# David Hurwitz YouTube channel



## Brahmsianhorn

What are your impressions? I think it's a great platform for presentation and discussion of classical music. However, a lot of it seems self-serving as Hurwitz promotes himself and his personal biases and heavily polices the comments, which is a shame because there are a lot of knowledgeable people out there with a lot to add.

This is a pretty fun topic:






Off my head, my list would include:

1. Mahler, Symphony No. 7 (my personal favorite, though I know it is controversial)
2. Beethoven, Eroica (1959 stereo EMI)
3. R. Strauss, Metamorphosen (EMI)
4. Bach, Mass in B minor (EMI)
5. Mozart, Symphony No. 40 (1956 EMI)
6. Beethoven, Pastoral (studio EMI)
7. Mahler, Symphony No. 2 (live 1965 EMI)
8. Beethoven, Fidelio (EMI studio)
9. Brahms, Symphony No. 2 (studio EMI)
10. Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 (1961 live Testament, slightly over 1957 live Testament)

Four more:

Bruckner, Symphony No. 6 (studio EMI)
Mahler, Symphony No. 9 (studio EMI)
Mahler, Das Lied von der Erde (studio EMI)
Bruckner, Symphony No. 4 (live Munich EMI)

Celebrated recordings that don't crack my list:

Bach, St Matthew Passion (not enough drama and momentum)
Brahms, Ein Deutsches Requiem (not flexible enough)
Mozart, Die Zauberflote (great singing, but a little heavy for this work)

.


----------



## FrankinUsa

WHY is there ANOTHER thread about David Hurwitz?????? The first one has close to 1000 comments!!!!!! 
Enough!!!!


----------



## HenryPenfold

FrankinUsa said:


> WHY is there ANOTHER thread about David Hurwitz?


Because he's highly relevant and people want to air their views. I think that's a pretty good reason.


----------



## hammeredklavier

............................


----------



## FrankinUsa

Anything that could have been said was said,and said repeatedly,in the first thread. I see the first thread was closed at the request of the OP. Some people just can’t stop.


----------



## FrankinUsa

No. I’m not related.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I am not posting anything more on this second Hurwitz thread.


----------



## HenryPenfold

FrankinUsa said:


> Anything that could have been said was said,and said repeatedly,in the first thread. I see the first thread was closed at the request of the OP. Some people just can't stop.


Speak for yourself, winkle.

I've more to say, if it's all the same with you .........


----------



## mbhaub

I will add this: Hurwitz spends too much time on YouTube and not on the subscription based Classics Today. CT is updated maybe once a week. He has added Insider Only videos, yet there's no way to comment on them. Talk Classical is an extremely valuable resource. CT I'm not so sure anymore. His videos are too long anyway. Brevity is the soul of wit.


----------



## HenryPenfold

mbhaub said:


> I will add this: Hurwitz spends too much time on YouTube and not on the subscription based Classics Today. CT is updated maybe once a week. He has added Insider Only videos, yet there's no way to comment on them. Talk Classical is an extremely valuable resource. CT I'm not so sure anymore. His videos are too long anyway. Brevity is the soul of wit.


Not sure I agree.

Broadcasters should operate without a pay-wall, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> WHY is there ANOTHER thread about David Hurwitz?????? The first one has close to 1000 comments!!!!!!
> Enough!!!!


Because unlike Hurwitz's channel, people here can speak freely.

Why is that a problem for you?


----------



## fbjim

He should make even more Feldman videos


----------



## vtpoet

I join FrankinUSA in refusing to post to this thread. I will suffer no entreaties to the contrary. I refuse.


----------



## HenryPenfold

vtpoet said:


> I join FrankinUSA in refusing to post to this thread. I will suffer no entreaties to the contrary. I refuse.


Do you realise there is no compulsion for any of us to post on threads?

In fact we don't even have to look at a thread, never mind post.

Or even log-in to the forum!

it's all voluntary :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> Anything that could have been said was said,and said repeatedly,in the first thread. I see the first thread was closed at the request of the OP. Some people just can't stop.


I thought it was very insightful and entertaining. Not sure why it was closed.

Here is the link for anyone interested. Hurwitz's YouTube channel - your thoughts?


----------



## mmsbls

There is no requirement that people not reopen discussion from closed threads (unless the thread topic is considered a violation of our Terms of Service such as pure politics). People who wish to continue discussing the issue certainly can. Those who do not wish to continue or do not wish to even look at more posts can do so by not opening the thread. At any rate, please do not chide those who wish to post in this thread.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

There is a cottage industry of people on YouTube who loudly proclaim their opinions and biases, try to pass them off as objective fact, and berate those who do not share them. They cultivate parasocial relationships with viewers by employing in-jokes, jargon, and putdowns.

Hurwitz occupies that spot on YouTube for classical music. I treat his videos with the same skepticism that I do certain tech reviewers, pop culture critics with a heavy MRA/Jordan Peterson bent, and the like. They can be entertaining in small doses, but do not substitute in any way for actual learning or in depth criticism.

An example that sticks out in my memory is saying that Lizst is worthless as a composer. What an asinine and irresponsible thing for someone with such a large platform to say to an uninformed audience. I don't even like Lizst that much (he's fine, but he's far from being in my regular rotation), but it's not what I consider helpful critical content to try and steer people away from someone they might otherwise enjoy.


----------



## HenryPenfold

mmsbls said:


> There is no requirement that people not reopen discussion from closed threads (unless the thread topic is considered a violation of our Terms of Service such as pure politics). People who wish to continue discussing the issue certainly can. Those who do not wish to continue or do not wish to even look at more posts can do so by not opening the thread. At any rate, please do not chide those who wish to post in this thread.


Ok. Can you please add the posts from the previous thread to this one?

I think I made about 3 posts that I think were quite valuable, informative and positive (my view, of course - happy to be challenged). And I know of who others posted of at least equal value.

Can you please do this so that we can have a reasoned exchange of ideas about music, commentary, and a general discussion about what we all love?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

HenryPenfold said:


> Ok. Can you please add the posts from the previous thread to this one?
> 
> I think I made about 3 posts that I think were quite valuable, informative and positive (my view, of course - happy to be challenged). And I know of who others posted of at least equal value.
> 
> Can you please do this so that we can have a reasoned exchange of ideas about music, commentary, and a general discussion about what we all love?


You can always copy and paste. I linked the other thread on the previous page.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You can always copy and paste. I linked the other thread on the previous page.


Thanks Brahms&cetera, but I Think it's best if the mods do _it sans le workaround _........


----------



## mmsbls

HenryPenfold said:


> Ok. Can you please add the posts from the previous thread to this one?
> 
> I think I made about 3 posts that I think were quite valuable, informative and positive (my view, of course - happy to be challenged). And I know of who others posted of at least equal value.
> 
> Can you please do this so that we can have a reasoned exchange of ideas about music, commentary, and a general discussion about what we all love?


Could you tell me which posts you think should be moved? They will all show up in front of the OP for this thread since they were posted earlier. That should be fine.


----------



## HenryPenfold

mmsbls said:


> Could you tell me which posts you think should be moved? They will all show up in front of the OP for this thread since they were posted earlier. That should be fine.


All of them. Feel free to remove the offending posts.


----------



## vtpoet

HenryPenfold said:


> Do you realise there is no compulsion for any of us to post on threads?
> 
> In fact we don't even have to look at a thread, never mind post.
> 
> Or even log-in to the forum!
> 
> it's all voluntary :lol:


I should have added /s to the end of my comment but I thought the joke was already obvious.

Didn't it occur to you to point out the irony of my refusing to post to a thread to which I was posting? Anyone? Have the last several years really killed irony dead?


----------



## HenryPenfold

vtpoet said:


> I should have added /s to the end of my comment but I thought the joke was already obvious.
> 
> Didn't it occur to you to point out the irony of my refusing to post to a thread to which I was posting? Anyone? Have the last several years really killed irony dead?


Of course - have you missed my 'double-irony' ? Lol!


----------



## vtpoet

HenryPenfold said:


> Of course - have you missed my 'double-irony' ? Lol!


Obviously, I wasn't bombastic enough. I need to work on my bombast.


----------



## HenryPenfold

vtpoet said:


> Obviously, I wasn't bombastic enough. I need to work on my bombast.


:lol:

...............


----------



## vtpoet

But seriously, on the subject of Hurwitz, I earlier today watched his commentary on the latest Glenn Gould Bach Box set. Cracked me up. Confirmed what I had already concluded: That Sony keeps trying to milk the same old cow with updated advertising. Being an unreconstructed Glenn Gould fanatic, and for whom Gould could do no wrong, I would love to see a complete set that includes his non-canonical CBC recordings—on CD. I have several bootleg recordings on CD, but that heydey has passed.


----------



## Aries

*Is David Hurwitz worse than Eduard Hanslick?*

Hmm, no don't think so. But there is something about such critics I don't like. They abuse their power and they seem to think that it is their job. Hurwitz has too much non-taste related opinions. He is against a lot of versions of Bruckner symphonies and says they should not be played, or "doesn't deserve it" etc. He told Barenboim to not play Furtwänglers 3rd. Well, such opinions are useless and harmful, he should better just shut up.

The purpose of such a channel is to share his experience, knowledge and taste related assessments. When he does that I have to disagree much less, and it is mainly just interesting. What I like about him is, that he likes and promotes some non-modern 20th century music like for example Shostakovichs 12th, Furtwänglers 2nd, Joly Braga Santos, Aram Khachaturian.

But censorship is of course very bad.


----------



## Chilham

Do you think that if we all agreed with Brahmsianhorn, he might STFU about Hurwitz?

It might be worth a try.


----------



## FrankinUsa

*Stfu*



Chilham said:


> Do you think that if we all agreed with Brahmsianhorn, he might STFU about Hurwitz?
> 
> It might be worth a try.


Brahmsianhorn. You are right. You are perfect. Everyone agtrees with you. No one will disagree with you. So. STFU.


----------



## John Zito

Chilham said:


> Do you think that if we all agreed with Brahmsianhorn, he might STFU about Hurwitz?
> 
> It might be worth a try.





FrankinUsa said:


> Brahmsianhorn. You are right. You are perfect. Everyone agtrees with you. No one will disagree with you. So. STFU.


Booo.

He and I don't seem to be on the same page about hardly anything, but so what? It's just fun to get on here and jabber. Quite frankly, whenever I check in and see that there's a new wall of text for me to read about Hurwitz or Furtwängler or George Szell being a yutz, I think "today's going to be a good day."


----------



## FrankinUsa

John Zito said:


> Booo.
> 
> He and I don't seem to be on the same page about hardly anything, but so what? It's just fun to get on here and jabber. Quite frankly, whenever I check in and see that there's a new wall of text for me to read about Hurwitz or Furtwängler or George Szell being a yutz, I think "today's going to be a good day."


But it's endless


----------



## hammeredklavier

FrankinUsa said:


> But it's endless


If you like Witz so much, wouldn't you want to use this thread to tell us of the things you like about him?


----------



## John Zito

FrankinUsa said:


> But it's endless


I know, isn't it terrific?


----------



## FrankinUsa

hammeredklavier said:


> If you like Witz so much, wouldn't you want to use this thread to tell us of the things you like about him?


No. I'm not going abuse the people on this blog with endless repetition. If I like Hurwitz' videos I'll just look at them. If I don't I won't look at his YouTube videos. It's soo simple.


----------



## FrankinUsa

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/09/18/arts/MUSEUM/MUSEUM-superJumbo.jpg


----------



## Dmitriyevich

His world's most beautiful melodies series:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAjIX596BriGdmyKHy_rIcTcPmct2K5G-


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> No. I'm not going abuse the people on this blog with endless repetition. If I like Hurwitz' videos I'll just look at them. If I don't I won't look at his YouTube videos. It's soo simple.


If Hurwitz doesn't like Norrington, he can just ignore him. Why does he have to endlessly refer to him as the world's worst conductor?


----------



## vtpoet

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why does he have to endlessly refer to him as the world's worst conductor?


Because he's more afraid of the Furtwänglaryans than the Norringtonians.


----------



## CnC Bartok

HenryPenfold said:


> Do you realise there is no compulsion for any of us to post on threads?
> 
> In fact we don't even have to look at a thread, never mind post.
> 
> Or even log-in to the forum!
> 
> it's all voluntary :lol:


Must.....resist.......temptation ...........to contribute.........a few.....choice......words.....
Must.....resist.......temptation ...........to contribute.........a few.....choice......words.....
Must.....resist.......temptation ...........to contribute.........a few.....choice......words.....
Must.....resist.......temptation ...........to contribute.........a few.....choice......words.....
Must.....resist.......temptation ...........to contribute.........a few.....choice......words.....
Must.....resist.......temptation ...........to contribute.........a few.....choice......words.....:angel:


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If Hurwitz doesn't like Norrington, he can just ignore him. Why does he have to endlessly refer to him as the world's worst conductor?


Perhaps it's the same motivation as it is for those who keep criticizing Hurwitz...


----------



## mmsbls

Please do not post negative comments about the thread. If you do not wish to participate, simply do not post. If you feel there is a violation of the Terms of Service, you can report a post.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Perhaps it's the same motivation as it is for those who keep criticizing Hurwitz...


Well sure. But the point is why is that same critic immune to criticism himself? There are some here who are going to exorbitant lengths to protect and inflate Hurwitz's public image.

And yeah, if he wasn't such a *******, I wouldn't be posting about him. But he keeps giving me fresh, new ammunition. That's not my fault.

.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I'd like Hurwitz to think a little more about his legacy, and perhaps manage his reputation better. 

He's built up a very large body of music commentary that I'm sure will be viewed for many decades to come, and even possibly centuries. 

But he can't resist being profoundly childish. When he doesn't like something, he can be mocking and uses inappropriate levity. 

I think he'll not be taken as seriously as he could or should be. I think that's a great shame because much of what he does is extremely valuable.


----------



## fbjim

I liked his latest video. I kind of wish he'd do a longer and freer form podcast thing because he's got a lot of fun stories about his life on the fringes of the classical music industry, and he's a good storyteller.


----------



## vtpoet

HenryPenfold said:


> But he can't resist being profoundly childish. When he doesn't like something, he can be mocking and uses inappropriate levity.


Alternately, no one that I know of in the last moments of their life turned weakly to the executor of their will and said: _If there were one thing I could change about my life, it would be less levity._


----------



## John Zito

vtpoet said:


> Alternately, no one that I know of in the last moments of their life turned weakly to the executor of their will and said: _If there were one thing I could change about my life, it would be less levity._


"Oh honey, no one ever paid to see under the top."


----------



## RobertJTh

Side question: does anyone own a piece of the garish, overpriced merch he's selling? Or know anyone who owns some? Or suspects someone he/she knows could be mad enough to walk around in a "Crazy is Good, Stupid is Not" T-shirt (available in XXL and XXXL)? Answer honestly.

Seriously, DH going commercial kills the little attraction his videos still have for me. The stuff I want to see (the various "10 best recordings") is now behind a paywall and instead we get the pathetic display of an overweight senior citizen with a more or less successful career behind him plugging low-couture through a youtube channel.


----------



## Becca

HenryPenfold said:


> I think he'll not be taken as seriously as he could or should be. I think that's a great shame because much of what he does is extremely valuable.


What has he done which is "extremely valuable"? (other than to his bank account)


----------



## HenryPenfold

Becca said:


> What has he done which is "extremely valuable"? (other than to his bank account)


I think that he has created a rather extensive body of mostly interesting commentary on classical music for people ranging from newbies to experts, alike.

I can't argue about the money thing, but that aside, I do think he's genuine in his love for, and passionate about, classical music.


----------



## cougarjuno

He is incredibly knowledgeable and his sincerity comes through, and while his humor can be engaging at times when disregarding certain recordings, compositions or conductors, I always remind myself that his opinions are only that. He can be juvenile, offensive and in his posted comments defensive, none of them good attributes. With that said he has his place and there are many things to learn from him as if nothing else he is extremely thorough about whatever he posts.


----------



## mbhaub

I confess: I bought a t-shirt. The red one, "Make American Classical Again". It has drawn some attention at orchestra rehearsals. Wait until he starts his own line of tam tams!


----------



## HenryPenfold

mbhaub said:


> I confess: I bought a t-shirt. The red one, "Make American Classical Again". It has drawn some attention at orchestra rehearsals. Wait until he starts his own line of tam tams!


I bought David's signature rubbers, but they were rather small.


----------



## FrankinUsa

HenryPenfold said:


> I bought David's signature rubbers, but they were rather small.


How low will this thread go?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

mbhaub said:


> I confess: I bought a t-shirt. The red one, "Make American Classical Again". It has drawn some attention at orchestra rehearsals.


That's one we can all get behind, as opposed to his other recent one:

"It's okay to like things that suck…just admit it."

What possible relevance does that slogan have to anyone who doesn't share Hurwitz's juvenile psychosis of needing to feel superior about his musical preferences?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> How low will this thread go?


What do you think of Hurwitz's YouTube video entitled "Why Furtwängler's Nazi 9th Really Sucks"

Appropriate or not?

Or do you shield Hurwitz from all and any criticism?


----------



## KevinW

From an "isolated" (nobody around me likes classical) classical music listener's perspective, I think Hurwitz's YouTube channel has some value to me. His channel is the only one I discovered so far that does critics on classical music. As a student I definitely have no money to afford and no time to read classical music review articles. Hurwitz's videos provide me the easiest access to classical music reviews. I do believe his reviews are subjective and his comments being inappropriate sometimes, just as Brahmsianhorn mentioned. He hates HIP and I think that is ridiculous--music played with HIP might not sound as good as those performed with modern techniques and instruments, but some people just like it, so it is very, very subjective to deny the value of HIP. As a fan of Nicholas Harnoncourt, I don't like Hurwitz somtimes give Harnoncourt conducted Baroque and Classical era music mediocre reviews.


----------



## FrankinUsa

It’s a lousy recording. On many different different levels. Looking at the video makes me want to puke.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Everything about YouTube is commercial.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I guess this SECOND thread is not about classical music. It’s about so many other crazy things.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> It's a lousy recording. On many different different levels. Looking at the video makes me want to puke.


It's one of the greatest recordings in existence, as many people have and will continue to observe, but that's not the point.

The point is that I bet if someone made a video entitled "Why David Hurwitz sucks as a classical music reviewer," you would take offense. Wouldn't you?


----------



## FrankinUsa

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's one of the greatest recordings in existence, as many people have and will continue to observe, but that's not the point.
> 
> The point is that I bet if someone made a video entitled "Why David Hurwitz sucks as a classical music reviewer," you would take offense. Wouldn't you?


It makes me puke. But you will never ever accept any other opinion.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "Why David Hurwitz sucks as a classical music reviewer"


I'm tempted to go on Cameo, pay Gilbert Gottfried to film himself reading selections from Brahmsianhorn's anti-Hurwitz screeds, and then post it to YouTube under that name.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> It makes me puke. But you will never ever accept any other opinion.


Good Lord, I accept any and all opinions. I'm not the one making a video saying the recording "sucks" which by extension impugns anyone who disagrees.

Can you not see the hypocrisy here? According to you, I'm not allowed to have a different opinion of that 9th, and I'm also not allowed to criticize Hurwitz. But it's perfectly fine for Hurwitz to make a public video saying it sucks and deleting any comments saying otherwise.

You're really backing yourself into a corner here. Your essential argument is that only your opinion matters.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good Lord, I accept any and all opinions. I'm not the one making a video saying the recording "sucks" which by extension impugns anyone who disagrees.
> 
> Can you not see the hypocrisy here? According to you, I'm not allowed to have a different opinion of that 9th, and I'm also not allowed to criticize Hurwitz. But it's perfectly fine for Hurwitz to make a public video saying it sucks and deleting any comments saying otherwise.
> 
> You're really backing yourself into a corner here. Your essential argument is that only your opinion matters.


My opinion is that all opinions count. One just needs to consider if it is an INFORMED opinion. Read the opinion and let it go.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> My opinion is that all opinions count. One just needs to consider if it is an INFORMED opinion. Read the opinion and let it go.


What is an "informed" opinion?

In any case, I'm sorry you don't like hearing negative critiques of Hurwitz's videos posted in these threads. My advice is that you just read the opinion and let it go.

.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What is an "informed" opinion?
> 
> In any case, I'm sorry you don't like hearing negative critiques of Hurwitz's videos posted in these threads. My advice is that you just read the opinion and let it go.
> 
> .


Will you let it go?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> Will you let it go?


If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. Click on another thread.


----------



## vtpoet

cougarjuno said:


> He can be juvenile, offensive and in his posted comments defensive, none of them good attributes. With that said he has his place and there are many things to learn from him as if nothing else he is extremely thorough about whatever he posts.


Look, if you're going to talk about me like that, just be up front about it. I know when I'm being talked about.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Hurwitz's channel is great for exploring repertoire and recordings that I don't know much about.

The videos I like the least are when he talks about boxed sets and basically just reads the contents of the set. And the horse sounds every time he says "Bruckner" are really annoying, that was funny maybe once.

Once you know his biases he is a pretty reliable guide to recordings. His recommendations of 20th century composers like Stravinsky are solid.


----------



## vtpoet

AndorFoldes said:


> And the horse sounds every time he says "Bruckner" are really annoying, that was funny maybe once.


Actually, I loved that. But maybe I have the sense of humor of a six year old.


----------



## superhorn

I have mixed feeling toward Hurwitz , his youtube channel and his reviews on Classics today .
He's like the proverbial little girl with the curly hair . 
I often but certainly not always find his opinions diametrically opposed to mine, but his videos are still a lot of fun on the whole , sometimes quite insightful and I love his droll mens of humor .


----------



## HenryPenfold

AndorFoldes said:


> Once you know his biases he is a pretty reliable guide to recordings


I'd agree with that in the main, but some of his dismissals of performances aren't just a question of taste, I think there's something else going on. For example, there are two fairly recent releases that any classical music fan, especially those with a keen interest in Sibelius and Ives, acknowledge as very fine releases - Santtu-Matias Rouvali's absolutely electrifying performance of Sibelius 1 and Andrew Litton's 4 Ives symphonies, that for many people are one of the the best out there.

Okay, don't choose them as a recommendation (but that would ned proper qualification), but he dismissed Rouvali's recording in about 3 seconds while pulling a stupid face, and took hardly any longer to dismiss Litton for 'no atmosphere'.

Is there a back-story here? Does he have beef with any of the parties? It just doesn't make sense.

Not only is this nonsensical, he is shutting off people from these recordings to their great loss. In that sense, he's doing a great disservice to the classical music community of listeners, performers, audiences &cetera.








need a bit of space


----------



## John Zito

HenryPenfold said:


> Is there a back-story here? Does he have beef with any of the parties? It just doesn't make sense.


Don't know about Rouvali, but he has regularly recommended Litton: Mahler 2 and 3, Stravinsky Firebird, Walton 1, Prokofiev piano concertos with Freddy Kempf, etc


----------



## HenryPenfold

John Zito said:


> Don't know about Rouvali, but he has regularly recommended Litton: Mahler 2 and 3, Stravinsky Firebird, Walton 1, Prokofiev piano concertos with Freddy Kempf, etc


Might not be about Litton. Who knows what the back-story might be (I don't normally go in for conspiracy theories!).


----------



## Roger Knox

I think this Hurwitz 2 thread continues the trend of Hurwitz 1 to get further and further away form the actual performances and compositions. 

I don't know how much power Hurwitz has in the classical field. But he seems to be the dominant critical voice on YouTube right now, and personally I find myself wanting to keep him out of my face, i.e ignore him.

Let's get back to the music and find other critics and evaluations if we need them.


----------



## vtpoet

Roger Knox said:


> I don't know how much power Hurwitz has in the classical field....


I mean, what does "power" mean? Probably not much, in truth. He apparently knows musicians personally and ensembles, and brags about it sometimes, but probably not more so than other well-known critics. It just so happens that he has an engaging (for many) presence on Youtube.


----------



## Chilham

There are some here with a genuine gripe about Hurwitz and his reviews, where he's critiqued performances of friends' performances to the extent that future opportunities were lost. I guess that's the, "Power", he wields and there's an argument to say he should be more aware of the consequences of his more critical comments and reviews.

There are others who simply dislike him and his, "Schtick", and disagree with some of his perspective. I can understand that, but they bang on about it continually, saying if you don't like reading their discourse, just read the opinion and let it go. Perhaps they should take their own advice when reading or listening to Hurwitz.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Chilham said:


> I can understand that, but they bang on about it continually, saying if you don't like reading their discourse, just read the opinion and let it go. Perhaps they should take their own advice when reading or listening to Hurwitz.


Uh, that was me quoting verbatim another poster telling him to take his own advice.

My main problem with Hurwitz, stated in the other thread, is that he treats his own biases and opinions as fact and goes so far as to accuse others of being dishonest in their statement of their preferences. He is incapable of hearing what others hear, and so he declares his to be the only possible reality.

Aside from being psychotic, his schtick possibly prevents newcomers from even discovering some of the great music out there. I think in the end though most people would never see someone who conducts himself like Hurwitz to be the ultimate authority anyways.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> his schtick possibly prevents newcomers from even discovering some of the great music out there


This "what about the children" angle is the Hurwitz criticism that makes me roll my eyes the most. If a newcomer is trying to get their bearings in the standard repertoire, and their strategy for doing this is to just peg their listening to whatever Hurwitz says, then they could do a whole lot worse. I don't think anyone in these threads has made the claim that Hurwitz is systematically steering people towards bad performances. He may be systematically steering them away from certain things that some folks swear by (Furtwängler, HIP, Horenstein, whatever), but so what? You could do worse than imprinting on Szell, Wand, Jochum, Mackerras, Bernstein, etc. And if, after all that listening, a newcomer hasn't developed opinions of their own and expanded the portfolio of things that they consult beyond Hurwitz, then that's their problem. But I just don't buy this pearl-clutching about his alleged corrupting effect on new listeners.


----------



## AndorFoldes

HenryPenfold said:


> For example, there are two fairly recent releases that any classical music fan, especially those with a keen interest in Sibelius and Ives, acknowledge as very fine releases - Santtu-Matias Rouvali's absolutely electrifying performance of Sibelius 1 and Andrew Litton's 4 Ives symphonies, that for many people are one of the the best out there.
> 
> Okay, don't choose them as a recommendation (but that would ned proper qualification), but he dismissed Rouvali's recording in about 3 seconds while pulling a stupid face, and took hardly any longer to dismiss Litton for 'no atmosphere'.
> 
> Is there a back-story here? Does he have beef with any of the parties? It just doesn't make sense.


I found the reviews on Classics Today. About the Rouvali Sibelius symphony he writes "There's an air of desperation about this performance: a dogged determination to do something, anything, to be "different" and sound provocative."

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/rouvalis-desperate-sibelius-1/

The reviews of the Litton Ives symphonies are behind a paywall, but you can see that the reviews are positive and both are "Reference Recordings". Maybe there is a misunderstanding here?

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13181/
https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13187/


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

John Zito said:


> You could do worse than imprinting on Szell, Wand, Jochum, Mackerras, Bernstein, etc... But I just don't buy this pearl-clutching about his alleged corrupting effect on new listeners.


I couldn't agree more; and it doesn't just apply to musical rookies. Even to a seasoned listener like me, Hurwitz's enthusiasm has introduced me to composers to whom I'd previously not paid much, if any, attention - assuming I'd heard of them at all. Ditto for better-known works and composers I'd more-or-less neglected.


----------



## Forster

MatthewWeflen said:


> *There is a cottage industry of people on YouTube who loudly proclaim their opinions and biases, try to pass them off as objective fact, *and berate those who do not share them. They cultivate parasocial relationships with viewers by employing in-jokes, jargon, and putdowns.


...and on blogs, and forums like this one. In fact, much bigger than a cottage...



MatthewWeflen said:


> There is a cottage industry of people on YouTube who loudly proclaim their opinions and biases, try to pass them off as objective fact, *and berate those who do not share them. They cultivate parasocial relationships with viewers by employing in-jokes, jargon, and putdowns*.


...and on blogs, and forums like this one. Not all those who attempt to publicise their opinions indulge in these practices, but _*if *_we subscribe to the idea of "freedom of speech", Hurwitz can publish what he likes - can't he?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So now we’ve reached the point where criticizing Hurwitz equates to limiting his freedom of speech? Wow, talk about calling the kettle black.


----------



## HenryPenfold

AndorFoldes said:


> I found the reviews on Classics Today. About the Rouvali Sibelius symphony he writes "There's an air of desperation about this performance: a dogged determination to do something, anything, to be "different" and sound provocative."
> 
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/rouvalis-desperate-sibelius-1/
> 
> The reviews of the Litton Ives symphonies are behind a paywall, but you can see that the reviews are positive and both are "Reference Recordings". Maybe there is a misunderstanding here?
> 
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13181/
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13187/


The discussion is about his *Youtube* *channel* - ferret out those ones instead and you'll see the reviews are as I said (and you'll see the stupid face he pulls). He does a similar thing with John Wilson performances, slagging the orchestra off as a 'pick-up band'. If it is, so what?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Forster said:


> _*if *_we subscribe to the idea of "freedom of speech", Hurwitz can publish what he likes - can't he?


He most certainly can, so long as it's lawful.

But that's not the point. He sets himself up as a music critic and broadcaster. As such, he must achieve certain professional standards.

And that's about how one goes about one's venture, and not about the conclusions one draws.


----------



## Forster

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So now we've reached the point where criticizing Hurwitz equates to limiting his freedom of speech? Wow, talk about calling the kettle black.


Which post is this comment directed at...and who are "we"?


----------



## hammeredklavier

HenryPenfold said:


> The discussion is about his *Youtube* *channel*


Also about what *he does on/with his Youtube channel*.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So now we've reached the point where criticizing Hurwitz equates to limiting his freedom of speech? Wow, talk about calling the kettle black.


You know what, Mr. Brahmsianhorn?; do create a video on your channel to criticize Witz; your professionalism with your channel shouldn't limit your freedom of speech on there. I don't mean you shouldn't keep criticizing him on this forum; I just would like to see you being more open with your defiance against Witz in public. That would definitely scare him out of his witz.


----------



## HenryPenfold

hammeredklavier said:


> Also about what *he does on/with his Youtube channel*.


Dear chap, do read my post. I was talking about what he broadcasted on his channel and the respondent went on a frolic of his own, ferreting out written reviews (_sans_ silly faces, grunts and silly voices) and was thwarted on one of my points by a paywall!


----------



## vtpoet

I get the sense that the whole kerfuffle over Hurwitz boils down to the same take-no-prisoners debate that regularly recurs on this forum, even when the participants don't realize they're back on their same old war horses" ---> subjectivity vs objectivity in music. Are some composers objectively better or worse than others? Are some performances objectively better or worse than others? But you can't be a critic if you let people with bad taste announce that all art and taste is subjective and that there's no such thing as "bad". William Logan, poetry critic (and despisèd), runs into this all the time. One of my favorite quotes from him: "If we took poets at their own valuation and judged them by their own methods, every scribbler would be a genius." The same could be said for classical music listeners and their opinions. And boy does he **** people off.

Hurwitz, needless to say, seriously ruffles the feathers of anyone who has a taste for what he considers objectively bad (just look at the discussion over Furtwangler.) Some listeners really don't like being made to think they have bad taste. And yet, clearly, people *do have* bad taste, including classical music listeners on this forum. But nobody thinks they're that person. Nobody thinks they're Micheal at "The Office". Nobody thinks the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to them. And they get really, really furious when somebody suggests that maybe their tastes really are objectively bad-hence the understandable pleasure Hurwitz takes in trolling these people with his T-Shirts. I would too. I am absolutely not a relativist. I agree with Hurwitz that both music and music's performers create objectively bad music and performances.

But turning the same standard on Hurwitz: Is he an objectively good critic? I have my qualms about Hurwitz. I would take his review of Schoonderwoerd's performance of the Beethoven Piano concertos as my example. He completely trashes it. What are his standards? Interestingly, it's not that the performances are poorly recorded, balanced, played, or conducted. He doesn't like it because he doesn't like the forces used and doesn't like the original instruments. Now we're veering into subjective preferences. He's objectively right that the sound produced by Schoonderwoerd is like nothing produced before, but you can't fault the playing or the conducting. In short, one can't fault the technical standards of the recording, and Hurwitz doesn't. He objects on subjective grounds saying essentially that he doesn't like the sound of the small forces used and quotes another critic asserting that just because Beethoven might have initially performed his piano concertos with the small forces and in the small spaces provided by Archduke Rudolph, doesn't mean we ever need to hear them that way or that it's even advisable. But I see no reason to make that assertion since this _is_, in fact, and _indeed_ how Beethoven's concerti were first performed (other than as personal preference). It's no different than objecting to fortepianos simply because one doesn't like them. That's not valid criticism in my view. I find it fascinating to hear Beethoven's concerti performed with Schoonderwoerd's forces (with almost chambermusic-like forces)-and to know that, yes, indeed, this is how they were historically performed-and not just in concert halls with large orchestras. It's entirely unlike how modern listeners are used to hearing them but that's not a valid grounds for trashing them. Interestingly, the same criticisms were leveled at the first OVPP performance of Bach's Mass in b by Rifkin. Critics contemptuously called the interpretation the Madrigal in b minor. Turns out the critics were wrong.

I think Hurwitz falls into that same trap-allowing his subjective preferences to trump any objective insights or thoughtfulness. As an example of a critic who did a much better and cleverer job reviewing Schoonderwoerd, this:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/Aug14/Beethoven_concertos_820.htm

He essentially writes two reviews. The first review is the "Hurwitz" review: "Emasculated Beethoven", and the second review is the objective review: "A new way of hearing Beethoven". You may say my description of one as "Hurwitz" and the other as "objective" is loaded, but I also think it's correct. The critic doesn't necessarily _recommend_ one buys the recordings, but he accurately describes what they attempt to do and the ups and downs of that. That, in my view, makes the reviewer at Musicweb an objectively better reviewer than Hurwitz.

I enjoy watching Hurwitz, but I trust him less as a professional music critic/musicologist than as an entertaining amateur with an encyclopedic knowledge of recorded music. *Edit:* An objectively good critic, in my view, needs to be able to separate himself, within limits, from his own personal preferences. Just because one doesn't like the taste of a given fruit doesn't mean Paul and Prue trash the baker if they use it. They're good critics. <--- see _Great British Bake Off._


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Hurwitz is not qualified to decide what is objectively good or bad. He has a limited understanding of what constitutes good art.

That is the essential point.


----------



## HenryPenfold

vtpoet said:


> I
> I enjoy watching Hurwitz, but I trust him less as a professional music critic/musicologist than as an entertaining amateur with an encyclopedic knowledge of recorded music.


I said virtually the same thing on the earlier thread (please excuse my cutting out virtually all your post - which I think was very interesting and well-argued).


----------



## HenryPenfold

AndorFoldes said:


> I found the reviews on Classics Today. About the Rouvali Sibelius symphony he writes "There's an air of desperation about this performance: a dogged determination to do something, anything, to be "different" and sound provocative."
> 
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/rouvalis-desperate-sibelius-1/
> 
> The reviews of the Litton Ives symphonies are behind a paywall, but you can see that the reviews are positive and both are "Reference Recordings". Maybe there is a misunderstanding here?
> 
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13181/
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13187/


Re: Ives, I must've had a brainfart - it's Dudamel that I should have said, mea culpa. But the point still stands.


----------



## vtpoet

HenryPenfold said:


> I said virtually the same thing on the earlier thread (please excuse my cutting out virtually all your post - which I think was very interesting and well-argued).


You only write that because we're both on the same Dunning-Kruger spectrum.


----------



## John Zito

vtpoet said:


> As an example of a critic who did a much better and cleverer job reviewing Schoonderwoerd, this:
> 
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2014/Aug14/Beethoven_concertos_820.htm
> 
> He essentially writes two reviews. The first review is the "Hurwitz" review: "Emasculated Beethoven", and the second review is the objective review: "A new way of hearing Beethoven". You may say my description of one as "Hurwitz" and the other as "objective" is loaded, but I also think it's correct. The critic doesn't necessarily _recommend_ one buys the recordings, but he accurately describes what they attempt to do and the ups and downs of that. That, in my view, makes the reviewer at Musicweb an objectively better reviewer than Hurwitz.


Isn't that reviewer copping-out, though? Couldn't a reasonable reader be forgiven for coming away from that review thinking "well, thanks for nothing." One thing to be said for Hurwitz, you never come away being unsure what he thought.



vtpoet said:


> I enjoy watching Hurwitz, but I trust him less as a professional music critic/musicologist than as an entertaining amateur with an encyclopedic knowledge of recorded music.


This is essentially how I feel, except that I'm not sure that I know exactly what the difference is between "professional music critic" and "amateur with an encyclopedic knowledge of recorded music." And if I did know the difference, I'm honestly not sure which I would prefer consulting. If Hurwitz was just some strange, jolly fellow that lived in my building and that I had over for tea once a week, would I bother reading _Gramophone_ anymore? Or coming on here? I wonder...



vtpoet said:


> I would take his review of Schoonderwoerd's performance of the Beethoven Piano concertos as my example. He completely trashes it. What are his standards? Interestingly, it's not that the performances are poorly recorded, balanced, played, or conducted. He doesn't like it because he doesn't like the forces used and doesn't like the original instruments. Now we're veering into subjective preferences. He's objectively right that the sound produced by Schoonderwoerd is like nothing produced before, *but you can't fault the playing or the conducting*. In short, one can't fault the technical standards of the recording, and Hurwitz doesn't. He objects on subjective grounds saying essentially that he doesn't like the sound of the small forces used and quotes another critic asserting that just because Beethoven might have initially performed his piano concertos with the small forces and in the small spaces provided by Archduke Rudolph, doesn't mean we ever need to hear them that way or that it's even advisable. But I see no reason to make that assertion since this _is_, in fact, and _indeed_ how Beethoven's concerti were first performed (other than as personal preference). It's no different than objecting to fortepianos simply because one doesn't like them. That's not valid criticism in my view. I find it fascinating to hear Beethoven's concerti performed with Schoonderwoerd's forces (with almost chambermusic-like forces)-and to know that, yes, indeed, this is how they were historically performed-and not just in concert halls with large orchestras. It's entirely unlike how modern listeners are used to hearing them but that's not a valid grounds for trashing them.


This is besides the point Hurwitz-wise, but my major gripe with the Schoonderwoerd Beethoven cycle was simply Schoonderwoerd's playing. I just didn't think he was very good, especially in comparison to anyone else you could hear in this music:
















And that gets to my main reservation about the HIP ethos, which is that the instruments used and the performance practice are of second or third order importance in comparison to the interpretation and the musicianship of the players. A good performance is a good performance no matter what historical circumstances are being replicated. If, on top of a basically good performance, the choice of period instruments and practices happens to add something extra (vim, verve, tang, edge, transparency, whatever the clichés are), then that's icing on the cake. But it's really never the main issue. So to Schoonderwoerd again, at its core it's not a particularly good performance, and so the rest of the experiment is neither here nor there.


----------



## Bulldog

John Zito said:


> Isn't that reviewer copping-out, though? Couldn't a reasonable reader be forgiven for coming away from that review thinking "well, thanks for nothing."


I thought the review was outstanding and would be highly insightful for many readers.


----------



## vtpoet

John Zito said:


> So to Schoonderwoerd again, at its core it's not a particularly good performance....


In your opinion. In my opinion it's quite a good performance and, for the most part, that seems to be the consensus.


----------



## John Zito

vtpoet said:


> In your opinion. In my opinion it's quite a good performance and, for the most part, *that seems to be the consensus*.


Really? I've read about as many good reviews as bad reviews (and from MusicWeb I've apparently now read one "you tell me" review).


----------



## vtpoet

John Zito said:


> Really? I've read about as many good reviews as bad reviews (and from MusicWeb I've apparently now read one "you tell me" review).


You seem very concerned that this performance be panned. I mean, I _could_ go forth and make a spreadsheet with reviews, good and bad, but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong _about the music_, only that I was right about the reviews. Probably best to let everyone decide for themselves based on the music. Here's 3 & 6, CD 2 from the set of 3 on Youtube.






And on Spotify:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Hurwitz is not qualified to decide what is objectively good or bad. He has a limited understanding of what constitutes good art.
> 
> That is the essential point.


I suspect no one is "qualified" to decide what is _objectively _good or bad. Only what is good or bad _to them_.

For me, the best critics are ones who make their preferences clearly known, and then indicate whether or not a given thing meets those preferences. This is not just for art, music, movies - but anything, like laptops or restaurants. That way, you can see if your preferences align and then use that to guide your decisions. I wouldn't consult a vegetarian's review of a steakhouse, and I wouldn't consult a fan of modern classical music's take on Baroque. I wouldn't read a Star Trek review by someone who didn't like Star Trek.

My problem with Hurwitz is that he does not do this - he misconstrues his own preferences as being objective and universal instead of subjective and personal.


----------



## Forster

HenryPenfold said:


> He most certainly can, so long as it's lawful.
> 
> But that's not the point. He sets himself up as a music critic and broadcaster. As such, he must achieve certain professional standards.
> 
> And that's about how one goes about one's venture, and not about the conclusions one draws.


It might not be your point, but it's mine.


----------



## wkasimer

HenryPenfold said:


> But that's not the point. He sets himself up as a music critic and broadcaster. As such, he must achieve certain professional standards.


What are those standards, and who decides them? As far as I can tell from decades of reading music criticism, there are no "professional standards'.


----------



## HenryPenfold

wkasimer said:


> What are those standards, and who decides them? As far as I can tell from decades of reading music criticism, there are no "professional standards'.


So Hurwitz is not alone.

If there are no professional standards, then anyone can be a music critic. Perhaps that's what we're witnessing.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Forster said:


> It might not be your point, but it's mine.


The point is not _my_ point, it's the point being discussed. Try to make your points relevant to the discussion, is what you're being asked.


----------



## Phil loves classical

MatthewWeflen said:


> I suspect no one is "qualified" to decide what is _objectively _good or bad. Only what is good or bad _to them_.
> 
> For me, the best critics are ones who make their preferences clearly known, and then indicate whether or not a given thing meets those preferences. This is not just for art, music, movies - but anything, like laptops or restaurants. That way, you can see if your preferences align and then use that to guide your decisions. I wouldn't consult a vegetarian's review of a steakhouse, and I wouldn't consult a fan of modern classical music's take on Baroque. I wouldn't read a Star Trek review by someone who didn't like Star Trek.
> 
> My problem with Hurwitz is that he does not do this - he misconstrues *his own preferences as being objective and universal instead of subjective and personal.*


That's at least what his tone sounds like. How he actually views his own diatribe may be more subdued, and I think it's clearly a marketing tactic to get more viewers. It's easier to attract attention by being more fiery and divisive, than level-headed. I noticed he doesn't dwell on his more neutral or mild opininos, he tends toward one end of praising something enthusiastically or says it's garbage. I think he realized over time that he gets more viewers doing that, as it could make for some entertainment, but at some others expense, and he justifies this behaviour any way he can.


----------



## Forster

HenryPenfold said:


> The point is not _my_ point, it's the point being discussed. Try to make your points relevant to the discussion, is what you're being asked.


There are several points being discussed. Try to make your posts relevant to them, not to my posting style.

Besides, the poster I was actually addressing can also decide whether I was missing their point.


----------



## HenryPenfold

vtpoet said:


> You only write that because we're both on the same Dunning-Kruger spectrum.


Is there more than one spectrum?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Forster said:


> There are several points being discussed. Try to make your posts relevant to them, not to my posting style.
> 
> Besides, the poster I was actually addressing can also decide whether I was missing their point.


I've only got myself to blame, all the signs were already there about you. :lol:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Phil loves classical said:


> That's at least what his tone sounds like. How he actually views his own diatribe may be more subdued, and I think it's clearly a marketing tactic to get more viewers.


Yeah, it could be a pose. Either way, it grows tiresome rather quickly.


----------



## fbjim

Anyone who comes away from a review by a critic thinking they have read objective fact deserves what is coming to them. I read reviews because I _want _ an opinionated view, not an "objective" one.


----------



## wkasimer

HenryPenfold said:


> If there are no professional standards, then anyone can be a music critic. Perhaps that's what we're witnessing.


It's a fact. The reality is that everyone who participates on TC and comments about music or performances is functioning as a critic. The only difference between us and a professional critic is that the latter is paid for his or her opinions.


----------



## vtpoet

John Zito said:


> This is besides the point Hurwitz-wise, but my major gripe with the Schoonderwoerd Beethoven cycle was simply Schoonderwoerd's playing. I just didn't think he was very good, especially in comparison to anyone else you could hear in this music...


So this morning, while eating waffles with Vermont maple syrup, I compared these three recordings and more. My amateur opinion:

The Gardiner shows its age in terms of its micing. The big problem with Gardiner's performance (along with his performance of the Mozart concertos with Bilson) is that the fortepiano always sounds like it's in the janitor's closet. In order to really hear it, you have to crank the volume. And when you have to crank the volume like that, it makes the orchestra sound like they're perched on your waffles. I have *never* liked Gardiner's recordings of the Mozart concerti for just this reason. Few conductors can produce orchestral clarity like Gardiner, but he seems so enamored with his orchestra that the concertos turn into concertos for orchestra with pianoforte accompaniment. I'm also not a huge fan of Levit's playing. To me, he plays the fortepiano (in this recording) too much like a modern concert grand-meaning he doesn't treat the fortepiano like the more percussive instrument that it is. He plays it as if he expects it to sing, but it doesn't. It was a different instrument. Beethoven knocked the hell out of his fortepianos, so much so that there had to be a tuner ready to replace the strings mid-concert (or so the legend goes).

I think Brautigam has done a much better job balancing the fortepiano and orchestra, and I have his complete set of Mozart piano concertos. I also have his Beethoven Sonatas and sundry keyboard works, so I'm a fan. Brautigam knows better how to play the fortepiano like a fortepiano, but even in Brautigam's recording one runs into the same problem as Gardiner. Although the fortepiano is more balanced, it still sounds plainly outplayed and overmatched by a full orchestra, and Schoonderwoerd in his liner notes describes this very problem and also notes that, in Beethoven's correspondence, that painists preferred the much smaller venues and, obviously (since a full orchestra can't fit in an archduke's living room, a smaller orchestra. The problem with HIP is often that the temptation is to replace the piano with the lighter fortepiano, but to retain the orchestral forces more typical of a modern orchestra. It's for that reason that most, though not all, performances of Beethoven's piano concertos are technically better on the modern piano. The concert grand can compete with a large orchestra. I love Melvyn Tan's pianoforte. He performs the concertos with Norrington (would send Hurwitz to the fainting couch) but the piano still sounds as if he never quite made it on stage:






Schoonderwoerd is the first recording on pianoforte to get it right. Not only does he percussively attack the pianoforte (my personal preference) but it sounds like a piano concerto. The pianoforte sounds it showed up on time, it's not in the janitor's closet, and is the star of the show-not the orchestra. Why? Because, as Schoonderwoerd points out, this is how it would have been heard in the Archduke's living room. The piano would have been between the Archduke and the orchestra, almost in his lap, and the orchestra, one person per part, would have been to the rear of the room. All that said, and although I like Schoonderwoerd's interpretive latitude, I'll concede that Schoonderwoerd manages to make a complete and utter hash out of the following passage (so much so that I have to laugh when I hear it):

*EDIT: Can't get the time stamps to work. Stay Tuned. I'll just print them until I get them to work.*






*@ 3 Minutes
*
I don't know quite what happened there, but my guess is that he tried to get too rhythmically clever and dug himself into a hole he couldn't get out of. Just kept snowballing up the hill from there. He should have spliced in a redo. But it seems this is a particularly devilish passage: Compare that to:





*
@ 2 minutes 55*

Even Brautigam feels like he gets a little muddled at the outset but pulls himself together.

Compared to:






*@ 2 minutes 45*

Levin gets it right but with the dry and relentless precision of a thousand practice sessions. Melvyn Tan nails it like a true virtuoso:






*@ 2 minutes 40*

But, I'm willing to give Schoonderwoerd a pass because so much else is technically right about these performances-and because he's not a concert-grade pianist but more of a musicologist with solid, though not virtuosic, technique.

And that is my amateur-hour review of Schoonderwoerd, which is loads better than Hurwitz's (and I write that objectively).


----------



## fbjim

vtpoet said:


> But, I'm willing to give Schoonderwoerd a pass because so much else is technically right about these performances-and because he's not a concert-grade pianist but more of a musicologist with solid, though not virtuosic, technique.
> 
> And that is my amateur-hour review of Schoonderwoerd, which is loads better than Hurwitz's (and I write that objectively).


To an extent, it isn't really, because Hurwitz's contentions have little to do with historical accuracy (which he's argued about on occasion, vis vibrato) and more that if this is how music sounded when played in the Archduke's living room, then music in the Archduke's living room sounded like crap.

How much you value or discount this really depends on what you hope to get out of your musical listening.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

vtpoet said:


> So this morning, while eating waffles with Vermont maple syrup, I compared these three recordings and more. My amateur opinion:
> 
> The Gardiner shows its age in terms of its micing. The big problem with Gardiner's performance (along with his performance of the Mozart concertos with Bilson) is that the fortepiano always sounds like it's in the janitor's closet. In order to really hear it, you have to crank the volume. And when you have to crank the volume like that, it makes the orchestra sound like they're perched on your waffles. I have *never* liked Gardiner's recordings of the Mozart concerti for just this reason. Few conductors can produce orchestral clarity like Gardiner, but he seems so enamored with his orchestra that the concertos turn into concertos for orchestra with pianoforte accompaniment. I'm also not a huge fan of Levit's playing. To me, he plays the fortepiano (in this recording) too much like a modern concert grand-meaning he doesn't treat the fortepiano like the more percussive instrument that it is. He plays it as if he expects it to sing, but it doesn't. It was a different instrument. Beethoven knocked the hell out of his fortepianos, so much so that there had to be a tuner ready to replace the strings mid-concert (or so the legend goes).
> 
> I think Brautigam has done a much better job balancing the fortepiano and orchestra, and I have his complete set of Mozart piano concertos. I also have his Beethoven Sonatas and sundry keyboard works, so I'm a fan. Brautigam knows better how to play the fortepiano like a fortepiano, but even in Brautigam's recording one runs into the same problem as Gardiner. Although the fortepiano is more balanced, it still sounds plainly outplayed and overmatched by a full orchestra, and Schoonderwoerd in his liner notes describes this very problem and also notes that, in Beethoven's correspondence, that painists preferred the much smaller venues and, obviously (since a full orchestra can't fit in an archduke's living room, a smaller orchestra. The problem with HIP is often that the temptation is to replace the piano with the lighter fortepiano, but to retain the orchestral forces more typical of a modern orchestra. It's for that reason that most, though not all, performances of Beethoven's piano concertos are technically better on the modern piano. The concert grand can compete with a large orchestra. I love Melvyn Tan's pianoforte. He performs the concertos with Norrington (would send Hurwitz to the fainting couch) but the piano still sounds as if he never quite made it on stage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schoonderwoerd is the first recording on pianoforte to get it right. Not only does he percussively attack the pianoforte (my personal preference) but it sounds like a piano concerto. The pianoforte sounds it showed up on time, it's not in the janitor's closet, and is the star of the show-not the orchestra. Why? Because, as Schoonderwoerd points out, this is how it would have been heard in the Archduke's living room. The piano would have been between the Archduke and the orchestra, almost in his lap, and the orchestra, one person per part, would have been to the rear of the room. All that said, and although I like Schoonderwoerd's interpretive latitude, I'll concede that Schoonderwoerd manages to make a complete and utter hash out of the following passage (so much so that I have to laugh when I hear it):
> 
> *EDIT: Can't get the time stamps to work. Stay Tuned. I'll just print them until I get them to work.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@ 3 Minutes
> *
> I don't know quite what happened there, but my guess is that he tried to get too rhythmically clever and dug himself into a hole he couldn't get out of. Just kept snowballing up the hill from there. He should have spliced in a redo. But it seems this is a particularly devilish passage: Compare that to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> @ 2 minutes 55*
> 
> Even Brautigam feels like he gets a little muddled at the outset but pulls himself together.
> 
> Compared to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@ 2 minutes 24*
> 
> Levin gets it right but with the dry and relentless precision of a thousand practice sessions. Melvyn Tan nails it like a true virtuoso:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@ 2 minutes 40*
> 
> But, I'm willing to give Schoonderwoerd a pass because so much else is technically right about these performances-and because he's not a concert-grade pianist but more of a musicologist with solid, though not virtuosic, technique.
> 
> And that is my amateur-hour review of Schoonderwoerd, which is loads better than Hurwitz's (and I write that objectively).


Great review. Tan sounds like they put him in a closet down the hall. What a disaster from a recording perspective.

I find the Brautigam the most convincing. Schoonderwoerd's tempo drives me to distraction.

Listening to all of them, I wish they were playing on a modern instrument. I guess that betrays my biases  I find HIP stuff to be mostly a curiosity, and find it hard to believe that the original musicians wouldn't choose modern instruments if given the option.


----------



## vtpoet

fbjim said:


> To an extent, it isn't really, because Hurwitz's contentions have little to do with historical accuracy (which he's argued about on occasion, vis vibrato) and more that if this is how music sounded when played in the Archduke's living room, then music in the Archduke's living room sounded like crap.


Right, which is the problem, because he's not reviewing the performance, he's simply stating his preferences.


----------



## vtpoet

MatthewWeflen said:


> Great review. Tan sounds like they put him in a closet down the hall. What a disaster from a recording perspective.
> 
> I find the Brautigam the most convincing. Schoonderwoerd's tempo drives me to distraction.
> 
> Listening to all of them, I wish they were playing on a modern instrument. I guess that betrays my biases  I find HIP stuff to be mostly a curiosity, and find it hard to believe that the original musicians wouldn't choose modern instruments if given the option.


Yeah, I could see how Schoonderwoerd's tempo might be problematic. I like the HIP stuff because, at its best, the instruments force new sonorities and interpretive styles from the musicians playing them. To me, it always sounds refreshing and new.


----------



## fbjim

vtpoet said:


> Right, which is the problem, because he's not reviewing the performance, he's simply stating his preferences.


to an extent, yes. i think he does generally try to qualify this musically - e.g. by stating his suspicion that in a certain recording, the desire to make something "authentic" overrode the desire to make it musically compelling - but his fundamental philosophy on classical listening has always been "pleasure-based" (that sounds naughty, doesn't it?) - i.e. he's going to recommend what compels him the most musically.

this is of course nearly purely subjective- if it's valuable, it's because a) his biases are obviously worn on his sleeve, so a listener with their own biases can "calibrate" accordingly (this is why I dislike when reviewers try to hide their own biases), and b) he's listened to so many recordings that it's fun to see which ones he pulls from the shelves above all others.


----------



## fbjim

"interestingly" his latest premium top ten is a top ten of his bete noire, Simon Rattle. I won't post the list as it's paywalled, though I think his Birmingham John Adams records should have been included, as they're one of my go tos for orchestral Adams.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

fbjim said:


> to an extent, yes. i think he does generally try to qualify this musically - e.g. by stating his suspicion that in a certain recording, the desire to make something "authentic" overrode the desire to make it musically compelling - but his fundamental philosophy on classical listening has always been "pleasure-based" (that sounds naughty, doesn't it?) - i.e. he's going to recommend what compels him the most musically.
> 
> this is of course nearly purely subjective- if it's valuable, it's because a) his biases are obviously worn on his sleeve, so a listener with their own biases can "calibrate" accordingly (this is why I dislike when reviewers try to hide their own biases), and b) he's listened to so many recordings that it's fun to see which ones he pulls from the shelves above all others.


My philosophy is the same when it comes to listening. I gravitate towards what convinces me the most, has the greatest sound quality, brings me the most pleasure. I don't have any pretensions to musicological expertise, and I know and respect that there are people who like different recordings and styles. That's where he falls down for me. He denigrates recordings, conductors and composers who do not align with his tastes, and then tries to cloak that preference in quasi-expertise.


----------



## HenryPenfold

wkasimer said:


> It's a fact. The reality is that everyone who participates on TC and comments about music or performances is functioning as a critic. The only difference between us and a professional critic is that the latter is paid for his or her opinions.


For many, and I count myself as one of them, the demarcation between something that's professional and something that isn't is not limited to, or even necessitates, receiving payment.

There is something profoundly unprofessional about a broadcaster describing the glorious musician John Barbirolli, as a friendly bulldog of the type that might sh.it on your carpet.

Call me old fashioned.


----------



## vtpoet

fbjim said:


> a) his biases are obviously worn on his sleeve, so a listener with their own biases can "calibrate" accordingly (this is why I dislike when reviewers try to hide their own biases), and b) he's listened to so many recordings that it's fun to see which ones he pulls from the shelves above all others.


That's the way I feel about him. He doesn't like rhubarb. He's never going to be a good judge at the county fair. He'll just make a face and toss out Rhubarb Pies without ever tasting them. If you want a good opinion on the best Rhubarb Pies, don't go to Hurwitz. But he's tasted an awful lot of Apple Pies.


----------



## Forster

HenryPenfold said:


> I've only got myself to blame, all the signs were already there about you. :lol:


This isn't about me . Please stick to the topic in hand.

For the avoidance of doubt, I was replying to this part of MatthewWeflen's post:



MatthewWeflen said:


> There is a cottage industry of people on YouTube who loudly proclaim their opinions and biases, try to pass them off as objective fact, and berate those who do not share them. They cultivate parasocial relationships with viewers by employing in-jokes, jargon, and putdowns.


I think it reasonable to assume that while this is only part of Matthew's post, it nevertheless makes it's own point, which is that the internet is full of people opining on various subjects and that Hurwitz does this for classical music. To which my response is that whatever his opinions are, he is as entitled to post them as the next opinionated "expert", and in whatever style he prefers, IF (and for me, this is a big 'if') the internet is a place where freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

That is _my _point, and it is as germane to this discussion as any other post on what Hurwitz should and shouldn't be doing.

For the record, I've sampled his reviews in ClassicsToday.com and his YTB channel and I've found both wanting. My choices are to accept their shortcomings and search for the crumbs of useful opinion (such as the reference recordings); or just ignore them. I see no reason to take up arms lest the weak and vulnerable classical newbie be put off classical altogether.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Generally speaking,I have been a defender of Hurwitz. Once again,I am not Hurwitz. I regard that his opinions are informed opinions. He has been doing reviews/listening to CM/in the business for decades. That has to account for something. 
Without a doubt some object to his style. But he has been consistent in his style for many years. So no surprises. 
I think he has a right to say what he wants to say. The people here on TC have the right to say whatever they want to say and that has been proven with both the quality and quantity of posts on TC. 
What I find disturbing is a “demonization” of Hurwitz. He is just one person(IMHO) who offers his opinions. Take it or leave it. I consider every post here on TC to be an opinion. 
However,I have found that when opinions are contrary to one’s own opinion,they no longer become opinions but become biases 
This is my answer to the the quality of statements concerning Hurwitz on two posts. 
As to the quantity,I find it incredulous that two posts have over one thousand comments.
Hurwitz has “only” close to 11’000 subscribers. YouTube is worldwide. 11’000 is a drop in the ocean. It would be a sad state of affairs if there are only 11’0000 people interested in CM worldwide. 
I think his impact is unbelievably overstated and his “power” is only limited to those who blindly follow his opinions and his impact has been blown wildly out of proportion with the statements here on TC. 
I think he has very little impact. The Classical Music industry,as we know it today” operates in a diametrically fashion to his own personal wishes. 
I’m not too happy about the increasing “click bait”titles to his YouTube videos with an “invitation” to subscribe to his website,ClassicsToday.c. This has become increasingly obvious in the last few weeks. But let’s face it. Huge amount of people are using YouTube etc as their main “job-source of income.” This is part of the new workforce. 
I think way too much time and effort has been placed concerning Hurwitz. 
His YouTube videos/ClassicToday website are still subject to the laws of economics. Supply and demand. If there is no demand,it will fail. If there is demand it will thrive.


----------



## John Zito

vtpoet said:


> So this morning, while eating waffles with Vermont maple syrup, I compared these three recordings and more. My amateur opinion:


Jeez, well I appreciate you responding with way more seriousness than my original jabbering merited.



vtpoet said:


> And that is my amateur-hour review of Schoonderwoerd, which is loads better than Hurwitz's (and I write that objectively).


Not just Hurwitz's. Really enjoyed this:



vtpoet said:


> I'm also not a huge fan of Levit's playing. To me, he plays the fortepiano (in this recording) too much like a modern concert grand-meaning he doesn't treat the fortepiano like the more percussive instrument that it is. He plays it as if he expects it to sing, but it doesn't. It was a different instrument...[Schoonderwoerd] percussively attack the pianoforte (my personal preference)




I'll have to think about it some more, but I may prefer the Levin approach. If the fortepiano is inherently more percussive, then maybe it doesn't need any more help in that regard? I might like that Levin doesn't lean into that as much.



vtpoet said:


> But, I'm willing to give Schoonderwoerd a pass because so much else is technically right about these performances-and because he's not a concert-grade pianist but more of a musicologist with solid, though not virtuosic, technique.


Yeah, I'm just not willing to give that pass. I found the playing pretty unenjoyable throughout. Another bit where I think Schoonderwoerd lays an egg is in the coda of the third concerto rondo (links are timestamped):


 Levin;
 Schoonderwoerd;
 Brautigam;
 Tan.
The orchestra is drowning out the fortepiano when they're playing together, and in Schoonderwoerd's hands that last big run up the keyboard is...frightening. It's not my idea of criticism to just go bar-by-bar and hold up a score card, but to my ears there is enough of this going on that I was left grasping for reasons why I would ever reach for these particular performances again.


----------



## vtpoet

John Zito said:


> The orchestra is drowning out the fortepiano when they're playing together, and in Schoonderwoerd's hands that last big run up the keyboard is...frightening. It's not my idea of criticism to just go bar-by-bar and hold up a score card, but to my ears there is enough of this going on that I was left grasping for reasons why I would ever reach for these particular performances again.


Yup. The musicologist definitely laid another egg there. But even so, even in that passage, I prefer his "attack"-part of that may be because the piano is so much clearer in his recordings, and it's so much easier to hear his phrasing. I prefer his interpretation but I don't think Schoonderwoerd has the skill of the other pianists. There's a trade-off there, for sure. To me, it's a bit like listening to Schnabel. One goes to him for his interpretations; not his flawless playing.

But anyways, I like my Beethoven aggressively played on the fortepiano. One of my favorite sets of his violin sonatas is by Ian Watson and Susanna Ogata (Ogata's intonation in the live performance goes haywire a couple times but she does well in the studio release). That's the risk, I suppose, in playing the violin so aggressively. Accuracy matters less to me than interpretation.


----------



## John Zito

vtpoet said:


> I prefer his interpretation but I don't think Schoonderwoerd has the skill of the other pianists. There's a trade-off there, for sure. To me, it's a bit like listening to Schnabel. One goes to him for his interpretations; not his flawless playing...Accuracy matters less to me than interpretation.


Yeah, this is really the heart of the matter, and I think it animates a lot of the back and forth about Hurwitz, too. How much imperfection of execution are you willing to tolerate in exchange for interpretive insight (assuming the two have to be traded off at all)? I would guess that the Hurwitz answer is "not much." There's just too much well-played competition out there (especially in the standard repertoire) to bother with poor playing in the name of some allegedly great interpretation.

I think I generally fall on the Hurwitz end of the spectrum, but I appreciate that reasonable people can differ on that, and plenty of exceptions prove the rule. I was just listening to my favorite recording of the fifth Scriabin sonata, which is a live performance by Horowitz. The sound is "meh," so at some point in the past I did a little comparative listening to see if I could find a better sounding recording that I liked at least as well. No dice. I could find better sound and fewer clams, but nothing that I found as exciting.

Yefim Bronfman gave a neat interview where he made some pithy comments about this (09:50 to 11:12 here).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

David Hurwitz is a musical simpleton. He does not know the difference between good and bad music, and he resents the people who do know the difference. This is the reason for his vitriol. He is a Salieri-like figure, jealous of those with a real talent for music appreciation. So he substitutes his dumbed-down version of it - balances, intonation, clarity, fidelity to the score - as a way to "get back" at the intelligentsia, most symbolized by the sinister British reviewers whom he despises. This is why he paints himself as a man of the people who speaks "plainly." Typical low-level populist jargon.

Again, his video "Why Furtwängler's 1942 Nazi Ninth Really Sucks" is revealing.

In the description he writes:

"_this ramshackle, horribly engineered live recording of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony..._"

A 6-year-old could tell you this is a really old recording, but the reality is that compared to other 1942 live recordings, this one has pretty good sound. Regardless, Hurwitz only can and only does evaluate this sublime performance on this simplistic basis. It is all he really knows how to do. He knows nothing about music beyond simple mechanics.

"_...represents for some poor, delusional souls, the ultimate transcendental statement by the most "spiritual" of all conductors._"

Here is where the vitriol comes out. He hates the people who hear music on a level of which he is incapable. So his refuge is to accuse them of imagining what they hear, as if there is some grand conspiracy among generations of people to pretend there is value in this recording despite poor Dave's inability to comprehend the same.

"_It's pure bunk. _"

Classic Dave Hurwitz delusion. I can't appreciate it, therefore it objectively must have no value. My limited, personal reality is the only possible reality. Otherwise, I would have to be confronted with my own limitations. Instead I will inflict my reality on the world as the only acceptable alternative.

"_Don't let anyone tell you otherwise._"

And here we have the ultimate in his delusion. He honestly believes people can be commanded to appreciate a recording he sees no value in. He cannot accept the fact that the recording has intrinsic value or else would not have garnered such admiration over decades upon decades. He even states at one point that no one would like this recording if Furtwangler's name was not attached to it. That's a baseless assertion which is demonstratably false. At this point you have to feel sorry for him. He has to deny reality to protect his fragile ego.

So in short, David Hurwitz is a mediocre dilettante who is determined to overturn the "system" by making his limited musical understanding a law unto itself.

Like Salieri, he speaks for all mediocrities. He is their champion.

.


----------



## Aries

Brahmsianhorn said:


> David Hurwitz is a musical simpleton. He does not know the difference between good and bad music.


But isn't this sharp distinction between good and bad music itself something in the style of David Hurwitz? It seems to be more complicated. Music can have different qualities and the weighting depends on the human.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> He is a Salieri-like figure, jealous of those with a real talent for music appreciation.


Is this fair towards Salieri?



Brahmsianhorn said:


> So he substitutes his dumbed-down version of it - balances, intonation, clarity, fidelity to the score


But balances, intonation, clarity - aren't these aspects very good in Furtwänglers 1942 Ninth?

I just heard it, its a very good interpretation.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again, his video "Why Furtwängler's 1942 Nazi Ninth Really Sucks" is revealing.


Maybe the title is revealing too. Seems like he dislikes it for political reasons.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> A 6-year-old could tell you this is a really old recording, but the reality is that compared to other 1942 live recordings, this one has pretty good sound.


I wonder which possibilities already exist to make the sound better or reconstruct the real sound. Maybe artifical intelligence will solve this soon, and give us the real sound of all these old recordings!?



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Like Salieri, he speaks for all mediocrities. He is their champion.


Hmm, this Salieri must have done something really thorough to ruin his reputation that badly. :lol:


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> Maybe the title is revealing too. Seems like he dislikes it for political reasons.


The title is needlessly provocative, but his contention was something of the opposite- that so much of the stuff he read on it praise it for reasons that are fundamentally extra-musical in nature, or excessively informed by the context of it being recorded in WWII Germany. i.e. the idea that you can "hear the anguish' of Furtwangler's spirit of being German during the Nazi era, or "hear the tension" of Hitler in the audience, etc.

He does seem to dislike recordings where the primary appeal is historicity - e.g. there's a famous recording of Bruno Walter premiering Mahler's Ninth Symphony that he trashed because it was performed poorly.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> He does seem to dislike recordings where the primary appeal is historicity - e.g. there's a famous recording of Bruno Walter premiering Mahler's Ninth Symphony that he trashed because it was performed poorly.


On the other hand he praises the premiere performance of Shostakovichs 12th by Mravinsky, says that it doesn't matter if it is mono or stereo and that it is an essential document of the work's performance history. 




But a really good thing that happened to mono recordings is that they made pseudo-stereo out of it. I really wonder if further improvements are possible. This would be great, because the mono-era had conductors that surpass most modern conductors imo. Furtwänglers Nazi Ninth for example is really great. I feel the temptation to open a thread called "Why Furtwänglers Nazi Ninth is really great."


----------



## fbjim

electronically reprocessed stereo sounds awful, i think. recordings are very much garbage-in-garbage-out, you can make changes to make old recordings more aesthetically appealing, but they aren't going to be in higher fidelity than the master tapes


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> electronically reprocessed stereo sounds awful, i think. recordings are very much garbage-in-garbage-out, you can make changes to make old recordings more aesthetically appealing, but they aren't going to be in higher fidelity than the master tapes


The big problem with mono is that you can't hear the locations of instruments and therefore it is way more difficult to distinguish them and hear the polyphony. Fidelity? I don't know. I just want to hear it as good as possible. And some rustling is there anyway in these recordings. Yet.


----------



## wkasimer

Aries said:


> But balances, intonation, clarity - aren't these aspects very good in Furtwänglers 1942 Ninth?
> 
> I just heard it, its a very good interpretation.


I agree about the interpretation, but it's hard to say much about balances and clarity on such a sonically limited live recording.


----------



## Aries

wkasimer said:


> I agree about the interpretation, but it's hard to say much about balances and clarity on such a sonically limited live recording.


The main theme over the tremolo at the very beginning is very clear for example: 




In other recordings the shreds of the main theme itself sound somewhat like a tremolo. In Furtwänglers recording it is very clear instead.

Overall the violins and percussion instruments are good audible. I would say its a good balance. In this section for example: 




I also like for example how clear the cymbal is audible in this section: 




The german words that are sung are also rather good understandable.

Overall it does not sound clean but clear. Its remarkable how audible the musical ideas are.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> He does seem to dislike recordings where the primary appeal is historicity - e.g. there's a famous recording of Bruno Walter premiering Mahler's Ninth Symphony that he trashed because it was performed poorly.


Because he's an idiot. Like the 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th, the 1938 Vienna Mahler 9th is one of the most intense, inspired performances you will ever hear. For Hurwitz to desecrate these iconic recordings with his simple-minded criteria is a travesty.

The primary appeal of these recordings is NOT their historicity. Rather it is apt to help explain their unique intensity by the context in which they were performed. It is absolutely no different than explaining the inspiration of a composition by examining the context of a particular period in the composer's life.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Because he's an idiot. Like the 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th, the 1938 Vienna Mahler 9th is one of the most intense, inspired performances you will ever hear. For Hurwitz to desecrate these iconic recordings with his simple-minded criteria is a travesty.

The primary appeal of these recordings is NOT their historicity. Rather it is apt to help explain their unique intensity by the context in which they were performed. It is absolutely no different than explaining the inspiration of a composition by examining the context of a particular period in the composer's life

You are now just as guilty of what you accuse Hurwitz of.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I’m just so sick and tired of this obsessive/compulsive thing with Hurwitz. 

I need help from the moderators. Is it possible that I just won’t see this thread.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> This would be great, because the mono-era had conductors that surpass most modern conductors imo.


i think this is another reason he is somewhat knee-jerk reactionary against historical recordings, which is ironic because to an extent he's guilty of the same thing- valorizing the stars of the Golden Age of Stereo - Reiner, Klemperer (late), Bernstein, Munch, Szell. with that being said- and to a large extent I agree with him, even with his double-standards- there are fewer greater buzzkills than those who grumpily express that conductors, or soloists can simply never match the majesty of the conductors of the early days of recording - the Furtwanglers, Mengelbergs, Erich Kleibers, Talichs, et al of the world. there are issues with orchestral homogeneity and interpretive homogeneity, but the standard of play has now become so good that I can get a world class recording of a piece as infamously difficult to do as Ives 4 from a local, "second-tier" orchestra in Seattle - something which would have been impossible in the early 20th century.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> there are fewer greater buzzkills than those who grumpily express that conductors, or soloists can simply never match the majesty of the conductors of the early days of recording - the Furtwanglers, Mengelbergs, Erich Kleibers, Talichs, et al of the world. there are issues with orchestral homogeneity and interpretive homogeneity, but the standard of play has now become so good that I can get a world class recording of a piece as infamously difficult to do as Ives 4 from a local, "second-tier" orchestra in Seattle - something which would have been impossible in the early 20th century.


The technique has improved, but my concerns are more about the style. There seems to be less courage to interpret pieces nowadays. Objectivity seems more important than expression today. See also: 




When Furtwängler ends the Ninth with such variable tempo, it has just a overwhemling effect imo: 




Another amazing recording is that of Rimsky-Korsakov's Tsars Bride ouverture conducted by Nikolai Golovanov in 1944. I don't think modern conductors would dare such great tempo changes: 




Seems like the old conductors had more of a romantic spirit.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm just so sick and tired of this obsessive/compulsive thing with Hurwitz.
> 
> I need help from the moderators. Is it possible that I just won't see this thread.


Personally, I find it very easy to not click on threads I have no interest in.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> The technique has improved, but my concerns are more about the style. There seems to be less courage to interpret pieces nowadays. Objectivity seems more important than expression today. See also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Furtwängler ends the Ninth with such variable tempo, it has just a overwhemling effect imo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another amazing recording is that of Rimsky-Korsakov's Tsars Bride ouverture conducted by Nikolai Golovanov in 1944. I don't think modern conductors would dare such great tempo changes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like the old conductors had more of a romantic spirit.


There was a discussion about this on another venue I was in the other day- I think this is less about conductor's lack of technique than a greater emphasis these days on score fidelity. You even see it in small ways like repeats - where it's almost default to take repeats now even if they aren't musically advisable (see: almost every repeat in Schubert 9).

In an odd way this *is* the romantic spirit- the idea that of the three elements of a classical performance - the composer, performers (including conductor) and listener), the performers exist to transport the pure ideas of the composer to the listener's ears. Essentially we've kind of de-emphasized the expected impact of conductor and orchestra and emphasized the importance of the composer, which is pure romanticism.

You could even say HIP in some way is a result (or maybe the instigator) of the modern emphasis on authenticity and score fidelity.

(in a strange way you can also see why some post-modern composers, reacting against the dogmatic artistic authority of the composer, began to explore the vague and random elements of the process of musical performance itself)


----------



## fbjim

incidentally ive said this before but i would find it hilarious if a HIP ensemble started doing things that were common in the early 19th century like shuffling movement order, omitting movements, splicing in movements from entirely different symphonies, or drastic rescoring


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> incidentally ive said this before but i would find it hilarious if a HIP ensemble started doing things that were common in the early 19th century like shuffling movement order, omitting movements, splicing in movements from entirely different symphonies, or drastic rescoring


It's never been about authenticity. It's about stuffing centuries' old music into a modern aesthetic - faster, slicker, less emotive, more efficient.


----------



## fbjim

it's a relatively complex phenomenon, I think. a greater fixation on "authenticity" is a relatively contemporary attitude which extends far beyond HIP. That, and the romantic view of composer as hero figure never left us, meaning many "want" their Beethoven to be "straight" and undistilled by an interpretative view.

this isn't either a bad or good thing, every generation of performers and artists has their own way of viewing the works of the past. In a few decades the pendulum might swing again.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> There was a discussion about this on another venue I was in the other day- I think this is less about conductor's lack of technique than a greater emphasis these days on score fidelity. You even see it in small ways like repeats - where it's almost default to take repeats now even if they aren't musically advisable (see: almost every repeat in Schubert 9).


These repeats give it the character of a mass product instead of something meaningful individual. Schuberts 9th is a good example, but I also like when Furtwängler skips repeats even in Haydn symphonies.



fbjim said:


> In an odd way this *is* the romantic spirit- the idea that of the three elements of a classical performance - the composer, performers (including conductor) and listener), the performers exist to transport the pure ideas of the composer to the listener's ears. Essentially we've kind of de-emphasized the expected impact of conductor and orchestra and emphasized the importance of the composer, which is pure romanticism.


I think when romantic composers wrote their music they did not expect this kind of fidelity. There is an recording of Brahms playing one of his own compositions, and it is even hard to understand today what he was doing at all. But it seems like he just naturally dislocated many notes and played it rhythmically very loosly. 




So what is the point of sterile score fidelity?

Another thing is that we don't play music as some kind of scientific exercise. We play it for ourselfs after all. So we should finally care about how we like the music. It is not necessarily true that the way a composer liked his music the most is also the way we like it the most. So caring for the composers should not be an end in itself. Knowing the composers thoughts would give us some interesting and maybe enlightening ideas, but finally it is again about us. To suppress ourselfs in order to aim for objectivity is not the point of art imo.

What the word romanticism means in this context os not really the point, but I guess in the sense of the romantic era it is a lot about the actual performing musicians as important individual factor.

How did a composers wrote music if he wanted displacement of notes, rubato etc.? I guess he still wrote the music normally bar for bar, without displacement in the score, because otherwise the bars would lose their meaning for the displaced melodic lines. So I would say that notes have the same placement in a bar doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be played at exactly the same time. The compulsion for objectivity seems like a result of forgotten knowledge and insecurity.



fbjim said:


> You could even say HIP in some way is a result (or maybe the instigator) of the modern emphasis on authenticity and score fidelity.


Likely. I don't know this movement that much about it but I agree with David Hurwitz that Roger Norrington is a bad conductor. I hope he is not representative.


----------



## fbjim

A lot of times I don't mind repeats because the melodies are fine enough that you don't mind hearing them again, but Schubert 9 is not a piece which needs even more repetition than it already has, as fine a work as it is.



I also tend not to like them in A-B-A scherzi, but that's a matter of taste.


----------



## fbjim

Aries said:


> I think when romantic composers wrote their music they did not expect this kind of fidelity. There is an recording of Brahms playing one of his own compositions, and it is even hard to understand today what he was doing at all. But it seems like he just naturally dislocated many notes and played it rhythmically very loosly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the point of sterile score fidelity?
> 
> Another thing is that we don't play music as some kind of scientific exercise. We play it for ourselfs after all. So we should finally care about how we like the music. It is not necessarily true that the way a composer liked his music the most is also the way we like it the most. So caring for the composers should not be an end in itself. Knowing the composers thoughts would give us some interesting and maybe enlightening ideas, but finally it is again about us. To suppress ourselfs in order to aim for objectivity is not the point of art imo.
> 
> What the word romanticism means in this context os not really the point, but I guess in the sense of the romantic era it is a lot about the actual performing musicians as important individual factor.


It depends quite a bit on how one defines romanticism. Klemperer, Furtwangler, Mengelberg et al are sometimes considered "romantic" conductors specifically for their liberties and freedom of expression, but one of the tenets of romanticism was the elevation of artist to a sort of authoritative creative figure. Modernism has sometimes been called the ultimate expression of this, in the sense that it prioritized the creative impulses of artist above all, including, in some cases, the tastes of the mass public.

Because of this, you can say that emphasis on score fidelity is, to some extent, "romantic" as it is expressing that the point of performers is to relay the composer's work to the listener in as "pure" a form as possible - therefore de-emphasizing the creative work which goes into performance in favor of the creative work of composition (if you've ever wondered why the likes of Cage et al were so interested in giving performers greater freedom and de-emphasizing the role of the composer to an extent- this is why).

e) as you mentioned this in itself has issues, as it's entirely arguable that the composer would have expected their work _not_ to have been played in this manner. this doesn't invalidate HIP but it does mean that HIP is better viewed as an aesthetic than it is a standard of "authenticity".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> That, and the romantic view of composer as hero figure never left us, meaning many "want" their Beethoven to be "straight" and undistilled by an interpretative view.


But Beethoven himself didn't play his music that way.

It is not about fidelity, hero worship, or authenticity. It is about the modern concept of removing the self and making everything automated, like replacing the person at the checkout counter with a self-scanner.

Here is your Beethoven served in "pure" automated form, uninterrupted by human thought or emotion. But that is what ironically strips the music of its essence.

Furtwangler had a great line about this. He heard an "authentic" performance of the St Matthew Passion. He commented on how clinical the whole thing was, how not a single line was truly felt. "The music of Bach, as it were, did not put in an appearance." Precisely.


----------



## fbjim

yeah and that's the counterpoint - you can say that the idea that Furtwangler is bringing out the "essence of Beethoven" is silly, because what he's really bringing out is the essence of Furtwangler's view of Beethoven - but this is true of _all_ performance, even ones with more fidelity to the score. In a sense it's just as flawed to say that Furtwangler or Mengelberg represents the "true spirit" of Beethoven as it is to say that playing it straight represents the composer's "true intentions".

A score is a lossy format for expressing the spirit of composers, and it isn't even clear that "expressing the spirit of the composer" is the purpose of performance. I've heard some say that straight performances of Beethoven are without spirit, and I've heard people say that his music is so expressive that it doesn't need "help" to be expressive. All performances are interpretations, and as a incorrigible relativist, it really just matters what you are in the mood for, and what pleases you aesthetically.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> but one of the tenets of romanticism was the elevation of artist to a sort of authoritative creative figure.


I guess that in the romantic sense not only the composer is an artist but also the performers. The view of the performer just as a possible source of error seems rather technocratic and modern instead.



fbjim said:


> Because of this, you can say that emphasis on score fidelity is, to some extent, "romantic" as it is expressing that the point of performers is to relay the composer's work to the listener in as "pure" a form as possible.


I understand the thought. But there is another aspect. Compare it to war. The picture of a knight on a horse with a sword in his hand is romantic. Napoleon visiting battlegrounds as commander is romantic. But George W. Bush sitting in the White house behind his writing desk like a composer commanding soldiers on another continent, or even better unmanned drones, that is not romantic. On the other hand George W. Bush visiting Ground Zero was rather romantic again.

I think romanticism is more about actually doing something than just contriving it.


----------



## fbjim

Historical events aren't so much "romantic" as our interpretation of it is. Napoleon as Great Man of History is a romantic view. Napoleon as a great reformer of society, a catalyst for change is a modernist view. Napoleon as an upper-class aristocrat who corrupted the Revolution of the French working class is a Marxist view. 


(this is kind of getting away from Dave Hurwitz, so I apologize :lol: )


----------



## fbjim

to bring it back to Hurwitz, if I agree 100% with him on something, it's that what really matters is that if a performance pleases you, because no matter what Dave, me, Toscanini, Beethoven or Roger Norrington says, nobody can contradict you if you say you like a performance, and that truth can not be contradicted - no matter how "objectively" flawed it may be.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> to bring it back to Hurwitz, if I agree 100% with him on something, it's that what really matters is that if a performance pleases you, because no matter what Dave, me, Toscanini, Beethoven or Roger Norrington says, nobody can contradict you if you say you like a performance, and that truth can not be contradicted - no matter how "objectively" flawed it may be.


Except he doesn't say that. He says "Your opinion doesn't matter." He also says that liking a performance that objectively "sucks" is like eating junk food.

He tries to remove the human element of enjoyment from the equation and make it all about technical "facts" such as recording balances and intonation. It's all self-serving in the end. He is not really telling us about the music being produced, and in some cases he is even assaulting it with his carping nitpicking over technicalities.

In this sense Hurwitz is no different than the authenticists, who use technical fixation as a substitute for real talent.


----------



## FrankinUsa

MatthewWeflen said:


> Personally, I find it very easy to not click on threads I have no interest in.


Thank you for your advice. I will take it.


----------



## Aries

fbjim said:


> it's a relatively complex phenomenon, I think. a greater fixation on "authenticity" is a relatively contemporary attitude which extends far beyond HIP. That, and the romantic view of composer as hero figure never left us, meaning many "want" their Beethoven to be "straight" and undistilled by an interpretative view.
> 
> this isn't either a bad or good thing, every generation of performers and artists has their own way of viewing the works of the past. In a few decades the pendulum might swing again.


Yes, but it would be nice to have different styles in the same era.

Overall I think it is a bit impractical for a composer to write every single detail they want in the score. They want to write other works too, and they write the works before they are performed. It seems to be likely that it is often just practical for composers to let the performers figure out some details. But it doesn't mean that they did not want such details.

Overall I think details (regarding tempo, dynamic, intonation, rubato etc.) add value to a work, but it is nonetheless not efficient for the composers to write all these details in the score. But on the other hand performers could add to much details, and at the end it is a matter of taste what someone likes. But the general thought that there should be added as little as possible details to reach a supposed authenticity, I don't think it is a good thought.


----------



## Malx

Aries said:


> Likely. I don't know this movement that much about it but *I agree with David Hurwitz that Roger Norrington is a bad conductor*. I hope he is not representative.


I find this statement quite strange - if Roger Norrington can communicate his idea of how a score may be interpreted and achieves his goal by persuading the orchestra to play the piece in such a manner surely that means he is a _good_ conductor.

I would contend that because you and David Hurwitz don't agree with the results he achieves does not mean he is a_ bad_ conductor. It means he conducts in a manner neither of you care for, which for me is a completely different thing.

For the record I have no great opinion on Roger Norrington's style one way or the other - some things he has done I like others not so much.


----------



## Aries

Malx said:


> I find this statement quite strange - if Roger Norrington can communicate his idea of how a score may be interpreted and achieves his goal by persuading the orchestra to play the piece in such a matter surely that means he is a _good_ conductor.
> 
> I would contend that because you and David Hurwitz don't agree with the results he achieves does not mean he is a_ bad_ conductor. It means he conducts in a manner neither of you care for, which for me is a completely different thing.


Why shouldn't I assess Norringtons ideas too? At the end the result matters and it doesn't matter if it is because of ideas or execution.

I guess your idea is that ideas can not be assessed objectively. Yes, but I am a subject and I assess them subjectively.


----------



## Malx

Aries said:


> Why shouldn't I assess Norringtons ideas too? At the end the result matters and it doesn't matter if it is because of ideas or execution.
> 
> I guess your idea is that ideas can not be assessed objectively. Yes, but I am a subject and I assess them subjectively.


But surely it is one thing to say you disagree with his ideas another to say he is 'bad' - my point is technically he must be 'good' enough to get his ideas across to his orchestras.

So do I take it that a builder is bad despite his building standing for years because someone doesn't like the look of it?

Of course you are entitled to express your subjective views as we all are but I do find it strange that someone is regarded as technically 'bad' because of a divergence of opinion on the style he employs.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Malx said:


> I find this statement quite strange - if Roger Norrington can communicate his idea of how a score may be interpreted and achieves his goal by persuading the orchestra to play the piece in such a matter surely that means he is a _good_ conductor.
> 
> I would contend that because you and David Hurwitz don't agree with the results he achieves does not mean he is a_ bad_ conductor. It means he conducts in a manner neither of you care for, which for me is a completely different thing.
> 
> For the record I have no great opinion on Roger Norrington's style one way or the other - some things he has done I like others not so much.


Indeed. And that's to say nothing about the fact that Norrington is a very _good_ conductor :lol:


----------



## Aries

Malx said:


> But surely it is one thing to say you disagree with his ideas another to say he is 'bad' - my point is technically he must be 'good' enough to get his ideas across to his orchestras.
> 
> So do I take it that a builder is bad despite his building standing for years because someone doesn't like the look of it?
> 
> Of course you are entitled to express your subjective views as we all are but I do find it strange that someone is regarded as technically 'bad' because of a divergence of opinion on the style he employs.


When I say "bad", why does this mean "technically bad" for you? His ideology is probably much worse than his technique imo.

To reduce the conductor to his technique seems obscure. The musical concepts of the conductor are very important too. It is the essence of a conductor imo.


----------



## Malx

Aries said:


> When I say "bad", why does this mean "technically bad" for you? His ideology is probably much worse than his technique imo.
> 
> To reduce the conductor to his technique seems obscure. The musical concepts of the conductor are very important too. It is the essence of a conductor imo.


I will say no more than - when I read the word 'bad' I understand it to mean 'of poor quality or standard' if you had said his ideas or concepts were bad that for me is different, but you merely agreed with the comment that he is a bad conductor.

I do appreciate that the original comment was David's not yours.

I'm done now as I believe I have made my point.


----------



## Aries

Malx said:


> I will say no more than - when I read the word 'bad' I understand it to mean 'of poor quality or standard' if you had said his ideas or concepts were bad that for me is different, but you merely agreed with the comment that he is a bad conductor.


"Bad" often means "of poor quality or standard", but rather in cases when the quality can be measured objectively like the stability of a building. But how do you measure the quality of conducting objectively? I think in this context it is not unusual that "bad" is just a subjective evaluation. Like what is a "bad composer"? In most cases it is obvious that such a statement is a subjective assessment. And I am not in the mood to find veiling words for Norrington. If I were in the position of David Hurwitz I maybe should find more restrained words. But just maybe.


----------



## staxomega

*BitchFest 2021: The Most Overrated Recordings in the Universe*

Beethoven Symphony 5 - Kleiber/VPO
Rimsky Korsakov Scheherazade - Beecham/Royal Philharmonic
Beethoven Symphony 9 - Furtwangler 'Nazi' 1942 (still very confusing which performance Hurwitz is referring to, please just give us the full date)
Mahler Das Lied der von der Erde - Walter/Ferrier/VPO Decca 
Sibelius cycle - Anthony Collins
Debussy La Mer - Karajan/BPO analog
Rachmaninoff Symphony 2 - Previn/LSO
Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto 1 - Cliburn/Kondrashin
Everything Horenstein recorded 

Counted only 9 but I got sick of rewinding and fast forwarding to get to the list.


----------



## Kreisler jr

"Debussy La Mer/BPO analog" Is "BPO" Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra?

There should be something with Callas and Benedetti Michelangeli or at least Horowitz or Gould. Hurwitz is not sufficiently interested in the really wild flamewars among opera buffs and pianophiles, that's why his list is lame. Who beyond high school cares about Sheherazade anyway?


----------



## RobertJTh

staxomega said:


> *BitchFest 2021: The Most Overrated Recordings in the Universe*
> 
> Beethoven Symphony 5 - Kleiber/VPO
> Rimsky Korsakov Scheherazade - Beecham/Royal Philharmonic
> Beethoven Symphony 9 - Furtwangler 'Nazi' 1942 (still very confusing which performance Hurwitz is referring to, please just give us the full date)
> Mahler Das Lied der von der Erde - Walter/Ferrier/VPO Decca
> Sibelius cycle - Anthony Collins
> Debussy La Mer - Karajan/BPO analog
> Rachmaninoff Symphony 2 - Previn/LSO
> Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto 1 - Cliburn/Kondrashin
> Everything Horenstein recorded
> 
> Counted only 9 but I got sick of rewinding and fast forwarding to get to the list.


Barbirolli's Elgar 2. It surprised me that he didn't compare Barbirolli to a drooling bulldog again.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Kreisler jr said:


> "Debussy La Mer/BPO analog" Is "BPO" Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra?
> 
> There should be something with Callas and Benedetti Michelangeli or at least Horowitz or Gould. Hurwitz is not sufficiently interested in the really wild flamewars among opera buffs and pianophiles, that's why his list is lame. Who beyond high school cares about Sheherazade anyway?


Which Callas would you choose?


----------



## staxomega

Kreisler jr said:


> "Debussy La Mer/BPO analog" Is "BPO" Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra?


Yes.



> There should be something with Callas and Benedetti Michelangeli or at least Horowitz or Gould. Hurwitz is not sufficiently interested in the really wild flamewars among opera buffs and pianophiles, that's why his list is lame. Who beyond high school cares about Sheherazade anyway?


Michelangeli doesn't have anything that wildly over rated. The only pieces very highly rated from him are the Debussy Preludes and maybe Children's Corner. All three are among the best if not best ever performances.

Horowitz it can be hard to pinpoint one performance that is very highly rated, I'm a huge Horowitz fan and most of us tend to think of him in eras of recordings and even then we can be clear eyed in knowing what his bad performances are wrt to memory lapses. Getting into the weeds about this would have been over Hurwitz's head, as you say he seems to just default to Jed Distler for piano repertoire which is fine. Jed Distler is a real gentleman and knows his music extremely well even if I don't agree with him that often.

Gould - I like most of his JS Bach recordings but this is indeed a very easy one to target, people tend to get fanatical about them.

Beecham Scheherazade - never heard this as being rated very highly by anyone. The highly rated ones are Reiner or Kondrashin on Decca. I don't agree with the jab about people not liking it past high school, TalkClassical and other classical forums have had very active threads on this and of course I like it. IMO snobbish to put this down.


----------



## Kreisler jr

@ Brahmsianhorn: I am not an opera buff. I have only a few Callas recordings and the famous Tosca with De Sabata is IMO correctly rated extremely high.

o.k., drop "beyond high school" from the sentence about Sheherazade 

Like the Tchaikovsky b flat minor it's very hard to make the piece not entertaining and neither is subtle enough to make it very sensitive towards interpretations; there are plenty of good recordings.

I care deeply only about 3 pieces from Hurwitz' list (all the others are rather overrated regardless of conductor, IMO ). I think the Kleiber 5th is very good and might by favorite recording (although I was imprinted on it) but all of his recordings are a bit overrated because there are so few of them. The wartime 9th with Furtwängler is very special but it is also obviously not a standard recommendation because of historical live sound and exaggerated interpretation
And it's been ages that I heard but I was also not enthusiastic about the Walter/Patzak/Ferrier DLvdE (singers and sound are not great).


----------



## fbjim

The Kleiber Freischutz is certainly not overrated - though I'm not sure if that many great recordings of it exist (surprising for such an important opera)


----------



## HenryPenfold

staxomega said:


> *BitchFest 2021: The Most Overrated Recordings in the Universe*
> 
> Beethoven Symphony 5 - Kleiber/VPO
> Rimsky Korsakov Scheherazade - Beecham/Royal Philharmonic
> Beethoven Symphony 9 - Furtwangler 'Nazi' 1942 (still very confusing which performance Hurwitz is referring to, please just give us the full date)
> Mahler Das Lied der von der Erde - Walter/Ferrier/VPO Decca
> Sibelius cycle - Anthony Collins
> Debussy La Mer - Karajan/BPO analog
> Rachmaninoff Symphony 2 - Previn/LSO
> Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto 1 - Cliburn/Kondrashin
> Everything Horenstein recorded
> 
> Counted only 9 but I got sick of rewinding and fast forwarding to get to the list.


I'm not sure what is meant by overrated. Does it mean that they have been rated too many times?

I can see from the list that they are all excellent recordings, arguably the best out there. How do you even overrate excellence?

But then what are we to make of a man who claims to be a professional music critic, and gives us his latest music chat video entitled *"Why Didn't Sibelius Die Of Syphilis? *He really is a schmuck, much of the time .........


----------



## wkasimer

HenryPenfold said:


> I'm not sure what is meant by overrated. Does it mean that they have been rated too many times?
> 
> I can see from the list that they are all excellent recordings, arguably the best out there. How do you even overrate excellence?


I listened to the beginning of the video. He's not saying that some of them aren't excellent - he's saying that some of them are knee-jerk recommendations that shouldn't be, or that the oft-repeated praise of them is largely received wisdom. I've heard most of the recordings that he references, and I agree. They may be performances worth hearing and admiring, but they are hardly the "be all and end all" that some claim.


----------



## HenryPenfold

wkasimer said:


> I listened to the beginning of the video. He's not saying that some of them aren't excellent - he's saying that some of them are knee-jerk recommendations that shouldn't be, or that the oft-repeated praise of them is largely received wisdom. I've heard most of the recordings that he references, and I agree. They may be performances worth hearing and admiring, but they are hardly the "be all and end all" that some claim.


So he's not saying very much - just a bit of click-bait.


----------



## Kreisler jr

fbjim said:


> The Kleiber Freischutz is certainly not overrated - though I'm not sure if that many great recordings of it exist (surprising for such an important opera)


Kleiber is great but the male lead, Schreier, is not the greatest choice and there are also better Kaspars than Adam. The women are very good although again, not necessarily the best.
I am a fan of Kleiber, and all of his recordings I have heard are highly recommendable (I have not heard any of his opera recordings except Freischütz, no R. Strauss and some stuff only on video or bootlegs, such as Brahms 2nd). But because there are so few of them, they virtually all have legendary status which is a bit exaggerated.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The only recording I agree with in that batch is the Kleiber 5th, but unlike Hurwitz I don’t invent extra-musical reasons (his being that it’s only because Kleiber made so few recordings). I believe that these recordings are revered because of what people hear. I think the Kleiber 5th is rightly acclaimed for the viscerally exciting first movement. It’s easily the best modern version of arguably the most famous movement in all of classical music. But I think this reaction obscures the reality of the performance as a whole. The problem for me is that the remaining three movements do not hold up as well. They are more ordinary. So in that respect the recording deserves to be ranked *among* the best as opposed to its status as unquestionably the best.

I would agree with his inclusion of the Cliburn Tchai 1, except that I don’t agree it’s rated as high as he claims. Most musical critics rate it among the best without going over the top. It is more famous for its political circumstances as opposed to being overly acclaimed. Another recording that fits this description is Bernstein’s Berlin Wall Beethoven 9th.

With regard to the rest, Hurwitz’s failing is he is unable to debate both sides of an argument. He simply repeats his side and acts as if the counter argument doesn’t exist. Or, worst of all, he twists the other side into an argument convenient for his side, the common straw man tactic.

He has no clue why people revere Furtwängler’s 1942 Beethoven 9th, Ferrier/Walter’s Mahler DLVDE, Beecham’s Scheherazade, or Horenstein’s Mahler. None at all. The man simply doesn’t hear artistry. He is more concerned with superficial matters of sound quality. So in all these cases he invents his own convenient reasons for their acclaim while treating his superficial analysis as some sort of objective fact beyond debate. He goes so far as to state “There really is no excuse for preferring something that is inferior.” When he makes remarks like that, you can only feel sorry for him. He lives in a delusional, myopic echo chamber.


.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think the Kleiber is also very good in the second and third movements. There is a "più mosso" passage towards the end of the andante where I prefer him to everyone else, I think. The strong dynamic contrast with the C major outbreaks are also very effective.
And the 3rd movement has great horns without them dominating everything
The finale is good but not so good in sound and a bit opaque. Overall his father's early 1950s recording is actually more transparent in all movements but suffers from dryish mono sound and doesn't have the necessary impact, especially in the first movement.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Case in point:

If you watch Hurwitz's video you come away believing that the only reason for the acclaim of Beecham's Scheherazade is British bias. That's BS. The acclaim is for reasons that escape Hurwitz and which he cannot even articulate or acknowledge. That's his modus operandi.

I surveyed and reviewed over 70 recordings of Scheherazade in 2019 and posted the results here: Survey of Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherazade recordings

I was going strictly on what I heard, not on reputation.

So for the Reiner, which by reputation is undoubtedly top 5, I rated it 17th and said the following:

Reiner (1960) (RCA) (****1/2) - Arguably the most celebrated modern recording, particularly among audiophiles. However, on my list it falls short of that acclaim. No doubt the playing and sound quality are spectacular. However, despite its brilliance I get the feeling that this could be a performance of any orchestral work. Everything is done with great efficiency, but I fail to hear the sensuous spirit of Scheherazade come through as it does with those listed above.

(Note that unlike Hurwitz I am able to list both the pros and cons of the recordings I see as overrated)

I rated the Beecham 6th, about where its reputation warrants, and said the following:

Beecham (1958) (EMI) (*****) - That Beecham touch and sensitivity works its wonders. Few if any have ever captured the ethereal dreaminess of the work like Beecham. Perhaps there is a certain lack of thrust and power compared to some others, but taken on its own merits the recording is essential listening. No consideration need be made for the 1958 sound, which is excellent and full-bodied.

What you can glean here is that my criteria differs starkly from Hurwitz's. He values sound quality and precision more than I do, while I value spirit of the music, which is a totally foreign concept to Hurwitz such that he denies its very existence. So of course he is only going to hear Ferrier as wobbly in the DLVDE and completely miss the otherworldly spirituality of that recording. And he will only hear the poor sound of the 1942 Furt B9 and miss the transcendent intensity.

It seems that David Hurwitz's goal in life is to prove that what he hears (and doesn't hear) is all that exists. He refuses to even acknowledge that there is another side.

.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> With regard to the rest, Hurwitz's failing is he is unable to debate both sides of an argument. He simply repeats his side and acts as if the counter argument doesn't exist. Or, worst of all, he twists the other side into an argument convenient for his side, the common straw man tactic.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> It seems that David Hurwitz's goal in life is to prove that what he hears (and doesn't hear) is all that exists. He refuses to even acknowledge that there is another side.


Look at the text on his shirt: "Abnormal is fine. Stupid is not."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

hammeredklavier said:


> Look at the text on his shirt: "Abnormal is fine. Stupid is not."


Don't forget this doozy:

He goes so far as to state "There really is no excuse for preferring something that is inferior." When he makes remarks like that, you can only feel sorry for him. He lives in a delusional, myopic echo chamber.


----------



## RobertJTh

Hurwitz' videos used to be a daily source of entertainment to me, but they're quickly becoming a daily source of ennui and irritation.

1. Hiding the potentially most interesting videos behind a paywall and using the free ones as click bait - and starting every video with 2 minutes of either talk about those fabulous CLASSICS TODAY DOT COM INSIDER REVIEWS or plugging the overpriced "fashion" items in his online shop. Seems that after assembling the audience, it's time to harvest what has been planted. Of course he has every right to super-commercial, but it decreases the value of his videos for me.

2. Becoming more and more intolerant and messianistic. He keeps repeating his views, even repeating entire reviews, but while he used to present them with some humor, he hammers them down now, with grim determination. His ad hominems become increasingly disturbing: completely dismissing everything Jasha Horenstein ever did in the latest video was just plain nasty.
The first time he banned me from his comment section (for having an opinion of my own), he had the courtesy to write a polite email explaining his actions. I doubt he does do that anymore, having amassed a big enough cult following to not care anymore about the ones that fall off the boat. On the contrary, in his latest video we're treated to the ugly spectacle of Dave gloating over all the people he banned for no other reason than disagreeing with him on the merit of some recording.
He doesn't even hide anymore that he finds it delightful to kick out anyone who doesn't completely agree with him or showers him with praise in the comment sections.

3. It's said over and over in these threads, the problem with Hurwitz is that he takes a couple of qualities that contribute to good performances and recordings, and he judges everything he listens to and criticizes according to those perceived qualities. Thing is, those qualities are
- selective and in no way exhaustive
- presented as the sine qua non for successful performances
Hurwitz prefers recordings that are transparent, disciplined and rhythmically precise. That's fine, and those are important qualities, but there are other qualities that are systematically neglected in his reviews. It's not that qualities like atmosphere or spirituality don't matter to him, but in an often twisted way, he labels recordings "spiritual" that he selected and likes because of other, more favored qualities. That's an clever intellectual trick that's hard to see through: appeasing your audience by praising something that they like for other reasons than you do, by going into detail about your reasons, but only superficially mentioning theirs.

4. When you start watching his videos, the patterns described above aren't immediately clear. There's a relative small amount of videos that directly deal with the stuff he hates and that offer clear insight in his methods. Like his rants about Furtwängler, Barbirolli, Norrington, Rattle and Horenstein. Mostly his views are embedded in long videos with lots of comparisons so it takes some time and effort to determine what it is that makes him jump to those sometimes bizarre conclusions. In my case that made that I followed him a bit too deep into the rabbit hole, something I now regret.

5. One thing that Hurwitz completely and willingly ignores in his reviews is morality. The moral fabric of the musicians and conductors that shines through in their performances. To him, a good recording remains good, no matter under what circumstances it was produced, and a bad one remains bad, no matter what extra-musical qualities could rehabilitate it.
So according to Hurwitz a recording like DLVDE with Fierrier/VPO/Walter, which for many music lovers is legendary because it conveys so much more than just the music alone, is worthless just because it's not technically perfect.
And the complete output by dictators like Szell and Reiner, people that were feared and hated by the members of their own orchestras is above criticism. Barbirolli on the other hand, a man loved by everyone he worked with, is panned because of his supposed lack of discipline.
Well, to me, Szell/Cleveland often sound cold and lifeless. It's like you can sense his obsessive personality through the music, and that's not always a pretty experience. While I can forgive Barbirolli and Hallé every technical imperfection when the music he extracts from his orchestra emits so much human warmth.
And it isn't just my subjective touchy-feely approach versus Hurwitz' objective "truth". The qualities that make Barbirolli's Elgar 2 such a great recording can be determined with just as much exactitude as the technical qualities of, say, Szell's Dvorak. It just requires a open mind and a willingness to not fatally narrow down your critical tools.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

He asserts that his tastes are more valid because they are "fact-based," i.e. based on concrete qualities like sound quality and intonation. It is an essentially nonsensical, self-serving argument. You cannot escape the reality that the pure act of liking what we hear cannot be simplistically reduced the way Hurwitz attempts, forcing the complicated question of taste into the confines of his primordial criteria. Essentially, Hurwitz takes an inherently subjective process and tries to "objectify" it in a way that ultimately matches with HIS subjective preferences.

With regard to the 10 most overrated recordings, this is my list. Like Hurwitz said in giving his choices, these are not necessarily bad recordings. Some are even great. They are just ones that in my opinion don't deserve quite the acclaim they have garnered.

*Bach, St Matthew Passion - Klemperer*
Obviously I could say the opening chorus is simply too slow, but there is more to it than that. It is hard to explain sometimes why it is that for me Klemperer can be so hit or miss. I actually love his Mass in B minor. I think some works beautifully feed into Klemperer's homogenized approach, where everything is on a steady path forward. And then there are some works which require more drama, more dynamism, more differentiation.

*Beethoven, Symphony No. 5 - C. Kleiber*
It is almost impossible for such a celebrated recording NOT to be overrated. It is still among the greatest 5ths, but I don't agree that it is the be-all, end-all. The first movement is possibly the most exciting ever recorded, but the finale is rather pedestrian.

*Brahms, Violin Concerto - Heifetz/Reiner*
This one is personal for me as the Brahms VC is my favorite work. This is arguably the most celebrated account, alongside Oistrakh/Klemperer (or Oistrakh/Szell). But to me it is missing the essential ingredient in this work of heart and warmth. Instead they turn it more into a virtuosic showpiece.

*Brahms, Ein Deutsches Requiem - Klemperer*
Again, this is one of the greats, but as with the Kleiber Beethoven 5th I don't think it deserves its nonpareil reputation. The Brahms Requiem is a very dynamic work, and Klemperer's vision is too unyielding and inflexible for me.

*Bruckner, Symphony No. 8 - Karajan/VPO*
Very good version, but I don't think this is even Karajan's own greatest account. The 70s BPO version is more intense and engaging. The later VPO is better recorded and has a valedictory feel. Still a great recording but not without plenty of equal or greater competition from the likes of Furtwangler, Wand, Giulini, Bohm, and Karajan himself.

*Mahler, Symphony No. 4 - Szell*
Sorry, but for me Szell is too stiff and simplistically straightforward to plumb the beautiful emotional depths of Mahler. Give me Walter, Barbirolli, or Horenstein in this work.

*Mozart, Don Giovanni - Giulini*
Again, a recording that I just don't think deserves to be rated so far above all others. The weak link is Waechter as the Don, sounding very light and snarly. I miss the vocal presence of a Siepi in the Krips version, my top recommendation for studio recordings.

*Rimsky-Korsakov, Scheherazade - Reiner*
It feels like sacrilege to criticize this spectacular sounding recording, but for me Scheherazade is more than an orchestral showpiece. To me the Reiner lacks the warmth and sensuousness inherent in the score.

*R. Strauss, Four Last Songs - Janowitz/Karajan*
This version is celebrated for the creamy beauty of Janowitz's tone, but to me this is a notch below Schwarzkopf, Della Casa, Jurinac, and Norman. I just find it to be faceless. I don't hear any connection to the text.

*Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen - Solti*
Wagner debates are so legion that it almost doesn't make sense to label any recording as overrated. Every Wagner recording has passionate proponents and detractors, and certainly the criticisms of the Solti Ring are well documented. Nevertheless, I still can't help but cringe whenever I see it listed on so many "10 greatest classical recordings of all time" lists. It is a sonic spectacular. It is a historic recording. But it is NOT the greatest Ring recording.

.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I find it ironic that the most vociferous critics seemed to be magnetically drawn to his videos. I do look at his videos. Up until recently I just listened to his opinions and filed it away in my brain. Another post-er mentioned this;the increasing sales pitch for his subscription service “ClassicsToday.” It annoying. But all online is increasing to be the new economy. It’s unbelievable how many people are making money on YouTube and monetizing anything about the internet. Ummm,Amazon=no more book stores,no more record/cd stores. You have to pay to see the New York Times,Washington Post and a very long list of newspapers etc. I guess that is the future


----------



## Forster

I'm reminded of how my niece as a toddler had an horrific fascination with Thomas the Tank Engine.









She couldn't look...and she couldn't not look.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Omg….today has been an extremely humorous day on TC


----------



## Neo Romanza

The last Hurwitz video I watched, I turned off immediately because he's nothing more than a troll. All he does is bitch about the state of classical music or how he despises the British press. He also has that stupid grin on his face like what he's saying is so clever and intelligent, but anyone could do a video like he's done. How he has any kind of following on ClassicsToday or YouTube is beyond me. He is actually everything that is wrong with classical music criticism. Also, I wish he'd stop calling his viewers friends, because I wouldn't be his friend if we were the last two people on this planet. I'd rather die in silence.


----------



## FrankinUsa

g. But all online is increasing to be the new economy. It’s unbelievable how many people are making money on YouTube and monetizing anything about the internet. Ummm,Amazon=no more book stores,no more record/cd stores. You have to pay to see the New York Times,Washington Post and a very long list of newspapers etc. I guess that is the future

Who knows? One day we may have to pay to have access to TC?( no disrespect to whoever is in charge of TC). It’s a theoretical question


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

(Moved this post from the Brahms Violin Concerto discussion)






My response:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Pretty vanilla video. Biggest surprise is he didn't mention Szeryng/Monteux, which is surprising as he never fails to mention a Monteux recording when the opportunity arises.


The next day:






Hmmm, somebody listening?



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've said for a long time that *Hurwitz is a hack who doesn't understand or hear differences in artistic nuance*, and this video further proves it. He states at one point that it is a "secret" of the reviewing trade that there is not much difference between performances once they reach a certain technical level. Well, that may be so for a technicrat like Hurwitz, but not for the rest of us! He really is barely capable of commenting on anything other than intonation, balance and sound quality. No wonder he refers to people who hear beyond these rudimentary criteria as "delusional."


9:28 of the video - "That's why I think these cultists, the Furtwangler people, the whatever people, are all crazy. because you're looking for teeny teeny tiny differences and you're tremendously exaggerating their value. *And I don't hear it.* I think you're simply being, you're hallucinating when you do that. You're making things up!"

Bwahahaha!

What did I just tell you??? What have I always said about Hurwitz? He doesn't understand artistic nuance. He has no idea what the difference is between this recording or that recording. He is a hack and a charlatan. He does these videos where he simply throws up well-known versions and acts as if he was the one who did the homework of deciphering what made them great. He has no clue outside of simple technical matters of intonation and sound quality.

But what is worse is that he literally believes that people who do hear the differences - which includes both the vast majority of professional critics as well as the casual listener - are making the differences up! What I have always wanted to confront Hurwitz with is how can people independently come to the same conclusions if they are making it up? According to your asinine theory, there should be no consensus choices at all. There should just be a random jungle of people making things up. Even accounting for differences in taste, you still end up with "factions" of consensus opinions, e.g. some people think the Perlman/Giulini displays spirit and heart, while others just hear it as slow and bloated. So a competent reviewer knows what the Perlman/Giulini offers artistically that is different from other versions and that some will like and some won't.

As to the question of whether Szeryng is necessary, for me personally the answer is not so much. But I personally rate him lower because like Grumiaux I think he is a little dull compared to other versions. Simply well-played and lyrical. But I absolutely respect and acknowledge that others hear it differently because they have different criteria than me. Not everyone values individuality. And yet I keep them both on my shelf because sometimes I want to hear the concerto that way. Or maybe I listen to Huberman for dramatic angst, or Krebbers for beautiful tone and songful connection, or Perlman/Giulini for the mysterious dark colors, or Heifetz/Reiner for just-the-facts cutting bravura, or Heifetz/Koussevitzky for unmatched poetic assurance, or Milstein/Fistoulari for fast and beautifully lyrical, etc.

The point is that these differences exist. Most of the classical music world knows this. But this egotistical charlatan denies it. And don't tell me he is speaking to the newbie audience. That is a crock. I have often played recordings for newbies and they can tell the differences. Hell, I have played several recordings of the Brahms violin concerto for my girlfriend of 6 months - who didn't know the piece at all before she met me much less the majority of the classical music canon - and she recently commented on one, "That was good, but I like Krebbers better." Similarly, I have played the Furtwangler 1942 Beethoven 9th for many people over the decades, the one Hurwitz thinks is no different from his other versions except being in poor sound, and even newbies to classical music hear the intensity and use the same adjectives to describe what they hear.

People are not all as stupid as David Hurwitz. You are speaking to yourself, David, not the actual classical music audience!



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Also too bad he thinks it is too much work to know Milstein recorded a later EMI with Fistoulari. IMO it is a better performance in addition to being better recorded than the Steinberg.


10:27 of the video - "I didn't leave it out because I don't know it. It's right here!" (shows Milstein box set)

And here we see the egotist at work. He is literally covering his tracks and lying here.

David, don't lie. You clearly did not leave it out on purpose. You stated in the other video that if you don't want the mono recording, "What you can find is his remake, which is every bit as fine. It's on Deutsche Grammophon with Eugen Jochum."

Clearly the insinuation was that the Jochum constitutes THE stereo alternative, which is false. The Fistoulari has been circulated on EMI in multiple issues with different couplings. It is not an obscure issue.

But you then said, "I mean, there may be even more than this. Who knows?"

Great, so you admit you don't know everything. So how can you come back the next day claiming you knew the Fistoulari exists but you left it out on purpose?

*This is the issue with Hurwitz in a nutshell.* He simultaneously wants to be seen as THE expert on classical music recordings while dismissing what he doesn't know as unnecessary and fodder for cultists.

You can't have it both ways. If you don't know the difference between acclaimed recordings, don't pretend like you are an expert. Just admit you are parroting received wisdom. If you don't believe it's important to be an actual, thorough expert on the recordings, don't come back the next day pretending you knew it all along and are still the grand expert above all others. You are not. Not even close.

He is a wannabe, a charlatan. And a dangerous one to the extent he tries to silence all other voices.

.


----------



## Malx

Do we have to go into this all over again - most posters with an axe to grind already have the finest edge they can achieve.

Its becoming a bit of a yawn (imo).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Malx said:


> Do we have to go into this all over again - most posters with an axe to grind already have the finest edge they can achieve.
> 
> Its becoming a bit of a yawn (imo).


Forgive me for rehashing this. Rarely before today's video has Hurwitz so nakedly made my points for me.


----------



## Chilham

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Forgive me....


Er, no.

Hurwitz has gone down considerably in my estimation over recent months but this thread is a bore.


----------



## Merl

The reason I shut my original thread.


----------



## Red Terror

I quite like Hurwitz. Thank you.


----------



## Forster

Red Terror said:


> I quite like Hurwitz. Thank you.


How very dare you!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> The reason I shut my original thread.
> 
> View attachment 164181


If it was boring, there would be no thread traffic. You shut it down because you didn't like what was being said.

Myself, I like open discussion. I welcome it. I don't try to silence people I disagree with.


----------



## Red Terror

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If it was boring, there would be no thread traffic. You shut it down because you didn't like what was being said.
> 
> Myself, I like open discussion. I welcome it. I don't try to silence people I disagree with.


Freedom of speech and democracy are so 20th century. Get with the times, Brahms!


----------



## vmartell

I posted this before and I will dare to post it again... I think the problem of many people here is that David Hurwitz kind of operates on the assumption that that he knows more than you do... and he should, of course, how else are you gonna do what he does? 

Of course, that bothers those unappreciated world class scholars ( High Fidelity reference!  ) that cannot accept that someone knows more... heck they are bothered when someone disagrees with them! 

Well, kind of a hot take and this is just my impression and opinion. I might be wrong...

v


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If it was boring, there would be no thread traffic. You shut it down because you didn't like what was being said.
> 
> Myself, I like open discussion. I welcome it. I don't try to silence people I disagree with.


Lol, there's only thread traffic cos you reopened this dead horse with yet another predictable, repetitive, anti-Hurwitz rant. I'm not even gonna respond to your trolling. Congratulations on reopening your own thread and saying something controversial. I'm with Malx and Chilham and going for a snooze. Haha


----------



## EvaBaron

I’m absolutely with you on this. He is also basically trolling in Brahms violin concerto thread


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Forgive me for rehashing this. Rarely before today's video has Hurwitz so nakedly made my points for me.


Sure, but you might have just left this where I posted it. My intention was to add to the Brahms Violin Concerto thread, not to give you another soapbox on which to preach your anti-Hurwitz screeds. Were you afraid that someone on TC might not see your opinion?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> Lol, there's only thread traffic cos you reopened this dead horse with yet another predictable, repetitive, anti-Hurwitz rant. I'm not even gonna respond to your trolling. Congratulations on reopening your own thread and saying something controversial. I'm with Malx and Chilham and going for a snooze. Haha


The only thing predictable is your self-important eye-rolling and inability to substantively debate a topic.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Sure, but you might have just left this where I posted it. My intention was to add to the Brahms Violin Concerto thread, not to give you another soapbox on which to preach your anti-Hurwitz screeds. Were you afraid that someone on TC might not see your opinion?


No, I didn't want to derail the Brahms Violin Concerto thread. It's my favorite work and I have written extensively in that thread. Hurwitz discussion belongs here.


----------



## Bulldog

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, I didn't want to derail the Brahms Violin Concerto thread. It's my favorite work and I have written extensively in that thread. Hurwitz discussion belongs here.


You're not discussing Hurwitz. You're just dumping on him in a most repetitive manner for a few months now.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bulldog said:


> You're not discussing Hurwitz. You're just dumping on him in a most repetitive manner for a few months now.


No, I was directly responding to what he was saying in one of his videos. And I don't always dump on him. Sometimes I even agree with them.

Someone posted a video here, and I replied with an honest assessment of what I heard. Tellingly, he addressed two of my points in his follow up video. So don't tell me I was being repetitive. Obviously I was saying something of value if he responded to the same points!


----------



## Sid James

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Hmmm, somebody listening?


Imitation is the best form of flattery...especially in the vast echo chamber which is the internet.


----------



## Bulldog

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, I was directly responding to what he was saying in one of his videos. And I don't always dump on him. Sometimes I even agree with them.
> 
> Someone posted a video here, and I replied with an honest assessment of what I heard. Tellingly, he addressed two of my points in his follow up video. So don't tell me I was being repetitive. Obviously I was saying something of value if he responded to the same points!


You're talking about one instance. I was referring to your overall mode of operation.

Okay - I'm gone from this thread. You will continue as you have been - enjoy.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bulldog said:


> You're talking about one instance. I was referring to your overall mode of operation.
> 
> Okay - I'm gone from this thread. You will continue as you have been - enjoy.


LOL then don't say it's repetitive


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, I didn't want to derail the Brahms Violin Concerto thread.


Actually, you're the one who derailed it.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Someone posted a video here,


As the "someone" in question, I must correct you. I posted the video on the Brahms Violin Concerto thread. You then posted it here to give yourself another opportunity to rant about Hurwitz.



> and I replied with an honest assessment of what I heard. Tellingly, he addressed two of my points in his follow up video. So don't tell me I was being repetitive. Obviously I was saying something of value if he responded to the same points!


So if he agrees with you, it's something of value. If not, it isn't. Got it.


----------



## Malx

wkasimer said:


> Actually, you're the one who derailed it.


Bill, don't confuse things by telling it as it is.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Actually, you're the one who derailed it.


Just because you make posts agreeing with him, and I make posts disagreeing with him (and you), doesn't mean I derailed the thread.

.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just because you make posts agreeing with him, and I make posts disagreeing with him (and you), doesn't mean I derailed the thread.


Whatever. Have it your way.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> As the "someone" in question, I must correct you. I posted the video on the Brahms Violin Concerto thread. You then posted it here to give yourself another opportunity to rant about Hurwitz.


I have already stated that I posted it here so as not to derail the Brahms thread and therefore keep Hurwitz comments on this thread where they belong. Stop lying. I already made this clear, and I don't intend to have to make it clear again. Stand down.

Another poster said:



Philidor said:


> Opening a thread on Hurwitz could be a pleasure and highly reward all participants.


I responded:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good suggestion. I copied my post there.


It was completely correct of me to move the Hurwitz debate from there to here where it belongs.



wkasimer said:


> So if he agrees with you, it's something of value. If not, it isn't. Got it.


False, simplistic twisting of what I have been saying, but that is par for the course with you.


----------



## FrankinUsa

EvaBaron said:


> I'm absolutely with you on this. He is also basically trolling in Brahms violin concerto thread


I agree with this post and others of the same sentiment.


----------



## Art Rock

Thread closed temporarily for cool down and possible repairs.


----------



## Art Rock

Thread is now open again. However, if chiding and barely veiled insults continue, a permanent closure could be the eventual outcome.


----------



## wkasimer

Art Rock said:


> Thread is now open again. However, if chiding and barely veiled insults continue, a permanent closure could be the eventual outcome.


To be honest, that would not be a great loss.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> To be honest, that would not be a great loss.


If I have something to say, I'll say it.


----------



## marlow

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If I have something to say, I'll say it.


We actually did gather that much!


----------



## 59540

I've never watched 5 minutes of David Hurwitz. From the time I started looking at this forum I've been mystified that some critic on a YT channel arouses such reactions.


----------



## Heck148

dissident said:


> I've never watched 5 minutes of David Hurwitz. From the time I started looking at this forum I've been mystified that some critic on a YT channel arouses such reactions.


Arkiv Records would sometimes post his reviews of recordings.. I'd read them sometimes..he was right on when he agreed with me, when he disagreed, he was an idiot!! :lol::lol:


----------



## 59540

Heck148 said:


> Arkiv Records would sometimes post his reviews of recordings.. I'd read them sometimes..he was right on when he agreed with me, when he disagreed, he was an idiot!!


That's a pretty safe attitude to take with critics. :lol:


----------



## Heck148

dissident said:


> That's a pretty safe attitude to take with critics. :lol:


Yup!! I used to like reading Roger Dettmer and Mortimer Frank..if they liked it, I probably would, too...at least worth a listen...Henry Fogel is pretty good, too...not always, but pretty close..


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Arkiv Records would sometimes post his reviews of recordings.. I'd read them sometimes..he was right on when he agreed with me, when he disagreed, he was an idiot!!


And that's what some have passive aggressively tried to twist my statements into, a simple disagreement with Hurwitz's tastes. That is NOT what I have said. Maybe that's why my statements appear repetitive, because people keep twisting my words and I have to correct the record!

I could care less if Hurwitz loves recordings I hate or hates recordings I love. I could care less.

My issue with Hurwitz is based on this exact quote from his recent video:

"That's why I think these cultists, the Furtwangler people, the whatever people, are all crazy. Because you're looking for teeny teeny tiny differences and you're tremendously exaggerating their value. And I don't hear it. I think you're simply being, you're hallucinating when you do that. You're making things up!"

What it tells me is that Hurwitz lacks the maturity to acknowledge that people hear qualities in a recording he does not. He reverts to the sophomoric belief people are all imagining what they hear, as if it is possible across generations and across continents for countless people to all imagine they hear the same qualities in a recording.

This is an attempt to discredit people. It's ad hominen. He's talking about me.

The reality is that Hurwitz is more than a sophomoric bully. He is also a pig-headed idiot who will never profit from the perspective of others. If he can't hear it, it must not exist.

Hurwitz is the true emperor without clothes.

.


----------



## Chilham

He wasn't even quoting you. Yet here we go again.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Chilham said:


> He wasn't even quoting you. Yet here we go again.


I wasn't talking about Heck. He hasn't even been active on this thread.


----------



## Forster

Surely you _couldn't_ care less?


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The reality is that Hurwitz is more than a sophomoric bully. He is also a pig-headed idiot who will never profit from the perspective of others. If he can't hear it, it must not exist.
> 
> Hurwitz is the true emperor without clothes.


What are your thoughts on this video?






I thought it was an eminently reasonable "mission statement" of where he's generally coming from. Far from being a "bully," I see his larger project as that of empowering the newbie or the casual listener not to be overwhelmed or intimidated by fussy or grandiose discussions among the cognoscenti (critics, TC posters, whomever) about the alleged differences between recordings of a particular work. Above a certain level, Hurwitz might say, you're basically in good hands regardless what version you're listening to. It gets to a point where performances are "observationally equivalent" for all practical purposes, and so don't worry about it so much. If you fail to hear the details or nuances or spiritual whatevers that someone claims exist in a particular performance, that doesn't make you a philistine idiot.

The bit that seems to concern you is when he goes on to say that the person making claims about the "details or nuances or spiritual whatevers" is making things up. I don't have a dog in that hunt, but I basically agree with everything up until he says that. What about you?


----------



## Sid James

There have been a few cults of hatred on this forum, including of Wagner, Schoenberg, Cage, Alma Deutscher and John Williams. With at least three threads devoted to him in recent months - a couple of which are basically counter threads - I think its safe to say that David Hurwitz has fallen victim to the same sort of phenomenon here.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I could care less if Hurwitz loves recordings I hate or hates recordings I love. I could care less.


Yes, that's right...leave it at that...



> My issue with Hurwitz is based on this exact quote from his recent video:
> 
> "That's why I think these cultists, the Furtwangler people, the whatever people, are all crazy. Because you're looking for teeny teeny tiny differences and you're tremendously exaggerating their value. And I don't hear it. I think you're simply being, you're hallucinating when you do that. You're making things up!"


"_And I don't hear it._" - there, he admits it...done deal...he doesn't hear it, can't, doesn't want to, doesn't know how to...he makes your point for you....you're right to ignore him....he's oblivious to the features of a performance that you find most vital and/or important...just ignore him, leave it at that...


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Forster said:


> Surely you _couldn't_ care less?


Quite. All Americans who "care less" should see this: 




A genuine lesson in logic, couched in comedy.


----------



## 59540

Forster said:


> Surely you _couldn't_ care less?


Well, irregardless... 


Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Quite. All Americans who "care less" should see this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A genuine lesson in logic, couched in comedy.


That was the most unkindest cut of all.


----------



## Red Terror

Yes ... YESSSSSSS... Let the hate flow through you.


----------



## FrankinUsa

There was one previous thread about Hurwitz. It got up to 900 comments. I admit that I got a bit too much excited and I got a deserved warning from the moderators. But it seems there is one particular person who just can’t get enough of the Hurwitz hate.


----------



## Rogerx

FrankinUsa said:


> There was one previous thread about Hurwitz. It got up to 900 comments. I admit that I got a bit too much excited and I got a deserved warning from the moderators. But it seems there is one particular person who just can't get enough of the Hurwitz hate.


You have one in _every_ thread, just don't read it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> "_And I don't hear it._" - there, he admits it...done deal...he doesn't hear it, can't, doesn't want to, doesn't know how to...he makes your point for you....you're right to ignore him....he's oblivious to the features of a performance that you find most vital and/or important...just ignore him, leave it at that...


Again - and I say this just to clear the record - I don't care whether he hears or doesn't hear what I hear. I respect people who hear things differently and simply leave it at that. I don't ignore or blacklist them. Certainly you and I have had our musical disagreements!

Where Hurwitz crosses the line is in using his platform - including his online reviews - to make ad hominem attacks on people who hear things differently and characterize them as "cultists" who "imagine" and "make up" what they are hearing. That's flatly false information. Period. The man is a delusion, myopic psychopath with an axe to grind, and I am going to call him out on it.

A reputable reviewer acknowledges that there are divergent tastes and accounts for it. If I know there are plenty of people who will gravitate to a recording I personally hate, what reason do I have to stop them? "Hey, you might like this recording. I personally don't, but plenty of people do."

Instead, this small-minded, insecure, power-hungry psychopath posts a video referring to the Furtwangler 1942 Beethoven 9th as "garbage" and stating in the description:

"this ramshackle, horribly engineered live recording of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony represents for some poor, delusional souls, the ultimate transcendental statement by the most "spiritual" of all conductors. It's pure bunk. *Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.*"

.


----------



## wkasimer

Heck148 said:


> Yup!! I used to like reading Roger Dettmer and Mortimer Frank..if they liked it, I probably would, too...at least worth a listen...Henry Fogel is pretty good, too...not always, but pretty close..


I like reading Fogel's reviews - they're well written, and obviously the product of a great deal of experience, but I sometimes find him too willing to forgive flaws in recordings by his favorites, like Horenstein and Asahina (as well as he who must not be named), and far too willing to heap praise on the historic reissues from the Pristine company. But in general, he also admits his biases up front.


----------



## Giorgio Pitzalis

Good morning to you all :
I follow Hurwitz even if it is a bit difficult for me given my poor knowledge of the English language. Some things he says find me completely disagree (for example I continue to love Horenstein's Mahler and many other things by Barbirolli and Furtwangler) but he has also given me many suggestions that have opened up new visions and many other listeners. So I decided to take it for what it is for both good and bad!
Libertas, quae non in eo est ut iusto utamur domino, sed ut null


----------



## EvaBaron

Same with me, I never take him seriously when he bashes something, but when he loves something I check it out and sometimes that has lead to me discovering a great or even reference recording


----------



## Joachim Raff

He discusses the merits of Slatkin as a conductor. He must of approached Slatkin, that it was his turn for his 'words of wisdom' on his best 10 recordings. Slatkin gave him his best 10 recordings, from what I believe will be in his next book. Basically, they are both getting some publicity from each other. Nothing wrong with that though.
All of a sudden a recording of Schubert's No.9 enters the frame. It's on Slatkin's list but not Hurwitz's list. Hurwitz had never gave it the time of day and had admitted it had been ignored by himself. All of a sudden, it has great merits with individuality from Slatkin. The whole thing stinks to me. Can we ever credit a man that vastly swings his opinions from one to the other in a matter of a few airings of Schubert's Ninth? Am I out of turn with this analogy?


----------



## Neo Romanza

Joachim Raff said:


> He discusses the merits of Slatkin as a conductor. He must of approached Slatkin, that it was his turn for his 'words of wisdom' on his best 10 recordings. Slatkin gave him his best 10 recordings, from what I believe will be in his next book. Basically, they are both getting some publicity from each other. Nothing wrong with that though.
> All of a sudden a recording of Schubert's No.9 enters the frame. It's on Slatkin's list but not Hurwitz's list. Hurwitz had never gave it the time of day and had admitted it had been ignored by himself. All of a sudden, it has great merits with individuality from Slatkin. The whole thing stinks to me. Can we ever credit a man that vastly swings his opinions from one to the other in a matter of a few airings of Schubert's Ninth? Am I out of turn with this analogy?


Slatkin and Hurwitz are friends, so of course he's got nothing but great things to say about his conducting. Slatkin has turned in some fine performances, but he's a bottom tier conductor for me. In all of the recordings I own, I've never said "Now, _this_ is the best version of [insert composer's name and work here] that I've ever heard!" No, this has never happened. Hurwitz makes the mistake many critics have in showing a bias towards a conductor because they personally know them and have let their friendship get in the way of actually _listening_. He probably thinks we're stupid enough not to pick up on this obvious bias, but, then again, he never thought much of his audience in the first-place. The opening remark he says "Hello friends..." is as insincere as that crooked smirk he has on his face when saying it.

To further illustrate my point, check out the ratings Hurwitz has given Slatkin through the years:

https://www.classicstoday.com/advanced-search/?searched_from=&pagination_currentpage=1&pagination_totalresults=52&search_composer_id=&search_recordlabel_id=&search_ensemble_id=&search_conductor_id=15898&search_soloist_id=&search_composer=Enter+a+Composer&search_worktitle=Enter+a+Work%2FAlbum+Title&search_genre=-1&search_recordlabel=Enter+a+Record+Label&search_performance=0&search_soundquality=0&search_startdate=Start+Date&search_enddate=End+Date&search_ensemble=Enter+an+Orchestra%2FEnsemble&search_conductor=Slatkin%2C+Leonard&search_soloist=Enter+a+Soloist&search_medium=-1&search_tag=-1

Any kind of "negative" review is before the friendship was formed. The positive reviews I've skimmed through mostly praise him as some kind of Bernstein or even Szell --- conducting of this stature. It is quite clear he's smitten with his friend's work just because he is his friend and not because he was actually listening to the recording(s) in question.


----------



## vtpoet

John Zito said:


> I see his larger project as that of empowering the newbie or the casual listener not to be overwhelmed or intimidated by fussy or grandiose discussions among the cognoscenti (critics, TC posters, whomever) about the alleged differences between recordings of a particular work.


LOL. Ask him to review any given HIP performance and watch all that posturing go up in flames as he turns into a fussy, grandiose ideologue. I quit listening to him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

There will always be people who don't hear or don't care about the artistic differences between various performances and recordings. As a friend once remarked to me, "I just want a good recording." Good sound, "normal" interpretation, and up to professional standards.

That's David Hurwitz's audience. Fine, no problem.

Why does he need to demonize the people who _do_ hear and care about the differences?

.


----------



## Neo Romanza

vtpoet said:


> LOL. Ask him to review any given HIP performance and watch all that posturing go up in flames as he turns into a fussy, grandiose ideologue. I quit listening to him.


Exactly, so John Zito's argument is moot. He hasn't watched enough Hurwitz videos to see him act like the biggest ******* you'd ever witnessed. His tirades on HIP performance, but also the British music press are tiresome and reveal an adolescent frame of mind. Oh and if you disagree with him about something, then _you_ are the one who is wrong. There's no winning with a troll.


----------



## John Zito

vtpoet said:


> LOL. Ask him to review any given HIP performance and watch all that posturing go up in flames as he turns into a fussy, grandiose ideologue. I quit listening to him.


I don't even know how to respond to this, because it's literally false. It's easy to produce any number of examples of him recommending a HIP recording or praising "what the HIP movement has taught us about how this music ought to go." As a general matter he doesn't seem to be the biggest HIP fan, but to my mind he has a healthy attitude about giving credit where credit is due.



Neo Romanza said:


> Exactly, so John Zito's argument is moot. He hasn't watched enough Hurwitz videos to see him act like the biggest ******* you'd ever witnessed. His tirades on HIP performance, but also the British music press are tiresome and reveal an adolescent frame of mind. Oh and if you disagree with him about something, then _you_ are the one who is wrong. There's no winning with a troll.


I'm not quite sure why I need to be name-checked like this, but suffice it to say I've watched probably 80% of Hurwitz's videos since the beginning. I enjoy them, and I enjoy the discussion they've prompted here. I like that he has strong opinions and expresses them strongly. When those opinions veer into the incendiary, I just think it's fun and harmless.

But I will say, I agree with you completely that the recent Slatkin stuff was way too chummy for my money. And in general, I like Hurwitz least when he's reminding us that he knew Charles Mackerras or Ivan Moravec or whomever. And not for "journalistic integrity" reasons. I just think it's uncouth. (I can already hear someone saying "Oh, _that's_ what you thought was uncouth?")


----------



## Neo Romanza

John Zito said:


> I'm not quite sure why I need to be name-checked like this, but suffice it to say I've watched probably 80% of Hurwitz's videos since the beginning. I enjoy them, and I enjoy the discussion they've prompted here. I like that he has strong opinions and expresses them strongly. When those opinions veer into the incendiary, I just think it's fun and harmless.
> 
> But I will say, I agree with you completely that the recent Slatkin stuff was way too chummy for my money. And in general, I like Hurwitz least when he's reminding us that he knew Charles Mackerras or Ivan Moravec or whomever. And not for "journalistic integrity" reasons. I just think it's uncouth. (I can already hear someone saying "Oh, _that's_ what you thought was uncouth?")


You were name-checked because it was _your_ post that I disagreed with. Anyway, Hurwitz is a troll and I'm reminded of this great Max Reger quote about a certain critic: _"I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it shall be behind me."_ This is how I feel about Hurwitz. All of his "reviews" belong in garbage disposal.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Maybe Hurwitz actually needs to get some fresh air. Does he spend most of his time in front of a computer screen existing on chocolate bars, energy drinks and the adrenaline of his own opinion?


----------



## hammeredklavier

elgars ghost said:


> Maybe Hurwitz actually needs to get some fresh air. Does he spend most of his time in front of a computer screen existing on chocolate bars, energy drinks and the adrenaline of his own opinion?


I doubt if the amount of money he earns from youtube is enough to get him chocolate bars, energy drinks


----------



## OCEANE

hammeredklavier said:


> I doubt if the amount of money he earns from youtube is enough to get him chocolate bars, energy drinks


I won't blindly following Hurwitz's recommendations.....for instance, he highly recommends Bernstein's Mahler which I don't feel that way. Nevertheless, Hurwitz does give some useful guides of classical music and appreciation. There are many shallow review and recommendation of classical music in magazines and internet.


----------



## starthrower

Hurwitz says the big Szell box is back in print.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

starthrower said:


> Hurwitz says the big Szell box is back in print.


It is. Just picked it up on JPC yesterday for $250.


----------



## wkasimer

BlackAdderLXX said:


> It is. Just picked it up on JPC yesterday for $250.


Glad I snapped it up the first time around, when it was actually a bargain.

Now if only BMG would reissue the big boxes of Munch, Monteux, and Reiner...


----------



## ORigel

I've discovered Hurwitz's Youtube channel recently, and I love it. I am a relative neophyte as regards recordings, and I hope to learn more about the discographies of my favorite works. However, so far I agree with this passage that vtpoet wrote a few months ago on this thread.

I enjoy watching Hurwitz, but I trust him less as a professional music critic/musicologist than as an entertaining amateur with an encyclopedic knowledge of recorded music.


I liked his video on the 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9, where he played awesome, intense passages to "prove" that the recording is terrible.


----------



## ORigel

OCEANE said:


> I won't blindly following Hurwitz's recommendations.....for instance, he highly recommends Bernstein's Mahler which I don't feel that way. Nevertheless, Hurwitz does give some useful guides of classical music and appreciation. There are many shallow review and recommendation of classical music in magazines and internet.


Yeah, it's best to sample some of the recordings Hurwitz _doesn't_ like, to see if they really are bad.


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There will always be people who don't hear or don't care about the artistic differences between various performances and recordings. As a friend once remarked to me, "I just want a good recording." Good sound, "normal" interpretation, and up to professional standards.
> 
> That's David Hurwitz's audience. Fine, no problem.
> 
> Why does he need to demonize the people who _do_ hear and care about the differences?
> 
> .


It probably gets Hurwitz clicks to call those people "demented."


----------



## Red Terror

starthrower said:


> Hurwitz says the big Szell box is back in print.


Definitely enjoying my copy.


----------



## ORigel

hammeredklavier said:


> I doubt if the amount of money he earns from youtube is enough to get him chocolate bars, energy drinks


Hurwitz is clearly well-off, to have so many recordings including a bunch of box sets. He's been doing criticism for decades.

If he's poor, he can probably make a lot of money selling all those CDs.


----------



## amfortas

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz is clearly well-off, to have so many recordings including a bunch of box sets. He's been doing criticism for decades.


I wonder how many of those CDs were complimentary from the various recording companies. Almost makes me want to become a professional music critic.


----------



## haziz

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz is clearly well-off, to have so many recordings including a bunch of box sets. He's been doing criticism for decades.
> 
> If he's poor, he can probably make a lot of money selling all those CDs.


Probably most of them were sent to him from the companies looking for a review. Besides, I don't think second hand CDs fetch much nowadays.


----------



## Red Terror

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz is clearly well-off, to have so many recordings including a bunch of box sets. He's been doing criticism for decades.
> 
> If he's poor, he can probably make a lot of money selling all those CDs.


Not certain if he's well off but that's likely the case. He's definitely well educated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hurwitz_(music_critic)


----------



## ORigel

amfortas said:


> I wonder how many of those CDs were complimentary from the various recording companies. Almost makes me want to become a professional music critic.


He said that he's increasingly having to pay for recordings-- that record companies aren't sending him as many free recordings.


----------



## amfortas

ORigel said:


> He said that he's increasingly having to pay for recordings-- that record companies aren't sending him as many free recordings.


Then if I were him, I wouldn't send THEM any free recordings either!


----------



## fbjim

haziz said:


> Probably most of them were sent to him from the companies looking for a review. Besides, I don't think second hand CDs fetch much nowadays.


Yeah, they're called promos. Pretty standard for reviewers with a good platform, I imagine the likes of Fanfare and ARG get those as well.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

HELLO FRIENDS… IT’S ME… DAVE HURWITZ FROM CLASSICSTODAY.COM!

I really like Dave. He reminds me of Dom Deluise or a slightly more benign version of Zero Mostel. 

Dale’s an overweight, avuncular Jew who likes to express his opinion and you gotta love him for that…

Keep on rockin Dave. Haters gonna hate!


----------



## perempe

His new series, Dave's faves might be useful for beginners like me:

Haydn: Paris Symphonies (New York Philharmonic/Bernstein) Sony
Earquake: The World's Loudest Classical Music (Helsinki Philharmonic/Segerstam) Ondine
Nielsen: Symphony No. 2; Aladdin Suite (Gothenburg Symphony/Chung) BIS
Grofé: Grand Canyon Suite (Philadelphia Orchestra/Ormandy) Sony
Rubinstein - Rachmaninoff, Falla, Chopin – Rhapsody On A Theme Of Paganini • Nights In The Gardens Of Spain • Andante Spianato And Grande Polonaise
Barbirolli Conducts Elgar and Vaughan Williams Music for Strings (EMI)
Bach: The Goldberg Variations; On Harpsichord: Trevor Pinnock (Archiv), On Piano: Murray Perahia (Sony)
Florent Schmitt: La tragedie de Salomé; Psalm 47 (Martinon/Warner)
Alkan: Concerto for Solo Piano (Marc-André Hamelin/Music and Arts)
Latin American Classics (Michael Tilson Thomas/Decca Eloquence)
Symphony of Psalms; Oedipus Rex (Ancerl/Supraphon)
Beethoven: Symphony No. 5; Piano Concerto No. 3; Egmont Overture; Emil Gilels; Vienna Philharmonic, Széll (Orfeo)
Debussy: 3 Late Sonatas, Syrinx, Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun - Boston Symphony Chamber Players (DG Eloquence)


----------



## OCEANE

perempe said:


> His new series, Dave's faves might be useful for beginners like me:


Agreed and even veterans may get something new or different from Dav's channel as well as other good music media.
Just be open-minded to accept, consider or pass those recommendations!


----------



## Enthusiast

Ludwig Schon said:


> Haters gonna hate!


But why listen to or read his hatred of so many wonderful performances?


----------



## Ludwig Schon

Dave see’s himself as something of a Socratic gadfly. I watched part of a recent episode, in which he decleared that Morton Feldman was a minimalist!

That said, I share his distaste of the omnipotent English press, which overly promotes awful rubbish by the likes of Norrington, Rattle and Davis, just because they’re jingoistic xenophobes. Plus ca change…


----------



## ORigel

amfortas said:


> Then if I were him, I wouldn't send THEM any free recordings either!


On the contrary, Hurwitz is calling attention to both recordings he praises and recordings he savages. It makes sense for companies to make sure Hurwitz gets their recordings, because there's no such thing as bad publicity. There are probably hardcore collectors spending thousands of dollars to buy the recordings Hurwitz reccommends.


----------



## ORigel

Enthusiast said:


> But why listen to or read his hatred of so many wonderful performances?


Because 1) often the recordings he trashes really are bad (i.e. Norrington's Mahler, Currentis' Beethoven), and 2) he's entertaining even when he's wrong (i.e. Classical Music's Ten Dirtiest Secrets).


----------



## Enthusiast

ORigel said:


> Because 1) often the recordings he trashes really are bad (i.e. Norrington's Mahler, Currentis' Beethoven), and 2) he's entertaining even when he's wrong (i.e. Classical Music's Ten Dirtiest Secrets).


I can't say I know Norrington's Mahler (or need someone to warn me that it is not the best). I have heard his 9th a couple of times and felt lukewarm about it. It wasn't a travesty. As for Currentzis's Beethoven, my main problems with it are short measure (or high price) and that we are rather spoiled for choice in this repertoire, not least by Norrington's superb Stuttgart set. And his aversion to anything done for example (there are many others) by Horenstein seems just bizarre and singularly unhelpful. As for being entertaining, well if you like listening to aggressively opinionated and pompous men, and laughing _with _them rather than _at _them, then OK. But I don't. He might work as minor character in a sitcom or even a Jane Austen novel.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Ludwig Schon said:


> HELLO FRIENDS… IT’S ME… DAVE HURWITZ FROM CLASSICSTODAY.COM!
> 
> I really like Dave. He reminds me of Dom Deluise or a slightly more benign version of Zero Mostel.
> 
> Dale’s an overweight, avuncular Jew who likes to express his opinion and you gotta love him for that…
> 
> Keep on rockin Dave. Haters gonna hate!


By the same token, people who love what he does will always praise what he does. I'm definitely more in the dislike (not hate) camp as I think he's nothing more than another ******* with a YouTube channel. A troll is actually what he reminds me of more than anything.


----------



## ORigel

Enthusiast said:


> I can't say I know Norrington's Mahler (or need someone to warn me that it is not the best). I have heard his 9th a couple of times and felt lukewarm about it. It wasn't a travesty. As for Currentzis's Beethoven, my main problems with it are short measure (or high price) and that we are rather spoiled for choice in this repertoire, not least by Norrington's superb Stuttgart set. And his aversion to anything done for example (there are many others) by Horenstein seems just bizarre and singularly unhelpful. As for being entertaining, well if you like listening to aggressively opinionated and pompous men, and laughing _with _them rather than _at _them, then OK. But I don't. He might work as minor character in a sitcom or even a Jane Austen novel.


Here's an example of the horror show that is Currentzis' Beethoven.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'd heard it before. It's OK and not without stimulation. I can't really relate to calling music making like this a "horror show". Perhaps you've been infected by the condition that neurologists term "Hurwitz brain" which leads to people feeling that they can talk about a musical performance which many critics rate highly as if it was a war crime.


----------



## ORigel

Neo Romanza said:


> By the same token, people who love what he does will always praise what he does. I'm definitely more in the dislike (not hate) camp as I think he's nothing more than another ***** with a YouTube channel. A troll is actually what he reminds me of more than anything.


He is a part-time troll, not a full-time troll. He sometimes gives reasons for his negative opinions, and more often than not he gives positive opinions. He gives what he considers to be the BEST and WORST recordings of works.

I am not a fanatic CD collector yet, so I cannot judge what he considers to be the BEST recordings. However, I do check out recordings he bashes on Youtube, and he's often right about them being terrible or mediocre (and of course, he's been wrong at least a couple times). They're low-hanging fruit.

His view on actual works is less reliable. He points to gems from Haydn, Dvorak, Handel, and Mendelssohn, but he says it took him TWENTY-FIVE years to understand the first half of the second movement of the German Requiem is great music. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I loved that part on first listen.


----------



## ORigel

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I'd heard it before. It's OK and not without stimulation. I can't really relate to calling music making like this a "horror show". Perhaps you've been infected by the condition that neurologists term "Hurwitz brain" which leads to people feeling that they can talk about a musical performance which many critics rate highly as if it was a war crime.


The movement is genius, but the genius is all Beethoven's. Currentiz's accomplishment was to nearly make me despise the Fifth and Seventh symphonies in part. He fiddles with the music. It's like he's trying to bury the ruby of Beethoven's genius in the ore of his own ego.

It would do if there was no good recording of Beethoven's Seventh available.


----------



## AndorFoldes

ORigel said:


> He is a part-time troll, not a full-time troll. He sometimes gives reasons for his negative opinions, and more often than not he gives positive opinions. He gives what he considers to be the BEST and WORST recordings of works.


Used to. Now he seems to do other things.



ORigel said:


> I am not a fanatic CD collector yet, so I cannot judge what he considers to be the BEST recordings. However, I do check out recordings he bashes on Youtube, and he's often right about them being terrible or mediocre (and of course, he's been wrong at least a couple times). They're low-hanging fruit.


You don't need CDs to sample recordings, as you point out yourself most recordings are available for streaming.


----------



## Enthusiast

ORigel said:


> The movement is genius, but the genius is all Beethoven's. Currentiz's accomplishment was to nearly make me despise the Fifth and Seventh symphonies in part. He fiddles with the music. It's like he's trying to bury the ruby of Beethoven's genius in the ore of his own ego.
> 
> It would do if there was no good recording of Beethoven's Seventh available.


My point was really that there are competent critics and experienced music lovers who like what Currentzis does. You can dismiss them as morons (which Hurwitz tends to do) or accept that they feel differently to you and respect their right to do so.


----------



## Malx

After consideration removed comment.


----------



## ORigel

AndorFoldes said:


> You don't need CDs to sample recordings, as you point out yourself most recordings are available for streaming.


My Internet connection is fairly poor, so I prefer CDs


----------



## ORigel

Enthusiast said:


> My point was really that there are competent critics and experienced music lovers who like what Currentzis does. You can dismiss them as morons (which Hurwitz tends to do) or accept that they feel differently to you and respect their right to do so.


Hurwitz would agree that critics have a right to like and defend garbage. But competent critics have a right to tell people that Currentzis' Beethoven is terrible and that Currentzis' CD notes are ridiculous (Hurwitz read excerpts-- Beethoven's Seventh is a union of beauty and spirit, like a church built over a ruin of an ancient Greek temple. Seriously, that is what Hurwitz read out)


----------



## Ludwig Schon

What I find unique about Hurwitz in an American context is that he will say:

“Oh, Florent Schmitt was a terrible anti-Semite and Nazi sympathiser… but I love his music, so he‘s one of Dave’s fave’s!”

In other words, the sublime trumps all else.


----------



## Neo Romanza

ORigel said:


> He is a part-time troll, not a full-time troll. He sometimes gives reasons for his negative opinions, and more often than not he gives positive opinions. He gives what he considers to be the BEST and WORST recordings of works.
> 
> I am not a fanatic CD collector yet, so I cannot judge what he considers to be the BEST recordings. However, I do check out recordings he bashes on Youtube, and he's often right about them being terrible or mediocre (and of course, he's been wrong at least a couple times). They're low-hanging fruit.
> 
> His view on actual works is less reliable. He points to gems from Haydn, Dvorak, Handel, and Mendelssohn, but he says it took him TWENTY-FIVE years to understand the first half of the second movement of the German Requiem is great music. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I loved that part on first listen.


I wish I could agree with the him "giving his opinion and that's it" assertion. This simply isn't true. He once told me if I spent less time listening to dull, lifeless performances, I'd understand where he's coming from. I'm sorry, but this doesn't strike me as someone who simply gives an opinion and that's it. I genuinely believe that what he thinks is great is truly the best there is and if you disagree, then YOU are the one who is wrong. I don't buy into this kind of adolescent ********. He's free to like what he likes and I'm free to do the same, but don't tell me what I like isn't up to your high standards when we both have same standards. We're both classical listeners and we both have our own opinions of what we like and what we listen for --- one opinion isn't above another.


----------



## marlow

I don’t know why anyone would listen to this guy’s YouTube channel. He’s not good looking and talks in a whiney annoying voice and never appears (to my knowledge) to back up his opinions with musical examples. Absolutely hopeless. You might just as well save the trouble and read a review rather than listening to him blather on.


----------



## EvaBaron

Ludwig Schon said:


> What I find unique about Hurwitz in an American context is that he will say:
> 
> “Oh, Florent Schmitt was a terrible anti-Semite and Nazi sympathiser… but I love his music, so he‘s one of Dave’s fave’s!”
> 
> In other words, the sublime trumps all else.


About a year ago I read an interview on presto music with Alfred Brendel, and he also said you should separate the artist from the art. He said that he wish people knew as little about composers personal lives as we know about Shakespeare. Hurwitz is not the only one who thinks like this


----------



## EvaBaron

marlow said:


> I don’t know why anyone would listen to this guy’s YouTube channel. He’s not good looking and talks in a whiney annoying voice and never appears (to my knowledge) to back up his opinions with musical examples. Absolutely hopeless. You might just as well save the trouble and read a review rather than listening to him blather on.


If he can he actually he does give musical examples and small samples. Its just that a lot of times he can’t because of copyright strikes but luckily that wasn’t the case with Paul Kletzki’s Beethoven cycle, which he used for almost every ‘best recordings of’ series of the individual Beethoven symphonies. I’m 100% sure he used it in his talk about the 8th because Kletzki was actually his favourite and said why, gave arguments and then let us hear it.


----------



## ORigel

Neo Romanza said:


> I wish I could agree with the him "giving his opinion and that's it" assertion. This simply isn't true. He once told me if I spent less time listening to dull, lifeless performances, I'd understand where he's coming from. I'm sorry, but this doesn't strike me as someone who simply gives an opinion and that's it. I genuinely believe that what he thinks is great is truly the best there is and if you disagree, then YOU are the one who is wrong. I don't buy into this kind of adolescent ******. He's free to like what he likes and I'm free to do the same, but don't tell me what I like isn't up to your high standards when we both have same standards. We're both classical listeners and we both have our own opinions of what we like and what we listen for --- one opinion isn't above another.


Hurwitz must be inconsistent, then. There have been times when Hurwitz said that what critics say don't matter, what he says don't matter, and the point of music is entertainment.

What perspective he has probably depends on his mood.


----------



## ORigel

EvaBaron said:


> About a year ago I read an interview on presto music with Alfred Brendel, and he also said you should separate the artist from the art. He said that he wish people knew as little about composers personal lives as we know about Shakespeare. Hurwitz is not the only one who thinks like this


I agree, particularly for artists who are dead.


----------



## ORigel

marlow said:


> I don’t know why anyone would listen to this guy’s YouTube channel. He’s not good looking and talks in a whiney annoying voice and never appears (to my knowledge) to back up his opinions with musical examples. Absolutely hopeless. You might just as well save the trouble and read a review rather than listening to him blather on.


He has permission from the Naxos label to play their stuff. Even then, he gets whacked with copyright infringement claims from bots (which aren't that good at identifying specific performances of instrumental music, apparently.


----------



## ORigel

I wish I could read the reviews of Eduard Hanslick in English. He probably had a similar style to Hurwitz, and would be entertaining to read.


----------



## Kreisler jr

No, Hanslick was a stuffy 19th century intellectual, not entertaining if one expects clownesque hyperbole, I fear


----------



## Ludwig Schon

Kreisler jr said:


> No, Hanslick was a stuffy 19th century intellectual, not entertaining if one expects clownesque hyperbole, I fear


Adorno writing on Jazz is a bit like Hurwitz commenting on contemporary classical.


----------



## ORigel

Kreisler jr said:


> No, Hanslick was a stuffy 19th century intellectual, not entertaining if one expects clownesque hyperbole, I fear


I know of Hanslick describing Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto of all things as "music that stinks to the ear," and hoped that quote was representative of Hanslick's reviews. I compare it to one of Hurwitz's reviews: "[Gardiner's Brahms Third] is like a fan: it sucks and blows at the same time."


----------



## advokat

Hurwitz is a somewhat rare figure in the CM realm but would be a familiar, nay, well-established figure in science - a populariser. It requires a special talent. David Berlinsky may not be the greatest scientist ever, but if a layman wishes to grasp the basics of string theory he is the one to read. If you are a CM beginner, who can you turn to, apart from Hurwitz, to explain the basics of Haydn symphonies in an easily digestible manner? I hesitate to name one. And he does so in a specifically American cheerful middle-brow way. However, after a while, one notices a very nasty, often vicious underlying streak to a good part of his presentations. For me, Hurwitz is a CM McDonald's - fun at first, especially if you are a teenager, but primitive and unhealthy in the end.


----------



## ORigel

advokat said:


> Hurwitz is a somewhat rare figure in the CM realm but would be a familiar, nay, well-established figure in science - a populariser. It requires a special talent. David Berlinsky may not be the greatest scientist ever, but if a layman wishes to grasp the basics of string theory he is the one to read. If you are a CM beginner, who can you turn to, apart from Hurwitz, to explain the basics of Haydn symphonies in an easily digestible manner? I hesitate to name one. And he does so in a specifically American cheerful middle-brow way. However, after a while, one notices a very nasty, often vicious underlying streak to a good part of his presentations. For me, Hurwitz is a CM McDonald's - fun at first, especially if you are a teenager, but primitive and unhealthy in the end.


I am an inexperienced collector, expanding my CD collection and musical library after listening to much of the repertoire. Would experienced listeners benefit from his lists of THE BEST recordings to expand their collections? He has an absurd amount of CDs, and he doesn't give bad recommendations for his BEST, does he? Only steers the listener from both bad and well-regarded recordings.


----------



## Kreisler jr

ORigel said:


> I know of Hanslick describing Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto of all things as "music that stinks to the ear," and hoped that quote was representative of Hanslick's reviews. I compare it to one of Hurwitz's reviews: "[Gardiner's Brahms Third] is like a fan: it sucks and blows at the same time."


I have only read bits and pieces of Hanslick but I think the one you quote is among the most colorful that's why it's always quoted. Hanslick was an eloquent writer, not as stuffy as others but also not as insulting and colorful as some others (like Mark Twain or Shaw or Mencken) or as has become more common in later times. Although Wagner was sufficiently annoyed with him that he originally wanted to name Beckmesser in Meistersinger "Hans Lich"...


----------



## perempe

marlow said:


> uld listen to this guy’s YouTube channel. He’s not good looking and talks in a whiney annoying voice and never appears (to my knowledge) to back up his opinions with musical examples. Absolutely hopeless. You might just as well save the trouble and read a review rather than listening to him blather on.


Do You think I listened to Dave's faves? I just want to know the works & records he recommends.
-----
14
Mahler: Symphony No 2 "Resurrection"
New York Philharmonic (Bernstein/Deutsche Grammophon)

15
Hindemith: Mathis der Maler Symphony; Concert Music for Strings and Brass
Boston Symphony Orchestra (Steinberg/Deutsche Grammophon)

16
Brahms: Symphony No. 3
Columbia Symphony Orchestra, Walter (Sony)

17
Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 6 "Pathétique"
Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra, Fricsay (cond.) Deutsche Grammophon

18
Dvořák: Slavonic Dances. Czech Philharmonic 
(Šejna or Neumann, conds/Supraphon)

19
Britten: Piano and Violin Concertos (Richter/Lubotsky/Britten) Decca

20
Bruckner: Symphony No. 4 "Romantic"
Chicago Symphony, Barenboim (cond.) Deutsche Gammophon

21
Bizet: Symphony in C (Concertgebouw Orchestra/Haitink)
Saint-Saëns: Symphony No. 3 "Organ" (San Francisco Symphony/de Waart)

22
Richard Strauss: Orchestral Works. Staatskapelle Dresden, Kempe (cond.) Warner Classics 

23
Sibelius: Symphony No. 2. Cleveland Orchestra, Szell (cond.) Sony Classical


----------



## perempe

24
Messiaen: Turangalila-Symphonie
Polish National Radio Symphony Orchestra, Antoni Wit (cond.) Naxos

25
Wagner Orchestral Works. Orchestra du Théâtre National de l'Opéra de Paris, Cluytens (cond.) Testament (2 CDs)

26
Mussorgsky (orch. Ravel): Pictures at an Exhibition
Philadelphia Orchestra, Ormandy (cond.) Sony Classical


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> I am an inexperienced collector, expanding my CD collection and musical library after listening to much of the repertoire. Would experienced listeners benefit from his lists of THE BEST recordings to expand their collections? He has an absurd amount of CDs, and he doesn't give bad recommendations for his BEST, does he? Only steers the listener from both bad and well-regarded recordings.


He is biased towards American orchestras and orchestral music in general, but to the extent he recommends several well-known recordings his videos can be informative. Unfortunately due to his ego he deletes many of the comments, which could provide additional sources of information for the beginner. So he not only presents a biased perspective but he also seeks to eliminate alternative viewpoints. That’s his worst trait. He pretends to speak for all of classical music when in reality he does not. He wants his truth to be seen as THE truth.


----------



## ando

Nothing but love for Hurwitz. His straightforward takes are usually spot on. And anyone with intelligence and a modicum of taste can sort the astute judgements from his admitted biases. Kudos.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ando said:


> Nothing but love for Hurwitz. His straightforward takes are usually spot on. And anyone with intelligence and a modicum of taste can sort the astute judgements from his admitted biases. Kudos.


Again, the issue is that he tries to silence/invalidate all other viewpoints. One person should not be speaking for all of classical music.

I would have a completely different opinion of the man if he saw himself as contributing his knowledge and viewpoint as opposed to trying to control the narrative and replace all other viewpoints with his own.


----------



## AndorFoldes

So "Dave's faves" are his personal favourites, but the recordings he recommends are mostly the same as in earlier videos that represent his "professional" opinion. Would it be fair to say that the two are intertwined to some degree? I.e. his personal taste coincides with the recordings that are the best by some kind of objective measure?


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He is biased towards American orchestras and orchestral music in general, but to the extent he recommends several well-known recordings his videos can be informative. Unfortunately due to his ego he deletes many of the comments, which could provide additional sources of information for the beginner. So he not only presents a biased perspective but he also seeks to eliminate alternative viewpoints. That’s his worst trait. He pretends to speak for all of classical music when in reality he does not. He wants his truth to be seen as THE truth.


I could see how he is biased towards American orchestras but i don't see how he is biased towards orchestral music. He doesn't have a responsability to talk about every genre of music, if he mainly prefers orchestral music than good for him. Don't really understand what you are trying to say with 'biased towards orchestral music'


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> I could see how he is biased towards American orchestras but i don't see how he is biased towards orchestral music. He doesn't have a responsability to talk about every genre of music, if he mainly prefers orchestral music than good for him. Don't really understand what you are trying to say with 'biased towards orchestral music'


Where are we disagreeing? I said he is biased towards orchestral music, and you said he prefers orchestral music. We are saying the same thing.

I do think that being well-rounded is an important trait for a classical music reviewer, particularly one who passes himself off as an authority the way Hurwitz does. He is not just a casual listener. He is someone speaking very loudly with his opinions on all things classical and wielding quite a bit of influence.


----------



## EvaBaron

AndorFoldes said:


> So "Dave's faves" are his personal favourites, but the recordings he recommends are mostly the same as in earlier videos that represent his "professional" opinion. Would it be fair to say that the two are intertwined to some degree? I.e. his personal taste coincides with the recordings that are the best by some kind of objective measure?


they largely coincide but i think some recordings you would recommend to others because they are good reference and some might be your favourites but you can see how it wouldn't be a good first recording or something like that. Or maybe he has recommended so many recordings that he wants to share his best of the best. I also don't really see the point


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Where are we disagreeing? I said he is biased towards orchestral music, and you said he prefers orchestral music. We are saying the same thing.
> 
> I do think that being well-rounded is an important trait for a classical music reviewer, particularly one who passes himself off as an authority the way Hurwitz does. He is not just a casual listener. He is someone speaking very loudly with his opinions on all things classical and wielding quite a bit of influence.


Sorry English isn't my main language, i thought biased was preferred but in a bad way. Like you shouldn't be biased in that particular situation. But i think he has covered the majority of standard repertoire of opera, chamber music and so on.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

Listen to Lil Ludi, guys.

The English music press are xenophobic bigots; while US orchestras are completely crap…

As the Dead Kennedys once sang: “Deutschland Uber Alles!”


----------



## EvaBaron

Ludwig Schon said:


> Listen to Lil Ludi, guys.
> 
> The English music press are xenophobic bigots; while US orchestras are completely crap…
> 
> As the Dead Kennedys once sang: “Deutschland Uber Alles!”


Agree about the English press, disagree about American orchestras. I love Cleveland, Philly and New York


----------



## Ludwig Schon

EvaBaron said:


> Agree about the English press, disagree about American orchestras. I love Cleveland, Philly and New York


Cleveland have certainly been great, as much for their choice of conductors and repertoire, as anything else.

Personally, I’d choose a regional German orchestra over anything NY or Philly has ever produced…


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He is biased towards American orchestras and orchestral music in general, but to the extent he recommends several well-known recordings his videos can be informative. Unfortunately due to his ego he deletes many of the comments, which could provide additional sources of information for the beginner. So he not only presents a biased perspective but he also seeks to eliminate alternative viewpoints. That’s his worst trait. He pretends to speak for all of classical music when in reality he does not. He wants his truth to be seen as THE truth.


I don't see much of a problem with Hurwitz ruining classical music for the beginners, as long as he a) doesn't control all the CM information sources, and b) does not recommend crap recordings. Beginners who keep an interest would develop their own tastes over time. For example, in his relatively rare Baroque repertoire videos (and even in a couple Romantic repertoire videos) he recommends _period instrument recordings. _Many beginners who try out them might find they like the period instrument aesthetic.


----------



## ORigel

ando said:


> Nothing but love for Hurwitz. His straightforward takes are usually spot on. And anyone with intelligence and a modicum of taste can sort the astute judgements from his admitted biases. Kudos.


Well, there's the deliberately provocative Classical Music's Top Ten Dirtiest Secrets...


----------



## ORigel

EvaBaron said:


> I could see how he is biased towards American orchestras but i don't see how he is biased towards orchestral music. He doesn't have a responsability to talk about every genre of music, if he mainly prefers orchestral music than good for him. Don't really understand what you are trying to say with 'biased towards orchestral music'


Hurwitz has said he covers mostly orchestral recordings because that's what most of his audience cares about. Hurwitz has championed the chamber music of Haydn, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Dvorak in some videos. He actually thinks Dvorak was a greater chamber music composer than Brahms, but that most of Dvorak's chamber music isn't played. He also said in one video that he has a Mendelssohn piano quartet as his ringtone.

However, Hurwitz *certainly* has an anti-Baroque music bias.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> However, Hurwitz *certainly* has an anti-Baroque music bias.


he ridicules Vivaldi in this;


----------



## Bulldog

No, Hurwitz does not ridicule. Just the opposite, there's only praise. What's in your pipe today?


----------



## Kreisler jr

ORigel said:


> Hurwitz has said he covers mostly orchestral recordings because that's what most of his audience cares about. Hurwitz has championed the chamber music of Haydn, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Dvorak in some videos. He actually thinks Dvorak was a greater chamber music composer than Brahms, but that most of Dvorak's chamber music isn't played. He also said in one video that he has a Mendelssohn piano quartet as his ringtone.
> 
> However, Hurwitz *certainly* has an anti-Baroque music bias.


I don't think that's true but he seems clearly most competent in orchestral music, roughly from Haydn to (not too avantgardist) modern music. Frankly, I wouldn't heed any advice of his beyond this field.
He has some interest in chamber music but for anything pre-Bach, anything piano and a lot of choral and opera beyond the most central warhorses both his interest and competence seems to drop sharply. To be fair, I think he has made at least some of these lacks of interest pretty clear (or one can read them between the lines).


----------



## RobertJTh

What bothers me most about Hurwitz is not his variety of biases - he's entitled of those and he doesn't make a secret of it - but his general music philosophy.

To him, music equals entertainment. He admitted that in a recent video. That explains his preference for colorfully orchestrated scores, for spectacular recordings and for technically immaculate playing - all factors that contribute to the entertainment value of music. This judgement extends to music genres that offer - or strive to offer - more than just entertainment. For instance religious music, highly philosophical works, pieces with difficult literary content, etc. Those values are just distractions to him that get in the way of his enjoyment.

According to him, the St. Matthew's Passion has a worthless story, Parsifal is ridiculous (but the music is oh so beautiful!) - and performances of music that seeks to bring out other values than just superficial pleasure are mostly mistrusted, specially in cases where there's a compromise between outward technical perfection and spiritual content. If a performance leans towards the latter, emphasizes a composition's spiritual content and shows some neglect of technical precision, it's rubbish to him. His betes noires: Furtwängler, Barbirolli and Horenstein (don't be fooled by his positive review of the Barbirolli Elgar edition - he only praises the non-Hallé recordings, showing that he doesn't understand what makes Barbirolli a great conductor at all).

Hurwitz is a one-sided and narrow-minded reviewer lost in a universe that has so much more to offer than just technical perfection and superficial entertainment.


----------



## Kreisler jr

But this is an extremely common stance nowadays, just look around in this forum. There are long debates here shifted into "music and politics" that the main fault of classical music and its establishment is that it dares to take music, art and its contents and status seriously. That's stuffy elitism and the fault of pretentious 19th century German composers and philosophers. Elevating random personal preferences in music or other arts so that that artworks and artists acquire quasi-religious status. Pure self-aggrandizement of these eggheads. This is why CM is unpopular and deservedly so. If it admits that it is just like any other entertainment it could become popular and thrive and get rid of that horrible elitism, exclusion and pretention.


----------



## ORigel

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't think that's true but he seems clearly most competent in orchestral music, roughly from Haydn to (not too avantgardist) modern music. Frankly, I wouldn't heed any advice of his beyond this field.
> He has some interest in chamber music but for anything pre-Bach, anything piano and a lot of choral and opera beyond the most central warhorses both his interest and competence seems to drop sharply. To be fair, I think he has made at least some of these lacks of interest pretty clear (or one can read them between the lines).


Hurwitz has written books on Haydn, Mendelssohn, and other composers, so he knows _their_ chamber music, at least.


----------



## ORigel

RobertJTh said:


> What bothers me most about Hurwitz is not his variety of biases - he's entitled of those and he doesn't make a secret of it - but his general music philosophy.
> 
> To him, music equals entertainment. He admitted that in a recent video. That explains his preference for colorfully orchestrated scores, for spectacular recordings and for technically immaculate playing - all factors that contribute to the entertainment value of music. This judgement extends to music genres that offer - or strive to offer - more than just entertainment. For instance religious music, highly philosophical works, pieces with difficult literary content, etc. Those values are just distractions to him that get in the way of his enjoyment.
> 
> According to him, the St. Matthew's Passion has a worthless story, Parsifal is ridiculous (but the music is oh so beautiful!) - and performances of music that seeks to bring out other values than just superficial pleasure are mostly mistrusted, specially in cases where there's a compromise between outward technical perfection and spiritual content. If a performance leans towards the latter, emphasizes a composition's spiritual content and shows some neglect of technical precision, it's rubbish to him. His betes noires: Furtwängler, Barbirolli and Horenstein (don't be fooled by his positive review of the Barbirolli Elgar edition - he only praises the non-Hallé recordings, showing that he doesn't understand what makes Barbirolli a great conductor at all).
> 
> Hurwitz is a one-sided and narrow-minded reviewer lost in a universe that has so much more to offer than just technical perfection and superficial entertainment.


I agree that the Passion narrative is worthless, and Parsifal's story is ridiculous. I agree that music is entertainment.

I like that Hurwitz has that perspective.


----------



## ORigel

Kreisler jr said:


> But this is an extremely common stance nowadays, just look around in this forum. There are long debates here shifted into "music and politics" that the main fault of classical music and its establishment is that it dares to take music, art and its contents and status seriously. That's stuffy elitism and the fault of pretentious 19th century German composers and philosophers. Elevating random personal preferences in music or other arts so that that artworks and artists acquire quasi-religious status. Pure self-aggrandizement of these eggheads. This is why CM is unpopular and deservedly so. If it admits that it is just like any other entertainment it could become popular and thrive and get rid of that horrible elitism, exclusion and pretention.


That's not Hurwitz's perspective, exactly. He wants a modest amount of elitism in CM but not too much. It takes time and effort to appreciate CM, he points out. It's for a small proportion of the public that gravitates to it.

He dislikes the pretension, however, and has said that we should shut down all but one opera house if they cannot be sustained by musicgoer's tastes. (Maybe he was being "provocative" in that video)


----------



## advokat

ORigel said:


> I am an inexperienced collector, expanding my CD collection and musical library after listening to much of the repertoire. Would experienced listeners benefit from his lists of THE BEST recordings to expand their collections? He has an absurd amount of CDs, and he doesn't give bad recommendations for his BEST, does he? Only steers the listener from both bad and well-regarded recordings.


I do not think you would go wrong with his recommendations unless you regard them not as a starting point in exploration, but as revealed truth. His choices are often idiosyncratic, but (to my best knowledge) never execrable. The problem a beginner may have with his recommendations is that he tends to forgo well-established first-rate performers in favour of sometimes obscure records. I have an extensive collection, and I have benefitted from his videos in discovering more. Should you forgo the Karajan/BP cycle of LvB symphonies in favour of an obscure Czech recording (which he champions, inter alia, because he can publicly play it for copyright reasons)? Probably not. Provided you already have two or three well-established LvB cycles, and you wish to explore something different but good, should you listen to his recommendations? Of course.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RobertJTh said:


> What bothers me most about Hurwitz is not his variety of biases - he's entitled of those and he doesn't make a secret of it - but his general music philosophy.
> 
> To him, music equals entertainment. He admitted that in a recent video. That explains his preference for colorfully orchestrated scores, for spectacular recordings and for technically immaculate playing - all factors that contribute to the entertainment value of music. This judgement extends to music genres that offer - or strive to offer - more than just entertainment. For instance religious music, highly philosophical works, pieces with difficult literary content, etc. Those values are just distractions to him that get in the way of his enjoyment.
> 
> According to him, the St. Matthew's Passion has a worthless story, Parsifal is ridiculous (but the music is oh so beautiful!) - and performances of music that seeks to bring out other values than just superficial pleasure are mostly mistrusted, specially in cases where there's a compromise between outward technical perfection and spiritual content. If a performance leans towards the latter, emphasizes a composition's spiritual content and shows some neglect of technical precision, it's rubbish to him. His betes noires: Furtwängler, Barbirolli and Horenstein (don't be fooled by his positive review of the Barbirolli Elgar edition - he only praises the non-Hallé recordings, showing that he doesn't understand what makes Barbirolli a great conductor at all).
> 
> Hurwitz is a one-sided and narrow-minded reviewer lost in a universe that has so much more to offer than just technical perfection and superficial entertainment.


He’s soulless. He considers people who value heart and spirit of the music to be akin to cult members. He states that he only deals in “musical facts.”

I was reading a Penguin Guide review of the Lindsay Beethoven Quartets yesterday:

“The sense of spontaneity brings the obverse quality: these performances are not as precise as those in the finest rival sets; but there are few Beethoven quartet recordings that so convincingly bring out the humanity of the writing, its power to communicate.”

This is the whole way of thinking that Hurwitz runs counter to (He rails against the British press). I completely disagree with Hurwitz’s musical philosophy and in particular his diatribes against people who recognize that there is more to music than just the nuts and bolts.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Kreisler jr said:


> But this is an extremely common stance nowadays, just look around in this forum. There are long debates here shifted into "music and politics" that the main fault of classical music and its establishment is that it dares to take music, art and its contents and status seriously. That's stuffy elitism and the fault of pretentious 19th century German composers and philosophers. Elevating random personal preferences in music or other arts so that that artworks and artists acquire quasi-religious status. Pure self-aggrandizement of these eggheads. This is why CM is unpopular and deservedly so. If it admits that it is just like any other entertainment it could become popular and thrive and get rid of that horrible elitism, exclusion and pretention.


I’m singing in Beethoven’s Fidelio this weekend, so I’m particularly reminded that classical music is not just silly entertainment (though it can be).

There is nothing pretentious about seeking higher truth in music, and there is nothing noble about seeking to dumb down CM. Hurwitz’s anti-intellectualism is one of his worst traits.


----------



## Kreisler jr

ORigel said:


> I agree that the Passion narrative is worthless, and Parsifal's story is ridiculous. I agree that music is entertainment.


But you aren't a professional critic. If one not only ignores the intention of a composer, the content of a work and its context and background, but even has a basically opposite and downright hostile stance to all of this, and treating a Bach Passion and Parsifal like above is obviously such a case, one can hardly expect to be taken seriously as a critic. (And while these works might be rather extreme cases, such an attitude is opposed to intention, content and context of A LOT of classical music, not only explicitly sacred music or Bühnenweihfestspiele.)
I also doubt that one with such an attitude can hope to get even close to the aesthetic experience of a work that might be possible with a more open/charitable/humble stance. It's a mix between arrogance and (intentional) ignorance that does not seem conducive for experiencing art and even less for giving professional critical opinion and advice about it. If one thinks like that about certain pieces one should better abstain from critical commentary and reviewing them.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He’s soulless. He considers people who value heart and spirit of the music to be akin to cult members. He states that he only deals in “musical facts.”
> 
> I was reading a Penguin Guide review of the Lindsay Beethoven Quartets yesterday:
> 
> “The sense of spontaneity brings the obverse quality: these performances are not as precise as those in the finest rival sets; but there are few Beethoven quartet recordings that so convincingly bring out the humanity of the writing, its power to communicate.”
> 
> This is the whole way of thinking that Hurwitz runs counter to (He rails against the British press). I completely disagree with Hurwitz’s musical philosophy and in particular his diatribes against people who recognize that there is more to music than just the nuts and bolts.


You know that just because he doesn’t think every Furtwangler performance is god tier doesn’t mean that he is ‘soulless’? And he has stated multiple times that Bruno Walter brings a lot of humanity to his recordings, he stated again so in his recent Dave’s faves about Bruno Walter’s Brahms 3rd symphony. So I don’t think he considers himself a part of a cult


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I was reading a Penguin Guide review of the Lindsay Beethoven Quartets yesterday:
> 
> “The sense of spontaneity brings the obverse quality: these performances are not as precise as those in the finest rival sets; but there are few Beethoven quartet recordings that so convincingly bring out the humanity of the writing, its power to communicate.”


The Penguin guide is hardly a reliable source of music criticism, particularly since this particular review must be 20 years old by now (not to mention the biases of the Penguin reviewers). Since then, there have been no shortage of reissues and new recordings of the quartets that demonstrate that it's possible to play with both precision and heart.



> I completely disagree with Hurwitz’s musical philosophy and in particular his diatribes against people who recognize that there is more to music than just the nuts and bolts.


Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## wkasimer

EvaBaron said:


> You know that just because he doesn’t think every Furtwangler performance is god tier doesn’t mean that he is ‘soulless’?


This whole thread is a symptom of the times in which we live (particularly in the USA, alas), where everyone and everything has to be viewed as utteerly perfect or irredeemably bad. Too many people are incapable of nuance.


----------



## AndorFoldes

advokat said:


> I do not think you would go wrong with his recommendations unless you regard them not as a starting point in exploration, but as revealed truth. His choices are often idiosyncratic, but (to my best knowledge) never execrable. The problem a beginner may have with his recommendations is that he tends to forgo well-established first-rate performers in favour of sometimes obscure records. I have an extensive collection, and I have benefitted from his videos in discovering more. Should you forgo the Karajan/BP cycle of LvB symphonies in favour of an obscure Czech recording (which he champions, inter alia, because he can publicly play it for copyright reasons)? Probably not. Provided you already have two or three well-established LvB cycles, and you wish to explore something different but good, should you listen to his recommendations? Of course.


To be fair to Hurwitz, he does genuinely seem to like the Kletzki Beethoven cycle and the Czech Philharmonic in general, and he did mention both that and Karajan/BPO 1977 in his talk of recommended Beethoven symphony cycles.

I think he offers a valid perspective , as long as it's not your only perspective.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> This whole thread is a symptom of the times in which we live (particularly in the USA, alas), where everyone and everything has to be viewed as utteerly perfect or irredeemably bad. Too many people are incapable of nuance.


You think so, huh? Reread the OP.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You think so, huh? Reread the OP.


I believe since 2 December 2021 you have actually said that Hurwitz was dangerous in there Brahms violin concerto thread, and based upon your other posts about him since the OP I think you have changed your mind


----------



## ORigel

advokat said:


> I do not think you would go wrong with his recommendations unless you regard them not as a starting point in exploration, but as revealed truth. His choices are often idiosyncratic, but (to my best knowledge) never execrable. The problem a beginner may have with his recommendations is that he tends to forgo well-established first-rate performers in favour of sometimes obscure records. I have an extensive collection, and I have benefitted from his videos in discovering more. Should you forgo the Karajan/BP cycle of LvB symphonies in favour of an obscure Czech recording (which he champions, inter alia, because he can publicly play it for copyright reasons)? Probably not. Provided you already have two or three well-established LvB cycles, and you wish to explore something different but good, should you listen to his recommendations? Of course.


Currently, I am very familiar with Gardiner and-- urg-- Krieps tin can (my first Beethoven cycle-- don't get it!). I am somewhat familiar with Klemperer (I have listened to Symphonies 3-7) and Karajan '63 (only played through it once so far, and the Ninth several times).


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I’m singing in Beethoven’s Fidelio this weekend, so I’m particularly reminded that classical music is not just silly entertainment (though it can be).
> 
> There is nothing pretentious about seeking higher truth in music, and there is nothing noble about seeking to dumb down CM. Hurwitz’s anti-intellectualism is one of his worst traits.


I don't think Hurwitz is trying to be "noble." He's trying to be a Haydn-popularizing entertainer while stroking his ego. Nobility is for people who think CM is more than entertainment.

That being said, Hurwitz is doing a service in dumbing-down music theory to explain works like Haydn symphonies to beginners.


----------



## RobertJTh

I was once present at a concert where Mahler 6 was played, a slightly raw-edged but dedicated performance by a youth orchestra, surprisingly well played. I applauded till my hands started to hurt.
And then... as an encore they played some bland pop song that was on the charts back then. The percussionist even abused the "hammer" to give it some extra effect.
So I walked out, disgusted and feeling miserable. How can one be able to perform a compelling version of one of the deepest, most serious and intense works in the symphonic repertoire - then within a minute switch a button and become a brainless party animal? Even disgracing your performance by mocking it?
So yeah, I was the only one in the audience who stormed out. Everyone loved it, and I was told afterwards by my company to not take it so serious. Lighten up, dude. They're young, let 'em have fun.
I guess this is the true Hurwitz spirit. Everything is entertainment. There is no deep or shallow, there's only fun and no-fun. Your one-day wonder pop song is worth to stand aside Mahler 6. Let's spice up Beethoven's 9th with rappers!
Postmodern shallowness and lack of taste and intelligence - it sickens me.


----------



## EvaBaron

RobertJTh said:


> I was once present at a concert where Mahler 6 was played, a slightly raw-edged but dedicated performance by a youth orchestra, surprisingly well played. I applauded till my hands started to hurt.
> And then... as an encore they played some bland pop song that was on the charts back then. The percussionist even abused the "hammer" to give it some extra effect.
> So I walked out, disgusted and feeling miserable. How can one be able to perform a compelling version of one of the deepest, most serious and intense works in the symphonic repertoire - then within a minute switch a button and become a brainless party animal? Even disgracing your performance by mocking it?
> So yeah, I was the only one in the audience who stormed out. Everyone loved it, and I was told afterwards by my company to not take it so serious. Lighten up, dude. They're young, let 'em have fun.
> I guess this is the true Hurwitz spirit. Everything is entertainment. There is no deep or shallow, there's only fun and no-fun. Your one-day wonder pop song is worth to stand aside Mahler 6. Let's spice up Beethoven's 9th with rappers!
> Postmodern shallowness and lack of taste and intelligence - it sickens me.


My only reaction to this is lighten up dude! They’re young


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

RobertJTh said:


> I guess this is the true Hurwitz spirit. Everything is entertainment. There is no deep or shallow, there's only fun and no-fun. Your one-day wonder pop song is worth to stand aside Mahler 6. Let's spice up Beethoven's 9th with rappers!
> Postmodern shallowness and lack of taste and intelligence - it sickens me.


I don't think things are that bad. Still, I sympathize with your sentiment. There's a time & place for music that is light & for music that is serious. Not everything should be treated as a light occasion all the time. And if you promise a serious experience, it should be serious all throughout. It's not in good taste to play with people's expectations.


----------



## ORigel

RobertJTh said:


> I was once present at a concert where Mahler 6 was played, a slightly raw-edged but dedicated performance by a youth orchestra, surprisingly well played. I applauded till my hands started to hurt.
> And then... as an encore they played some bland pop song that was on the charts back then. The percussionist even abused the "hammer" to give it some extra effect.
> So I walked out, disgusted and feeling miserable. How can one be able to perform a compelling version of one of the deepest, most serious and intense works in the symphonic repertoire - then within a minute switch a button and become a brainless party animal? Even disgracing your performance by mocking it?
> So yeah, I was the only one in the audience who stormed out. Everyone loved it, and I was told afterwards by my company to not take it so serious. Lighten up, dude. They're young, let 'em have fun.
> I guess this is the true Hurwitz spirit. Everything is entertainment. There is no deep or shallow, there's only fun and no-fun. Your one-day wonder pop song is worth to stand aside Mahler 6. Let's spice up Beethoven's 9th with rappers!
> Postmodern shallowness and lack of taste and intelligence - it sickens me.


To my knowledge, Hurwitz said that lieder are as good as contemporary songs, and performers of lieder should lighten up. 

However, I don't think he's want a pop song right after a performance of Mahler 6. He did a video in which he shared an ancedote about a friend playing the _organ solo from the Glagolitic Mass_ after a Catholic mass service, and then realizing that the organ solo is inappropriate for that setting.


----------



## advokat

AndorFoldes said:


> he did mention both that and Karajan/BPO 1977 in his talk of recommended Beethoven symphony cycles.


And the face he made when he (very briefly) mentioned HvK/BP cycle! ("It-is-de-rigueur-to-mention-it-but-I-really-abhor-it" face). But again, I do occasionally enjoy his videos, just do not take them very seriously.


----------



## fbjim

RobertJTh said:


> I was once present at a concert where Mahler 6 was played, a slightly raw-edged but dedicated performance by a youth orchestra, surprisingly well played. I applauded till my hands started to hurt.
> And then... as an encore they played some bland pop song that was on the charts back then. The percussionist even abused the "hammer" to give it some extra effect.
> So I walked out, disgusted and feeling miserable. How can one be able to perform a compelling version of one of the deepest, most serious and intense works in the symphonic repertoire - then within a minute switch a button and become a brainless party animal? Even disgracing your performance by mocking it?
> So yeah, I was the only one in the audience who stormed out. Everyone loved it, and I was told afterwards by my company to not take it so serious. Lighten up, dude. They're young, let 'em have fun.
> I guess this is the true Hurwitz spirit. Everything is entertainment. There is no deep or shallow, there's only fun and no-fun. Your one-day wonder pop song is worth to stand aside Mahler 6. Let's spice up Beethoven's 9th with rappers!
> Postmodern shallowness and lack of taste and intelligence - it sickens me.



On the other hand, you listened to Mahler 6, despite an imperfect performance, because the music gave you joy, and walked out when they did a pops encore because you weren't enjoying it. As the saying goes, that's entertainment. You didn't feel compelled to listen to music you hated because, hey, all music by classical ensembles has some Importance value - when you stopped enjoying what was being played, you walked out. So it goes with all show business. 


I think his use of "entertainment" is provocative, maybe unnecessarily so, but I think his real point is that we listen to music for our own pleasure.


----------



## ORigel

EvaBaron said:


> You know that just because he doesn’t think every Furtwangler performance is god tier doesn’t mean that he is ‘soulless’? And he has stated multiple times that Bruno Walter brings a lot of humanity to his recordings, he stated again so in his recent Dave’s faves about Bruno Walter’s Brahms 3rd symphony. So I don’t think he considers himself a part of a cult


He recommends Furtwangler's Schumann 4 and Schubert 9, among other works.


----------



## ORigel

fbjim said:


> On the other hand, you listened to Mahler 6, despite an imperfect performance, because the music gave you joy, and walked out when they did a pops encore because you weren't enjoying it. As the saying goes, that's entertainment. You didn't feel compelled to listen to music you hated because, hey, all music by classical ensembles has some Importance value - when you stopped enjoying what was being played, you walked out. So it goes with all show business.
> 
> 
> I think his use of "entertainment" is provocative, maybe unnecessarily so, but I think his real point is that we listen to music for our own pleasure.


Exactly. That is what Hurwitz means by entertainment. If I wasn't entertained by music, I would not listen to it.

Additionally, in the Classical Period, music explicitly was entertainment for aristocrats, and this attitude persisted into the 19th century to an extent. Concert-goers _hissed_ at Brahms' First Piano Concerto because it was too dark and turbulent. At the premeire of Tchaikovsky's Sixth, the audience didn't like it.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, music was entertainment. Perhaps we can find a happy medium between treating masterworks irreverently, and denying that they're (non-shallow) entertainment


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> in the Classical Period, music explicitly was entertainment for aristocrats, and this attitude persisted into the 19th century to an extent.


It depends on what you mean by "entertainment" though. Whatabout all the Tafelmusik composed before that? Bach wrote that WTC was composed "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study".
And church music (even a cappella stuff) was produced in large quantities even after the Baroque period.


----------



## dko22

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He’s soulless. He considers people who value heart and spirit of the music to be akin to cult members. He states that he only deals in “musical facts.”
> 
> I was reading a Penguin Guide review of the Lindsay Beethoven Quartets yesterday:
> 
> “The sense of spontaneity brings the obverse quality: these performances are not as precise as those in the finest rival sets; but there are few Beethoven quartet recordings that so convincingly bring out the humanity of the writing, its power to communicate.”
> 
> This is the whole way of thinking that Hurwitz runs counter to (He rails against the British press). I completely disagree with Hurwitz’s musical philosophy and in particular his diatribes against people who recognize that there is more to music than just the nuts and bolts.


II’m not sure if he’s really soulless— there are many occasions where he’s spot on. But I totally disagree on the Lindsay’s. His Beethoven and Schubert are both my reference cycles — they simply say far more than dozens of flashier accounts although you obviously want to hear alternatives from time to time


----------



## 13hm13

Recently, Hurwitz vlogged about: "Review: Johanna Martzy's Warner Recordings--Enjoyable, but Necessary?"




Usually, Wikipedia or other Internet sources can provide detailed info about important artists. But I can find almost no DETAILED info about Martzy; specifically about her experience with the Nazi's and Jewish ethnicity. Is a more complete biography of hers included somewhere not on the internet? 
Thx!


----------



## wkasimer

13hm13 said:


> Usually, Wikipedia or other Internet sources can provide detailed info about important artists. But I can find almost no DETAILED info about Martzy; specifically about her experience with the Nazi's and Jewish ethnicity. Is a more complete biography of hers included somewhere not on the internet?
> Thx!


There's a bit here: 

The Cult of Johanna Martzy - The American Scholar


----------



## ThaNotoriousNIC

I just recently found and subscribed to his channel. In conjunction with the forum, I am seeing his channel as a good way to find recordings of pieces I am very familiar with and some commentary. I am doing a quick dive back into Beethoven symphonies and so far most of the ones that he has recommended as his favorites are very solid. I also looked at some of his opera videos and compared with the recordings that have been recommended to me in the forum and online, finding that he is fairly consistent with a good chunk of them with a few surprises. He also seems to be pretty pleasant and informed when talking about pieces and recordings, which is something I have been looking for on YouTube.


----------



## fbjim

He gets a hundred points for following my suggestion and doing an "ideal minimalist repertoire" list


----------



## RobertJTh

Who else thinks that his endless row of (boring) "Dave's faves" videos only serve to give us the impression that he's very broadly oriented and knowledgeable in fields that he never discussed or reviewed? Neither on yt or at his own site, where he leaves the non-orchestral stuff to other reviewers. Yet we are to believe that he loves all kinds of opera and chamber music. Sure Dave.


----------



## ORigel

RobertJTh said:


> Who else thinks that his endless row of (boring) "Dave's faves" videos only serve to give us the impression that he's very broadly oriented and knowledgeable in fields that he never discussed or reviewed? Neither on yt or at his own site, where he leaves the non-orchestral stuff to other reviewers. Yet we are to believe that he loves all kinds of opera and chamber music. Sure Dave.


I think Hurwitz is familiar with the chamber music of Mendelssohn, Dvorak, and Haydn. He wrote books about these composers (so he listend to their more obscure works) and thinks they're underrated. (Bizarrely, in one video, he compares Dvorak's last two string quartets to the Beethoven late quartets)


----------



## RobertJTh

His latest "Dave's fave" is really bizarre. Hurwitz never discusses organ music, doesn't like it, doesn't care for it. Fair enough.
But now we're supposed to believe that one of his favorite cd's features the organ music of... no, not Bach, Franck, Reger or Messiaen, but Edouard Batiste, the trashiest organ composer of the 19th century.

I downloaded some of his music from IMSLP once, with the idea of playing it in church, always nice to have something off the beaten path in your repertoire. But the liturgical value of this stuff is zero. Play it during a service and people will think a barrel organ has rolled into the building.
But I guess Dave loves campy crap, so yeah, Batiste it is. Good luck with it.


----------



## ORigel

I love the review of a CD of Bruckner 9-- played on organ. It sounds as awful as you'd expect (Hurwitz plays clips of passages like the climax of the slow movement). So Hurwitz starts playing themes from Bruckner 9 on a kazoo to mock the organ recording.

Even though I love Hurwitz for stuff like that, I haven't listened to any of his Dave's Faves entries.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

I love Dave Hurwitz, he is a morbidly obese version of Lil Ludi, without the knowledge or insight into what makes classical music great.

He loves lurid, trashy, superficial recordings of monumental works, and is pretty open about this in his Dave’s Faves. I suspect he really only enjoys musicals and operettas, as there‘s quite a lot of repression (in both senses of the word) going on there.

That said, I really only listen for his wonderful Jewish shtick, what they used to call Borscht Belt… “Take my mother… no really, TAKE MY MOTHER!”

American humour wouldn’t exist, hadn’t Jews not gone on holidays in the Catskills in the 1950s…


----------



## RobertJTh

ORigel said:


> I love the review of a CD of Bruckner 9-- played on organ. It sounds as awful as you'd expect (Hurwitz plays clips of passages like the climax of the slow movement). So Hurwitz starts playing themes from Bruckner 9 on a kazoo to mock the organ recording.
> 
> Even though I love Hurwitz for stuff like that, I haven't listened to any of his Dave's Faves entries.


I completely agree with him on the subject of the organ 9th. Arranging a symphony (by Bruckner or anyone else) for organ means losing so much of the score's details and nuances that it becomes a mutilation instead of an arrangement. And in this case it proves that the Bruckner's famed organ-inspired "cathedral sound" is a myth. As a composer of orchestral works, his medium was the orchestra and he didn't have the organ on his mind when he wrote his symphonies.
If keyboard players want to get busy with Bruckner, they should try the various great piano arrangements for 1 and 2 players by people like Grunsky, Singer and Stradal.


----------



## RobertJTh

RobertJTh said:


> His latest "Dave's fave" is really bizarre. Hurwitz never discusses organ music, doesn't like it, doesn't care for it. Fair enough.
> But now we're supposed to believe that one of his favorite cd's features the organ music of... no, not Bach, Franck, Reger or Messiaen, but Edouard Batiste, the trashiest organ composer of the 19th century.


And apart from his curious choice, he spouts a lot of nonsense about organ stops in his video. His theory that tremolo and voix céleste stops are imitations of orchestral string vibrato (and thus "prove" that vibrato existed in Beethoven's time) is utter bullsh*t.
First of all, the celeste stop is NOT invented by Cavaillé-Coll. The use of slightly detuned rows of pipes that cause a tremolando effect when combined with a proper tuned stop is as old as renaissance and early baroque Italian organs. The stop is called Unda Maris there. Is Hurwitz gonna claim that Italian string music from 1600 used vibrato because of the organs "imitated string sounds"?
Tremolo in the sense of interrupting the air stream is even older.
Secondly, these "effects" have nothing to do with strings imitation. They're mostly inspired by the human voice. In italian, "voce umana" is even sometimes used as a synonym for voix céleste!


----------



## ORigel

This is about Hurwitz, but not his Youtube channel. Hurwitz wrote a book about the Brahms symphonies. Check out the bizzare Amazon description, which I quote below:



https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symphonies-Closer-Look-Magnum/dp/082643164X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=1PELN5QR8E2JE&keywords=hurwitz+brahms+symphonies&qid=1652635244&sprefix=hurwitz+brahms+symphonies%2Caps%2C560&sr=8-1



_Brahms was a musician's musician, in some respects an &quot;academic&quot; composer, and so it's practically impossible for professional scholars and musicians to approach his music without wanting to demonstrate at some point that they are as smart as Brahms, and uniquely able to unravel the technical intricacies of his larger works. For the general reader, this obviously represents a problem; indeed, it's not exactly a joy for the music professional either. *Though Brahms' symphonies are often treated somewhat like medicine, as something &quot;good for you,&quot; but otherwise lacking in purely sensual pleasure*, David Hurwitz takes the reader beyond the jargon and pedantry and unlocks the mystery (and the joy) contained within Brahms' symphonies._

Uh huh. Brahms' symphonies are repertoire staples not because people enjoy them ("lacking in purely sensual pleasure") but because they're supposed to be good for you, like medicine. I wonder if this is a common viewpoint Hurwitz encountered in decades of attending concerts and reading emails from readers of his CM website, _or if Hurwitz, deep down, doesn't like the symphonies but knows he must pretend to love them in his popularizer role._


----------



## fbjim

The (unfair, I think) idea that Brahms is overly well-constructed/"dense"/"academic" is absolutely one I've heard before- in fact before I started listening to Brahms, that's the impression I got about him from reading other opinions of his music. That seems like a weird reading of that blurb.


What's that famous quote one of Brahms friends said about the 4th - "like I was being beaten over the head by a very intelligent person"?


----------



## fbjim

To that point, I think a lot of his standpoint and intended audience is the idea that people might be put off by overly academic/dry or overly hagiographic discussions on classical music, which is probably why his videos have a lot of vulgarity and his provocative statement about entertainment. I don't think it's so much "dumbing down" as it is a philosophy that at our cores, music is to be enjoyed.


----------



## Kreisler jr

But after more than 30 years of moderately funny books like "bluff your way trough/classical music /for dummies", even longer pedestal tumbling of anyone formerly considered to be "great" at something (except sports or popular culture) and 99% of the populace being unable to understand music or art as anything but entertainment, this seems like kicking against wide open doors.


----------



## fbjim

Is it really so diminishing or such a bad thing to say that we listen to music for pleasure?


----------



## ORigel

fbjim said:


> The (unfair, I think) idea that Brahms is overly well-constructed/"dense"/"academic" is absolutely one I've heard before- in fact before I started listening to Brahms, that's the impression I got about him from reading other opinions of his music. That seems like a weird reading of that blurb.
> 
> 
> What's that famous quote one of Brahms friends said about the 4th - "like I was being beaten over the head by a very intelligent person"?


That was Hanslick, who only pretended to like much of Brahms' music so he could have a champion against the New German School. It was also his first time listening to _a piano four hands arrangement _of the work, and Brahms symphonies generally are less immediately accessible* than some other orchestral works (example: Mendelssohn's Italian symphony) and may take a few listens to enjoy. In the age of recordings, CM listeners can listen to Brahms 4 a few times and get hooked.

*Brahms 3 is probably accessible on first listen

Now to my perhaps uncharitable interpretation of Hurwitz's blurb. I am suspicious because I've watched many of his videos.
-- Hurwitz said he disliked the German Requiem until a few years ago. He plays his favorite part (that he finally learned to love after decades)-- it was an excerpt we all know, and that I had loved _instantly on first listen_
--Hurwitz described a love-hate relationship with the two piano concertos-- he has liked both of them but not at the same time
--Hurwitz charged through Brahms' chamber music in one video, though he has done seperate videos on the string sextets. 
--Hurwitz often puts down Brahms to lift up Dvorak (indeed, Hurwitz is an excellent popularizer of Dvorak-- his book on Dvorak is recommended on the pinned Music Books thread).
--And no Double Concerto video


----------



## ORigel

fbjim said:


> To that point, I think a lot of his standpoint and intended audience is the idea that people might be put off by overly academic/dry or overly hagiographic discussions on classical music, which is probably why his videos have a lot of vulgarity and his provocative statement about entertainment. I don't think it's so much "dumbing down" as it is a philosophy that at our cores, music is to be enjoyed.


That would be a problem if there weren't a bajillion recordings of the Brahms symphonies, if they weren't performed live all the time by orchestras, and they were mostly known to listeners in a couple recorded cycles and by discussions in biographies of Brahms. Great thing that's not the case.


----------



## fbjim

Is it a sin to not like Brahms on initial listen, or to find him "intimidating"? 

It's one hell of a leap to go from that to "David Hurwitz is pretending to like Brahms" which is a hell of an accusation, especially given he's been very blatant at expressing when he doesn't like something, including popular works.


----------



## EvaBaron

Why would he pretend to like Brahms? Usually if he dislikes something he just says it. Brahms can be hard to get into, personally I have no problems with Brahms except his piano concerti, I find it hard to get into those for some reason. I haven’t listened to them much tho


----------



## ORigel

fbjim said:


> Is it a sin to not like Brahms on initial listen, or to find him "intimidating"?
> 
> It's one hell of a leap to go from that to "David Hurwitz is pretending to like Brahms" which is a hell of an accusation, especially given he's been very blatant at expressing when he doesn't like something, including popular works.


I wanted to get in on the "bash Hurwitz" bandwagon, so I shared a suspicion I thought was unlikely but possible. My contribution probably isn't the worst slander against Hurwitz on this thread. For example, the claim that Hurwitz "doesn't know what makes CM great" or that maybe he edits Wikipedia pages so they cite his comments on CM.

I think Hurwitz does love (or at least like) the Brahms symphonies. I also think there's a chance he struggled with them for a while before liking them. Maybe if I read the book, I would know, but I'm not the intended audience.

I think Hurwitz's popularizing works better with pieces that _could_ be more popular but aren't (example: Dvorak's Double Bass Quintet, discussed in Hurwitz's book on Dvorak).


----------



## ORigel

EvaBaron said:


> Why would he pretend to like Brahms? Usually if he dislikes something he just says it. Brahms can be hard to get into, personally I have no problems with Brahms except his piano concerti, I find it hard to get into those for some reason. I haven’t listened to them much tho


This is the "bash Hurwitz thread." So to join in, I was really uncharitable towards Hurwitz. I am also incredulpus that anyone could not like Brahms' Third Symphony and regard it as "medicine"


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Did your cat jump on your lap as you were typing that?

Agree about Brahms 3 by the way.


----------



## ORigel

Hurwitz has admitted to not liking Bach very much, despite listening to him a lot for his musical critic job. This makes my speculation that Hurwitz is only pretending to like the Brahms symphonies...ridiculous. Dave is actually quite honest about his tastes.


----------



## marlow

I’ve read some of this opinionated guy’s reviews and they are completely unconsidered and often just reveal that he is taking out the back of his head. I wouldn’t say he’s worth wasting time on


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't think he is pretending. Nevertheless he is often strawmanning and exaggerating. E.g. hating on the musicologists unduly obsessed with different versions of Bruckner symphonies. Of course this can sometimes be a choice to have a chance as a career musicologist (one should note that there are very few decent jobs in this field, so people need any help they can get) but it's obviously also a real problem, not a totally made up one, even if occasionally overemphasized by people working in that field.
He also hates several early 20th century late romantics (like Pfitzner) with a vengeance despite harping for similar and more obscure music from the same time.
And I'd see the strawman that Brahms' music is often viewed as "boring but good for you" as a similar exaggeration to sharpen profile and have an easy to rebut strawman.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

According to Dave, Fauve’s trashy mess, the Te Deum, is better than his undoubted masterpiece, the Requiem… 

His justification: it’s just more fun and shorter in length…


----------



## RobertJTh

Ludwig Schon said:


> According to Dave, Fauve’s trashy mess, the Te Deum, is better than his undoubted masterpiece, the Requiem…
> His justification: it’s just more fun and shorter in length…


Girls and Hurwitzes just wanna have fun!
I guess you meant berlioz? And you're right, I never really cared for the Te Deum. The Requiem on the other hand, is one of the greatest ever. I love how it's devoid of any consolation, or positive message in general. You're going to die, and big chance you'll end in hell, subjected to eternal torture, according to jolly uncle Hector.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

RobertJTh said:


> Girls and Hurwitzes just wanna have fun!
> I guess you meant berlioz? And you're right, I never really cared for the Te Deum. The Requiem on the other hand, is one of the greatest ever. I love how it's devoid of any consolation, or positive message in general. You're going to die, and big chance you'll end in hell, subjected to eternal torture, according to jolly uncle Hector.


Berlioz! Multitasking on too many threads this morning!


----------



## ORigel

Ludwig Schon said:


> According to Dave, Fauve’s trashy mess, the Te Deum, is better than his undoubted masterpiece, the Requiem…
> 
> His justification: it’s just more fun and shorter in length…


I love Berlioz's Te Deum, but the Requiem is on another level.


----------



## Ludwig Schon

ORigel said:


> I love Berlioz's Te Deum, but the Requiem is on another level.


I don’t think I’ve listened to more than a few mins of the Te Deum. That lurid, trashy opening is like something of an Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical…


----------



## ORigel

Ludwig Schon said:


> I don’t think I’ve listened to more than a few mins of the Te Deum. That lurid, trashy opening is like something of an Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical…


I love the last movement. Is it "trashy"? Kind of, but it's exciting and fun.






Its theme is very similar to the theme of the first movement of Brahms' Piano Concerto no. 2.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> (Moved this post from the Brahms Violin Concerto discussion)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My response:
> 
> 
> 
> The next day:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, somebody listening?
> 
> 
> 
> 9:28 of the video - "That's why I think these cultists, the Furtwangler people, the whatever people, are all crazy. because you're looking for teeny teeny tiny differences and you're tremendously exaggerating their value. *And I don't hear it.* I think you're simply being, you're hallucinating when you do that. You're making things up!"
> 
> Bwahahaha!
> 
> What did I just tell you??? What have I always said about Hurwitz? He doesn't understand artistic nuance. He has no idea what the difference is between this recording or that recording. He is a hack and a charlatan. He does these videos where he simply throws up well-known versions and acts as if he was the one who did the homework of deciphering what made them great. He has no clue outside of simple technical matters of intonation and sound quality.
> 
> But what is worse is that he literally believes that people who do hear the differences - which includes both the vast majority of professional critics as well as the casual listener - are making the differences up! What I have always wanted to confront Hurwitz with is how can people independently come to the same conclusions if they are making it up? According to your asinine theory, there should be no consensus choices at all. There should just be a random jungle of people making things up. Even accounting for differences in taste, you still end up with "factions" of consensus opinions, e.g. some people think the Perlman/Giulini displays spirit and heart, while others just hear it as slow and bloated. So a competent reviewer knows what the Perlman/Giulini offers artistically that is different from other versions and that some will like and some won't.
> 
> As to the question of whether Szeryng is necessary, for me personally the answer is not so much. But I personally rate him lower because like Grumiaux I think he is a little dull compared to other versions. Simply well-played and lyrical. But I absolutely respect and acknowledge that others hear it differently because they have different criteria than me. Not everyone values individuality. And yet I keep them both on my shelf because sometimes I want to hear the concerto that way. Or maybe I listen to Huberman for dramatic angst, or Krebbers for beautiful tone and songful connection, or Perlman/Giulini for the mysterious dark colors, or Heifetz/Reiner for just-the-facts cutting bravura, or Heifetz/Koussevitzky for unmatched poetic assurance, or Milstein/Fistoulari for fast and beautifully lyrical, etc.
> 
> The point is that these differences exist. Most of the classical music world knows this. But this egotistical charlatan denies it. And don't tell me he is speaking to the newbie audience. That is a crock. I have often played recordings for newbies and they can tell the differences. Hell, I have played several recordings of the Brahms violin concerto for my girlfriend of 6 months - who didn't know the piece at all before she met me much less the majority of the classical music canon - and she recently commented on one, "That was good, but I like Krebbers better." Similarly, I have played the Furtwangler 1942 Beethoven 9th for many people over the decades, the one Hurwitz thinks is no different from his other versions except being in poor sound, and even newbies to classical music hear the intensity and use the same adjectives to describe what they hear.
> 
> People are not all as stupid as David Hurwitz. You are speaking to yourself, David, not the actual classical music audience!
> 
> 
> 
> 10:27 of the video - "I didn't leave it out because I don't know it. It's right here!" (shows Milstein box set)
> 
> And here we see the egotist at work. He is literally covering his tracks and lying here.
> 
> David, don't lie. You clearly did not leave it out on purpose. You stated in the other video that if you don't want the mono recording, "What you can find is his remake, which is every bit as fine. It's on Deutsche Grammophon with Eugen Jochum."
> 
> Clearly the insinuation was that the Jochum constitutes THE stereo alternative, which is false. The Fistoulari has been circulated on EMI in multiple issues with different couplings. It is not an obscure issue.
> 
> But you then said, "I mean, there may be even more than this. Who knows?"
> 
> Great, so you admit you don't know everything. So how can you come back the next day claiming you knew the Fistoulari exists but you left it out on purpose?
> 
> *This is the issue with Hurwitz in a nutshell.* He simultaneously wants to be seen as THE expert on classical music recordings while dismissing what he doesn't know as unnecessary and fodder for cultists.
> 
> You can't have it both ways. If you don't know the difference between acclaimed recordings, don't pretend like you are an expert. Just admit you are parroting received wisdom. If you don't believe it's important to be an actual, thorough expert on the recordings, don't come back the next day pretending you knew it all along and are still the grand expert above all others. You are not. Not even close.
> 
> He is a wannabe, a charlatan. And a dangerous one to the extent he tries to silence all other voices.
> 
> .


I mean, he's kinda right about the Furtwängler 1942 recording though. Objectively, It doesn't deserve the following it has, historical elements aside.


----------



## haziz

As I said in the second (or is it third?) Hurwitz thread, I like him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Wow, I’m impressed with my own writing there. I pretty thoroughly undressed Hurwitz in that post. Thanks for the memories.

Incidentally, I only recently discovered that the Milstein/Fistoulari Brahms is now offered on a “budget” CD (if such a concept is even still relevant) coupled with his beautifully lyrical Tchaikovsky with Steinberg. Pretty formidable coupling! Highly recommended if you don’t know that recording.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> I mean, he's kinda right about the Furtwängler 1942 recording though. *Objectively*, It doesn't deserve the following it has, historical elements aside.


But to your specific point, let's put this stupid argument to bed once and for all, shall we?

The 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th is the most inspired, exciting, compelling version of the work I know, and it makes no difference if it was recorded in Nazi Germany or on the planet Mars. It doesn't change what I hear on the recording. The historical elements can be used to explain why the musicians on this night were so uniquely inspired to perform the way they did, with such focus, commitment, and singularity of purpose, but that is only a speculative theory. The main point is the performance itself is a one-of-a-kind, unforgettable rendering of a great work. This is an opinion shared by many people across generations and across continents. Nothing you or I can say will ever change this fact. The following it has is the following is has, whether that makes you happy or not. Your OPINION is that it is not a great recording. You don't hear what I and others hear. That has nothing to do with history, and is no more or less *objectively* valid than my opinion. If you were to do what Hurwitz does in his simplistic, superficial review and simply point out places where intonation is not together, you would still not be telling us anything about the performance other than focusing on the purely technical. A performance can still be exciting and convey the emotions of a work without displaying perfect intonation, right? And a performance can also be boring and lifeless despite having perfect intonation, right?

I'm actually glad Hurwitz made that video, because his superficial analysis exposed where he is coming from and why he should not be taken seriously. He is a charlatan who loves attention, nothing more.


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But to your specific point, let's put this stupid argument to bed once and for all, shall we?
> 
> The 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th is the most inspired, exciting, compelling version of the work I know, and it makes no difference if it was recorded in Nazi Germany or on the planet Mars. It doesn't change what I hear on the recording. The historical elements can be used to explain why the musicians on this night were so uniquely inspired to perform the way they did, with such focus, commitment, and singularity of purpose, but that is only a speculative theory. The main point is the performance itself is a one-of-a-kind, unforgettable rendering of a great work. This is an opinion shared by many people across generations and across continents. Nothing you or I can say will ever change this fact. The following it has is the following is has, whether that makes you happy or not. Your OPINION is that it is not a great recording. You don't hear what I and others hear. That has nothing to do with history, and is no more or less *objectively* valid than my opinion. If you were to do what Hurwitz does in his simplistic, superficial review and simply point out places where intonation is not together, you would still not be telling us anything about the performance other than focusing on the purely technical. A performance can still be exciting and convey the emotions of a work without displaying perfect intonation, right? And a performance can also be boring and lifeless despite having perfect intonation, right?
> 
> I'm actually glad Hurwitz made that video, because his superficial analysis exposed where he is coming from and why he should not be taken seriously. He is a charlatan who loves attention, nothing more.


The 1942 recording *objectively* sucks. Crappy sound and sometimes sloppy playing. Poorly balanced. That is true no matter what nonsense people invent about it. They only like it because they've heard better recordings so they know how the symphony is _supposed_ to go and imagine they hear stuff that objectively isn't in the recording.

Now, maybe the performance itself was great. I dunno. But it sounded entirely different from the recording.

Fortunately, Furtwangler left us better recordings of the Ninth.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I have nothing more to add except isn’t it interesting that the same people who can’t decipher between fact and opinion are the ones who hate that recording?


----------



## perempe

Are there similar channels on YouTube? Are they successful?

Hurwitz is below 9 million views, but now is averaging 500k views a month.


----------



## Kreisler jr

There are few, if any, who do something similar and Hurwitz has had a review site for around 20 years? before youtube, so it got a bit of a head start in a niche interest.


----------



## fbjim

Ludwig Schon said:


> I don’t think I’ve listened to more than a few mins of the Te Deum. That lurid, trashy opening is like something of an Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical…



Listening to Berlioz and complaining about it being lurid and trashy is like, to borrow from Robert Christgau, "like accusing Cecil Taylor of playing too many notes--not only does it go without saying, it's what he's selling."


----------



## perempe

Kreisler jr said:


> There are few, if any, who do something similar and Hurwitz has had a review site for around 20 years? before youtube, so it got a bit of a head start in a niche interest.


Would You mention some, please?


----------



## fbjim

Fanfare and American Record Guide come to mind.

e) for classical music record criticism, i mean, not so much for youtube stuff. there's classical music youtube but it's mostly focused on beginner music theory and not record reviews


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Incidentally, I only recently discovered that the Milstein/Fistoulari Brahms is now offered on a “budget” CD (if such a concept is even still relevant) coupled with his beautifully lyrical Tchaikovsky with Steinberg. Pretty formidable coupling! Highly recommended if you don’t know that recording.


Great CD - I've had it since it was issued a couple of decades ago. I'm surprised that it's still in print.


----------



## fbjim

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, I’m impressed with my own writing there. I pretty thoroughly undressed Hurwitz in that post. Thanks for the memories.
> 
> Incidentally, I only recently discovered that the Milstein/Fistoulari Brahms is now offered on a “budget” CD (if such a concept is even still relevant) coupled with his beautifully lyrical Tchaikovsky with Steinberg. Pretty formidable coupling! Highly recommended if you don’t know that recording.


Out of curiosity, since you're a historical records guy, do you like the Van Beinum/Concertgebouw Brahms cycle he recommends?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> Out of curiosity, since you're a historical records guy, do you like the Van Beinum/Concertgebouw Brahms cycle he recommends?


Yes, it’s one of my favorites, but I wouldn’t really call it historical. The sound is quite good.

Historical would be Weingartner, Furtwängler, Toscanini, Abendroth, Mengelberg, Stokowski, or the mono Walter with NYPO.


----------



## fbjim

Thanks, Abbado is usually my go-to cycle or Klemperer, but I sometimes get the hankering for old pre-stereo stuff.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> Thanks, Abbado is usually my go-to cycle or Klemperer, but I sometimes get the hankering for old pre-stereo stuff.


I love the Abbado, my favorite modern cycle, especially for the 3rd


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th is the most inspired, exciting, compelling version of the work I know, and it makes no difference if it was recorded in Nazi Germany or on the planet Mars. It doesn't change what I hear on the recording.



I mean, it sounds kinda bad, both technically and sonically. All kinds of weird and bad playing it. Makes me think you haven't heard any other recording of the 9th. Free to like what you like but thats just wild. Have been numerous recordings that have surpassed it.

"You don't hear what I and others hear."

I mean thats fine. But it doesn't discount the fact that it has bad sound and bad playing in it. And then people want to prop it up as the greatest thing ever. One could argue you don't hear bad sound and bad playing. Or maybe it's simply that you don't care. Which again, is fine, but the reasons people discount it are objectively tangible reasons. You want to call bad sound and bad playing as "simplistic" ...well then I got nothing for you lol


----------



## Kreisler jr

perempe said:


> Would You mention some, please?


I don't know. I have looked into some other music channels on youtube but none was about reviewing recordings, so Hurwitz might be the only game in town, for all practical purposes. Which was my point because this goes some way to explain the large number of views/subscriptions.


----------



## RobertJTh

In his latest video, he's trashing poor old Georg Rauchenecker. So I know what I'm gonna play in church tomorrow: some of Rauchenecker's "26 Praeludien für Orgel".
Thanks for the tip, Dave.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Never heard of Rauchenecker, so he is probably getting more exposure from the negative publicity.


----------



## RobertJTh

Kreisler jr said:


> Never heard of Rauchenecker, so he is probably getting more exposure from the negative publicity.


Judging on the style of his (ca. 1900) organ preludes, he's just one of the many conservative German composers of that era. Not better or worse than the rest of those forgotten guys.
I found that there's a lot of be enjoyed in that kind of music if you don't adhere to the prerequisite that everything must be original and fun and exciting, with sparkling orchestration and great percussion parts. There's some satisfaction to be had from the mere fact that music is expertly crafted, well proportioned and with solid structures - but that's something that Hurwitz will never understand.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Certainly the troll David Hurwitz must be counted as giving a bad name to classical music with his over-the-top exclamations and denouncements of well-known and not so well-known composers' music. Pretentious? Sure, but so much more and this goes for a lot of so-called "critics". People should learn by now that anyone with a knowledge of this music can be a critic. It takes no special talent to write what you feel. It does, however, take a lot of effort to not come off sounding like a complete know-it-all twerp and Hurwitz and his ilk have most definitely failed in this department.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> I mean, it sounds kinda bad, both technically and sonically. All kinds of weird and bad playing it. Makes me think you haven't heard any other recording of the 9th. Free to like what you like but thats just wild. Have been numerous recordings that have surpassed it.
> 
> "You don't hear what I and others hear."
> 
> I mean thats fine. But it doesn't discount the fact that it has bad sound and bad playing in it. And then people want to prop it up as the greatest thing ever. One could argue you don't hear bad sound and bad playing. Or maybe it's simply that you don't care. Which again, is fine, but the reasons people discount it are objectively tangible reasons. You want to call bad sound and bad playing as "simplistic" ...well then I got nothing for you lol


If you think all that the great classical works amount to is just pretty sounds and instruments playing together, then I got nothing for you either. Beethoven's music is about dramatic narrative. It doesn't simply play itself. If you want salon music, listen to Faure's pavane. This is why I call Hurwitz's review simplistic. He focuses only on technical details and says nothing about the music.

I'm listening to the 1942 Furtwangler 9th right now. It is genius. The intensity and focus of purpose is like in no other recording I know, and I own and have also heard dozens upon dozens of 9ths, not to mention singing in a couple of performances. The intensity is unreal, like something I could only dream of hearing. The dramatic pacing is the best I have ever heard, the orchestra clearly sensing what Furtwängler wants and going with him. My reaction to it is the same as countless others across decades. Hurwitz seriously believes there is a conspiracy amongst all these people to "imagine" what they are hearing? That is true insanity and delusion, not to mention self-absorption. And then Hurwitz claims that people who like this recording only do so because of the circumstances surrounding it. That is false. He is literally lying to the public when he says that. So much has been written about this performance over the decades to refute that.

There is so much more to music appreciation than simply the static quality of clarity and intonation. The problem with Hurwitz's "objective" standard is that you cannot reduce music to such a simplistic criteria. It is nonsensical. What objective standard makes Beethoven greater than any other composer? How would the Oscars give out awards for movies and acting based on an "objective" standard? Great art is by definition judged by a standard you cannot quantify. You either hear it or you don't, and opinions will always differ. But it is possible to form a consensus to where certain recordings rise to the top, even if individuals like Hurwitz in this case disagree.

I have heard many of Hurwitz's reviews, and I think he is missing something that others hear. He listens mainly for technical defects and cannot seem to hear the soul, drama, and passion. This is a man who hates the Mozart Requiem and thinks the Eroica funeral march is overly long and overrated.

Take Horenstein's Mahler 8th for example. This live recording is rightly celebrated as a uniquely inspired performance. The final minutes linked below are riveting. The crowd goes wild as you would expect. And what does Hurwitz have to say? He carps about the cymbals not being together and says the people attending are deluded into thinking it's a great performance. He is a parody of himself, like a grinch hitting people's ears with a ruler. He can only hear slight imperfections and has no capacity to hear anything else. What is the point of that? How is it useful for anyone who cares about classical music?


----------



## Manxfeeder

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He listens mainly for technical defects and cannot seem to hear the soul, drama, and passion.


I get that same impression.


----------



## RobertJTh

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Take Horenstein's Mahler 8th for example. This live recording is rightly celebrated as a uniquely inspired performance. The final minutes linked below are riveting. The crowd goes wild as you would expect. And what does Hurwitz have to say? He carps about the cymbals not being together and says the people attending are deluded into thinking it's a great performance. He is a parody of himself, like a grinch hitting people's ears with a ruler. He can only hear slight imperfections and has no capacity to hear anything else. What is the point of that? How is it useful for anyone who cares about classical music?


Riveting indeed. There was magic in the air that night.
For Tony Duggan, this is the greatest 8th ever. For Hurwitz it's a CD From Hell (that's the literal incipit of his review...)
Then again, in another review that Google recommended to me, Hurwitz praises Solti's 8th and awards it a 9/10. To my ears that performance is utterly superficial, sensationalist and devoid of any subtlety. But yes, it's better played than the Horenstein. Who cares?
My favorite Lied von der Erde is also Horenstein's, his legendary, valedictory 1972 recording with the BBC Northern. Not the greatest orchestra in the world, and consequently Hurwitz trashes it, quoting Alfreda Hodgson's singing as the only thing that that's good about it. It would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you think all that the great classical works amount to is just pretty sounds and instruments playing together, then I got nothing for you either. Beethoven's music is about dramatic narrative. It doesn't simply play itself. If you want salon music, listen to Faure's pavane. This is why I call Hurwitz's review simplistic. He focuses only on technical details and says nothing about the music.
> 
> I'm listening to the 1942 Furtwangler 9th right now. It is genius. The intensity and focus of purpose is like in no other recording I know, and I own and have also heard dozens upon dozens of 9ths, not to mention singing in a couple of performances. The intensity is unreal, like something I could only dream of hearing. The dramatic pacing is the best I have ever heard, the orchestra clearly sensing what Furtwängler wants and going with him. My reaction to it is the same as countless others across decades. Hurwitz seriously believes there is a conspiracy amongst all these people to "imagine" what they are hearing? That is true insanity and delusion, not to mention self-absorption. And then Hurwitz claims that people who like this recording only do so because of the circumstances surrounding it. That is false. He is literally lying to the public when he says that. So much has been written about this performance over the decades to refute that.
> 
> There is so much more to music appreciation than simply the static quality of clarity and intonation. The problem with Hurwitz's "objective" standard is that you cannot reduce music to such a simplistic criteria. It is nonsensical. What objective standard makes Beethoven greater than any other composer? How would the Oscars give out awards for movies and acting based on an "objective" standard? Great art is by definition judged by a standard you cannot quantify. You either hear it or you don't, and opinions will always differ. But it is possible to form a consensus to where certain recordings rise to the top, even if individuals like Hurwitz in this case disagree.
> 
> I have heard many of Hurwitz's reviews, and I think he is missing something that others hear. He listens mainly for technical defects and cannot seem to hear the soul, drama, and passion. This is a man who hates the Mozart Requiem and thinks the Eroica funeral march is overly long and overrated.
> 
> Take Horenstein's Mahler 8th for example. This live recording is rightly celebrated as a uniquely inspired performance. The final minutes linked below are riveting. The crowd goes wild as you would expect. And what does Hurwitz have to say? He carps about the cymbals not being together and says the people attending are deluded into thinking it's a great performance. He is a parody of himself, like a grinch hitting people's ears with a ruler. He can only hear slight imperfections and has no capacity to hear anything else. What is the point of that? How is it useful for anyone who cares about classical music?



"If you think all that the great classical works amount to is just pretty sounds and instruments playing together, then I got nothing for you either."

This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. If you sound like garbage and can't play together and do basic musical things a professional orchestra should do, you deserved to be called out for it. Bad playing is bad playing. Perhaps you need higher standards. 

"This is why I call Hurwitz's review simplistic. He focuses only on technical details and says nothing about the music."

The recording is bad, bad sounding, bad playing, poorly record even for its time, it's just plain bad. I don't care about the other stuff if the foundation is built on rotten twigs. It won't amount to much. 

"The intensity and focus of purpose is like in no other recording I know, and I own and have also heard dozens upon dozens of 9ths"

I mean if you think that makes up for the horrendously bad recording, bad playing all around, more power to you. 


"There is so much more to music appreciation than simply the static quality of clarity and intonation."

There is, but if you're bad enough that you stick out like a sore thumb, that's not good either. Aim to have both. 

"Take Horenstein's Mahler 8th for example. This live recording is rightly celebrated as a uniquely inspired performance. The final minutes linked below are riveting."

The only positive here is that you didn't mention his horrible 6th. Didn't care for the 8th, many recordings have surpassed his by a mile.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> There is, but if you're bad enough that you stick out like a sore thumb, that's not good either.


The only thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is Hurwitz’s hatred of both those recordings. The majority of classical music lovers disagree with him. There is nothing horrendously “bad” about the playing in either performance I mentioned above, and certainly not bad enough to outweigh the superb musicianship to which Hurwitz cannot even pay lip service in his simplistic reviews.



Steven4570 said:


> Aim to have both.


Lol, my aesthetic priorities are my own, and so are everyone else’s, including yours. We are all entitled to our taste, and that’s not going to change. Probably the best way to demonstrate Hurwitz’s psychosis is his twisted slogan, “It’s okay to like things that suck. Just admit it.” What kind of sophomoric person even says such things? One who cannot accept that others don’t agree with his tastes.

Hurwitz needs to learn that he does not speak for everyone, nor SHOULD he. Thank God some of us are beyond valuing simple, pedantic clarity and nothing else.

I summarized the philosophical difference in my post on Furtwängler recordings from 2019:

“Furtwangler once stated in a rehearsal that he could if he wanted to provide a conventional clear beat, and he then demonstrated it. But then he added that this was not the effect he wanted. Indeed, he was rumored once to have labeled Toscanini a "bloody time beater." For Furtwängler, merely playing together as an ensemble was low on his list of priorities. What he wanted was color, line, shape, and above all an authentic conveyance of the unique spiritual nature of everything he conducted. Every aspect of his bodily movements was intended to bring out these qualities, not merely to beat time in the pursuit of precision. One illustration is that when asked why he stood while conducting Parsifal at Bayrueth, where he was not seen by the audience during its four hour duration, his reply was, "Because it sounds different when I sit."

There are some on this board who say they "don't hear" what others do in Furtwangler performances. They only hear the nuts and bolts - tempos, ensemble, and sound quality. We all prioritize different things. But what you cannot deny is that countless others have heard and attested to the same unique qualities of this legendary conductor since the beginning of his career and continuing now 65 years after his death. One such testimony comes courtesy of the author John Ardoin:

It was my good fortune to know and spend time with Maria Callas, about whom I have previously written three books. She often amazed me with previously unsuspected areas of interest, but never more so than one day in August 1968. She was in Dallas recovering from a fall in which she had cracked several ribs. I picked her up one day for a doctor's appointment, and as I started the car, the radio came on. A symphony was being played. When I reached over to turn it off, she said, "No, leave it. The Beethoven Eighth is a favorite of mine.

That was a surprise - a soprano, even a Callas, who loved and recognized Beethoven's Eighth! As I drove and she listened, Callas became more and more impatient. "That phrase is wrong. Where's the line going? No! What's he doing there? It doesn't breathe. Oh, this is nonsense." We reached the doctor's office before the record had finished, and she insisted on sitting in the parking lot until the end to find out who the conductor was. After the final chord, the announcer said, "You have just heard a performance of the Eighth Symphony of Beethoven with the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by George Szell."

"Well, she sighed, "you see what we have been reduced to. We are now in a time when a Szell is considered a master. How small he was next to Furtwängler." Reeling in disbelief - not at her verdict, with which I agreed, but from the unvarnished acuteness of it - I stammered, "But how do you know Furtwängler? You never sang with him."

"How do you think?" She stared at me with equal disbelief. "He started his career after the war in Italy. I heard dozens of his concerts there. To me, he _was _Beethoven."

Best and Worst Recordings: Furtwängler


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The only thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is Hurwitz’s hatred of both those recordings. The majority of classical music lovers disagree with him. There is nothing horrendously “bad” about the playing in either performance I mentioned above, and certainly not bad enough to outweigh the superb musicianship to which Hurwitz cannot even pay lip service in his simplistic reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, my aesthetic priorities are my own, and so are everyone else’s, including yours. We are all entitled to our taste, and that’s not going to change. Probably the best way to demonstrate Hurwitz’s psychosis is his twisted slogan, “It’s okay to like things that suck. Just admit it.” What kind of sophomoric person even says such things? One who cannot accept that others don’t agree with his tastes.
> 
> Hurwitz needs to learn that he does not speak for everyone, nor SHOULD he. Thank God some of us are beyond valuing simple, pedantic clarity and nothing else.
> 
> I summarized the philosophical difference in my post on Furtwängler recordings from 2019:
> 
> “Furtwangler once stated in a rehearsal that he could if he wanted to provide a conventional clear beat, and he then demonstrated it. But then he added that this was not the effect he wanted. Indeed, he was rumored once to have labeled Toscanini a "bloody time beater." For Furtwängler, merely playing together as an ensemble was low on his list of priorities. What he wanted was color, line, shape, and above all an authentic conveyance of the unique spiritual nature of everything he conducted. Every aspect of his bodily movements was intended to bring out these qualities, not merely to beat time in the pursuit of precision. One illustration is that when asked why he stood while conducting Parsifal at Bayrueth, where he was not seen by the audience during its four hour duration, his reply was, "Because it sounds different when I sit."
> 
> There are some on this board who say they "don't hear" what others do in Furtwangler performances. They only hear the nuts and bolts - tempos, ensemble, and sound quality. We all prioritize different things. But what you cannot deny is that countless others have heard and attested to the same unique qualities of this legendary conductor since the beginning of his career and continuing now 65 years after his death. One such testimony comes courtesy of the author John Ardoin:
> 
> It was my good fortune to know and spend time with Maria Callas, about whom I have previously written three books. She often amazed me with previously unsuspected areas of interest, but never more so than one day in August 1968. She was in Dallas recovering from a fall in which she had cracked several ribs. I picked her up one day for a doctor's appointment, and as I started the car, the radio came on. A symphony was being played. When I reached over to turn it off, she said, "No, leave it. The Beethoven Eighth is a favorite of mine.
> 
> That was a surprise - a soprano, even a Callas, who loved and recognized Beethoven's Eighth! As I drove and she listened, Callas became more and more impatient. "That phrase is wrong. Where's the line going? No! What's he doing there? It doesn't breathe. Oh, this is nonsense." We reached the doctor's office before the record had finished, and she insisted on sitting in the parking lot until the end to find out who the conductor was. After the final chord, the announcer said, "You have just heard a performance of the Eighth Symphony of Beethoven with the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by George Szell."
> 
> "Well, she sighed, "you see what we have been reduced to. We are now in a time when a Szell is considered a master. How small he was next to Furtwängler." Reeling in disbelief - not at her verdict, with which I agreed, but from the unvarnished acuteness of it - I stammered, "But how do you know Furtwängler? You never sang with him."
> 
> "How do you think?" She stared at me with equal disbelief. "He started his career after the war in Italy. I heard dozens of his concerts there. To me, he _was _Beethoven."
> 
> Best and Worst Recordings: Furtwängler



"The majority of classical music lovers disagree with him."

No they don't. Most don't even mention those recordings. And the few loud ones that do, chalk them up as the greatest thing ever.

"There is nothing horrendously “bad” about the playing in either performance I mentioned above, and certainly not bad enough to outweigh the superb musicianship"

Objectively there is. Now you may not care, and thats fine. But it's clear as day.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> Objectively there is. Now you may not care, and thats fine. But it's clear as day.


You can “objectively” nitpick at every recording in the catalogue. The question of how “perfect” a recording is and whether this outweighs the musical virtues are inherently subjective. You cannot avoid this reality, no matter how hard you try to spin it. A competent reviewer has to face this. Like I said, your assertion that you are the “objective” person in the room in hating this recording is inherently nonsensical. It highlights your obvious inability to even address its musical value.




Steven4570 said:


> "The majority of classical music lovers disagree with him."
> 
> No they don't. Most don't even mention those recordings. And the few loud ones that do, chalk them up as the greatest thing ever.


And spare us the BS. You do not speak for some imagined silent majority that hates the Furtwängler Beethoven 9th. You are speaking for yourself and your preference. You like clean, tidy performances. That’s you. I like dramatic performances that plumb the spiritual depths. That’s me.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You can “objectively” nitpick at every recording in the catalogue. The question of how “perfect” a recording is and whether this outweighs the musical virtues are inherently subjective. You cannot avoid this reality, no matter how hard you try to spin it. A competent reviewer has to face this. Like I said, your assertion that you are the “objective” person in the room in hating this recording is inherently nonsensical. It highlights your obvious inability to even address its musical value.



Given how much better other recordings are, in all aspects, it's not nitpicking, it's at the bottom rung compared to what else is out there. But if you've actually listened to all of the recordings out there and can honestly say that the Furtwängler and Horenstein recording is better, not just that you like it better, is just crazy.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> Given how much better other recordings are, in all aspects, it's not nitpicking, it's at the bottom rung compared to what else is out there. But if you've actually listened to all of the recordings out there and can honestly say that the Furtwängler and Horenstein recording is better, not just that you like it better, is just crazy.


It’s not crazy unless you are clinical, soulless, and cannot rate music outside of a simplistic criteria of how perfectly precise a recording is. I am not exactly alone in my opinion of these two recordings! And I have done exhaustive surveys of both works comparing every recording held to any regard.

Do you understand what drama is? When I hear the first statement of the opening motif of the Beethoven 9th in Furtwängler’s 1942 recording, it is the most dramatic, powerful - even violent - of any recording I have heard. Even people who think the performance is too intensely extreme admit to this. I could care less about the strings not being exactly together when I hear music being performed with such absolute involvement and commitment. How do you not understand this concept?


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It’s not crazy unless you are clinical, soulless, and cannot rate music outside of a simplistic criteria of how perfectly precise a recording is. I am not exactly alone in my opinion of these two recordings! And I have done exhaustive surveys of both works comparing every recording held to any regard.
> 
> Do you understand what drama is? When I hear the first statement of the opening motif of the Beethoven 9th in Furtwängler’s 1942 recording, it is the most dramatic, powerful - even violent - of any recording I have heard. Even people who think the performance is too intensely extreme admit to this. I could care less about the strings not being exactly together when I hear music being performed with such absolute involvement and commitment. How do you not understand this concept?


I think he’s saying, that Furtwängler doesn’t have a monopoly on intensity and spirituality. There are lot of performances with absolute involvement and commitment, where the orchestra also plays together and with perfect intonation, on top of being recorded better.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> I think he’s saying, that Furtwängler doesn’t have a monopoly on intensity and spirituality. There are lot of performances with absolute involvement and commitment, where the orchestra also plays together and with perfect intonation, on top of being recorded better.


No, he is not even addressing the musical aspects of the performance outside of simple clarity of sound and intonation. And, again, I am not alone in singling out this performance for its dramatic intensity, even among other Furtwängler performances. This is not some sort of newsflash. Again, even people who don’t like this recording will often say it is because the extremes of emotion are too much.

Why can’t Hurwitz admit the simple truth? Drama, intensity, and spirituality are lower on his list of priorities. He needs precision and clear sound. Simple. Why this need to make the bogus claim that recordings like this one and the Horenstein Mahler 8th have no redeeming musical value and are only held up by imaginary claims of greatness. That’s ludicrous.

Pretty sound is a static quality. In the works of Beethoven and Mahler, dramatic narrative and interpretive genius carry the day. Once my ear adjusts to the sound quality, I am much more interested in what the musicians are saying than how well recorded or perfectly together they are.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> But if you've actually listened to all of the recordings out there and can honestly say that the Furtwängler and Horenstein recording is better, not just that you like it better, is just crazy.


And for the record, this is my current ranked list of recommendable Beethoven 9ths:

*Essentials:*
Wilhelm Furtwängler (3/22/42) (Tahra, Music & Arts, Pristine)
Wilhelm Furtwängler (7/29/51) (Tahra, Orfeo, EMI)
Wilhelm Furtwängler (8/22/54) (Audite, Tahra, Pristine)
Otto Klemperer (1961) (Testament BBC)
Otto Klemperer (1957) (Testament)
Ferenc Fricsay (DG)
Herbert von Karajan (1976) (DG)
Leonard Bernstein (1979) (DG)
Karl Böhm (1972) (DG)
Leonard Bernstein (1989) (DG)
Georg Solti (1972) (Decca)
Andre Cluytens (EMI, Royal Classics)
Bruno Walter (1955) (Orfeo)
Arturo Toscanini (1938) (Music & Arts, ATRA)
Hermann Abendroth (12/31/50, RSOB) (Tahra, Urania)
Carl Schuricht (1959) (Testament)
Herbert von Karajan (1962) (DG)
Felix Weingartner (1935) (Opus, Naxos, Avid)
Rafael Kubelik (Orfeo)
Fritz Reiner (RCA)
Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Decca)

*Further listening: *
Wilhelm Furtwängler (5/31/53) (DG)
Rafael Kubelik (DG)
Willem Mengelberg (Philips, NM Classics)
Fritz Busch (DG, Guild, Arlecchino)
Otto Klemperer (1957) (EMI)
Eugen Jochum (Philips)
Erich Leinsdorf (RCA)
Charles Munch (RCA, EMI Great Conductors)
Christoph von Dohnanyi (Telarc)
Leopold Stokowski (1967) (Decca)
Charles Mackerras/Royal Liverpool PO (1991) (EMI)
John Eliot Gardiner (DG Archiv)

And my list of Mahler 8ths:

*Essentials:*
Jascha Horenstein (BBC)
Dimitri Mitropoulos (Orfeo, Music & Arts)
Leonard Bernstein (DG)
Georg Solti (Decca)

*Further listening: *
Wyn Morris (Pickwick)
Hermann Scherchen (Tahra)
Leopold Stokowski (1950) (Archipel, United)
Eduard Flipse (RPO, Scribendum)
Claudio Abbado (1995) (DG)
Klaus Tennstedt(EMI)
Giuseppe Sinopoli (DG)


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And for the record, this is my current ranked list of recommendable Beethoven 9ths:
> 
> *Essentials:*
> Wilhelm Furtwängler (3/22/42) (Tahra, Music & Arts, Pristine)
> Wilhelm Furtwängler (7/29/51) (Tahra, Orfeo, EMI)
> Wilhelm Furtwängler (8/22/54) (Audite, Tahra, Pristine)
> Otto Klemperer (1961) (Testament BBC)
> Otto Klemperer (1957) (Testament)
> Ferenc Fricsay (DG)
> Herbert von Karajan (1976) (DG)
> Leonard Bernstein (1979) (DG)
> Karl Böhm (1972) (DG)
> Leonard Bernstein (1989) (DG)
> Georg Solti (1972) (Decca)
> Andre Cluytens (EMI, Royal Classics)
> Bruno Walter (1955) (Orfeo)
> Arturo Toscanini (1938) (Music & Arts, ATRA)
> Hermann Abendroth (12/31/50, RSOB) (Tahra, Urania)
> Carl Schuricht (1959) (Testament)
> Herbert von Karajan (1962) (DG)
> Felix Weingartner (1935) (Opus, Naxos, Avid)
> Rafael Kubelik (Orfeo)
> Fritz Reiner (RCA)
> Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt (Decca)
> 
> *Further listening: *
> Wilhelm Furtwängler (5/31/53) (DG)
> Rafael Kubelik (DG)
> Willem Mengelberg (Philips, NM Classics)
> Fritz Busch (DG, Guild, Arlecchino)
> Otto Klemperer (1957) (EMI)
> Eugen Jochum (Philips)
> Erich Leinsdorf (RCA)
> Charles Munch (RCA, EMI Great Conductors)
> Christoph von Dohnanyi (Telarc)
> Leopold Stokowski (1967) (Decca)
> Charles Mackerras/Royal Liverpool PO (1991) (EMI)
> John Eliot Gardiner (DG Archiv)
> 
> And my list of Mahler 8ths:
> 
> *Essentials:*
> Jascha Horenstein (BBC)
> Dimitri Mitropoulos (Orfeo, Music & Arts)
> Leonard Bernstein (DG)
> Georg Solti (Decca)
> 
> *Further listening: *
> Wyn Morris (Pickwick)
> Hermann Scherchen (Tahra)
> Leopold Stokowski (1950) (Archipel, United)
> Eduard Flipse (RPO, Scribendum)
> Claudio Abbado (1995) (DG)
> Klaus Tennstedt(EMI)
> Giuseppe Sinopoli (DG)


What are your thoughts on Barenboim's Warner/Teldec recording?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> What are your thoughts on Barenboim's Warner/Teldec recording?


It’s been many years, but my recollection is being impressed on my first listen and then less so the second time I encountered it, finding it slow and lacking energy. But I’ve been meaning to sample it again. It’s highly regarded in some quarters.


----------



## Red Terror

Steven4570 said:


> I mean, he's kinda right about the Furtwängler 1942 recording though. Objectively, It doesn't deserve the following it has, historical elements aside.


It's a horrid recording and deserves to be bashed.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It’s not crazy unless you are clinical, soulless, and cannot rate music outside of a simplistic criteria of how perfectly precise a recording is. I am not exactly alone in my opinion of these two recordings! And I have done exhaustive surveys of both works comparing every recording held to any regard.
> 
> Do you understand what drama is? When I hear the first statement of the opening motif of the Beethoven 9th in Furtwängler’s 1942 recording, it is the most dramatic, powerful - even violent - of any recording I have heard. Even people who think the performance is too intensely extreme admit to this. I could care less about the strings not being exactly together when I hear music being performed with such absolute involvement and commitment. How do you not understand this concept?


"It’s not crazy unless you are clinical, soulless, and cannot rate music outside of a simplistic criteria of how perfectly precise a recording is."

The drama doesn't make up for how bad the recording is. It's been surpassed many times every in almost every respect.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> The drama doesn't make up for how bad the recording is. It's been surpassed many times every in almost every respect.


The drama is the whole point of the music.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The drama is the whole point of the music.


If it's poorly recorded and poorly played when there are better examples of it out there, no it's not.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Red Terror said:


> It's a horrid recording and deserves to be bashed.


What’s your favorite?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> If it's poorly recorded and poorly played when there are better examples of it out there, no it's not.


I will take recordings that reach further into the heart of the music over better sounding recordings. I feel sorry for people who are limited by the need for sound quality and clinical perfection. They will never experience what I and others have experienced.


----------



## ORigel

Steven4570 said:


> Given how much better other recordings are, in all aspects, it's not nitpicking, it's at the bottom rung compared to what else is out there. But if you've actually listened to all of the recordings out there and can honestly say that the Furtwängler and Horenstein recording is better, not just that you like it better, is just crazy.


Furtwangler has 1951 and 1954 recordings with better sound quality than the wartime Ninth.


----------



## Bulldog

There are many important features of a recording. Arguing about which features are most important is a waste of time; the individual makes these decisions based on his/her own standards.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> But if you've actually listened to all of the recordings out there and can honestly say that the Furtwängler and Horenstein *recording is better, not just that you like it better*, is just crazy.


Dave Hurwitz needs to get it through his thick head that there is no such thing as “objectively” good or bad recordings. It’s a BS concept. There is no such thing as a “bad” recording that countless people across several decades nevertheless also happen to like. That is nonsensical from the point of view of the one making the statement. The recording can have poor sound, but that is only one factor in whether the recording is ultimately “good” or “bad.” These are INHERENTLY SUBJECTIVE terms. You have to weigh the various factors. A competent reviewer cannot avoid this task.

A well-recorded performance can be totally bland, no matter how clear and pristine it sounds. And so if nobody enjoys hearing it, then it’s a bad recording. But if something recorded with 1942 technology is nevertheless so compelling musically that it transcends the sound quality, then it is a GOOD recording.

You are peddling a nonsensical concept. It is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> Furtwangler has 1951 and 1954 recordings with better sound quality than the wartime Ninth.


Most every competent reviewer recognizes the 1942 version is the most intense. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a matter of taste. I do agree that there is a fair argument that the sense of joy in the finale is better communicated in the later recordings. They are all three great, invaluable recordings.


----------



## Becca

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *Most every competent reviewer recognizes* the 1942 version is the most intense. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a matter of taste. I do agree that there is a fair argument that the sense of joy in the finale is better communicated in the later recordings. They are all three great, invaluable recordings.


And if they don't recognize it, I suppose that makes them incompetent ... enough already, give us a break, you like it, you think it's great, we accept that and that's all that counts.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> And if they don't recognize it, I suppose that makes them incompetent ...


In the case of Hurwitz, who avoids the discussion entirely, yes.

It’s not some sort of heretical statement that by and large Furtwängler’s wartime performances were more intense than his later ones, in particular the 9th and the Coriolan overture. Both professional reviewers and average listeners commenting on Amazon can hear this.

The point is that Hurwitz avoids the discussion completely and simply barks “crappy sound!” I’m sorry but he’s a charlatan, not a real reviewer.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I will take recordings that reach further into the heart of the music over better sounding recordings. I feel sorry for people who are limited by the need for sound quality and clinical perfection. They will never experience what I and others have experienced.



"They will never experience what I and others have experienced."

Ok, let's not be so dramatic.


----------



## Malx

Becca said:


> And if they don't recognize it, I suppose that makes them incompetent ... enough already, give us a break, you like it, you think it's great, we accept that and that's all that counts.


Oh come on Becca don't spoil a good argument with a sensible comment - I should say, to quote Monty Python, 'series of contridictions' as it's not even a fully fledged argument!

Alas two extreme positions so veremently held will never meet in the middle .


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Malx said:


> Oh come on Becca don't spoil a good argument with a sensible comment - I should say, to quote Monty Python, 'series of contridictions' as it's not even a fully fledged argument!
> 
> Alas two extreme positions so veremently held will never meet in the middle .


I have stated multiple times on this thread that there are valid arguments that can be made against the very recording I like. The point is not the recording itself.

This is about Hurwitz and his brain-dead, tone deaf analysis that leaves no room for meaningful, intelligent discussion. It’s not his opinion that’s in question. It’s his bogus contention that there can be an “objective” truth outside of that opinion.

There will always be people who like this recording for the reasons stated for it, and there will be people who don’t like it for the reasons stated against it. People have different tastes, priorities, and capacities for nuance. Intelligent people can agree on this fact. To say that it is objectively “garbage” that some people only “imagine” to be great is delusional and sophomoric.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Dave Hurwitz needs to get it through his thick head that there is no such thing as “objectively” good or bad recordings. It’s a BS concept. There is no such thing as a “bad” recording that countless people across several decades nevertheless also happen to like. That is nonsensical from the point of view of the one making the statement. The recording can have poor sound, but that is only one factor in whether the recording is ultimately “good” or “bad.” These are INHERENTLY SUBJECTIVE terms. You have to weigh the various factors. A competent reviewer cannot avoid this task.
> 
> A well-recorded performance can be totally bland, no matter how clear and pristine it sounds. And so if nobody enjoys hearing it, then it’s a bad recording. But if something recorded with 1942 technology is nevertheless so compelling musically that it transcends the sound quality, then it is a GOOD recording.
> 
> You are peddling a nonsensical concept. It is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.



"Dave Hurwitz needs to get it through his thick head that there is no such thing as “objectively” good or bad recordings."

You seriously think there's no such thing as a bad recording and performance? Really? Really Now?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> "Dave Hurwitz needs to get it through his thick head that there is no such thing as “objectively” good or bad recordings."
> 
> You seriously think there's no such thing as a bad recording and performance? Really? Really Now?


It is always subject to debate. That’s the point!

Even the Furtwängler 1942 B9, which I consider the greatest orchestral recording in existence, can be argued against. Likewise the Wand, which Hurwitz touts as the greatest, I find to be dull.

There is no such thing as a recording that is “objectively” good or bad. Art cannot be reduced this way. Such statements only serve the person making them and do nothing to tell the listener whether or not they will like the recording.

Some recordings gain a following and thus may be more likely to appeal to others. Some fail to gain traction with the listening public. That’s the most you can say, other than giving your own opinion. But there is no “objectively true” standard outside of that.


----------



## Malx

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have stated multiple times on this thread that there are valid arguments that can be made against the very recording I like. The point is not the recording itself.
> 
> This is about Hurwitz and his brain-dead, tone deaf analysis that leaves no room for meaningful, intelligent discussion. It’s not his opinion that’s in question. It’s his bogus contention that there can be an “objective” truth outside of that opinion.
> 
> There will always be people who like this recording for the reasons stated for it, and there will be people who don’t like it for the reasons stated against it. People have different tastes, priorities, and capacities for nuance. Intelligent people can agree on this fact. To say that it is objectively “garbage” that some people only “imagine” to be great is delusional and sophomoric.


I get all that, I'm no fan of Hurwitz myself, believing he has too many oft vented prejudices but frankly going back and forth about the same points really isn't going to change entrenched opinions - my comment was meant to be somewhat lighthearted but I sense there is no room for levity in this matter.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is always subject to debate. That’s the point!
> 
> Even the Furtwängler 1942 B9, which I consider the greatest orchestral recording in existence, can be argued against. Likewise the Wand, which Hurwitz touts as the greatest, I find to be dull.
> 
> There is no such thing as a recording that is “objectively” good or bad. Art cannot be reduced this way. Such statements only serve the person making them and do nothing to tell the listener whether or not they will like the recording.
> 
> Some recordings gain a following and thus may be more likely to appeal to others. Some fail to gain traction with the listening public. That’s the most you can say, other than giving your own opinion. But there is no “objectively true” standard outside of that.



"Even the Furtwängler 1942 B9, which I consider the greatest orchestral recording in existence"

........Oh no.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> "Even the Furtwängler 1942 B9, which I consider the greatest orchestral recording in existence"
> 
> ........Oh no.


Many agree with me, including Simon Rattle for example. Sorry you can't hear it yourself. Which is fine, but why deny the fact that it appeals to so many others?


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Many agree with me, including Simon Rattle for example. Sorry you can't hear it yourself. Which is fine, but why deny the fact that it appeals to so many others?


 I hear it just fine. The good doesn't outweigh the bad.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> I hear it just fine. The good doesn't outweigh the bad.


Great, that's your opinion. Others share it, while others like me disagree. We all have different criteria. Your aesthetic is more geared towards pleasant sounds. If you don’t hear that, then you cannot enjoy the recording. Fine, more power to you and others like you.

My aesthetic was summarized previously:

Pretty sound is a static quality. In the works of Beethoven and Mahler, dramatic narrative and interpretive genius carry the day. Once my ear adjusts to the sound quality, I am much more interested in what the musicians are saying than how well recorded or perfectly together they are.

The 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th is the most intense realization of the score I have ever heard. That excites me to the point where I could care less how pretty it sounds. The emotions of the work connect with me more in this recording than in any other. Maybe for some the emotions of Beethoven’s music are not something they connect with as much.


----------



## Becca

What bothers me is that many of the comments reflect a negative judgement on those who disagree...
'capacities for nuance'
'They will never experience what I and others have experienced.'
'But it's clear as day.'
'If you actually listened'


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> What bothers me is that many of the comments reflect a negative judgement on those who disagree...
> 'capacities for nuance'
> 'They will never experience what I and others have experienced.'
> 'But it's clear as day.'
> 'If you actually listened'


Fair enough, but please understand this is coming from a place of battling back against Hurwitz's vitriol. This is not by definition going to be a thread of niceties.

His video entitled "Why Furtwangler's 1942 Nazi 9th Really Sucks" states in the description, "this ramshackle, horribly engineered live recording of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony represents for some poor, delusional souls, the ultimate transcendental statement by the most "spiritual" of all conductors. It's pure bunk. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise."

Only a narrow-minded, obtuse idiot with no capacity for understanding contrary opinions would publish such a thing. I have been much more charitable and understanding of others in this thread than he has been.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

To the point on critical competency, again I am merely stating what should be apparent to any reviewer worth his salt. From professional reviewers to amateur bloggers, you should be able to at least detect the musical qualities even if they are not your cup of tea. A simple google search on best Beethoven 9ths reflect this.

From Norman Lebrecht:

"Watzke was the watchman again in Furtwängler’s next recording at the Berlin Philharmonie in March 1942, but by now everything had changed. The world was at war, Germany was losing and all in the hall knew that their people were committing the most horrendous crime in history. From the symphony’s opening hush there is an intimation of imminent catastrophe. Furtwängler ratchets up the tension, allowing the listener a momentary illusion of familiarity before introducing a twist of expression that throws everything into primal uncertainty. *There are passages in the first movement that remain terrifying at the tenth hearing. *The ‘presto’ movement conveys a sense of destiny, the third movement reaches into bottomless tragedy and the finale withholds the assurance of hope. The performance was staged around a celebration of Adolf Hitler’s 53rd birthday. Some regard it as Furtwängler’s expression of distaste at the regime. This is a devious and dissident reading of the symphony, never imitated or equaled. It ranks with the all-time indispensable recordings."


Then I came across an anonymous blogger who ranks it as among the favorites with Karajan '62 and '77, Fricsay, and Toscanini. Nothing controversial here. He writes:

"The (in)famous "Wartime" 1942 Berlin recording of Beethoven's 9th by Furtwangler, it's thought of by many as the best performance of this symphony ever. *Of course, it's highly subjective, but there can be no denying the sheer intensity of this performance. It's downright terrifying sometimes.* Of course, that may have something to do with who was in the audience, for instance, Goebbels and Himmler to name a couple. This is an absolute top-tier Beethoven 9th, you just have to put up with the sub-par sound that you would expect from a 1942 radio-broadcast recording. Avoid purchasing this on Amazon, the sound quality is beyond terrible, I bought this one from PristineClassical, it is an amazing remastering. Yes, it's still not great sound quality, but it is as good as this performance is ever going to sound."


Then we come to good old TalkClassical, where the recording appears along with other common favorites in a thread about best 9ths.

Writes one person, "I have that one too, as well as the Bayreuth and Lucerne. I was going to include the Berlin 1942 as a fourth choice but changed my mind. I find it to be the most powerful of the three. I used to like it a lot *but I now find it just a bit too heavy in the drama department*."

Writes another, "I also have to go with Furtwangler, 1942. *The intensity and ecstasy, especially in the finale, is unparalleled for me*..."

So you see exactly what I was talking about earlier. Even when people don't like it as much, they will say it is due to its being too extreme in its tension. They are still talking about the _music_ and not the superficial qualities that Hurwitz can only focus on.

Hurwitz's tone deaf, simplistic review of this recording as being "garbage" that is only "imagined" to possess great qualities by "delusional souls" is simply reflective of a vitriolic charlatan who is out of touch and cannot even acknowledge other viewpoints. Hurwitz is the real garbage.


----------



## EvaBaron

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Great, that's your opinion. Others share it, while others like me disagree. We all have different criteria. Your aesthetic is more geared towards pleasant sounds. If you don’t hear that, then you cannot enjoy the recording. Fine, more power to you and others like you.
> 
> My aesthetic was summarized previously:
> 
> Pretty sound is a static quality. In the works of Beethoven and Mahler, dramatic narrative and interpretive genius carry the day. Once my ear adjusts to the sound quality, I am much more interested in what the musicians are saying than how well recorded or perfectly together they are.
> 
> The 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th is the most intense realization of the score I have ever heard. That excites me to the point where I could care less how pretty it sounds. The emotions of the work connect with me more in this recording than in any other. Maybe for some the emotions of Beethoven’s music are not something they connect with as much.


You know what I find curious? Furtwängler 1951 Bayreuth performance runs 17:50 in the first movement I believe and Fricsay does 16:41. When I listen to the Fricsay I feel like it can’t get any slower otherwise the intensity would be lost but fürtwangler proves it possible. Because he doesn’t keep a static tempo, but a very flexible one. And he believes in his interpretation and presents it very convincingly, like all great conductors do, and he makes it work. I don’t always like his interpretations, because some works don’t benefit from his conducting style IMO, but some works are perfect for it, like Brahms’ 4th symphony. I imprinted on Kleiber, and their finales both run 9 minutes, but Furtwangler’s interpretation is much more exiting because he speeds up at the perfect time in the last intense 4 minutes, and now the Kleiber feels slow in that section even though they both run at 9 minutes as a whole. It’s just a shame that I can’t get used to the sound quality of mono performance. One exception is Heifetz’s early 1950’s recordings on RCA. That’s because of Heifetz’s interpretation that is impossible to beat IMO for his intensity and impeccable playing and RCA’s living stereo being as good as it was in the 50’s. For the rest, I only do stereo, so 1957 and onwards. And Furtwangler’s performances are just too poorly recorded. Maybe an occasional listen, but never a reference recording. Orchestral colours are important too


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

EvaBaron said:


> Orchestral colours are important too


You can still hear orchestral colors on older recordings. For example, Stokowski's lush Philadelphia sound can still be heard even in 1920s recordings.

And Simon Rattle had this to say about the 1942 9th:

"Rattle is on record as saying that Furtwängler’s 1942 recording of the _Choral_ Symphony epitomises everything genuinely great about the Berlin Philharmonic, its string sound in particular."

Beethoven: Symphonies (Berlin Philharmonic/Sir Simon Rattle)

I agree. You can hear the deep, bass heavy sound of the BPO in this recording, particularly on Pristine, Melodiya, or Tahra transfers.


----------



## ORigel

I believe the 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9 is an awful recording and I hardly ever listen to it.

However, everyone who already knows Beethoven's Ninth from better recordings or performances should listen to the wartime recording because it's uniquely intense.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> I believe the 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9 is an awful recording and I hardly ever listen to it.
> 
> However, everyone who already knows Beethoven's Ninth from better recordings or performances should listen to the wartime recording because it's uniquely intense.


How about…it’s uniquely intense, and, depending on your tastes, you may love it or you may hate it.

Just as long as we get away from the Hurwitz Doctrine where you are only deemed rational if you hate the recording like he does.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Incidentally, I never recommend a historical recording as a first or only version. I always keep at least one good sounding recording for reference no matter how much I love a performance in poorer sound. But more often than not it is the better performance I return to.

For the Beethoven 9th, I waffle between Fricsay and Karajan’76 as the better stereo version. Sometimes Bernstein/VPO.

So many great 9ths. I listened to Schmidt-Isserstedt last night. Not the most exciting conducting, but the choral contribution is among the best on record, both in performance and sound. If only Karajan could have had a choir like that one.


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How about…it’s uniquely intense, and, depending on your tastes, you may love it or you may hate it.
> 
> Just as long as we get away from the Hurwitz Doctrine where you are only deemed rational if you hate the recording like he does.


The recording is terrible and intense, regardless of anyone's preferences.

Hurwitz does not hear the _power and intensity_ of the recording that almost everyone else hears. So Hurwitz can rightly say that the recording is terrible, against the consensus of listeners who pretend the recording is one of the greatest ever. However, Hurwitz thinks people love the recording because of its association with Hitler and bandwagon, no other reason. He even plays samples thinking that his viewers would agree that the recording is overhyped and nothing special.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> against the consensus of listeners who pretend the recording is one of the greatest ever.


I don’t know if you are speaking for yourself or Hurwitz here, but suffice it to say there is no such thing as “pretending” a recording is anything other than what one hears it to be. I hear it to be the greatest recording of the 9th, as it moves me like no other. That’s my criteria and my opinion. Others hear it the same way, though I wouldn’t call it a consensus opinion. It is among the most acclaimed recordings, alongside the ‘51 and ‘54 Furt, the ‘63 and ‘76 Karajan, Fricsay, Toscanini, Klemperer, Bernstein ‘79, Bohm ‘72, Szell, Reiner, Mackerras, and maybe Gardiner


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don’t know if you are speaking for yourself or Hurwitz here, but suffice it to say there is no such thing as “pretending” a recording is anything other than what one hears it to be. I hear it to be the greatest recording of the 9th, as it moves me like no other. That’s my criteria and my opinion. Others hear it the same way, though I wouldn’t call it a consensus opinion. It is among the most acclaimed recordings, alongside the ‘51 and ‘54 Furt, the ‘63 and ‘76 Karajan, Fricsay, Toscanini, Klemperer, Bernstein ‘79, Bohm ‘72, Szell, Reiner, Mackerras, and maybe Gardiner


It is not a great recording, because it has such poor sound quality that much of it is a staticky blob of sound. A great recording has to have reasonably decent sound so the listener actually knows how the piece goes from the recording.

It's that simple.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> It is not a great recording, because it has such poor sound quality that much of it is a staticky blob of sound. A great recording has to have reasonably decent sound so the listener actually knows how the piece goes from the recording.
> 
> It's that simple.


IN.
YOUR.
OPINION.

I have known this recording for three decades. It moves me like no other. It gives me an experience like no other. To me that makes it the greatest 9th. Others feel the same way.

Deal with it.


----------



## RobertJTh

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don’t know if you are speaking for yourself or Hurwitz here, but suffice it to say there is no such thing as “pretending” a recording is anything other than what one hears it to be. I hear it to be the greatest recording of the 9th, as it moves me like no other. That’s my criteria and my opinion. Others hear it the same way, though I wouldn’t call it a consensus opinion. It is among the most acclaimed recordings, alongside the ‘51 and ‘54 Furt, the ‘63 and ‘76 Karajan, Fricsay, Toscanini, Klemperer, Bernstein ‘79, Bohm ‘72, Szell, Reiner, Mackerras, and maybe Gardiner


I guess this isn't the place to discuss favorites, but as long as we're talking historic performances, I'd love to include Klemperer's live recordings from the 50's, specially the one with the Concertgebouworkest, from 1956 if I remember correctly. Amazingly intense performance in pretty good mono.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RobertJTh said:


> I guess this isn't the place to discuss favorites, but as long as we're talking historic performances, I'd love to include Klemperer's live recordings from the 50's, specially the one with the Concertgebouworkest, from 1956 if I remember correctly. Amazingly intense performance in pretty good mono.


After Furtwängler, my favorite 9ths are Klemperer’s live renditions, the 1956 RCO you mention, 1957 Philharmonia on Testament, and 1961 Philharmonia on BBC/Testament. My slight preference is for the latter - it simply made the bigger impact on me - but they are all great.

There are some who prefer anonymous interpreters, people who “get out of the way” of the music. I feel just the opposite. It is the larger-than-life personalities who breathe the life into Beethoven’s music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

But back to Hurwitz, the bottom line is that at some point he has to get it through his thick head that artistry is a real thing that exists, no matter how hard he tries to deny it. When people respond to a great performance, they are not simply responding based on accurate technical reproduction. People are moved by great artistry. What Hurwitz does time and time again in his constant assault on artists and artistry is he tries to invent alternate theories to explain them away. It's a delusional exercise.

He can't acknowledge the acclaim for the 1942 Furtwangler B9, so he explains it away as based on historical context. He cannot acknowledge the acclaim for Maria Callas, so he explains it away as based on the circumstances of her life drama. He cannot acknowledge the acclaim for Kathleeen Ferrier, so he explains it away as British bias and sentiment for her early, tragic death. He always has a convenient, self-serving, delusional rationalization to explain why others hear what he cannot.

He's flat wrong on every count. Whether you agree with it or not, people respond to artistry. It's not all about superficial considerations of intonation and pretty sounds.

Witness his brain dead, tone deaf review of Horenstein's Mahler 8th:

"After the final chords, in which cymbals and tam-tam manage the spectacular feat of not being quite together even once, the audience predictably goes crazy, thereby proving that even badly conducted Mahler makes an impression."

He has no concept of the artistry of the performance - he cannot hear it - so he only focuses on minor imperfections and chalks up the audience response to being incidental to the performance. He is delusional.

Another more hideous example of Hurwitz's insane hatred of artistry is where he used the occasion of Gergiev's being fired from Munich after the Ukraine invasion to make a bizarre, even grotesque "point," that this proves that artists are indeed "expendable." What??!! What kind of delusional, soulless cretin connects the dots between two completely unrelated ideas? Who besides Hurwitz would be so tasteless? How desperate is he to discredit artistry?

If response to artistry were truly a random event, with no common consensus whatsoever apart from whether players are perfectly together, then he might have a point about artistry being something “imaginary.” But that is not the case, and it eats at Hurwitz. His assault on artistry is a delusional, fruitless exercise to avoid the truth that he cannot escape: there really is something in the performance itself apart from what he refers to as audibly “tangible.” Just because it is somewhat difficult to explain does not make it any less real. Most importantly, it is what people respond to, which is why we all care in the first place!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> It is not a great recording, because it has such poor sound quality that much of it is a staticky blob of sound. A great recording has to have reasonably decent sound so the listener actually knows how the piece goes from the recording.


I can't think of a single recording in general circulation - not even the 1913 Nikisch Beethoven 5th - where the sound is so bad that I can't tell what is happening musically. What is it you are listening to? Are you really trying or just giving up after a few minutes?

I honestly have to go back to 1902 to find this example of a live fragment, where yes, I can't quite tell what is happening musically. Well...almost can't tell.


----------



## VitellioScarpia

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But back to Hurwitz, the bottom line is that at some point he has to get it through his thick head that artistry is a real thing that exists, no matter how hard he tries to deny it. When people respond to a great performance, they are not simply responding based on accurate technical reproduction. People are moved by great artistry. What Hurwitz does time and time again in his constant assault on artists and artistry is he tries to invent alternate theories to explain them away. It's a delusional exercise.
> 
> He can't acknowledge the acclaim for the 1942 Furtwangler B9, so he explains it away as based on historical context. He cannot acknowledge the acclaim for Maria Callas, so he explains it away as based on the circumstances of her life drama. He cannot acknowledge the acclaim for Kathleeen Ferrier, so he explains it away as British bias and sentiment for her early, tragic death. He always has a convenient, self-serving, delusional rationalization to explain why others hear what he cannot.
> 
> He's flat wrong on every count. Whether you agree with it or not, people respond to artistry. It's not all about superficial considerations of intonation and pretty sounds.
> 
> Witness his brain dead, tone deaf review of Horenstein's Mahler 8th:
> 
> ...
> 
> He has no concept of the artistry of the performance - he cannot hear it - so he only focuses on minor imperfections and chalks up the audience response to being incidental to the performance. He is delusional.
> 
> Another more hideous example of Hurwitz's insane hatred of artistry is where he used the occasion of Gergiev's being fired from Munich after the Ukraine invasion to make a bizarre, even grotesque "point," that this proves that artists are indeed "expendable." What??!! What kind of delusional, soulless cretin connects the dots between two completely unrelated ideas? Who besides Hurwitz would be so tasteless? How desperate is he to discredit artistry?
> 
> If response to artistry were truly a random event, with no common consensus whatsoever apart from whether players are perfectly together, then he might have a point about artistry being something “imaginary.” But that is not the case, and it eats at Hurwitz. His assault on artistry is a delusional, fruitless exercise to avoid the truth that he cannot escape: there really is something in the performance itself apart from what he refers to as audibly “tangible.” Just because it is somewhat difficult to explain does not make it any less real. Most importantly, it is what people respond to, which is why we all care in the first place!


Your writings are sound as vitriolic as the accusations you make of Hurwitz. If you do not like Hurwitz' reviews, don't read them, don't watch the videos. It is that simple. This thread is emblematic of the worst of TalkClassical and the reason I stopped my participation a couple of years ago. I read it sporadically in the hope that it has improved. It has not. 

Moreover, your statements regarding his views on Callas are inaccurate. Hurwitz hailed all of Callas' studio opera recordings as essential in terms of Callas' musical genius, whatever the controversial opinions others may have about her voice. Nowhere in his assessment he bases the recommendations on her life drama.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

VitellioScarpia said:


> Your writings are sound as vitriolic as the accusations you make of Hurwitz. If you do not like Hurwitz' reviews, don't read them, don't watch the videos. It is that simple. This thread is emblematic of the worst of TalkClassical and the reason I stopped my participation a couple of years ago. I read it sporadically in the hope that it has improved. It has not.
> 
> Moreover, your statements regarding his views on Callas are inaccurate. Hurwitz hailed all of Callas' studio opera recordings as essential in terms of Callas' musical genius, whatever the controversial opinions others may have about her voice. Nowhere in his assessment he bases the recommendations on her life drama.


Spare me the crocodile tears. Hurwitz deserves no sympathy for the way he demeans others, both artists and those who dare to like the performers that he detests. He is bad for classical music. Atrociously tasteless and out of touch.

And his comments on the reasons for Callas’s acclaim were stated right here just recently at 7:00


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> IN.
> YOUR.
> OPINION.
> 
> I have known this recording for three decades. It moves me like no other. It gives me an experience like no other. To me that makes it the greatest 9th. Others feel the same way.
> 
> Deal with it.


The recording objectively sucks. Most listeners have an opinion that the recording is "moving," but that is only an opinion.

Those listeners are "moved" by a bad (but unique) recording. Maybe they would be even more moved by a super intense staticky hiss from a recording which doesn't pick up any of the real music at all.


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I can't think of a single recording in general circulation - not even the 1913 Nikisch Beethoven 5th - where the sound is so bad that I can't tell what is happening musically. What is it you are listening to? Are you really trying or just giving up after a few minutes?
> 
> I honestly have to go back to 1902 to find this example of a live fragment, where yes, I can't quite tell what is happening musically. Well...almost can't tell.


You only like the Furtwangler recording because you know how the music is _supposed _to go from higher quality recordings. You miss a lot of detail listening to a staticky blob with prominemt percussion.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> The recording objectively sucks. Most listeners have an opinion that the recording is "moving," but that is only an opinion.
> 
> Those listeners are "moved" by a bad (but unique) recording. Maybe they would be even more moved by a super intense staticky hiss from a recording which doesn't pick up any of the real music at all.


What a load of total nonsense


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

ORigel said:


> You only like the Furtwangler recording because you know how the music is _supposed _to go from higher quality recordings. You miss a lot of detail listening to a staticky blob with prominemt percussion.


No, wrong. I miss some transparency and detail which is regrettable, but I hear how the music is going.

Some of you are really exaggerating how bad the recording quality is. You can still hear the music. It just isn’t crystal clear, and some people don’t like that.

Drop the “objectively bad” nonsense. It’s a dead horse.


----------



## Bulldog

I'm not familiar with Furwangler's recordings, so I decided to give a listen to his 1942 Beethoven 9th on Youtube. 

Anyways, I found the sound decent/good enough and the performance among the best I've heard of the work.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bulldog said:


> I'm not familiar with Furwangler's recordings, so I decided to give a listen to his 1942 Beethoven 9th on Youtube.
> 
> Anyways, I found the sound decent/good enough and the performance among the best I've heard of the work.


According to Hurwitz, it’s okay to have this opinion as long as you also admit that it objectively sucks. Otherwise you’re crazy.


----------



## ORigel

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, wrong. I miss some transparency and detail which is regrettable, but I hear how the music is going.
> 
> Some of you are really exaggerating how bad the recording quality is. You can still hear the music. It just isn’t crystal clear, and some people don’t like that.
> 
> Drop the “objectively bad” nonsense. It’s a dead horse.


You know that much of the "intensity" is from the roughness of the low quality recording? That the performance itself sounded very different and possibly might have been not all that good?


----------



## Forster

Was the point reached in this debate where "recording" (the technical audio capture of a performance) and "interpretation" (the conductor's reading of the score and its translation into performance) were separated in the debate?


----------



## fbjim

Do we really need two separate Hurwitz threads? 

I think it's fine to say sound quality is "objectively poor" without delving into weird debates, but how important that is will matter a lot differently depending on the tastes of the listener.

I think Hurwitz came up writing for Hi Fidelity back when classical was an audiophile prestige genre and he always talks about recording quality so it's obviously more important to him than it would be for other listeners. Me, I love the sound of the "classic" stereo era perhaps even more than current recordings, but have trouble with old live historical recordings. It all depends on what you're looking for or willing to tolerate.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Fair enough, but please understand this is coming from a place of battling back against Hurwitz's vitriol.


I can't help thinking that you'd be a much happier person if you were to unsubscribe from Hurwitz's Youtube channel. Life is too short for me to waste time on people I hold in contempt.


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------------


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But back to Hurwitz, the bottom line is that at some point he has to get it through his thick head that artistry is a real thing that exists, no matter how hard he tries to deny it. When people respond to a great performance, they are not simply responding based on accurate technical reproduction. People are moved by great artistry. What Hurwitz does time and time again in his constant assault on artists and artistry is he tries to invent alternate theories to explain them away. It's a delusional exercise.
> 
> He can't acknowledge the acclaim for the 1942 Furtwangler B9, so he explains it away as based on historical context. He cannot acknowledge the acclaim for Maria Callas, so he explains it away as based on the circumstances of her life drama. He cannot acknowledge the acclaim for Kathleeen Ferrier, so he explains it away as British bias and sentiment for her early, tragic death. He always has a convenient, self-serving, delusional rationalization to explain why others hear what he cannot.
> 
> He's flat wrong on every count. Whether you agree with it or not, people respond to artistry. It's not all about superficial considerations of intonation and pretty sounds.
> 
> Witness his brain dead, tone deaf review of Horenstein's Mahler 8th:
> 
> "After the final chords, in which cymbals and tam-tam manage the spectacular feat of not being quite together even once, the audience predictably goes crazy, thereby proving that even badly conducted Mahler makes an impression."
> 
> He has no concept of the artistry of the performance - he cannot hear it - so he only focuses on minor imperfections and chalks up the audience response to being incidental to the performance. He is delusional.
> 
> Another more hideous example of Hurwitz's insane hatred of artistry is where he used the occasion of Gergiev's being fired from Munich after the Ukraine invasion to make a bizarre, even grotesque "point," that this proves that artists are indeed "expendable." What??!! What kind of delusional, soulless cretin connects the dots between two completely unrelated ideas? Who besides Hurwitz would be so tasteless? How desperate is he to discredit artistry?
> 
> If response to artistry were truly a random event, with no common consensus whatsoever apart from whether players are perfectly together, then he might have a point about artistry being something “imaginary.” But that is not the case, and it eats at Hurwitz. His assault on artistry is a delusional, fruitless exercise to avoid the truth that he cannot escape: there really is something in the performance itself apart from what he refers to as audibly “tangible.” Just because it is somewhat difficult to explain does not make it any less real. Most importantly, it is what people respond to, which is why we all care in the first place!



the bottom line is that at some point he has to get it through his thick head that artistry is a real thing that exists, no matter how hard he tries to deny it. When people respond to a great performance, they are not simply responding based on accurate technical reproduction. People are moved by great artistry. What Hurwitz does time and time again in his constant assault on artists and artistry is he tries to invent alternate theories to explain them away. It's a delusional exercise."

Part of artistry is playing at a given level. You can have both. This idea that hurwitz hates artistry is delusional. You want to be considered the best, you need to do both. We're not talking about splitting hairs here on a technical level. There's clear examples of bad sound and bad playing in said recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> Part of artistry is playing at a given level. You can have both. This idea that hurwitz hates artistry is delusional. You want to be considered the best, you need to do both. We're not talking about splitting hairs here on a technical level. There's clear examples of bad sound and bad playing in said recordings.


No one notices these supposed examples of “bad playing” that Hurwitz focuses on. No one notices and no one cares. He is a persnickety curmudgeon with no ear for actual music.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No one notices these supposed examples of “bad playing” that Hurwitz focuses on. No one notices and no one cares. He is a persnickety curmudgeon with no ear for actual music.


They 100% do, except the small but very loud staunch supporters. It's clear as day. Now you may not care. Which is fine. 

"He is a persnickety curmudgeon with no ear for actual music."

Oh boy.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> They 100% do, except the small but very loud staunch supporters.


That’s your delusion. You think everyone agrees with you about Furtwängler, and Ferrier, and Horenstein, and Anthony Collins’ Sibelius, etc.

They don’t agree with you, or else these recordings wouldn’t be as continuously popular as they are. Not everyone in the world is as obsessed as Hurwitz is with precision, clarity, and perfection. Not everyone is as deaf as Hurwitz is to soul, passion, and artistry. This is a man who can’t even appreciate a beloved work like the Mozart Requiem.


----------



## Neo Romanza

@Brahmsianhorn, I can't believe I'm defending Hurwitz who I generally loathe, but just because he doesn't like something you like (for whatever reasons) doesn't make him someone who listens without a heart and mind. He has his reasons for disliking something (as unjust as they may be) just as you have your reasons for disliking something (as unjust as those may be). No one has to argue their taste in music to someone else, because this is an argument that's wholly unnecessary. I don't give a rat's behind what he thinks about Furtwängler. If I'm moved by his performance(s), then I'm satisfied. You said yourself that many people love Furtwängler's conducting and that's great, but you're not going to change any minds with your continuous defense of this conductor and the recordings he made. If I hear one of his performances and I'm not satisfied with it, then there's no amount of convincing that'll change my mind unless I decide to give it another chance, but that's _my_ decision. I think your dissatisfaction with Hurwitz has turned into an obsession at this juncture or, at least, this is the impression I'm getting by reading many of your posts in this thread.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Neo Romanza said:


> @Brahmsianhorn, I can't believe I'm defending Hurwitz who I generally loathe, but just because he doesn't like something you like (for whatever reasons) doesn't make him someone who listens without a heart and mind. He has his reasons for disliking something (as unjust as they may be) just as you have your reasons for disliking something (as unjust as those may be). No one has to argue their taste in music to someone else, because this is an argument that's wholly unnecessary. I don't give a rat's behind what he thinks about Furtwängler. If I'm moved by his performance(s), then I'm satisfied. You said yourself that many people love Furtwängler's conducting and that's great, but you're not going to change any minds with your continuous defense of this conductor and the recordings he made. If I hear one of his performances and I'm not satisfied with it, then there's no amount of convincing that'll change my mind unless I decide to give it another chance, but that's _my_ decision. I think your dissatisfaction with Hurwitz has turned into an obsession at this juncture or, at least, this is the impression I'm getting by reading many of your posts in this thread.


Have you actually been following the conversation? I am the one saying reasonable minds can disagree and people have different tastes. Hurwitz is the one saying there is only one objectively true opinion. If you can’t actually follow the point of the debate, then kindly butt out.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you actually been following the conversation? I am the one saying reasonable minds can disagree and people have different tastes. Hurwitz is the one saying there is only one objectively true opinion. If you can’t actually follow the point of the debate, then kindly butt out.


Who cares what Hurwitz thinks. Your mind isn't going to change and neither will his, so get over it. Anyway, yeah, I've been following the debate and it was a huge waste of time, because you've proven nothing other than you dislike Hurwitz. We all get it, so maybe you should move onto something else? How talking about the music you love? That sounds like a more fruitful avenue, then this dead horse you've been beating for 24 pages now.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Neo Romanza said:


> Who cares what Hurwitz thinks. Your mind isn't going to change and neither will his, so get over it. Anyway, yeah, I've been following the debate and it was a huge waste of time, because you've proven nothing other than you dislike Hurwitz. We all get it, so maybe you should move onto something else? How talking about the music you love? That sounds like a more fruitful avenue, then this dead horse you've been beating for 24 pages now.


I did not restart the conversation today. “Steven” did. Why don’t you get a life instead of butting into a conversation you don’t care about?


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I did not restart the conversation today. “Steven” did. Why don’t you get a life instead of butting into a conversation you don’t care about?


You're missing my point, Brahmsianhorn. It's not a question of who initiated the conversation, it's a question of how long are you going to go on these diatribes about Hurwitz? I've made little comments about him from time to time, but you've made it what seems like your sole mission on this forum to run him in the dirt continuously with no let up on your end. It's ironic that you've told me to get a life when you're the one who is obsessed with someone who you dislike to the point that it's run for 24 pages (not to mention all the other commentary you've made on the other Hurwitz threads).

Anyway, you do what you want, but I'm telling you that you've grown tiresome and I'm sure many other members feel the same way.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is a man who can’t even appreciate a beloved work like the Mozart Requiem.


When/where did he say that? He doesn't appreciate it?


----------



## hammeredklavier

We can always battle Hurwitz on his own soil, by creating videos critiquing him on youtube.
(Incidentally, Brahmsianhorn has a channel with plenty of subscribers of his own. Am I right?)


----------



## Neo Romanza

hammeredklavier said:


> We can always battle Hurwitz on his own soil, by creating videos critiquing him on youtube.
> (Incidentally, Brahmsianhorn has a channel with plenty of subscribers of his own, btw.)


Anyone who is interested in battling Hurwitz with YouTube videos is actually the one who needs to "get a life".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Neo Romanza said:


> You're missing my point, Brahmsianhorn. It's not a question of who initiated the conversation, it's a question of how long are you going to go on these diatribes about Hurwitz? I've made little comments about him from time to time, but you've made it what seems like your sole mission on this forum to run him in the dirt continuously with no let up on your end. It's ironic that you've told me to get a life when you're the one who is obsessed with someone who you dislike to the point that it's run for 24 pages (not to mention all the other commentary you've made on the other Hurwitz threads).
> 
> Anyway, you do what you want, but I'm telling you that you've grown tiresome and I'm sure many other members feel the same way.


Steven wanted to get back into it today, so I got back into it with him. Do you have something substantive to add to the conversation as opposed to personal?


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from negative comments about other members. Discuss the thread content of Hurwitz's Youtube channel.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That’s your delusion. You think everyone agrees with you about Furtwängler, and Ferrier, and Horenstein, and Anthony Collins’ Sibelius, etc.
> 
> They don’t agree with you, or else these recordings wouldn’t be as continuously popular as they are. Not everyone in the world is as obsessed as Hurwitz is with precision, clarity, and perfection. Not everyone is as deaf as Hurwitz is to soul, passion, and artistry. This is a man who can’t even appreciate a beloved work like the Mozart Requiem.



"or else these recordings wouldn’t be as continuously popular as they are"

To be honest, I had to go to forums and discuss online to even hear about Horenstein. And I've been buying and looking at recordings for 25 years. Think it's just a small but very loud portion that worship them. 

"Not everyone is as deaf as Hurwitz is to soul, passion, and artistry."

He wants both. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Steven wanted to get back into it today, so I got back into it with him. Do you have something substantive to add to the conversation as opposed to personal?


This will be my last post to you in regards to matter. Move on, talk about the music you love and forget about Hurwitz. I'd love to see you in the 'Listening' thread posting what you've listened to today. Can you make that happen?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Neo Romanza said:


> I'd love to see you in the 'Listening' thread posting what you've listening to today. Can you make that happen?


I would like to see you minding your own business instead of telling me what I can or cannot do.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> To be honest, I had to go to forums and discuss online to even hear about Horenstein. And I've been buying and looking at recordings for 25 years. Think it's just a small but very loud portion that worship them.


Funny, I heard about Horenstein’s Mahler 8th when there was no internet. Everyone recommends Horenstein for Mahler. Except Hurwitz.



Steven4570 said:


> He wants both. Nothing wrong with that.


If he stopped there? Sure. But he doesn’t stop there. He claims these recordings have no redeeming value and are only liked by a fringe group who imagine what they hear or base their opinions on “extra-musical” traits. That’s a lie that he’s passing on to the musical public. He cannot acknowledge that there is another side and that some will disagree with his personal taste.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Funny, I heard about Horenstein’s Mahler 8th when there was no internet. Everyone recommends Horenstein for Mahler. Except Hurwitz.
> 
> 
> 
> If he stopped there? Sure. But he doesn’t stop there. He claims these recordings have no redeeming value and are only liked by a fringe group who imagine what they hear or base their opinions on “extra-musical” traits. That’s a lie that he’s passing on to the musical public. He cannot acknowledge that there is another side and that some will disagree with his personal taste.


"Funny, I heard about Horenstein’s Mahler 8th when there was no internet."

When there slim pickings of Mahler 8 recordings most likely.

"Everyone recommends Horenstein for Mahler. Except Hurwitz."

If by everyone you mean you then sure. Certainly doesn't dominate.
I'll end it here.


----------



## Monsalvat

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I would like to see you minding your own business instead of telling me what I can or cannot do.


In fairness, I think this was less about bossing you around and more about suggesting a way for you to advocate for recordings you like without such negativity. You're very thoughtful and knowledgeable and I've learned a considerable amount from reading your posts, but this thread has become very negative. I don't think Neo Romanza's post was meant in a bad way although people can be misunderstood very easily on the Internet. The current listening thread is generally a friendly place where people can share their opinions about recordings, and since it's mostly people listening to recordings that interest them, it's usually a positive place.

I will also note that I've never watched a Hurwitz video and can't comment directly on the substance of this thread. If he really is all that bad, the danger lies mostly in how newer members of the community would react; people with more experience under their belt would probably be able to draw their own conclusions without Hurwitz's help. From this thread it sounds like he has a tendency to shut down discussion, which is a bad thing. I think it's always good to keep an open mind about recordings and to listen to a good variety. I also hear echoes of the objective/subjective debate here; you seem to be very perceptive of the subjective, such as how intense, expressive, or emotive a performance is, and it sounds like Hurwitz values those less than other parameters. Honestly, I see this as a matter of individual taste, which is hard to debate effectively. Now, Hurwitz also has a bit of a reputation as a polemic, and this I think is not good, since again it can cause people newer to the community to avoid recordings they otherwise may have enjoyed. 

I think the idea of running a video series of reviews is a good one; it can draw a larger audience to the music we on this forum love. But one must tread carefully to avoid misleading or turning away that audience. I think it is better for reviewers in this position to be very clear about how their tastes may influence their perception of a recording. In other words, it would be better to say “this recording didn’t speak to me because of x, y, z; I feel that a, b, c would be more to my tastes” than “this recording is bad because of x, y, z.” The first is a more honest assessment of the reviewer’s feelings, and the second is a declarative statement with which others may disagree. It is also important to allow honest debate, and I've heard that Hurwitz deletes comments which disagree with his own views, which I think is not a good choice.

I hope this comment is taken well. I have been watching this discussion but had avoided commenting since again I'm not familiar with Hurwitz directly but only through reputation. I do wish this thread would be less negative. Hurwitz doesn't offend me because I'm not in his target audience, so I just don't have any reason to interact with him. I mean everything in a friendly way here and I hope nobody takes this negatively since it isn't intended to be negative. Re-reading posts 465 and 466, I'll just add that I agree with you that there isn't only one opinion that's right; _but_ I also agree with Neo Romanza that Hurwitz has his own reasons for liking what he likes and it isn't possible to debate matters of taste. In my (admittedly uninformed) opinion, Hurwitz is free to like or dislike recordings, but if he presents reviews of those recordings to the public, he has a responsibility to be clear about his subjective tastes, and he should not present those as objective fact. I think it is fair game to complain that he shuts down debate, or he tends to act as a polemic, or he presents his opinions as fact (if such criticisms are relevant); it's also fair to respectfully disagree with him on matters of taste. But I don't think that disparaging his tastes is valid, since it's an individual, ultimately subjective matter. Just my two cents meant respectfully and with the caveats I've listed.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> If by everyone you mean you then sure. Certainly doesn't dominate.


Hurwitz sticks out like a sore thumb. He doesn’t hear music - phrasing, subtlety, dramatic narrative. He is impatient. He thinks everything needs to be snappy and moving forward. He doesn’t understand that his simplistic aesthetic is not shared by everyone. He says of the Mahler 8th “you just wind it up and let it go.” That’s a load of crap. There is so much more to what makes music interesting to the listener than what he comprehends or even acknowledges.

And that is his major failing in the final analysis. He digs a hole for himself from which there is no redemption. I said in another thread that I used to find Mahler to be weird and aimless. But I always left room for myself to someday hear what others hear. Hurwitz doesn’t do that. He leaves himself no room for growth and understanding. He wants the whole world to be as ignorant and obtuse as he is.


----------



## staxomega

Steven4570 said:


> "or else these recordings wouldn’t be as continuously popular as they are"
> 
> To be honest, I had to go to forums and discuss online to even hear about Horenstein. And I've been buying and looking at recordings for 25 years. Think it's just a small but very loud portion that worship them.
> 
> "Not everyone is as deaf as Hurwitz is to soul, passion, and artistry."
> 
> He wants both. Nothing wrong with that.


I find this a bit hard to believe, Horenstein is hardly some unknown. He was recording with major orchestras and even putting on fairly mainstream/well broadcast concerts with the BBC, and I am not a Brit, I'm an American. 

Whether you like his performances or not is another matter. 



Steven4570 said:


> "Funny, I heard about Horenstein’s Mahler 8th when there was no internet."
> 
> When there slim pickings of Mahler 8 recordings most likely.
> 
> "Everyone recommends Horenstein for Mahler. Except Hurwitz."
> 
> If by everyone you mean you then sure. Certainly doesn't dominate.
> I'll end it here.


There weren't slim pickings for Mahler's 8 before the internet. 

There are far more people that know Horenstein's performance of it than just Brahmsianhorn, reviewer Tony Duggan for one who has a far better grasp of Mahler's idiom than Hurwitz has ever expressed possessing, other than saying the music is exciting, which it can be, but you might as well reduce Mahler down to any generic pop music if that's what you get out of the music. 



Mahler Symphony No 8 Comparative review by Tony Duggan


----------



## Steven4570

staxomega said:


> I find this a bit hard to believe, Horenstein is hardly some unknown. He was recording with major orchestras and even putting on fairly mainstream/well broadcast concerts with the BBC, and I am not a Brit, I'm an American.
> 
> Whether you like his performances or not is another matter.
> 
> 
> 
> There weren't slim pickings for Mahler's 8 before the internet.
> 
> There are far more people that know Horenstein's performance of it than just Brahmsianhorn, reviewer Tony Duggan for one who has a far better grasp of Mahler's idiom than Hurwitz has ever expressed possessing, other than saying the music is exciting, which it can be, but you might as well reduce Mahler down to any generic pop music if that's what you get out of the music.
> 
> 
> 
> Mahler Symphony No 8 Comparative review by Tony Duggan



"
I find this a bit hard to believe, Horenstein is hardly some unknown. He was recording with major orchestras and even putting on fairly mainstream/well broadcast concerts with the BBC, and I am not a Brit, I'm an American."

Browsing CDs in major stores in the early 90s, No where to be found. And was hardly talked about online even when I first started looking, even with Mahler. It was Bernstein, Haitink, etc that were talked about. There might've been 1 or 2 comments or recs for Horenstein thrown in the mix but certainly not on the level of everyone else. And as time goes on, I feel like this is more the case. I rarely see horenstein talked about as recs, and most of the time whenever I do see it, the people saying it put it under the bold claim that it's the greatest thing ever put on record.

Whether you like his performances or not is another matter.

"reviewer Tony Duggan for one who has a far better grasp of Mahler's idiom than Hurwitz has ever expressed possessing, other than saying the music is exciting,"

I've listened to Bernstein's, Hatinks, Solti, Bertini, Chailly, and Tennstedt amoung others, including Horrenstein's. And his is the last I'd reach for. Maybe if I haven't heard those other ones. Yeah, Mahler should be exciting. No one wants fridgid and dull performances. Well, take that back, clearly some people do.


----------



## Becca

...And then there was the Abravenel/Utah recording of the 8th which as well known in the late 1960s


----------



## staxomega

Steven4570 said:


> "
> I find this a bit hard to believe, Horenstein is hardly some unknown. He was recording with major orchestras and even putting on fairly mainstream/well broadcast concerts with the BBC, and I am not a Brit, I'm an American."
> 
> Browsing CDs in major stores in the early 90s, No where to be found. And was hardly talked about online even when I first started looking, even with Mahler. It was Bernstein, Haitink, etc that were talked about. There might've been 1 or 2 comments or recs for Horenstein thrown in the mix but certainly not on the level of everyone else. And as time goes on, I feel like this is more the case. I rarely see horenstein talked about as recs, and most of the time whenever I do see it, the people saying it put it under the bold claim that it's the greatest thing ever put on record.
> 
> Whether you like his performances or not is another matter.
> 
> "reviewer Tony Duggan for one who has a far better grasp of Mahler's idiom than Hurwitz has ever expressed possessing, other than saying the music is exciting,"
> 
> I've listened to Bernstein's, Hatinks, Solti, Bertini, Chailly, and Tennstedt amoung others, including Horrenstein's. And his is the last I'd reach for. Maybe if I haven't heard those other ones. Yeah, Mahler should be exciting. No one wants fridgid and dull performances. Well, take that back, clearly some people do.


Nothing in my post was whether you like the performances or not, I do not care about that. It was debunking some straw man arguments. 

I was buying CDs in HMV, Tower, Future Shop, etc at the same time you were. I literally bought the Urania reissue of Horenstein conducting Mahler's third symphony at a Tower Records.

You completely misconstrue what I mean when I said Mahler isn't just about excitement, I was referring to Mahler's compositions _not _performances when I said his music isn't just about excitement which is about all Hurwitz got out of the music. See his video on spirituality in music he thinks it's just choral or some vocal music which on the surface I agree with him this type of music is more easily spiritual.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> I rarely see horenstein talked about as recs, and most of the time whenever I do see it, the people saying it put it under the bold claim that it's the greatest thing ever put on record.
> 
> No one wants fridgid and dull performances. Well, take that back, clearly some people do.


Always rationalizing, never acknowledging what you’re missing.

Horenstein is widely acknowledged as a great Mahler interpreter and _among_ the top recommendations. It’s in the 3rd and 8th where I most often have seen Horenstein recommended as a top choice, the 8th with the caveat that it’s not a studio recording.

You are trying to paint those who recommend Horenstein as belonging to a fringe cult, a typical Hurwitz tactic to demean, marginalize, and discount those he disagrees with. And for the record, Horenstein’s way of building excitement is though patience. His climaxes are among the most powerful on record. If you can’t hear the excitement in this, you don’t have a human pulse:


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Always rationalizing, never acknowledging what you’re missing.
> 
> Horenstein is widely acknowledged as a great Mahler interpreter and _among_ the top recommendations. It’s in the 3rd and 8th where I most often have seen Horenstein recommended as a top choice, the 8th with the caveat that it’s not a studio recording.
> 
> You are trying to paint those who recommend Horenstein as belonging to a fringe cult, a typical Hurwitz tactic to demean, marginalize, and discount those he disagrees with. And for the record, Horenstein’s way of building excitement is though patience. His climaxes are among the most powerful on record. If you can’t hear the excitement in this, you don’t have a human pulse:



"Horenstein is widely acknowledged as a great Mahler interpreter and _among_ the top recommendations. It’s in the 3rd and 8th where I most often have seen Horenstein recommended as a top choice, the 8th with the caveat that it’s not a studio recording."

Honestly haven't heard of him until 4 or 5 years ago. 

"You are trying to paint those who recommend Horenstein as belonging to a fringe cult"

Just saying that's what I've mostly seen. 

"Horenstein’s way of building excitement is though patience"

Is this your justification for his rigid tempos and a lot of times ignoring what Mahler wrote in the scores?


----------



## Kreisler jr

I also never knew about Horenstein or Abravanel before I started reading internet fora and encountered the Penguin guide in the mid-1990s. They were virtually unknown and uncommented on in Germany in the 1980s-90s when I began listening to classical music. Celibidache was a similar case, or actually worse because while he was still alive there were almost no recordings of his available. It doesn't seem unfair to say that all of these and some more did have a bit of "cult following" that seemed to correlate with the obscurity (or poor international distribution) of their recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Kreisler jr said:


> I also never knew about Horenstein or Abravanel before I started reading internet fora and encountered the Penguin guide in the mid-1990s. They were virtually unknown and uncommented on in Germany in the 1980s-90s when I began listening to classical music. Celibidache was a similar case, or actually worse because while he was still alive there were almost no recordings of his available. It doesn't seem unfair to say that all of these and some more did have a bit of "cult following" that seemed to correlate with the obscurity (or poor international distribution) of their recordings.


By definition, anything not on a major label is going to have a disadvantage in circulation. If a conductor is talked about among the top choices for Mahler symphonies, that doesn’t mean he has a “cult” following. People just respond to his recordings. The only reason we’re talking about him here is because of Hurwitz’s bizarre negative campaign against him.


----------



## Kreisler jr

But the question here is precisely, where, when and by whom e.g. Horenstein is considered as top choice for Mahler symphonies. What I and the other person above wanted to indicate is that he actually wasn't mentioned in most magazines or other media available to us in the 1990s.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Kreisler jr said:


> But the question here is precisely, where, when and by whom e.g. Horenstein is considered as top choice for Mahler symphonies. What I and the other person above wanted to indicate is that he actually wasn't mentioned in most magazines or other media available to us in the 1990s.


You walked right into this one.

The Record Shelf Guide to Classical CDs, Jim Svejda (1995)









Penguin Guide to Compact Discs (1990)

Mahler 1st:









Mahler 3rd:









Gramophone Classical Good CD Guide (1996)









Penguin Guide to Compact Discs (1999)


----------



## Becca

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You walked right into this one.


No, you did. Did you not notice that KreislerJr is in Germany so all those English and American publications were probably not easily "available to us in the 1990s"


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Rough Guide to Classical Music (1994)

Mahler 3rd









Mahler 4th









Third Ear Listener’s Companion (2002)

Mahler 8th









Mahler 9th


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> No, you did. Did you not notice that KreislerJr is in Germany so all those English and American publications were probably not easily "available to us in the 1990s"


Well now thanks to me he has access


----------



## haziz

So we are resorting to quoting other critics in efforts to trash David Hurwitz? By definition a critic is expressing their subjective opinion of a particular composition or performance.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

haziz said:


> So we are resorting to quoting other critics in efforts to trash David Hurwitz? By definition a critic is expressing their subjective opinion of a particular composition or performance.


Okay, let me catch you up here. Hurwitz paints Horenstein as a “cult” figure propped up as the “greatest” by fringe groups. That’s not the case, as I was demonstrating.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> No, you did. Did you not notice that KreislerJr is in Germany so all those English and American publications were probably not easily "available to us in the 1990s"


Becca, he asked the “question here is precisely, where, when and by whom e.g. Horenstein is considered as top choice for Mahler symphonies.” He asked the question, and I answered it.


----------



## perempe

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Rough Guide to Classical Music (1994)


I have this as an ebook. I also like Burrows' The Complete Classical Music Guide, they are very similar.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

perempe said:


> I have this as an ebook. I also like Burrows' The Complete Classical Music Guide, they are very similar.


The Rough Guide was where I first saw a recommendation for the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th. That was in pre-internet days. I bought the Music & Arts original 1980s CD issue from Tower. I promptly took it back. I couldn’t get past the sound. I giggled at the loud timpani that so many bring up.

A few years later I purchased it again. It is now my favorite recording. 

Sometimes we evolve.


----------



## perempe

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The Rough Guide was where I first saw a recommendation for the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th. That was in pre-internet days. I bought the Music & Arts original 1980s CD issue from Tower. I promptly took it back. I couldn’t get past the sound. I giggled at the loud timpani that so many bring up.
> 
> A few years later I purchased it again. It is now my favorite recording.
> 
> Sometimes we evolve.


There are three recommended recordings in the book:
Tomowa-Sintow, Baltsa, Schreier, Van Dam;
Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra; Karajan (Deutsche
Grammophon; 2 CDs; with Symphonies Nos. 5 & 6)
Karajan’s legendary 1976 recording has been remastered,
making an already vivid performance even more exhilarat-
ing. With a striking team of soloists, each in their prime,
there is a real sense of individual talent making common
cause to exhilarating effect.

Rodgers, Jones, Bronder, Terfel; Royal Liverpool
Choir and Orchestra; Mackerras (EMI)
This performance by Mackerras is remarkable for the extent
to which the conductor refuses to impose a “reading” on the
work: here, respect for the score is absolutely paramount. The
result is neither bland nor anonymous, but sounds fresh and
consistently exciting – high on joy and low on solemnity.

Briem, Höngen, Anders, Watzke; Bruno Kittel Choir;
Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra; Furtwängler
(Music and Arts)
If you’re not fussy about sound quality, try Wilhelm
Furtwängler’s March 1942 performance, recorded live in
Berlin. This is the finest of his ten recordings of the symphony,
and arguably one of the greatest recordings ever made. It’s a
reading unlike any other, imbued with religious devotion and
yet full of anguish and torment


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

perempe said:


> Briem, Höngen, Anders, Watzke; Bruno Kittel Choir;
> Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra; Furtwängler
> (Music and Arts)
> If you’re not fussy about sound quality, try Wilhelm
> Furtwängler’s March 1942 performance


If you’re not fussy? You mean people can make their own individual decisions on sound quality? I thought it was an objective fact this recording sucks and that only cult-worshipping loons say otherwise.

Oh for the days of competent classical criticism.


----------



## Steven4570

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you’re not fussy? You mean people can make their own individual decisions on sound quality? I thought it was an objective fact this recording sucks and that only cult-worshipping loons say otherwise.
> 
> Oh for the days of competent classical criticism.


It's an objective fact a lot of things suck. But they still like them.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Steven4570 said:


> It's an objective fact a lot of things suck. But they still like them.


David Hurwitz has no real understanding of artistry and musicianship, so he only focuses on technical inaccuracies to judge a performance. That reflects his personal criteria for how he rates the overall worth of the recording, not an “objective” standard. 

By definition, if a performance succeeds in conveying the intended impact and emotion of a work to the audience, then it does not “suck.”


----------



## Red Terror

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you actually been following the conversation? I am the one saying reasonable minds can disagree and people have different tastes. Hurwitz is the one saying there is only one objectively true opinion. If you can’t actually follow the point of the debate, then kindly butt out.


Hurwitz has stated on numerous occasions that, in the end, it all comes down to personal taste. This means you can now stop with your nonsense about his supposed ‘objective’ and ‘true’ opinion. That said, there are those with more discriminating taste than others—and this is perfectly fine.


----------



## neoshredder

Red Terror said:


> Hurwitz has stated on numerous occasions that, in the end, it all comes down to personal taste. This means you can now stop with your nonsense about his supposed ‘objective’ and ‘true’ opinion. That said, there are those with more discriminating taste than others—and this is also perfectly fine.


Hurwitz spends all his life listening to music. He earned some of his arrogance. I’m not saying he is always right.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Red Terror said:


> Hurwitz has stated on numerous occasions that, in the end, it all comes down to personal taste. This means you can now stop with your nonsense about his supposed ‘objective’ and ‘true’ opinion. That said, there are those with more discriminating taste than others—and this is also perfectly fine.


No, he has stated explicitly that opinion is outweighed by “facts” of the performance, and that in regard specifically to the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th, people are “imagining” what they hear outside of those “plainly audible facts.” The point is that as a reviewer, Hurwitz is perversely limited. He only hears nuts and bolts and believes everyone else should do the same.

Hurwitz’s own words:

“I do not confuse opinions with facts, as you seem to in describing this performance. Stop kidding yourself. You claim to hear the music's "spirit," and claim that this is more important that technical defects--in other words, its actual sound. Just admit that you're a cultist and enjoy your rituals of worship. It's OK, really.”

“Of course your reaction is based on the the music that was performed; my point is that what you can hear of it only poorly approximates Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. The rest is sheer fantasy.”

“I understand that there is a widespread belief among those inclined to admire that performance that its musical qualities outweigh technical defects. How could I not? What has any of that to do with the facts of the performance being largely as I describe them? I am not interested in "widespread belief" as you define it. Religion is a wider spread belief that also isn't supported by any tangible evidence. The difference is that those who are religious acknowledge their belief with pride and call it faith. I respect that. If you said the same about that lousy Ninth it would make sense to me, but instead you insist that the audible facts are irrelevant to the "spirit" of the performance, and this is delusional. Plain and simple.“

“ in the Adagio everything falls into place with heartaching commitment" is not a comment about music. It is an autobiographical description of your feelings. That's the problem. You don't know the difference.” (Which is false. I described what I heard in the recording, but I did so beyond the perfunctory analysis of simple intonation that Hurwitz solely focuses on)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The thing I’ve always most wanted to say to Hurwitz’s face is that if he truly believes that so many individual listeners across decades describing that performance in the same way is a coincidence and “sheer fantasy,” then it is he who must be delusional. There is no way that could occur unless there is something in the recording - regardless of his own personal capacity to hear it - that actually exists. Music is more than simple intonation and technical accuracy. Otherwise we wouldn’t care to listen in the first place. Hurwitz sees his niche as pointing out the technical defects. That only serves him, not the listening public. He can’t understand that. It’s as if he wants to see himself as superior to the listening public with his emphasis solely on “audible facts.” But ultimately what’s the point if you cut the rest out of the equation? That’s the question he can’t answer.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Red Terror said:


> Hurwitz has stated on numerous occasions that, in the end, it all comes down to personal taste. This means you can now stop with your nonsense about his supposed ‘objective’ and ‘true’ opinion. That said, there are those with more discriminating taste than others—and this is also perfectly fine.


The member in question will never stop. As I've said earlier, the member has some kind of personal vendetta against Hurwitz.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Neo Romanza said:


> The member in question will never stop. As I've said earlier, the member has some kind of personal vendetta against Hurwitz.


I am replying to people directly quoting me. It's not like I'm the one keeping this discussion alive. I don't have the right to respond to points other people make against mine? Interesting that you never fault the posters who reopen the discussion.

Hurwitz has a megaphone spreading rubbish about the music I care about. You're damned right I am going to call him out on that. Classical music deserves better than this.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Hurwitz has a megaphone spreading rubbish about the music I care about. You're damned right I am going to call him out on that. Classical music deserves better than this.


When obsession leads to delirium, it's time to stop.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Neo Romanza said:


> When obsession leads to delirium, it's time to stop.


If someone posts a reply to my points, there is nothing wrong with me replying to their points. Why don't you care about the posters who keep reopening the discussion?

It's very childish what you are doing. You are saying people can throw rocks and then say "Okay, now discussion stops." If you really mean what you say about the discussion being a dead horse, then no one else should be commenting on my points, right?


----------



## Becca

There comes a point, albeit rarely recognized on TC, where nothing more will be accomplished and the best thing to do is to ignore comments and walk away. Constantly responding only exacerbates the issue, It is not a case of the last one standing is the winner.


----------



## fbjim

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you’re not fussy? You mean people can make their own individual decisions on sound quality? I thought it was an objective fact this recording sucks and that only cult-worshipping loons say otherwise.
> 
> Oh for the days of competent classical criticism.


A great deal of reviews of classical music back in the day had a high focus on sound quality. This was when classical music was sort of the prestige genre for audiophiles (a lot of the advancements in stereo sound happened for recording classical music) which meant a lot of critics like Hurwitz wrote for magainzes like High Fidelity or The Ultimate Sound. 

There has always been an audience for this kind of thing, and I know that even if you aren't someone who only focuses on accuracy and sound fidelity, it does matter more for some listeners than others.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> There comes a point, albeit rarely recognized on TC, where nothing more will be accomplished and the best thing to do is to ignore comments and walk away. Constantly responding only exacerbates the issue, It is not a case of the last one standing is the winner.


It’s not about “winning.” Someone posted today that Hurwitz admits it all comes down to personal taste in the end. That is patently false, and I demonstrated through his own words that Hurwitz believes the worth of a recording is an objective fact wholly apart from personal taste. His motto is “Your opinion doesn’t matter.” That’s a nonsensical philosophy that is ultimately destructive for classical music discourse.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> A great deal of reviews of classical music back in the day had a high focus on sound quality. This was when classical music was sort of the prestige genre for audiophiles (a lot of the advancements in stereo sound happened for recording classical music) which meant a lot of critics like Hurwitz wrote for magainzes like High Fidelity or The Ultimate Sound.
> 
> There has always been an audience for this kind of thing, and I know that even if you aren't someone who only focuses on accuracy and sound fidelity, it does matter more for some listeners than others.


I would love for sound, interpretation, and intonation to all merge perfectly. That is rarely the case. I listened to Colin Davis’s 1974 RCO Symphonie fantastique today for the first time in years. Its sound is beautiful and clear, and I so wanted it to be the recording everyone touts it as. But as previously, I found it dull and lifeless next to the Beecham recorded two decades earlier. And don’t even get me started on the 1930 Monteux/Paris recording that excites me like no other other every time I hear it.

The point is that some of us are adult enough to say, “Hey, old recordings may not be your cup of tea, but you might give this a try.” Hurwitz OTOH says, “No, it’s pure bunk, and don’t listen to anyone who says otherwise.” I have a pretty strong reaction to people who try to limit thought and discussion.


----------



## Red Terror

Here's a perfectly fair and balanced take on Furtwängler's legacy. You don't agree with it? Fine. But there's nothing wrong with a qualified critic sharing his opinion.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Red Terror said:


> Here's a perfectly fair and balanced take on Furtwängler's legacy. You don't agree with it? Fine. But there's nothing wrong with a qualified critic sharing his opinion.


Where did I say he can't share his opinion? I have been perfectly clear on the aspects of Hurwitz that I find objectionable. I even quoted them. What are you trying to accomplish?


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If someone posts a reply to my points, there is nothing wrong with me replying to their points. Why don't you care about the posters who keep reopening the discussion?
> 
> It's very childish what you are doing. You are saying people can throw rocks and then say "Okay, now discussion stops." If you really mean what you say about the discussion being a dead horse, then no one else should be commenting on my points, right?


As I have stated before, you're free to comment on anything you wish, but, as I have observed about you, if your sole purpose on Talk Classical is to sling mud at Hurwitz, then just go do it on his YouTube channel or, better yet, find his personal email address and message him. I think you're a worthwhile member and have a lot to contribute to this forum, but your constant onslaught of Hurwitz posts come across as someone with nothing more than an axe to grind and, to me, paint a rather negative picture of you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Neo Romanza said:


> but your constant onslaught of Hurwitz posts come across as someone with nothing more than an axe to grind and, to me, paint a rather negative picture of you.


Merely replying back when people quote me is not a "constant onslaught of Hurwitz posts." The fact that you target only me and not the others keeping the topic alive paints for me a rather negative picture of you.

What is hilarious is that you can easily click on a profile and see how much I have contributed on other topics AND just as clearly see that a recent poster on this thread has ONLY posted on this thread and none other. But that would require integrity and honesty.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Merely replying back when people quote me is not a "constant onslaught of Hurwitz posts." The fact that you target only me and not the others keeping the topic alive paints for me a rather negative picture of you.
> 
> What is hilarious is that you can easily click on a profile and see how much I have contributed on other topics AND just as clearly see that a recent poster on this thread has ONLY posted on this thread and none other. But that would require integrity and honesty.


I'm going to go with what @Becca posted and kindly bow out. There's no getting through to you.


----------



## neoshredder

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Merely replying back when people quote me is not a "constant onslaught of Hurwitz posts." The fact that you target only me and not the others keeping the topic alive paints for me a rather negative picture of you.
> 
> What is hilarious is that you can easily click on a profile and see how much I have contributed on other topics AND just as clearly see that a recent poster on this thread has ONLY posted on this thread and none other. But that would require integrity and honesty.


Dave maybe has 10 to 15 years left. I’m sorry you are offended by his videos. I would enjoy you show your knowledge on YouTube with your own videos.


----------



## RobertJTh

He now praises Rattle's latest BRSO Mahler 9 to heaven and back. Which shows he doesn't hold grudges, which is of course laudable.

So I fired up YT to find a sample (or even the whole shebang, one never knows) and all I found was a 1-minute sample of the 2nd movement, from one of the waltz interludes.
And that was all I needed to know it's a typical "Hurwitz" performance. Polished to a shine, great orchestral playing... and utterly mechanical and metronomical. Where's the Viennese tilt in the waltz rhythm? Then I decided to listen to what Barbirolli does with this movement, how he shapes Mahler's sarcasm and makes the music really dance. In comparison, Rattle is a time-beater.
Maybe the other 78 minutes are better - but it's a sample clip from the official site, they would give you one that gives the best impression of the performance, right?

At this point I seriously think all you need for good recommendations is watching Hurwitz, buy and cherish the records he trashes and avoid the ones he praises like the plague.
I got to give him credit for recommending Ancerl's 9th though - that one's terrific.


----------



## RobertJTh

In his latest review, Hurwitz praises Edward Gardner's Bergen Phil Brahms 1 and 3 as "the least profound Brahms ever - and it's great!"
In his universe, profundity is self-delusional humbug, transparency of textures, swift tempi, superficiality and lack of expression are refreshing and exciting. So far, nothing new.
But wait... didn't he review that disk before? I had a vague recollection that he did, and... bingo.





Gardner's Unnecessary Brahms - Classics Today







www.classicstoday.com




So the exact same disk that he trashed to bits before gets his full recommendation now. Does this show his progressive insight... or does it just expose him as the snake oil selling charlatan that he really is?


----------



## RobertJTh

And... we've got a real scandal on our hands now.
Dave was called out by an eagle-eyed commenter about his CT post, and he must have realized that just deleting the post (as is his usual habit) wouldn't work this time.
So he came up with this. Can you believe it?








So the link with his original review (hacked, my ***) doesn't work anymore. But the internet does not forget, Dave.









Just compare this (probably pretty accurate) review to his video of today, and realize that this guy told us numerous times that there are objective rules for good and bad performances and that personal taste has nothing to do with it.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Nice detective work, @RobertJTh. The review does seem a bit out of character for Hurwitz, and oddly ends on a comma instead of a period. But the idea that someone would hack into Classics Today to post a fake review? Wow.


----------



## RobertJTh

AndorFoldes said:


> Nice detective work, @RobertJTh. The review does seem a bit out of character for Hurwitz, and oddly ends on a comma instead of a period. But the idea that someone would hack into Classics Today to post a fake review? Wow.


The writing style seems typical Hurwitz though.

EDIT: and now the conversation is deleted from the youtube comments too.


----------

