Talk:Vladimir Horowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Birthdate

It seems there is some dispute over the date of Horowitz' birth. I checked some sources: he Macmillan, Columbia and Hutchinson encyclopedias say 1904; Britannica, the Penguin Dictionary of Music and the Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music say 1903. I would say that those on the side of 1903 are more trustworthy in this area, and I suspect that 1904 is a widely-distributed innaccuracy, but those saying 1904 are not exactly useless, and it's hard to know for sure. Does anybody have an explanation for the discrepency? If not, perhaps we should say something like "1903 (1904 according to some sources)". --Camembert

I was hoping to have the answer for you, but my two most reliable sources (Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians [Nicolas Slonimsky]--and my big New Grove) have 1903 and 1904 respectively. Probably having both dates in the article is the best idea. (That may be the first case I have ever seen of a disputed date between those two sources, which is not mentioned as disputed in either!) Antandrus 00:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Since the centennial celebrations all appear to have been last year, I'm betting my chips on 1903, and I bet the New Grove is actually wrong (fancy that!) Antandrus 00:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's exactly what convinced me as well (see his page on Sony, for instance). IMO 1904 deserves a footnote at most, and as the majority seems to agree that 1903 is probably correct, it should certainly not be parenthesized while 1904 remains the given birthdate like Marcus2 has done. :-) — Pladask 00:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, as the weight of evidence seems to be in favour of 1903, I've switched the dates so it reads "1903 (or 1904)" - I hope Marcus will be OK with that. --Camembert
The truth about 1903 has been known for over 25 years now. See my update in the article. Cheers JackofOz 7 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)
Wikipedia was referenced on the 1903/1904 controversy by this news story. Grover cleveland 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the reference to some sources stating 1904. The only sources with 1904 I still see are old copies of encyclopedias and the like, out of date sources.THD3 12:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian/Russian/American

Whether in Berdichev or Kiev, Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire in 1903. These seems to be some disagreement as to whether Horowitz should be considered Ukrainian, Russian, or American. However, it should be clear that Horowitz was an American citizen from 1944 onward. In a 1986 interview, on the eve of his concerts in Russian, he specifically asked to be referred to as an American pianist. "You can just call me an American pianist, if you please. I've lived here for over 40 years, longer than in Russia. This is my home." THD3 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no dispute that he was born in Ukraine. Whether that makes him Ukrainian-born or Russian-born is a moot point. Our article refers to his birth in Ukraine, yet it gives the Russian version of his name before the Ukrainian version. I can only presume his native language would have been Ukrainian, regardless of whatever his citizenship might have been. I think we should reverse the order and put his Ukrainian name before his Russian one. JackofOz 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. THD3 00:09, 12 October 2006 (UT
One cannot presume that his native language would be Ukrainian. I've been there and aside from the western regions, most of the country speaks Russian. Russian was the dominant language for centuries and Ukrainian was only introduced into the curriculum after their recent independence. Even still, most Ukrainians I met there were more comfortable with Russian, just like most Irish will prefer to speak English rather than Irish Gaelic. I highly doubt that Horowitz ever spoke Ukrainian.24.235.124.106 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Horowitz's native language is not the point. In fact, the preferred language in his home was French. Horowitz was born in Berdichev (or Kiev) both of which are in Ukraine. As for nationality, Horowitz was an American bu choice.THD3 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was just referring to JackofOz's remark and his emphasis on the Ukrainian version of his name. 24.235.124.106 00:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. 24.235.124.106 is incorrect. Ukrainian language was always in the curriculum in Ukraine, however since 1974 parents of children who were born outside of Ukraine could have their children exempted from learning the language. The cities, particularly on the left bank were primarilly Russian speaking, with Kiev being about 50% Russian and 50% Ukrainian. Berdichev was outside of Kiev and was a country town which would normally have spoken Ukrainian, however, Berdichev was known for its large Jewish population - some 70% and Horowitz would have spoken Yiddish at home. On the street to communicaste with the peasants he would have spoken Ukrainian. At the conservatory he would have spoken Russian and French.. Ethnically he was Jewish. It is interesting to note that his name is transcribed as Horowitz in English as if it were tranlitterated via Ukrainian. If it were transliterated from the Russian it would have been pronounced and written as Gorovitz. As interesting note is that his sister taught at the Kharkiv conservatory and she could speak Ukrainian. --Bandurist 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

%

Perhaps being of Ukranian Jewish origin he would have spoken Yiddish, however it has never been documented that Horowitz knew more than a few words of Yiddish. By his own account, Horowitz stated his father considered himself to be an "Aristocrat" and French was the language used in the house. Horowitz has even stated that he dreamed in French.THD3 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And here we have an interesting point - Is Horowitz Ukrainian? And what relationship has he to Ukrainian culture? Ukraine is a multicultural state with some 300 ethnicities, some micro ethnic groups which do not exist outside of Ukraine. Certainly he was born in Ukraine, he was trained in Ukraine. When he lived there he was a citizen of Russia, but he was not ethnically Ukrainian. Labelling him as a Ukrainian musician is in my opinion inaccurate. Labelling him as a musician born in Ukraine is more accurate.

Regarding his knowledge of Yiddish, I believe that he had it. Ehat ever use it may have been to him I cannot say, however a third of the European Jews kived in Ukraine. Unfortunately I gave my copy of his biography to someone in Kiev so I cannot check right now. --Bandurist 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We may not be certain as to Horowitz' knowledge of Yiddish, but we know for sure that he knew Russian well. Lazar Berman, in his article to David Dubal's book "Remembering Horowitz", writes about his Russian-spoken encounter with Horowitz, and notes that the older pianist spoke the language beautifully. MUSIKVEREIN 14:45, 30 July, 2007

Having studied at the Kiev Conservatory, he would have had command of Russian. In his youth he would have certainly had some sort of command of Ukrainian. His sister did. However, his relationship to Ukrainian culture is tenacious, despite the fact that they have a piano competition in Kiev named after him. I do remember him speaking Russian in a recording of his Moscow recital. Why he did not travel to Kiev to perform (where he studied) or to Kharkiv (where his sister taught piano) I cannot say. In my opinion ethnicity and citizenship are different things. In Horowitz's case he was ethnically Jewish and a citizen of the USA. There are people who are ethnically Russian who have Israeli citizenship who are not Jewish. --Bandurist 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Horowitz planned to visit Kiev during his 1986 tour, although he had no concerts scheduled there. He decided not to go at the last moment. It was not until he left Russia that he leared of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. It is interesting that a piano competition was named in his memory, as Horowitz specified in his will that he did not want any competition named after him.THD3 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting i.e. the will and naming of the competition. Where can I find more information about this. I would like to send it off to the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture. --Bandurist 23
45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned Lazar Berman's remark is that there could be some doubt as to how good Horowitz' command of Russian was, especially in light of Bandurist's note on the prevalence of the Ukrainian language in the country's curriculum. Since Horowitz was born and brought up in the Ukraine, one might think that he spoke Ukrainian and that his knowledge of Russian was inferior. That was not the case, though: according to Berman, despite having been out of daily contact with Russian for decades, Horowitz' command of that language was still impressive.MUSIKVEREIN 10:05, 1st August, 2007

Someone has once again restored the "Russian-American" as opposed to "Ukrainian-American". Apparently this has turned into a never-ending discussion... I don't know if this is possible under the Wikipedia rules, but if a certain subject is thoroughly discussed on the talk page and a conclusion is produced - as in the present case -, can such conclusion be imposed on the relevant article ?MUSIKVEREIN 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who made the change, however I will defend it. Horowitz is described as "Russian", "Russian-American" or "Russian born American" in countless books. See this search for example. Finding a source that explicitly identifies Horowitz as a "Ukrainian" or "Ukrainian-American" is far more difficult. Using Google Books, I was only able to find this hit, where Horowitz and Milstein are described as "Ukrainian wunderkinden". So it seems that, unless we can find some more sources that actually say Horowitz was Ukrainian (hyphenated or otherwise), defining him as such might count as original reserch. Grover cleveland 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
One thing to note is that his first name is always the Russian "Vladimir", never the Ukrainian 'Volodymyr" (except maybe in Ukraine itself). Does that not perhaps suggest a desire to associate himself with Russia rather than Ukraine? -- JackofOz 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting. I was not aware of that. I do know that Horowitz asked friends to call him "Volodya", which is a diminutive of Vladimir (rather like calling someone Hank rather than Henry).THD3 03:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Grover Cleveland's point is well taken, as is JackofOz's. I don't have any particularly strong feelings for one way or another, but I think we should try and find a way of settling this once and for all, rather than having the page altered every other day over this same issue. MUSIKVEREIN 18:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Volodya is the diminuitive of Volodymyr. Vladik is the diminuitive of Vladimir. --Bandurist 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
2 points- A family friend was a classmate of VG at the conservatory and she attested that his Russian was exemplary, but never made any mention of Yiddish. However it is safe to assume that at least some knowledge of Yiddish and Ukrainian for VG, because these were the languages of the land.

As to VOLODYA, it is a diminuitive for both the Russian and the Ukrainian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galassi (talk • contribs) 14:07, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. Volodya doesn't help one way or the other. -- JackofOz 08:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should revert the article to read "American pianist of Russian (or Ukrainian) birth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THD3 (talk • contribs) 16:22, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
It seems that there's a lot of guesswork going on here. We know he spoke Russian, French and English. Comments about him speaking Ukrainian or Yiddish are extrapolations that may or may not have any validity.99.233.79.5 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You are exactly correct. That is why Horowitz is currently listed as Russian-American in the article.THD3 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recordings

Recently, I tweaked the recordings section. I'm not sure about the best way to clarify one matter, however: RCA and HMV. The paragraph almost makes it seem as if RCA had some special arrangement with HMV to have HMV record Horowitz due to the Great Depression. Not true. ALL RCA recording artists went through HMV when recording in Europe, which was affiliated with RCA. Those recordings were distributed in the US by RCA and Europe through HMV. Indeed, when Horowitz toured England and France in 1951, he recorded two small works for HMV.THD3 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammy awards

Horowitz was nominated for a number of Grammy Awrds, and won several, as I recall. He also received a Lifetime Acheivement Award from the Grammys. I don't know much about the awards, though -- does anyone know enough of the Grammys or Horowitz (or both) to be able to add a paragraph? I'd have to go around and learn about the various awards before I could write, so I thought I'd ask and see if this knowledge is out there in Wikipediland. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality no mentioned

I find it hard to understand why there is no mention of Horowitz' homosexuality. I feel it is important to mention that he underwent very publicly acknowledged treatment for it in the 1950s. Dveej

When did he acknowledge it? Kasyapa

This has been mentioned in the Plaskin biography which was well researched and documented. Horowitz described electroshock as a "wonderful treatment which heals the nerves." THD3

[edit] Patronymic

The article has Samoilovich, but I've read his father's name was Simeon, making Vlad's patronymic Simeonovich. Can anyone confirm either way? Cheers JackofOz 13:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. I've just done a google search. Not a single hit for Simeonovich, but plenty for Samoilovich. Hmmm ... wonder where I got that idea from. JackofOz 14:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A certain 74.120.219.232 has just replaced Samoylovich with Brian (??!!). I've already reverted it. Vandalism really moves in strange ways... MUSIKVEREIN 16:10, 7 August, 2007

Regarding patronymic -

  • 1) This is a Russian convention which was introduced to Ukraine from Russia not always followed in Ukraine, particularly in Western Ukraine. Even today there is a tendency to avoid it in Western Ukraine where they use Pan (Mister) instead.
  • 2) TRANSLITERATION from either Ukrainian or Russian - Basically in the old days a numer of letters were written the same but pronounced differently in Ukrainian in comparison to Russian. In time the spelling began to reflect the manner in which it was pronounced. Thuis we have ich in Russian, and ych (slightly harder) in Ukrainian, You have the soft palitization to i in Ukraianian, whereas Russian went though a period where the language was softened but the reverted back thus the -iv endings in Ukrainian in comparison to the -ov endings in Russian. Same word but difference in regional pronouciation
  • 3 Simeon was his fathers name, however it is very Jewish. Many Jews in Ukraine changed their patronymic to a more Russian, Ukrainian, Christian version in order to lessen the anti-semitic sentiments which reigned uncontrolled in certain areas of Society. In recent times I have seen a tendency to reverse this, even in documents about musicians who passed away 40 years ago, although this is by no means common. It is just a tendency I have noticed. It may be worth while to include the Simenovych in Brackets. Just my pennies worth. --Bandurist 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous

After the quotation of his aphorism 'there are three kinds...'the text goes on to clumsily spell out what is more than covered by the adjective 'ambiguous'.In my view there is no need for this-it pratronises the reader, its less than felicitous and its redundant. Any comments? Eric A. Warbuton 02:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I must be one of the people for whom that (removed as of today's date) explanation is necessary: although I understand the meaning of the word "ambiguous", I fail to see any ambiguity in the oft-repeated "there are three kinds..." quote. Am I missing something? Dveej 15:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horowitzian?

To use the adjective 'horowitzian' in a description of Horowitz's art is illogical because of its self referencing. As a suggestion 'highly mannered' instead? Of course somewhere else in the entry a defintion of 'horowitzian' would be valuable. Any comments? Eric A. Warbuton 03:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Critics claim that his performance style is overly mannered (termed Horowitzian), and often too much so to be true to the composer's intentions." This is a ludicrous statement. He was a musician's musician, almost universally revered by his peers, by performers as diverse as Sergei Rachmaninoff and Murray Perahia. Ignorant critics who didn't understand him or the depth of his art glibly dismissed his playing as mannered. But they do that for any great artist with personality -- Richter, Gould, Von Karajan, Bernstein, etc. This reveals the deafness of most critics to his interpretive powers, and their mistaken belief that an interpreter's highest art is to perform without any expression. Can you imagine an stage actor being praised for performing in a mechanical monotone? Yet this is expected by music critics.
Simply put, he was being true to the composer's intentions. Anybody who has read eyewitness or first-hand accounts of performances by composers themselves know that liberties were not only accepted but demanded. Mozart writes of his frustration with orchestras who follow his rubato too closely, rather than let him be spontaneous like a singer. Czerny describes Beethoven making enormous dramatic pauses or frequent tempo fluctuations. Musicians even debated with Chopin whether he played his mazurkas in 3/4 or 4/4. Of the major composers, only Stravinsky expected performers to be time-keepers. Everyone else expected performers to bring the notes to life, to mzke the piano sing, to move people emotionally. Even the "objective" performances of Artur Schnabel are mannered by modern standards.
Horowitz was a direct link to the Grand Romantic tradition of pianists, and one of the greatest in history. "Horowitzian" is likely meant as an insult, but I can think of no higher praise.
I think the comment should be removed entirely, especially as the Virgil Thomson quote appears later anyhow. What I shall do is combine it with the following sentence.74.99.213.103 01:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good edit. Generally "Horowitzian" has not been used to reference any mannerisms but technical and tonal attributes.THD3 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a {{Fact}} to the "mannered" criticism. I don't doubt that he has been called mannered, but it would be nice to have a definitive citation. Personally I find that critics will use the word "mannered" when they dislike a performance but are too lazy to figure out a more precise description of what it is that they don't care for Grover cleveland 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Both Harold Schonberg and Harris Goldsmith used the "mannered" term from the 1970s onward. To the best of my knowledge, it was Goldsmith who coined the Horowitzian term, and it was meant as a complement. He wrote a positive review referring to another pianist's recording of the Rachmaninoff Second Sonata, and referred to the performance as Horowitzian.THD3 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
To me, Harold Schonberg epitomizes the "mannered" critic: magnanimous, bombastic, and simply not musical. He harshly criticized both Horowitz and Gould, and that is reason enough for me to disregard his opinions on musicians he just never could've bettered. --Seaface 07:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I think there is a misunderstanding as to Schonberg's position here. Throughout his life as a music critic, Schonberg was largely favourable to Horowitz, as shown in his books "The Great Pianists" and "The Glorious Ones" (later republished as "Virtuosi"). He even dedicated a whole work to the pianist ("Horowitz-His Life and Music"), in which his view, some criticism notwithstanding, is again vastly in Horowitz' favour. All considered, there is no doubt that Schonberg regarded Horowitz as one of the greatest pianists in history. MUSIKVEREIN 12:05, 4 July 2007


Wouldn't Horowitz now be termed "virtuoso style" or "virtuosic"? Romantic music is now judged on its merits and I believe that romantic virtuoso performers are now judged on their individual musical ability rather than their overall style. I saw a reference to the vanishing romantic virtuoso style in a review of Vox CD #7210 written by critic Victor Carr on the "ClassicsToday" website. Horowitz had undisputed musical ability and should fit into this category. [Beyondfan]

[edit] Citations, please?

I posted this to the user page of an IP address:User:12.149.100.21

"I was looking at your entries at Vladimir Horowitz. It would be helpful if you could cite your sources for the information you have added to that article. A web link would be preferable, but I have an extensive university library (several, in fact) where I could check print source material. If citing print, please indicate the page number(s). That would of course, save a lot of time at my end. Also, I do encourage you to establish a user account. There are many benifits, not the least of which is the opportunity to collaborate with other editors that may share your interests. I appreciate your desire to expand the sum of human knowledge, I only ask for some citations to back up an edit which could be considered inflamitory, if not properly cited. Thanks again, and please consider a user account for yourself. See you 'round!" My signature.

I will look at this article again within 24 hours. Hopefully there will be something to hang this line of reportage on by then. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 06:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I have created a user account under the screen name THD3 and will resubmit the suggested changes listing sources. My name is Hank Drake. I've written extensively on Horowitz, including reviews on Amazon, and contributed to one of the websites listed on the page.

I have made several minor edits and corrections to this page. I hope they have been formatted correctly, if not, please feel free to fix them. Most of the corrections come from Glenn Plaskin's 1983 biography which, despite being out of date, is the best researched book on Horowitz's life (particularly the early years). After returning to the stage in 1965, Horowitz never played more than about twenty concerts per season. His most active seasons were 1975-1976, and 1985-1986.

The issue of recording labels during Horowitz's early career can be confusing. Horowitz's first recordings (1928-1930) were made in America for RCA. From 1930-1936 (the year of his first retirement) he recorded for RCA's Eurpoean affiliate, HMV. The HMV catalogue has been reissued by EMI. From 1940-1959, Horowitz recorded for RCA (with the exception of four short works he recorded for HMV while touring England in 1951). From 1962-1973, he recorded for Columbia, now Sony. He returned to RCA in 1975 (he was "loaned" to Columbia for the recording of Carnegie Hall's 85th Aniversay Concert in May, 1976) and remained there until 1982. Horowitz recorded for Deutsche Grammophon from 1985-1989, until signing with Sony Classical for his last recording. THD3

The question of citations also brings up the Virgil Thompson quote. I'm pretty familiar with Thompson's writings, and I've never seen the "Horowitz may be a fascinating pianist, but never a fine musician" quote. I am familiar with Thompson's famous quote that Horowitz was a "master of distortion" which Horowitz answered with a tart "so was Michelangelo, so was El Greco."

Should not Thompson's quote also be cited?

[edit] Sexuality

Please discuss the section on sexuality beofore deleting it. We need references to support any claims on Horowitz's sexuality but for the time being this section should not be deleted. David618 18:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, information that has been added to the article should be properly cited at the time of its inclusion. Feel free to re-add the section on Horowitz's sexuality when you have found a suitable and verifiable source. Hamster Sandwich 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether there is a citation to prove anything about Horowitz's sexuality it is still necessary that we acknowledge that fact that some dispute his sexuality. David618 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I did find a book written by Mark Mitchell called Virtuosi: A Defense and a (Sometimes Erotic) Celebration of Great Pianists. Mitchell does discuss the sexuality of many virtuossi; I have not read the book but if Horowitz's sexuality is mentioned somewhere it would be in this book. An article in Foward [1] does mention does atribute the three types of pianists quote to Horowitz, which I believe is enough evidence to mention in the article that Horowitz is attributed as saying the quote. David618 05:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If you need authoritative references to Horowitz's homosexuality, you can easily cite Glenn Plaskin's "Horowitz," the most extensive biography of Horowitz's early life. Many details of his sexual life in Paris and later are recounted. I believe that Harold Schonberg's "Horowitz" also mentions the pianist's homosexuality (If my memory serves me), and this from someone who was never comfortable, in all his years as a music critic and writer, with that topic in any of his subjects.66.108.145.155 11:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Allen Roth
I replaced the section of Horowitz's sexuality becuase there is enough evidence to at least mention the claim. David618 21:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Horowitz's sexuality has been well documented in several books including the Glann Plaskin and Harold Schonberg biographies. What other documentation are the "denial" people expecting, covert photographs? (But if they're looking for some, I have a photo of Horowitz from around 1950 at a party at George Cukor's house, showing Horowitz with his arm around an attractive young blond man.)

A user under the name of LorenzoPerosi1898 has made numerous revisions to this article without citing evidence, including the assertion that Horowitz had a sexual relationship with Byron Janis. I've been studying Horowitz for 23 years and I have never heard this assertion. Now is it cited in any literature about Horowitz, even Glenn Plaskin's biography which "outed" Horowitz. Please do not make these kind of changes to articles withouth citing verifiable evidence. THD3

Once again, LorenzoPerosi1898 has inserted a paragraph mentioning a sexual relationship between Horowitz and Byron Janis. There is no evidence, to support this assertion. There is only gossip, and Schonberg's biography mentions that there was gossip, but does not support this assertion. To include this information without supporting evidence that can be independently verified is irresponsible and this paragraph has been deleted. THD3

I don't understand why this Horowitz quote is in the article, and made to insinuate that he is gay:

“ There are three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists. ”

Horowitz WAS jewish, therefore he is denying that he falls into the homosexual category...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.49.176 (talk)

The quote itself does not imply anything about Horowitz's sexuality. That being said it does not necissarily exclude him from being in both the Jewish and homosexual groups. All the information that it gives is his view on what types of people he thinks plays the piano (including himself). The quote should be kept though I think that its introduction is a bit much, so I will make it more neutral. —David618 t 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The remark by 203.173.49.176 that the issue of Horowitz's homosexuality only appears on one biography is not only irrelevant, it is facually inaccurate. Horowitz's preference for men was mentioned in BOTH the Schonberg and Plaskin biographies. It has also been the subject in countless articles in magazines and elsewhere.THD3 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition, comments suggesting Horowitz's homosexuality can be found in Artur Rubinstein's autobiography.123jascha 15:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of any comments regarding Horowitz's sexuality in Rubinstein's autobiograpy, although he did comment on it during his interview with Glenn Plaskin. Can you refer to the page and which volume of Rubinstein's book the comments are in?THD3 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Myself, I can tell you that Rubinstein doesn't mention it, although he does say of his marriage to Wanda Toscanini that it was a surprise. Anyway, see Rubinstein's "My Many Years", p. 334. (My edition is Hamish Hamilton, 1987) Philip Howard 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Although Rubinstein did not mention Horowitz's sexuality in Rubinstein's autobiography, he did discuss it during an interview with Glenn Plaskin for Plaskin's Horowitz biography.THD3 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

The issue of Horowitz's spoken languages is a relevant one, and I will work to upgrade this. Horowitz was fluent in Russian (of course), and proficient in English, but once commented that his dreams were in French--and that was the language he used with his wife. THD3

[edit] Children

Came here to learn if had any children. Found neither confirmation nor denial. Could this information be added? David Colver 11:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated the information for Sonia Toscanini Horowitz. I also deleted the suicide reference. As noted in both Plaskin's and Schonberg's biography, it has never been determined whether Sonia's death--by drug overdose--was accidental or intentional. (THD)

Drug overdose? Sonia was killed when her motorcycle hit squarely into a tree. I believe that fact is mentioned in both the Schonberg and Plaskin biographies. In any case, there is no proof that it was suicide, but the article ought to state that suicide is the generally accepted opinion as to the cause of death. 66.108.4.183 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion

Wrong. Sonia's motor scooter accident was in 1957--shortly after her grandfather, Toscanini, died. As documented in both the Plaskina and Schonberg bios, she never fully recovered. 16:25, 15 August 2006 THD3

[edit] Intro

Revised the intro. Traditionaly, it is one's profession and/or lifetime achievement, and their place of birth that is used in the opening line. Him being Jewish, nor his American citizenship (acquired later in life) should be discussed within the body of the article, not the first line.

Hear, hear. What is this Wikipedia obsession with ethnicity? Look up Andy Garcia, and they identify him as a "Cuban-American actor." If I lived in China, France, or Thailand, I would consider him an American actor. The article, after all, can always mention that his heritage is Cuban, or birth, or whatever. This remains a mystery to me. 66.108.4.183 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion

I don't understand the term "Jewish-born". Does this mean he was a Jew when he was born, but later changed? To me, "X-born" refers to nationality, not religion - eg "Mel Gibson is an American-born Australian actor". If it's simply that he's Jewish, surely that should be the term? I too dislike the obsession with ethnicity. I have not changed it, though, in case it means something I'm not familiar with. --Kitty Davis 07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the term "Jewish-born" either. I am unsure as to who keeps adding this. Not only is it ambiguous, it's also not worthy of a mention. The opening line traditionally refers to one's place of birth (in this case Ukraine). Unless an individual's ethnicity/religious heritage was the reason behind their most noteworthy achievement, it's not worthy of an inclusion in the header. As such, I am removing the phrase. If anyone wishes to challenge this viewpoint, I am open to debate it. Gordon Freeman 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We cannot understand much about Horowitz's life without knowing that he was Jewish. As a wunderkind taught by his mother, Horowitz's youth and family were fundamental to his life and work.

The education, residence, and professions of Jews in the Russian Empire were severely restricted by the May Laws, in effect from 1882 to 1917. The fact that Horowitz was Jewish sheds some light on the claims that he was born in Berdichev, which was then 80% Jewish, rather than Kiev, from whence the Jews had been expelled 17 years earlier.

Like all Ukrainian Jews of the early twentieth century, Horowitz was in terrible danger. His birth occurred six months after the first Kishinev pogrom. Just after his second birthday, Jews in Ukraine's largest cities were murdered by the hundreds in pogroms, including many children (most notably in Odessa and Yekaterinoslav, which is now Dnipropetrovsk). There were also many deadly anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine from 1917 to 1922. In 1940, Horowitz's resettlement in the United States was fortunate considering that nearly one million Jews in Ukraine, the majority of Ukraine's Jews, were systematically murdered by the Nazis (Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, p. 403. [2]). --Hoziron 07:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Unique in the history of the instrument..."

I take issue with the comment that Horowitz could get a tremendous volume of sound out of the piano, without banging, and that this was unique. On the contrary, exactly the same thing was said of Liszt's playing by critics of the time.

I have heard neither Liszt nor Horowitz play, so I can't make a direct comparison, but I can also say that I recently heard a fourth-year conservatorium student get a surreal amount of sound out of a piano in Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. I have no doubt that Horowitz was remarkably in his ability to produce tone, but perhaps the rest of the sentence should be removed.

I agree. Uniqueness, particularly about artistic matters, is virtually unprovable. JackofOz 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Normally, I would agree with your statements. But ask virtually anyone who heard him live, and you will hear these comments. Both Schonberg and Plaskin mention this. Furthermore, look at contemporary reviews of his concerts. Everyone in the pianistic world constantly wondered and speculated about how he was able to produce volume the way he did. There were rumors of "doctored pianos," filed hammers, etc. In this case, his ability to produce volume is well documented; there was no disagreement about that, whatever else one may have thought about his musicianship. 66.108.4.183 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion
It may be worth noting that Schonberg mentions one elderly critic who had heard Liszt and Anton Rubinstein in his youth say that Horowitz was the greatest in history. Kasyapa
This is all fine, but in the absence of a written statement by someone who heard both Liszt and Horowitz play, you can't say that he was unique in the "history of the instrument". Ckerr 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth: I've heard Horowitz 5 times (1978 in NY, 1980 in NY, 1981 in London, 1985 in Paris, 1986 in Hamburg), as well as many other "greats" of the 20th century such as Rubinstein, Kempff, Michelangeli, Richter, Arrau, Gilels, Brendel, Pollini and so on. Among these he was indeed unique exactly in the way you all describe. A friend of mine, the outstanding German music critic Joachim Kaiser, has always felt the same way. I was told by someone who took a masterclass with Krystian Zimerman recently that Zimerman told the class he spent years trying to figure out how the old man produced the fortissimi in Scriabin's op. 8 no. 12 in the November 2, 2005, Paris recital (I remember seeing Zimerman in the audience there). But we must not forget Josef Hoffman (very much a 20th-century pianist), whom Harold Schonberg heard and ranked above Horowitz in virtuosity and raw volume. Some of this can be heard on Hoffman's extant recordings. So Horowitz is unique in his fortissimi among pianists of the 70 years or so. But he is not superior to Hoffman in this regard. What's worse, reliable sources rank Anton Rubinstein above Hoffman in this regard, and yet other and again reliable sources say very clearly that Liszt was immeasurably above Anton Rubinstein in every regard. I love Horowitz, and he stands firmly among the great piano virtuosi of all tme, but he is not superior to the greatest among them in volume and power. 123jascha 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Schonberg never ranked Hofmann above Horowitz in virtuosity and raw volume (though he certainly considered the Pole an overall superior pianist). As to technique, he said that Horowitz had "the most brilliant technique of his day and possibly in pianistic history". And on raw volume, he wrote of Horowitz' "thunderous sonority, achieved without banging, that is unique in the annals of piano playing" (quotes from Schonberg's book The Great Pianists from Mozart to the Present). Therefore, in terms of sound production, maybe Horowitz was unique after all. MUSIKVEREIN 16:45, 10 August, 2007

[edit] Horowitz's burial

There have recently been some edits regarding Horowitz's burial. The anecdotal story that he was buried with a copy of Hanon's excercises has been disputed. I have researched the issue and there is no evidence whatsoever that Horowitz was buried with the excercises, or, indeed, any musical score. I have therefore removed the reference to it. THD3

Tank you. A wise choice. Hanon, of all things? Highly implausible. I understand that as a teenager he slept with the score of Goetterdaemmerung. It would be quite a descent musically to go from that to Hanon. I have follow Horowitzian matters closely for over 30 years, and I've never heard a reliable confirmation of this somewhat silly rumor. 123jascha 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names of composers' works

This isn't particular to Horowitz, but is relevant to the most recent edits by User:Emerson7. I prefer to say, eg. "Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No 1", but Emerson has changed this to "the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No 1". There is no such piece of music as "the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No 1". There is a Piano Concerto No 1, written by Tchaikovsky. The word "Tchaikovsky" is not an adjective, it's a person's name, and a noun. I know that in colloquial spoken language it's common to say "the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No 1", but imo it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. What do others think? JackofOz 04:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed, there is no the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No 1 it should be--and what i've corrected the references to--is the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No. 1. --emerson7 | Talk 05:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early 1980s Medication

I have removed the citation needed tag for Horowitz use of prescribed medication from 1981-1983. This is fully documented in numerous places, including Harold Schonberg's biography. THD3 01:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add inline citations to these places in the article. I've reinserted the tags.Grover cleveland 18:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. DoneTHD3 18:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration of Patronymic

  • The Ukrainian patronymic Самійлович apparently transliterates to Samiilovych. (I don't profess to know Ukrainian).
  • The Russian one Самойлович transliterates to Samoylovich.

But what we have is Samoylovych, which is neither. It looks like the Russian patronymic spelt in a kind of Ukrainian way. Did Horowitz use this spelling himself, or is there any other authority for its use? If neither, we'd need to decide on either the Ukrainian or Russian version. JackofOz 00:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I've changed it to Samoylovich. -- JackofOz 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And also in the infobox. -- JackofOz 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The use of the Patronymic is specifically russian. It was not used in Western Ukraine an even in eastern Ukraine was avoided in many cases. It was introduced to Ukraine from Russia. I'm ethnically Ukrainian, born in Australia however I studied at the Kiev conservatory. Despite being spoken to with my patronymic my diploma does not have it because it was not in my passport.

Horowitz was an American citizen. the use of a patronymic is of a secondary nature as he did not live most of his life in Russia. --Bandurist 13:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional Impact

I seem to recall that Horowitz's performance in Moscow in the late 80s was not only of international political significance, but was, indeed, of tremendous emotional significance to Horowitz himself, who (as I recall) was overcome at the conclusion of his concert. Does this deserve mentioning whatsoever? -EarthRise33 04:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a DVD of the concert, and while there are several shots of audience members openly weeping, I was unable to find a shot of Horowitz in a similar state. Nevertheless, Horowitz did state in interviews that his return to Russia was an emotional event for him.THD3 16:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading about that concert at the time. It was very emotional for the audience as well. I don't have a reference, but I remember reading that the initial concert went unpublicized, but the news spread by word of mouth and the concert sold out. Artists who had defected had never before been allowed back in before, so this was a big deal. The article could make more of Horowitz' defection. (It could, for example, actually use the word "defection" for what Horowitz did.) Horowitz in 1920s Russia had the appeal of a modern-day rock star. (Russians love their classical pianists far more than we do in the west.) For the Soviet government to break from its threat to arrest a returning defector and allow Horowitz to return and perform was very moving to everyone at the time. If I had references, I would add all this to the article. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There was only one concert on the outside of the Moscow Conservatory advertising his concert. Of course, that same approach got him sold out in Boston where I heard him. As for his defection, Ronald Reagan had personally guaranteed his safety for the trip (Horowitz became concerned when Vladimir Feltsman's piano had been vandalized during a concert). As an American citizen, the Soviets could not have legally arrested him for having left. And in the new era of openness heralded by Mikhail Gorbachev, they would not have even risked it.THD3 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA?

It's an excellent article! Any editors are interested in a good article nomination? --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop in and say that I enjoyed reading this article, especially the Repertoire and technique section. 71.104.178.205 (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)