Vladimir Horowitz is one of the most famous and important pianists of the 20th century. So which pianists was Horowitz inspired by? Which pianists did he admire? I created a list based on Horowitz's views.
The books by David Dubal and Harold C. Schonberg on Vladimir Horowitz have been my main sources. Vladimir Horowitz is one of the most famous and important pianists of the 20th century. So which pianists was Horowitz inspired by? Which pianists did he admire? I created a list based on Horowitz's views. The books by David Dubal and Harold C. Schonberg on Vladimir Horowitz have been my main sources.
In fact, he also gave negative opinions to many pianist and criticize very harshly. For example, Horowitz would say of Glenn Gould: "I heard a recording of the Wagner Siegfried Idyll played by Glenn Gould. It was his arrangement. He played like a stupid ass. The tempi were all wrong. He was not normal."
"Technique in a pianist never impressed me. I never in my life heard a pianist whom I liked just because of his technique. The moment they start to play very fast I want to go home."
And he would pass off certain pianists with a few negative words: Solomon? "Boring"; Arrau? "I heard his Emperor (Beethoven Piano Concerto No. 5) and it was terrible. He plays so slow, ugh. Also the Waldstein. So slow.", Andre Watts? "Technically formidable, fantastic fingers, musically horrible." Vladimir Ashkenazy? "Ashkenazy was good once. Not now."
And he was dissatisfied with the fast but unnuanced playing of the new generation of pianists. "I want to leave the concert when they start to play pointlessly fast" or "Everything was beginning to be dry, metronomic, uninteresting. I missed the panache of the great pianists, violinists, and singers of the past. I never in my life went Horowitz at thirteen."
Although he respected some pianists but he would explain why he did not like it: Godowsky had tremendous equipment, but in public he pulled back and was not very exciting. In the studio Godowsky was something else. I used to stand near the piano and watch his fingers. He had incredible leggiero. Such scales! He had been a friend of Saint-Saens's, and he got that technique from him. He got incredible effects but I did not like his playing. It was not for me. What a pianist can learn is very easy. What vou cannot learn is very difficult. Anybody can learn to play fast. When you praaice Chopin ten hours a day for years, as Godowsky did, of course it will go like that. That's no real achievement. Godowsky was a very good musician, but he overloaded the music he played. It was too much, all the extra stuff he put into it. In his Chopin he played all the notes but everything else was missing. He played everything mezzo-forte, without dynamics. It all sounded the same."
Horowitz said Egon Petri had a good technique but was too German and dry for his taste. Josef Hofmann was his first idol, “He was my first influence, when I was a boy”, but later changed his mind: "Josef Hofmann did not impress me very much. Of course he was a great pianist with incredible facility, but I did not like his interpretations. I waas bored. Later on, in America, I heard him many times and had no reason to change my initial impression."
But he was humble to the pianists he loved. Here we will mention his favorite pianists such as Rachmaninoff, Cortot, Gieseking, Backhaus, Richter.
Vladimir Horowitz's favorites
Sergei Rachmaninoff
Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873 - 1943), Walt Disney and Vladimir Horowitz
Horowitz's idol, his greatest inspiration, was undoubtedly Sergei Rachmaninoff. Rachmaninoff even became a kind of "father figure" to Horowitz: "He was like a father to me, he would never let me do anything bad. He always wanted me to play better than anybody else. When Rachmaninoff died I was left without a guide."
The relationship between them, of course, was not just friendship. According to Horowitz, the greatest pianist was Rachmaninoff, he explained: "Rachmaninoff was the greatest of all pianists, because his playing had such individuality. And such sound. If you want to get an idea of his sound go to the second movement of his recording of his First Piano Concerto. I always thought his Beethoven was the best thing he played, and his Chopin the worst. Rachmaninoff once showed me a letter from Schnabel, who had heard him play a Beethoven sonata. Schnabel said it was the best Beethoven playing he had ever heard... "
Unfortunately, few Beethoven recordings of Rachmaninoff were available. He only recorded the 32 variation in C minor and the piano arrangement of the Turkish March, it's a shame Rachmaninoff didn't record a Beethoven sonata! But we can understand Horowitz's praise with these recordings, because they are very successful and impressive recordings. Rachmaninoff's perspective on Beethoven is orchestral, full of sonority, masculine, serious, but at the same time lively. There was probably the influence of Anton Rubinstein, which he heard and was very impressed with in his youth and it is reminiscent of Anton's pupil Josef Hofmann's playing Beethoven.
Rachmaninoff's recording for his first concerto is one of the most special Rachmaninoff recordings in my opinion too. Rachmaninoff was overwhelmed by the success of his 2nd and 3rd concertos and was tired of playing them. In the 1st concerto recording, we see a much more willing and passionate Rachmaninoff. insomuch that, Rachmaninoff's last wish to Horowitz was also for the first concerto:
"The last thing Rachmaninoff ever said to me was 'Please play my First concerto, my favorite, and nobody plays it.' As you know, I never played it. I worked on it, I thought about it, but I never could bring myself to do it. It's a good work. You Know Rachmaninoff's own record? It's the best job he did on his recordings of his concertos."
Recording of Rachmaninoff's First Concerto
Horowitz often spoke of his admiration for Rachmaninoff. Another example is quoted by David Dubal: "Horowitz said Rachmaninoff was the biggest pianist, the most emotional. His records, great as they are, still give little indication of the immensity of his conception and sound."
Still, Horowitz didn't approve of every interpretation of Rachmaninoff and maintained his objectivity:
"I have said that to me he was the greatest pianist, but that does not mean I liked eventhing he played. Then again, he did not always like everything I played. I remember once hearing him in the Moonlight Sonata. When the melody came, he hit the G-sharps boom, boom-BOOM. Like a trombone, instead of piano or pianissimo. I heard him in his last years play the Beethoven First Piano Concerto. He made the slow movement sound like a Chopin nocturne. This was not Beethoven, although I heard him play other Beethoven things wonderfully, like Op. III."
Horowitz had heard Rachmaninoff's piano playing for the first time as a child: "With Rachmaninoff I had an immediate identification. He gave a concert of his own music that I heard when I was nine or ten. I also was playing his music at that time. He was singing on the piano all the time." After the concert, Horowitz went with his mother to the hotel where Rachmaninoff was staying, but Rachmaninoff did not meet with them."He didn't want to listen to some young pianist he had not heard anything about. I reminded him of this when we became friends," said Horowitz.
Years later, Horowitz would meet Rachmaninoff, whom he called the “. . . The musical God of my youth,” and they would remain friends until Rachmaninoff's death.
Alfred Cortot
Alfred Cortot (1877 - 1962)
Another idol of Vladimir Horowitz was the French/Swiss master Alfred Cortot. Horowitz adored Cortot's interpretations of Schumann and Chopin: "A beautiful musician. Cortot was very intellectual. He liked me and I admired him very much. He played Schumann like nobody, absolutely divine. Oh, yes, it was. He told me he loves Schumann. . . His Chopin and Schumann were for me the best. His Schuman was fantastic. . . Cortot was a fine musician. He had done one of the best editions of Chopin. In the footnotes he worked out exercises based on the technical problems of the music and they were very good. Cortot's Chopin edition is still in use and it very valuable. "
Although Cortot is often associated with Chopin, as Horowitz says, I don't think Cortot's Schumann is inferior to his Chopin. Both are his specialties. Even Arrau, who adored Cortot's Chopin but disliked his German repertoire, had to say excluding Cortot's Schumann (Claudio Arrau and his Favorite Pianists!).
Here is an interesting case. Horowitz's idol, Rachmaninoff disliked Cortot's flawed technique. In fact, Rachmaninoff seems to like Cortot at first. Cortot played Rachmaninoff's third piano concerto in concert, and Rachmaninoff liked the interpretation. But over the years, Alfred Cortot's technique weakened because Cortot probably did not keep practicing. Horowitz would say, "He had good taste and a good but not great technique, though he lost his technique in the last years of his life."
According to Horowitz, Rachmaninoff was going to be sarcastic about Cortot's technique: "Once I visited Rachmaninoff in Switzerland at his house. When I walked in he was laughing so loud his false teeth were coming out. I asked him what was so funny: 'I have just been listening on the radio to Cortot playing all the Chopin etudes.', 'That was so. good?' I asked. 'Wonderful. But you know, the most difficult of the etudes were the ones he played most 'musical'."
Rachmaninoff implied that Cortot slowed down and played more 'musically' as the Chopin etudes got harder. This seems like something Rachmaninoff wouldn't approve of. Conversely Horowitz didn't care about technical problems.
Therewithal Cortot (when he was young) had a technique that fascinated even Horowitz. Excerpt from "Biography of Vladimir Horowitz" by Glen Plaskin:
"The french master (Cortot)did give him(Horowitz) occasional lessons and assignments. These began in 1928 and continued sporadically for the next few years. Cortot was struck by the clarity and projection of Horowitz's tone but showed distain for the idea of making a career on temperament and technical brilliance. 'Horowitz has a great genius for getting things ready for performance' Cortot would tell his students. But Cortot made no secret of his reservations about Horowitz's intellect,and was never convinced that as a performer he desired to be a re-creator in service of the composer. A. Cortot pupil, Thomas Manshardt, remembered that Cortot believed Horowitz 'came to study in order to discover how he,Cortot, managed the double notes in the Etude en Forme d'une Valse by Saint-Saens,which Horowitz concidered a miracle of velocity and light brilliancy as played by Cortot. Cortot thought this an inadequate reason for studying. Years later he gleefully declared 'I never told him how it was done'."
Horowitz played, with Cortot conducting, the Rachmaninoff Third Concerto (on October 16, 1932) and the Emperor Concerto (on December 24, 1933). And Horowitz said: "In the Emperor his conducting was very eloquent."
Cortot and Horowitz had some disagreements over Cortot's dubious relationship with the Nazis, criticized Cortot on this. However Horowitz felt that people like Arthur Rubinstein had unfairly criticized Cortot's musicianship because he was a collaborator, Horowitz always praised Cortot's musicianship and he didn't feel right to criticize musicianship over personalities.
Ignaz Friedman
Vladimir Horowitz and Ignaz Friedman (1882 - 1948)
Unlike Cortot, Ignaz Friedman was a pianist admired by both, Horowitz and Rachmaninoff. Horowitz said: "Ignaz Friedman, who I admired, was a great artist." Friedman's unique "Singing tone" captivated them both. Horowitz particularly admired Friedman's Chopin E flat Nocturne recording:
"Nobody has made a better recording of the E flat Nocturne [Op. 55, No. 2] than Friedman did. It is amazing."
Here we do indeed hear Friedman making the piano sing naturally and wonderfully. In addition, this record probably includes the rubato understanding and polyphonic playing that Chopin wanted. Indeed, it is one of the most important Chopin recordings ever made, no doubt.
They became pretty close friends, Horowitz loved Friedman as a person: "Personally Friedman was a nice man, a darling, an angel. He loved to hear me, came to all my concerts, and he understood my playing."
But besides that, Friedman had some eccentricities that Horowitz and Rachmaninoff didn't like. Horowitz particularly disliked the changes Friedman made on stage: "He had wonderful fingers and a very personal, individual way of playing, even if some of his ideas were very strange to me. He had no hesitation touching up the music. I got annoyed with him at oneconcert when he changed the basses in Chopin's F minor Ballade. I didn't like that. For some reason he was happier making records than he was on the stage."
First of all, according to Jonathan Summers, Friedman gave more than 2800 concerts and traveled almost all over the world. Friedman was probably bored with giving concerts and took a more frivolous attitude at concerts. In Allan Evans' book "Ignaz Friedman: The Romantic Master Pianist" there is an anecdote from pianist Bruce Hungford, who took lessons from Friedman: "Ignace Tiegerman (Another Friedmna's pupil) told me he was a child prodigy and his mother took him to Theodor Leschetizky in Vienna when he was ten. . . Leschetizky put him with Friedman. . . Friedman was Leschetizky's favourite pupil and Leschetizky had made Friedman his assitant teacher. Mr. Tiegerman told me that as the years went on, Friedman became always more and more bored with playing the piano and did less and less practicing so that by the 1930's his playing had begun to go downhill. Even in the 1920's in Berlin, Tiegerman said that Friedman would do his practicing while reading the newspaper propped up on the music rack."
So, Friedman was gifted with tremendous talent, but he was lazy and bored with playing the piano. I think that's why he was able to do weird and pointless things at concerts. Nevertheless Friedman was one of the most great pianists. He was one of Horowitz's Chopin inspirations, along with Cortot.
Ignacy Jan Paderewski
Ignancy Jan Paderewski (1860 - 1941)
Ignacy Jan Paderewski has been one of the controversial figures in piano history (his reputation was overrated by some), but Horowitz has always defended him. We can even say that he was a very important figure for Horowitz, In Horowitz's living room in the last years of his hfe were only three pictures of musicians, all on the piano. One was of Paderewski, others are Toscanini and Rachmaninoff.
Horowitz especially liked Paderewski's playing of Chopin mazurkas ( The Mazurkas were one of Horowitz's favorite works): "I remember when I heard him in some Chopin mazurkas. Wonderful. Really!" In my opinion, Paderewski was very successful in Chopin's works of Polish origin. Like Poles, Mazurkas. Paderewski's presentation, which combines velvet tone, Polish rhythm and elegant playing, is quite satisfying.
Horowitz argued that Paderewski should not be judged according to his records:
"They say he didn't have a big technique, but he did before World War I. Then he lost it. He liked loud playing. Everything had to be in the grand style. My father told me that Paderewski was the best pianist he ever heard. Toscanini always said he was the best pianist, and that he played the Emperor better than anybody else. There is a letter of Tchaikovsky saying that he went to hear a new pianist in Paris called Paderewski and that he was the greatest pianist of all. You can't judge him on his records, which are not very good. On the stage he played in a very musical manner. You don't get such a reputation as he had for nothing."
Simon Barere
Simon Barere (1896 - 1951)
Barere was a brilliant virtuoso, Rachmaninoff called him a "pianistic genius". Vladimir Horowitz and Simon Barere (1896 - 1951) were students of Felix Blumenfeld. According to Horowitz, "Simon Barere was considered the best pupil in Blumenfeld's class at that time. Barere, who had followed Even when a student with Blumenfeld he had this extraordinary technique. Blumenfeld liked him more than me. I remember I was a little bit jealous."
There were certain common points in their pianism; both of them had a very enthusiastic and powerful playing, that we can describe as 'volcanic'. They were rivals in a way, but Barere was never as popular as Horowitz. Nonetheless, Barere was remembered as one of the most interesting and special pianists of the Golden Age.
Horowitz highly praised Barere's technique and spoke of Barere's wonderful Blumenfeld's etude recording: "Barere had a tremendous technique. He played professor Blumenfeld’s Etude for the Left Hand like a miracle. "
This piece was truly Barere's specialty and the left hand technique was legendary. Pianist Leon Fleisher, when a guest on my public radio program fundraiser, told the story of how he was on a BBC panel where he was asked to identify how many hands were playing during a piano performance. Barere's Blumenfeld recording was they played. Fleisher said it obviously was a trick question - it couldn't be two hands or why would they ask? Perhaps it was three, but surely not one. Then panelists were advised that it was, indeed, just one hand, and the left hand at that.
But his piano interpretations may not be very deep and his formidable technique sometimes pushed him into an exaggerated attitude. Horowitz doesn't seem to like this side of Barere: "I love Schumann's Toccata. People try to make it too fast. I remember Simon Barere. He loved to play fast. Once I hear him do the toccata so fast' —Horowitz made a sour face—'like a blur. I go backstage. I say, 'Simon, isn't your toccata too fast?' You know what he answered? 'Volodya, I can do it even faster.' You know, maybe Simon was a little stupid. I don't say he was. Maybe. . . He was very simple man, a nice fellow, not a cultured person or musician."
For all that, Barere had one of the most enthusiastic, powerful and explosive piano playing in the history. And Barere died on stage, as befits him. Horowitz said: "He made a big splash when he died. I don't know what year. I think '51. Imagine, he is playing Grieg Concerto at Carnegie Hall with Ormandy conducting, and right in the big climax, he dies of a heart attack on stage. This is the way to go, tremendous! In middle of Grieg Concerto, terrific, eh?"
Sviatoslav Richter
Sviatoslav Richter (1915 -1997)
When Harold C. Schoenberg asked Horowitz about his thoughts on the new Russian pianists, Horowitz would mentionSviatoslav Richter: "Of the Russian pianists I like only one, Richter. Gilels did some things well, but I did not like his mannerisms, the way he moved around while he was playing."
Horowitz also mentioned Richter in another source: "I hear Richter do the Scriabin Etude in ninths, Op. 65, No. 1. It’s fantastic! He has a very large hand. I’ve always very much wanted to play that work. But I cannot do it."
Horowitz's hand wasn't as small as Josef Hofmann or Moriz Rosenthal, but he struggled to play some works that required a large hand. According to Horowitz, he could take a tenth. His handspan might be called long, but not as long as Richter or Rachmaninoff. Besides that, Richter could take a twelfth! His hands were one of the biggest pianists
The hands of Vladimir Horowitz in 1937.
But of course, it wasn't just the size of his hands that Horowitz was praising Richter for. Horowitz specifically states that technique alone is not a criterion in the evaluation of a pianist and adds that he is bored with only pianists who are good at technique. Richter's originality and musicianship particularly impressed him. However, Horowitz has had major problems with Scriabin's work in the past, so Richter's impeccable playing of this etude fascinated Horowitz.
“My hand is good for chords, good for octaves, of course, but not the Scriabin Etude in ninths. My hand falls off, believe me. Each hand is totally different, and you must learn about your own hands. You know, composers are often cruel. What they ask us to do should be forbidden. The public, who knows nothing of what is required, knows nothing of the hell of the work required. The tears. I’ve torn out many pieces of hair when I was young." and
Richter, on the other hand, praised Horowitz's pianism ("A pianits! Phenomenal fingers!"), but he was not as enthusiastic about Horowitz's interpretations: "What can one say against this? Yet there's nothing that one feels like saying in its favorite either. . . What about the music?"
Heinrich Neuhaus
Heinrich Heuhaus (1888 - 1964)
Heinrich Heuhaus, who was also the teacher of Sviatoslav Richter, had become Horowitz's kind of mentor, if not his piano teacher, and guided the young Horowitz, also he influenced Horowiz with his piano interpretations:
"He was very musical, an artist. Technique in a pianist never impressed me. I never in my life heard a pianist whom I liked just because of his technique. The moment they start to play very fast I want to go home. Neuhaus was very musical, so I was interested. We played much four-hand and two-piano music. He was a wonderful musician and he introduced me to a great deal of music I had not heard. He played beautifully some late Scriabin sonatas, all of which were new to me. He also analyzed pieces with me. He had studied with Leopold Godowskv in Berlin. I was a provincial boy and was fascinated to hear him describe how Ferruccio Busoni played, how Godowsky played, how Moriz Rosenthal played, how Ignaz Friedman played, how this player and that player sounded. He liked Alfred Cortot best of all."
Walter Gieseking
Walter Gieseking (1895 - 1956)
"I was impressed mostly by Gieseking. He had a finished style, played with elegance, and had a fine musical mind."
The subtle tone Horowitz achieves has always reminded me of Walter Gieseking's. Especially on Debussy recordings! It's not the same type, but it's kind of a connotation. Gieseking's tone was more captivating to me, but there was a similar softness. I thought Horowitz was impressed by the character of Gieseking's gentle touch, and when I read what Horowitz had to say, I saw that it was true.
"When I was a young man, Gieseking's playing bowled me over. I had never heard such pianissimos, like a dream. But later, I got bored because he treated all music the same. He was big artist, sure. "
Of course, Horowitz used stronger and sharper dynamics than Gieseking, but Gieseking's extraordinary intonation must have been quite helpful when Horowitz was looking for sound on the piano.
According to strong rumors, Horowitz's Steinway was lighter than standard, so the sound of the piano was not disturbing even with the hardest touches. This is why many young pianists who tried to imitate Horowitz ended up with a disturbing and ugly sound that didn't sound good.
Emil von Sauer
Emil von Sauer (1862 - 1942)
Vladimir Horowiz said he didn't like Franz Liszt pupils, but there was one exception: Emil von Sauer. In fact, Sauer himself did not like to be called a Liszt student, Sauer thought Nikolai Rubinstein had more influence on him. But years later he changed his mind, admitting that he was also influenced by Liszt. Anyway, Horowitz was going to say:
"Emil Sauer was also a good pianist, good technique, style. Very good fingers. He was a Liszt pupil. He was at his best in salon music—Chopin waltzes, things like that. But I heard him play a very good, very correct Op. 109."
First of all, I should say that "hall pianist" is not a very nice adjective. In short, it is usually said to pianists who play simple and cheerful pieces that attract the public.Sauer for some reason always tended to be called the 'salon pianist', even Arrau was of the same opinion but Martin Krause, another Liszt pupil and Claudio Arrau's teacher, called von Sauer "The legitimate heir of Liszt; he has more of his charm and geniality than any other Liszt pupil."
His elegant style and soft touch were great as a salon pianist, but as Horowitz said, Sauer was so much more. When we look at his Liszt Hungarian Rhapsodies (12th and 15th), concertos, etudes, Chopin etudes or Schumann Carnaval recordings, we see that Sauer is not like a typical salon pianist. As Josef Hofmann said, "A truly great virtuoso." Besides, Dinu Lipatti called him "One of the greatest virtuosos of our time" and lamented that he played in smaller halls than a new generation of pianists who were not as good as him: " "I experienced a profound joy when I realized that this artist had not deteriorated . . . How is it possible that Emil Sauer must play in the small Salle Erard, despite his past, when a Brailowsky or Uninsky can pack the Salle Pleyel?” Horowitz's emphasis that Sauer was not just a salon pianist is therefore appropriate.
Wilhelm Backhaus
Wilhelm Backhaus (1884 - 1969)
Horowitz generally disliked German pianists (regardless of their Nazi status), for him the German tradition of piano was dry and boring. But there were exceptions, one of them was Wilhelm Backhaus. Backhaus's style was indeed a departure from the German tradition, as Horowitz said.
"Backhaus was a wonderful pianist, not really representative of the German style. About him I can speak with real enthusiasm. He was more relaxed than most of them. I once heard him play the Chopin etudes and it was remarkable. In the first one in C major not a single note fell under the piano. It was fantastic. He heard me play Liszt's Feux follets and came up to me. 'Horowitz,' he said, 'I could never do that.' But he was being nice. He could have if he wanted. "
Josef Lhevinne
Josef Lhevinne (1874 - 1944)
According to Dubal, Horowitz loved Josef Lhevinne and admired what he did in some of the Chopin etudes: "He (Horowitz) said that he liked Lhevinne and nobody could play some of the Chopin etudes better."
Lhevinne's Chopin etude recordings are truly legendary, many would agree, the best recordings ever made for some etudes. Op. 25, no. 6 especially from Lhevinne's specialties. Horowitz thought this etude was too difficult:
"Ah, all are terrible. The double-note etudes are very difficult, especially Op. 25, No. 6. Everyone tries to show off the speed of their thirds, but the beauty of the piece is in the left hand. Of course, the thirds have to be played very nice, very evenly. For me, the most difficult of all is the C Major, the first one, Op. 10, No. 1. I cannot do that, and I can’t do the other C Major, Op. 10, No. 7. Also, I can’t do the A minor, Op. 10, No. 2. Richter told me he could never do it, either. "
Horowitz seems to have had trouble with some Chopin etudes: "Today, I practice a Chopin etude. But I must tell you, Chopin’s etudes are impossible on the modern piano. Chopin would have changed lots of things if he have the Steinway. Of that I’m sure, oh yes! You can’t play the etudes well if you follow Chopin’s metronome markings. They are too fast.”
Horowitz therefore hats off to Backhaus and Lhevinne's flawless playing of the Chopin etudes.
Arthur Rubinstein
Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein
There was another pianist whom Horowitz praised for playing some of the Chopin etudes but this is a little weirder... That person was Arthur Rubinstein. Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein were friends, but a sometimes sweet and sometimes bitter tension seems to have arisen between them. Horowitz called Rubinstein a "good pianist," but he was also always sarcastic. He said that his technique was not good and that he played simple pieces flamboyantly:
"I liked him as a pianist. He was a good musician and had a fantastic repertoire. He never had a great technique, but certain things he played well. I heard him play some of the Chopin etudes, the easier ones, with great panache and I told him I had never heard them played better. He said 'Do you mean it?' and I said 'yes i do mean it'."
Yes, there seems to be both praise and satire here. He also complained about Rubinstein's constant criticism of those around him: "Rubinstein was jealous of anybody who had a great success. He was jealous of the Beatles and kept talking about their tremendous success."
There is a funny and very interesting story in Dubal's book. Horowitz was accusing Rubinstein of stealing! The story is here:
"A week had passed since I last saw the Horowitzes. As I plopped down in my usual chair, Horowitz began, 'Did you find me a copy of the autobiography of Ignaz Moscheles?'
'No, Maestro, not yet. But I've asked around. As I told you, I lost my copy, too.'
'I miss that book!' Horowitz exclaimed. 'The last time I saw it, Arthur Rubinstein was reading it -in the same chair you are stting in-. He wouldn't put it down. I'm sure here stole it. I never saw it again. Yes, I bet you, Rubinstein stole it!'
'Meastro' I replied, 'maybe Rubinstein borrowed it and forgot to return it.'
'No, he took it. That I'm sure! . . . But you know, I tell you, Rubinstein lied about everything.'."
Another story makes one think that the tension between them stems from their rivalry. This funny story is witnessed by pianist Daniel Barenboim (From, Harvey Sachs, Rubinstein , A Life page 353): "A few days before a certain concert was to be performed on February 3, 1975, Daniel Barenboim, received a message from Horowitz that he needed to see him. Barenboim had no idea as to what Horowitz wanted. Barenboim arrived at the appointed time and was received by a very 'formal' Horowitz. (Horowitz opened the door), They sat down and talked about many things including Horowitz' Berlin days... Barenboim recalled, He told a lot of stories. Then Horowitz said, 'Tell me, you know Clementi Sonatas?' 'Not really'. Barenboim replied... Horowitz then played several of the sonatas pointing out various fascinating figurations. None the less, Barenboim still wondered why Horowitz had requested the meeting. Barenboim realized that several hours had passed, and since he had to attend a rehearsal the next day, he informed Horowitz that as much as he had enjoyed the evening, perhaps he should take his leave.
Horowitz replied, 'No, no, no. Stay. We're having a nice time and Wanda is not here: shes playing cards.' (Then) in a sort of forced, intimate tone of voice, he said, 'Tell me, I read in newspapers that you are conducting with Rubinstein. What he plays?'
I said, he's playing Beethoven G Major and Brahms D Minor.
'Oh, in one evening? He's an old man now, no? He doesn't forget?'
I said no. 'But wrong notes he plays, no?'
I said 'Look, I played with him in London, the Emperor Concerto, a few months ago, and it was note perfect.' (I lied!).
He said, 'How much strength? You know, an old man, he has strength? These are big pieces!'
I said 'Yes, you can't cover him with an orchestra.
He said, 'This is very strange: an old man; no memory lapse, no wrong notes, lots of strength.' (Long pause) 'But a little bit dry, no?'
Barenboim concluded the story saying, 'It had all been for this. Not much later, I had lunch with Rubinstein and told him the story in great detail. He was very amused.'"
Did Horowitz despise Rubinstein? Or was he just jealous of him? Did he think he was overrated? Did they have a humorous relationship? It's hard to say for sure.
Artur Schnabel
Artur Schnabel (1882 - 1951)
Horowitz had heard Artur Schnabel in Leningrad and was impressed, especially with his performance of the Chopin B flat minor Sonata (a work that Schnabel dropped from his repertoire in the 1930s). "In the last movement, every note was there!" enthused Horowitz. Schnabel and Chopin sound odd, but Arrau also referred to Schnabel's Chopin.
Horowitz admitted that he had heard Schnabel and Furtwangler in the Brahms Second Piano Concerto during those years and was so excited that he started to learn it. Horowitz even considered taking lessons from Schnabel.
Horowitz has an interesting theory about Schnabel's deteriorating technique: playing Beethoven!
"For ten years he played mostly Beethoven, with a little Schubert. So he lost his technique. When you play nothing but Beethoven you lose technique. He lost everything; he couldn't even play a scale. Nothing! That's when I decided not to play too much Beethoven. Schnabel was for me an example of what could happen."
Yes, if you're wondering why Horowitz didn't record a lot of Beethoven, that's one of the reasons! He even said that he thought Beethoven's sonatas were not very suitable for piano and that he did not enjoy listening to them.
Horowitz's Praise of Art Tatum and the Exaggeration of Society
I saw this on Youtube channel "Classical Piano Rarities".
Various untrue myths arose between Art Tatum and Horowitz, even linking Horowitz's quitting the piano for a period to Tatum. These were unrealistic, but Horowitz seems to have liked Tatum's pianist. According to the source above, Horowitz enjoyed Tatum's wonderful arpeggios. But there is no exaggerated praise, even when Horowitz is asked about his favorite pianists, he does not mention Tatum.
Henry Pleasants, who had covered the jazz beat and written with perspicacity about jazz singers, told the story about Horowitz sneaking in to listen to the jazz pianist Art Tatum. He was terribly impressed with Tatum's technique and his easy, natural way of playing, and on one occasion couldn't understand how Tatum did what he did in 'Tea for Two.' So he introduced himself Tatum admitted that yeah, he had heard of Vladimir Horowitz. The two men had a pleasant talk, and then Horowitz asked Tatum how long it had taken him to learn 'Tea for Two.' Tatum looked at him as though he were crazy. 'I just made it up,' he said. Horowitz went home and worked up his own arrangement of 'Tea for Two,' which he played as a party piece.
Other Pianists
Claudio Arrau, Vladimir Horowitz, Alicia de Larrocha
Horowitz spoke briefly about other pianists as well. One of the names Horowitz wanted to take lessons from, even idolized, was Ferruccio Busoni. He considered Busoni a genius: "Busoni is truly a genius. All my life I have been playing his Bach transciptions. I often use his editions of Liszt. All those colors. Such colors! He must have been a fantastic colorist. . . I think, very much in my style." But just before he met Busoni, Busoni died. Horowitz was upset that he had never heard of his live performance, and after Toscanini's praise of Busoni he was even more curious about Busoni's pianism.
He spoke somewhat contradictoryly about Edwin Fischer. Horowitz said about his Berlin years: "II heard Edwin Fischer, who did not mean much to me." But he seems to have liked Fischer's Mozart afterwards:"You know who I think played Mozart very good? A real master of Mozart. That is Edwin Fischer, the Swiss pianist."
Horowitz's favorite in the Spanish repertoire was clear: "Nobody plays Spanish music better than Alicia de Larrocha".
When he was in Italy in the 1960s, he would say that he liked a pianist that he heard often on the radio: "Recently I listened to a pianist on the radio who impressed me very much: Sergio Fiorentino, do you know him?"
Comments
Post a Comment