legitimately say there's "no possible case" for something like this -- and I don't mean only about Horowitz and Argerich.

Do I think Horowitz was a "greater musician" than Argerich? Well, I would never think of thinking in such terms, but if I had to pick an answer, I'd say yes, he was a 'greater musician.' But IMO to think in such terms at all -- it sort of insults both of them.

Jason, I gotta call you out on this one. You know how much I think of Argerich-- I adore her playing but there is no way that I would place her musicianship above Horowitz'. Horowitz went deeply into the music he played and studied it very carefully. His interpretations were not simply technical showcases or fits of capriciousness but based on a deep understanding of the music he was playing. Plus I agree with Mark about the problems inherent in this type of comparison but if it's about going there, I give the nod to H.

Sophia

Actually I can see (I think) where Jason was coming from. For example, I think most non-pianist musicians would say that Argerich was a "greater musician" than Horowitz, if they had to give an answer, although frankly I think most of them would feel neither one was a particularly great musician.

"Musicianship" is a funny thing. On one hand, there are objective aspects to it, but on the other, it's very subjective. What is it? Which aspects are more important than others? How much leeway is there for different kinds of approaches? How much do we count "originality" and "uniqueness"? Or maybe, are those things negatives rather than positives, because of how they may violate usual musical expectations and even usual musical principles? How much does it count against "musicianship" if the person sometimes gets carried away with his/her impulsiveness and 'personality' into (arguably) messy ugliness? When it comes to people like Horowitz and Argerich I think they create their own thing to an extent that talking about degrees of "musicianship" sort of misses the point, and, as I said before, sort of insults both of them.

I'm finding myself surprised at a number of statements here from valued forum members.

It's totally reasonable to think Argerich the greater musician, but I think it's totally unreasonable to think there's no "possible case" for the reverse. I happen to think Bach is greater than Mozart, but I'd never say there's just no possible argument for Mozart's superiority. We're talking about taste and opinion among the giants.


And:
I think you're being unfair to our non-pianist friends-- surely they would understand the artistry and musicianship of the great pianists even if they don't themselves play. At the same time, you're being far too indulgent towards our non-pianist friends-- if they don't appreciate the musicianship of the great pianists just because they don't play, this should count significantly against them. It shouldn't be "OK"; it should call their own musical judgment severely into question-- no?

I've been as universal as I know how-- I love Mahler and Wagner and plenty of non-piano music. And I expect the same courtesy from our non-piano musicians. I expect them to love Beethoven sonatas, and I even expect the violinists to understand that Paganini was no Chopin.

-Jason

It's not "discourtesy" on their part; it's different ideas of "musicianship."

I think a lot of what both Horowitz and Argerich do, musically, is stuff that is idiosyncratic to the piano and which arises from the piano -- and those kinds of things often are just not included in non-pianists' ideas of musicianship.

And.....a little off the subject, but.....I think it's also why many of them don't rank Chopin very high as a composer. It is often put in terms of his having composed little music other than for piano, and therefore lacking breadth -- but I think it's also this other thing: not appreciating those aspects of musicianship that arise from and are idiosyncratic to the piano.

Lol, you know you wern't gonna get me on board with the rest of that message ;-). One of the things I love about Horowitz was his willingness to play with things.

Really? You've got damned good ears then.

I've gotta tell ya...I've seen some homers in my life, but you, my friend, are pretty darned close to the top of the slappy pile. This is really one of the more thoughtless comments I've seen around here and I say so because you're a smart guy who knows better than to say something so inane. I don't care if you think she's the greater musician, but to say "there is no possible case for..." any other possibility is simply ridiculous and you know it.

Here's another...to say "they actually are", implies that it's some sort of fact. Well, in your mind I'm sure that's the case, but then I'm sure in your mind she can do no wrong and does it (whatever it may be) better than anyone past, present, or future.

I have to agree with Stores here.

To me, the octaves of Horowitz in the Tchaik clip sound infinitely more electric and powerful than those of the other 15 pianists.

As for musicianship, I don't think anyone could make a serious case for Argerich being a 'superior' musician (whatever that means anyway).

IMO, no pianist has had a bigger impact on piano playing, audiences, and musical culture in general than Horowitz.

While he doesn't get everything 100% right for 100% of the people 100% of the time (who the heck does anyway?), I find his playing in many instances unrivaled and unsurpassed.

I think you folks who think Argerich's octaves in the Tchaik are better than da HO's just like hers because she plonks the pedal down.... so you all think they sound more 'impressive'.

Well in that case, Lang Lang can be more 'technically impressive' than Josef Lhevinne....

yeah right.

I think you're slightly guilty of the attitude you're criticising there.

I personally prefer Horowitz's octaves in the Hungarian Rhapsody, Argerich's in Funerailles, and funnily enough my favourite for the Tchaikovsky is Sergio Tiempo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2svEIKd5x8

I think they are both brilliant pianists with many idiosyncrasies. It would not be surprising at all that audience, and particularly pianists, would favor one or the other. It does not diminish either. As for musicianship, a word whose definition varies widely (see JAP above, identifying it with "influence"), a case can easily be made for both artists. In my opinion however, Argerich's breadth of repertoire, particularly in chamber music, offers substantial support for superlative musicianship.. In my opinion and experience, many pianists are barely aware of the treasures of chamber music she has played and/ or recorded. As to whose octaves you prefer, I personally do not find octave playing to be the pinnacle of musicianship.. It is a technical feat that is best appreciated in context of what the pianist has to say overall about a particular piece.