# David Hurwitz's YouTube Channel --- Your Thoughts? (Part II)



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Since the other thread was closed down due to the OP's request, I decided why not continue the original thread? Instead of starting off on a negative note, I actually want to say this is one of his videos in which I fully concur, especially in the opening statements:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I haven't been listening to his remarks on movie music, because I don't really care about that genre. Is it worth hearing?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Manxfeeder said:


> I haven't been listening to his remarks on movie music, because I don't really care about that genre. Is it worth hearing?


I have no idea. I don't really watch his videos that much as I consider myself just as seasoned of a classical listener as he is.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Since the original, now closed thread, there's been a couple created which are still going:
David Hurwitz YouTube channel
David Hurwitz "How It's Done" series

I think he's okay. I like how he makes connections between different composers, and this particularly comes out in his writing (I've enjoyed reading his liner notes in the Eloquence reissues label). Apart from his review website, he's also published books on individual composers.

On the downside, as I mentioned in the last thread, I think he could afford to shorten his videos (especially work on tightening up the scripts). So 10 minutes is plenty, 5 would be even better.

Watching these isn't meant to be like serious research, more like infotainment. Think of the meme "I did my own research - watched someone else's ****** youtube video." Film it in a studio with nice decor and lighting, add some slick graphics, and it would be perfect. Call it dumbed down, but this is the internet, where short and sweet is better.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

So far we have had two threads closed at the request of the OPs of those threads. I am curious as to why the OPs asked to close the threads. I’ve said this in all the threads. I consider Hurwitz to have an informed opinion but I just listen to what he says,file it away mentally. I don’t get hot under the collar about Hurwitz himself. Lately he’s become more promotional with his YT videos being “click bait” to become a subscriber to his “Classics Today “ website and I find that annoying although many do use YT etc as an income stream. What I found surprising how some on TC take Hurwitz ohhh sooo seriously and it’s like verbal warfare. I went over the line in one of the threads and I got a warning from the moderators which I did deserve. I just don’t think he should be such a big deal as if it’s a matter of life or death.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

FrankinUsa said:


> So far we have had two threads closed at the request of the OPs of those threads. I am curious as to why the OPs asked to close the threads. I've said this in all the threads. I consider Hurwitz to have an informed opinion but I just listen to what he says,file it away mentally. I don't get hot under the collar about Hurwitz himself. Lately he's become more promotional with his YT videos being "click bait" to become a subscriber to his "Classics Today " website and I find that annoying although many do use YT etc as an income stream. What I found surprising how some on TC take Hurwitz ohhh sooo seriously and it's like verbal warfare. I went over the line in one of the threads and I got a warning from the moderators which I did deserve. I just don't think he should be such a big deal as if it's a matter of life or death.


I think the problem with Hurwitz is exactly everything that Knorf pointed out in one of those closed threads. I'll add that some people take what he says as gospel and hang on his every word as if he's _right_ in every thing he says. My whole point about him is anyone who has any experience with classical music and is knowledgeable about it, can do what he does. There's absolutely nothing special about his opinion or, at least, any more special than anyone on this forum who posts here regularly.


----------



## John Zito (Sep 11, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> My whole point about him is anyone who has any experience with classical music and is knowledgeable about it, can do what he does. There's absolutely nothing special about his opinion or, at least, any more special than anyone on this forum who posts here regularly.


So? It's interesting to hear what someone else thinks about it. I don't see anyone else putting out at least a video a day about a wide range of classical music topics. At this point I watch Hurwitz's videos in much the same way someone might put on _First Take_ or _SportsCenter_. If you're watching TV at all and you love sports, you just throw it on to hear people jabber. Those people are by no means the most expert or insightful jabber-ers at all times, but so what? They're the ones doing it.

And frankly, I'm not so sure about the "anyone can do what he's doing" thing. Rob Cowan has his own channel where he took a crack at "jolly, knowledgeable bald man films himself in front of stacks of crap and jabbers about classical music." It didn't last too terribly long, and the result was kind of dull. So perhaps it isn't so easy.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

John Zito said:


> So? It's interesting to hear what someone else thinks about it. I don't see anyone else putting out at least a video a day about a wide range of classical music topics. At this point I watch Hurwitz's videos in much the same way someone might put on _First Take_ or _SportsCenter_. If you're watching TV at all and you love sports, you just throw it on to hear people jabber. Those people are by no means the most expert or insightful jabber-ers at all times, but so what? They're the ones doing it.
> 
> And frankly, I'm not so sure about the "anyone can do what he's doing" thing. Rob Cowan has his own channel where he took a crack at "jolly, knowledgeable bald man films himself in front of stacks of crap and jabbers about classical music." It didn't last too terribly long, and the result was kind of dull. So perhaps it isn't so easy.


So what.

Hurwitz's videos are pretty dull to me actually. They're the same thing over and over. Just him sitting in front of a camera yammering about recordings that anyone could yammer about who has the knowledge. No variety at all in his videos, so, therefore, not entertaining to me. Anyway, if you want to waste your precious time watching a Hurwitz video, knock yourself out! I'd rather _listen_ to music than hear him run his mouth about it. He's just another moron with a YouTube channel.


----------



## John Zito (Sep 11, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> So what.
> 
> Hurwitz's videos are pretty dull to me actually. They're the same thing over and over. Just him sitting in front of a camera yammering about recordings that anyone could yammer about who has the knowledge. No variety at all in his videos, so, therefore, not entertaining to me. Anyway, if you want to waste your precious time watching a Hurwitz video, knock yourself out! I'd rather _listen_ to music than hear him run his mouth about it. He's just another moron with a YouTube channel.


If vaudeville ever comes back we should go on the road as So and So What.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

John Zito said:


> If vaudeville ever comes back we should go on the road as So and So What.


 We would be a good act and impossible to follow.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

Hurwitz has close to eleven thousand followers. The amount of comments to each of his vids is usually less than a hundred. Hurwitz is a teeny tiny minnow in the Pacific Ocean. 11’000 followers in the worldwide YouTube community is a pittance. But he has an oversized impact within the TC community.
Eleven thousand followers amongst all the worldwide classical musical listeners. What is the big deal ?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A critic is bound to say things that ruffle people's feathers. Its obvious that certain things he has said, or the angle he has on certain musicians, touch a raw nerve for some particular reason on this forum. He has biases, of course, but so does everyone. That they exist is a fact, whether or not they're acknowledged is another matter. I do notice though that he often emphasises that what he's saying is just his opinion. I think that most times he backs up his reasons well enough.

Whatever the case, I hope that Hurwitz doesn't fall victim to the same sort of cult of hate which has happened on this forum to others, including more recently Alma Deutscher, John Cage and more in the past, Schoenberg and Wagner. 

It doesn't matter if people disagree with eachother, what matters is a constant reaction and counter-reaction. The more people hate something, the more others will react. The more people defend something beyond any criticism, the more others will criticise. What inevitably follows is constant knee-jerk reactions and the quality of debate tends to deteriorate rapidly.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Sid James said:


> A critic is bound to say things that ruffle people's feathers. Its obvious that certain things he has said, or the angle he has on certain musicians, touch a raw nerve for some particular reason on this forum. He has biases, of course, but so does everyone. That they exist is a fact, whether or not they're acknowledged is another matter. I do notice though that he often emphasises that what he's saying is just his opinion. I think that most times he backs up his reasons well enough.
> 
> Whatever the case, I hope that Hurwitz doesn't fall victim to the same sort of cult of hate which has happened on this forum to others, including more recently Alma Deutscher, John Cage and more in the past, Schoenberg and Wagner.
> 
> It doesn't matter if people disagree with each other, what matters is a constant reaction and counter-reaction. The more people hate something, the more others will react. The more people defend something beyond any criticism, the more others will criticise. What inevitably follows is constant knee-jerk reactions and the quality of debate tends to deteriorate rapidly.


Every one has an opinion, but it's the way he expresses his opinion in which I take umbrage. Also, someone's demeanor and general attitude tell me a lot and, in Hurwitz's case, it seems that what he says is the gospel truth and what everyone else says isn't important or just wrong all-around. Sorry, but if you're going to use YouTube as a platform to give your opinion, then one needs to prepare oneself for people who disagree and, again, it's not the opinion I'm refuting, it's the manner in which he gives the opinion. Also irritating is how if he mispronounces a composer's name, he says it doesn't matter. Well, actually it _does_ matter.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I would have defended him right up until his recent video denigrating HIP performance. 

The problem with it was the sheer grade-school spite of his humor. He thought it was funny to not only denigrate Vivaldi and historically performance practice, fair enough, but to wipe his butt with female musicians, female body parts and trans musicians as well. I admire and appreciate a good joke and a good sense of humor, even at my own expense, but this was none of those.

Won't be watching any more of his videos. No thanks.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Neo Romanza said:


> Every one has an opinion, but it's the way he expresses his opinion in which I take umbrage. Also, someone's demeanor and general attitude tell me a lot and, in Hurwitz's case, it seems that what he says is the gospel truth and what everyone else says isn't important or just wrong all-around. Sorry, but if you're going to use YouTube as a platform to give your opinion, then one needs to prepare oneself for people who disagree and, again, it's not the opinion I'm refuting, it's the manner in which he gives the opinion. Also irritating is how if he mispronounces a composer's name, he says it doesn't matter. Well, actually it _does_ matter.


I think his persona won't go down well with everyone, and I've expressed doubts about his humour. He can be flippant and also make harsh judgements, but I never feel as if he's talking down to me as a viewer. At times, he can also be quite self deprecatory, he doesn't take himself too seriously.

But I think he's definitely serious about classical music, and most often I get something out of his videos. He often talks about his own experiences, and he's quite good at getting to the core of the issue concerned.



vtpoet said:


> I would have defended him right up until his recent video denigrating HIP performance.
> 
> The problem with it was the sheer grade-school spite of his humor. He thought it was funny to not only denigrate Vivaldi and historically performance practice, fair enough, but to wipe his butt with female musicians, female body parts and trans musicians as well. I admire and appreciate a good joke and a good sense of humor, even at my own expense, but this was none of those.
> 
> Won't be watching any more of his videos. No thanks.












The meme says it all, but longer reply here:
https://www.talkclassical.com/73890-newly-discovered-op-13-a.html#post2200026


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> I would have defended him right up until his recent video denigrating HIP performance.
> 
> The problem with it was the sheer grade-school spite of his humor. He thought it was funny to not only denigrate Vivaldi and historically performance practice, fair enough, but to wipe his butt with female musicians, female body parts and trans musicians as well. I admire and appreciate a good joke and a good sense of humor, even at my own expense, but this was none of those.
> 
> Won't be watching any more of his videos. No thanks.


I don't care for Vivaldi (or any Baroque Era composer for that matter), but he does have some kind of sick obsession with degrading any recording that is HIP.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I think his persona won't go down well with everyone, and I've expressed doubts about his humour. He can be flippant and also make harsh judgements, but I never feel as if he's talking down to me as a viewer. At times, he can also be quite self deprecatory, he doesn't take himself too seriously.
> 
> But I think he's definitely serious about classical music, and most often I get something out of his videos. He often talks about his own experiences, and he's quite good at getting to the core of the issue concerned.


If you enjoy his videos, great, but I do not and consider him a troll with an axe to grind. But as another member pointed out, he's merely a small fish in a large pond in terms of YouTube subscribers.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rather than being a troll, I think he's just someone you disagree with, apart from the initial video you posted. In any case, it looks like we don't agree about him, which is okay apart from the fact that it gags any positive (or even neutral) discussion of his videos on this forum. 

No thread on him has ended well. If someone started one again solely with the intention of discussing his views (like the now locked thread, where the OP had no agenda other than that), its likely that it would end up with people dumping their hatred there again. This is not a big deal, its merely an unfortunate byproduct of communication on the internet.

Looks like we can file him along with Alma Deutscher, John Cage and others in the TC cult of hate no go zone.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Rather than being a troll, I think he's just someone you disagree with, apart from the initial video you posted. In any case, it looks like we don't agree about him, which is okay apart from the fact that it gags any positive (or even neutral) discussion of his videos on this forum.
> 
> No thread on him has ended well. If someone started one again solely with the intention of discussing his views (like the now locked thread, where the OP had no agenda other than that), its likely that it would end up with people dumping their hatred there again. This is not a big deal, its merely an unfortunate byproduct of communication on the internet.
> 
> Looks like we can file him along with Alma Deutscher, John Cage and others in the TC cult of hate no go zone.


In Reply #13 I gave legitimate reasons as to _why_ I dislike him, but you chose to ignore what I've written and you go off the rails with the last sentence of your post. I mean don't be so melodramatic. Yes, there are people that like/dislike him, but my reasons for disliking him weren't just made up out of thin air. You seem to be pro-Hurwitz and the whole attitude of he can do no wrong is what you've been touting since you've started replying to this thread. As I've said, ANYONE can do what he does. There's absolutely nothing special about anything he has done on YouTube.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I addressed your response as directly as I could. I wasn't being melodramatic, and I expressed my own criticisms of Hurwitz and even validated a few of your own. Its just that my conclusion about Hurwitz doesn't match yours. If you think I'm not being genuine, then I'm sorry to have wasted your time.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Neo Romanza said:


> In Reply #13 I gave legitimate reasons as to _why_ I dislike him, but you chose to ignore what I've written and you go off the rails with the last sentence of your post. I mean don't be so melodramatic. Yes, there are people that like/dislike him, but my reasons for disliking him weren't just made up out of thin air. You seem to be pro-Hurwitz and the whole attitude of he can do no wrong is what you've been touting since you've started replying to this thread. As I've said, ANYONE can do what he does. There's absolutely nothing special about anything he has done on YouTube.


I agree 100%. Also, I find that most critics (whose views are regarded highly) in classical music communities are generally overrated. For instance, it's uninsightful to accept every word Charles Rosen said of the 18th century as absolute truth when revival of music of that period was limited in his time and a bunch of pieces were misattributed to the few 'famous composers'. And we have greater knowledge of the period and access to it now than the pianist did in his time. (Btw, I talk about composers' views on other composers simply cause they're important to our understanding of how music changed over the course of history, I don't think they had/have objectively better/more accurate/more truthful views on music than we do.)


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Neo Romanza said:


> I don't care for Vivaldi (or any Baroque Era composer for that matter), but he does have some kind of sick obsession with degrading any recording that is HIP.


Just to be clear, his taking the p**s out of Vivaldi doesn't/didn't bother me. Criticizing Vivaldi is child's play. His boorish opinion of HIP also doesn't bother me. It was the sheer and gleeful venality of his smearing women and the trans-gendered that really ticked me off. There was no reason for him to go there but, for whatever personal reason, he did.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

vtpoet said:


> Just to be clear, his taking the p**s out of Vivaldi doesn't/didn't bother me. Criticizing Vivaldi is child's play. His boorish opinion of HIP also doesn't bother me. It was the sheer and gleeful venality of his smearing women and the trans-gendered that really ticked me off. There was no reason for him to go there but, for whatever personal reason, he did.


He's a master of going off the rails.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Neo Romanza said:


> In Reply #13 I gave legitimate reasons as to _why_ I dislike him, but you chose to ignore what I've written and you go off the rails with the last sentence of your post. I mean don't be so melodramatic. Yes, there are people that like/dislike him, but my reasons for disliking him weren't just made up out of thin air. You seem to be pro-Hurwitz and the whole attitude of he can do no wrong is what you've been touting since you've started replying to this thread. As I've said, ANYONE can do what he does. There's absolutely nothing special about anything he has done on YouTube.





hammeredklavier said:


> I agree 100%. Also, I find that most critics (whose views are valued highly) in classical music communities are generally overrated. For instance, it's uninsightful to accept every word Charles Rosen said of the 18th century as absolute truth when revival of music of that period was limited in his time and a bunch of pieces were misattributed to the few 'famous composers'. And we have greater knowledge of the period and access to it now than the pianist did in his time. (Btw, I talk about composers' views on other composers simply cause they're important to our understanding of how music changed over the course of history, I don't think they had/have objectively better/more accurate/more truthful views on music than we do.)


I put this to bed earlier:



Sid James said:


> I addressed your response as directly as I could. I wasn't being melodramatic, and I expressed my own criticisms of Hurwitz and even validated a few of your own. Its just that my conclusion about Hurwitz doesn't match yours. If you think I'm not being genuine, then I'm sorry to have wasted your time.


I didn't say that I agree with every word Hurwitz says. On the face of it, that's absurd, anyway. Who does that with anything a critic writes? Do you take me to be a moron? I apply critical thinking to information I take in, as I think do most people.

I think you're both deliberately applying faulty logic to what I said. Nothing personal, I know this is just an internet thing, so I'll leave it there.

In any case, I think a critic having ego, being harsh and self-important kind of goes with the territory. If people get their knickers in a knot about that, then its like the gendarme feigning shock about gambling at Rick's nightclub in Casablanca. Absolutely ridiculous.








Neo Romanza said:


> I don't care for Vivaldi (or any Baroque Era composer for that matter), but he does have some kind of sick obsession with degrading any recording that is HIP.





vtpoet said:


> Just to be clear, his taking the p**s out of Vivaldi doesn't/didn't bother me. Criticizing Vivaldi is child's play. His boorish opinion of HIP also doesn't bother me. It was the sheer and gleeful venality of his smearing women and the trans-gendered that really ticked me off. There was no reason for him to go there but, for whatever personal reason, he did.


I have less problem with the content of his humour, and more about the nature of it. He's not particularly good at comedy and should stick to music criticism. John Cleese has said some quite reasonable things about how preoccupations with woke (emanating from USA) has in effect censored real comedians like him. It's a somewhat related issue, but I won't labour it here. You can look it up, Cleese has done many interviews about this. In any case, Hurwitz is no Cleese, that's for sure.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Sid James said:


> John Cleese has said some quite reasonable things about how preoccupations with woke (emanating from USA) has in effect censored real comedians like him. It's a somewhat related issue, but I won't labour it here. You can look it up, Cleese has done many interviews about this. In any case, Hurwitz is no Cleese, that's for sure.


Yeah, I love John Cleese the comedian but not the John Cleese who bemoans London's diversity or thought Brexit was a good idea. I am not a particular fan of the "woke" mind-set but Cleese's viewpoint comes with some unfortunate baggage. I also won't labour it, but you can look up what other Monty Python members think of Cleese's political opinions.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I won't continue it either, other than to say Cleese isn't alone, there have been other comedians like Dave Chappelle. I think their main problem is where to draw the line between political correctness and censorship.

I think its fairly obvious what Hurwitz's musical biases are. I think that making fun of these things is unecessary, but its probably his way of saying "this is what I hate" in order to attract certain types of listeners to his youtube channel.

As the owner of the youtube channel he's got full control over how its run, and its been said that he deletes comments which he doesn't like. 

He probably wants to build a fanbase using these methods. I don't see this as a big deal. I think that classical music and cliques sort of go together anyway.

I'm aware of his biases, but I still watch his videos because I still get something out of them.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

I watch his videos to extend the repertoire, not for the recommendations.

Books I read (The Rough Guide to Classical Music, Eyewitness Companions-Classical Music) don't even mention Holst's military suites. I had to see the video "Holst Beyond the Planets". I listened to both, really liked the Second Suite.

Too bad I rarely watch his videos nowadays.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

His latest video on the Bruckner symphony versions that the composer preferred himself should be obligatory for every fan of his music. I don't think I ever agreed with Hurwitz more.

In short, Dave argues that there's
- general consensus about which symphony versions are the best, the most popular and frequently performed
- these versions happen to be the composer's own favorites too, with one or two exceptions.

Here's the list of scores that Bruckner bequeathed to the Austrian Imperial Library, indicating that this are the confirmed canon versions he wanted to be remembered by.









Everything is cristal clear. Two exceptions: Bruckner considered his 1891 revision of the 1st best, while most recordings are of the Linz/Vienna version. Structurally they're the same, the orchestration differs here and there. Not a big issue. Then there's the 3rd, and we know that Bruckner was unhappy with the 1889 revision. The middle version is objectively better, so this shouldn't be an issue either.

So why all the confusion? Why muddying the water by publishing and performing all those versions which are either inferior, presenting intermediate stages, are bowdlerized or inauthentic and - most importantly - go against the composer's will?

To me the legacy of a great Bruckner conductor like Georg Tintner is compromised because of his choice of versions.

I had a discussion about this subject at another thread recently, and one person actually wrote something in the vein of "the more versions we have, the more Bruckner music there is to enjoy."
Sorry, I can't wrap my mind around this reasoning. Because there's not enough good Bruckner, you choose to listen to bad Bruckner? You love a Bruckner symphony but instead of enjoying it in its best form, you choose an inferior incarnation, just because it's different? Madness.
If you really want something Brucknerian that isn't bad versions of Bruckner himself, just listen to... dunno, Richard Wetz' 3 symphonies?


----------



## Sondersdorf (Aug 5, 2020)

Every once in a while I want to buy a CD. I can wade through pages of talkclassical posts or listen to a David Hurwitz video to get an idea of what's out there. I get way, way more value out of the Hurwitz videos. He also seems to have a genuine enthusiasm for music, without agenda, that I rarely find here. And, he has exposed me to much more good music that I was not familiar with than talkclassical has. Yes, I have seen talkclassical posters recommended as being his equal and, sorry, they just don't come up with the goods.

He has the extraordinary ability to recall details of thousands of recordings and then addresses the practicalities of getting wonderful music into your home so you can hear it. Me? I like to listen to music rather than type and read arguments on a web-based music forum.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

I'm not going to say I dislike him. Any classical review is better then no review. 
He appears to be running out of ideas as to what to put on his daily 'rant'. I don't understand why he doesn't do a comprehensive something once a week as opposed to doing pointless videos of several minutes daily. (I guess he makes more money that way). He also it appears deletes any critical comments as all what you read slavishly adhere to his thinking. 
It's still worth checking out his recommendations on various genre works by various Composers in the early months of his channel. Just sort by popular videos and work your way down until you're done.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Hurwitz's videos are fun to listen to on my daily walks. But I'm finding that especially in the past year, I've been agreeing with less and less of his recommendations. He seems to have a small and specific list of things he listens for, and usually they don't match what I'm listening for. But I do appreciate the background comments he makes about pieces, composers, conductors, and orchestras. I've been spurred to dig out old recordings which I've left neglected.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I'd also like more long-form videos instead of him just bringing out random recordings he likes.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> His latest video on the Bruckner symphony versions that the composer preferred himself should be obligatory for every fan of his music. I don't think I ever agreed with Hurwitz more.
> 
> In short, Dave argues that there's
> 
> ...


It's news to me that there is any kind of consensus --- I don't think I've ever disagreed with Hurwitz more and said so on the channel even if that's what was in his will (how much was he influenced by others in this -- there are to me still questions to answer) Tintner's Bruckner is great partly because he chooses the original versions with the exception of no.4 (which is perhaps a shame as the original scherzo and especially trio is fresher and more interesting in many ways). I would say this applies even controversially in no. 8 where there is less bombast and one or two later removed wonderful passages. But I agree it's a bit of swings and roundabouts here. It's above all, but far from exclusively, the third which is butchered in any of the cut versions which make a nonsense of the structure.

I like Wetz 3rd incidentally!


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

dko22 said:


> It's news to me that there is any kind of consensus --- I don't think I've ever disagreed with Hurwitz more and said so on the channel even if that's what was in his will (how much was he influenced by others in this -- there are to me still questions to answer) Tintner's Bruckner is great partly because he chooses the original versions with the exception of no.4 (which is perhaps a shame as the original scherzo and especially trio is fresher and more interesting in many ways). I would say this applies even controversially in no. 8 where there is less bombast and one or two later removed wonderful passages. But I agree it's a bit of swings and roundabouts here. It's above all, but far from exclusively, the third which is butchered in any of the cut versions which make a nonsense of the structure.


It strikes me as funny that the advocates of Bruckner's early versions can't write a single paragraph without questioning the composer's authority.
Like with the similar case of the order of the inner movements in Mahler 6, people opposing the composer's wishes have no other arguments than "I like this more than that". That's fine, but one should be honest about it and accept that one's personal opinion is in exact juxtaposition to how the composers themselves wanted their works to be preserved and performed.
So in short, I don't agree with anything you wrote above, sorry. I don't think the original scherzo of the 4th is better than the new one (but granted, it's a masterpiece compared to the horrible mess that's the original first movement and finale). And less bombast in the original 8th? The first movement's coda is the most mindlessly bombastic thing Bruckner ever wrote! Thank God he had the good sense to revise it...



> I like Wetz 3rd incidentally!


Let's at least agree on that! Great symphony by a woefully underrated composer.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> It strikes me as funny that the advocates of Bruckner's early versions can't write a single paragraph without questioning the composer's authority.
> Like with the similar case of the order of the inner movements in Mahler 6, people opposing the composer's wishes have no other arguments than "I like this more than that". That's fine, but one should be honest about it and accept that one's personal opinion is in exact juxtaposition to how the composers themselves wanted their works to be preserved and performed.
> So in short, I don't agree with anything you wrote above, sorry. I don't think the original scherzo of the 4th is better than the new one (but granted, it's a masterpiece compared to the horrible mess that's the original first movement and finale). And less bombast in the original 8th? The first movement's coda is the most mindlessly bombastic thing Bruckner ever wrote! Thank God he had the good sense to revise it...
> 
> ...


I didn't expect you to agree. Of course Tintner performs what he regards as the best versions without any reference to what Bruckner may have said in his last will and testament (how do we know that Bruckner might not have changed his mind a year later had he still been alive -- we can get into similar territory as with Mahler 6 as you say). And I'm happy with that...

Shame indeed that Wetz is never to my knowledge performed in the concert hall.


----------



## LennyR (Apr 10, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Rather than being a troll, I think he's just someone you disagree with, apart from the initial video you posted. In any case, it looks like we don't agree about him, which is okay apart from the fact that it gags any positive (or even neutral) discussion of his videos on this forum.
> 
> No thread on him has ended well. If someone started one again solely with the intention of discussing his views (like the now locked thread, where the OP had no agenda other than that), its likely that it would end up with people dumping their hatred there again. This is not a big deal, its merely an unfortunate byproduct of communication on the internet.
> 
> Looks like we can file him along with Alma Deutscher, John Cage and others in the TC cult of hate no go zone.


Couldn't agree more, Sid!!


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

In his new video (about symphonies #4) he claims that Mendelssohn's 1842 "Scottish" symphony was the source of inspiration for Schumann's 1841 fourth symphony. Sure, Dave.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

RobertJTh said:


> In his new video (about symphonies #4) he claims that Mendelssohn's 1842 "Scottish" symphony was the source of inspiration for Schumann's 1841 fourth symphony. Sure, Dave.


He wrote a book about Mendelssohn, so that's embarrassing.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Hurwitz is a valuable critic and I cannot think of anyone else doing comparable work. Can you?


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Red Terror said:


> Hurwitz is a valuable critic and I cannot think of anyone else doing comparable work. Can you?


Just because no one else is doing it doesn’t mean he’s pretty dumb to say that something from 1842 inspired something from 1841


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

_The *Symphony No. 4 in D minor,* Op. 120, composed by Robert Schumann, was first completed in 1841. Schumann heavily revised the symphony in 1851, and it was this version that reached publication. _This is from Wikipedia. I forgot he revised it so that’s why I made the above comment


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

EvaBaron said:


> Just because no one else is doing it doesn’t mean he’s pretty dumb to say that something from 1842 inspired something from 1841


It's not that simple. Mendelssohn started the Scottish Symphony in 1829 according to Wikipedia so Hurwitz is apparently suggesting that Schumann saw the unpublished score. The two composers were friends, so I suppose it is possible.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

The Hurwitz Haters just keep on coming.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

FrankinUsa said:


> The Hurwitz Haters just keep on coming.


Hurwitz is actually a lot less "provocative" than TC posters. He's also less biased against HIP recordings than most people think; Hurwitz often recommends them when he does Baroque or classical reportoire (even Romantic HIP, like a box of Schubert's chamber music) but he always does it while claiming the scholarship is inaccurate and with statements like, "This recording showed me that HIP doesn't have to sound awful."


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz is actually a lot less "provocative" than TC posters. He's also less biased against HIP recordings than most people think; Hurwitz often recommends them when he does Baroque or classical reportoire (even Romantic HIP, like a box of Schubert's chamber music) but he always does it while claiming the scholarship is inaccurate and with statements like, "This recording showed me that HIP doesn't have to sound awful."


Hurwitz is quite open minded and honest. He readily admits a certain dislike for a lot of Bach's music (excepting his organ works) and yet concedes that the composer was a true genius. That's the kind of candor and objectivity one should expect from a critic.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The problem - aside from his truly weird opinions - is his pomposity. Putting the two together I get probably the only critic I know who I never listen to. I must be a Hurwitz hater! So much so that I seriously doubt that my taste and that of those who respect him can have anything in common.


----------



## goldiver (Oct 19, 2018)

As lovers of classical music we're fortunate to have such a knowledgeable and thoughtful critic available at the click of a mouse. I choose to watch Mr Hurwitz's videos with an open mind and apply my own critical intelligence to his opinions and recommendations. This has enriched my CD collection and musical life five-fold. Certainly I disagree with some of his videos and dispute his taste at times – and he's deleted half-a-dozen of my posts for merely disagreeing with him, so the man does have an ego! But so what! It's his channel, and the benefits of what he provides far outweigh the negatives. Surely we should all be secure enough in our own choices to keep our feathers from being ruffled when a critic has a contrary opinion. And surely we should all realise the importance of being willing to learn. (That includes you, Mr Hurwitz!).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Yes, he's helped me, too. But only because I have learned that the records he hates tend to become the ones I love most. The man is a charlatan, I'm afraid.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, he's helped me, too. But only because I have learned that the records he hates tend to become the ones I love most. The man is a charlatan, I'm afraid.


Can you give me a few examples? I’m genuinely curious since I often find his recommendations pretty solid


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

EvaBaron said:


> Can you give me a few examples? I’m genuinely curious since I often find his recommendations pretty solid


It is hard to remember all. I know he loathes Horenstein, a conductor who has made a number of really wonderful records. And only the other day I noticed that he really panned two of the best recent Sibelius symphony records - those by Santtu-Matias Rouvali. It is not that I like left field stuff - by far the majority of respected critics also rate Horenstein in Mahler, Nielsen etc and Rouvali's Sibelius has also been very well received by most.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Two days without posting a video and everyone thinks he's dead... 
Seriously, that says something about his dedication and proficiency. I really love the guy, he's funny, well-spoken, entertaining... and once you know how that he's a lot less objective and versatile in his opinions than he claims, there's much to enjoy and even to agree with.



EvaBaron said:


> Can you give me a few examples? I’m genuinely curious since I often find his recommendations pretty solid


I think it's all a matter of different tastes in music, plain and simple. Hurwitz has his, we have ours. I think Hurwitz' biggest fault is blocking out performances that aren't up to his standards in execution or don't come close to his ideal of how music must sound and be played. He's of the objectivist Toscanini-Szell school and he has little tolerance for recordings that don't follow that school's doctrines. That's fine and all but if you value other qualities, like depth of expression, spirituality and a more personalized style of music making, you'll end up mistrusting his recommendations, and for good reason.



Enthusiast said:


> It is hard to remember all. I know he loathes Horenstein, a conductor who has made a number of really wonderful records. And only the other day I noticed that he really panned two of the best recent Sibelius symphony records - those by Santtu-Matias Rouvali. It is not that I like left field stuff - by far the majority of respected critics also rate Horenstein in Mahler, Nielsen etc and Rouvali's Sibelius has also been very well received by most.


Rouvali is fantastic, and it's really Hurwitz fault if he calls him out for certain idiosyncrasies in his Sibelius while every "strange" thing he does is derived from the actual note texts. He is rather inconsequent in that respect: for instance his beloved Segerstam Sibelius cycle I find straying far more from Sibelius' scores than Rouvali's.
The other one he panned - more like annihilated - is Makela's. haven't heard his yet, but really, would the management of the Concertgebouworkest Amsterdam appoint him as their next chief conductor if they weren't convinced of his qualities? I'm sure they listened very carefully to that Sibelius cycle! So whose verdict is worth more?
It seems his taste in Sibelius in particular is pretty peculiar. He despises one of my favorite cycles, Colin Davis' LSO cycle (RCA), and for reasons I can't understand at all. The vision is there and the orchestral playing seems absolutely fine to me

Also his pet feud with Furtwängler, understandable from his point of view because Furtwängler was the greatest anti-objectivist conductor ever. But still, he's more or less alone in his hatred of certain recordings by Furtwängler, Barbirolli, Horenstein... I seriously wonder how someone can listen to say, Barbirolli's Mahler 9 or Horenstein's DLvdE and be completely indifferent of the spirituality of those performances.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, he's helped me, too. But only because I have learned that the records he hates tend to become the ones I love most. The man is a charlatan, I'm afraid.


Just because your taste in music differs from his doesn't mean he's a charlatan.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Red Terror said:


> Just because your taste in music differs from his doesn't mean he's a charlatan.


No it doesn't ... but he is!

Obviously, this is just my view. But I think an objective case could be made that he is arrogant and pompous. I just cannot get my head around how anyone with knowledge of what is out there falls for him. But they do.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> No it doesn't ... but he is!
> 
> Obviously, this is just my view. But I think an objective case could be made that he is arrogant and pompous. I just cannot get my head around how anyone with knowledge of what is out there falls for him. But they do.


Hurwitz is arrogant and pompous to a degree, yes, but also likable.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

A few thoughts!
1.He does know his stuff and for people (like me) that don't have time to listen to everything themselves ,a good critique like him gives you and idea where to start.He certainly informed but informed does not mean his feelings on music will be your feelings.Music like other arts is irrational and is not right or wrong all or nothing.Another person opinion about music's technical value won't inform your emotional reaction to music.

2.I'm not informed enough about recordings nor am I an avid enough concert goer to argue for or against his opinions but I certainly feel though that Hurwitz's video's are overall well informed.

3.By all means listening to him is good thing but don't expect a critic to know your musical heart.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> Also his pet feud with Furtwängler, understandable from his point of view because Furtwängler was the greatest anti-objectivist conductor ever. But still, he's more or less alone in his hatred of certain recordings by Furtwängler, Barbirolli, Horenstein... I seriously wonder how someone can listen to say, Barbirolli's Mahler 9 or Horenstein's DLvdE and be completely indifferent of the spirituality of those performances.


He has certain fields he cares little about (lieder, choral, keyboard solo, pre-1700) which I find completely o.k. and he does have a few pet hates, Furtwängler and Horenstein probably the most prominent. I can understand him enjoying the provocation of the die-hard fans of such artists, but he often exaggerates. 

He generally dislikes "spirituality" and seriousness (that's one reason he doesn't care for Bach's sacred music, I don't think he dislikes Bach, it's just that he is not that into chamber and keyboard and if with Bach you set to low priority keyboard and sacred music, there is not that much left..).

But this makes his pomposity all the more ridiculous (in addition to his mannerism that are directly ridiculous). With his low-key manner and jokes he wants to make fun of the pompous British critics and fans revering Horenstein or whatever (and the Germans or the Bruckner scholars might be worse) both for their stuffiness and for their silly idea that there could something like spirituality and not just good fun and tam-tams well captured in good sound. But this doesn't really fit with taking himself and music so seriously otherwise. It's plausible to be serious about music because of a spiritual (or some other "depth") dimension. It's rather silly to be serious about nerdy details like well-recorded tam-tam strokes.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> He has certain fields he cares little about (lieder, choral, keyboard solo, pre-1700) which I find completely o.k. and he does have a few pet hates, Furtwängler and Horenstein probably the most prominent. I can understand him enjoying the provocation of the die-hard fans of such artists, but he often exaggerates.
> 
> He generally dislikes "spirituality" and seriousness (that's one reason he doesn't care for Bach's sacred music, I don't think he dislikes Bach, it's just that he is not that into chamber and keyboard and if with Bach you set to low priority keyboard and sacred music, there is not that much left..).
> 
> But this makes his pomposity all the more ridiculous (in addition to his mannerism that are directly ridiculous). With his low-key manner and jokes he wants to make fun of the pompous British critics and fans revering Horenstein or whatever (and the Germans or the Bruckner scholars might be worse) both for their stuffiness and for their silly idea that there could something like spirituality and not just good fun and tam-tams well captured in good sound. But this doesn't really fit with taking himself and music so seriously otherwise. It's plausible to be serious about music because of a spiritual (or some other "depth") dimension. It's rather silly to be serious about nerdy details like well-recorded tam-tam strokes.


Given that spirituality is a subjective experience, how does one asses it in music?


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

For best recordings I would recommend the Penguin Guides for anything pre 2000.
And BBC Record Review


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Red Terror said:


> Given that spirituality is a subjective experience, how does one asses it in music?


(By experiencing it oneself and by observing people? Cf. Given that taste is a subjective experience how does one know that puke tastes repulsive and chocolate tastes good?)
The spiritual content of e.g. Bach's St. Matthew is mostly explicit in the texts (gospel, chorals, arias) and you can look up the rhetorics and other conventions in the music that correspond to this content. 
These elements then carry over to purely instrumental music (Bach used the same music for a cantata BWV 146 and the d minor keyboard concerto) and are often largely retained (albeit modified) in later ages with less explicit/standardized musical rhetorics, cf. some of what "Edward Bast" wrote in other threads about "meaning" and expression in music.

But it's beside the point. Hurwitz seems to love to make fun of reviewers and listeners who find some dimension (whatever you call it) in music that transcends certain technical shortcomings and therefore revere e.g. some interpretations by e.g. Furtwängler. But he throws out the baby with the bathwater and pretends music was only fun and technically brilliant playing and recording mattered more than anything else.
The tension that I perceive is that if the latter case was true, Hurwitz would be silly to be so passionate about music at all, thus he implicitly recognizes the "depth" dimension but doesn't admit it in order to make fun of stuffy reviewers loving deficient mono bootlegs.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> (By experiencing it oneself and by observing people? Cf. Given that taste is a subjective experience how does one know that puke tastes repulsive and chocolate tastes good?)
> The spiritual content of e.g. Bach's St. Matthew is mostly explicit in the texts (gospel, chorals, arias) and you can look up the rhetorics and other conventions in the music that correspond to this content.
> These elements then carry over to purely instrumental music (Bach used the same music for a cantata BWV 146 and the d minor keyboard concerto) and are often largely retained (albeit modified) in later ages with less explicit/standardized musical rhetorics, cf. some of what "Edward Bast" wrote in other threads about "meaning" and expression in music.
> 
> ...


Hurwitz never seemed that emotional a person,maybe he does not understand music that way.

I am the direct opposite I'm a composer and I am all emotion and no analytics.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

He's kinda kute here -




_"Well, folks, ok.. I lied."_


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> (By experiencing it oneself and by observing people? Cf. Given that taste is a subjective experience how does one know that puke tastes repulsive and chocolate tastes good?)
> The spiritual content of e.g. Bach's St. Matthew is mostly explicit in the texts (gospel, chorals, arias) and you can look up the rhetorics and other conventions in the music that correspond to this content.
> These elements then carry over to purely instrumental music (Bach used the same music for a cantata BWV 146 and the d minor keyboard concerto) and are often largely retained (albeit modified) in later ages with less explicit/standardized musical rhetorics, cf. some of what "Edward Bast" wrote in other threads about "meaning" and expression in music.
> 
> ...


Hurwitz has recommended a few Furtwangler recordings: the Schumann 4, some Beethoven, and Schubert 9. He likes the technically better recordings, of course.

I like to have reasonably good sound quality of the sort that became common in the mid to late 1950s, so I am not a huge fan of Furtwangler because he died too early.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

bagpipers said:


> Hurwitz never seemed that emotional a person,maybe he does not understand music that way.
> 
> I am the direct opposite I'm a composer and I am all emotion and no analytics.


Hurwitz's stated aim in his reviews is to focus on things anyone can agree with him with-- technical playing aspects-- regardless of taste.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Red Terror said:


> Hurwitz is quite open minded and honest. He readily admits a certain dislike for a lot of Bach's music (excepting his organ works) and yet concedes that the composer was a true genius. That's the kind of candor and objectivity one should expect from a critic.


I guess you missed where he said that 99 of 100 people claiming to like Bach have never heard his music.

He’s honest in his opinions, but the issue is he always has an explanation to “debunk” anyone who disagrees. He cannot handle the fact that some people hear things differently, as if there can only be one “fact” regarding a recording’s merit. If a sizable number of people hear the same qualities in a recording, there’s a probably something to that even if he personally doesn’t hear the same thing. He cannot admit that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz's stated aim in his reviews is to focus on things anyone can agree with him with-- technical playing aspects-- regardless of taste.


You cannot avoid taste, and you cannot be “factual” in the ultimate question of whether a recording brings pleasure.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I guess you missed where he said that 99 of 100 people claiming to like Bach have never heard his music.
> 
> He’s honest in his opinions, but the issue is he always has an explanation to “debunk” anyone who disagrees. He cannot handle the fact that some people hear things differently, as if there can only be one “fact” regarding a recording’s merit. If a sizable number of people hear the same qualities in a recording, there’s a probably something to that even if he personally doesn’t hear the same thing. He cannot admit that.


That was clearly hyperbole to be entertaining. 

Now I don't know the context of the quote (I guess it's from the video where Hurwitz frankly admits he doesn't like J.S. Bach very much), but I know Hurwitz finds conductor and composer cults distasteful, and he wasn't the only person to mock those who practically worship Bach while sticking to familiar pieces. One article about impressing CM enthusiasts with your supposed musical taste advised you to say Bach is your favorite composer and mention a random BWV number from 100 to 999. The nerds will assume it's some masterpiece they haven't heard. (The article is meant to be a joke)


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You cannot avoid taste, and you cannot be “factual” in the ultimate question of whether a recording brings pleasure.


Do you want Hurwitz to have the same tastes as before, but talk about "greatness" and "spirituality" to justify his personal taste instead of metrics you'd _have_ to agree on?

And when Hurwitz bashes a recording, some people will sample it on Youtube or streaming services, because there's no such thing as bad publicity.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

ORigel said:


> Do you want Hurwitz to have the same tastes as before, but talk about "greatness" and "spirituality" to justify his personal taste instead of metrics you'd _have_ to agree on?


You fall into his trap by using the word “justify.” Taste cannot by definition be either justified or debunked. It exists whether you like it or not. A competent reviewer should be able to explain why a recording may or may not be appealing.

There is no “fact” that can justify Beethoven’s greatness. He has obvious wide appeal for reasons a competent music reviewer should be able to explain. The same is true with recordings.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You fall into his trap by using the word “justify.” Taste cannot by definition be either justified or debunked. It exists whether you like it or not. A competent reviewer should be able to explain why a recording may or may not be appealing.
> 
> There is no “fact” that can justify Beethoven’s greatness. He has obvious wide appeal for reasons a competent music reviewer should be able to explain. The same is true with recordings.


I got the Paul Kletski Beethoven cycle on Hurwitz's rec and it's a solid (consistently good) cycle with really good wind playing 
(courtesy of the Czech Phil) and audible base lines, like Hurwitz said. Kletski's is a good cycle for the reasons Hurwitz gave. It's also good for its moderately slow pre-HIP style. It should be in everyone's collection, though even Hurwitz doesn't think it's the "greatest" Beethoven cycle.

For Hurwitz explaining what makes the Beethoven symphonies themselves great, see the beginnings of Hurwitz's "BEST recording" videos for the individual symphonies. He also has promoted his book on Beethoven's orchestral music (but that would cost money).


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

ORigel said:


> (courtesy of the Czech Phil) and audible base lines, like Hurwitz said. Kletski's is a good cycle for the reasons Hurwitz gave.


Audible bass lines should work good with the 8th


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

bagpipers said:


> Audible bass lines should work good with the 8th


That’s partly why Paul Kletzki’s 8th is Dave Hurwitz’s favorite


----------



## sworley (6 mo ago)

I can only take him in small doses. He tends to be glib and his reviews are too often all or nothing. His target audience appears to be relatively inexperienced listeners whom, he seems to hope, will respond to his style. He typically presents himself as the 'truth teller'--the wise guy who tells us that the emperor has no clothes. And the judgments, as I suggested, lack nuance. He doesn't want to seem elitist (even if he could) and that is a worthwhile goal, but one of the results of thoughtful listening should eventually be more than just good/bad black/white, buy/don't buy. There often doesn't seem to be much difference in Hurwitz's commentary and the way Consumer Reports evaluates home appliances. I suppose this is to some extent unavoidable. Record reviews originally and largely still are linked to consumerism. But still one hopes for something more.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

sworley said:


> I can only take him in small doses. He tends to be glib and his reviews are too often all or nothing. His target audience appears to be relatively inexperienced listeners whom, he seems to hope, will respond to his style. He typically presents himself as the 'truth teller'--the wise guy who tells us that the emperor has no clothes. And the judgments, as I suggested, lack nuance. He doesn't want to seem elitist (even if he could) and that is a worthwhile goal, but one of the results of thoughtful listening should eventually be more than just good/bad black/white, buy/don't buy. There often doesn't seem to be much difference in Hurwitz's commentary and the way Consumer Reports evaluates home appliances. I suppose this is to some extent unavoidable. Record reviews originally and largely still are linked to consumerism. But still one hopes for something more.


Hurwitz at his worst might be when he's going through those big boxes and making brief comments about each CD. I mean, other than the satirical "Biodegradable Bach Edition" on Tinnitus Classics (a trash bag filled with CDs and garbage).


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The "spiritual" attribute is mostly a crutch anyway (at least wrt interpretations and recordings). People who love e.g. Furtwängler's or Horenstein's recordings do like them for "material" reasons. 
It's just that they are extremely hard to describe clearly and even less quantitatively. But the particular qualities these listeners appreciate are "on he surface", like tempi and their changes, balances, articulations etc. It's just that for the fans these components seem to work together to convey "meaning" or "depth" or "the whole" (or whatever word one uses) in an especially convincing way. But they have to rely on metaphors to try to describe it because it is not so easily said as "precise playing at MM = 144, Tamtam stroke clearly audible with good resonance" 
(FTR I have heard very little Horenstein and am ambivalent about Furtwängler, if anything, I am probably closer to the "Hurwitz camp" in my preferences in this particular subsection. But I think that Hurwitz' rejections are often too facile and facetious.)


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> The "spiritual" attribute is mostly a crutch anyway (at least wrt interpretations and recordings). People who love e.g. Furtwängler's or Horenstein's recordings do like them for "material" reasons.
> It's just that they are extremely hard to describe clearly and even less quantitatively. But the particular qualities these listeners appreciate are "on he surface", like tempi and their changes, balances, articulations etc. It's just that for the fans these components seem to work together to convey "meaning" or "depth" or "the whole" (or whatever word one uses) in an especially convincing way. But they have to rely on metaphors to try to describe it because it is not so easily said as "precise playing at MM = 144, Tamtam stroke clearly audible with good resonance"
> (FTR I have heard very little Horenstein and am ambivalent about Furtwängler, if anything, I am probably closer to the "Hurwitz camp" in my preferences in this particular subsection. But I think that Hurwitz' rejections are often too facile and facetious.)


Hurwitz is right to reject Norrington and Currentzis. I haven't listened to Horenstein, but I know Furtwangler would have been among my favorite conductors if he had lived into the 1960s when recording sound quality was better. As it is, his interpretations of Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth symphonies have won me over.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I haven't heard any Currentzis and I think Norrington deserves a nuanced appraisal/critique. 
But the "historical cults" are something different. They have grown for decades, sometimes with rare or bootlegged recordings, sometimes with artists who recorded very little (like Celibidache). I am also not at all a fan of such cultish behavior and poking some fun at it is fun. But it's not that these people are imagining things that are not there; they just find certain qualities in these interpretations that make them very special to them but are harder to describe non-metaphorically than others and can be elusive to many other listeners. That should not be a problem at all, nobody is being forced to listen to these recordings, after all.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz at his worst might be when he's going through those big boxes and making brief comments about each CD. I mean, other than the satirical "Biodegradable Bach Edition" on Tinnitus Classics (a trash bag filled with CDs and garbage).


Oh yes, the videos where he's just reading the contents of boxed sets seem pointless. I skip videos with satirical content.

It's also tiresome that he constantly has to mention his pet peeves about certain subjects, such as German musicologists downplaying Dvorak in favor of Brahms every time he discusses those composers.

I'm inclined to agree with his views on historical recordings and historically informed performance, so I guess that doesn't bother me as much. If anything I would go further than him when it comes to historical recordings. Hurwitz frequently talks about and praises mono recordings that do not interest me because of the sound quality.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> I haven't heard any Currentzis and I think Norrington deserves a nuanced appraisal/critique.
> But the "historical cults" are something different. They have grown for decades, sometimes with rare or bootlegged recordings, sometimes with artists who recorded very little (like Celibidache). I am also not at all a fan of such cultish behavior and poking some fun at it is fun. But it's not that these people are imagining things that are not there; they just find certain qualities in these interpretations that make them very special to them but are harder to describe non-metaphorically than others and can be elusive to many other listeners. That should not be a problem at all, nobody is being forced to listen to these recordings, after all.


Check out Currentzis' Beethoven on Youtube. It's as awful as Hurwitz says it is. He fiddles with the music, to the music's detriment.

As for Norrington...I hated his Pastoral, his Ninth, his Haydn, his Brahms Tragic Overture, and his Mahler 2 and 9. Everything I've heard from him has been awful, so I am not going to listen to more of his recordings.

I don't hate other period instrument conductors like Gardiner, Herreweghe, Pinnock, and Bruggen. I even like some of their Romantic period music. I hate Norrington.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

These pet peeves are wrong most of the time. In the particular case it is really historically unfair because Brahms was supporting Dvorak as well as he could and I wonder what evidence DH has of serious musicologists "downplaying" Dvorak. 
This whole figure of thought is usually BS and often nearly the opposite of what is the case. 

The main composers "suffering obscurity" or condescencion because of the prominence of the mainstream Austro-Germans are NOT Czech or French or Russian but other Austro-Germans that are perceived second or third rate while they would have been the best and highly revered "national" composers of e.g. Portugal or Bulgaria or even Poland, Sweden or Britain in 1820 or 1880 had they not been Austrian or German.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> These pet peeves are wrong most of the time. In the particular case it is really historically unfair because Brahms was supporting Dvorak as well as he could and I wonder what evidence DH has of serious musicologists "downplaying" Dvorak.
> This whole figure of thought is usually BS and often nearly the opposite of what is the case.
> 
> The main composers "suffering obscurity" or condescencion because of the prominence of the mainstream Austro-Germans are NOT Czech or French or Russian but other Austro-Germans that are perceived second or third rate while they would have been the best and highly revered "national" composers of e.g. Portugal or Bulgaria or even Poland, Sweden or Britain in 1820 or 1880 had they not been Austrian or German.


Your comment is proof that Hurwitz is right and Dvorak is criminally underrated.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Kreisler jr said:


> The "spiritual" attribute is mostly a crutch anyway (at least wrt interpretations and recordings). People who love e.g. Furtwängler's or Horenstein's recordings do like them for "material" reasons.
> It's just that they are extremely hard to describe clearly and even less quantitatively. But the particular qualities these listeners appreciate are "on he surface", like tempi and their changes, balances, articulations etc. It's just that for the fans these components seem to work together to convey "meaning" or "depth" or "the whole" (or whatever word one uses) in an especially convincing way. But they have to rely on metaphors to try to describe it because it is not so easily said as "precise playing at MM = 144, Tamtam stroke clearly audible with good resonance"
> (FTR I have heard very little Horenstein and am ambivalent about Furtwängler, if anything, I am probably closer to the "Hurwitz camp" in my preferences in this particular subsection. But I think that Hurwitz' rejections are often too facile and facetious.)


Yes, it’s hard to describe, but some musicologists are able to break down and explain what Furtwängler does just as they are able to break down a Beethoven symphony. Most of us are not able to explain it quantitatively. So that’s when Hurwitz responds with “It’s pure bunk” and “You’re making it up.” Those are the times when in my view he casts himself as a charlatan. I know what I hear which is the same thing countless others hear which is why the recordings still thrive decades later despite poor sound quality. So stick it, Dave.


----------



## 62984 (5 mo ago)

When I first came across David Hurwitz I thought he was interesting and fun. But after a little while it turned into something unpleasant. He says it's 'criticism' but a lot of the time it's just being nasty. Apologies if my language seems simplistic but I think that's the level he operates on. Music is a wonderful thing - it deserves a better spokesman than him.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Stompy Jones said:


> When I first came across David Hurwitz I thought he was interesting and fun. But after a little while it turned into something unpleasant. He says it's 'criticism' but a lot of the time it's just being nasty. Apologies if my language seems simplistic but I think that's the level he operates on. Music is a wonderful thing - it deserves a better spokesman than him.


Hurwitz seeks out recordings that he sincerely thinks are terrible so he could entertain viewers like me. He also praises recordings he likes. He spends a lot more time advocating for works and recordings he likes than he does bashing recordings he thinks are bad.


----------



## 62984 (5 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz seeks out recordings that he sincerely thinks are terrible so he could entertain viewers like me. He also praises recordings he likes. He spends a lot more time advocating for works and recordings he likes than he does bashing recordings he thinks are bad.


Would a listener lose anything through not taking notice that he thinks a recording isn't good - even the ones that he say 'suck'? When you actually listen to them - in your experience - are these recordings actually as bad as he says they are?


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

Stompy Jones said:


> Would a listener lose anything through not taking notice that he thinks a recording isn't good - even the ones that he say 'suck'? When you actually listen to them - in your experience - are these recordings actually as bad as he says they are?


The thing is that there are so many recordings of the standard repertoire that even if you limit yourself to the recordings he recommends, you will get a decent selection of available choices. Over time you will discover what your preferences are.


----------



## 62984 (5 mo ago)

AndorFoldes said:


> The thing is that there are so many recordings of the standard repertoire that even if you limit yourself to the recordings he recommends, you will get a decent selection of available choices. Over time you will discover what your preferences are.


I think you are right in saying it's about preference - that's all it is.

To illustrate the point: I can't claim to have a deep all-round knowledge of classical music - but I have heard most recordings of the Vaughan Williams symphonies so I can say something about them. I would not call any of the recordings 'terrible'. I don't like the muddy sound of some of the recent Halle ones - for example - but it doesn't make them 'terrible'. It just means I prefer to listen to some of the others. Roger Norrington is used as a hate-figure by Hurwitz but I have heard his Vaughan Williams recordings and they're not obviously worse than any of the others. 

The issue with David Hurwitz is he brings to so-called music criticism a set of emotions that have nothing to do with musical appreciation - it's more about being spiteful when there's a chance to do it. He claims to be 'objective' but comes across as subjective and points-scoring against anyone he has a grudge against. He says he is against so-called 'cults' but has created a cult of himself for his followers in the comments section. It's entertaining at first because it seems like fun and it's human nature to like to listen to someone bitching from time to time - but after a while it leaves a bad taste. 

When language is used sloppily then thinking becomes sloppy. I would suggest that there's no such thing as a 'terrible' recording. A bomb going off in a church or a mosque is 'terrible'. A child being abused is 'terrible'. A recording is just a recording. The words he uses and the emotions he engages are inappropriate and drag music appreciation down to his level.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Stompy Jones said:


> Would a listener lose anything through not taking notice that he thinks a recording isn't good - even the ones that he say 'suck'? When you actually listen to them - in your experience - are these recordings actually as bad as he says they are?


Yes! They often are that bad. Here is the recording of Schubert's Unfinished Symphony he bashed recently. He promised his viewers that they would not be able to listen through the whole thing, and he was right judging by the commemts and my own experience.

Prepare for your eardrums to bleed:


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Stompy Jones said:


> I think you are right in saying it's about preference - that's all it is.
> 
> To illustrate the point: I can't claim to have a deep all-round knowledge of classical music - but I have heard most recordings of the Vaughan Williams symphonies so I can say something about them. I would not call any of the recordings 'terrible'. I don't like the muddy sound of some of the recent Halle ones - for example - but it doesn't make them 'terrible'. It just means I prefer to listen to some of the others. Roger Norrington is used as a hate-figure by Hurwitz but I have heard his Vaughan Williams recordings and they're not obviously worse than any of the others.
> 
> ...


Hurwitz is a critic, not a CD booklet-writer who has to defend the work and recording he's writing about. Hurwitz's opinions are mild compared to the opinions of many TC members.


----------



## 62984 (5 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> Yes! They often are that bad. Here is the recording of Schubert's Unfinished Symphony he bashed recently. He promised his viewers that they would not be able to listen through the whole thing, and he was right judging by the commemts and my own experience.
> 
> Prepare for your eardrums to bleed:


I heard some of it the other day but my eardrums didn't bleed. I think my eardrums might bleed if someone slapped me around the head - but not listening to a recording. It's music - not a rifle butt.


----------



## 62984 (5 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz is a critic, not a CD booklet-writer who has to defend the work and recording he's writing about. Hurwitz's opinions are mild compared to the opinions of many TC members.





ORigel said:


> Hurwitz is a critic, not a CD booklet-writer who has to defend the work and recording he's writing about. Hurwitz's opinions are mild compared to the opinions of many TC members.


I would say Hurwitz has a crossed a line from being a critic to something else.


----------



## sworley (6 mo ago)

Did it occur to anyone else when he was at some length mocking Knappertsbusch's appearance that Mr. Hurwitz was treading on dangerous ground . . . I mean does he really want to start talking about looks?


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Stompy Jones said:


> The issue with David Hurwitz is he brings to so-called music criticism a set of emotions that have nothing to do with musical appreciation - it's more about being spiteful when there's a chance to do it. He claims to be 'objective' but comes across as subjective and points-scoring against anyone he has a grudge against. He says he is against so-called 'cults' but has created a cult of himself for his followers in the comments section. It's entertaining at first because it seems like fun and it's human nature to like to listen to someone bitching from time to time - but after a while it leaves a bad taste.


It's good to realize that Hurwitz' views are not only non-objective (even if he claims they are) but they're also minority views.
Because he's so well known and vocal and influential, he creates the impression of being the all-knowing, infallible oracle of classical music - while most other critics, who have the same amount of credientials and experience, or more, don't share his views. It's hard to find another critic with such harsh prejudices against conductors like Furtwängler, Horenstein, Barbirolli, and even Norrington.
And it's even harder to find any serious reviewer who thinks Furtwängler's wartime Beethoven 9, Horenstein's Mahler 3 and DLvdE, Barbirolli's Mahler 9, his BBC Eroica and his Sibelius cycle are anything less than great.
That said, I still enjoy his videos for their entertainment value.



sworley said:


> Did it occur to anyone else when he was at some length mocking Knappertsbusch's appearance that Mr. Hurwitz was treading on dangerous ground . . . I mean does he really want to start talking about looks?


I saw a wartime video of Kna conducting and he looked stunningly handsome there. With a face like one of those Arno Breker statues. And in old age, he retained some of that granite dignity - so I don't know what Hurtwitz was about, it sounds like a cheap jab to me.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

sworley said:


> Did it occur to anyone else when he was at some length mocking Knappertsbusch's appearance that Mr. Hurwitz was treading on dangerous ground . . . I mean does he really want to start talking about looks?


What?...I remember now. Hurwitz was talking about Knappertbusch's allegedly sloppy conducting by using dressing up fancy (technically decent soloist playing) vs. dressing casual (Knap's conducting/orchestral playing) as an analogy! He wasn't mocking Knappertbusch's appearance.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

RobertJTh said:


> It's good to realize that Hurwitz' views are not only non-objective (even if he claims they are) but they're also minority views.
> Because he's so well known and vocal and influential, he creates the impression of being the all-knowing, infallible oracle of classical music - while most other critics, who have the same amount of credientials and experience, or more, don't share his views. It's hard to find another critic with such harsh prejudices against conductors like Furtwängler, Horenstein, Barbirolli, and even Norrington.
> And it's even harder to find any serious reviewer who thinks Furtwängler's wartime Beethoven 9, Horenstein's Mahler 3 and DLvdE, Barbirolli's Mahler 9, his BBC Eroica and his Sibelius cycle are anything less than great.
> That said, I still enjoy his videos for their entertainment value.
> ...


That's because Hurwitz wasn't mocking Knappertbusch's looks but contrasting the good playing of the soloist with the sloppy orchestral accompaniment in a concerto.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Stompy Jones said:


> I would say Hurwitz has a crossed a line from being a critic to something else.


So Hurwitz is honest about his views, unlike "real" critics who conform to the tastes of other critics?


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

As said before, he was entertaining at the beginning but I feel he's run out of things to make videos about, plus he posts about 2/3 snippets a day.
The reason I think he's a charlatan is that read the YT comments and everyone slavishly agrees with his opinions, meaning they don't have an opinion of their own or if they do, disagree with him, he deletes their post. He really thinks he's right and everyone else is beneath his knowledge of classical works.


----------



## sworley (6 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> That's because Hurwitz wasn't mocking Knappertbusch's looks but contrasting the good playing of the soloist with the sloppy orchestral accompaniment in a concerto.


You are completely wrong. He was explicitly talking about Kna's appearance. Go back and watch it again. I am puzzled by how desperately you defend his shtick.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

The sewing circle is at it again. If Hurwitz isn't to your liking, you're free to tune him out. There are a hundred other critics out there who'll agree with your opinions.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> The sewing circle is at it again. If Hurwitz isn't to your liking, you're free to tune him out. There are a hundred other critics out there who'll agree with your opinions.


On this forum, he seems to be the only critic being discussed. I would love to find other sources for YouTube/online classical music criticism. Currently, I just read the snippets from Presto Classical and ArkivMusic.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

I found a cool new hobby! I call it "spot Dave's deletions". It goes as follows.

1. Wait till a new video is posted
2. Watch the first comments coming in.
3. Whenever there's one that (only slightly) disagrees with what Dave says in the video, take note.
4. Wait a while.
5. Bingo! Your candidate has won and is deleted from the comments!

It's so much fun. For example, take today's video about Beethoven's PC 1 and 2 with Sinopoli and Argerich. It's a Dave's Fave, but if it isn't your fave, your comment isn't safe!

The first comment read:_ I don't know, this recording has always left me quite dissatisfied. Sinopoli as accompanist I find him rather heavy, loudy , overemphatic meanwhile Argerich follows a totally opposite line made of freshness, clarity an dynamic lights and shades._
The guy's grammar sucks but apart from that it's a pretty concise, polite and informed opinion. Nothing offensive, one would say. Dave disagrees, it had to go.

Seriously, every single time this happens - and it must have happened thousands of times, for good or bad reasons, it leaves someone puzzled, irritated or mad. First time it happened to me, I was completely in the dark about the reason behind it, and I dropped him a pm. I gotta say, he was pretty gentleman-like about it and gave me a detailed answer, explaining his reasoning. Still didn't agree, but ok, fine. Second time, when he said something about Bach's St. Matthew's Passion having a crappy story, I commented that Christians could be offended by that, got my comment deleted and a pm wasn't answered. I guess at that point he stopped bothering about keeping his subscribers aboard. His legion of yes-men was so large already that those few informed dissidents didn't matter anymore.

Needless to say, I agree with the commenter and wouldn't touch Sinopoli's Beethoven with a 10 ft. pole.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I made a comment last week where I mentioned another recording in addition to his list and it was deleted in less than a minute. Occasionally I'll watch his videos to see what recordings he digs up but I don't take his recommendations or dismissals with more than a grain of salt. And when he decides a certain recording is beyond the pale he loves to twist the knife while attempting to completely destroy any consideration a listener may have for choosing the product in question. It's relegated to the trash bin as far as he's concerned.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

starthrower said:


> I made a comment last week where I mentioned another recording in addition to his list and it was deleted in less than a minute. Occasionally I'll watch his videos to see what recordings he digs up but I don't take his recommendations or dismissals with more than a grain of salt. And when he decides a certain recording is beyond the pale he loves to twist the knife while attempting to completely destroy any consideration a listener may have for choosing the product in question. It's relegated to the trash bin as far as he's concerned.


Hurwitz does have an authoritarian streak in him, but one can't deny that he's an exceptionally knowledgeable and competent music critic. Also, let's remember that his opinions are often shared by other critics; he isn't really making any controversial claims. In the end, I am not overly concerned with his character, I simply expect him to be competent at his job.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

if it was a "for beginners" video, i think he mentioned that for those videos specifically he wouldn't accept additional "this should be on the list too" submissions, since the target audience is beginners, and he doesn't want them seeing all sorts of other suggestions in the comments section


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I didn't watch the Beginners video. His opinions are not shared by all other critics. But I believe he shouldn't bother commenting about music he has no taste for rather than dismissing it as "garbage" which he has done in the past.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

RobertJTh said:


> I found a cool new hobby! I call it "spot Dave's deletions". It goes as follows.
> 
> 1. Wait till a new video is posted
> 2. Watch the first comments coming in.
> ...


This sounds like fun, do feel free to post more of these for our amusement.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

Red Terror said:


> Hurwitz does have an authoritarian streak in him, but one can't deny that he's an exceptionally knowledgeable and competent music critic. Also, let's remember that his opinions are often shared by other critics; he isn't really making any controversial claims. In the end, I am not overly concerned with his character, I simply expect him to be competent at his job.


Can what he is doing still be called music criticism? Lately I'm seeing mostly fast food content like his personal favourites and top 10 lists.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

AndorFoldes said:


> Can what he is doing still be called music criticism? Lately I'm seeing mostly fast food content like his personal favourites and top 10 lists.


That's the nature of competing for viewers on YouTube.


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm interested in the Dave's Faves series, but don't have the time to play or even start almost 300 videos. I started a list here.

Do You have a more recent list?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

He appreciates a lot of the same Composers that I do. He’s not perfect. But very good at what he does.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

He resides in an echo chamber. Someday Hurwitz will have to answer the paradox of how it can be that truth is so clear and simple and yet he is apparently the only person on earth who sees it his way.


----------



## Montarsolo (5 mo ago)

An interesting channel but I can't get used to such a rude American. If I compare how this professor discusses the Mozart piano sonatas. What a relief (for those who understand German).


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

fbjim said:


> if it was a "for beginners" video, i think he mentioned that for those videos specifically he wouldn't accept additional "this should be on the list too" submissions, since the target audience is beginners, and he doesn't want them seeing all sorts of other suggestions in the comments section


So he advocates a kind of Classical Music totalitarianism?


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

fbjim said:


> if it was a "for beginners" video, i think he mentioned that for those videos specifically he wouldn't accept additional "this should be on the list too" submissions, since the target audience is beginners, and he doesn't want them seeing all sorts of other suggestions in the comments section


I think David Hurwitz's recent Ten Essential Orchestral Suites for Beginners video on YouTube is ok as far as it goes. I have commented on it today on the Suite Spot (Orchestral Music Forum) thread. He focuses on 10 well-known orchestral suites that come from music for the stage (opera, ballet, plays). That keeps things clear, as there are many different types of suites. From there, I find young people are not nearly as aware of these works as we were (except for the Nutcracker Suite). And for getting to know late 19th-early 20th c. music these compositions are good choices: attractive to listen to and an easy place to start. I do think Hurwitz's presentation has gotten stilted though, and some changes would help.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He resides in an echo chamber. Someday Hurwitz will have to answer the paradox of how it can be that truth is so clear and simple and yet he is apparently the only person on earth who sees it his way.



I am not trying to start an argument, but I love the fact that you keep accusing Dave Hurwitz of being dogmatic, while generally ripping anybody who does not agree with your tastes in music or your opinions in general, all while insisting that all you want is a "discussion" and that all anybody needs to do is "listen" (to the music).


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

haziz said:


> I am not trying to start an argument, ...


David Hurwitz's commentaries tend to start arguments, regardless of what we say!  He wants to be contentious so people will continue to watch, and he is in a position to cancel others. He knows what he is talking about, has been personally involved in recording projects, and has been doing this for a long time. He has been stalwart in promoting the works of some neglected composers, without giving everyone a free pass. But no one can stay abreast of all areas of classical music, and as a generalist he's bound to be wrong at times.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Montarsolo said:


> An interesting channel but I can't get used to such a rude American. If I compare how this professor discusses the Mozart piano sonatas. What a relief (for those who understand German).


I'm sure there are rude folks in every country including your own. If Hurwitz is rude, it has nothing to do with his being American.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

The other day, I looked at the second/last Boehm recording of Beethoven 9, the one that lasts for 79 minutes. The Amazon description had a quote by David Hurwitz:
_There are two Karl Böhm recordings of Beethoven's Ninth on Deutsche Grammophon, both with the Vienna Philharmonic. This is the later and lesser of the two, recorded just before the great conductor's death. It's terribly slow, and reflects all too well the depredations of old age. The earlier one, available as part of his complete Vienna Beethoven cycle at a "twofer" price, is one of the all time great versions of the symphony. Buy that one._

Oops.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

haziz said:


> I am not trying to start an argument, but I love the fact that you keep accusing Dave Hurwitz of being dogmatic, while generally ripping anybody who does not agree with your tastes in music or your opinions in general, all while insisting that all you want is a "discussion" and that all anybody needs to do is "listen" (to the music).


Hurwitz is mild compared to most TC posters.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz is mild compared to most TC posters.


But here one does not hear the grating voice or see the histrionic behavior...


----------



## Montarsolo (5 mo ago)

Edit
-wrong topic -


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I read his reviews when he wrote for Fanfare, watched his other online site before this one, and have seen his recommendations a time or two. The guy knows something about classical music and has built a following but he has never been any help to me.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> But here one does not hear the grating voice or see the histrionic behavior...


No one’s forcing you to listen to him. 😉


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

larold said:


> The guy knows something about classical music and has built a following but he has never been any help to me.


Thats as fair and balanced an assessment as I have read about Hurwitz.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

haziz said:


> I am not trying to start an argument, but I love the fact that you keep accusing Dave Hurwitz of being dogmatic, while generally ripping anybody who does not agree with your tastes in music or your opinions in general, all while insisting that all you want is a "discussion" and that all anybody needs to do is "listen" (to the music).


When do I ever rip people for having different tastes than mine? To the contrary, I am fascinated to know other people's tastes even if I disagree with them. Just because I have strong opinions about music doesn't mean that I am oblivious and/or disrespectful of the opinions of others.

My issue with Hurwitz is not that he is strongly opinionated. It's that he takes it to the extreme of believing it is only possible for someone to share his tastes or else they are denying "facts." Witness his motto, "It is okay to like things that suck, just admit it" and his statement that "99% of people who claim they like Bach have never even heard his music." He has a severe case of psychological self-absorption. That's why he must delete all alternate viewpoints from his comments section.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Not familiar with Hurwitz (well I've heard the name obviously but I've never read/watched any of his reviews), but I'd been casually following this discussion. When I saw


Brahmsianhorn said:


> 99% of people who claim they like Bach have never even heard his music


my eyes nearly popped out of my skull. I became an organist because of my love for Bach. This statement is just so obviously _wrong_ that I wonder if I'm missing some context or something. Is this satire?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't know about satire? But sometimes Hurwitz says or does things for shock value. Like the time he tossed the Complete Works of Pierre Boulez box set in the trash can.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

starthrower said:


> he tossed the Complete Works of Pierre Boulez box set in the trash can.


but didn't physically destroy it himself? How disappointing.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Well my eyes are figuratively bleeding now.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> but didn't physically destroy it himself? How disappointing.


He wouldn't do that because he knows it has value. Unlike the hundred and fifty box sets of Beethoven symphonies out there.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Like the time he tossed the Complete Works of Pierre Boulez box set in the trash can.


Shucks, if I lived next door to him, I'd be out dumpster diving.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Monsalvat said:


> Not familiar with Hurwitz (well I've heard the name obviously but I've never read/watched any of his reviews), but I'd been casually following this discussion. When I saw
> 
> my eyes nearly popped out of my skull. I became an organist because of my love for Bach. This statement is just so obviously _wrong_ that I wonder if I'm missing some context or something. Is this satire?


Hurwitz was exaggerating and might have meant that most people don't delve deeply into Bach like he did. They only listen to some of his most popular stuff and only say they like the rest. Which wouldn't be much better.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Last night, I watched a video of his ("My Calamitious Henze Incident") where he talks about the time he, as a chairman of a classical music awards ceremony in 2001, wrote a rude letter to Henze the recipient of a "Great Living Composer" award. So Henze was furious at Hurwitz and didn't attend the ceremony. Hurwitz said that it was no loss, because "I hate his music." 

Hurwitz was PROUD of the needlessly rude letter he wrote.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> but didn't physically destroy it himself? How disappointing.


He blowtorched a CD once-- a version of the Eroica symphony with one string instrument to a part and full wind sections.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Monsalvat said:


> Not familiar with Hurwitz (well I've heard the name obviously but I've never read/watched any of his reviews), but I'd been casually following this discussion. When I saw
> 
> my eyes nearly popped out of my skull. I became an organist because of my love for Bach. This statement is just so obviously _wrong_ that I wonder if I'm missing some context or something. Is this satire?


It's in this video. The usual issue with Hurwitz is that when he finds his opinion at odds with others, he looks for some rationalized explanation of the difference that always conveniently paints himself as the thorough, objective one and the imagined "straw man" opponent as someone lacking objectivity or insight.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> I don't know about satire? But sometimes Hurwitz says or does things for shock value. Like the time he tossed the Complete Works of Pierre Boulez box set in the trash can.


Bizarre. That's like people who burn books. I'll have to stop making excuses for him. Use your words David Hurwitz, don't act out.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Roger Knox said:


> Bizarre. That's like people who burn books. I'll have to stop making excuses for him. Use your words David Hurwitz, don't act out.


He wasn't trying to censor Boulez. He was entertaining us by chucking Boulez CDs behind him.

He did destroy Cristofori's horrendous recording of the Eroica with a blowtorch. It was entertaining. Especially since you can stream the recording and find out that it is horrible.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

He actually destroyed a CD? I think it's time for me to eat my words:



Sid James said:


> It seems Dave is one of those librarian-type collectors. He even keeps things that he hates so he can admire it gracing the shelves! :lol:


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

Two interesting videos:
The 10 Most Amazing Symphonic Endings (5.6k views)
10 Great Orchestral Beginnings
I'll look for the comments.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

perempe said:


> Two interesting videos:
> The 10 Most Amazing Symphonic Endings (5.6k views)
> 10 Great Orchestral Beginnings
> I'll look for the comments.


Good topic!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Malx said:


> Thats as fair and balanced an assessment as I have read about Hurwitz.


Which is far more than the guy deserves!


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

So Hurwitz made a community post saying he has to postpone his "Best of" series because YouTube told him to make short TikTok-style highlight videos, which he will now start producing. Mwahaha.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

Kreisler jr said:


> But here one does not hear the grating voice or see the histrionic behavior...


The scratchy voice is the only problem I have with him. (Though if I come across any intolerant comments like others have alluded to, I'll have a problem with those too.)

He's engaging, knowledgeable, unpretentious, and conveys his enthusiasm.

Resentfulness of his influence is the only explanation I can see for the disproportionate antipathy he attracts.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

I like him.


----------



## thr1 (8 mo ago)

ribonucleic said:


> The scratchy voice is the only problem I have with him.


To me, the voice is fine as long as he does not start singing. I find the singing quite unbearable.
And concerning these short videos: Completely pointless. What a useless idea.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

AndorFoldes said:


> So Hurwitz made a community post saying he has to postpone his "Best of" series because YouTube told him to make short TikTok-style highlight videos, which he will now start producing. Mwahaha.


It's odd because Hurwitz doesn't really play the Youtube game. He has far too many videos for most viewers, and the trend these days are for video essays and longer-form stuff, usually with some kind of incredibly controversial title/thumbnail and visual aids.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

fbjim said:


> It's odd because Hurwitz doesn't really play the Youtube game. He has far too many videos for most viewers, and the trend these days are for video essays and longer-form stuff, usually with some kind of incredibly controversial title/thumbnail and visual aids.


He's steadily gaining subscribers. I believe he has over 18K now.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

ribonucleic said:


> The scratchy voice is the only problem I have with him. (Though if I come across any intolerant comments like others have alluded to, I'll have a problem with those too.)
> 
> He's engaging, knowledgeable, unpretentious, and conveys his enthusiasm.
> 
> Resentfulness of his influence is the only explanation I can see for the disproportionate antipathy he attracts.


I love Hurwitz, but I understand that he has a mean streak and an ego.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

Okay, here is an exchange from his 2000th video about posthumous reputations that he just posted that I found amusing. A commenter writes:
_
First of all, congratulations! This time, though, I must disagree. You are an American who loves mostly orchestral music, but if you are a European opera lover, the picture is quite different. Solti survives because of THE RING (how many times has it been reissued lately?). Since it's impossible to make a great Ring today (the voices are not there), if you are a wagnerian then you must own those 1950s and 1960s recordings with the Bayreuth singers, and this is why the conductors involved (Kna, Keilberth...) are still well known. Pavarotti will endure because he's the ultimate Rodolfo in La bohème, the most popular opera out there. On the other hand, here in Europe nobody cares much about Szell (sadly)._

The response from Hurwitz is pretty blunt:

_Thank you, and cool with the nationalistic crap. It makes you sound like an idiot. _

The commenter then tries to justify himself:

_It is not nationalism, is a geographical divide, and as you said many times, for decades European records didn't reach the US and viceversa. The classical magazines, for years the only source of information, also promoted different artists. Before the Internet I could read Gramophone, Scherzo and Diapason, but I never heard about American critics, your magazines never reached our shores._

Another commenter then chimes in, and agrees with the first commenter:
_
I agree, although a great conductor, Szell is not a household name in Europe. Actually, all classical 'stars' are quickly forgotten nowadays, I think._


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

He used to be polite and understanding when he started with his videos series, because naturally he wanted to build an audience that sympathized with him.
Nowadays, with his 20k subscribers and 9 million views, he doesn't care anymore, and his true nature starts shining through.
It surprises me that the above exchange hasn't been purged yet, btw. Maybe because the commenter didn't call him out on his ignorance directly, that's something he can't stand.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think these commenters are correct in pointing out that "parochialism" has not disappeared in the time of the internet although I am not sure they are not correct in several of the concrete examples. I knew who Szell was within the first two years listening to classical music in 1987-88 West Germany. This might just have been by accident but I also remember that lots of Szell recordings were easily available some time later in the cheap Sony series like "Essential Classics". But Solti was of course much bigger in the early CD age, not mainly for opera, but because he was still active and Decca spectacular sound, including great sounding early digital recordings.
But I had never heard of or seen a "Penguin guide" until I got to the US as an exchange student in the mid-1990s, so there are plenty of musicians (incl. composers) I had hardly heard of or where I was quite surprised how different their status was perceived on either side of the ocean (or even channel).

The embarassing thing about DH is that he probably knows these (innocuous) local differences, or at least _should_ know this and respect it, instead of denigrating them as "nationalism" and pretending his personal and US (or East Coast or whatever) biases are a neutral standpoint. It's the strange phenomenon that the Land ohne Musik and the US both of which have dominated popular culture worldwide for 70 years cannot live with the fact that continental Europe, incl. backward failed states or some that got cut to shreds because of lost wars (like Austria) is the true homeland of classical music


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

ribonucleic said:


> He's engaging, knowledgeable, unpretentious, and conveys his enthusiasm.
> 
> Resentfulness of his influence is the only explanation I can see for the disproportionate antipathy he attracts.


Agreed. People can be so spiteful and egoistic; it's quite an ugly spectacle. Hurwitz is doing an excellent PR job for the music we love, yet there are some who actually hate the man simply because he's more knowledgeable than _they _are.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Red Terror said:


> Agreed. People can be so spiteful and egoistic; it's quite an ugly spectacle. Hurwitz is doing an excellent PR job for the music we love, yet there are some who actually hate the man simply because he's more knowledgeable than _they _are.


Yes, that’s it. Hurwitz’s low brow analysis inspires jealousy. I could be even more crass if only I were given the chance.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I don’t think Hurwitz expects everyone to think like him. His concentration is on beginners. Music is a very personal experience. I guess he likes conflict sometimes.


----------

