I'm not really persuaded. I would wager that anyone deeply familiar with the active performing and recorded repertoire of the current (or recent) generation of performing artists could produce a list at least as long, if not longer, than your 'Exhibit A'.

The point was supposedly that such a limited repertoire wouldn't be viable today. The point of my little list is that it clearly is viable, not that there are no well-known performers around with larger repertoires today. That was even true in the Horowitz and Rubinstein era.

Plus ça change, then, I suppose.

The basis for my perception is that there was a time when Rubinstein and Horowitz enjoyed (and shared) a dominant status in the realm of classical pianists. They were, to my knowledge, unrivaled in stature -- and that seems at odds now with their limited repertoires. Sure, other pianists of their generation may have had far bigger repertoires -- but they didn’t enjoy that kind of ‘stardom’.

So who today enjoys the pre-eminent stature that was once accorded to Horowitz and Rubinstein? I don’t think anybody does, and certainly not Kissin, Perahia or even Argerich. It seems to me that there’s a wider and more level playing field of super-talented pianists. And if some of them do have limited repertoires, I think there’s a heightened expectation that plenty of others will have repertoires that are broad and deep. In a nutshell, the level of glory seems lower and more evenly spread now -- and popular expectation of a wider range of artistry in general seem, at the same time, more widespread as well.

That was my point, and I expect you see it differently. Hey, different people have different perceptions! Plus ça change. It’s déjà vu all over again!

Should there be a correlation between their stature as pianists and the number of pieces they recorded? I know of no other artists of their generation that played as well.

I don't know.

On the one hand, I guess there shouldn't be any such correlation (although I know that many people would dispute your second sentence, and claim that many artists of their generation did in fact play as well or better).

On the other hand, though, I expect more from 'artists' (and I think you and I both use that word in the same sense). For both men, their fame, fan base and recording contracts were secure. Now I'm not saying that they sat on their laurels by any means, but I do think that they could have chosen to do more had they wanted to. They had the means to do so, but took few risks outside of a narrow comfort zone.

That said, though, I acknowledge that Horowitz championed the music of Clementi and Scriabin when neither was in fashion -- and Rubinstein, as I mentioned, seems to have had an affinity for Spanish composers.

I just wanted more from them, and in a 'perfect world' there would have been.

I can agree with that! So much so, that for me it only applies to these two artists.

Perhaps their dominant status was due, in part, to the fact that they outlived many of their pianist peers - and continued to concertize almost to the very end.

Their "peers" included Hofmann, Lhevinne, Rachmaninof, Schnabel, Backhaus, Gieseking, Cortot, Haskil and Casadeus - all of whom died between 1942 and 1969.

Actually, neither of them is my top choice for, well, much of anything!

Dinu Lipatti's Schumann knocks Rubinstein's out of the water; Kapell's Rachmaninoff recording are some of the most powerful and gorgeous recordings... ever. They were part of the "dying in the 50s" thing, however. Among those that lived longer, Richter, and Gilels are both higher on my list than either Horowitz and Rubinstein. Gilels had the most unbelievable Brahms concerti ever recorded, IMHO.

Horowitz has his visceral charm, and Rubinstein has a different and excellent touch, but neither had the breadth... others just speak to me more. I'm not sure why.