Been reading about Horowitz and find that one of his big feats was playing octaves--like few can do.

Can anyone direct me to one or more performance of his on YouTube where he's displaying this ability?

Bech

Sure.

Listen to Horowitz with 15 other pianists in the famous Tchaikovsky salvo. He wasn't the only one with legendary octaves.

We could give you Chopin's octave etude but how about this octave part of Liszt's 6th Hungarian Rhapsody.....this video also has the same thing by a couple of other pretty good players.

(It didn't take us long, did it.....)

Someone was once talking about some female pianist who had "the best octaves in France," and for some reason everybody giggled.

No it didn't! I had seen the video you posted, and I knew those recordings from CD. (Unlike the Tchaikovsky where I had not heard many of those recordings in their entirety, not to mention in better sound than on YT.)

All three pianists in the Liszt were superb and super-human. Horowitz is certainly a hard act to beat (and I like his slight rewrite), though Argerich gives him a good run for the money. (Her octaves are astoundingly clean and well voiced.) Cziffra seems a tad less convincing, though some may not agree.

Hi guys,

It's interesting that this topic has come up because just last night I was reading the liner notes from one of my Glenn Gould cds where he asserts that Horowitz didn't have good octaves but that he faked them somehow. Since I'm not quite at Gould's level I can't vouch either way for that statement with the same authority, though I will say that while I think Horowitz's octaves are generally pretty convincing to me, he does seem to make a point of them when he is performing them. (I suppose that's why Rubinstein once quipped to him, "Congratulations, you win the octave olympics," or some such thing).

vers,

I still laugh every time I see your username, even though it's been several times now. According to wikipedia, "The piece's title reflects the Earth's fiery destruction, as well as the constant emotional buildup and crescendo throughout the piece leading, ultimately, 'toward the flame.'" I wonder if Scriabin ever thought about apocalypse by custard...

I also wonder when I'll stop laughing at your name. God, what if I never stop?....

-Jason

Hmmm. Interesting. How would Horowitz have faked them? Certainly his early EMI recording of the Liszt sonata makes one wonder. My teacher heard him live several times in the '70's (admittedly when Horowitz may not have been at his best), but he never indicated anything suspicious about Horowitz's technique. My piano teacher was quite blown away, though not always convinced with Horowitz's tampering... which was less in evidence (or more convincing?) than in his '60's performances.

Personally I don't care at all for Horowitz's 1978 (?) Rachmaninov 3 with Ormandy, but we do have the '50's with Reiner (cuts and all) to fall back on. That is truly an amazing recording, elephants definitely on the menu and certainly swallowed in their entirety.

....and besides, IMO this is nothing more than a shrug anyway.

If someone "fakes" octaves in a way that is imperceptible, what difference does it make? In fact, I wouldn't call that faking; I'd call it an intelligent and skillful solution.

I've heard it said that Horowitz sometimes "faked" RUNS -- like, leaving out a note here-and-there in scale-like passages, if he felt it would be imperceptible and the extra little quickness would be effective. If he ever "faked" his octaves, I'd bet it wasn't because he couldn't play them as written, but that it was this same kind of choice. If anything, I would consider it genius-ly brilliant, rather than something bad.

IMO the only negative comment in Gould's comment (if he really said that) is upon himself.

P.S. For what it's worth I occasionally make a similar choice to omit notes. One example is a left hand note in the fluttering E major passage in the middle section of Chopin's 2nd Scherzo. It's a note that I thought just got in the way of the R.H. and added little if anything when played. Before I ever performed it that way, I told my teacher about it, and to my surprise and delight, he said, "Oh, I never played that note."

Which note, Mark?

I'm guessing one of the notes in the 5th measure of the passage? Where the C#-E in the LH comes right after those two notes were played in the RH?

-J

.....and another thing is, what did Gould mean anyway about "faking" octaves? Maybe did he just mean that Horowitz didn't really dig into the notes but just sort of "skimmed" them? I can well imagine that, from knowing how they both played.

There's a recurrent passage in the 1st mvt of Beethoven's Sonata in B-flat, Op. 22, where I would just sort of 'skim' some of the octaves. It appears first at 1:44-1:45 on here (the five 8th notes in a row):



Someone who once heard me play it said I was "faking" those notes, that I was "missing" them. It wasn't faking; it was a musical choice. In this video, Barenboim really digs into them, and most people do. But that doesn't mean it's "faking" if you choose to just skim across them and make them just "sputter."

A famous example of another Beethoven passage where we might do this is the octave glissandi near the end of the last mvt of the Waldstein. Let's see what Horowitz does there......in fact maybe this is exactly what Gould was referring to?

No, it's not; he digs into those notes pretty good (at 8:43) -- actually sort of midway between digging-in and skimming -- but he doesn't play it that fast either. I would most definitely 'skim.'

BINGO!!!!
(Beautiful job!)

Yes -- the E in the left hand is exactly the note that I omit. I play just the C# with the L.H.

So.....did Chopin himself play that note? Dunno, but I can imagine that he didn't -- or that sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't, depending on the piano's action.

Hehe, I attempt to be Horowitz for a couple seconds:

Super responses! Thank you all.

I pick Argerich. I know it's a lot about quality sound--but I can't help it!

I can just about see her smile at the end.

Edit: Hey, I can do octaves too but mine are a little bit different.

Bech

RE: Gould vs. Horowitz--

Apparently, the comment was made during an interview around 1960, so it was a long time before Horowitz's messier 80's where he would often pedal things into mush.

I've read a little on Gould and it seems he really had an antipathy towards Horowitz, and I think H's popularity affected Gould's opinion of the listening public as well. It seems the two were polar opposites when it came to their approach to the piano so I guess it's understandable that H would offend G's sensibilities. (I've also wondered, when H made the comment that "A piano is not a typewriter," if that was a swipe at Gould).

I once had a tuner who had seen Horowitz play and remarked, "He could mess up in a way that sounded very exciting."

That performance of Chopin's Octave Etude has a huge number of "false" notes, right?

One or two.

I heard around ten obvious ones before he got to the middle section.

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

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

Hi guys,

Here's a link to the Heroic Polonaise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wondered a couple of things:

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

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

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

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

Good that you said IMO.

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

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

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

Sophia

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

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

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

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


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

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

-Jason

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

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

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

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

Really? You've got damned good ears then.

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

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

I have to agree with Stores here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

yeah right.

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

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

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

lol I don't think so at all. Argerich can CERTAINLY play octaves with great control, speed, and accuracy.

Sergio Tiempo is not on the same level as Argerich. And he gots NOTHING on da Ho. Behold his suckage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6eVaTBdP7M

da HO people. come on. Have some respect. Who else could pull his Waldstein coda octave 'glissando'? Have any of you ever tried to do that at the piano? It's impossible!

Not for da HO.

i vote for OSK, with Argerich a close second.

Horowitz is awesome at many things. I don't know that octaves are his forte.

I didn't say I prefered Tiempo to Argerich or Horowitz full stop, I said I prefered his tchaikovsky octaves.

I've seen a number of students accomplish the octave glissandi in the Waldstein perfectly well, its difficult but not impossible.

'Tis fun to stir up the pot occasionally if only to make sure folks here are alive and kicking.

Few people are as much in awe of Horowitz as I am, but sometimes I can't resist being a bit wicked. (And yes, I have heard Sergio Tiempo... no slouch, that one!)

Dude, have you even HEARD the Horowitz Walstein recording?

Cause what you have written suggests you are not familiar with the recording.

Yes, the octave glissando is not too difficult to execute on a piano in good condition.

Go listen to the recording, and hopefully you will understand what I mean. He doesn't PLAY the glisando. He plays OCTAVES.

Of course I've heard the recording. I probably listen to it about once a week.

And you are telling me you have seen a number of students play the octave glissandi the way Horowitz does?

Please, anyone doubting that octaves were 'his forte', do yourself a favour and listen at around 6:05 in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DvTvWoBxKw&feature=related

hello..


i was kind of kidding there.. at least tongue in cheek so to speak, justanotherpianist. All of his playing is his forte. (i love the photos of H and R in this film you linked.. so young and fresh.)

lol I know what you mean, apple. Still, in all my days I have not come across a Rach 3 with the same fury in that passage.

....and those are just his left hand octaves...

I've never heard any part of his Rach 3! It is awesome!... the best I've heard ever.

That's maybe as good an example as could be imagined for what I said about "musicianship" being subjective to an extent that people could not even agree on what's involved in it. IMO what you said has nothing whatsoever to do with their musicianship.

"Musicianship" to me is an inner quality, actually a set of inner qualities, that are manifested in one's playing. Unless one plays extremely little stuff or not enough of a range to show those qualities, the amount and types of repertoire that he/she plays have no bearing.

And as long as we're on the subject of collaborative repertoire, one of the most impressive things I ever came across about Horowitz's "musicianship" was his performance of the Dichterliebe with Fischer-Dieskau in the mid-'70's at a big celebration where numerous greats performed. It floored me, not because I would have doubted that he had the "musicianship" to do the music and the collaboration so well, while fully still being 'Horowitz,' but because (I assumed) he was so "out of practice" on 'accompanying' for lieder (like maybe 50 years worth), plus that his "personality" might have gotten in the way of it. And it didn't; it enhanced it.

I think the people who've uploaded Horowitz's 1983 performances to YouTube should be rounded up and shot. To anthologize and present a pianist's worst performances for all the world to see shows a lack of respect and decency, and does nothing to promote the arts or the artist.

Sometimes I worry about the state of our culture. We seem to think we deserve to have access to everyone's worst moments, and we turn everything into a reality show. (Like this thread, for example. It started out as a discussion of Horowitz's octave technique, and it quickly became one of those phony television contests: Who's octaves are best? Who gets voted off OctaveSurvivor this week? Only Argerich and Horowitz remain, who will win?" In the real world of people who haven't lost their brain cells to television, there is no such contest. We get to enjoy both pianists.

Did you have the great good fortune to actually be there, or is this available on recording somewhere?

I think it's of tremendous interest. There are many good things in the octave etude (including a fine middle section and a few bars at the end where he really pulls it all together and gives a glimpse of what he would have been like in his prime). The C sharp minor Etude is absolutely superb and there are many good things in Carnaval, despite memory lapses. I was actually very surprised how fine the playing is, after hearing all the stories. If momentary errors mean disaster, then it's a disaster. Personally, I'd far sooner look past them (no matter how many) and hear how much wonderful stuff is also on offer.

Calm down.

Yeah.. I see what you are saying (long-windedly.. ). But I am not so wildly far off.. Breadth of repertoire allows opportunities to experience versatility, more complex voicing, understnandng the role of entries by other instruments, harmonizing with them, varying your technique to fit a different style and purpose of the music etc.. It is not breadth in the quantitative sense, ie playing more pieces..
Bt yes sure, the definition of musicianship can be subjective.. Just not as subjective as you present it to be..

Why? He's right.

Nope. He's WRONG.

Horowitz remains on OCTAVESURVIVOR!

Everyone else has been voted off.

It's not about the music.... it's about the OCTAVES!

OCTAVESURVIVOR.

He may be right, but he's still taking what is supposed to be a lighthearted discussion rather too seriously. Mind you, many people on here are too prone to bouts of sensationalism. Like, chill out dudes.

--------------Horowitz
--------------Rubinstein
--------------
--------------
--------------
--------------
--------------
--------------
--------------
--------------Argerich....zzzzzz
--------------

Wasn't there, but have it on LP.
I was going to tell more about it, but I can do better than that -- I can show you.
It's on youtube (in 3 parts), with an image of the LP right at the beginning (and you can see some of the other names that performed at the concert).



Horowitz's playing is (as usual) a little controversial. Some feel he didn't do the usual good collaborative thing that one should do. I feel what I said.

Thanks -- but please show me any words or phrases that you think were extraneous.


Since you want me to be briefer, I will:
You're wrong.

Look how different our definitions are. If you really think Argerich's playing more chamber music has anything to do with a comparison of their musicianship (I can't tell if you do, because you seemed perhaps to somewhat take it back or minimize it in that last post).....if you do, then our definitions are very, very far apart.

P.S. I could have done without one of those "very's."

Where's Horowitzian when we need him?

Try Tiempo T1 in the YouTube search box for Sergio Tiempo's octaves.

Then, if the spirit moves you, give his other YouTube performances a look.

He's a friend and former student of Argerich's.

Bech

at Palindrome..



WOW

Nice link, Apple!
I had forgotten that at that concert Horowitz also played a movement of the Tchaikovsky Trio (with Stern & Rostropovich).

....and here that is too:

I did not take it back. Not sure where/why you "detected" that.
Actually the fact that his lieder playing impressed you by its "musicianship" speaks in favor of my definition, like it or not. To clarify again: I am not equating musicianship simply with "playing chamber music", but proposing that doing so brilliantly speaks additional volumes about an artist's musical abilities. In fact dismissing that component altogether when comparing those two otherwise very accomplished artists, is odd, IMHO!!

Good grief, bloody hell. Rubinstein's octaves over Argerich? What are you smoking? There is a lot I admire about Rubinstein -and those treacherous octaves in the Chopin F minor Fantasy are well addressed- but in general Rubinstein's octaves are the Toyota Camry compared to Argerich's BMW 3 series.

Watch this interesting interview with Sir Charles Groves. There is some great footage of Argerich's octaves (they are really awesome), also her priceless English: 'I am not afraid of speed on the contrary, on the contrary that is my problem.'

Sorry, I was sidetracked on the musicality comments, though a very young Rubinstein showed evidence of playing octaves as he pleased. Argerich is very fast but I'm bored by her playing. It sounds very thoughtless and rushed to me. (of course I don't expect you to agree with this either)

Well of course not, no more than we agree politically.

At least disagreements over Argerich do not constitute a danger to the well being humanity. Ha ha!

BTW, please change my name on the Liszt e-cital to 'argerichfan', not 'Argerichfan'. Always the small capital 'a' out of respect.

Practising the 'Preludio' is going well, but it is not a piece new to my repertoire. Just trying to get the damn thing back into my hands.

Yes, some want humanity to continue while others prefer to have humans mimic the behaviour of ants.


OK


Mine are all new to me, but I always meant to add them.

So you just started? Get to work, matey!

I'm working harder on this than most things in a long time. Getting back on topic, I think the thing that makes Horowitz's octaves so compelling is the way he finishes them. For instance, in the G minor Ballade ascending runs he accelerates them to the last note. I've noticed that he drops a thumb here and there, but the overall effect is hair-raising. Katsaris has some fast octaves too.

Hamelin's octaves > Horowitz's octaves, in my personal opinion. They are every bit as fast and sound much more refined to me.

Most definitely, Katsaris is in a class by himself.

Why is he not considered one of the top pianists today? I'll take him over that silly Asian (whatever his name is) anyday.

I just made 6000 posts. Cheers!

More so than Argerich?

His octaves are tremendous.

Whee!! I made 2316 posts! Let's celebrate!

The world shall never know where I stand on that issue!

A Starbucks latte for you.

Me, I'll take a fine French wine. Not real big on the California stuff...

I didn't realize there was an issue.

I'm not a coffee drinker, actually. How does hot chocolate sound?

No even better, how about a nice big

But listen to this bloke:

Thanks anyway, OSK, I don't do sugar, I'm one of them dreaded 'health food' freaks. No fast food, no processed food, I always eat healthy.

Now I'm trying to justify why that medium-rare steak tasted so awesome last night. And then there was the garlic bread, the blue-cheese salad dressing, the deep fried calamari with succulent sauce, baked potatoes with rich sour cream, broccoli with cheddar cheese sauce, it was all so grotesque. And I'm not even mentioning the wine or dessert, nor even the beautiful waiters.

Damn. Sometimes it's so hard to be a liberal.

Hey dude, I just meant that I get the hot chocolate (or Orange Crush, haha), and you get whatever your heart most desires!

By the way, I like that video you posted!

Aha!!!
(Gotta try that.....)

Isn't this essentially the Horowitz take on Liszt's wedding march?

Before I post it, two things: Mendelssohn is underrated, and someday I would love to get married.

I consider him one of the top pianists today.

Yes, since cattle rearing creates more greenhouse gases than cars, I can see why you have difficulty justifying your politics.

No, I have no difficulty justifying my politics. Conservatives routinely ignore scientific evidence because by nature they are programmed to think that the planet is theirs for the taking. I see this attitude so often. Sorry, mate.

Poor old Charles, waiting for the camera to stop rolling. Standing there wondering if he's gonna find out if her reputation is just reputation.

Maybe overall as a composer, because I've sung some of his music in choir and it is AWESOME, but I'm having trouble getting into his piano music besides the Variations Serieuses.

Nasty.

I would love to have got to know Sir Charles. He seems so lovely.

You can visit his ashes in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral. They're in one of the chapels. Stanford -and I believe Parry- are in the floor.