Discussion:
Horowitz and the Brahms B-flat
(too old to reply)
c***@comcast.net
2008-07-02 23:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well." An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH, Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP. If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...

I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...

Rich
Rugby
2008-07-03 00:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
As is the Rubinstein/Witloski (Rowicki ?) live from Warsaw in 1962,
BBC Legends (?), remarkable, very unbloated playing by AR, IMHO.

Regards, Rugby
c***@comcast.net
2008-07-03 23:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugby
As is the Rubinstein/Witloski (Rowicki ?) live from Warsaw in 1962,
BBC Legends (?),  remarkable, very unbloated playing by AR, IMHO.
I have the Rubinstein/Witloski Brahms B-flat on Polskie Nagrania (a
1997 issue). It is a 2 CD set which includes 2 performances by
Rubinstein of the Brahms- a rehearsal performance and the public
performance. The former is more unbuttoned than the latter. The
Chopin 2nd concerto, another Rubinstein favorite, is wonderful.
Filling out the 2nd disc is an interview with AR in Polish. The sound
is very good. If I remember correctly the sound engineer who
transferred the tapes to cd is the same gentleman who recorded the
1962 Warsaw broadcasts by AR.

Thanks to MBT for the VH info...let's hope the 1948 Walter/NYP
Horowitz Brahms B-flat turns up.

Rich
Phil Caron
2008-07-03 23:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Horowitz did record this in 1948, most satisfyingly, with Toscanini and the
NBC SO. It's on APR. Of the pianist's several recordings of the work, this
one is my favorite. However, it would be interesting to hear the one with
Walter, as their 1948 collaboration on the Tchaikovsky 1st is a wonderful
thing too, and my favorite version of that work from this pianist.

- Phil Caron
Matthew B. Tepper
2008-07-03 01:47:30 UTC
Permalink
***@comcast.net appears to have caused the following letters to be
typed in news:8951f435-6092-4515-a3a0-30ec2e0df847
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the following
"There were probably also some concerto performances recorded for
Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there is a Brahms
Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance which most likely
is a private recording. If so, there are probably at least two further
concerto performances stored there as well." An article in IPQ about the
Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so
maybe its existence is questionable. According to Mr. Johansson's
concertography of VH, Horowitz played the B-flat major concerto on April
8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno Walter/NYP. If one of these live
performances is preserved on acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale
archives is justified. MBT in Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
Horowitz with Toscanini/NBC Symphony, 23 October 1948:

Appian CD APR 6001
Arkadia CDMP 454
Music and Arts CD-1077
Stradivarius STR 13595

No ninjas required, at least in this instance. (Besides, in the matter of
"Ninjas or pirates?" I am firmly on the side of "Arrrrr!")
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
td
2008-07-04 00:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well."   An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH,  Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP.  If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
Must have been a moment of intellectual clarity and self awareness for
Horowitz, an otheise grotesquely unself critical pianist.

He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.

TD
c***@comcast.net
2008-07-04 01:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.
Tom Deacon's comments about Horowitz sent me searching for my B.H.
Haggin volume Music Observed. Like TD, Haggin thinks that VH is a
musical lightweight. The Horowitz style is "the alteration of brio and
affetuoso teasing", a style suitable for acrobatic music , but not at
all right for a Beethoven sonata or Schubert's D960. Writing about
VH's D960, Haggin notes "That way is the excessively mannered
affetuoso melodic style that incorporates the infinite gradations and
varieties of tone he produces from the piano" Haggin likes to use
the word "teasing" as if VH were a hairdresser. The criticism suggests
that there is something unmanly about the Horowitz style; that to
emphasize sonority over structure is to skim over the surface of the
music. (Why ? It seems to me that music is largely about sound. And
is it true that Horowitz was only interested in making interesting
sounds at the expense of structure?. For me his earlier D960 is a
fine performance. The score is brought to life in a unique way. ) .
Haggin stressed that he was a practical critic meaning he simply
reported on what he heard, and that extramusical considerations meant
nothing to him, but I wonder. Horowitz's sexuality and his
psychological problems were certainly no secret to the New York
critics. It is my belief that Haggin's criticism of VH was influenced
by the gossip. For what it's worth I think Vladimir Horowitz was a
very smart man. My favorite picture of him is in the Harold Schoenberg
biography: VH looking at a chessboard contemplating his next move....

Rich
td
2008-07-04 03:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.
 Tom Deacon's comments about Horowitz sent me searching for my B.H.
Haggin volume Music Observed.  Like TD,  Haggin thinks that VH is a
musical lightweight. The Horowitz style is "the alteration of brio and
affetuoso teasing", a style suitable for acrobatic music , but not at
all right for a Beethoven sonata or Schubert's D960.  Writing about
VH's D960, Haggin notes "That way is the excessively mannered
affetuoso melodic style that incorporates the infinite gradations and
varieties of tone he produces from the piano"   Haggin likes to use
the word "teasing" as if VH were a hairdresser. The criticism suggests
that there is something unmanly about the Horowitz style; that to
emphasize sonority over structure is to skim over the surface of the
music. (Why ?  It seems to me that music is largely about sound. And
is it true that Horowitz was only interested in making interesting
sounds at the expense of structure?.  For me his earlier D960 is a
fine performance. The score is brought to life in a unique way. ) .
Haggin stressed that he was a practical critic meaning he simply
reported  on what he heard, and that extramusical considerations meant
nothing to him, but I wonder. Horowitz's sexuality and his
psychological problems were certainly no secret to the New York
critics. It is my belief that Haggin's criticism of VH was influenced
by the gossip.  For what it's worth I think Vladimir Horowitz was a
very smart man. My favorite picture of him is in the Harold Schoenberg
biography: VH looking at a chessboard contemplating his next move....
That "biography" is the worst thing HCS ever penned. Clearly he must
have done it for the money; there is no other excuse.

Never read BH, by the way, but he is dead right.

TD
c***@comcast.net
2008-07-04 07:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Never read BH, by the way, but he is dead right.
B.H. Haggin died of colon cancer in the late 80's.

Rich
td
2008-07-04 10:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
Post by td
Never read BH, by the way, but he is dead right.
B.H. Haggin died of colon cancer in the late 80's.
You mean he's right dead as well as dead right.

TD
The Historian
2008-07-04 07:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
Post by c***@comcast.net
Post by td
He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.
Tom Deacon's comments about Horowitz sent me searching for my B.H.
Haggin volume Music Observed. Like TD, Haggin thinks that VH is a
musical lightweight. The Horowitz style is "the alteration of brio and
affetuoso teasing", a style suitable for acrobatic music , but not at
all right for a Beethoven sonata or Schubert's D960. Writing about
VH's D960, Haggin notes "That way is the excessively mannered
affetuoso melodic style that incorporates the infinite gradations and
varieties of tone he produces from the piano" Haggin likes to use
the word "teasing" as if VH were a hairdresser. The criticism suggests
that there is something unmanly about the Horowitz style; that to
emphasize sonority over structure is to skim over the surface of the
music. (Why ? It seems to me that music is largely about sound. And
is it true that Horowitz was only interested in making interesting
sounds at the expense of structure?. For me his earlier D960 is a
fine performance. The score is brought to life in a unique way. ) .
Haggin stressed that he was a practical critic meaning he simply
reported on what he heard, and that extramusical considerations meant
nothing to him, but I wonder. Horowitz's sexuality and his
psychological problems were certainly no secret to the New York
critics. It is my belief that Haggin's criticism of VH was influenced
by the gossip. For what it's worth I think Vladimir Horowitz was a
very smart man. My favorite picture of him is in the Harold Schoenberg
biography: VH looking at a chessboard contemplating his next move....
That "biography" is the worst thing HCS ever penned.
Ever read any of his chess writing? You might reconsider your
statement.
h***@yahoo.com
2008-07-04 08:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by td
That "biography" is the worst thing HCS ever penned. Clearly he must
have done it for the money; there is no other excuse.
Samuel Johnson: "Only a blockhead would write except for money."

Herman
td
2008-07-04 10:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by td
That "biography" is the worst thing HCS ever penned. Clearly he must
have done it for the money; there is no other excuse.
Samuel Johnson: "Only a blockhead would write except for money."
A lot of the best writers are blockheads.

TD
The Historian
2008-07-04 13:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by td
That "biography" is the worst thing HCS ever penned. Clearly he must
have done it for the money; there is no other excuse.
Samuel Johnson: "Only a blockhead would write except for money."
Herman
Isn't that Mark Twain?
Beaver Lad
2008-07-04 19:14:20 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by The Historian
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by td
That "biography" is the worst thing HCS ever penned. Clearly he must
have done it for the money; there is no other excuse.
Samuel Johnson: "Only a blockhead would write except for money."
Herman
Isn't that Mark Twain?
========================
No. Dr. Samuel Johnson.

"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
Simon Roberts
2008-07-04 15:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
Tom Deacon's comments about Horowitz sent me searching for my B.H.
Haggin volume Music Observed. Like TD, Haggin thinks that VH is a
musical lightweight. The Horowitz style is "the alteration of brio and
affetuoso teasing", a style suitable for acrobatic music , but not at
all right for a Beethoven sonata or Schubert's D960. Writing about
VH's D960, Haggin notes "That way is the excessively mannered
affetuoso melodic style that incorporates the infinite gradations and
varieties of tone he produces from the piano" Haggin likes to use
the word "teasing" as if VH were a hairdresser. The criticism suggests
that there is something unmanly about the Horowitz style; that to
emphasize sonority over structure is to skim over the surface of the
music. (Why ? It seems to me that music is largely about sound.
Of course it is - it's all "surface." This is just another rhetorical device
employed by critics to assert their superiority over the riff-raff - any fool
can like a pretty tune or a nice turn of phrase, but you have to have special
perspicacity to understand "the structure" - when they can't think of something
better to say.

And
Post by c***@comcast.net
is it true that Horowitz was only interested in making interesting
sounds at the expense of structure?. For me his earlier D960 is a
fine performance. The score is brought to life in a unique way. )
Quite. Fortunately, we aren't all saddled with Haggin's biases and sense of
"good taste" . . . . (And there's nothing wrong with his Brahms concertos,
either (aside from Toscanini's horribly rigid conducting in one of the D Minors
floating around; the performance cond. Walter is vastly superior, or so it seems
to me).

Simon
td
2008-07-04 16:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
Post by c***@comcast.net
is it true that Horowitz was only interested in making interesting
sounds at the expense of structure?.  For me his earlier D960 is a
fine performance. The score is brought to life in a unique way. )
Quite. Fortunately, we aren't all saddled with Haggin's biases and sense of
"good taste" . . . .  (And there's nothing wrong with his Brahms concertos,
either (aside from Toscanini's horribly rigid conducting in one of the D Minors
floating around; the performance cond. Walter is vastly superior, or so it seems
to me).
Saddled with good taste?

The opposite is "burdened with bad taste", which is VH in a nutshell.
His Schubert B flat is appalling. He left the stage fot 12 years after
that disaster.

As for the Brahms, I suppose that AT played a part in those distictly
un-Brahmsian performances. Walter helped him a little. But they are
none of them anything to boast about. Shocking sound. Two
musical misfits wreaking havoc on Brahms' glorious concerti.

TD
HvT
2008-07-04 16:57:19 UTC
Permalink
"td" <***@mac.com> schreef in bericht news:0574e190-7171-49d9-8b87-***@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...


!The opposite is "burdened with bad taste", which is VH in a nutshell.

<g> That's an interesting way to say that "good taste" excludes art ...
One of the reasons why I am biased against English and Dutch musicians
is the fact that as a rule (with the exception of Ogdon, and others I
don't know) they are more afraid to show bad taste than to be boring.

Henk
JohnGavin
2008-07-04 16:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
Tom Deacon's comments about Horowitz sent me searching for my B.H.
Haggin volume Music Observed.  Like TD,  Haggin thinks that VH is a
musical lightweight. The Horowitz style is "the alteration of brio and
affetuoso teasing", a style suitable for acrobatic music , but not at
all right for a Beethoven sonata or Schubert's D960.  Writing about
VH's D960, Haggin notes "That way is the excessively mannered
affetuoso melodic style that incorporates the infinite gradations and
varieties of tone he produces from the piano"   Haggin likes to use
the word "teasing" as if VH were a hairdresser. The criticism suggests
that there is something unmanly about the Horowitz style; that to
emphasize sonority over structure is to skim over the surface of the
music. (Why ?  It seems to me that music is largely about sound.
Of course it is - it's all "surface."  This is just another rhetorical device
employed by critics to assert their superiority over the riff-raff - any fool
can like a pretty tune or a nice turn of phrase, but you have to have special
perspicacity to understand "the structure" - when they can't think of something
better to say.
Not so sure about that. It's something quite real I think. It has to
do with setting musical priorities - whether your concentration will
be used in a vertical or horizontal way, or more realistically, how
much priority you give to one or another.

In the case of Horowitz, I found him to be quite a natural musician
when he first came onto the recording scene (circa 1928). There was a
good sense of structure in recordings like the Kabelevsky Sonata #3 (a
brilliant performance in every way) or the Rach PC #3 with Coates. By
structure I mean a flowing unfoldment of the music's shapes, in a
proportionally well-guaged fashion, without breaking the flow of the
line.

What began to creep into Horowitz' playing as early as the mid 30s
were pianistic devices that started to draw attention to themselves,
thereby interrputing the flow, the unity of the unfoldment of the
music.

Is this ultimately wrong? It's a matter of taste, most likely. I
haven't heard the Horowitz/Toscanini Brahms PC#2 in years. I remember
it being not bad (perhaps Toscanini kept Horowitz in line), although
Horowitz never had what I would call a Brahms sound. Too sharply
etched, brilliant and thin.
Simon Roberts
2008-07-05 03:05:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <e7b1d3bb-6da7-4b75-aed1-***@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
JohnGavin says...
.com>,
Post by c***@comcast.net
Tom Deacon's comments about Horowitz sent me searching for my B.H.
Haggin volume Music Observed. =A0Like TD, =A0Haggin thinks that VH is a
musical lightweight. The Horowitz style is "the alteration of brio and
affetuoso teasing", a style suitable for acrobatic music , but not at
all right for a Beethoven sonata or Schubert's D960. =A0Writing about
VH's D960, Haggin notes "That way is the excessively mannered
affetuoso melodic style that incorporates the infinite gradations and
varieties of tone he produces from the piano" =A0 Haggin likes to use
the word "teasing" as if VH were a hairdresser. The criticism suggests
that there is something unmanly about the Horowitz style; that to
emphasize sonority over structure is to skim over the surface of the
music. (Why ? =A0It seems to me that music is largely about sound.
Of course it is - it's all "surface." =A0This is just another rhetorical =
device
employed by critics to assert their superiority over the riff-raff - any =
fool
can like a pretty tune or a nice turn of phrase, but you have to have spe=
cial
perspicacity to understand "the structure" - when they can't think of som=
ething
better to say.
Not so sure about that. It's something quite real I think. It has to
do with setting musical priorities - whether your concentration will
be used in a vertical or horizontal way, or more realistically, how
much priority you give to one or another.
In the case of Horowitz, I found him to be quite a natural musician
when he first came onto the recording scene (circa 1928). There was a
good sense of structure in recordings like the Kabelevsky Sonata #3 (a
brilliant performance in every way) or the Rach PC #3 with Coates. By
structure I mean a flowing unfoldment of the music's shapes, in a
proportionally well-guaged fashion, without breaking the flow of the
line.
OK, but: (a) that assumes that "the structure" requires an unbroken flow of the
line etc.; and (b) why isn't "a flowing unfoldment of the music's shapes" on the
"surface"?

(None of which is to say, of course, that anyone ought to like Horowitz's
playing at any point in his career....)

Simon
td
2008-07-05 12:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Roberts
JohnGavin says...
Post by Simon Roberts
.com>,
Post by c***@comcast.net
Tom Deacon's comments about Horowitz sent me searching for my B.H.
Haggin volume Music Observed. =A0Like TD, =A0Haggin thinks that VH is a
musical lightweight. The Horowitz style is "the alteration of brio and
affetuoso teasing", a style suitable for acrobatic music , but not at
all right for a Beethoven sonata or Schubert's D960. =A0Writing about
VH's D960, Haggin notes "That way is the excessively mannered
affetuoso melodic style that incorporates the infinite gradations and
varieties of tone he produces from the piano" =A0 Haggin likes to use
the word "teasing" as if VH were a hairdresser. The criticism suggests
that there is something unmanly about the Horowitz style; that to
emphasize sonority over structure is to skim over the surface of the
music. (Why ? =A0It seems to me that music is largely about sound.
Of course it is - it's all "surface." =A0This is just another rhetorical =
device
employed by critics to assert their superiority over the riff-raff - any =
fool
can like a pretty tune or a nice turn of phrase, but you have to have spe=
cial
perspicacity to understand "the structure" - when they can't think of som=
ething
better to say.
Not so sure about that.  It's something quite real I think.  It has to
do with setting musical priorities - whether your concentration will
be used in a vertical or horizontal way, or more realistically, how
much priority you give to one or another.
In the case of Horowitz, I found him to be quite a natural musician
when he first came onto the recording scene (circa 1928).  There was a
good sense of structure in recordings like the Kabelevsky Sonata #3 (a
brilliant performance in every way) or the Rach PC #3 with Coates.  By
structure I mean a flowing unfoldment of the music's shapes, in a
proportionally well-guaged fashion, without breaking the flow of the
line.
OK, but: (a) that assumes that "the structure" requires an unbroken flow of the
line etc.; and (b) why isn't "a flowing unfoldment of the music's shapes" on the
"surface"?
(None of which is to say, of course, that anyone ought to like Horowitz's
playing at any point in his career....)
Which means what, exactly?

Sarcasm and negativity: a combination lethal to plain speaking. And
meaning.

TD
Simon Roberts
2008-07-05 14:14:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <1bc1dfb1-08e3-4dcc-b7a6-***@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
td says...
Post by c***@comcast.net
com>,
Post by Simon Roberts
JohnGavin says...
Post by JohnGavin
In the case of Horowitz, I found him to be quite a natural musician
when he first came onto the recording scene (circa 1928). =A0There was a
good sense of structure in recordings like the Kabelevsky Sonata #3 (a
brilliant performance in every way) or the Rach PC #3 with Coates. =A0By
structure I mean a flowing unfoldment of the music's shapes, in a
proportionally well-guaged fashion, without breaking the flow of the
line.
OK, but: (a) that assumes that "the structure" requires an unbroken flow =
of the
Post by Simon Roberts
line etc.; and (b) why isn't "a flowing unfoldment of the music's shapes"=
on the
Post by Simon Roberts
"surface"?
(None of which is to say, of course, that anyone ought to like Horowitz's
playing at any point in his career....)
Which means what, exactly?
Sarcasm and negativity: a combination lethal to plain speaking. And
meaning.
Since you evidently didn't understand what I wrote, complaining about my sarcasm
(there is none in what I wrote above) seems a bit odd.

Simon
HvT
2008-07-04 07:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well." An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH, Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP. If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
!Must have been a moment of intellectual clarity and self awareness for
!Horowitz, an otheise grotesquely unself critical pianist.

!He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
!in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
!reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.

!TD

Well, de gustibus ... He may have been a rather sad human being but for
me he is without doubt one of the three greatest pianists of the last
century - with an attention span long enough to play the most
fascinating Schumann Kreisleriana ever.

BTW, if I remember correctly Horowitz has recorded a Brahms Intermezzo.

Henk
c***@comcast.net
2008-07-04 07:41:59 UTC
Permalink
HvT wrote:
BTW, if I remember correctly Horowitz has recorded a Brahms
Intermezzo.

According to Mr. Johansson's excellent discography:
Johannes Brahms

Intermezzo in B-flat minor, Op.117 No.2
Rhapsody in E-flat major, Op.119 No.4
February 25, 1953: Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York (Live) -
Unreleased

Variations on a theme by Paganini, Op.35 (Edited by Horowitz)

May 12, 1934: Abbey Road Studio No.3, London, England (Studio) - Lost
or Destroyed

Violin Sonata No.3 in D minor, Op.108

June 22 & 29, 1950: RCA Studio No.2, New York (Studio) - RCA Victor:
60461-2-RG

June 22: First, second, third and part 1 of the fourth movement -
Released

June 22: Part 2 of the fourth movement - Unreleased

June 29: Part 1 of the fourth movement - Unreleased

June 29: Part 2 of the fourth movement - Released
- Nathan Milstein, violin

Waltz in A-flat major, Op.39 No.15

January 30, 1942: Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York (Live) -
Appian Publications & Recordings: APR 2000

May 6, 1945: Unknown Location (Studio) - Unreleased

April 24, 1946: Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York (Live) -
Unreleased

November 29, 1946: Town Hall, New York City, New York (Studio) -
Unreleased

February 21, 1949: Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York (Live) -
Unreleased

May 13, 1949: Unknown Location (Studio) - Unreleased

October 10, 1950: Town Hall, New York City, New York (Studio)

RCA Victor: 09026-60463-2

Living Stage: LS 4035177 (from the 1951 Guest Star Radio Broadcast)
[+]


Too bad that the Abbey Road Studios lost the 1934 Brahms Paganini
Variations...

Rich
HvT
2008-07-04 07:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
Too bad that the Abbey Road Studios lost the 1934 Brahms Paganini
Variations...
Rich
Indeed, too bad!! It seems that one has to be a latent iconoclast to run
a recording studio ...

Henk
td
2008-07-04 10:13:37 UTC
Permalink
 BTW, if I remember correctly Horowitz has recorded a Brahms
Intermezzo.
Johannes Brahms
 Intermezzo in B-flat minor, Op.117 No.2
Rhapsody in E-flat major, Op.119 No.4
February 25, 1953: Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York (Live) -
Unreleased
        Variations on a theme by Paganini, Op.35 (Edited by Horowitz)
May 12, 1934: Abbey Road Studio No.3, London, England (Studio) - Lost
or Destroyed
        Violin Sonata No.3 in D minor, Op.108
60461-2-RG
June 22: First, second, third and part 1 of the fourth movement -
Released
June 22: Part 2 of the fourth movement - Unreleased
June 29: Part 1 of the fourth movement - Unreleased
June 29: Part 2 of the fourth movement - Released
        - Nathan Milstein, violin
        Waltz in A-flat major, Op.39 No.15
January 30, 1942: Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York (Live) -
Appian Publications & Recordings: APR 2000
May 6, 1945: Unknown Location (Studio) - Unreleased
April 24, 1946: Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York (Live) -
Unreleased
November 29, 1946: Town Hall, New York City, New York (Studio) -
Unreleased
February 21, 1949: Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York (Live) -
Unreleased
May 13, 1949: Unknown Location (Studio) - Unreleased
October 10, 1950: Town Hall, New York City, New York (Studio)
RCA Victor:09026-60463-2
Living Stage: LS4035177(from the 1951 Guest Star Radio Broadcast)
[+]
Too bad that the Abbey Road Studios lost the 1934 Brahms Paganini
Variations...
Probably too many mistakes. Horowitz was notoriously unreliable. He
was no Kissin!

TD
Peter J
2008-07-04 11:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
Too bad that the Abbey Road Studios lost the 1934 Brahms Paganini
Variations...
Rich
...or destroyed. I don't understand how one can lose something that
big (in size).
Wagner Fan
2008-07-04 09:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by HvT
Post by c***@comcast.net
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well." An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH, Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP. If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
!Must have been a moment of intellectual clarity and self awareness for
!Horowitz, an otheise grotesquely unself critical pianist.
!He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
!in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
!reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.
!TD
Well, de gustibus ... He may have been a rather sad human being but for me
he is without doubt one of the three greatest pianists of the last
century - with an attention span long enough to play the most fascinating
Schumann Kreisleriana ever.
BTW, if I remember correctly Horowitz has recorded a Brahms Intermezzo.
Henk
"Well, de gustibus ... He may have been a rather sad human being but for
me he is without doubt one of the three greatest pianists of the last
century - with an attention span long enough to play the most
fascinating Schumann Kreisleriana ever."

Absolutely right - I fall under his spell every time - pure magic. Wagner
Fan
td
2008-07-04 10:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wagner Fan
Post by HvT
Post by c***@comcast.net
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well." An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH, Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP. If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
!Must have been a moment of intellectual clarity and self awareness for
!Horowitz, an otheise grotesquely unself critical pianist.
!He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
!in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
!reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.
!TD
Well, de gustibus ... He may have been a rather sad human being but for me
he is without doubt one of the three greatest pianists of the last
century - with an attention span long enough to play the most fascinating
Schumann Kreisleriana ever.
BTW, if I remember correctly Horowitz has recorded a Brahms Intermezzo.
Henk
"Well, de gustibus ... He may have been a rather sad human being but for
me he is without doubt one of the three greatest pianists of the last
century - with an attention span long enough to play the most
fascinating Schumann Kreisleriana ever."
Absolutely right - I fall under his spell every time - pure magic.
There's no right or wrong in such matters; only agreement or
disagreement. That said one cannot be surprised that you wall under
spells. Clearly you have listened to Tridtan too much.

TD
td
2008-07-04 10:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by HvT
Post by c***@comcast.net
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well." An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH, Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP. If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
!Must have been a moment of intellectual clarity and self awareness for
!Horowitz, an otheise grotesquely unself critical pianist.
!He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
!in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
!reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.
!TD
Well, de gustibus ... He may have been a rather sad human being but for
me he is without doubt one of the three greatest pianists of the last
century - with an attention span long enough to play the most
fascinating Schumann Kreisleriana ever.
Hyperbole.

That said, Schumann, himself, thought in small forms. Kreisleriana is
itself a collection of them.

TD
HvT
2008-07-04 10:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by HvT
Post by c***@comcast.net
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well." An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH, Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP. If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
!Must have been a moment of intellectual clarity and self awareness for
!Horowitz, an otheise grotesquely unself critical pianist.
!He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
!in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
!reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.
!TD
Well, de gustibus ... He may have been a rather sad human being but for
me he is without doubt one of the three greatest pianists of the last
century - with an attention span long enough to play the most
fascinating Schumann Kreisleriana ever.
!Hyperbole.

!That said, Schumann, himself, thought in small forms. Kreisleriana is
!itself a collection of them.

!TD

It would have been a hyperbole if I had heard a more fascinating
Kreisleriana. I haven't but am looking forward to it. LeSage perhaps?

Whether the Kreisleriana (or any other composition for that matter) is a
whole or a collection of small parts, isn't that a matter of
perspective?

Henk
td
2008-07-04 11:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by HvT
Post by HvT
Post by c***@comcast.net
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well." An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH, Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP. If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
!Must have been a moment of intellectual clarity and self awareness for
!Horowitz, an otheise grotesquely unself critical pianist.
!He was no pianist for Brahms. Short attention span. He was at his best
!in miniatures, not gargantuan concerti. He could have done a
!reasonable Intermezzo, perhaps.
!TD
Well, de gustibus ... He may have been a rather sad human being but for
me he is without doubt one of the three greatest pianists of the last
century - with an attention span long enough to play the most
fascinating Schumann Kreisleriana ever.
!Hyperbole.
!That said, Schumann, himself, thought in small forms. Kreisleriana is
!itself a collection of them.
!TD
It would have been a hyperbole if I had heard a more fascinating
Kreisleriana. I haven't but am looking forward to it. LeSage perhaps?
I think you know my feelings on the use of the term "best".

Lesage is a marvelous interpreter of Schumann's piano music. His
Davidsbunlertänze is among the most satisfying I have ever heard.
Post by HvT
Whether the Kreisleriana (or any other composition for that matter) is a
whole or a collection of small parts, isn't that a matter of
perspective?
Perspective? Do you need perspective to see the "sections" that
Schumann wrote into his score?

The Fantasy in C is also in sections, three of them. The sonatas, qua
sonatas, are largely considered a failure. I agree. Brahms did no
better with sonata form. He improved his technique with the concerti
and the violin and cello sonatas, quintet, quartets, and so on.

Liszt, on the other hand, created a new long form which works in his
sonata. Horowitz was never able to cement this work; he rushes from
section to section in a frantic attempt to make it an organic whole,
but fails, both times. He was no Arrau either.

Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.

TD
O
2008-07-04 14:52:10 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor. Both of
those well over 5 minutes.

-Owen
td
2008-07-04 16:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.  Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly, whose
two recordings are outstanding.

TD
O
2008-07-05 15:00:36 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.  Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly, whose
two recordings are outstanding.
Cliburn's is a completely different approach. Janis is also quite
fine. Horowitz cleans Cliburn's clock in the Emperor.

-Owen
td
2008-07-05 15:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.  Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly, whose
two recordings are outstanding.
Cliburn's is a completely different approach.  Janis is also quite
fine.  Horowitz cleans Cliburn's clock in the Emperor.
Frankly, neither really ranks in that piece, despite Reiner's
accompaniment.

TD
O
2008-07-06 03:58:31 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.  Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly, whose
two recordings are outstanding.
Cliburn's is a completely different approach.  Janis is also quite
fine.  Horowitz cleans Cliburn's clock in the Emperor.
Frankly, neither really ranks in that piece, despite Reiner's
accompaniment.
Depending on the meaning you intend for the word "ranks" (listening to
a little Gilbert & Sullivan lately?), I may or may not agree. Horowitz
still rules in this piece. No one has since played it better, though I
haven't heard all the Michaelangeli, only some.

-Owen
td
2008-07-06 12:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.  Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly, whose
two recordings are outstanding.
Cliburn's is a completely different approach.  Janis is also quite
fine.  Horowitz cleans Cliburn's clock in the Emperor.
Frankly, neither really ranks in that piece, despite Reiner's
accompaniment.
Depending on the meaning you intend for the word "ranks" (listening to
a little Gilbert & Sullivan lately?), I may or may not agree.  Horowitz
still rules in this piece. No one has since played it better, though I
haven't heard all the Michaelangeli, only some.
Silly hyperbole!

Good, better, best. Meaningless unless you carefully craft the
parameters.

TD
O
2008-07-06 19:26:27 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
td
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.  Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly, whose
two recordings are outstanding.
Cliburn's is a completely different approach.  Janis is also quite
fine.  Horowitz cleans Cliburn's clock in the Emperor.
Frankly, neither really ranks in that piece, despite Reiner's
accompaniment.
Depending on the meaning you intend for the word "ranks" (listening to
a little Gilbert & Sullivan lately?), I may or may not agree.  Horowitz
still rules in this piece. No one has since played it better, though I
haven't heard all the Michaelangeli, only some.
Silly hyperbole!
Good, better, best. Meaningless unless you carefully craft the
parameters.
Absolutely, just like "cleans his clock," and "outstanding."

-Owen
td
2008-07-06 19:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
 td
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his
Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.  Both
of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly, whose
two recordings are outstanding.
Cliburn's is a completely different approach.  Janis is also quite
fine.  Horowitz cleans Cliburn's clock in the Emperor.
Frankly, neither really ranks in that piece, despite Reiner's
accompaniment.
Depending on the meaning you intend for the word "ranks" (listening to
a little Gilbert & Sullivan lately?), I may or may not agree.  Horowitz
still rules in this piece. No one has since played it better, though I
haven't heard all the Michaelangeli, only some.
Silly hyperbole!
Good, better, best. Meaningless unless you carefully craft the
parameters.
Absolutely, just like "cleans his clock," and "outstanding."
Just descriptive, that's all. And easy to grasp.

I have NO idea what good, better and best mean, and certainly far less
when you use these terms.

TD
O
2008-07-07 02:57:47 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
 td
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than
five
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his
Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.
 Both
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly,
whose
two recordings are outstanding.
Cliburn's is a completely different approach.  Janis is also quite
fine.  Horowitz cleans Cliburn's clock in the Emperor.
Frankly, neither really ranks in that piece, despite Reiner's
accompaniment.
Depending on the meaning you intend for the word "ranks" (listening to
a little Gilbert & Sullivan lately?), I may or may not agree.  Horowitz
still rules in this piece. No one has since played it better, though I
haven't heard all the Michaelangeli, only some.
Silly hyperbole!
Good, better, best. Meaningless unless you carefully craft the
parameters.
Absolutely, just like "cleans his clock," and "outstanding."
Just descriptive, that's all. And easy to grasp.
More like mere corroborative detail intended to lend verisimilitude to
an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
Post by td
I have NO idea what good, better and best mean, and certainly far less
when you use these terms.
You couldn't understand "no one has since played it better?" Of
course, this must tax your comprehension to great lengths.

But then you wrote:

"Horowitz was at his best..."

So you admit you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you've
just admitted you don't know the meaning of the word "best."

-Owen, it must really suck not having a sense of humor.
td
2008-07-07 10:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
In article
td
Post by td
Post by O
In article
 td
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than
five
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his
Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.
 Both
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
Post by O
of
those well over 5 minutes.
Cliburn cleans his clock in the Rach 3. So does Janis, frankly,
whose
two recordings are outstanding.
Cliburn's is a completely different approach.  Janis is also quite
fine.  Horowitz cleans Cliburn's clock in the Emperor.
Frankly, neither really ranks in that piece, despite Reiner's
accompaniment.
Depending on the meaning you intend for the word "ranks" (listening to
a little Gilbert & Sullivan lately?), I may or may not agree.  Horowitz
still rules in this piece. No one has since played it better, though I
haven't heard all the Michaelangeli, only some.
Silly hyperbole!
Good, better, best. Meaningless unless you carefully craft the
parameters.
Absolutely, just like "cleans his clock," and "outstanding."
Just descriptive, that's all. And easy to grasp.
More like mere corroborative detail intended to lend verisimilitude to
an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
Post by td
I have NO idea what good, better and best mean, and certainly far less
when you use these terms.
You couldn't understand "no one has since played it better?"  Of
course, this must tax your comprehension to great lengths.  
"Horowitz was at his best..."
So you admit you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you've
just admitted you don't know the meaning of the word "best."
Horowiz's "best" is easy to see; it sticks out like a sore thumb.
You'd have to be blind or deaf not to grasp that!

What is more difficult to grasp is your idea of what is "good, better
or best". We remember your undying loyalty to Dubya, for example.
Strange that you don't seem to talk much about that cretinious
disaster. Your "best", in that respect, is everyone's "worst".

You figure out how I could getva notion of quality when faced with
that particular idiot.
Post by O
-Owen, it must really suck not having a sense of humor.
You have been doing a lot of sucking up lately. The USA in a mess:
unending war, economy in the dumps and your guy at the helm of it all.
Wow! That's really "good"!!!

TD
O
2008-07-07 14:21:35 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
I have NO idea what good, better and best mean, and certainly far less
when you use these terms.
You couldn't understand "no one has since played it better?"  Of
course, this must tax your comprehension to great lengths.  
"Horowitz was at his best..."
So you admit you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you've
just admitted you don't know the meaning of the word "best."
Horowiz's "best" is easy to see; it sticks out like a sore thumb.
You'd have to be blind or deaf not to grasp that!
Of course. And my usage of "no one has since played it better," is a
mishmosh of ambiguity and senselessness. But your usage of "best" is
crystal clear, incisive, and poignant. How silly of me.
Post by td
What is more difficult to grasp is your idea of what is "good, better
or best". We remember your undying loyalty to Dubya, for example.
Strange that you don't seem to talk much about that cretinious
disaster. Your "best", in that respect, is everyone's "worst".
You figure out how I could getva notion of quality when faced with
that particular idiot.
Why do you want to turn this thread into politics? Can't you discuss
music?

-Owen
td
2008-07-07 15:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Post by O
Post by td
I have NO idea what good, better and best mean, and certainly far less
when you use these terms.
You couldn't understand "no one has since played it better?"  Of
course, this must tax your comprehension to great lengths.  
"Horowitz was at his best..."
So you admit you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you've
just admitted you don't know the meaning of the word "best."
Horowiz's "best" is easy to see; it sticks out like a sore thumb.
You'd have to be blind or deaf not to grasp that!
Of course.  And my usage of "no one has since played it better," is a
mishmosh of ambiguity and senselessness.  But your usage of "best" is
crystal clear, incisive, and poignant. How silly of me.
Post by td
What is more difficult to grasp is your idea of what is "good, better
or best". We remember your undying loyalty to Dubya, for example.
Strange that you don't seem to talk much about that cretinious
disaster. Your "best", in that respect, is everyone's "worst".
You figure out how I could getva notion of quality when faced with
that particular idiot.
Why do you want to turn this thread into politics?  Can't you discuss
music?  
I am not the one who has difficulty with such a discussion. You are
something of a stranger to it, however.

I applaud your effort, I must say. "A" for effort, no doubt. Practice
will make you "better", I hope, although I use that word very loosely
as it has little meaning. And it is a relief not to have you
constantly trying to defend a patent boob!

TD

Kip Williams
2008-07-04 17:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor. Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Reiner knew how to whip those guys into shape. Most of the time.

Kip W
O
2008-07-05 15:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor. Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Reiner knew how to whip those guys into shape. Most of the time.
His Emperor with Reiner is one of the best. And for two musicians, VH
and Reiner, who are not known for sentimentality, that Emperor is the
most emotional I've heard.

-Owen
td
2008-07-05 15:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kip Williams
Post by O
In article
Post by td
Horowitz was at his best in miniatures lasting no more than five
minutes.
While I have no particular fondness for VH in Brahms, his Rachmaninoff
#3 with Reiner is still outstanding, along with his Emperor.  Both of
those well over 5 minutes.
Reiner knew how to whip those guys into shape. Most of the time.
His Emperor with Reiner is one of the best.  And for two musicians, VH
and Reiner, who are not known for sentimentality, that Emperor is the
most emotional I've heard.
You need to hear a few more, perhaps.

TD
Sam
2008-07-05 13:02:51 UTC
Permalink
I am surprised that nobody has brought up the fact that Horowitz did
not play any Brahms, starting with his 1965 return concert until his
death. I heard him interviewed by David Dubal, and what I think I
remember was that he just didn't like Brahms piano music any more.
Chopin and Schumann knew better how to make a piano sound good. Stuff
like that. I think I recall him mentioning a conversation he had with
Rachmaninoff about the clumsy piano writing and bad orchestration of
the Brahms d minor concerto. (I agree with them about that.)
Rugby
2008-07-05 13:08:52 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 5, 8:02 am, Sam <***@nospammy.com> wrote:
e that.  I think I recall him mentioning a conversation he had with
Post by Sam
Rachmaninoff about the clumsy piano writing and bad orchestration of
the Brahms d minor concerto.  (I agree with them about that.)
And Rachmaninoff felt any of his concerti "superior" music to the
Brahms D Minor ?!

Rugby
Rugby
2008-07-04 13:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by HvT
It would have been a hyperbole if I had heard a more fascinating
Kreisleriana. I haven't but am looking forward to it. LeSage perhaps?
Henk, do try to listen to Herbert Schuch's recent (2006 ? ) Oehms
Classics cd, which also includes the Ravel Miroirs.

I have never warmed up to Kreisleriana ( I much prefer
Davidsbundtanzler,Carnaval,et al) despite 2 Horowitz recordings and I
believe a Brendel, but I could at least enjoy Schuch. And Schuch's
Miroirs is worth the price alone.

IMHO, of course.

TD ?

Regards, Rugby
HvT
2008-07-04 14:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by HvT
It would have been a hyperbole if I had heard a more fascinating
Kreisleriana. I haven't but am looking forward to it. LeSage perhaps?
!Henk, do try to listen to Herbert Schuch's recent (2006 ? ) Oehms
!Classics cd, which also includes the Ravel Miroirs.

!I have never warmed up to Kreisleriana ( I much prefer
!Davidsbundtanzler,Carnaval,et al) despite 2 Horowitz recordings and I
!believe a Brendel, but I could at least enjoy Schuch. And Schuch's
!Miroirs is worth the price alone.

!IMHO, of course.

!TD ?

!Regards, Rugby

Rugby, I do have and do like Schuch very much. His Kreisleriana is great
but hasn't the intensity of Horowitz's first recording. A more
"Apollonic" version I am very fond of is Cortot's. As I said to Tom
Deacon, I am looking forward to Le Sage's interpretation. He is
recording Schumann's complete works for piano and the quality of the 4
volumes (including chamber music for piano etc.) that have appeared is
very high.

Henk
td
2008-07-04 16:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rugby
Post by HvT
It would have been a hyperbole if I had heard a more fascinating
Kreisleriana. I haven't but am looking forward to it. LeSage perhaps?
Henk, do try to listen to Herbert Schuch's recent (2006 ? ) Oehms
Classics cd, which also includes the Ravel Miroirs.
I have never warmed up to Kreisleriana ( I much prefer
Davidsbundtanzler,Carnaval,et al) despite 2 Horowitz recordings and I
believe a Brendel, but I could at least enjoy Schuch. And Schuch's
Miroirs is worth the price alone.
IMHO, of course.
TD ?
Schuch is one of the real talents among the younger generation, I
think.

His Beethoven and recent Schubert are also first rate. He has been
coaching with Brendel.

TD
g***@comcast.net
2008-07-04 16:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@comcast.net
Christian Johansson's excellent Horowitz discography notes the
following "There were probably also some concerto performances
recorded for Horowitz's private use by the CH Recording company, there
is a Brahms Concerto from 1948 locked up at yale too for instance
which most likely is a private recording. If so, there are probably at
least two further concerto performances stored there as well."   An
article in IPQ about the Horowitz Yale archive didn't say anything
about a 1948 Brahms B-flat, so maybe its existence is questionable.
According to Mr. Johansson's concertography of VH,  Horowitz played
the B-flat major concerto on April 8 and April 9 of 1948 with Bruno
Walter/NYP.  If one of these live performances is preserved on
acetate, I think a break-in of the Yale archives is justified. MBT in
Ninja costume ...
I know that VH dismissed his recording of the Brahms 2nd , but it is a
personal favorite of mine. A good antidote to all those bloated
performances ...
Rich
There are, in fact, five extant Brahms B-flats with Horowitz, all
conducted by his father in law: one from 1939 at Lucern, issued on APR
I think (or maybe it was ome other CD label); the two from 1940 - one
the broadcast, the other the commercial recording made subsequent to
it, a fourth one from 2/19/1945 in Carnegie Hall (Toscanini, with flu
and medicated during the performance, professed not to remember it at
all in succeeding years), and the NBC broadcast from 8-H in 1948. Of
these, the 1945 one -- though circulated -- is so hard to come by that
even I don't have it. One collector in New York does, but he shares
nothing with no one, which for him is wise indeed.
RCA attempted to get Horowitz to record various concerti on any
number of occasions, but only rarely obtained the desired result.
According to the late CJ.Luten, they tried time and again to get him
to record either of the Liszt concerti, which Horowitz had said he'd
played in his youth (if not played, then studied). No dice, of
course. They did succeed in getting him to make the Emperor Concerto
and a re-make of his much older HMV recording of the Rachmaninov 3rd,
both with Dr. Reiner. But, I was told, even getting these was like
pulling teeth. I was also given to understand that both Horowitz and
Wanda had asked RCA if he could record the Brahms B-flat in the late
1970s, whilst he was still under a BMG contract -- and that he wanted
to make them with the Chicago Symphony under Levine, preferably in
Carnegie Hall. They insisted upon the Chicago as it still had Frank
Miller as principal 'cellist at that time, and Horowitz and he had
made lovely music together in the same score in the 1940s. They also
felt Levine's approach to the music (to music in general) was more in
line with Toscanini's than Solti's might have been. These are the
things I was given to understand about Horowitz' relationship with RCA/
BMG from CJ. in the late 1980s. CJ's source on this might have been
either Richard Mohr or Jack Pfeiffer, both of whom he knew -- and of
course CJ. had been employed for a number of years by RCA from the
mid-1950s to the early 1960s.

Gene Pollioni
D***@aol.com
2008-07-04 17:36:29 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 4, 11:59�am, ***@comcast.net wrote:

{snip}
� � �RCA attempted to get Horowitz to record various concerti on any
number of occasions, but only rarely obtained the desired result.
According to the late CJ.Luten, they tried time and again to get him
to record either of the Liszt concerti, which Horowitz had said he'd
played in his youth (if not played, then studied). �No dice, of
course. �
I understand that Horowitz played Liszt's Second Concerto with
Desire Defauw and the Chicago Symphony at some point during World War
II, but I have no data to back that up. I do know that there is no
recording of a performance in the CSO Archives and I have never heard
of one existing.
They did succeed in getting him to make the Emperor Concerto
and a re-make of his much older HMV recording of the Rachmaninov 3rd,
both with Dr. Reiner. �But, I was told, even getting these was like
pulling teeth. �I was also given to understand that both Horowitz and
Wanda had asked RCA if he could record the Brahms B-flat in the late
1970s, whilst he was still under a BMG contract -- and that he wanted
to make them with the Chicago Symphony under Levine, preferably in
Carnegie Hall. �They insisted upon the Chicago as it still had Frank
Miller as principal 'cellist at that time, and Horowitz and he had
made lovely music together in the same score in the 1940s. �They also
felt Levine's approach to the music (to music in general) was more in
line with Toscanini's than Solti's might have been. �These are the
things I was given to understand about Horowitz' relationship with RCA/
BMG from CJ. in the late 1980s. �CJ's source on this might have been
either Richard Mohr or Jack Pfeiffer, both of whom he knew -- and of
course CJ. had been employed for a number of years by RCA from the
mid-1950s to the early 1960s.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �Gene Pollioni
All very, very interesting. Many thanks. (And I have many happy
memories of times with C.J. and Andy Karzas.)

Don Tait

P.S. Jerome Toobin's book about the Symphony of the Air, "Agitato --
A Trek Through the Musical Jungle," contains an astonishing story
about Horowitz deciding in 1957 that he wanted to play the Brahms B-
Flat with the SOA and vacillating between Reiner and Bruno Walter as
the conductors. Toobin had to tell the conductors about Horowitz's and
Wanda's changes of mind, of course. Equally of course, it never
happened. I'll try to look it up and, if it's not too long, post it.
c***@comcast.net
2008-07-04 19:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Gene wrote: " They did succeed in getting him to make the Emperor
Concerto
Post by g***@comcast.net
and a re-make of his much older HMV recording of the Rachmaninov 3rd,
both with Dr. Reiner.  But, I was told, even getting these was like
pulling teeth."
Frustrating when you hear about all the Horowitz might-have-been
recordings. Supposedly Horowitz and Serkin were scheduled to record an
album of Schubert , but at the last minute VH pulled out. In one of
his many interviews VH spoke glowingly of LIszt's transcriptions of
the Beethoven symphonies, adding "I probably should have recorded
them" Thanks for the info on the Horowitz Brahms B-flats Gene...

Rich
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...