Just discovered this 'cheat' that Horowitz does.... :-)

(I know it should be "did," but y'know, when something lives on youtube or on any recording, it goes on forever.)

Chopin's A-flat Polonaise came up on another thread and it made me look back at some videos of it. One of them was this Horowitz performance. I had heard at least a couple of his recordings of the piece many times before, probably including this one -- but had never noticed this. You could say he's "cheating"; I think it's an example of his pianistic genius.

In general I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about such things. I think they can be very creative and wonderful; it all depends. My old teacher Seymour Bernstein felt likewise despite liking to call them "swindles" (with a smile), and enjoyed showing us 'swindles' he had come up with. And I had read (never exactly observed) that Horowitz was a master of knowing when he could leave out notes because the ear would fill them in.

Check out what he does with the left hand near the end of all the octave runs.
(at 1:10, 1:48, 3:07, and 6:31)



I hadn't ever HEARD the omissions, and never would have if not that I saw on the video what he was doing and then went back repeatedly to listen for it.

Obviously it's not because he "couldn't" play the left hand scale as written; he's doing it for effect. At first I thought it was just to be able to play the top note more brilliantly, but then I realized that it seemed like more than that: the interruption of the left hand enables a more brilliant crescendo to the top, via that sudden draw-down of the dynamic before the last few notes. IMO it works terrifically.

I'm sure that some people would think this is an atrocity. What do you all think of it?

Noticed that a long time ago. Pretty funny trick, eh?

(I'm pretty sure that would get you disqualified at ANY competition.. but hey, he's Horowitz..)

It's part of his genius.

Hopefully not!

Maybe it would just make half of the jury walk out in disgust. Which half, though, would be up for grabs.

Or maybe they would ring the bell?

Competitions most of the times aren't about the number of right notes you play whilst you perform.

The Master was quite elderly-I saw this performance in Russia (on tv, of course). I think he was just conserving his left hand strength. Anyone that plays op. 53 knows it's a left hand workout. You should listen to an exposition from his earlier years: flawless, and at an incredible pace. As much as I love his playing, though, I must admit I never cared much for his rendering of Chopin's works.

Pardon my putting it this way, but that's total nonsense.

BTW, in the interest of fairness and balance ....let's hear from anyone who might disagree -- i.e. who thinks the reason Horowitz did it had anything to do with conserving his LH strength, or that it was for any other reason but the noted musical purposes.

P.S. Welcome to the site! Don't worry if people disagree with you sometimes.

Most of us couldn't afford a ticket to go and see Horowitz play live when he was alife, particularly as close as the camera filming his fingers, but we can afford to click on youtube and see it for free and critique his playing.

I did hear him live, and couldn't tell a thing.

I was in too much in a daze.

The main thing I noticed (the first time), as soon as he walked out, was....he was so little! (He wasn't really "little" but he was little compared to this huge image I had of him.)

5'9" is not so little... But I know what you are saying. He was a GIANT in his art.

Some of his quotes (at the bottom of the page) as well as other quick facts about his life.

Besides that I don't think he was really quite 5'9" he was wiry in a way that made him look quite slight. But yes -- the main thing was what you just said, plus that his image was of something even huger than that. And, the main direct representation of him that I'd had was his recordings, which gave me an impression of him being massive.

"Perfection itself is imperfection." I really like this one.

Most of us have good reason to love it.

My opinion is based on earlier performances, and his live performance of Rach op 30 in (I believe it was) 1978, in which there were numerous mistakes, some pretty glaring. The video of the Op 53 is several years later. No offense taken; we all have an opinion.

very interesting! thanks for that

The video of the Op 53 is several years later. No offense taken; we all have an opinion.

Of course, we're all entitled to our opinions - but in reality, we'll never know Horowitz's motivation for doing this.

Maybe, but I have no doubt.

And I'd guess (with doubt, however) ....that you don't either, at least broadly.

I have no doubt that he did it for effect. (And I said what I thought the effect was, but never mind.)
Do you doubt that? Do you think there's any possibility he left out a few of the last few notes of a left hand scale to conserve strength, or any other such thing?

I've no idea why VH did what he did there, but when I read the strength conservation theory I actually laughed out loud.

I think he did it just for fun.

That's a lot more possible than to conserve energy.

But IMO not very possible.

BTW, I'm not sure why y'all feel so unsure about why he did it, because we can hear what the effect is. When there's a distinct effect like that, I kinda think it was because he wanted that effect.

That gets to the whole thing about "cheats." I think maybe many people assume that the reason for doing them is just to make something easier, maybe often because someone feels he can't play it "as written." I'm saying that often it has to do with the effect you want, and how to best create it.

Horowitz frequently rewrites passages to get the effect he wanted. For instance, there's the concluding upward scale passage in Chopin's Scherzo No.1 which he plays as interlocking octaves......even in his old age.

Of course, there's always the possibility that he is conserving his energy (a few calories, no doubt ) playing that scale like that, rather than as a normal two-handed scale we youngsters would do....

Maybe he just didn't feel like leaning to the right.

Nah - you're right !! No doubt whatsoever !! I figured he was doing it for effect - rather than conserving strength.

Well now I have no idea what you're being serious about or not, even with the exclamation marks and haha, maybe especially because of them!

Whatever the reason, it sounded better when he didn't do it.

The scale in the Polonaise?

If that's what you mean, I don't agree. It gives a very "special effect" which IMO adds to the performance.

I'm actually agreeing with you. Seriously - why else would he do it ??

Well yeah!
But I wondered when you said "we'll never know Horowitz's motivation for doing this"....

I had more time to think about it.

Mark, I'm not sure why you think it's obvious that he did it for effect. His live performance I referenced at Lincoln Center was not very good-lots of mistakes, and he was several years older when that video was made in Moscow. No disrespect to Master VL intended; he was just at the end of his career. When you get older, you'll discover that you lose flexibility and need to conserve your strength more. I AM glad, though, that a few of you found my comments entertaining.

Do you mean older than sixty something??????

That's exactly what I mean.

Great - that means its probably downhill for me from now on.....

Fortunately, I can still get through the Opus 53 just fine.....

Me too, but I'm pretty sure Horowitz was at least 80 when that video was made.

Seems to me that the image of Horowitz and what he was is fading. I think that to those of us who were around for any amount of his lifetime, the idea that he left out those few notes near the top of the LH scale for anything except effect is fairly unthinkable, and the fact that some people wonder about it seems unfathomable.

I'm not saying this would apply to any and all such changes that he might have ever made. I can imagine at least the possibility that some of them might have been to make it 'easier' to play or (at least at some points in his very late years, but not at the time of this performance) to "conserve energy." But this particular thing?? Absolutely not. Look at what it is, for chrissake -- a straight scale. And look at what else he does in this performance. Does it seem like he's anywhere close to running short on energy? Is it not the case that he does play lots and lots of other things in the piece that are much harder, from any standpoint, and much more taxing of energy?

The answer is yes. The idea that he did it for anything but to achieve a desired and original effect is (sorry folks) ludicrous.

Mark, let's be objective-that wasn't a very good performance. I've got a lot of his recordings from the 1930's to present, and when I noticed a change it was adding notes and/or difficulty to a piece. As several people said, we'll all never know; we should just enjoy his legacy

I've now done some research on this to be able to comment appropriately. For those who don't know (I didn't before looking it up), this concert took place on June 1, 1987. It was one of the last appearances Horowitz ever made; the last public recital occurring on June 21, 1987, just 20 days later. Horowitz died 2 years and 5 months after this performance.

The Polonaise was the final piece he played of an 80-minute program, though he played three encores after.


It is unfortunate that I was never able to see Horowitz live. The first live classical concert I saw was just a couple years after his death. However, in reading much about his final years as a performer, it seems well-documented that, in his 80's, he substituted finesse and coloring for bravura. I wouldn't say he was completely incapable of technical feats. As Mark points out, there are many difficult feats surrounding those scales that he accomplished with seemingly little effort. Indeed, the scale itself-- if he can play the first three octaves without a problem, undoubtedly he could have played the last four notes.

So, I tend to lean on the side that this was for coloration.. a desired effect that, for whatever reason, he chose. It seems to me, in listening, that it makes the very top of the scale a little clearer, that it "rings out" a little better when the other notes drop out. Was Horowitz less mobile and hence unable to lean over, as suggested, in order to bring this out while playing both hands? Possibly not. He still played the top note in the left hand. Was it his use of pedal that made him decide to drop those few notes in favor of a certain clarity? Possibly. There's a thousand reasons why he might have decided to drop those notes. But I don't think any of those reasons start with the fact that he couldn't finish the scale of which he'd already played three octaves..


What I do find amazing is that Horowitz made between $650,000 and $750,000 (in today's money) on that one concert date (ticket receipts). You'd think for $750k, he could have played the extra four notes..

Oy.

In fact, double oy.

I don't pretend to be "objective" about any such thing, but as best I can tell you, this was an extraordinary performance.

Mark, I have to admit.. if I close my eyes I can't even notice the 'effect'.

So?

(I can.)

Wherever Horowitz is now he would be laughing at this thread. Majoring in minoring.

I also noticed this when Horowitz in Moscow came out on VHS. Years later, I was able to obtain a copy of the 1978 White House recital - and darned if he doesn't do the same thing there. (The difference is that in 1978 he plays the scales faster and with less pedal - likely as the East Room of the White House is different acoustically from a concert hall.) So, I pulled out my old Horowitz records and listened to them at 16rpm (where you can hear each note - although the pitch is off) and he was doing the same thing back in 1945.

Based on that, I concluded that VH did this to "drive the point home" on that final b-flat, making the scale into a crescendo - which is not easy to do on an upward run.

One may approve of the cheat Horowitz devised or not. But it's definitely NOT a concession to old age.

That was my first ever tech trick.

And it was Horowitz that I used it on -- trying to figure out how he did some of what he did.

The main piece was Chopin's C# minor Mazurka, Op. 30 #4. It wasn't fingerwork wizardry I was trying to figure out, it was his magical rhythms. The way he played this mazurka seemed to defy any quantifiable rhythms, and in fact before I saw the sheet music I couldn't imagine how it was notated. Although, all I had to do was listen to just about anybody else's recording, and the rhythm was obvious. Even after getting the score and working on the piece myself, I still couldn't figure out exactly what he was doing with the rhythm. Then I realized I could do this trick you mentioned.

And doggone, when I slowed it down by half, the rhythm sounded just about exactly normal, i.e. just like it's written and how other people play it. So it remained a mystery. More recently, somehow or other I sort of got the hang of how he did it and kinda sorta kinda could do it.

BTW I think it was our banned (or maybe just 'inactive') member "PartyPianist" (who I suspect has been back under "another" identity -- 'another' being in quotes because it's really the same identity ) who posted a recording of this mazurka that was an excellent imitation of the Horowitz, if we forget for the moment about the recording quality, and professed not to know anything about Horowitz's recordings.

There are at least two studio recordings where he didn't feel the need to "drive the point home". Since he did it live, he may have had another reason to 'cheat'.

Triple oy.

Something that's gotten lost here is, what he did isn't a technical facilitation. It's a complication. It doesn't make it easier to play the passage. It makes it harder.

I'm sure people could say, 'maybe it's harder for you, what makes you think it was harder for Horowitz.' I don't really; I think it wasn't hard for him either way, from a strictly technical standpoint. But I'm saying that it appears that in general, for human beings it would seem to be harder this way. For what it's worth, I tried it a few times this way. It's dam hard to coordinate, and I found it very hard to do. In fact, I couldn't really do it and realized that it would take an awful lot of work to have a chance to make it work, consistently and reliably.

Anybody who doubts that, try it yourself!
And remember, it's not just a thing of 'playing the notes.' You have to do it fluently and with some 'effect.'

I tried a few months ago - and failed miserably.

Composers are not slave drivers; people say there are "degrees" to which you are "allowed" to interpret a piece...but, um...the very nature of saying such is in and of itself admitting that the line of allowance may be different for everyone. I mean, um, unless I'm very much mistaken, Chopin himself encouraged improvisation and individuality within his (and others') music; I see no wrong in Horowitz (who I must say isn't my favourite pianist) carrying out this wish. Who amongst us hasn't added the eighth below here and an unwritten ornament there? I don't know, maybe you haven't But, um, I'm sure (without doubt ) Horowitz was just trying to play the piece how he, at the time, *felt* it should be played...if that's the case...fair enough, right?
Xxx

As somebody who trained in advanced classical guitar, I find it amusing how bent out of shape pianists get about changing notes here or there. In the guitar world, yes even the virtuosic classical world, it is pretty much accepted that all guitarists engage in some level or personalisation of pieces. Sometimes it's a tonal thing, sometimes it's to flesh out the harmony a bit more, sometime notes are omitted to permit better voice leading or ease of chord changes. Guitarists accept that composers are fallible and there are sometimes ways to enhance what they were aiming for. This seems to be far more contentious in the piano world. Piano seems to adopt a certain competitive aspect such that it almost feels like musical olympics. I don't advocate messing with the harmony or melody lines in classical works, but minor things like a doubled note, an omitted tone in a chord etc, for it's no big deal at all. I appreciate such individuality.

For me, this thread is the very definition of a storm in a teacup.

double post

The degree that some posters go to repeat their ideas over and over again and insist they are right about such a minor matter almost beyond belief. Sometimes PW makes the United States Congress
look highly functional in comparison.

We add to things when we can.

Some people, like you, apparently would like to subtract.

As I pointed out a few weeks ago and as hopefully you have noticed, I have been trying to be friendly and supportive to your posts whenever possible, despite your hostility and continued hostility. I hope that eventually you will be able to respond in kind.
Just leaving me alone would be fine too.

You said the same thing about 20 times in this thread...often repeating yourself several times in a single post. You continually said that an opinion other than the one you have were just wrong. I don't think many like having conversations like this where one person hogs the conversation and is endlessly repetitive.

I don't think anything can make Congress look functional.. except maybe an episode of Honey Boo-Boo.

Ah, the love-fest continues !!! You guys live in the same city. Why not get together for coffee ?? You might actually like each other !!

Not in person we wouldn't, but hopefully on here we can coexist.

In real life, we gravitate toward or away from people by good instinct, according to how we mesh or not. On the net, we're together with people we wouldn't ever get involved with in real life. It's one of the great things about it, but also one of the challenges.


edit: John's post (below) made me realize that this didn't come out how I intended it. I didn't mean we meet only such people on the net; I meant also.

" On the net, we're together with people we wouldn't ever get involved with in real life. It's one of the great things about it, but also one of the challenges."

Mark, I take issue with this statement. I tend to accumulate friends,many dating back to grade school. I am involved with sports cars as much as things piano and have since accumulated what have proven to be some of my closest friends by way of the internet. These various groups tend to throw like-minded people together and you will meet and interact with many folks that 15 years ago, you simply couldn't have come in contact with. Naturally there is a weeding out process, but I wouldn't be so inclined to discount it.

As to VH's performance, I tend to agree with you. For the assertions of less than adequate facility in his later years, that's balderdash. If you read some of the bios, there are quite a few assertions of prescription drug overuse and also a less than adequate practice regime. If you are able to watch the performance of the Rach.3 with Mehta there are some dastardly sections that he literally flies through cleanly and effortlessly and others maybe less so, but musically fabulous. Though for instance the early performances of the concerto are more technically satisfying, I wouldn't trade them for five minutes of the later performance. For Funerailles or the 6th Rhapsody, give me the early stuff! Was that old "Homage to Liszt" album ever remastered?

John, my post must not have been clear, because I agree with everything you said, 100%. In my attempt to be brief (and I think you can understand why I would have wanted to make such a post brief), I was unclear. I didn't mean that on the net we come into contact only or mainly with un-like-minded people or people that we wouldn't meet or be drawn to in real life; I meant also. The multitude and breadth of whom we meet and interact with on the net (and sometimes, relatively rarely, whom we can't help interacting with, which is the main difference I meant) is extremely enriching, but in some instances it's also (as I gently put it) a challenge.

BTW my introduction to online forums was on a car site.
For quite a while it was the only thing I did on the computer except for eBay and Amazon.

About "Homage to Liszt": I still have my vinyl.
Dunno if it's been remastered, and I never check on things like that, because I wouldn't prefer them to the old vinyl. If anything, I wish modern CD's and the like were done on old vinyl.

Of course, I appreciate and respect your feelings.

It was just a suggestion - but one I've thought about making for several months - and now I've done it.

or a duel?

or a duet?

Java would probably be sufficient.

Java? No.

They need to get tanked.

I don't drink.

I could practically be a Mormon.

How many wives do you have?

(Except for that part.)

Vinyl doesn't compare to the warmth of wax cylinders.

Getting harder and harder to tell your sarcasm from your straight.

Damon, do you even have any wax cylinders?

No.

This is too funny. I have been mostly offline for a few months. I see that not much has changed.

Sarcasm lost methinks.

I noticed. Did you get involved with too many "tea party" events to participate?

No, she is too intelligent.

Great comeback!

Cheers, Damon!

Hear, hear. Couldn't agree more. First I was intrigued by the subject of the post. Then I took the trouble to go to all the timings he so carefully laid out for us. Then I looked at them again because at first I couldn't see anything I could remotely call a swindle. Then I saw at the very last 1/2 second his left hand stops before his right. That I didn't hear anything lacking either says something about the video's audio, my hearing, or simply that it's still Chopin's lovely music even if 1/2 second of 1/2 the hands in use don't play about 4 or 5 notes.

Virtuosity is a thrill, but not as an end of itself. This piano world of ours has gotten too enamored of virtuosity and it seems at the price of the music. imho, of course

Nice post!


Just for the record ....I think it's just 2 notes! (I think he omits only the G and A, maybe also the preceding F.)

ok i revise: 1/4 second of 1/2 the hands then.