greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (09/18/84)
Jeff Winslow's comments on Horowitz correspond with what I've heard from his recordings and contradict the general public and critical image of Horowitz as one of the great musicians of the century. Virtuosity, the spectacular mastery of an instrument (which can include voice and the conductor's ability to manipulate and orchestra) can produce a dazzling display that tricks the audience into thinking they are hearing great musicianship. In the case of Horowitz (also, to my ears, the late Stokowski among conductors, Heifetz among violinists, and occasionally Caballe among singers) the ability to produce remarkable individual sounds, dynamic gradations and a palette of "colors" is not only NOT used to serve the shape and flow of the music, but, in fact, impedes it. This sort of blatant disregard for musical continuity, as well as a lack of economy in the use of technical resources, make for performances that can be stunning at first hearing but "go bad on you" on repeated playings. The pianist who gained critical notoriety for this sort of musically insensitive display, but who, to my ears (at least on the basis of recordings), did not deserve it was Van Cliburn. In fact, I've found it typical of musicians in general (particularly when I was studying at the San Francisco Conservatory) to sneer at the mere mention of his name. I never heard him perform live, but the recordings of Chopin pieces, the Beethoven Sonatas, and the Mozart Sonatas I've heard are masterful performances in which technical achievements are harnessed to produce powerfully shaped, cohesive performances. I've heard the same operation producing interesting performances of music that I would otherwise not find interesting, such as the Tchaikovsky first piano concerto and the 2nd and 3rd Rachmaninov concerti. Maybe someone who's heard him live knows of performances that caused his critical downfall, which differ from the recordings I've heard. - Greg Paley