Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Horowitz is a CHEAT!!!!!

Hank,

I did not get as far as listening to Cziffra's Chopin's Etudes. I listened to his Hungarian Rhapsodies first and thought they were horrible. Seeing him play on the Art of the Piano video did not change my opinion. If you like everything played fast, loud, bangy and rushed as fast as possible up to the end of each phrase with a quick break for air, then Cziffra is the pianist for you.

Ryan

Mat, we could talk about Knitting instead. But then, this is the Pianist Corner...

Ryan

I'll jump on the anti-Cziffra bandwagon for now. Sorry, D

Ryan,

True, it sounds like more knitters here than musicians.

Sounds like you need the Coffee Room.

It's Friday afternoon - I could use something a little stronger than coffee

Mat D. writes:


Ha! Dream on. I think the higher one gets in one's undertakings the more critical they become. My feeling is that true musicians may be less judgemental, but not less critical.

Now about this question of whether one needs to be a pianist to be a critic of piano recitals? I have asked myself this a number of times in different contexts. What about this: I do not need to be a chef in order to form a valid and critical opinion of something I eat at a good restaurant. Is it different for the sense of hearing?

I think that a knowledgable opinion is often more meaningful and useful than a simple "I like it" or "I don't like it". I can tell whether I like the food I am eating or not. But because my review has no more depth than that it isn't very useful. That is the problem with the simplistic reviews of Horowitz. There was a lot more to him than technician vs. musician.

Ryan

Here is something about Horowitz that I recall my piano professor in college (Nigel Coxe of the University of Massachusetts) telling me. Disclaimer: this is not a political statement about Horowitz. It's just something I remember him telling me.

Nigel told me that he saw Horowitz perform live (I think he saw him during the '80's but I could not swear to it; I am remembering this story being told to me from about 1987 or so.) Horowitz played a Bach Fugue, and started COMPLETELY on the wrong notes. The first 5 or so notes of the fugue were not even vaguely close to the right notes. All the "professional" pianists in the audience who recognized the piece were horrified. Horowitz picked up the correct notes following the mistaken phrase and continued with the piece. A recording of the concert was later released and Nigel bought it, and of course immediately played the Fugue. Lo and behold, the wrong notes had been magically replaced with the correct ones. Ah, the magic of digital trickery (or, I suppose in those days, tape splicing.)

Mike, This might have been attributable to nerves. It is known that he was very nervous about performing. There is one story about how, just before going on stage, he stopped, turned around and told the person he was with to give him a shove on to this stage, he couldn't do it on his own. (N.B., I don't think he experienced this level of stage fright at every concert).

My overall opinion of Horowitz is a good one. When he was good, he was tremendous. When he was having a bad day, he was like the rest of us on a bad day. I really wish I had heard him live and I also wish I could have met him. He seems like a real dear in the videos I have watched.

Pique,

What you suggested may be alright for reviews on orchestra music performance or chamber music performance.
It certainly doesn't apply to solo recitals, particularly piano recitals. There is so much to
talk about when reviewing a piano recital, not just the music. These have been discussed by
serveral people already, I won't repeat them. What I want to tell you is that our city
has a local paper that has only one music critic. He writes reviews covering whatever
the major musical events in the city, including piano recitals. Whenever I read his reviews
on piano recitals, I keep telling myself this is from someone who doesn't know piano playing
too much. He usually talks about the history of the music the performer played, talks about
the composer, talks about anything else but actual playing of the pianist. I believe he is
educated, and informed, but just can't write a professional piano recital review. I also
believe that most music critics have musical training background, and piano playing is a
required essential training.

Kin

Can one be a piano music critic of say, someone like Horowitz if one is a beginner pianist? Intermediate pianist? or does one need to be an Advanced pianist to properly critique an Advanced player? How many of our music critics are pianists at the level of the players they review?

MikeC65, your teacher must have been either confusing the pianist, or the repertoire. There were only two major Bach works Horowitz recorded live: the Bach-Busoni Toccata in C recorded at his 1965 return recital, and his mistakes in that were left on the record (and they are very obvious); and a Bach Toccata in c minor, BWV 911, recorded in 1949 and released after Horowitz' death. As this recording originated on disc, editing would not have been possible.

why is orchestral music or chamber music exempt from this requirement of being a musician, but not piano music?

it really isn't necessary to play ANY instrument to listen well,though certainly it helps.

if what you are judging is piano technique, then i can see that it matters if you are knowledgeable about piano technique. but if what you are judging is the musician's effectiveness at communicating music, playing the piano is really not relevant.

It is possible that I am not correctly remembering what the piece was. I thought it was a Bach fugue, but I am relating something told to me around 15 years ago. I know I have the basic story right as it was told to me, but I could be (and based on what you say above, probably am) misstating the piece in question.

[/QUOTE]

Quote

How many of our music critics are pianists at the level of the players they review?

Why did you interpret my points in a childish way? Where in my post did I ever suggest this?

Pique, please read carefully before you reply. The central point of my earlier post is if a critic knows more about piano playing, he would certainly be able to say more about piano technique of the player. I am sorry you missed that.

Kin

I am only speaking of my personal experience here, but I can unequivocally say I am a much more informed critic of piano music as my own capabilities have increased.

I do think it's much more than being able to "hear." In high school I was able to hear various musicians and develop my own tastes, and certainly was able to recognize the difference between, say, Rubinstein's Chopin and Horowitz' versions of the same. (FWIW I preferred Rubinstein's.)

But as my own playing increased and I began to learn the pieces on my own, I was able to pinpoint exactly where I felt various performances were strong or weak. One ran roughshod over phrasing, the other failed to bring out the contrasting melody in the left hand, the other played WAY too fast, etc.

Although everyone is entitled to be a critic, and form their own opinion, I do think some criticisms are more well-informed than others and therefore have more credence, at least to me.

I will always pay much more attention to a critic who can tell me precisely why they did or didn't like a piece than someone who can simply say, "I liked/hated it."

My 2c, as usual!
Nina

And just a small point, since Horowitz's character has been attacked so mercilessly here, people should know that during WWII he raised millions for the War Bond effort. In fact one of his Carnegie Hall recitals (with Toscanini) raised $11,000,000 alone in War Bonds.

Such an egocentric prima donna.

That's true. Furthermore, Horowitz donated large portions of his fees to charity--as did Rubinstein--not just during wartime, but throughout his career. If Horowitz was merely greedy, he could have played eighty or more concerts per year in any hall he could find--and the impressarios would have payed him whatever he wanted. Instead, he limited himself to about 20 concerts per year during the last decades of his life--when he was playing at all--and was very particular about the halls where he played. He once said: "I want to be paid, and a lot, but I will not be bought." He only played at Avery Fischer Hall twice because he didn't like the accoustics there. When he played at colleges (his favorites were the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and Yale) he always made sure the prices were strucured so there would be plenty of affordable tickets for students. And in 1964, he announced that should he return to the concert stage, he would not perform in any halls which segregated audiences, which effectively meant that he would not perform in the South.

Horowitz wasn't perfect, but he wasn't the devil some have made him out to be. As with all people, you have to accept the bad with the good.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Hank Drake ]

Hank said---"When he played at colleges (his favorites were the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and Yale) he always made sure the prices were strucured so there would be plenty of affordable tickets for students."

I saw Horowitz at Hill Auditorium (University of Michigan campus) in the 80's. You know, I think he skipped an octave that afternoon, but I won't hold it against him.

BTW, Hill Auditorium has very nice acoustics...I've seen Murray Perahia and Kissin (twice)there in the last 3 years.