Discussion:
Does Horowitz have any modern successors?
(too old to reply)
Andy Evans
2005-11-14 10:54:54 UTC
Permalink
I miss Horowitz more every year - the style, delcacy, panache,
crispness, daring, fluency, swagger, insight and tenderness. I've
finally come to the belief that we've closed the piano lid forever on
that style of playing. Pogorelich, Pletnev, Volodos and such are
capable - at their best - of magical playing, but also of terrible
longeurs and just sheer lapses of style. Have we lost the 'Horowitz
sound' forever?
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-14 11:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Let's hope so.

TD
Chel van Gennip
2005-11-14 12:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Let's hope so.
What should we hope?

a. Does Horowitz have any modern successors? (subject)

b. Have we lost the 'Horowitz sound' forever? (body)
--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
j***@earthlink.net
2005-11-14 13:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Let's hope so.
TD
Spoken as a true believer in anal blockage.

jy
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-14 15:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Talk about assholes!

TD
JohnGavin
2005-11-14 14:23:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
I miss Horowitz more every year - the style, delcacy, panache,
crispness, daring, fluency, swagger, insight and tenderness. I've
finally come to the belief that we've closed the piano lid forever on
that style of playing. Pogorelich, Pletnev, Volodos and such are
capable - at their best - of magical playing, but also of terrible
longeurs and just sheer lapses of style. Have we lost the 'Horowitz
sound' forever?
Argerich and Pletnev probably come closest to the qualities you mention
in Horowitz, yet I think Argerich is a more natural musician. Horowitz
was a huge force when I was new to the piano, yet as the years went on
I gradually came to feel that his artistry was not as great as his
pianism. It got to the point where I just couldn't listen to him
anymore - the mannerisms just get on my nerves now.
Andy Evans
2005-11-14 14:58:30 UTC
Permalink
It got to the point where I just couldn't listen to him anymore - the
mannerisms just get on my nerves now. >

I went through a period a bit like that, especially with some of his
Chopin, but I came out the other end and appreciated him the more. He's
not for everyday - maybe that's the thing to bear in mind.
Chel van Gennip
2005-11-14 15:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Post by Andy Evans
It got to the point where I just couldn't listen to him anymore - the
mannerisms just get on my nerves now.
I went through a period a bit like that, especially with some of his
Chopin, but I came out the other end and appreciated him the more. He's
not for everyday - maybe that's the thing to bear in mind.
Almost nothing is for everyday. If you listen too often, you focus more on
minor problems. If there is e.g. some noise from the audience in a life
recording, hearing the same noise over and over again at the same moment
is a problem. If you visit a life performance, you will hardly notice the
same noise. If you detect "mannerisms" is it really mannerisms, or is it
just you listening to te same recordings too often.

Horowitz is a good example showing there is a difference between good and
without errors. Many performers now focus too much on "without errors".
--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
JohnGavin
2005-11-14 15:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chel van Gennip
Post by Andy Evans
Post by Andy Evans
It got to the point where I just couldn't listen to him anymore - the
mannerisms just get on my nerves now.
I went through a period a bit like that, especially with some of his
Chopin, but I came out the other end and appreciated him the more. He's
not for everyday - maybe that's the thing to bear in mind.
Almost nothing is for everyday. If you listen too often, you focus more on
minor problems. If there is e.g. some noise from the audience in a life
recording, hearing the same noise over and over again at the same moment
is a problem. If you visit a life performance, you will hardly notice the
same noise. If you detect "mannerisms" is it really mannerisms, or is it
just you listening to te same recordings too often.
Horowitz is a good example showing there is a difference between good and
without errors. Many performers now focus too much on "without errors".
--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
I agree with your point about listening to a certain recording too
often, to the point where you begin to notice flaws. That's the
inherent danger of recordings - they are like pictures frozen in time.
What emerged with Horowitz wasn't so much specific recordings as an
overall sense that he was a player of limited depth - those mannerisms
(like bullet-entry voices, dramatic and sudden dymanic changes that
seem gratuitous to the musical line) started to seem like card tricks
that a magician pulls out of his sleeve. They seem to me now like
expressive gimmicks needed to compensate for some deeper deficiency.
With Horowitz I began to feel that he very often calculated effects
rather than letting his heart probe into the music. There were some
exceptions - moments in Kreisleriana, or times where he seemed to
intuit Scriabin's musical language well.

What really nailed the Horowitz-coffin shut for me was listening to his
Schumann Fantasy after not having heard it for about 20 years. It
strikes me as downright vulgar playing.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-14 15:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Precisely, John.

To quote Alice B Toklas, there was no "there" there.

Horowitz was a marvelous pianist, but an extremely limited musician. I
was going to say "magician". Bag of tricks, indeed. And over time they
become tiresome.

So, I have no wish for "another" Horowitz to pop out of the woodwork.
In any event, copies are never the equal of the original, as decades of
American pianists have proved conclusively.

TD
JohnGavin
2005-11-14 16:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Precisely, John.
To quote Alice B Toklas, there was no "there" there.
Horowitz was a marvelous pianist, but an extremely limited musician. I
was going to say "magician". Bag of tricks, indeed. And over time they
become tiresome.
So, I have no wish for "another" Horowitz to pop out of the woodwork.
In any event, copies are never the equal of the original, as decades of
American pianists have proved conclusively.
TD
It is important to acknowledge though that Horowitz was tremendously
influential to the next generation of pianists. Even if I don't
ultimately admire him after years of reflection, it is important to
acknowledge that he was a major presence in the piano-world. I hear
some of him in Weissenberg's playing, Byron Janis, and Ivan Davis, with
whom he studied and many others I'm sure.
R***@gmail.com
2005-11-14 16:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
So, I have no wish for "another" Horowitz to pop out of the woodwork.
In any event, copies are never the equal of the original, as decades of
American pianists have proved conclusively.
An alarming number of American pianists from the generation most
influenced by Horowitz - Graffman, Fleischer etc - seemed to have been
felled by hand problems of one sort or another.

Any causality to be found?
Paul Goldstein
2005-11-14 16:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@gmail.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
So, I have no wish for "another" Horowitz to pop out of the woodwork.
In any event, copies are never the equal of the original, as decades of
American pianists have proved conclusively.
An alarming number of American pianists from the generation most
influenced by Horowitz - Graffman, Fleischer etc - seemed to have been
felled by hand problems of one sort or another.
Fleisher influenced by Horowitz?
R***@gmail.com
2005-11-14 17:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Goldstein
Fleisher influenced by Horowitz?
"from the generation most influenced by Horowitz" ... obviously Janis,
Graffman, Kappell were even more influenced.

I should even point out that in the last of the Glenn Gould bios I
could stay awake through the author repeatedly claims that Gould was
influenced by Horowitz, that is to say, obsessed with the technical
standard Horowitz set.
Matthew B. Tepper
2005-11-14 20:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@gmail.com
Post by Paul Goldstein
Fleisher influenced by Horowitz?
"from the generation most influenced by Horowitz" ... obviously Janis,
Graffman, Kappell were even more influenced.
I should even point out that in the last of the Glenn Gould bios I
could stay awake through the author repeatedly claims that Gould was
influenced by Horowitz, that is to say, obsessed with the technical
standard Horowitz set.
And ironically, we are now faced with a generation of pianists, many of
whom seem obsessed with copying some of the more distinctive features of
Gould's actual playing, particularly what I consider excessive staccato.
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
a***@att.net
2005-11-15 00:47:41 UTC
Permalink
And ironically, we are now faced with a generation of pianists, many of
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
whom seem obsessed with copying some of the more distinctive features of
Gould's actual playing, particularly what I consider excessive staccato.
Aside from Mustonnen (sp), who may these musical "criminals" be:-)))))

AB
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
d***@aol.com
2005-11-15 02:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
we are now faced with a generation of pianists, many of
whom seem obsessed with copying some of the more distinctive features of
Gould's actual playing
Aside from Mustonnen (sp), who [?]
At least in some of his playing, Andras Schiff has certainly imitated
Glenn Gould.
Dan Koren
2005-11-15 08:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
we are now faced with a generation of pianists, many of
whom seem obsessed with copying some of the more distinctive features of
Gould's actual playing
Aside from Mustonnen (sp), who [?]
At least in some of his playing,
Andras Schiff has certainly
imitated Glenn Gould.
Can you name a single pianist
Andras Schiff has *NOT* imitated?



dk
Owen Hartnett
2005-11-15 14:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Koren
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
we are now faced with a generation of pianists, many of
whom seem obsessed with copying some of the more distinctive features of
Gould's actual playing
Aside from Mustonnen (sp), who [?]
At least in some of his playing,
Andras Schiff has certainly
imitated Glenn Gould.
Can you name a single pianist
Andras Schiff has *NOT* imitated?
Chico Marx.


-Owen
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-15 15:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Oscar Levant?

TD
d***@aol.com
2005-11-15 16:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Koren
Can you name a single pianist
Andras Schiff has *NOT* imitated?

dk


Haven't listened to him that much. But when I have, the only influence
I've heard is Glenn Gould. (I am aware that it's impossible for there
not to have been others, since any pianist will have heard many
pianists.)

-david gable
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-15 18:02:32 UTC
Permalink
But David, how many have been called on the telephone after giving a
recital (in Toronto) by the great GG and invited up to his St. Clair
Ave. West aerie for a tete a tete?

Wouldn't YOU also be just the slightest bit influenced by such an
encounter?

TD
a***@att.net
2005-11-15 17:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Koren
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
we are now faced with a generation of pianists, many of
whom seem obsessed with copying some of the more distinctive features of
Gould's actual playing
Aside from Mustonnen (sp), who [?]
At least in some of his playing,
Andras Schiff has certainly
imitated Glenn Gould.
Can you name a single pianist
Andras Schiff has *NOT* imitated?
Sanchez, luckily :-)))))

all his "imitations" has not helped. His playing is rather colorless
IMO

AB
Post by Dan Koren
dk
JohnGavin
2005-11-15 17:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
we are now faced with a generation of pianists, many of
whom seem obsessed with copying some of the more distinctive features of
Gould's actual playing
Aside from Mustonnen (sp), who [?]
At least in some of his playing, Andras Schiff has certainly imitated
Glenn Gould.
In the Schiff recordings that I have, Goldbergs, WTC, Partitas I detect
no imitation of Gould whatsoever. Schiff's basic approach to the piano
is radically different to Gould's to my ear - Schiff uses a gradual,
legato touch. Alexis Weissenberg's Bach is much more like Gould to my
ears.
a***@att.net
2005-11-14 18:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Goldstein
Post by R***@gmail.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
So, I have no wish for "another" Horowitz to pop out of the woodwork.
In any event, copies are never the equal of the original, as decades of
American pianists have proved conclusively.
An alarming number of American pianists from the generation most
influenced by Horowitz - Graffman, Fleischer etc - seemed to have been
felled by hand problems of one sort or another.
Fleisher influenced by Horowitz?
I also think that is an extremely dumb comment.. there is NOTHING about
Fleisher's playing that resembles that of H...

AB
Raymond Hall
2005-11-14 21:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@att.net
Post by Paul Goldstein
Post by R***@gmail.com
Post by d***@yahoo.com
So, I have no wish for "another" Horowitz to pop out of the woodwork.
In any event, copies are never the equal of the original, as decades of
American pianists have proved conclusively.
An alarming number of American pianists from the generation most
influenced by Horowitz - Graffman, Fleischer etc - seemed to have been
felled by hand problems of one sort or another.
Fleisher influenced by Horowitz?
I also think that is an extremely dumb comment.. there is NOTHING about
Fleisher's playing that resembles that of H...
Agree. Poles apart, which is why I admire Fleisher. But the poster wasn't
suggesting, but merely rhetorically saying, in a roundabout way, that he
thought Fleisher was most certainly NOT influenced by Horowitz. At least the
way I read it.

Ray H
Taree
Owen Hartnett
2005-11-14 17:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Precisely, John.
To quote Alice B Toklas, there was no "there" there.
Or more precisely, Gertrude Stein.

-Owen
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-14 18:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Correct.

Alice stole the comment from Gertrude.

Who probably stole it from me!!!

TD
Matthew B. Tepper
2005-11-14 20:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Owen Hartnett
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Precisely, John.
To quote Alice B Toklas, there was no "there" there.
Or more precisely, Gertrude Stein.
Tom Deacon is Gertrude Stein? That would explain a lot!
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
EM
2005-11-14 22:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Tom Deacon is Gertrude Stein?
and Jewish?
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
That would explain a lot!
Such as?

Eltjo M.
Matthew B. Tepper
2005-11-15 02:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by EM
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Tom Deacon is Gertrude Stein?
and Jewish?
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
That would explain a lot!
Such as?
Why he doesn't make sense?
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-15 01:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Tom Deacon is Gertrude Stein? That would explain a lot!
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)

Only if Tepper is Chubby Checker!

TD
EM
2005-11-15 19:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Tom Deacon is Gertrude Stein? That would explain a lot!
Well, for a start, I think you owe us an explanation...
;-)

Eltjo M.
Matthew B. Tepper
2005-11-15 20:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by EM
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Tom Deacon is Gertrude Stein? That would explain a lot!
Well, for a start, I think you owe us an explanation...
;-)
Two things: "There is no there there." And my occasional reference to TD
as an "old woman" (which I originally used in the sense of his being a
tiresome scold).
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Andy Evans
2005-11-14 19:24:46 UTC
Permalink
They seem to me now like expressive gimmicks needed to compensate for
some deeper deficiency. >

I don't see it that way - I think he was a real musician, but not of
the modern type. He didn't use his musicianship to 'plumb the depths of
the score' - for which I'm rather grateful given the humourless way
some pianists do that - but to re-interpret, in the way that
Rachminanov did. I don't think this is shallow or heretical - I'd like
to use the word imaginative, or creative in its own way. I think the
reference to humour is appropriate, since there is a kind of humour in
creativity. I can see how many would dislike the tendency to
re-interpret. Without going into LTMSFI territory, there are plenty of
good pianists who do plumb the depths (Richter etc).

With Horowitz I began to feel that he very often calculated effects >

So did Rachmaninov - again, I don't see too much wrong with this.

rather than letting his heart probe into the music. There were some
exceptions - moments in Kreisleriana, or times where he seemed to
intuit Scriabin's musical language well.>

Agree entirely about Scriabin and Schumann. I kind of know what you
mean. There was a conspicuous charm, rather than any intellectual
rigour, so I don't think he strayed far from emotion in his playing.
Maybe in an age of realism we don't quite know what to do with charm -
we see it as mannerism?
Ian Pace
2005-11-14 19:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
They seem to me now like expressive gimmicks needed to compensate for
some deeper deficiency. >
I don't see it that way - I think he was a real musician, but not of
the modern type. He didn't use his musicianship to 'plumb the depths of
the score' - for which I'm rather grateful given the humourless way
some pianists do that - but to re-interpret, in the way that
Rachminanov did. I don't think this is shallow or heretical - I'd like
to use the word imaginative, or creative in its own way. I think the
reference to humour is appropriate, since there is a kind of humour in
creativity. I can see how many would dislike the tendency to
re-interpret. Without going into LTMSFI territory, there are plenty of
good pianists who do plumb the depths (Richter etc).
With Horowitz I began to feel that he very often calculated effects >
So did Rachmaninov - again, I don't see too much wrong with this.
rather than letting his heart probe into the music. There were some
exceptions - moments in Kreisleriana, or times where he seemed to
intuit Scriabin's musical language well.>
Agree entirely about Scriabin and Schumann. I kind of know what you
mean. There was a conspicuous charm, rather than any intellectual
rigour, so I don't think he strayed far from emotion in his playing.
Maybe in an age of realism we don't quite know what to do with charm -
we see it as mannerism?
I think this post sets up all sorts of false oppositions and questionable
categories. At his best, Horowitz did indeed plumb the depths of the scores
that he played, every bit as much as Richter or anyone else - certainly in
some of his performances of Schumann (as I have mentioned in a post a long
while ago, one of his recordings he takes the fine details of the score in
Schumann's Arabesque more seriously than most other pianists), Scriabin,
Rachmaninoff and a few other things. He just perhaps used different means of
communicating the depths he found than some other players. Neither Horowitz
nor Rachmaninoff do I find 'calculated', either - on the contrary, part of
the potency of their playing to me comes from the sense of spontaneity,
impulse and of-the-minute emotional identification.

'Humour' in music is often used to refer to the sort of hackeneyed gestures
and tricks that raise a few knowing chuckles from self-satisfied tiara and
tuxedo-clad audience members, the type who keep giggling contemptuously as
they try to avoid the homeless people they must step over on their way out
from the concert hall. That sort of stuff is usually so transparent and
kitschy that I find it just an embarrassment. But there are different types
of humour in music that run deeper and have a serious side as well (as any
comedian worth their salt knows the best humour does). This isn't something
I particular associate with Horowitz (actually I find it more often in
Brendel, especially in his Beethoven). But I reckon what you might define as
'charm' might resemble what I'm describing above. Horowitz did go for these
sorts of cloying effects at times, certainly; that's when I find his playing
most annoying (and not at all funny). But by no means was this generally
true of all his playing.

But why are 'intellectual rigour' and 'emotion' necessarily opposed to each
other? I don't accept that Horowitz's playing showed a lack of intellect or
depth or whatever - it was precisely those aspects that enabled him to
convey the complex emotional world of some of the music he played so
vividly.

Ian
d***@aol.com
2005-11-14 20:00:31 UTC
Permalink
'Humour' in music is often used to refer to the sort of hackeneyed gestures and tricks that raise a few knowing chuckles from self-satisfied tiara and tuxedo-clad audience members, the type who keep giggling contemptuously as they try to avoid the homeless people they must step over on their way out from the concert hall.
Ian, my friend, I'm afraid this strikes me as the most ridiculous
nonsense. What pianist aims his gestures explicitly at this
mythological creature you describe? And how can you tell that the
gestures are only aimed at people who wear tuxedos and giggle at the
homeless? And what is wrong with wearing a tuxedo? It's rarely done
any more, but to wear one is a convention, not a crime. Your perfectly
right that wearing one doesn't make you more musical. Neither does not
wearing one.

I even question the efficacy of your politics. You claim to care about
the homeless. What have you ever done for them? Have you given up
wearing a tuxedo?

-david gable
Ian Pace
2005-11-14 20:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Ian Pace
'Humour' in music is often used to refer to the sort of hackeneyed
gestures and tricks that raise a few knowing chuckles from self-satisfied
tiara and tuxedo-clad audience members, the type who keep giggling
contemptuously as they try to avoid the homeless people they must step
over on their way out from the concert hall.
Ian, my friend, I'm afraid this strikes me as the most ridiculous
nonsense. What pianist aims his gestures explicitly at this
mythological creature you describe?
A great many, trust me - and they are trained to do so. The tuxedo is in
part metaphor.
Post by d***@aol.com
And how can you tell that the
gestures are only aimed at people who wear tuxedos and giggle at the
homeless? And what is wrong with wearing a tuxedo? It's rarely done
any more, but to wear one is a convention, not a crime. Your perfectly
right that wearing one doesn't make you more musical. Neither does not
wearing one.
See above. I'm describing a certain type that frequent many concerts
(certainly in London - listen to the famed 'Wigmore chuckle' that might be a
little to over-the-top if it were found at Henley or Ascot).
Post by d***@aol.com
I even question the efficacy of your politics. You claim to care about
the homeless. What have you ever done for them? Have you given up
wearing a tuxedo?
I don't wear a tuxedo any longer, and haven't done for a while, not to play
or for anything else. But as I say, it's a metaphor.

Ian
d***@aol.com
2005-11-14 20:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Ian,

Trust you? I trust that you believe what you say. I still think
you're being unfair to Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Far-from-perfect
Human-Beings. I just don't see how you can safely condemn masses of
people either for observing an old tradition--submitting to a
convention--or for chuckling knowingly, still less assume that they
chuckle at the expense of the homeless.

As for your not wearing a tuxedo, the new convention, of course, is to
refuse to wear formal attire. The new convention is the casual
approach: we must not any longer dare to appear too formal. This
shift in convention has done NOTHING for the homeless or anybody else.
Nor has it created a more musical audience.

I also fail to see what any of this has to do with Andy's original
post.

-david gable
Ian Pace
2005-11-14 20:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Ian,
Trust you? I trust that you believe what you say. I still think
you're being unfair to Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Far-from-perfect
Human-Beings. I just don't see how you can safely condemn masses of
people either for observing an old tradition--submitting to a
convention--or for chuckling knowingly, still less assume that they
chuckle at the expense of the homeless.
As for your not wearing a tuxedo, the new convention, of course, is to
refuse to wear formal attire. The new convention is the casual
approach: we must not any longer dare to appear too formal. This
shift in convention has done NOTHING for the homeless or anybody else.
Nor has it created a more musical audience.
I also fail to see what any of this has to do with Andy's original
post.
There was a buried reference in my post to a comment by former British
Cabinet Minister Sir George Younger who referred to homeless people as the
type who you trip over on your way out from the opera house. I think you're
making a big deal out of the dress, what I'm really referring to is the
predominant class who make up many audiences.

Ian
Andy Evans
2005-11-14 20:12:31 UTC
Permalink
'Humour' in music is often used to refer to the sort of hackeneyed
gestures
and tricks that raise a few knowing chuckles from self-satisfied tiara
and
tuxedo-clad audience members>

As David says, I wasn't thinking of this at all - far from it. I was
thinking of the analogy of humour and creativity as that of setting up
contrasts and suspenses, something quite intrinsic to the music and not
aimed at audiences. It has to do with timing, dynamics, the unexpected,
things like that - more the craft of the humourist than the calculated
effect.
Ian Pace
2005-11-14 20:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Pace
'Humour' in music is often used to refer to the sort of hackeneyed gestures
and tricks that raise a few knowing chuckles from self-satisfied tiara and
tuxedo-clad audience members>
As David says, I wasn't thinking of this at all - far from it. I was
thinking of the analogy of humour and creativity as that of setting up
contrasts and suspenses, something quite intrinsic to the music and not
aimed at audiences. It has to do with timing, dynamics, the unexpected,
things like that - more the craft of the humourist than the calculated
effect.
But on the other hand you were saying you didn't see anything wrong with
calculated effects (I don't think they're always wrong, but most of them
become horribly trite after a few outings)?
Andy Evans
2005-11-14 22:15:25 UTC
Permalink
But on the other hand you were saying you didn't see anything wrong
with
calculated effects (I don't think they're always wrong, but most of
them
become horribly trite after a few outings)? >

Yes - I did say that, and I don't think one completely excludes the
other. A personality who challenges and plays with the music may have
half an eye on doing the same with the audience. But my impression of
Horowitz was that his attention was pretty solidly in the music itself,
as one would expect of a pianist of such stature. I also had in mind
some quote from Rachmaninov which I dimly remember (maybe somebody can
help me here) referring to how a movement in a sonata should be
constructed in such a way as to build to defining moment and then
decline from that. That struck me as a 'calculated effect' if you like
to put it that way, but not an unmusical one. I think maybe there's a
difference between calculating the effect that playing the music in a
certain way will have on the audience and pandering to the audience.
The idea is not to reach the audience on their level but to raise the
audience to the level of the artist. More inspiration than collusion.
Wayne Reimer
2005-11-15 08:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Pace
But on the other hand you were saying you didn't see anything wrong with
calculated effects (I don't think they're always wrong, but most of them
become horribly trite after a few outings)? >
Yes - I did say that, and I don't think one completely excludes the
other. A personality who challenges and plays with the music may have
half an eye on doing the same with the audience. But my impression of
Horowitz was that his attention was pretty solidly in the music itself,
as one would expect of a pianist of such stature. I also had in mind
some quote from Rachmaninov which I dimly remember (maybe somebody can
help me here) referring to how a movement in a sonata should be
constructed in such a way as to build to defining moment and then
decline from that. That struck me as a 'calculated effect' if you like
to put it that way, but not an unmusical one. I think maybe there's a
difference between calculating the effect that playing the music in a
certain way will have on the audience and pandering to the audience.
The idea is not to reach the audience on their level but to raise the
audience to the level of the artist. More inspiration than collusion.
Classical music is made up of calculated effects and nothing else.
Performers add their own layer of calculated effects to those in the
score; the very act of performance is a calculated effect. Some
performers have the knack of creating a suspension of disbelief
regarding that fact, and for some reason, are especially revered by
many music lovers for that ability. People just like to be deceived
when it comes to music, it seems; I know I do.

wr
Andrys Basten
2005-11-15 11:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Reimer
Classical music is made up of calculated effects and nothing else.
Performers add their own layer of calculated effects to those in the
score; the very act of performance is a calculated effect. Some
performers have the knack of creating a suspension of disbelief
regarding that fact, and for some reason, are especially revered by
many music lovers for that ability. People just like to be deceived
when it comes to music, it seems; I know I do.
wr
Totally agree!


- A
--
http://www.andrys.com
d***@aol.com
2005-11-15 16:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Reimer
Classical music is made up of calculated effects and nothing else.
Yes and no. Both composer and performer calculate in advance and
experience sudden inspirations in the heat of the moment. Just as we
all do in working on anything.

-david gable
Wayne Reimer
2005-11-15 23:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Wayne Reimer
Classical music is made up of calculated effects and nothing else.
Yes and no. Both composer and performer calculate in advance and
experience sudden inspirations in the heat of the moment. Just as we
all do in working on anything.
I don't think that the inspiration of the moment really falls outside
the realm of calculated effect, in that, however inspired it is, it
still is within the range of calculated possibilities for the music.
Otherwise, the music would go off the rails and probably in spectacular
fashion. I think it can be said that most of the time inspiration of
the moment is a variety of unconscious calculation, or perhaps it is
the result of musical calculation that just manifests itself
surprisingly. Or maybe the heat of the moment is just what it takes to
bring musicians' calculators up to full speed, a state in which they
can do the calculating in real time. But that may be stretching the
definition of calculation too much... :-)

This is somewhat tangential to the point, but it's such a good story
that I want to tell it and this is as good a place as any. I just read
in a blog that Bartok, while playing one of the pianos during the
premiere of his Concerto for Two Pianos, Percussion, and Orchestra,
went completely off the score for a while, for which he was chided by
the conductor (Reiner, I think). Later, riding back to the hotel in a
cab with Ditta, he was being very quiet and then he suddenly turned to
her and blurted something to the effect that it was all the tympanist's
fault, because he (the tympanist) had made a mistake, but that mistake
gave Bartok an idea for a different way in which the music could go,
and he just had to try it out, right then and there! Amazing.

wr
Andrys Basten
2005-11-16 04:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Reimer
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Wayne Reimer
Classical music is made up of calculated effects and nothing else.
Yes and no. Both composer and performer calculate in advance and
experience sudden inspirations in the heat of the moment. Just as we
all do in working on anything.
I don't think that the inspiration of the moment really falls outside
the realm of calculated effect, in that, however inspired it is, it
still is within the range of calculated possibilities for the music.
Otherwise, the music would go off the rails and probably in spectacular
fashion. I think it can be said that most of the time inspiration of
the moment is a variety of unconscious calculation, or perhaps it is
the result of musical calculation that just manifests itself
surprisingly. Or maybe the heat of the moment is just what it takes to
bring musicians' calculators up to full speed, a state in which they
can do the calculating in real time. But that may be stretching the
definition of calculation too much... :-)
Agree again! Nicely put.
Post by Wayne Reimer
This is somewhat tangential to the point, but it's such a good story
that I want to tell it and this is as good a place as any. I just read
in a blog that Bartok, while playing one of the pianos during the
premiere of his Concerto for Two Pianos, Percussion, and Orchestra,
went completely off the score for a while, for which he was chided by
the conductor (Reiner, I think). Later, riding back to the hotel in a
cab with Ditta, he was being very quiet and then he suddenly turned to
her and blurted something to the effect that it was all the tympanist's
fault, because he (the tympanist) had made a mistake, but that mistake
gave Bartok an idea for a different way in which the music could go,
and he just had to try it out, right then and there! Amazing.
What a great story (!)

Not exactly calculated, but then calculated :-)


- A
--
http://www.andrys.com
JohnGavin
2005-11-14 20:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
They seem to me now like expressive gimmicks needed to compensate for
some deeper deficiency. >
I don't see it that way - I think he was a real musician, but not of
the modern type. He didn't use his musicianship to 'plumb the depths of
the score' - for which I'm rather grateful given the humourless way
some pianists do that - but to re-interpret, in the way that
Rachminanov did.
Rachmaninov - now there's a pianist I can agree on wholeheartedly.
There was something about the way he did things that was always big, he
illuminated everything he played - he saw the big picture and never
stooped to mere coquettish effects. If Rachmaninov and Horowitz
re-interpreted, then at least for me, Rachmaninov illumined by his
treatment while Horowitz often USED the music in a somewhat
narcissistic way.
(Incidentally, a pianist-friend once told me about a letter, written by
Rachmaninov in which he praised the young Horowitz, but warned that he
needed to develop more both as a man and a musician. This letter is in
the possession of Steinway and Sons - they chose not to display it.)

I don't think this is shallow or heretical - I'd like
Post by Andy Evans
to use the word imaginative, or creative in its own way. I think the
reference to humour is appropriate, since there is a kind of humour in
creativity. I can see how many would dislike the tendency to
re-interpret.
Re-interpreting the music, humour and creativity are not the reasons
I've grown out of Horowitz.

Without going into LTMSFI territory, there are plenty of
Post by Andy Evans
good pianists who do plumb the depths (Richter etc).
The fact that Horowitz wasn't a deep poet-philosopher pianist is not
the reason I've grown to dislike most of his playing.
Post by Andy Evans
With Horowitz I began to feel that he very often calculated effects >
So did Rachmaninov - again, I don't see too much wrong with this.
But Rachmaninov did it artlessly with convincing spontaneity and always
in a musically-driven context.
Post by Andy Evans
rather than letting his heart probe into the music. There were some
exceptions - moments in Kreisleriana, or times where he seemed to
intuit Scriabin's musical language well.>
Agree entirely about Scriabin and Schumann. I kind of know what you
mean. There was a conspicuous charm, rather than any intellectual
rigour, so I don't think he strayed far from emotion in his playing.
Maybe in an age of realism we don't quite know what to do with charm -
we see it as mannerism?
Horowitz' charm worked well in Chopin's Introduction and Rondo, or
Rachmaninov's Polka. More power to anyone who derives listening
pleasure from his work - I'm only describing why the considerable spell
of Vladimir Horowitz wore off on me - motivated by an interest in
precisely articulating what it is about him that I've parted ways with.
I think it has to do with a musician's relationship to simplicity and
directness. I tend to agree with Arri - that early Horowitz is the
most listenable, because for me his musicianship had not yet become so
distorted - so unrelated to the simple and natural. In Rachmaninov's
playing I can always feel the simplicity that underlies his
re-creations- the same with Michelangeli and others. I came to the
conclusion that complexity is delightful only if you can sense the
simplicity that underlies it. Walking into Tower Records a few years
ago, I heard the Fantasy in F Minor by Chopin on the speakers. The
interpretation actually made me angry!! I felt that the music was
being USED. I walked over to the counter to see who was playing and
sure enough, it was Horowitz.

I'm sure the bottom line is that this is all completely subjective.
One listeners charm is anothers affectation.
a***@att.net
2005-11-15 01:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnGavin
Rachmaninov - now there's a pianist I can agree on wholeheartedly.
There was something about the way he did things that was always big, he
illuminated everything he played - he saw the big picture and never
stooped to mere coquettish effects. If Rachmaninov and Horowitz
re-interpreted, then at least for me, Rachmaninov illumined by his
treatment while Horowitz often USED the music in a somewhat
narcissistic way.
One listeners charm is anothers affectation.
I have to admit something that might be considered heresy by
some....... I have never been attracted to Rachmaninoff as a
pianist..... I find his Carnival mannered to extreme, not to mention
technicially uneven at times.....
I just dont hear any particular grandeur or charm in most of his
recordings..... just my feelings
Certainly the tone as recorded is not very full nor beautiful......

AB
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-15 01:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Arri has just had his name wiped from the AFofM.

TD
a***@att.net
2005-11-15 17:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Arri has just had his name wiped from the AFofM.
TD
before I start crying, what is AF of M...... I hate unions :-))))

AB
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-17 11:54:36 UTC
Permalink
The mark of a true amateur.

He doesn't even know what the AFofM is.

TD
a***@att.net
2005-11-17 17:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The mark of a true amateur.
He doesn't even know what the AFofM is.
TD
but I know what a professional m--f is and that means you......

AB
Dick Sexton
2005-11-17 18:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@att.net
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The mark of a true amateur.
He doesn't even know what the AFofM is.
Ancient Fraternity of Meese?
Post by a***@att.net
Post by d***@yahoo.com
TD
but I know what a professional m--f is and that means you......
moof?
Post by a***@att.net
AB
Cute monograms, guys. They'd look nice on hankies or welcome mats or doggy
sweaters. Got something against traditional, correctly delimited sigs?
--
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mein.
m***@hotmail.com
2005-11-16 14:01:41 UTC
Permalink
<I agree with your point about listening to a certain recording too
often, to the point where you begin to notice flaws. That's the
inherent danger of recordings - they are like pictures frozen in time.
What emerged with Horowitz wasn't so much specific recordings as an
overall sense that he was a player of limited depth - those mannerisms
(like bullet-entry voices, dramatic and sudden dymanic changes that
seem gratuitous to the musical line) started to seem like card tricks
that a magician pulls out of his sleeve. They seem to me now like
expressive gimmicks needed to compensate for some deeper deficiency.
With Horowitz I began to feel that he very often calculated effects
rather than letting his heart probe into the music. There were some
exceptions - moments in Kreisleriana, or times where he seemed to
intuit Scriabin's musical language well.

What really nailed the Horowitz-coffin shut for me was listening to his

Schumann Fantasy after not having heard it for about 20 years. It
strikes me as downright vulgar playing>

I agree with everything that's been said, but would like to raise
another point: for an artist who had a reputation for the quality of
his sound, he sure didn't pay too much attention to how he was
recorded. The sound of the instrument in practically all of his
recordings (RCA, DG and Sony) is invariably metalic, shallow and hard
in tone. To my ears, it accentuated the garrish tendencies of his
playing.

Malcolm
malcolm
2005-11-16 14:16:35 UTC
Permalink
<I agree with your point about listening to a certain recording too
often, to the point where you begin to notice flaws. That's the
inherent danger of recordings - they are like pictures frozen in time.
What emerged with Horowitz wasn't so much specific recordings as an
overall sense that he was a player of limited depth - those mannerisms
(like bullet-entry voices, dramatic and sudden dymanic changes that
seem gratuitous to the musical line) started to seem like card tricks
that a magician pulls out of his sleeve. They seem to me now like
expressive gimmicks needed to compensate for some deeper deficiency.
With Horowitz I began to feel that he very often calculated effects
rather than letting his heart probe into the music. There were some
exceptions - moments in Kreisleriana, or times where he seemed to
intuit Scriabin's musical language well.

What really nailed the Horowitz-coffin shut for me was listening to his

Schumann Fantasy after not having heard it for about 20 years. It
strikes me as downright vulgar playing.>

Another point that hasn't yet been mentioned is the poor sound quality
on practically all of his recordings. For an artist who was known for
being extremely concerned about sound, he sure didn't pay much
attention to how he was recorded. The vast majority of them (DG, RCA or
Sony) all have shallow, hard-in-tone piano sound which serious detracts
from the playing.

Having said that, I only know Horowitz from his recordings - I never
heard him live.

Malcolm
Andrys Basten
2005-11-17 05:50:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnGavin
What really nailed the Horowitz-coffin shut for me was listening to his
Schumann Fantasy after not having heard it for about 20 years. It
strikes me as downright vulgar playing.>
I heard a Carnegie Hall one and was amazed at how
he not only didn't follow composer markings (this can be
understandable, even with dynamic markings, as composers
changed their own minds when they performed their pieces)
but that he so often did the exact opposite and also
treated so much of the music as phrases of interest
for the moment, not very connected to what had come before
or was to come after.

Still, I was interested in his take despite realizing
this, since he seemed more interested in taking his
audience on a tour of his garden, which would be very
different from one tour to the next, pausing to enjoy
and highlight this flower or that and then going on
to the next. I enjoyed it on that level.
Post by JohnGavin
Having said that, I only know Horowitz from his recordings - I never
heard him live.
I went to see/hear him during his bad period. Even then
his Tone was amazing in the huge San Francisco Opera House
where he played that night.

Re Schiff {-}Gould, I agree with John Gavin. MUCH more legato
than Gould and, for me, a totally different approach, though
clarity's important to me. Much more line. His English
Suites are quite wonderful, to me, though I can't stand his
huffy onstage persona.


- A
--
http://www.andrys.com
Martin Altschwager
2005-11-17 10:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Re Schiff [...] I can't stand his huffy onstage persona.
I can't stand that he brings TWO pianos onstage (one Steinway, one
Boesendörfer I believe), as he did when performing in Germany earlier this
year.

M.A.
Owen Hartnett
2005-11-17 13:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Altschwager
Re Schiff [...] I can't stand his huffy onstage persona.
I can't stand that he brings TWO pianos onstage (one Steinway, one
Boesendörfer I believe), as he did when performing in Germany earlier this
year.
How else can you perform 2 hand - 2 feet music?

-Owen
Bob Lombard
2005-11-17 15:38:03 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Martin Altschwager
Re Schiff [...] I can't stand his huffy onstage
persona.
I can't stand that he brings TWO pianos onstage (one
Steinway, one
Boesendörfer I believe), as he did when performing in
Germany earlier this
year.
How else can you perform 2 hand - 2 feet music?
-Owen
Good question. Also, when your playing is as colorless as
Schiff's, two different-sounding pianos must be of benefit.

I can almost picture him bouncing from piano to piano on
stage; not 'huffy', but 'huffing and puffing'.

bl
Martin Altschwager
2005-11-17 23:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Altschwager
I can't stand that he brings TWO pianos onstage (one Steinway, one
Boesendörfer I believe), as he did when
performing in Germany earlier this year.
Also, when your playing is as colorless as Schiff's, two
different-sounding pianos must be of benefit.
My thought precisely.

M.A.
Wayne Reimer
2005-11-19 01:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Altschwager
Post by Martin Altschwager
I can't stand that he brings TWO pianos onstage (one Steinway, one
Boesendörfer I believe), as he did when
performing in Germany earlier this year.
Also, when your playing is as colorless as Schiff's, two
different-sounding pianos must be of benefit.
My thought precisely.
I'm not really a fan of Schiff in general, but have to interject here
that I think his recording of Reger's Bach Variations and of the Bartok
Concerti are far from colorless and are worth hearing.

wr
Bob Lombard
2005-11-19 02:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Reimer
In article
In article
Post by Martin Altschwager
I can't stand that he brings TWO pianos onstage (one
Steinway, one
Boesendörfer I believe), as he did when
performing in Germany earlier this year.
Also, when your playing is as colorless as Schiff's,
two
different-sounding pianos must be of benefit.
My thought precisely.
I'm not really a fan of Schiff in general, but have to
interject here
that I think his recording of Reger's Bach Variations and
of the Bartok
Concerti are far from colorless and are worth hearing.
wr
What I have heard of the Bartók that Schiff has recorded is
moderately successful. There's nothing wrong with his
fingers, and he gets the Bartókian idioms right. It's just
that everything seems understated, as if Schiff is passing
along someone else's opinions about the music (Kocsis'?) and
reserving his own.

bl
Matthew B. Tepper
2005-11-17 15:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Altschwager
Re Schiff [...] I can't stand his huffy onstage persona.
I can't stand that he brings TWO pianos onstage (one Steinway, one
Boesendörfer I believe), as he did when performing in Germany earlier
this year.
One is for Donald, the other for Daffy.
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
JohnGavin
2005-11-17 12:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrys Basten
Post by JohnGavin
What really nailed the Horowitz-coffin shut for me was listening to his
Schumann Fantasy after not having heard it for about 20 years. It
strikes me as downright vulgar playing.>
I heard a Carnegie Hall one and was amazed at how
he not only didn't follow composer markings (this can be
understandable, even with dynamic markings, as composers
changed their own minds when they performed their pieces)
but that he so often did the exact opposite and also
treated so much of the music as phrases of interest
for the moment, not very connected to what had come before
or was to come after.
Exactly, well said - that is also my perception about much of Horowitz
- it's not the parting from the score per se that is the problem, or a
personal re-interpretation, but ultimately a feeling that he constricts
the composer's vision into his own world.
Post by Andrys Basten
Still, I was interested in his take despite realizing
this, since he seemed more interested in taking his
audience on a tour of his garden, which would be very
different from one tour to the next, pausing to enjoy
and highlight this flower or that and then going on
to the next. I enjoyed it on that level.
Post by JohnGavin
Having said that, I only know Horowitz from his recordings - I never
heard him live.
I will admit, having heard him live twice in the 70s that the Horowitz
experience is far better live than on records. Also, there was no
doubting the power and charisma of his presence.
a***@att.net
2005-11-14 18:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
It got to the point where I just couldn't listen to him anymore - the
mannerisms just get on my nerves now. >
I went through a period a bit like that, especially with some of his
Chopin, but I came out the other end and appreciated him the more. He's
not for everyday - maybe that's the thing to bear in mind.
best listening to his pre- war and early post war recordings when he
was at his best and did not indulge in mannerisms...... when he came
back after a long break his playing was nowhere as good as in his
earlier years, musicially and technically.
Some of the early stuff is fantastic...... I wont listen to anything
but his RCA recordings....
AB
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-14 18:37:30 UTC
Permalink
What a pity, Arri.

There are some very fine things in his Columbia recordings. A
Kreisleriana, for example. The HR No. 19. His Scarlatti sonatas. A few
Chopin pieces.

TD
a***@att.net
2005-11-15 00:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
What a pity, Arri.
There are some very fine things in his Columbia recordings. A
Kreisleriana, for example. The HR No. 19. His Scarlatti sonatas. A few
Chopin pieces.
TD
I have heard them. the Scarlatti is OK, though not special. His
earlier Scarlatti is much better.

Have heard the Schumann and Chopin...... not particularaly awed by them
though Schumann is nicely done with little exaggeration..

AB
Vaneyes
2005-11-14 15:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Lang Lang.

Regards
Allen
2005-11-14 16:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vaneyes
Lang Lang.
Regards
Too bad they didn't use Lang Lang playing Clang Clang Clang (Went the
Trolley) in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
Allen
Matthew B. Tepper
2005-11-14 16:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vaneyes
Lang Lang.
*spit-take*
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Lawrence W. Scullion
2005-11-14 17:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chel van Gennip
Does Horowitz have any modern successors?
Idil Biret and Jeno Jando!

Lawrence W. Scullion
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-14 18:34:15 UTC
Permalink
That is the funniest comment I have read in months.

Mr. Scullion has scored one for the day.

TD
The Historian
2005-11-15 12:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
That is the funniest comment I have read in months.
Mr. Scullion has scored one for the day.
TD
I thought the Lang Lang suggestion was funnier.
w***@hotmail.com
2005-11-15 15:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
Post by d***@yahoo.com
That is the funniest comment I have read in months.
Mr. Scullion has scored one for the day.
TD
I thought the Lang Lang suggestion was funnier.
Of course, they are not comparable. I heard Lang Lang live the other
day and totally disliked it, BUT if it's true that Horowitz set
standards in pure terms of transcendental technique, then Lang Lang can
give him a run for his money. Again, I emphasize that from a musical
standpoint I thought LL's playing was a disaster (His Schumann,
Schubert, Haydn and Chopin were the most unidiomatic I have heard in a
long time!), but what the guy technically does on a piano defies
belief. He certainly puts Horowitz to shame in that respect! I am
really reluctant in saying all this, but LL may have been the greatest
technican I have seen. Another question would be of course what the use
of this is if there is no musical substance in any of his
interpretations....

Willem
a***@att.net
2005-11-15 17:41:35 UTC
Permalink
but LL may have been the greatest
Post by w***@hotmail.com
technican I have seen.
I just cant believe the above....... his live Chopin concerto with the
NY Phil a few months ago revealed a less than completely secure
technique........
I suggest if you want to hear the top technique of the preent time,
listen to Volodos.... LL does not even come close.

AB
Matthew B. Tepper
2005-11-15 20:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@att.net
but LL may have been the greatest technican I have seen.
I just cant believe the above....... his live Chopin concerto with the
NY Phil a few months ago revealed a less than completely secure
technique........
I suggest if you want to hear the top technique of the preent time,
listen to Volodos.... LL does not even come close.
Lang Lang has technician instead of artistry. Unfortunately, he also has
the journalists behind him, pronouncing him a "star."
--
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
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Charles Milton Ling
2005-11-19 01:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@hotmail.com
but LL may have been the greatest
Post by w***@hotmail.com
technican I have seen.
I just cant believe the above....... his live Chopin concerto with the
NY Phil a few months ago revealed a less than completely secure
technique........
I suggest if you want to hear the top technique of the preent time,
listen to Volodos.... LL does not even come close.
AB
For me, and I am *only* talking about technique, mind you, it's a
toss-up between Volodos and Hamelin.
--
Charles Milton Ling
Vienna, Austria
WannabeHurd
2005-11-19 03:02:38 UTC
Permalink
but LL may have been the greatest technican I have seen.
I just cant believe the above....... his live Chopin concerto with the
NY Phil a few months ago revealed a less than completely secure
technique........
I suggest if you want to hear the top technique of the preent time,
listen to Volodos.... LL does not even come close.
For me, and I am *only* talking about technique, mind you, it's a toss-up between Volodos and Hamelin.
If you mean technique in the complete sense (ie. including tone
control, color palette, etc.), then someone like Pogorelich is way
superior to those two.
I won't forget the way he *raped* Islamey...

The Historian
2005-11-15 12:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chel van Gennip
Does Horowitz have any modern successors?
Joyce Hatto. At least in her habit of having newsgroup threads started
about her.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-15 12:11:06 UTC
Permalink
50. The Historian
Nov 15, 7:04 am show options
Post by Chel van Gennip
Does Horowitz have any modern successors?
Joyce Hatto. At least in her habit of having newsgroup threads started
about her.

The Historian.

Certainly not in her playing, which could not be less excentric,
mannered, or wilfully titulating than that of Horowitz.

Perhaps you haven't actually heard any of her playing?

TD
The Historian
2005-11-16 00:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
50. The Historian
Nov 15, 7:04 am show options
Post by Chel van Gennip
Does Horowitz have any modern successors?
Joyce Hatto. At least in her habit of having newsgroup threads started
about her.
The Historian.
Certainly not in her playing, which could not be less excentric,
mannered, or wilfully titulating than that of Horowitz.
I'd long suspected you of missing a sense of humor. Thanks for the
proof!
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Perhaps you haven't actually heard any of her playing?
TD
I seem to recall posting on her Brahms concertos. You probably didn't
see it since it wasn't a rave.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-16 01:19:47 UTC
Permalink
66. The Historian
Nov 15, 7:24 pm show options
Post by d***@yahoo.com
50. The Historian
Nov 15, 7:04 am show options
Post by Chel van Gennip
Does Horowitz have any modern successors?
Joyce Hatto. At least in her habit of having newsgroup threads started
about her.
The Historian.
Certainly not in her playing, which could not be less excentric,
mannered, or wilfully titulating than that of Horowitz.
I'd long suspected you of missing a sense of humor. Thanks for the
proof!

The Historian

And I thank you for confirming that fact. I detest humour, particularly
of the kind demonstrated.

You're welcome to "that" sense of humour. You may even have a patent on
it.

TD
d***@yahoo.com
2005-11-16 01:20:47 UTC
Permalink
It is usually my habit to ignore anonymous opinions of any kind. Even
from so-called Historians (sic!)

TD
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...