Originally posted by Derulux:
It just amazes me that people say, "Nobody could play like Horowitz!" and then they bring up some recording from 1930 that is their favorite (or the '51 Reiner Rach 3 if you prefer). The quality on that recording is absolutely horrible. HORRIBLE. If one were making a comparison solely based on recordings, by far the obvious choice would be a modern pianist, whose recordings are so much better that, despite whatever quality an ancient pianist may have had, there is such poor representation of it since their deaths, and the modern pianist should be selected every time (if one were choosing musically). But I know many people just pick "names" because they are names, and this is what I wanted to get at.

I've listened to many of Rachmaninoff's, Horowitz's, Rubinstein's, "blah blah blah" recordings, and have been turned away by almost 95% of those that come before 1960 (which, in the case of Rachmaninoff, is all of them). The quality is just so bad that you really can't tell what is going on. So, it surprises me when someone says they prefer those old, horrible recordings (regardless of who's playing) to modern recordings, which, by far, better preserve the music.

The reason I asked your age is because you may be old enough to have been alive to hear these people in concert, in which case I'd say you'd have a very valid argument for why those pianists are better. (You can compare equal mediums...one in concert to the other in concert.) But to say those old ratty recordings are better than modern ones? I just don't get it.... [/b]