# Hurwitz's YouTube channel - your thoughts?



## Merl

Everyone's favourite critic and ClassicsToday executive editor, David Hurwitz, has been posting YouTube videos on his own channel. I just wondered what your general opinions on these are? This should be a fun thread!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSf-Xx-OHoEE-QVmOAhHqVg

Here's his best Dvorak 8ths and Mahler 4ths reviews just as teasers.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I wish someone would secretly stand behind him holding an _I Love Roger Norrington_ placard. :devil:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Well, he does a great job with his analysis of the recordings (and on the Mahler 4 I agree with several of his choices) but he’s obviously in the “literalist” school, which I think is a contradiction and which I do not adhere to. For example, he claims in the Mahler video that Mengelberg’s performance is a departure from Mahler’s wishes and goes on to highlight all sorts of things in the score that he wants to see brought out, but then in the Dvorak video says he doesn’t like Czech performances because the finale is always too slow for him. Well, Czech performances exemplify idiomatic Dvorak performance so obviously he is just using literalism as an excuse for his own opinions. This drives me crazy. But he does make for interesting watching/listening.


----------



## mbhaub

I think he's being lazy. It's harder to write than to do these videos. And I can read a lot faster than he can talk. His 22 minute diatribe on Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde took too long to listen too.

The other issue is he doesn't use the medium effectively at all. Instead of talking so much, play a short excerpt to show us what you mean. I think I've seen one video where he plays a short segment and captures the sound with a microphone. If he would make his comments terser, use quality audio samples and tighten things up it would be a lot better. If he continues this way I probably won't renew my Classics Today subscription.

But it does have one advantage over his website: you can comment on what he and others say.


----------



## Knorf

I think Hurwitz is useless. First of all, while he's heard an absurd number of recordings, he's nowhere near as erudite in music as he pretends. Second of all, he can be so needlessly a total ashhole. It's one thing to pan a recording, quite another to viciously attack the performers, which he does all the time. 

Here's why he's mainly useless to me. Sometimes he likes recordings I like, sometimes he pans recordings I dislike, and sometimes his opinion and mine are totally at odds. Ok, that's fine in itself. But here's the thing: whether his opinion and mine are in alignment seems to be no better than random chance. I can find no usefully consistent point of view from him to assist me in deciding whether to commit to or purchase a particular recording. 

Except there are a couple things you can count on: he hates period instruments, and he hates HIP in general. He hates performers he's never heard of. He also seems to reflexively hate most recordings released on an orchestra's own label. But knowing he hates all that doesn't help me, either, because I know I myself will like or even love many recordings in those categories.

TL;DR.... FORK HURWITZ.


----------



## Merl

mbhaub said:


> I think he's being lazy. It's harder to write than to do these videos. And I can read a lot faster than he can talk. His 22 minute diatribe on Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde took too long to listen too.
> 
> The other issue is he doesn't use the medium effectively at all. Instead of talking so much, play a short excerpt to show us what you mean. I think I've seen one video where he plays a short segment and captures the sound with a microphone. If he would make his comments terser, use quality audio samples and tighten things up it would be a lot better. If he continues this way I probably won't renew my Classics Today subscription.
> 
> But it does have one advantage over his website: you can comment on what he and others say.


I already have commented on the Lieutenant Kije video. There is an agenda in his choices. I won't say what it is but if you watch the Respighi and Kije videos something stands out like a sore thumb. Don't get me wrong, he makes some good choices (Kudos for mentioning Previn on the Mahler 4 video but there may have been a reason for that)! BTW, the reason he doesn't play many clips is due to copyright, he says.


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> I already have commented on the Lieutenant Kije video. There is an agenda in his choices. I won't say what it is but if you watch the Respighi and Kije videos something stands out like a sore thumb. Don't get me wrong, he makes some good choices (Kudos for mentioning Previn on the Mahler 4 video but there may have been a reason for that)! BTW, the reason he doesn't play many clips is due to copyright, he says.


Could you in the near future share what you think his agenda is, please? I dont really want to watch any of his videos.


----------



## mbhaub

Merl said:


> BTW, the reason he doesn't play many clips is due to copyright, he says.


His website has a lot of clips, maybe he gets clearance? But Youtube has a bizillion videos that are clearly copyright violations and yet they stay there.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Could you in the near future share what you think his agenda is, please? I dont really want to watch any of his videos.


Lol, American orchestras dominate his selections and his love for French orchestras is similarly espoused. On some videos it's well over 75% of American orchestra recordings. I've flagged it now on one video. Lets see if he changes tack.


----------



## Gray Bean

I have no desire to watch this mean-spirited little man. His reviews, like those of that Negative Nellie Norman Lebrecht, really put me off!


----------



## flamencosketches

Can't stand it, and worse, I keep getting notifications about his videos even though I've not subscribed. It's always "Recommended for you:" and then whatever his newest video is, and he makes so many of them.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Does it seem like Hurwitz is less negative in his Youtube videos than he sometimes is in print? It does to me. I don’t do much Youtube watching so I didn’t know he had a channel until Merl started this thread. The few of his videos I’ve now watched I found rather entertaining and informative. But there are several TC members I can think of who I’m sure could make Youtube videos that I’d like better!


----------



## hammeredklavier

looks cute. It'd be much better if he grew a beautiful flowing long beard like this guy:


----------



## Knorf

Simplicissimus said:


> But there are several TC members I can think of who I'm sure could make Youtube videos that I'd like better!


I totally agree.


----------



## Triplets

Merl said:


> Lol, American orchestras dominate his selections and his love for French orchestras is similarly espoused. On some videos it's well over 75% of American orchestra recordings. I've flagged it now on one video. Lets see if he changes tack.


That's a reasonable antidote to Gramophone critics, that extol everything British


----------



## Knorf

Another Hurwitz thing I dislike is his always almost obsessively claiming he knows which recording is the "_best_." Finding a "best" recording of major repertoire is absurd, and a thoughtful reviewer knows that. "Favorite" is fine, a top-5 list of "among the best" or whatever, too. But to claim "best," over and over? Especially in repertoire like Dvořák 8....Not good. And then to ridicule anyone who has a different favorite? Really not good.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I was bored last night so I gave him a chance and watched a couple more of his videos. He’s just too arrogant for me. In his DLVDE video he absolutely trashed the Walter/Ferrier recording, essentially saying that anyone who likes it does so because of extramusical reasons and not because of what they actually hear. I agree with Knorf that there are many TC members who I would rather see videos from - because I very much like the concept of video reviews (or even podcasts) in general for recommending recordings.


----------



## ManateeFL

I have to admit to never having heard of David Hurwitz, but after reading this thread and becoming slightly amused and somewhat curious at the indignation thrown his way, I picked a couple of videos for favorite works of mine, Handel's Op. 6 Concerti grossi and Verdi's Requiem. I found him completely agreeable and even likable, even when disagreeing with a couple of his choices. He clearly explained why he disliked certain period performances in the Handel, and ultimately chose an HIP recording as his top recommendation. He peaked my interest on several releases, and I would happily return to his videos in the future.

Can't say I'm really surprised at the reaction though. No one comes in for more scorn than a critic. Even when I read contentious, vitriolic, and provocative statements on this forum all the time. They're an easy target.


----------



## Knorf

ManateeFL said:


> Can't say I'm really surprised at the reaction though. No one comes in for more scorn than a critic. Even when I read contentious, vitriolic, and provocative statements on this forum all the time. They're an easy target.


Even when I dislike a recording, I personally never belittle performers the way Hurwitz does, and I especially wouldn't if I were releasing published reviews to the general public.


----------



## Hermastersvoice

Personally, I think mr Hurwitz generally makes his points well. Yes, he does not favour HIP performances which espouse untouched correctness, but has little musical value. He adored Harnoncourt’s Paris symphonies, though they are HIP. Yes, he does have a preference for the idiomatic sound of French and Czech orchestras, in spite of other critics criticising them for a lack of polish. It is only natural that he should have an affinity for American orchestras, he probably know them better than most. Personally can’t say I disagree too much with him on the gorgeous sound produced in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland under Munch, Reiner, Szell.


----------



## Hermastersvoice

Untouched should read unvouched.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I was bored last night so I gave him a chance and watched a couple more of his videos. He's just too arrogant for me. In his DLVDE video he absolutely trashed the Walter/Ferrier recording, *essentially saying that anyone who likes it does so because of extramusical reasons and not because of what they actually hear.* I agree with Knorf that there are many TC members who I would rather see videos from - because I very much like the concept of video reviews (or even podcasts) in general for recommending recordings.


When people resort to this sort of rationalizing, it bespeaks an inability to accept any other truth than their own. Hurwitz can have any opinion on music performance he likes. But to assert that people who disagree with him do so for any other reason that what they hear is a sign of utter immaturity, not to mention it damages the credibility of his opinions.


----------



## Hermastersvoice

I personally like the Walter-Ferrier DLVDE, but have to accept that perhaps my opinion is also coloured by extramusical notions. That does not make me appreciate the music less. I think we all are moved by other notions, than strictly musical ones. Hyperion make some beautiful album covers! On a less frivolous note, its hard not to be moved by the bombs falling around Gieseking’s 1945 Beethoven from Berlin (Music&Arts), or Rostropovich 1968 Dvorak on the day of the Soviet invasion of Prague, etc. I probably listen more to those recordings than I would if there hadn’t been such a powerful story attached. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## geralmar

He's clearly enjoying himself and not mealy-mouthed in his opinions. Also, in the middle of the night I posted a question about Silvestri's conducting of Tchaikovsky's fourth symphony and he (Hurwitz) replied within ten minutes; so he definitely monitors comments. Finally, I like appearances by his cat-- who obviously doesn't give a sh**.


----------



## Enthusiast

Merl said:


> Lol, American orchestras dominate his selections and his love for French orchestras is similarly espoused. On some videos it's well over 75% of American orchestra recordings. I've flagged it now on one video. Lets see if he changes tack.


I have far less problem with his enthusiasms than with his hates. He deplores many of my favourite performances and in a very arrogant way. The music world would be better without him.


----------



## larold

I don't watch it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Thanks Merl, I finally had the opportunity to directly confront Hurwitz on his his ignorant dismissal of anyone who dares to admire the Furtwangler 1942 Beethoven 9th, something I've wanted to do for years.


----------



## superhorn

I've been reading his reviews at classics today for years , and he's often infuriating , but on target once in a while . I like his refusal to fawn over HIP recordings if he doesn't like them , but his negative reviews are often so way over the top as to be exasperating . 
But he has a good sense of humor and on youtube he actually seems like a likable guy . 
His books on Dvorak and several other composers are actually pretty good .


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The best thing I've learned from his videos? How to pronounce names I've been doing wrong the whole time - Bruno Walter (VALTER), Eugen Jochum (OYG-en YOCH-um), Charles Munch (SHARL MOONCH), Kondrashin (Kon-DRAH-shin), Monteux (Mon-TYOOOH). As an ignorant American my pronunciation of French and German names is woefully unidiomatic.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

If that's how he pronounces "Monteux" he's wide of the mark. It's simpler than that - "Mont-Ur".

Pl.allow me as a Brit to add that you guys are no more ignorant than we are, and often try harder to get foreign names right.


----------



## flamencosketches

Yeah I definitely would not take Hurwitz's pronunciations as any kind of canon. I know he pronounces "Szell" wrong, at least, and likely others. And it's true that there is no "Y" sound in Monteux.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> I know he pronounces "Szell" wrong, at least, and likely others.


I noticed that. Isn't it "Sell?"


----------



## elgar's ghost

Definitely a Hungarian thing! S is pronounced 'sh', and Sz is, as you say, just 's'.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

...as I found out from the delightful Hungarian manageress of Waylands Yard in Worcester High Street. 

Perhaps Hurwitz is getting his Slavic languages mixed up - I *think* "Sz" would be pronounced "sh" in Polish.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Animal the Drummer said:


> ...as I found out from the delightful Hungarian manageress of Waylands Yard in Worcester High Street.
> 
> Perhaps Hurwitz is getting his Slavic languages mixed up - I *think* "Sz" would be pronounced "sh" in Polish.


I forgot about Wayland's being there - after getting off the train I was so used to seeing it in its previous incarnation as Waterfords Estate Agents.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

He's just being lazy, pronouncing the "Sz" as a "z." I'm sure that's how most English-speakers pronounce it.

I'm embarrassed as a rudimentary German speaker for always pronouncing Eugen Jochum as "Eugene." Of course it's "Oygen."

That said, I will probably still be saying "Firtvaingler" till I die.


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

...and for even more Hungarian fun there is also Zs - I wonder how DH would pronounce that!

I wouldn't worry about 'Firtvaingler' - there are all sorts of names which I continue to trip over.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Well, being from Texas "Firt" just comes more naturally than "Foooort"


----------



## Merl

I find pronouncing composers' and conductor's names a nightmare as I grew up just saying them as they looked. Tbf to Hurwitz I wouldn't even think about going on video with my shockingly northern English accent and crap pronunciation.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

You may be closer to the right versions than you think. Quite often, pronouncing names as though they were English words actually gets you closer to the correct native pronunciation than the attempts made by folks, especially broadcasters, who think they know and actually don't.


----------



## Enthusiast

I didn't know he disliked Szell but had noticed a strong hatred for Norrington and Horenstein.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Actually, I find his presentations amusing---in the positive sense---and pretty enjoyable. We see eye to eye on a fair number of preferences, and of course disagree on some others. I look forward to more. :cheers:


----------



## Neo Romanza

He's like any other critic --- they're opinions are believed to be important _to them_ and _only them_. Never was fan of Hurwitz and his videos are worse than his written reviews.


----------



## Merl

Enthusiast said:


> I didn't know he disliked Szell but had noticed a strong hatred for Norrington and Horenstein.


He doesn't. He LOVES Szell! He's been top pick in a number of his reviews. I found the The Vaughan Williams 4th recordings review interesting when I watched it. He made some good points and picked some good discs.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

As some of you have probably noticed, I’m a fan of strong, no holds barred opinions, provided that they are honest and not intended to inflame.

What I’m not a fan of is belittling and delegitimizing people who disagree with you, and that is what I feel Hurwitz does when he implies that only he really understands music and that others are merely responding to extra musical aspects. I invite anyone to see our argument under the Beethoven 9th comment section. It went on for 20+ exchanges.


----------



## Merl

Lol, his videos are pretty tame, tbh, BHS. In his written reviews he's an overblown windbag and, as you rightly pointed out, can be very abrasive. 
The videos are just him carrying on with himself and he's much more bearable. Even when he's slagging off Pletnev and Norrington it's tame stuff. I don't think twice about it. I just like listening to people talk about music. Whether I agree or not is immaterial
I can always respond in the comments section (and have). At least he cares enough to respond quickly to people. I'm no fan but at least he's not dull. Rude, yes. But not dreary.

I'm off to read that BHS.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Hurwitz once referred to Roger Norrington as a 'tiresome quack' when reviewing his Mahler 2 with the Stuttgart RSO. Harsh, maybe, but I had to chuckle nevertheless...


----------



## Merl

Hahaha, I've just read your exchanges with Hurwitz on the LvB 9th reviews, BHS. It was just like reading you and DavidA on here. :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> Hahaha, I've just read your exchanges with Hurwitz on the LvB 9th reviews, BHS. It was just like reading you and DavidA on here. :lol:


It absolutely was, complete with his insistence that his opinion is based on fact and mine is merely an opinion


----------



## Bigbang

I am not sure what the deal on mispronunciation here, such as Szell. I think he knows this but lots of radio people do this on purpose as to inform the audience who are not up on this, so they will not think...George Sail.....

It is not uncommon for a foreigner to take on a different way of announcing words and so forth. 

Enlighten me if D Hurwitz is not aware of this.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

This quote from Hurwitz in our exchange summarizes his myopic arrogance:

"I can explain exactly why I arrive at the conclusions I do, citing plainly audible facts, while you, on the other hand, and those like you, seem always to resort to the same nebulous nonsense about the ineffable amazingness of the whole thing."

The irony is that I was the only one in the comments citing specific examples in the performance. He was the one simply referring to it all as just "garbage." Sometimes I think it is self-parody, to get people to pay attention to him (kind of the way Trump does). But I think he really does believe his own crap.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> Hahaha, I've just read your exchanges with Hurwitz on the LvB 9th reviews, BHS. It was just like reading you and DavidA on here. :lol:


Except that BHS and I both know that our opinions are established facts! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> As some of you have probably noticed, _*I'm a fan of strong, no holds barred opinions*_, provided that they are honest and not intended to inflame.
> 
> What I'm not a fan of is belittling and delegitimizing people who disagree with you, and that is what I feel Hurwitz does when he implies that only he really understands music and that others are merely responding to extra musical aspects. I invite anyone to see our argument under the Beethoven 9th comment section. It went on for 20+ exchanges.


Wow! I would never have guessed! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

elgars ghost said:


> Hurwitz once referred to Roger Norrington as a 'tiresome quack' when reviewing his Mahler 2 with the Stuttgart RSO. Harsh, maybe, but I had to chuckle nevertheless...


If Norrington's Mahler is on a par with his Wagner - which exemplifies the 20th-century art of Hasty Time Beating - he may not be a tiresome quack, but he should stay away from German Romantic music. What did Hurwitz have to say?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> If Norrington's Mahler is on a par with his Wagner - which exemplifies the 20th-century art of Hasty Time Beating - he may not be a tiresome quack, but he should stay away from German Romantic music. What did Hurwitz have to say?


----------



## Merl

It's weird. I know he hates Norrington but he actually gave his 2nd LVB cycle a glowing review. Someone in the comments mentions that too. It was his Mahler he had big issues with. He ended up writing a paper calling Norrington a quack and espousing vibrato in Mahler performances. It went very public.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I noticed that. Isn't it "Sell?"


"Sell" is definitely correct, for Szell, if you want an authentic pronunciation.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Woodduck said:


> If Norrington's Mahler is on a par with his Wagner - which exemplifies the 20th-century art of Hasty Time Beating - he may not be a tiresome quack, but he should stay away from German Romantic music. What did Hurwitz have to say?


Here's Hurwitz' review in full for you. Will the woodduck quack at the quack, I wonder?

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13755/


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


>


Well, that's clear enough, isn't it? :lol: I don't think Hurwitz is far off the mark. Norrington's Beethoven 9th was interesting for some tempos, but someone else could have taken the conception and made better music out of it. Since listening to his swift, fridid, passionless _Tristan_ prelude, I've not been tempted to hear him conduct anything.


----------



## Knorf

elgars ghost said:


> Here's Hurwitz' review in full for you. Will the woodduck quack at the quack, I wonder?
> 
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-13755/


This is one of those reviews that convinces me Hurwitz only hears what he wants to hear.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I recall getting into a heated argument with another TC member over Hurwitz's claim that Bruno Walter's tempo of Mahler's 9th Symphony Rondo could lead to contrapuntal smearing. Bernstein's timing was about the same. I kind of lost respect for Hurwitz then. Also the way he was against certain approaches to music. But I never thought he took himself that seriously until reading this thread. I assumed it was just a mentality that the loudest critic would get more readers.


----------



## vmartell

Woodduck said:


> Well, that's clear enough, isn't it? :lol: I don't think Hurwitz is far off the mark. Norrington's Beethoven 9th was interesting for some tempos, but someone else could have taken the conception and made better music out of it. Since listening to his swift, fridid, passionless _Tristan_ prelude, I've not been tempted to hear him conduct anything.


He had me at "Norrington, Worst Conductor" ! 

v


----------



## Bigbang

Well, now, I see Hurwitz brings up Schumann orchestrations in his reviews of complete cycles. Explains some of the problems why and comments on Szell (pronounced Sail, Chailly, but I am not that ruffled myself as I leave it to the experts. Funny thing though is the experts are divided--once again.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

flamencosketches said:


> and he makes so many of them.


He's building up a "back catalogue" with these initial releases, but he'll settle into a less frequent release cycle eventually. He's said as much on his channel.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Well, that's clear enough, isn't it? :lol: I don't think Hurwitz is far off the mark. Norrington's Beethoven 9th was interesting for some tempos, but someone else could have taken the conception and made better music out of it. Since listening to his swift, fridid, passionless _Tristan_ prelude, I've not been tempted to hear him conduct anything.


This (Beethoven) seems very far from how I experience it and I'm wondering if you even listened to the same recording. While there are many telling moments in Norrington's second Beethoven series they are hardly extreme in any way and often seem to combine the best of the older performing tradition with some new insights, as does most really good new Beethoven. I felt that the 9th stands well with many of the best. If your comments had been about his first series your comments would make more sense to me.

I haven't heard Norrington's Wagner and am happy to believe he is not suited to the music but some (and only some) of his recent Romantic music series from Stuttgart have been surprisingly good (Schubert's Great stands out for me). I haven't heard much of his Mahler but his 9th is not at all bad. Of course, if you must have vibrato in the work it will not be for you.


----------



## Merl

I actually found myself in general agreement with The mighty Mr. H on today's Schumann cycles thread. I agreed with all of his choices for recommended sets (but I did have to add others in the comments).


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I wonder if I would. What were his lead choices?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I've had Norrington's Beethoven 2nd and 8th or a long time. Not my favorites, but above average for HIP.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ The Stuttgart recordings (his second set) is not really HIP and were I think coupled chronologically (1 with 2, 3 with 4 etc). You will be referring to his earlier set with the London Classical Players and I more or less agree with your assessment of it! But it is the more recent ones that strike me and many others (Hurwitz included it seems) as unusually good.


----------



## Merl

Enthusiast said:


> ^ The Stuttgart recordings (his second set) is not really HIP and were I think coupled chronologically (1 with 2, 3 with 4 etc). You will be referring to his earlier set with the London Classical Players and I more or less agree with your assessment of it! But it is the more recent ones that strike me and many others (Hurwitz included it seems) as unusually good.


They're like chalk and cheese. That last SWR cycle is superb, big, bold and exciting. The first set was scratchy, scrawny and badly played. Norrington learned his lessons.


----------



## Fredrikalansson

I stopped reading Mr. Hurwitz's reviews, and I won't be viewing any of his videos. To my mind, he is so opinionated that, while I know whether or not _he_ likes a recording, I have no idea whether _I_ might like it. There's an art to good criticism, which is to measure against a combination of objective criteria and personal preferences so that the reader can distinguish which is which. Something like "the conductor adopts extremely slow tempi in the reflective passages with the result that the forward momentum is lost" is helpful criticism, whereas "it was boring and awful" is not.

Mr. Hurwitz also has a number of personal hobby horses. For instance, he believes vibrato should be used in the performance of baroque music, and if it isn't, then the recording isn't worth listening to, regardless of whatever other virtues it might have. Maybe I'm ignorant of vibrato and it's uses. Maybe I don't even know what vibrato sounds like, but I don't think it should be a make-or-break criteria. Since most HIP performers eschew vibrato, Mr. Hurwitz condemns them to _ClassicsToday_ CD-from-hell status. Not only is it not fair, it's lacking in critical integrity, and it's not helpful.

I will note that Mr. Hurwitz also often parts company with much of the classical critical world. He panned Claudio Abbado's last recording of Bruckner's Ninth, but it then went on to sweep up numerous awards, including Gramophone's Record of the Year for 2015. Does Mr. Hurwitz have insights every other critic lacks, or is he just being perverse? Mr. Hurwitz seemed to take it as a personal affront that DG continued to issue Maestro Abbado's recordings after his death, and he consistently gave them bad reviews. Had no one ever taught him that it's not seemly to speak ill of the dead?

In the end, I concluded that Mr. Hurwitz doesn't enjoy music very much. One of the joys of classical music is that there are a variety of approaches. Why else do I own 18 recordings of the Ring or 16 recordings of the Verdi Requiem? No one recording is perfect, but each one shines a different light on a work. By having such restricted likes and dislikes, I'm not surprised that he will nominate only one reference recording, I'm surprised he nominates _any_! Granted, some recordings shed no new light on a work, and a few are absolute stinkers, but most of the time there's pleasure to be had.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Reading him on classics today, I'd happily throttle him.

Can't stand his anti-European (and especially anti-British) stance.

Doesn't understand Anthony Collins in Sibelius, Barbirolli et al in the rest .........

However, having discovered his YouTube channel and watched and listened to quite a lot of his ramblings, I've really warmed to him!

He's passionate, erudite, and committed to this art form that we know and love - I'm a convert!

If I'd met him before watching and listening to him on his channel, I'd have punched his light out! 

Now, I'd shake his hand, buy him a beer and chat away with him!

Funny old world, innit!? :lol:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^Believe it or not that's almost how I've come to feel. I had previously read a few of his reviews and was appalled at his unprofessional, arrogant style. But in the videos he genuinely does seem nice enough and his observations on the recordings are quite fascinating - in fact he reminds me a lot of music teachers I've had in the past. His blatant dismissal of certain things and his frustratingly inconsistent criteria are still bothersome to me, but I've been watching him if only because it's nice to see someone on YouTube speaking the same language as us CM geeks.


----------



## Bulldog

Hurwitz seems like a nice and cheerful fellow. Sure, he has opinions, but who doesn't? His views on HIP matters and vibrato are the opposite of mine, so I consider him useless concerning baroque music or later music using period instruments. Other than that, no problems.

Wait, there is one and it concerns his Classics Today website. It's free except for selected reviews, and you have to pay a monthly fee to read them. What makes those recordings so special? I find it a cheesy way to make some bucks.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

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


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Bulldog said:


> Hurwitz seems like a nice and cheerful fellow. Sure, he has opinions, but who doesn't?





HenryPenfold said:


> ...having discovered his YouTube channel and watched and listened to quite a lot of his ramblings, I've...warmed to him!...He's passionate, erudite, and committed to this art form that we know and love - I'm a convert!...I'd shake his hand, buy him a beer and chat away with him!


Pretty much my feelings as well.


----------



## DLOinQUEENS

I really like this channel. I don’t have the musical knowledge he does, so his insights have given me a new understanding and appreciation for the music I love. After listening to his Schumann reviews, I was able to listen to some very familiar music with a fresh perspective, which I greatly appreciated. I think we need more channels like this!


----------



## Neo Romanza

I'm not a fan of Hurwitz, but I found this video rather interesting:






Why do I find it interesting? Well, I think he's wrong about Thomson and Fagen in Martinů. I don't find either these cycles particularly attuned to the inherent nature of the music. His choice of Bělohlávek is a good one as I do find this conductor one of the great champions of Martinů's music. In fact, if you don't own any of his Martinů in your collection of this composer, then you're missing A LOT of his music. Bělohlávek has recorded so much of Martinů that we all should be grateful. Of course, Ančerl and Neumann recorded quite a bit of Martinů (Neumann more than Ančerl), but lesser known works might never have saw the light of day had it not been for Bělohlávek.


----------



## Bigbang

I watched one video of Hurwitz extolling the virtues of Sandor Vegh Mozart serenades and divertimentos. In fact he thought it was one of the best of classical music on CD no less. I have a few of them on the label Capriccio/Laserlight.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

I like his videos ok. He's kind of over the top and opinionated, but I can filter that out. I'm pretty new at all this so I do get quite a bit out of his stuff. It's also nice to hear some of these names pronounced.



Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not a fan of Hurwitz, but I found this video rather interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I find it interesting? Well, I think he's wrong about Thomson and Fagen in Martinů. I don't find either these cycles particularly attuned to the inherent nature of the music. His choice of Bělohlávek is a good one as I do find this conductor one of the great champions of Martinů's music. In fact, if you don't own any of his Martinů in your collection of this composer, then you're missing A LOT of his music. Bělohlávek has recorded so much of Martinů that we all should be grateful. Of course, Ančerl and Neumann recorded quite a bit of Martinů (Neumann more than Ančerl), but lesser known works might never have saw the light of day had it not been for Bělohlávek.


This exact video is how I heard Martinu for the first time today. So I'm thankful for that.


----------



## Dimace

All these analysis about best and worst are useless. Music is personal. Of course are excellent, very good, good, bad or terrible performances and recordings, but nobody can say which is (are) the best or the worst. To say that the XX recording is among the XX best in the history, is something I can understand. To say that the XX performance is terrible, also. But to use superlative degrees is very dangerous and, for my opinion, not very professional.


----------



## Bigbang

Dimace said:


> All these analysis about best and worst are useless. Music is personal. Of course are excellent, very good, good, bad or terrible performances and recordings, but nobody can say which is (are) the best or the worst. To say that the XX recording is among the XX best in the history, is something I can understand. To say that the XX performance is terrible, also. But to use superlative degrees is very dangerous and, for my opinion, not very professional.


Which is to my point I have brought up again and again---do not take it literally.....I mean, if someone wants to write 10 paragraphs about this and that recording and respond to others as well, knock yourself out. But, I am quite aware at all times not too indulge in the argument itself about the "greatest" recording. For that matter, greatest performer for this piece and that.......

How many times am do I read the same things on these posts? And then some state the same obvious retort....music is personal...music is about taste....music is subjective.....


----------



## howlingfantods

i've been enjoying his channel for the past couple of weeks, even though i think his tastes differs from mine. he seems to mostly like symphonic music, and mostly recommends conventional approaches done skillfully in good sound. whereas for me, opera >> piano music >>>> symphonic music, I often prefer more willful or personal or idiosyncratic performers, and i think i probably care a lot less about sound quality or flawless execution than he does.

but his preferences are not the worst thing in the world. as a critic running a website or a youtube channel, it's actually probably ideal to like the most popular genre and to like the most popular and conventional ways of doing these works. and i find it useful to have his channel as a reference. and I like the format where he discusses a number of recommended recordings rather than just one, since i like to have suggestions for sticking in my shopping list, and he often discusses recordings i didn't even know existed.


----------



## Neo Romanza

howlingfantods said:


> i've been enjoying his channel for the past couple of weeks, even though i think his tastes differs from mine. he seems to mostly like symphonic music, and mostly recommends conventional approaches done skillfully in good sound. whereas for me, opera >> piano music >>>> symphonic music, I often prefer more willful or personal or idiosyncratic performers, and i think i probably care a lot less about sound quality or flawless execution than he does.
> 
> but his preferences are not the worst thing in the world. as a critic running a website or a youtube channel, it's actually probably ideal to like the most popular genre and to like the most popular and conventional ways of doing these works. and i find it useful to have his channel as a reference. and I like the format where he discusses a number of recommended recordings rather than just one, since i like to have suggestions for sticking in my shopping list, and he often discusses recordings i didn't even know existed.


Given Hurwitz's experience as a percussionist in an orchestra, it's no wonder why he likes orchestral music as much as he does. As a former percussionist myself, I'm inclined to agree with his preference for orchestral music, but I do like a other genres like songs/lieder, solo piano music and chamber music.


----------



## howlingfantods

Neo Romanza said:


> Given Hurwitz's experience as a percussionist in an orchestra, it's no wonder why he likes orchestral music as much as he does. As a former percussionist myself, I'm inclined to agree with his preference for orchestral music, but I do like a other genres like songs/lieder, solo piano music and chamber music.


it is pretty charming how enthusiastic he is about the tam tam. i think he even mentioned that he thinks they should start adding it in performances of bach choral music :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> Hurwitz seems like a nice and cheerful fellow. *Sure, he has opinions, but who doesn't?* His views on HIP matters and vibrato are the opposite of mine, so I consider him useless concerning baroque music or later music using period instruments. Other than that, no problems.
> 
> Wait, there is one and it concerns his Classics Today website. It's free except for selected reviews, and you have to pay a monthly fee to read them. What makes those recordings so special? I find it a cheesy way to make some bucks.


No-one here on TC surely? :lol:


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

howlingfantods said:


> i find it useful to have his channel as a reference. and I like the format where he discusses a number of recommended recordings rather than just one, *since i like to have suggestions for sticking in my shopping list*, and he often discusses recordings i didn't even know existed.


This right here. His opinion is his opinion, but any time someone who knows more than I do and wants to drill down into the working parts of a particular piece that I'm interested, I'll listen to them.



Neo Romanza said:


> Given Hurwitz's experience as a percussionist in an orchestra, it's no wonder why he likes orchestral music as much as he does. As a former percussionist myself, I'm inclined to agree with his preference for orchestral music, but I do like a other genres like songs/lieder, solo piano music and chamber music.


Yeah, he can easily be forgiven his preference there...



howlingfantods said:


> it is pretty charming how enthusiastic he is about the tam tam. i think he even mentioned that he thinks they should start adding it in performances of bach choral music :lol:


Right?!? It could be a drinking game: take a shot everytime he says tam tam. :lol:


----------



## Merl

BlackAdderLXX said:


> This right here. His opinion is his opinion, but any time someone who knows more than I do and wants to drill down into the working parts of a particular piece that I'm interested, I'll listen to them.
> 
> Yeah, he can easily be forgiven his preference there...
> 
> Right?!? It could be a drinking game: take a shot everytime he says tam tam. :lol:


He mentions the tam-tam a lot. You'll be hammered after one review.


----------



## Gray Bean

I must say, I gave his videos on Das Lied von der Erde and Beethoven Symphony cycles a watch and found that I 
was entertained by his commentary and suggested recordings. Yes...he is opinionated, but he is a critic. His persona comes across totally different on video. Seems cheerful and knowledgeable...I stand corrected.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Gray Bean said:


> I must say, I gave his videos on Das Lied von der Erde and Beethoven Symphony cycles a watch and found that I
> was entertained by his commentary and suggested recordings. Yes...he is opinionated, but he is a critic. His persona comes across totally different on video. Seems cheerful and knowledgeable...I stand corrected.


I saw those also. I was pleasantly surprised by his Beethoven cycle recommendations. He actually mentioned Schuricht. I fact, I agree with most of his recommendations.

I've been having fun with this channel. He's got me listening to recordings and pieces that I have been neglecting. Whether he is right or wrong, he's spurring me to make new encounters with this music, and that's always a good thing.


----------



## Marc

For a critic who wants to be taken seriously, I find Hurwitz' style often too disdainful and sneering towards recordings/performances/artists he doesn't like. In those cases he seems to think: this review is all about ME being important, sharp and funny. Which, in my view, is a wrong attitude. But I guess that it's exactly this style that is liked by many readers and viewers.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Regardless of whether they're professional or not, these are two of the funniest things I've seen in a long time:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Does Hurwitz simply not know anything about opera? I have yet to see a single opera review.


----------



## Guest

I think reviews are pretty close to useless, normally the only thing I get out of them is the fact that the recording exists. I watched a few brief excerpts of the Hurwitz videos and was surprised that they were sort of jovial in tone and at least have some entertainment value. I wasn't expecting that based on what people usually say about him. If he can make a living this way, all the best to him.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does Hurwitz simply not know anything about opera? I have yet to see a single opera review.


Maybe he doesn't like opera? Just a thought.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Baron Scarpia said:


> If he can make a living this way, all the best to him.


Just on a side note, he just said he has enough subscribers on this channel to be montetized. Good for him. It probably won't be much, but it's nice to see anyone making money in the music field right now.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does Hurwitz simply not know anything about opera? I have yet to see a single opera review.


He said he doesn't like to wade into the "opera world" because he thinks people will attack him for not liking certain singers and vice versa. Don't know if that's just an excuse or not.


----------



## WildThing

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does Hurwitz simply not know anything about opera? I have yet to see a single opera review.


He talks about this a little at the beginning of his video on Verdi's Requiem. He says he really enjoys opera, but the videos would be a lot more involved because there is so much to talk about from singers to conductors to choruses to orchestras, etc. and he finds the prospect a little daunting. He also seems to kind of fear blowback from fans of particular singers. But he plans on tackling them in some capacity in the future.


----------



## wkasimer

Allegro Con Brio said:


> He said he doesn't like to wade into the "opera world" because he thinks people will attack him for not liking certain singers and vice versa. Don't know if that's just an excuse or not.


He's probably right. I've been on a variety of online opera forums over the years, and discussions can become rather heated and often personal.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I don't think he knows opera well. It wouldn't surprise me if he's not a big fan. I just did a search and it appears Robert Levine does most all the opera reviews for his website.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> He's probably right. I've been on a variety of online opera forums over the years, and discussions can become rather heated and often personal.


I'm a singer myself, and I think people get too wrapped up in individual voices. The overall conception is most important to me. When someone takes a great opera recording and says "yeah, but so-and-so's voice ruins it for me," I usually ignore that.

Now, if someone in a lead role is just a terrible, faceless actor or actress, that matters more. But that's not a personal reaction to a particular voice.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

I finally watched some more videos so I could form an opinion. I have to say that I like Hurwitz. I appreciate his uniqueness and that has skin in the game. Most critics I know (of course, I predominantly read in my native language) try to be too academic, correct and tactful. The constant pursuit of objectivity and balance is a bit tiring for me. So it's a nice change. He's such an unstudied guy who talks about music. With enthusiasm and with a sufficient dose of erudition. It's natural that I don't agree with many of his opinions, but so it is here on the forum. I have my own ears, I will create my own opinion. However, I appreciate to take advice and show a different perspective and this is what Hurwitz (and many of you here) offers...


----------



## realdealblues

I like watching Hurwitz's reviews. We agree more often than not on things we both look for in recordings, but like with anyone else, there are bound to be differences of opinion. He hates Bernstein's Vienna Brahms cycle for instance. I get where he is coming from and I agree it's an "acquired taste" but I still like to hear it and it still puts a smile on my face.

I like that he has done videos on several works that I don't like or just plain haven't gotten because he often has some backstory that gives me something to listen for or at least allows me to maybe understand where the composer was coming from.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Allegro Con Brio said:


> He said he doesn't like to wade into the "opera world" because he thinks people will attack him for not liking certain singers and vice versa. Don't know if that's just an excuse or not.


My understanding is that he likes to defer to his classicstoday.com colleagues on opera (David Vernier) and solo instruments, especially piano (Jed Distler), because he considers them to have more expertise in these genres.


----------



## Janspe

I have nothing personal against Hurwitz, and I appreciate his obvious enthusiasm for music. I admire the breadth of his listening experience and would like to be as knowledgeable of the recording industry as he clearly is.

His criticism, however, is of no value to me. The way he reviews recordings is so painfully predictable that I can pretty much predict what he's going to say of any given topic. A new Rautavaara recording? Almost certainly a 10/10 review. Anything even slightly resembling HIP? CD from Hell. Any contemporary music that dares to give the pieces titles? Pretentious. Oh, unless it's a composer he happens to like. How about Messiaen? Great, unless it's vocal music since he just _cannot_ stand Messiaen's texts and the reader is given no explanations whatsoever as to why. =)

He gives relatively few solid examples when describing music he dislikes, but it gets even worse when he actually likes something. So many of his 10/10-reviews just say something along the lines of "the music is, to put it simply, damn pretty and should be played everywhere". Ok, David, anything else?

His review of Boulez's complete works set was so embarrassingly scathing that I just can't take him seriously anymore.

I've studied a bit of arts criticism as a part of my art research university degree. Now, never ever expect that to materialize in my writing on this forum in any way since I'm not a writer or anything, but after doing a few classes on the topic it has become painfully clear to me what bothers me in a lot of criticism. The reader is not left enlightened, not filled with newfound appreciation or understanding of the art in question - it's just opinons, seldom based on anything except some higher authority status that we're just supposed to accept as a given. It's tiring, and it plagues so much of the criticism field these days. I have also read a lot of great criticism (and music journalism more generally) in case anyone thinks I have a problem with the field in general - on the contrary, I very much support writing criticism. Just not like this.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Janspe said:


> I have nothing personal against Hurwitz, and I appreciate his obvious enthusiasm for music. I admire the breadth of his listening experience and would like to be as knowledgeable of the recording industry as he clearly is.
> 
> His criticism, however, is of no value to me. The way he reviews recordings is so painfully predictable that I can pretty much predict what he's going to say of any given topic. A new Rautavaara recording? Almost certainly a 10/10 review. Anything even slightly resembling HIP? CD from Hell. Any contemporary music that dares to give the pieces titles? Pretentious. Oh, unless it's a composer he happens to like. How about Messiaen? Great, unless it's vocal music since he just _cannot_ stand Messiaen's texts and the reader is given no explanations whatsoever as to why. =)
> 
> He gives relatively few solid examples when describing music he dislikes, but it gets even worse when he actually likes something. So many of his 10/10-reviews just say something along the lines of "the music is, to put it simply, damn pretty and should be played everywhere". Ok, David, anything else?
> 
> His review of Boulez's complete works set was so embarrassingly scathing that I just can't take him seriously anymore.
> 
> I've studied a bit of arts criticism as a part of my art research university degree. Now, never ever expect that to materialize in my writing on this forum in any way since I'm not a writer or anything, but after doing a few classes on the topic it has become painfully clear to me what bothers me in a lot of criticism. The reader is not left enlightened, not filled with newfound appreciation or understanding of the art in question - it's just opinons, seldom based on anything except some higher authority status that we're just supposed to accept as a given. It's tiring, and it plagues so much of the criticism field these days. I have also read a lot of great criticism (and music journalism more generally) in case anyone thinks I have a problem with the field in general - on the contrary, I very much support writing criticism. Just not like this.


Quite a reasonable and well-argued post, Janspe. I get so tired of his whole 'CD From Hell' reviews. Like you said, he has several notable biases and they're also right out there in the open to anyone who has read any of his ClassicsToday reviews. I think he's a polarizing figure in music criticism. He doesn't really offer any interesting insights of his own and much of what he says is something that I could've said or posted about. In other words, his opinion isn't any more important than anyone else's. I also find his tirades against Boulez for example to be bizarre. He recently did a video on Allan Pettersson and I could have swore he was going to have a mental breakdown or something. The only critic that's worth reading on ClassicsToday's website is any review written by Jens Laurson. Now, this is a more insightful reviewer. I also like to refer to the reviews written on MusicWeb. They're a lot better done than anything Hurwitz has written.


----------



## Marc

In my younger years I was a subscriber to a music magazine. In some cases, critics had to review a work by a composer they disliked. They told so in the beginning and then began a review of the performance/recording itself, without prejudices towards the work or composer. That's a style that I much more appreciate than Hurwitz's. 
Besides that: I still read his reviews from time to time, I visit his YouTube channel from time to time, and I wish him well.


----------



## Knorf

100% agreed, Janspe!


----------



## Knorf

Janspe said:


> His review of Boulez's complete works set was so embarrassingly scathing that I just can't take him seriously anymore.


I hadn't seen this, so I had to go look it up. Predictably, even though it's from seven years ago, it's only available to one of his "Classics Today Insiders." Absolutely I am not supporting that hack's style of criticism with my money.

Anyway, Hurwitz heaps quite a ton of ignorance just in the headline and first two sentences that are available to heathen scum like me who refuse to subscribe:



The Biggest Jackass in Classical Music Criticism said:


> *Boulez Complete Works: A Big Box Of Punishment*
> 
> Thirteen discs of this stuff is torture--27 works that graphically illuminate the utter failure of the post-War avant-garde. It will be interesting to see if anyone cares about Boulez when he's not around to promote himself. You certainly don't see...


I don't know what's after the trailing ellipsis. (I infer it's an ignorant swipe insinuating that no one else was picking up Boulez's music besides Boulez. More on that to follow.)

I mean, I have zero issue with disliking Boulez's music. If you've honestly listened to it, and it's not your bag, who can argue? Move on.

But to describe Boulez's music as "punishment" and "torture"? That is way over the top, irresponsible, and utter excrement. It suggests to me quite strongly that this jackass didn't listen to a single disc from that box. But, I'm sorry, this is not the best music anyone could use to torture someone, not even figuratively. (My own personal hell would be "New Age.")

Yes, sure, Boulez was briefly a member of the post-war avant garde; that much is true for as long as that was a thing, which wasn't very long. But very little music of Boulez is in any way difficult to listen to. It's rapturously luxurious from _Le Marteau sans maître_ forward, gorgeously orchestrated, and never abrasive. I mean, Hurwitz seems to appreciate other post-tonal composers with a dissonant or highly chromatic vocabulary just fine. So why not Boulez? It's barely more abrasive than Debussy most of the time! It's certainly not harder to listen to than Varèse or Messiaen, whose music Hurwitz seems okay with.

He didn't listen to it.

"It will be interesting to see if anyone cares about Boulez when he's not around to promote himself."

Ok, first of all, Boulez was a huge international success as a composer before he was as a conductor. That's just fact. He did not become a professional conductor just to promote his own music, but because he had been so good at it with the _Domaine musical_ that this side of his career just started soaring. On these concerts were programmed a huge variety of pieces from the Renaissance forward, not just contemporary but admittedly rarely standard repertoire, certainly not just his own music.

And all composers, especially when starting out, but not just then, have to be able to conduct their own music. Do we see Hurwitz bashing the likes of Stravinsky, Copland, or Bernstein because they conducted a lot of their own music? (Especially you, Lenny...)

Second of all, _Le Marteau sans maître_ has been performed like mad worldwide since shortly after it was written. For a post-war piece, it's a pretty damn popular hit. And, yes, it has been recorded numerous times by conductors other than Boulez, including a few pretty recently.

For that matter, my first hearing of a piece by Boulez-which totally blew me away and changed my world forever-was his _Notations I-IV_, in a recording conducted by none other than Claudio Abbado with the Wiener Philharmoniker! If I'm not wrong, at least four recordings of those pieces appeared on disc before Boulez released a commercial recording of them himself. And that's a group of pieces getting around very successfully since Boulez died!

So, I think we can already see very clearly that, yes, someone cares about Boulez when he's not around. And it ain't just me, as much as I would love to be able to fund major recordings projects of his music all be myself. There are some composers whose music indeed seems to vanish shortly after they die, sadly. More's the pity.

But that certainly hasn't happened with Boulez.

Will anyone be shocked that I was easily able to find a review from Hurwitz that contradicts this "torture" narrative? Here it is. For this one, the whole text is available:



> [Boulez] has taken the typically French polished surface and exquisite sense of sonority a step further...
> 
> [_Messagesquisse_] may not sound much like Villa-Lobos in Bachianas brasileiras mode but it surely takes a similar visceral delight in the rich variety of sounds available to a virtuoso ensemble of cellos...
> 
> Finally there's Sur Incises, a magnificent piece "about" the myriad ways the sound of three pianos can be extended by adding three harps and three percussionists...
> 
> ...after the calm opening, some real Bartókian fireworks give the music genuine passion and expressive urgency. Difficult? Yes, but rewarding too...
> 
> Enjoyable, even wonderful...


"Torture," huh?

Fork you, Hurwitz.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I think he thrives on being a polemicist, even if those polarizing ideas can be contradictory as Knorf points out above. He knows that negativity - as he shows so often in his written reviews - and cynicism - like in his (admittedly hilarious but incredibly sarcastic and mean-spirited) video review of the Currentzis Beethoven 5th is what generates likes and clicks and he’s not afraid to flaunt that. Many of my views coincide with his, but it’s hard to be sympathetic towards them when he’s often so purely dismissive and egoistic. I still watch his videos because, as I said, it’s nice to see someone who speaks the same “language” as us geeks...but I wish someone who was a bit more likeable was doing this kind of thing.

Totally off topic, but I totally agree with the above sentiments on Boulez. Lots of avant-garde composers are difficult for me to understand, but for some reason I’ve never had a problem with him.


----------



## Janspe

Knorf said:


> I hadn't seen this, so I had to go look it up. Predictably, even though it's from seven years ago, it's only available to one of his "Classics Today Insiders." Absolutely I am not supporting that hack's style of criticism with my money.


I definitely have not subscribed to the site's Insider service either. The Boulez review used to be accessible somewhere online, I reckon it might be still out there and reachable via a bit of googling. Wont post it here, don't know if that would break any rules since it theoretically is a text behind a paywall. Warning: approach with caution. It's not a nice read. =)


----------



## Neo Romanza

Janspe said:


> I definitely have not subscribed to the site's Insider service either. The Boulez review used to be accessible somewhere online, I reckon it might be still out there and reachable via a bit of googling. Wont post it here, don't know if that would break any rules since it theoretically is a text behind a paywall. Warning: approach with caution. It's not a nice read. =)


I care as much about his opinion about Boulez as what my mom thinks of Boulez. In other words, they've never listened to this composer and if they did they wouldn't understand that music can be about a lot more than simply rhythm, melody, harmony, etc.


----------



## Knorf

Janspe said:


> I definitely have not subscribed to the site's Insider service either.


Apologies! I hadn't meant to imply otherwise.


> The Boulez review used to be accessible somewhere online, I reckon it might be still out there and reachable via a bit of googling. Wont post it here, don't know if that would break any rules since it theoretically is a text behind a paywall. Warning: approach with caution. It's not a nice read. =)


I read enough, to be honest. Hurwitz's words mean nothing to me, not even those I agree with!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Neo Romanza said:


> I care as much about his opinion about Boulez as what my mom thinks of Boulez.


Well, he does like Morton Feldman. That should count for something.


----------



## Plague

I don't care very much about his recording reviews, and I know his opinion could be idiosyncratic at times. For example, his pick for the worst Rite of Spring ever - Gergiev's recording on Philips, coupled with Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy - received glowing reviews everywhere else. That's fine with me, he's not the only critic I will consult to decide whether to buy / download a recording.

I find his "repertoire" videos on less known works very helpful and informative. Some works I'm listening to right now, like Goldmark's Rustic Wedding Symphony, Kalliwoda's string quartets, I learned them first from his youtube channel.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

A bit of a mixed bag is Hurwitz. He _can_ be helpful and his enthusiasm is a good thing for Classical music, perhaps esp. for new listeners. His dogmatism is oppressive, however, and he typically sees (hears) things only in black and white. "Norrington is a fraud," he informs us in several videos, and it's easy to come away from his video reviews personally insulted if you don't think like he does. It would behoove him to operate more from his I - "Personally, I don't like Norrington..." In sum, best to take him _cum grano salis_.


----------



## starthrower

He was okay for a couple videos but I'd rather learn something from a great music host like Bill McGlaughlin on his Exploring Music show.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

starthrower said:


> He was okay for a couple videos but I'd rather learn something from a great music host like Bill McGlaughlin on his Exploring Music show.


I concur; he's a super music host. Among many memorable shows, I remember the thrill of hearing the episode wherein he visited Dvořák's Spillville, Iowa site. I remember every word he said.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I ended my short-lived subscription to his channel when he posted a half-hour rant against the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th. Not simply because I disagree with his opinion, but because anyone who calls themselves an honest, upright critic and needs to post that long of a video just to say negative things about something is clearly an insecure polemicist. I mean, if you don’t understand why people like it, why waste all those words? He ought to admit his own limitations and express what he thinks about it, but he goes way beyond that and says that other people have limitations. That is the epitome of arrogance. My impression is that he is unable to see beyond the surface, and if anyone hears something “special” in the recording he slams them for “hearing things that aren’t there." Why his opinion is so influential is beyond me. I like his recording surveys where he talks about positive and negative alike, and his videos on more obscure works, but now I think he’s devolving into “classical music clickbait” and I wish a more likeable person on YouTube was doing this because I think the concept itself is great. I myself have wanted to post video responses to some of his opinions, but I figured I’d better just ignore him from now on and save my frustration for more worthwhile things like war, poverty, and global pandemics.


----------



## Russell Chee

I might add his incomprehensible clinging on to the notion that the New York Philharmonic and the Czech Philharmonic were somehow "more important Mahler orchestras" than the Vienna Philharmonic, a ludicrous dogmatism he repeats over and over. Even if the Vienna Phil have become a lot more restricted in their repertoire as of late, it's impossibly short sighted to argue that the NY Phil were important just because Mahler spent his last two years there, and because Bernstein conducted there - I don't even get where his supposed obsession with the Mahler tradition in the Czech Phil begins. Neumann? But that isn't even a great cycle, so. Also, he berates (Gramophone) critics for their hagiographic treatment of Karajan in the past - something I totally agree became excessive - and then praises Charles Munch, George Szell, Fritz Reiner and Leonard Bernstein in literally (no exaggeration) every recording they've made. Plus, he must have some vendetta against the Vienna Phil, for he never fails to include a scathing criticism of their apparently awful technical ability in a review of any recordings from that orchestra - perhaps they rejected him for the role of tam-tam ?


----------



## Knorf

Plague said:


> I don't care very much about his recording reviews, and I know his opinion could be idiosyncratic at times. For example, his pick for the worst Rite of Spring ever - Gergiev's recording on Philips, coupled with Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy - received glowing reviews everywhere else. That's fine with me, he's not the only critic I will consult to decide whether to buy / download a recording.


"Worst ever" is a but absurd, although I have a better candidate for that: Spano, Detroit Symphony. But I actually agree with Hurwitz that Gergiev's _Le Sacre_ is not recommendable. However, Hurwitz goes on to insinuate that Gergiev is basically incompetent. He does that absurdly often: he doesn't like the recording, possibly for good reasons but more often for ignorant or prejudicial ones, and therefore the conductor is incompetent, or requires correction. Hurwitz's correction, natch. No, thanks, I say.

Hurwitz flat out does _not_ deserve the influence he has.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Plague said:


> I don't care very much about his recording reviews, and I know his opinion could be idiosyncratic at times. For example, his pick for the worst Rite of Spring ever - Gergiev's recording on Philips, coupled with Scriabin's Poem of Ecstasy - received glowing reviews everywhere else. That's fine with me, he's not the only critic I will consult to decide whether to buy / download a recording.


Next to Bernstein/NY that's my favorite Rite. Dynamic, earth-shattering, primal. Just like how it should be done! Yes, he takes a lot of interpretive liberties but the experience is like no other. I think Hurwitz dislikes conductors who take interpretive risks. He just wants everything to be safe and well-played. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not what I look for in performances.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I have the DVD of Gergiev's Firebird and Rite recorded live 2008 with the ballet. That version was quite all right. I tried out his 2001 version just now, and have to say it felt really off.


----------



## Knorf

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I have the DVD of Gergiev's Firebird and Rite recorded live 2008 with the ballet. That version was quite all right. I tried out his 2001 version just now, and have to say it felt really off.


Agreed, except for the bizarrely stretched final bar, the 2008 Gergiev/Mariinsky performance accompanying the ballet recreation is quite good. The 2001 CD, however, is awful; I literally returned it to the shop on the same day I bought it, and I've collected more _Rite of Spring_ recordings than any other repertoire! Not recommended.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Knorf said:


> Agreed, except for the bizarrely stretched final bar, the 2008 Gergiev/Mariinsky performance accompanying the ballet recreation is quite good. The 2001 CD, however, is awful; I literally returned it to the shop on the same day I bought it, and I've collected more _Rite of Spring_ recordings than any other repertoire! Not recommended.


What's your favourite? Personally Boulez's first Sony version is one that gets me like no other.

Ever hear this one? The balance is really off, with some parts inaudible, but it's pretty wild.


----------



## howlingfantods

Janspe said:


> Anything even slightly resembling HIP? CD from Hell.


he clearly has some skepticism about HIP but this is a ludicrous exaggeration. his brandenburg concertos video picks hipsters for the top 4 choices, including picking the leonhardt mostly because of the hipster future allstars nature of the recording (with playing from the kuijkens and bruggen and bylsma and asperen etc).


----------



## Knorf

Phil loves classical said:


> What's your favourite? Personally Boulez's first Sony version is one that gets me like no other.
> 
> Ever hear this one? The balance is really off, with some parts inaudible, but it's pretty wild.


Honestly I couldn't possibly choose only one. I had Markevitch's with the Philharmonia on cassette a long time ago, but the one I grew up with was Ančerl/CPO. The Markevitch was on a very cheap cassette that died quickly, so I replaced it with Ančerl as I couldn't find the Markevitch again, but it was the first recorded music I had ever purchased for myself. I think I was 12.

Boulez's _Le Sacre_ recordings oddly enough have never been that high on my favorites list, except for the video he made with the LSO, which I like a lot. I should probably also revisit the Cleveland recording on DG at some point, since a few of his DG recordings have grown on me considerably over the years, such as the very highly underrated CSO Varèse disc.

There are A LOT of good _Le Sacre_ recordings, though, so I really don't need as wayward and distorted a version as Gergiev's 2001 outing. By the way, I really like Gergiev in general, so this isn't just me reflexively bashing on him as some do.

On the list of _Le Sacre_ recordings I will return to, in no particular order: the aforementioned Markevitch/Philharmonia (which is still forking awesome after all these years) and Ančerl/CPO, Dutoit/OSM, Ozawa/CSO, Barenboim/CSO, Boulez/LSO, Bernstein/LSO, Stravinsky/Columbia, Roth/Les Siècles, Fischer/Budapest, MTT/BSO, Chailly/Lucerne. But there are so many more!


----------



## Knorf

After listening to the Markevitch/Philharmonia again just now, I changed my mind. That one's still my favorite! I might change my mind again tomorrow, though.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I ended my short-lived subscription to his channel when he posted a half-hour rant against the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th. Not simply because I disagree with his opinion, but because anyone who calls themselves an honest, upright critic and needs to post that long of a video just to say negative things about something is clearly an insecure polemicist. I mean, if you don't understand why people like it, why waste all those words? He ought to admit his own limitations and express what he thinks about it, but he goes way beyond that and says that other people have limitations. That is the epitome of arrogance. My impression is that he is unable to see beyond the surface, and if anyone hears something "special" in the recording he slams them for "hearing things that aren't there." Why his opinion is so influential is beyond me. I like his recording surveys where he talks about positive and negative alike, and his videos on more obscure works, but now I think he's devolving into "classical music clickbait" and I wish a more likeable person on YouTube was doing this because I think the concept itself is great. I myself have wanted to post video responses to some of his opinions, but I figured I'd better just ignore him from now on and save my frustration for more worthwhile things like war, poverty, and global pandemics.


Dear Allegro, I am no fan of Hurwitz, but he is a professional critic, and a critic's job is to cast judgments on these recordings according to his own reasonings. He provided justifications for his distaste for Furtwangler's "Black 9th" and I think they are reasonable (bad sound and sloppy plays).

His "limitation" is precisely what makes his critique valuable, in that his is different from yours or mine so we can get a different take on familiar things, whether we agree with it or not. Calling him "arrogant" is a bit too fast, don't you think? What might appears as "clickbait" for you might be just an honest opinion for him and his fans. For me, an "unlikable" critic is the good critic, in that he challenges our comfortable views, which potentially opens up space for us to appreciate things in a different perspective. A "likable" critic is not really a critic, but a mirror of ourselves to validate our own biases.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Dear Allegro, I am no fan of Hurwitz, but he is a professional critic, and a critic's job is to cast judgments on these recordings according to his own reasonings. He provided justifications for his distaste for Furtwangler's "Black 9th" and I think they are reasonable (bad sound and sloppy plays).
> 
> His "limitation" is precisely what makes his critique valuable, in that his is different from yours or mine so we can get a different take on familiar things, whether we agree with it or not. Calling him "arrogant" is a bit too fast, don't you think? What might appears as "clickbait" for you might be just an honest opinion for him and his fans. For me, an "unlikable" critic is the good critic, in that he challenges our comfortable views, which potentially opens up space for us to appreciate things in a different perspective. A "likable" critic is not really a critic, but a mirror of ourselves to validate our own biases.


All fair points. I simply find him too negative for me. The idea of making a half-hour video solely devoted to negative (and at times ridiculing) criticism is, to me, unprofessional. If he wanted to make a video talking about, from an upright critical perspective, why he dislikes Furtwängler's 1942 Beethoven 9th, I don't think he would it called it, "Why Furtwängler's Nazi Ninth Really Sucks." That is what I call clickbait.


----------



## starthrower

I don't really care about his opinions. Everybody has their likes and dislikes. But I did learn about a couple of Mahler 5 recordings I hadn't heard of. As far as his Beethoven cycles survey, he didn't even mention some of the better recordings of recent years. I don't think he mentioned Skrowaczewski, Fischer, or de Vriend. I couldn't be bothered to sit through anymore 20-30 minute videos after that. I prefer to read and listen on my own.


----------



## howlingfantods

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Dear Allegro, I am no fan of Hurwitz, but he is a professional critic, and a critic's job is to cast judgments on these recordings according to his own reasonings. He provided justifications for his distaste for Furtwangler's "Black 9th" and I think they are reasonable (bad sound and sloppy plays).
> 
> His "limitation" is precisely what makes his critique valuable, in that his is different from yours or mine so we can get a different take on familiar things, whether we agree with it or not. Calling him "arrogant" is a bit too fast, don't you think? What might appears as "clickbait" for you might be just an honest opinion for him and his fans. For me, an "unlikable" critic is the good critic, in that he challenges our comfortable views, which potentially opens up space for us to appreciate things in a different perspective. A "likable" critic is not really a critic, but a mirror of ourselves to validate our own biases.


yeah, agree completely with this. in fact, i often strongly disagree with hurwitz's opinions--he hates sokolov and furtwangler's brahms 3 and wartime beethoven, all things i couldn't disagree with more. and obviously his interests are pretty narrow--largely classical era to early 20th century orchestral music, and i think it's pretty clear he's a little less well informed and/or interested in opera and chamber/solo repertoire. he obviously favors precision and execution far more than i do, but i don't think it's fair to say that that's all he cares about. if he did, he would probably like boulez and haitink's mahler more.

and in any case, it's good to have a resource available who does care about these things, so when I want to find out who has a good, well executed recording of X in great sound, I know whose reviews to consult.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Dear Allegro, I am no fan of Hurwitz, but he is a professional critic, and a critic's job is to cast judgments on these recordings according to his own reasonings. He provided justifications for his distaste for Furtwangler's "Black 9th" and I think they are reasonable (bad sound and sloppy plays).
> 
> His "limitation" is precisely what makes his critique valuable, in that his is different from yours or mine so we can get a different take on familiar things, whether we agree with it or not. Calling him "arrogant" is a bit too fast, don't you think? What might appears as "clickbait" for you might be just an honest opinion for him and his fans. For me, an "unlikable" critic is the good critic, in that he challenges our comfortable views, which potentially opens up space for us to appreciate things in a different perspective. A "likable" critic is not really a critic, but a mirror of ourselves to validate our own biases.


No, it's not that simple. Hurwitz claims that people who like the recording are only imagining things in their head which he ascribes to the aura of Nazis being in the audience. He also insinuates that only people with cult-like worship of Furtwängler could claim to like this recording. That's going too far. This is what Allegro means by arrogance. He is in fact a limited person with obvious insecurity issues.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, it's not that simple. Hurwitz claims that people who like the recording are only imagining things in their head which he ascribes to the aura of Nazis being in the audience. He also insinuates that only people with cult-like worship of Furtwängler could claim to like this recording. That's going too far. This is what Allegro means by arrogance. He is in fact a limited person with obvious insecurity issues.


Well, ok yes. David manifests low self-esteem and displays an 'under-achiever complex'. But he's not arrogant, more simply misguided. But he's fun, speaks our language and is instructive - people like him make the world go around, leave him alone!


----------



## Phil loves classical

I see Hurwitz similar to a typical stock analyst. Buy his recommendations at your own risk.  I did with some of Malcolm Arnold's symphonies, which were given 10/10 for performance and sound, and regret it. Record reviewers don't always have the time to really get into the performance and the nuances. I find some of his perfect recommendations are not very individual, while they usually do have great sound which seems to affect his judgement on the interpretation itself. 

On the flip side, there are some more individual interpretations that he gives ok to meh ratings, mainly because he just doesn't agree with the approach, when some might respond more to them than he does, which I often have. So I basically already have an idea how his ratings go and what to expect now over time. 

If I want to get a work I don't know (which only applies to the old days of going to the record store that didn't allow sampling), then his recommendations are pretty solid for a good introduction to the work. If I want to find a good interpretations, then I listen myself and he doesn't come to play at all. I tend to agree with the record guides by 3rd Ear, Grammophone, and BBC more with their top recommendations.


----------



## Knorf

Honestly, you'll do better with our own Merl for a similar range of repertoire. Merl's easily heard as many recordings as Hurwitz, or nearly so, but with a more thoughtful, curious, and creative mind, one open to the enormous spectrum of what music interpretation is; Hurwitz is an intellectual and musical clod. Best of all, Merl's a super nice guy with no chips on his shoulder, no grudges, and very importantly no inner urges to tear others down in order to try to lift himself up.

Now, pretend I didn't write any of that when Merl comes back. 

Ah, there he is! Merl, you're a knob. I mean that in all respect.


----------



## Joachim Raff

Watching the videos and to some extent his reviews on Classic's today he tends to favour American orchestras/conductors. Szell, Ormandy, Berny always seem to get a mention. He has permission to play excerpts from Naxos recordings so maybe a little bias there. He seems to have a relationship with reference label as well. His approach to great classical music is the 'excitement factor' but I'm sure crash, bang, wallop is not everyone's cup of tea.


----------



## howlingfantods

Joachim Raff said:


> Watching the videos and to some extent his reviews on Classic's today he tends to favour American orchestras/conductors. Szell, Ormandy, Berny always seem to get a mention.


i don't think that's really true--he spends a ton of time talking up eastern european and french orchestras, and my guess is he considers the concertgebouw the greatest. and he practically glows every time he mentions ancerl, markevitch and fricsay.

if there's a bias, it's a bias against english and austrian/german orchestras and conductors. although that may not be bias so much as a corrective for the extreme english and austrian/german bias in favor evinced by the british guides and magazines.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Honestly, you'll do better with our own Merl for a similar range of repertoire. Merl's easily heard as many recordings as Hurwitz, or nearly so, but with a more thoughtful, curious, and creative mind, one open to the enormous spectrum of what music interpretation is; Hurwitz is an intellectual and musical clod. Best of all, Merl's a super nice guy with no chips on his shoulder, no grudges, and very importantly no inner urges to tear others down in order to try to lift himself up.
> 
> Now, pretend I didn't write any of that when Merl comes back.
> 
> Ah, there he is! Merl, you're a knob. I mean that in all respect.


LOL, I'm defriending you, bassoon-boy.:lol:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

howlingfantods said:


> i don't think that's really true--he spends a ton of time talking up eastern european and french orchestras, and my guess is he considers the concertgebouw the greatest. and he practically glows every time he mentions ancerl, markevitch and fricsay.
> 
> if there's a bias, it's a bias against english and austrian/german orchestras and conductors. although that may not be bias so much as a corrective for the extreme english and austrian/german bias in favor evinced by the british guides and magazines.


I have stopped reading British music critics about 15 years ago precisely because of the biases. But since then, I have to say that their biases appear to be rather mild (rather than extreme), Gramophone wrote spot-on and well-informed reviews compared to the rest, you just need to explore outside of their limited recommendations and develop your own critical senses.

Hurwitz is not as radical as you describe him to be, maestros such as Ancerl, Markevitch, and Fricsay are universally praised and held in high regard by Britsh critics as well. There are so many less famous great artists who you can only discover through historical recordings. I think that's Hurwitz's weakness.


----------



## howlingfantods

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Hurwitz is not as radical as you describe him to be, maestros such as Ancerl, Markevitch, and Fricsay are universally praised and held in high regard by Britsh critics as well.


Oh I don't think he's unusual in this regard. I'm just saying he doesn't seem like he's biased only for US orchestras and US-based conductors, an accusation I do see from time to time. at least from watching his youtube videos, i'd guess that his favorite conductors are ancerl, markevitch, fricsay, mackerras, and lenny. only one of those is a US based guy so I think the "US bias" accusation lacks evidence.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

howlingfantods said:


> Oh I don't think he's unusual in this regard. I'm just saying he doesn't seem like he's biased only for US orchestras and US-based conductors, an accusation I do see from time to time. at least from watching his youtube videos, i'd guess that his favorite conductors are ancerl, markevitch, fricsay, mackerras, and lenny. only one of those is a US based guy so I think the "US bias" accusation lacks evidence.


Very true, I agree. Even if Hurwitz is biased toward the US orchestra, I don't see why it's a problem for seasoned listeners.


----------



## starthrower

I had to shake my head listening to some of his comments on the Alban Berg Quartett box. He criticized them at length for not recording obscure classical era composers, and more standard German/Viennese repertoire and castigated them for recording "crap" like Wolfgang Rihm. And the fact that they didn't record a Mendelssohn cycle. As if there aren't enough recordings on the market?


----------



## starthrower

Here's one I enjoyed. A nice, long, interesting list of recordings.


----------



## Phil loves classical

starthrower said:


> I had to shake my head listening to some of his comments on the Alban Berg Quartett box. He criticized them at length for not recording obscure classical era composers, and more standard German/Viennese repertoire and castigated them for recording "crap" like Wolfgang Rihm. And the fact that they didn't record a Mendelssohn cycle. As if there aren't enough recordings on the market?


He called it "awful stuff" from the part I heard, and that no one cares about Stockhausen and his crew, nor for Rihm. Usually Gramophon, 3rd ear would get contributors more appreciative of a certain style to review. It's definitely not very professional for a senior editor. No more of his videos for me.


----------



## starthrower

Phil loves classical said:


> He called it "awful stuff" from the part I heard. Usually Gramophon, 3rd ear would get contributors more appreciative of a certain style to review. It's definitely not very professional for a senior editor.


If I didn't know I'd have assumed he was just another average Joe YouTuber doing his thing. He certainly doesn't come across as highly professional.


----------



## science

Well, I feel that.


----------



## caracalla

I have some time for Hurwitz, though the brief period when I needed a daily fix is over. He covers a great deal of Romantic and early modern repertoire where I'm weak, and his enthusiasm is often infectious. His prejudices, bees in bonnet etc are blatant, but I don't mind that - they're easily enough discounted, and reminiscent of boisterous Victorian criticism. Quite often I find him entertaining even when I think he's talking nonsense. On occasion I think his recommendations are worth checking out, but wouldn't dream of taking any of them as gospel.

His (rather rare) reviews of earlier - Baroque and prior - music are something else however. He knows next to nothing about it, cares less, and can't be bothered making the slightest effort. All variations on the theme of 'you start the music up and it pretty much plays itself', coupled with a plug or two for the tiny percentage of recordings he's made himself listen to, one of which will be by Mackerras. As 'reviewing' goes, this is downright slovenly.


----------



## Granate

Seeing some videos and some of your comments, I'm seeing a future where Hurwitz replaces the tam tam onscreen for a Mackerras complete recordings set.

I wish I could ever have the brains to destroy and call out the fans of the Karajan Vienna Bruckner 7 or the Furtwängler Vienna Bruckner 8 for hearing something that it's not there the way he destroys us who love the timpani fest of the Furtwängler 1942 Beethoven 9. I may disagree but I also have the sensation that I fail to find enlightenment on recordings of deep historical context.










Do we know if he found this recording "unlistenable"?


----------



## Azol

In fact, I'm very glad to have discovered his channel. I can tell you my opinion has considerably changed and I'm enjoying his style of passionate talk a lot. Give it or take it. You can have reservations about particular recordings but you can't deny he loves what he's talking about.


----------



## Knorf

Loving what you're talking about plus $1.50 will get you a Kit Kat from the vending machine.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Granate said:


> I wish I could ever have the brains to destroy and call out the fans of the Karajan Vienna Bruckner 7 or the Furtwängler Vienna Bruckner 8 *for hearing something that it's not there* the way he destroys us who love the timpani fest of the Furtwängler 1942 Beethoven 9. I may disagree but I also have the sensation that I fail to find enlightenment on recordings of deep historical context.


I have a new goal in life: to be able to say I never once felt the need to resort to claiming that others are simply hearing things that are not there. :tiphat:


----------



## Elvis

Knorf said:


> *Honestly, you'll do better with our own Merl *for a similar range of repertoire. Merl's easily heard as many recordings as Hurwitz, or nearly so, but with a more thoughtful, curious, and creative mind, one open to the enormous spectrum of what music interpretation is; Hurwitz is an intellectual and musical clod. Best of all, Merl's a super nice guy with no chips on his shoulder, no grudges, and very importantly no inner urges to tear others down in order to try to lift himself up.
> 
> Now, pretend I didn't write any of that when Merl comes back.
> 
> Ah, there he is! Merl, you're a knob. I mean that in all respect.


Totally agree in reference to the well-deserved praise of all things "Merl"...


----------



## Merl

Elvis said:


> Totally totally agree in reference to the well-deserved praise of all things "Merl"...
> 
> *Except for that dreadful dreadful northern accent... virtually unintelligible... not entirely certain that he's actually speaking "English"...:lol:
> *
> Editor's Note: for some odd reason this post actually appears first - there are approximately half a dozen plus in the pipeline regarding this topic and others which are awaiting moderator approval...
> 
> My forum "audition" post will appear here...


Jeez, even the noobs are joining in now.


----------



## BachIsBest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have a new goal in life: to be able to say I never once felt the need to resort to claiming that others are simply hearing things that are not there. :tiphat:


The silliest thing is Hurwitz actually likes Karajan's Bruckner 7 with the VPO.


----------



## Elvis

I wanted to take part in this thread - I really did.

But I couldn't actually get through the video samples - It would have been helpful if someone had given me a head's up that the voice of David Hurwitz is in the "whistle register" - that his speaking voice begins above the soprano "high D" and extends to about an octave above that. The "whistle register" makes dogs bark - especially my dogs - who apparently are the conductor and concert master respectively for our neighborhoods's "Das gesamte Hundeorchester und der Chor".

I got about less than halfway through the first Hurwitz video - the dogs started barking - and my wife found that nearly as irritating as my having set off the smoke detectors for the third time that morning.

The rest of the narrative will appear in my blog as my attempts to shoot down my neighbor's drones with a "build your own high-powered rocket" may be considered by many to be borderline "off-topic".

And so, wanting to both take part in the thread and deprive my wife of one less reason to think of me as a "bit of trial to live with" I would like to offer this "editorial" written by Hurwitz in 2019 for Classics Today -

https://www.classicstoday.com/editorial-classical-musics-ten-dirtiest-secrets/

He quite consideratley ends his "editorial" - (I'm putting editorial in quotation marks as a way to discourage people from thinking that "shooting off your mouth" is somehow equivalent to an actual "editorial" - it's not and no one should even pretend that it is) with the following convenient summation -

"The problem with classical music is that people too often feel that it's a "take it or leave it" proposition. So they leave it, and who can blame them? *As a public service, therefore, I propose to close this editorial by revealing ten of classical music's dirtiest secrets*, the kind of facts that you'll find critics and writers vigorously denying in program note booklets, articles, and reviews. But admit it folks, deep down we all know the truth, don't we? Judge for yourself:

Mozart really does all sound the same.

Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.

Wagner's operas are much better with cuts.

No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique.

Schoenberg's music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.

Schumann's orchestration definitely needs improvement.

Bruckner couldn't write a symphonic allegro to save his life.

Liszt is trash.

The so-called "happy" ending of Shostakovich's Fifth is perfectly sincere.

It's a good thing that "only" about 200 Bach cantatas survive.

David Hurwitz - please do not do not offer to do any further "public services".

This also conveniently doubles as "Ten Reasons Why You Should Never Pay Any Attention To Anything That David Hurwitz Ever Says About Anything" list.

Consider this to be my "audition" post - I hope that I pass - but if I don't there's always the blog...


----------



## Knorf

Elvis, hear hear!

Those ten "dirty secrets" are all total excrement.


----------



## Merl

Lol, nice to have you back, Elvis. Now get back to decorating.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I personally agree with 1, 3, 4, and 6 on his list of “dirty secrets" but clearly he just did that to be a polemicist which is of course what he thrives on. It’s sad that his subscribers like him so much when there are so many other less superficially “qualified” people than him (like many members of this forum) who could share their thoughts with his level of knowledge (if not greater) while being 100% more likeable human beings. He may sound nice enough in the videos, but from reading some of his replies to comments in which people express any degree of disagreement to his opinions, he loves to attack people for not having musical taste.


----------



## annaw

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I personally agree with 1, 3, 4, and 6 on his list of "dirty secrets" but *clearly he just did that to be a polemicist which is of course what he thrives on*. It's sad that his subscribers like him so much when there are so many other less superficially "qualified" people than him (like many members of this forum) who could share their thoughts with his level of knowledge (if not greater) while being 100% more likeable human beings. He may sound nice enough in the videos, but from reading some of his replies to comments in which people express any degree of disagreement to his opinions, he loves to attack people for not having musical taste.


This is only one side of the problem. The other is simply that majority of these "dirty secrets" reflect just one side's views and opinions in a very exaggerated manner. Would a Mozart fan say all Mozart sounds the same? Definitely not and one doesn't even have to like Mozart to disagree with such statement. Would a Wagnerite say that a 40s Metropolitan recording of _Tristan_, which is mysteriously an hour shorter than usually, is made any better by the shortened length and realises Wagner's intentions fully? I for one certainly wouldn't. Would a person who cherishes every note which Berlioz ever wrote say that he doesn't care for the first three movements of Symphonie fantastique? Nope! ... etc. etc. etc.

This objectification of subjective statements is what disturbs me most but of course Hurwitz isn't the only one who does that. I'm sometimes tempted to go down the same road myself but then I don't have such an influential position and authority as Hurwitz that would give my opinions similar weight. I'm not saying that agreeing with some of those statements is wrong in itself but I'm not sure whether they should be presented as something that "deep down we all know", because we simply don't.


----------



## Plague

He actually made a video about the "10 dirtiest secrets":


----------



## Elvis

I'm going to take the advice of David Hurwitz which starts at the 5:42 mark of the above video - 

I'm going to use my own judgement.

I'm going to listen fearlessly.

I'm going to judge mercilessly.

I'm going to enjoy what I want.

I'm going to love what I love.

I'm not going to worry about the rest.

I need to take a brief pause here - the profundity of his commentary is such that is has made me light-headed and I'm feeling somewhat faint.

I'm better - thanks for waiting around.

I'll start by "judging fearlessly" - David Hurwitz does not know what the hell he's talking about.

If you actually do believe that David Hurwitz knows what the hell he's talking about - do not ever tell anyone - ever - your reputation will never recover. Your reputation will be homeless - it will be hungry - it will be alone - without a friend in the world. Your reputation will stop bathing - and combing it's hair - it will start wearing ratty smelly unwashed clothes that it stole from the Salvation Army clothes collection box Your reputation will eventually start drinking cheap wine and muttering to itself and asking people for spare change and trying to bum smokes. Your reputation will eventually have nothing left but the shopping cart stolen from the supermarket which contains all of its worldly possessions which consist mostly of worthless junk that it found behind someone's garage.

I going to need to take a second brief pause here - that last series of sentences make me light-headed and I'm feeling somewhat faint.

I'm better - thanks for once again waiting around.

There is an entire forum looking for me - they have torches - and they're angry - because they don't know what to say about music unless David Hurwitz has told them in advance what they should say and how they should think. He's creating a veritable army of David Hurwitz clones - which really aren't needed as the original David Hurwitz is probably one David Hurwitz too many.

In the editorial that I wrote on that forum I actually wrote some really very complimentary things about Hurwitz as I genuinely wanted to be thought of as someone who is open-minded and tolerant. Apparently the insincerity of my praise wasn't as well disguised as I had thought it was and my popularity crashed, exploded, burst into flames, and is being investigated by the NTSB.

It probably wasn't helped by writing this in reply to comments that I was receiving - 

"Your reply sounds as if it were written by someone who actually ponied up 49 dollars to be a "Classics Today Insider" and then found out too late that they don't offer refunds...."

I found that humorous - I actually found it to be "hilarious" but I don't want to say so as I'm attempting to be "modest" - which isn't really working out all that well - unfortunately I was the only one hence the angry villagers with torches.

David Hurwitz is completely incapable of writing thoughtful insightful well-reasoned reviews because he has willingly chosen to be "provocative" - willingly chosen to be "controversial" - willingly chosen dissent and skepticism - ridicule and contempt - the lone voice of the enlightened rebel - the benighted renegade. Lacking originality - lacking creativity - lacking a "voice" capable of speaking that which needs to be heard - speaking that which illuminates the dark corners - the hazy mists - of obscurity - he has instead embraced his self-ordained status as "iconoclast extraordinaire". 

It's easy to be an "iconoclast" - all you need is a knack for taking things apart -the difficult part is reassembling them without having parts left over.

I don't believe that David Hurwitz himself actually believes the better part of what he is saying - I think that he knows - that he realizes - that he is essentially irrelevant within the industry - and thus, in an attempt to be significant - to be relevant - he has made a conscious decision to be "outrageous" - to find "sacred cows" that merit being torn apart even when such "sacred cows" are actually "sacred" for a reason - they are significant works of "art" which have transcended "craft" - they're part of the cultural legacy. His definition of "sacred cows" is essentially "anything or anyone that is either popular and/or something that he's decided that he doesn't like for reasons which escape even him".

I think I hear the villagers - I can see the glow of the torches on the horizon - I'll be in "Current Listening" discussing Mozart's criminally neglected mambos... See ya there.

If you're still here - this is not indicative of the types of posts that I'll be writing here - I'm going to start a blog in which I can write this way without needlessly antagonizing anyone. I'm thinking of titling it "Are you just completely nuts?" - it's one of my wife's favorite catch-phrases.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I personally agree with 1, 3, 4, and 6 on his list of "dirty secrets" but clearly he just did that to be a polemicist which is of course what he thrives on.


Obviously if you say that "all Mozart sounds the same" while believing that "all Bach sounds unique and different" or vice-versa, you're refusing to see the naked emperor, and acting as a cultist. I never say things like that so I can say that I'm not a cultist.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> Absolutely yes. I'm convinced that one could listen to nothing but Bach for all of one's life and never stop discovering new joys every time. I'm painstakingly working my way through the cantatas (chronologically according to BWV number) and *every one has at least one jaw-dropping feature.*


"The Master Recycler"
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/12/20/bach-master-recycler/


----------



## Rach Man

Elvis said:


> I wanted to take part in this thread - I really did.
> 
> *But I couldn't actually get through the video samples - It would have been helpful if someone had given me a head's up that the voice of David Hurwitz is in the "whistle register" - that his speaking voice begins above the soprano "high D" and extends to about an octave above that.*


I agree. I have read many of his reviews on Classics Today and I enjoyed them. I didn't always agree with him. But I did respect his decisions. So, I was eager to watch his videos. But the pitch of his voice turned me off, too.


----------



## Azol

In fact, some of his reviews were... ugh... not my cup of tea to put it mildly, but I enjoy his videos a lot and maybe it's "Hurwitz-lite" but works much better for me (and for him, in my opinion).
As for his voice, well, he's not about to sing Calaf any time soon, that's for sure.


----------



## Elvis

Azol said:


> As for his voice, well, he's not about to sing Calaf any time soon, that's for sure.


:lol::lol::lol:

He probably is closer to a countertenor than a male soprano but there are a limited number of times that one can plausibly find an excuse to write -

"the voice of David Hurwitz is in the "whistle register" - that his speaking voice begins above the soprano "high D" and extends to about an octave above that."

And if you're siting there wondering "Just what is the difference between a male soprano and a countertenor" you can listen to this and be able to provide an answer to that very question -


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I don't mean to keep ranting about his arrogance and negativity, but I promise this is the last time I'm letting myself get annoyed by him. This video...yeah. No "professional" music critic has any business doing something like this whether it's supposed to be "humor" or not. And seriously...has he even heard Sur Incises?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I don't mean to keep ranting about his arrogance and negativity, but I promise this is the last time I'm letting myself get annoyed by him. This video...yeah. No "professional" music critic has any business doing something like this whether it's supposed to be "humor" or not. And seriously...has he even heard Sur Incises?


What a loser

.


----------



## Elvis

Deleted post - wrong thread - too many windows open - my apologies.


----------



## JAS

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I don't mean to keep ranting about his arrogance and negativity, but I promise this is the last time I'm letting myself get annoyed by him. This video...yeah. No "professional" music critic has any business doing something like this whether it's supposed to be "humor" or not. And seriously...has he even heard Sur Incises?


He is so arrogant and opinionated that he should start posting at TC, if he isn't already.


----------



## starthrower

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What a loser
> 
> .


And a lazy slug too. If he believes the music has little worth he needs to provide an informed argument or opinion. If the music is not to his taste and he is incapable of addressing it he would be better off keeping his mouth shut and focusing on what he can relate to intelligently. Instead he chooses to be a jerk.


----------



## Knorf

starthrower said:


> And a lazy slug too. If he believes the music has little worth he needs to provide an informed argument or opinion. If the music is not to his taste and he is incapable of addressing it he would be better off keeping his mouth shut and focusing on what he can relate to intelligently. Instead he chooses to be a jerk.


Exactly right. And his blind spots are enormous; his claim to expertise vastly exceeds the demonstrated reality. As a result, I couldn't care less how forking enthusiastic he is. Even the recordings he thinks are great are mainly those that everyone thinks are great.

He's a pompous, biased, uninformed, bloviating jerk and his reviews are _useless_ to me.

It is a great injustice to music that he has so much influence.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Knorf said:


> Exactly right. And his blind spots are enormous; his claim to expertise vastly exceeds the demonstrated reality. As a result, I couldn't care less how forking enthusiastic he is. Even the recordings he thinks are great are mainly those that everyone thinks are great.
> 
> He's a pompous, biased, uninformed, bloviating jerk and his reviews are _useless_ to me.
> 
> It is a great injustice to music that he has so much influence.


I'm not quite sure how you really feel here, Knorf...


----------



## JAS

To be fair, it is clear that he is stating his opinion. No critic on something like this can do much more than mix expertise in what is available with his or her own listening experience. The rest is opinion. Certainly it would not make sense for him to attempt an extended comment on a composer he clearly does not like. Was it a cheap shot? Probably, but he takes a lot of cheap shots in his reviews that I have heard. Some of them coincide with my own positions, and some do not. None of them offend me because I know that they are all his opinion, and in the end my own opinion wins. He really only has the authority that you grant him.


----------



## DavidA

Knorf said:


> Exactly right. And his blind spots are enormous; his claim to expertise vastly exceeds the demonstrated reality. As a result, I couldn't care less how forking enthusiastic he is. Even the recordings he thinks are great are mainly those that everyone thinks are great.
> 
> *He's a pompous, biased, uninformed, bloviating jerk and his reviews are useless to me.
> *
> It is a great injustice to music that he has so much influence.


I hate opinionated people too! :lol:


----------



## Elvis

Deleted post - lost interest...


----------



## Knorf

Here's the thing, though. That he is opinionated is in itself not a problem for me _at all_. It's rather that too many people treat Hurwitz as some sort of high authority, and he very much acts like he has earned such. It's highly pretentious to say the least.

And that for me is the rub. In the end, I think Hurwitz is irresponsibly pretentious, and that he does more harm to music than good as a result.


----------



## Granate

I have one question. How much based on facts is the appreciation of playing quality?






In this short video he absolutely destroys the second Colin Davis Sibelius cycle, recorded by RCA in London. The thing is that it is my favourite Sibelius set of Tone Poems (except the Sluggish Kulervo) and has some of my favourite recordings of the symphonies (time has made me appreciate other performances better in this respect). But he states that the Orchestra didn't like the venue, they couldn't listen to each other and talks about some misses in No.5. I've always enjoyed these renditions. I own the set on CD but apparently this is one to avoid for not being played well. Even if the SQ is terrific in my ears.

It's not a generally liked cycle, but can it be so bad?


----------



## JAS

Knorf said:


> Here's the thing, though. That he is opinionated is in itself not a problem for me _at all_. It's rather that too many people treat Hurwitz as some sort of high authority, and he very much acts like he has earned such. It's highly pretentious to say the least.
> 
> And that for me is the rub. In the end, I think Hurwitz is irresponsibly pretentious, and that he does more harm to music than good as a result.


Then your problem really isn't Hurwitz, but those who deem his as an unquestionable authority. Yes, his presentation is often rather obnoxious, but apparently that "sells" these days, and it is probably as much for entertainment value as anything else. It does seem to me that he takes advantage of a negative position to make humor out of abuse, and perhaps to burnish his credentials as a critic. (In my own view, what one praises tends to be even more important in judging a critic than what one criticizes.)


----------



## Granate

Allegro Con Brio said:


>


Wow :lol: why isn't he on Tik Tok? Teenagers would actually believe him! A huge influencer!

I wouldn't dare to say such a thing, not even about Queen. If you don't know that I dislike that band now you know. Well, Classic Rock is not my thing. The difference is that I have actually listened to Queen's discography while ignored the rest.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Granate said:


> I have one question. How much based on facts is the appreciation of playing quality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this short video he absolutely destroys the second Colin Davis Sibelius cycle, recorded by RCA in London. The thing is that it is my favourite Sibelius set of Tone Poems (except the Sluggish Kulervo) and has some of my favourite recordings of the symphonies (time has made me appreciate other performances better in this respect). But he states that the Orchestra didn't like the venue, they couldn't listen to each other and talks about some misses in No.5. I've always enjoyed these renditions. I own the set on CD but apparently this is one to avoid for not being played well. Even if the SQ is terrific in my ears.
> 
> It's not a generally liked cycle, but can it be so bad?


I have the 2016 LSO/Davis cycle. It's fine. I can't imagine the RCA release (which won a 1997 Gramophone Award and is recommended by Presto Classical) with the same orchestra is so terribly bad. Listening to snippets on Presto Classical, it sounds well recorded and somewhat stately in tempo (which is pretty typical of Davis in my experience - he's not Celibidache, but he's not Gardiner, either. He's somewhere near the top of the slower half of conductors).

Hurwitz likes to dump on things, probably to drive clicks and conversation.


----------



## Elvis

When I first became a member all of my posts required review by a moderator and once that approval was received they were then placed back where they originally appeared which was 11 pages back of where everyone else was and so with your collective forebearance I'm re-posting this for two reasons a.) no one read it the first time and b.) I make more money off of these posts when they run endlessly in syndication.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to take the advice of David Hurwitz which starts at the 5:42 mark of the above video -

I'm going to use my own judgement.

I'm going to listen fearlessly.

I'm going to judge mercilessly.

I'm going to enjoy what I want.

I'm going to love what I love.

I'm not going to worry about the rest.

I'll start by "judging mercilessly" - David Hurwitz does not know what the hell he's talking about.

If you actually do believe that David Hurwitz knows what the hell he's talking about - do not ever tell anyone - ever - your reputation will never recover - never. Your reputation will be homeless - it will be hungry - it will be alone - without a friend in the world. Your reputation will stop bathing - and combing it's hair - it will start wearing ratty smelly unwashed clothes that it stole from the Salvation Army clothes collection box Your reputation will eventually start drinking cheap wine and muttering to itself and asking people for spare change and trying to bum smokes. Your reputation will eventually have nothing left but the shopping cart stolen from the supermarket which contains all of its worldly possessions which consist mostly of worthless junk that it found behind someone's garage.

David Hurwitz is completely incapable of writing thoughtful insightful well-reasoned reviews because he has willingly chosen to be "provocative" - willingly chosen to be "controversial" - willingly chosen dissent and skepticism - ridicule and contempt - the lone voice of the "enlightened rebel" - the recalcitrant renegade recklessly riding reviews as if he was Rowdy Yates on endless reruns of "Rawhide" . Lacking originality - lacking creativity - lacking a "voice" capable of speaking that which needs to be heard - speaking that which illuminates the dark corners - the hazy mists - of obscurity - he has instead embraced his self-ordained status as "iconoclast extraordinaire".

It's easy to be an "iconoclast" - all you need is a knack for taking things apart - the difficult part is reassembling them without having extra parts left over.

I don't believe that David Hurwitz himself actually believes the better part of what he is saying - I think that he knows - that he realizes - that he is essentially irrelevant within the industry - and thus, in an attempt to be significant - to be relevant - he has made a conscious decision to be "outrageous" - to find "sacred cows" that merit being torn apart, wrapped in banana leaves, and then slow-roasted over a mesquite flavored charcoal fire pit even when such "sacred cows" are actually "sacred" for a reason - they are significant works of "art" which have transcended "craft" - they're part of the cultural legacy. His definition of "sacred cows" is essentially "anything or anyone that is either popular and/or something that he's decided that he doesn't like for reasons which escape even him".

There is a reason why Hurwitz has to pay for his own review copies (you will hear that phrase repeated in almost every review) - labels do not place any credence whatsoever in his reviews - He is a "non-entity" within the industry - a "positive" review is as meaningless as a "negative" one and thus he isn't even worth the expense of a "review copy"... Labels hand out "review copies" like candy to crazy wild-eyed kids hopped up like sugar-rushing junkies on Halloween to just about anyone - yes, anyone - who asks - I could probably nail a copy of just about anything by claiming to be a "reviewer" for the "TalkClassical Weekly Shopper".

Within the music industry he's not considered to be a "serious reviewer" - You will never see review blurbs from either Hurwitz or Classics Today attached to recordings for promotional purposes because his reviews are far too biased - unapologetically and unashamedly so - He's perceived as an "entertainer" rather than as a "musicologist or "critic"" - One can be an "entertaining critic" provided that you make a genuine effort to maintain some sense of ethical standards in which you utilize definable criteria for making judgmental statements of "fact" which are being taken as "gospel" by people who don't know better whether by circumstance or choice - about that which you are reviewing - Hurwitz does not even pretend to be anything other than idiosyncratically subjective in his reviews. All reviews are "subjective" but an honest reviewer will attempt to set aside unsupported biases and prejudices for the sake of being an "ethical reviewer" whose words are meant to actually mean something.

If you really want to learn about music read Jan Swafford's "Language of the Spirit - An Introduction to Classical Music" and "The Vintage Guide to Classical Music".

Then read "The Essential Canon of Classical Music" by David Dubal -

and Aaron Copland's "What To Listen For In Music"

and John Mauceri's "Maestros and Their Music: The Art and Alchemy of Conducting" and "For the Love of Music: A Conductor's Guide to the Art of Listening"

And one last piece of advice - you don't actually have to read anything written by Richard Taruskin - all you need to do is say that your did - no one will know that you didn't because no one else has read any of them either.

The End...


----------



## Knorf

JAS said:


> Then your problem really isn't Hurwitz, but those who deem his as an unquestionable authority.


Oh, but it is, because he encourages it actively and clearly thrives gluttonously on the attention. It encourages his worst habits; yet he allows it to be so.

I'll argue with Elvis slightly. I have seen Hurwitz quotes starting to pop up in marketing, and on Amazon, and in fact I've encountered quotes from his reviews cited on Wikipedia as "according to musicologist David Hurwitz." Yes, Wikipedia, I know, I know. Wikipedia is quite shirty. But still, it's bugged me to see it, because people who don't know better will take it as read.

And I have another anecdote about the negative effect he can have. But that's a story for another day.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

So, with all this said -- whose review would you trust more: Hurwitz or Lebrecht?


----------



## annaw

MatthewWeflen said:


> So, with all this said -- whose review would you trust more: Hurwitz or Lebrecht?


Lebrecht dislikes or at least has disliked composers and conductors due to their life, political views, or other extra-musical reasons. Despite all his other biases, this doesn't seem to be one of Hurwitz's (at least not as prominently) and thus I might actually trust Hurwitz and his seemingly infinite number of CDs more.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Apparently, Liszt is trash.

I see this gem was referenced earlier in the thread. I guess it's amusing? I can chuckle at the notion that Bruckner is slow, Mozart all sounds the same. But dismissing material like Liszt and Schoenberg seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think the annoying thing is the pretension - as if his opinions (it's fine if you dislike Liszt or Schoenberg. Mahler's not my bag, personally, and I know many here worship him) somehow represent "classical music" as a whole, hence the title of the video.


----------



## Elvis

Knorf said:


> I'll argue with Elvis slightly. I have seen *Hurwitz quotes* starting to pop up in *marketing*, and *on Amazon*, and in fact I've encountered *quotes from his reviews cited on Wikipedia* as "according to musicologist David Hurwitz.


You're right - to a certain extent - I've been told that Naxos occasionally uses ad blurbs from "Classics Today" and that would certainly be impressive were it not for the fact that Naxos is so pathetically grateful to receive any attention whatsoever - as they are almost criminally neglected - that they are willing to feature just about anyone's favorable blurb - probably even mine when writing as the "Editor-In-Chief" of the TalkClassical Weekly Shopper".

I haven't seen his blurbs used in either Gramophone or BBC Music Magazine adverts but I could be wrong because I pretty much just glance at them and turn the page.

I'm not certain if you're referring to quotes which Amazon would feature as part of their product description (I haven't seen any yet) or quotes used within reviews which need to be taken with so many grains of salt that one runs the significantly increased risk of heart failure.

As to Wikipedia - anyone can edit a article - anyone - all you need to do is sign up and you can add pretty much whatever you want -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

Your additions will be reviewed but if you can provide a verifiable citation for your change - or proof of your credentials - it will stay - if not, they delete it. Thus, as a musicologist with a Ph.D you can write an opinion piece here at TC, cite your credentials, and then use this post as the citation for the material which you would add to the Wikipedia article which uses the Hurwitz quote. Right after the Hurwitz quote you could write "Renowned musicologist Knorf, Ph.D - vigorously disagrees with this opinion and stated - "David Hurwitz doesn't know what the hell he's talking about" - and then just place a citation number at the end of the quote which, when clicked, will lead to the citation section at the bottom of the page which is named "References".

This is the Mahler page at Wikipedia -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Mahler

As of today's date there are 186 citations. Knorf could write a commentary here on the "TalkClassical Weekly Shopper" about pretty much whatever he wanted to write about Mahler and then add that to the body of the main article with the appropriate citation. There are limits - if it strains credulity - "Mahler - Mexican Master of Mariachi Music" - you may have a more difficult time unless your reference sources are impeccable. It's relatively easy enough to prove that Mahler was actually Mexican but good luck trying to make the "Master of Mariachi Music" case.

David Hurwitz may be the one who's actually adding those quotes to the Wikipedia articles - he certainly could do so if he wished - all he needs to do is cite either his YouTube channel or something that he wrote in "Classics Today" and it becomes part of the main body of the page.


----------



## SanAntone

He and his channel are irrelevant to me. Never watched or even read his reviews.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

MatthewWeflen said:


> So, with all this said -- whose review would you trust more: Hurwitz or Lebrecht?


My impression is that Lebrecht likes to polemicize through trashy gossip and Hurwitz likes to do so by "toppling sacred cows." At least Hurwitz does real reviews, no matter how "unprofessional" they may be. Lebrecht's website is basically like a Hollywood tabloid for classical music.


----------



## Elvis

MatthewWeflen said:


> So, with all this said -- whose review would you trust more: Hurwitz or Lebrecht?


Neither... I would head here first -

http://www.musicweb-international.com/

Well-written insightful analysis - Highly recommended.


----------



## Azol

Elvis said:


> Neither... I would head here first -
> 
> http://www.musicweb-international.com/
> 
> Well-written insightful analysis - Highly recommended.


I use that website a lot but I feel their reviews are coming from an average "all around Mr. Nice Guy". They make a point not to be harsh on any particular recording so I always consult other sources before making decisions. Nowadays you have services like Spotify so you can sample extensively for yourself, but it wasn't always the case.

Since we are discussing actual reviews here, I did a random search for one recording that caused a whirlwind of opinions in Bruckner 8 thread (1944 Furt). And yess! they did it too!



> The quality of playing is very high, too; I cannot imagine that the morale - or even the bodily well-being - of the orchestra member was at its zenith in October 1944, yet *Furtwängler has transmitted his faith in the civilising and restorative power of music to his players and they play like men possessed*.


Stipulations like these are a bit cringeworthy, I think, no matter how my views might differ from those of the reviewer.
You can say the same about Hurwitz over-using "glorious/beautiful/amazing" or "awful/terrible/trashy" in his videos, although it does add some feel of spontaniety, as if watching a "reaction video" (very popular stuff btw).



> Tempi are swift; the Scherzo is particularly hard-driven yet there is such tenderness in the slow section of the trio. The Adagio is immense, as overwhelming as any on the catalogue despite the limited sound, and of course we gat *the cymbal clash at the climax*, then a coda of ineffable poignancy and serenity.


 _(original spelling)_

And I do believe the reviewer mixed up B8 with B7 somehow (since there always were cymbal clashes in B8 Adgaio - especially the famous 6 clashes of the 1887 version!)

So at the end of the day, the only reliable source of information is your own ears.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Hurwitz seems to be indicating on the YouTube comments that he was "joking."

Kind of like injecting disinfectant, I guess.


----------



## Knorf

I'm very well aware of how Wikipedia works. I doubt anyone on this board needs a lecture on that! Wikipedia more than a wee bit *****! The point is that however Hurwitz quotes listed as a scholar got there, it has happened. Yes, Wikipedia should never, ever be considered an authoritative source, and Hurwitz being called a "musicologist" there is a bit of evidence supporting that statement. But it's also a bit of evidence that he is receiving (even Wikipedia, yes, we know it might just be him doing it) greater notice and influence than he deserves.

Fortunately, I have not seen any Hurwitz praise appearing in the likes of _Grammophon_ adverts. But I have seen it in other, Internet-based places, and not just Naxos. And Amazon has indeed included Hurwitz quotes in their "product description" sections.


----------



## Enthusiast

It is best to pay him no mind, to ignore him in the hope he goes away. I happily ignored him for years and then this thread started! Close down this thread and the problem will be solved. The forum could also ban anyone who refers to or quotes from him.


----------



## annaw

Enthusiast said:


> It is best to pay him no mind, to ignore him in the hope he goes away. I happily ignored him for years and then this thread started! Close down this thread and the problem will be solved. *The forum could also ban anyone who refers to or quotes from him.*


To me it sounds a bit too much like censoring :lol:.

There are certainly people who appreciate his opinions and prohibiting talking about them doesn't sound entirely tolerative of other's views, no matter if I might or might not disagree with them. I think there are more controversial topics on TC which are brought up relatively often and talking about them doesn't result in a ban.


----------



## Elvis

Azol said:


> I use that website a lot but I feel their reviews are coming from an average "all around Mr. Nice Guy". They make a point not to be harsh on any particular recording so I always consult other sources before making decisions. Nowadays you have services like Spotify so you can sample extensively for yourself, but it wasn't always the case.
> 
> Since we are discussing actual reviews here, I did a random search for one recording that caused a whirlwind of opinions in Bruckner 8 thread (1944 Furt). And yess! they did it too!
> 
> Stipulations like these are a bit cringeworthy, I think, no matter how my views might differ from those of the reviewer.
> You can say the same about Hurwitz over-using "glorious/beautiful/amazing" or "awful/terrible/trashy" in his videos, although it does add some feel of spontaniety, as if watching a "reaction video" (very popular stuff btw).
> 
> _(original spelling)_
> 
> And I do believe the reviewer mixed up B8 with B7 somehow (since there always were cymbal clashes in B8 Adgaio - especially the famous 6 clashes of the 1887 version!)
> 
> So at the end of the day, the only reliable source of information is your own ears.


I can't disagree with anything that you've written about Music Web - you're right - but they do serve as a better introductory place for neophytes and journeymen.

Hurwitz has taken intolerance - has taken close-mindedness - and developed them into something approaching a true art form and what's worse is that he is apparently quite influential within that segment of the classical music audience which shall be named "those who don't know any better" - which is not intended as an insult even though it sounds like one. I've tried to steer neophytes towards more reputable sources of information but they're not interested in reading anything - they prefer to sit back and listen - which wouldn't be all that bad if the person that they were listening to wasn't so intolerant - wasn't so close-minded - wasn't so dismissive - and contemptuous - to an extent in which he not only doesn't want contemporary classical or period performance or British composers or countless - countless - conductors and performers to be recorded - he also doesn't even want them to be performed or to perform - he doesn't even want them to exist - period.

We all have likes and dislikes - that's just the nature of who we are - but I would never contemptuously dismiss an entire sub-category of music or a performance style or the entire canon of any composer or an entire lifetime's worth of recordings made by a conductor or performer - never. There's something of value in everything - if you can't find it - you're not looking hard enough. You're either tolerant and open-minded or you're not. Intolerance and close-mindedness are not virtues to be championed - they are vices that one should be ashamed of - vices that one should make every effort to be overcome.

If you don't like something - don't listen - it's not mandatory to do so - but he shouldn't use his position of influence - his position of prominence - to pass along the bias and the prejudice and the contempt and the dismissal and the self-satisfied snark which are so unapologetically present in every review that he has either written or spoken. It's perfectly fine to not care for something but it has a right to exist in and of itself but it's this insistence of his that certain things should not be performed or recorded or to even exist that makes my head want to explode especially when all of that nonsense is parroted back by people who should know better but don't. These people are so fond of claiming that they value "differing opinions" but what they really mean is that the value "differing opinions which mirror their own".

Whatever happened to "to each his own"?


----------



## Knorf

Enthusiast said:


> It is best to pay him no mind, to ignore him in the hope he goes away. I happily ignored him for years and then this thread started! Close down this thread and the problem will be solved.


I tried that, but he keeps popping up, to my irritation.

My original reason for personal animus towards Hurwitz began when a very good friend of mine, and a superb conductor, released his debut recording with a major orchestra. He desperately needed some positive critical notice for his debut, as all young conductors do for their careers to take off, and to be fair he got it to some extent, I think maybe from _Fanfare_, if I recall correctly.

Things seemed good, and rightly so! It's a really good recording, and he is an excellent conductor, looking to offer something a bit different from what we're mostly getting these days from young conductors.

And then Hurwitz, with exceptionally vicious bile even for him, totally unwarranted, savaged my friend's recording.

It's probably overstating things to say that Hurwitz impeded my friend's career. But _he_ definitely thinks so, and it certainly felt like that at the time, to me as well as well as to others who are also this conductor's friends.

Interest in the recording seemed to quickly dry up. My friend starting receiving fewer guest conducting invitations. His career, which had looked ascendant, has now been moribund now for years, ever since that review. No further recordings with major orchestras have been made by him. And he isn't young anymore.

Surely not _all_ of that is attributable to Hurwitz. But that totally unnecessary, nasty little review certainly did not help.



> The forum could also ban anyone who refers to or quotes from him.


Maybe let's not go that far?


----------



## Enthusiast

annaw said:


> To me it sounds a bit too much like censoring :lol:.
> 
> There are certainly people who appreciate his opinions and prohibiting talking about them doesn't sound entirely tolerative of other's views, no matter if I might or might not disagree with them. I think there are more controversial topics on TC which are brought up relatively often and talking about them doesn't result in a ban.


You don't do light hearted, do you?


----------



## annaw

Enthusiast said:


> You don't do light hearted, do you?


Hehe. Apparently not. I feel I can sometimes be quite skilful at embarrassing myself on TC because of not noticing such exaggerations.


----------



## BachIsBest

I think a lot of people are being a tad bit unfair to Mr Hurwitz. I mean, he even recommends period-instrument recordings on occasion.


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> You don't do light hearted, do you?


Sadly, satire (or any humor that relies on inherent absurdity as an indicator) died in 2016, if it was still alive at that point.


----------



## Knorf

JAS said:


> Sadly, satire (or any humor that relies on inherent absurdity as an indicator) died in 2016, if it was still alive at that point.


Well, to be fair, it's always been hard to discern on the Internet because of Poe's Law.

But I don't disagree that what was left of such discernment was mutilated beyond recognition in 2016, right around early November, as I recall.


----------



## Azol

Quoting from Hurwitz himself, "any opinion is OK", including his own of course, so with that in mind I believe we have nothing left to discuss


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The sad thing about Hurwitz is that he seems to get off on wielding power. That probably explains why he got into his position, through intimidation. Hence the brusk talk.


----------



## Granate

Granate said:


> I have one question. How much based on facts is the appreciation of playing quality?


Any answer to this? It's something that I usually never notice in recordings because I don't read scores and stuff. I enjoy performances. But don't you think that he takes this playing question to the extreme?


----------



## Merl

I take many of his comments with a pinch of salt. You can read 6 or 7 totally contrary reviews of the same recording across the internet (Musicweb, Limelight, Gramophone, BBC magazine, etc). I enjoy some of his reviews and have commented in his channel and have disagreed on some other videos. I'd rather just listen with my own ears. Some online reviews are useful though as they do bring things to your attention, that you may not have known about.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Merl said:


> I take many of his comments with a pinch of salt. You can read 6 or 7 totally contrary reviews of the same recording across the internet (Musicweb, Limelight, Gramophone, BBC magazine, etc). I enjoy some of his reviews and have commented in his channel and have disagreed on some other videos. I'd rather just listen with my own ears. Some online reviews are useful though as they do bring things to your attention, that you may not have known about.


I think the videos in which he compares several recordings on a particular piece can be fun and informative. But the ones where he simply trashes things are pointless and destructive.


----------



## Merl

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think the videos in which he compares several recordings on a particular piece can be fun and informative. But the ones where he simply trashes things are pointless and destructive.


Totally agree with you there, Matt.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

He and I are getting into it in the comments, now. He just accused me of being sanctimonious, pompous, and superior.

I told him to look up "projection."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Good on you, Matthew - seems like he’s received woefully few direct challenges in the comments so hopefully you have challenged him to consider how he “projects” himself and how he really comes across. 

I’m not sure whether it would be a good or bad thing if he saw your mention of TC and came over here to check out this thread!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Good on you, Matthew - seems like he's received woefully few direct challenges in the comments so hopefully you have challenged him to consider how he "projects" himself and how he really comes across.
> 
> I'm not sure whether it would be a good or bad thing if he saw your mention of TC and came over here to check out this thread!


More's the better when people are made to confront their effects on others.


----------



## Merl

I've just commented on his 4' 33 video (which I found quite amusing). I've graded his attempt in his inimitable style.


----------



## erudite

MatthewWeflen said:


> He and I are getting into it in the comments, now. He just accused me of being sanctimonious, pompous, and superior.
> 
> I told him to look up "projection."


Just read your comments on that link.
You hit the nail on the head (several times.)

Hurwitz really does put me in mind of the Stanley Baldwin quote: _"Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."_


----------



## Elvis

MatthewWeflen said:


> He and I are getting into it in the comments, now. He just accused me of being sanctimonious, pompous, and superior.
> 
> I told him to look up "projection."


*This is Hurwitz squaring off against Matt - *

" I have heard this sort of sanctimony disguised as rationality many times. It rang hollow then and does so now. It is mere pomposity.

*Look at the comments under this video--the overwhelming sense of enjoyment that they project, whether the writers agree with me or not. Tell all of those people that they are wrong to feel that way. *You may pride yourself on being polite, but scorn, however expressed, is still scorn, and no one needs you to wag a disapproving finger at them because they had the temerity to be entertained. Your concern about "impressionable minds" merely confirms your desire to seek validation of your own sense of superiority. Do you honestly think these people need you to look out for them? I prefer to trust them to understand what they choose to watch.

*Most significantly, you misunderstand the role of humor, provocation, and controversy in stimulating debate and creating a healthy environment for the enjoyment and appreciation of music, especially a type of music that many find intimidating or off-putting. The right to sneer, to mock, and to disparage are critical components of the freedom and the right to choose.* You know perfectly well that Liszt and Schoenberg have nothing to fear from me.

There are many paths to the same goal. Not all are ideal for all listeners. This is mine. If you feel strongly about the (self) righteousness of your position, then I recommend that you promote yourself accordingly and see how well you do. That would be a more productive use of your time than trying to encourage me to change my sometimes dissolute ways, I assure you. Good day."


----------



## Elvis

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Good on you, Matthew - seems like he's received woefully few direct challenges in the comments so hopefully you have challenged him to consider how he "projects" himself and how he really comes across.
> 
> I'm not sure whether it would be a good or bad thing if he saw your mention of TC and came over here to check out this thread!


Matt - "On TalkClassical, your reputation is that of a bomb thrower and provocateur, and not a serious critic. Take it as a data point, for whatever it's worth."

Hurwitz - "I don't believe you, but leaving that aside, I appreciate your opinion. However, and with all due respect, I've been doing this for more than 35 years, and am very comfortable with how I operate."

Hurwitz doesn't believe Matt - He's obviously never been here before.

If Hurwitz shows up and joins as a member - technically he can shut the thread down by claiming that some of these posts (and all of mine) are ad hominems and thus a violation of the ToS.

Our friend Knorf might get by with just a warning and a couple of infraction points but I'm looking at having to do some hard time in the penitentiary.

I'll use the "Hurwitz Defense" - I was just being humorous, provocative, and controversial - just like Dave".


----------



## Knorf

Granate said:


> Any answer to this? It's something that I usually never notice in recordings because I don't read scores and stuff. I enjoy performances. But don't you think that he takes this playing question to the extreme?


Yes, I think he does sometimes. Sometimes, I think he's flat out wrong. Other times, he's right, but basically just nitpicking, looking for reasons of any kind to denigrate a recording. He does that too much, in my opinion. And sometimes I admit I agree with him. These days I mostly ignore everything he creates.

I've never heard a recording where there isn't _something_ to fault in terms of performance execution, if you listen hard enough. But so what? We're all just humans. If we're swept away by the interpretation, to some reasonable degree we'll happily overlook errors.



Azol said:


> Quoting from Hurwitz himself, "any opinion is OK", including his own of course, so with that in mind I believe we have nothing left to discuss


I flatly disagree with this. All opinions are _not_ OK; some are prejudiced, ignorant, and can therefore be destructive. I think the anecdote I posted on the previous page is an example.


----------



## Knorf

MatthewWeflen said:


> He and I are getting into it in the comments, now. He just accused me of being sanctimonious, pompous, and superior.
> 
> I told him to look up "projection."


Sir, I tip my hat to you.

:tiphat:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Knorf said:


> Yes, I think he does sometimes. Sometimes, I think he's flat out wrong. Other times, he's right, but basically just nitpicking, looking for reasons of any kind to denigrate a recording. He does that too much, in my opinion. And sometimes I admit I agree with him. These days I mostly ignore everything he creates.
> 
> I've never heard a recording where there isn't _something_ to fault in terms of performance execution, if you listen hard enough. But so what? We're all just humans. If we're swept away by the interpretation, to some reasonable degree we'll happily overlook errors.
> 
> I flatly disagree with this. All opinions are _not_ OK; some are prejudiced, ignorant, and can therefore be destructive. I think the anecdote I posted on the previous page is an example.


The way I see it, the person entrusted with the megaphone has a certain responsibility. Rightly or wrongly, Hurwitz has that megaphone. His videos are being promoted by the algorithm.

Similarly:
-A teacher should not suggest students ignore an entire subject as a waste of time.
-A public speaker should not yell "fire" without just cause in the presence of a crowd.
-A president should not praise people for bringing automatic weapons to a protest, or suggest that they imbibe disinfectant.
-A music critic should not dismiss the entire oeuvre of one or more composers as "trash," unless they're willing to put in a lot more work to "prove" it.

Even if these things are said in jest, the damage can be very real.


----------



## Knorf

Elvis said:


> If Hurwitz shows up - technically he can shut the thread down by claiming that some of these posts (and all of mine) are ad hominems and thus a violation of the ToS.


If he did show up here, I wonder how long he'd last before getting himself banned.



> Our friend Knorf might get by with just a warning and a couple of infraction points but I'm looking at having to do some hard time in the penitentiary.
> 
> I'll use the "Hurwitz Defense" - I was just being humorous, provocative, and controversial - just like Dave".


:lol:


----------



## Merl

I couldn't imagine Knorf saying anything contentious.


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> I couldn't imagine Knorf saying anything contentious.


I am not without fault. But, say what you like, I would never post obstinately divisive stuff like Hurwitz does all the time. I also always do my homework; if I say I know something, I actually know it and have confirmed it. And if someone calls me out for being out of line, I am willing to own up to my errors. (By the way, I know you're not really attacking me, here.)

Oddly enough, I do have half a mind to start a thread of the _actual_ dirty little secrets of classical music. His are rubbish.


----------



## Bulldog

Knorf said:


> If he did show up here, I wonder how long he'd last before getting himself banned.:lol:


Given Hurwitz's activities, he would be a fool to show up here.


----------



## JAS

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The sad thing about Hurwitz is that he seems to get off on wielding power. That probably explains why he got into his position, through intimidation. Hence the brusk talk.


So what you are complaining about is the fact that he is a human being, since the tendency to abuse power is all too common and restraint the exception. (That observation does not excuse the fact that you may be correct in the accusation. And Mr. Hurwitz himself might be surprised at the discovery.)


----------



## JAS

Bulldog said:


> Given Hurwitz's activities, he would be a fool to show up here.


He would be in good company (from which I do not omit myself).


----------



## Lilijana

I unsubscribed. I subscribed when someone shared his video of Currentzis's Beethoven 5 with me (because I mentioned how much I dislike it, lol) watched some of his videos but I realise that he's not really doing any music criticism at all. I never get a sense of what the recordings he is talking about would sound like or what actually makes them good, or not so good. At best he uses adjectives superficially, at worst he throws CDs on the ground and says nothing of interest just for some unintelligent joke.

There's a number of youtubers who make fantastic music related content which actually provide interesting and cool information in a visually appealing, informative and entertaining way. Although they might not really discuss and compare recordings themselves (and honestly reading amazon reviews gives me a better idea of the interpretations of various recordings that Hurwitz does), there's some fantastic content being made. Hurwitz, by comparison, is what I would probably call the WatchMojo.com of classical music youtube with his low-effort, frequent uploads that provide next to no information outside from saying 'this thing good, that thing bad.'

Some youtubers I think are fantastic for music (and I've added their channel descriptions as well):

David Bruce Composer
_Join composer David Bruce on an interesting and entertaining journey through music._

Tantacrul
_Interested in music or design? In this channel, I delve into novel and interesting aspects of song-writing, composition, visual aesthetics and design-oriented disciplines with the goal of being both informative, well researched and entertaining. This channel isn't about repeating material you can find elsewhere.

I am an active composer with national and international awards in classical composition and a UX/UI designer with experience working on software that's used by millions of people (I've worked on high profile projects for Microsoft, PlayStation and Ubuntu). I also like to occasionally have a bit of fun - so you'll sometimes see me being a little mean. Why not? It's YouTube._

Richard Atkinson
_Video analyses of classical music with an emphasis on counterpoint and craftsmanship._

Sarah Jeffery / Team Recorder
_I'm Sarah, and I'm a recorder player!

My goal: Making music accessible for all. Sharing my favourite thing: recorders! From in-depth tutorials to lessons for beginners to general music FUN. Creating a global community of recorder players ❤

I'm a classically trained musician based in Amsterdam. I studied music degrees in the recorder at the Conservatorium van Amsterdam and Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, and my current adventure is translating all of this into a professional career!_

Samuel Andreyev
_Samuel Andreyev is a composer, oboist and professor. He lives in Strasbourg, France.

This channel features several types of content:

• Analyses of key 20th- and 21st-century compositions
• Interviews with prominent / historically significant musicians
• Videos of Samuel Andreyev compositions_

One thing I love about classical music youtube is the sense of community; people are aware and interested in what other music youtubers are doing. There are collaborations, responses, a sense of interactivity between viewers and creators and above all a real sense that the viewers are always excited to learn and discover from these listed creators (as well as others I haven't listed here-not AuthenticSound, though, that guy is a conspiracy theorist lmao, don't sub to him ahaha).

David Hurwitz has made some really interesting contributions elsewhere and mainly in the written word rather than the stuff he puts up on youtube. . I know that he has written a fantastic article (and another couple hundred pages!!!) on orchestral vibrato, for example, so there's definitely some potential for his youtube content to grow based on what he realises the classical music youtube audience actually like to watch the most (channels listed above). I'm glad to see he has made some more in-depth talks about repertoire, like he did with Bruckner's 6th symphony, so I have some hope for his channel!

I might check back in to his channel towards the end of the year to see which direction his channel is going in. Slowly but surely it's taking a shape....I think....(I might be wishful thinking here, lol)


----------



## BenG

Lilijana said:


> Richard Atkinson
> _Video analyses of classical music with an emphasis on counterpoint and craftsmanship._


I second this, Richard Atkinson's video analysis's are really worth watching.


----------



## JAS

I will certainly delve more into some of these recommendations later. The Akinson videos seem interesting (even if they go way over my head from time to time), but I have to get used to his delivery. He is trying to enunciate clearly, which I appreciate, but it sounds very stilted and almost robotic. (The content is more important than the delivery, but it might be nice to have both.)


----------



## HenryPenfold

Lilijana said:


> I unsubscribed. I subscribed when someone shared his video of Currentzis's Beethoven 5 with me (because I mentioned how much I dislike it, lol) watched some of his videos but I realise that he's not really doing any music criticism at all. I never get a sense of what the recordings he is talking about would sound like or what actually makes them good, or not so good. At best he uses adjectives superficially, at worst he throws CDs on the ground and says nothing of interest just for some unintelligent joke.
> 
> There's a number of youtubers who make fantastic music related content which actually provide interesting and cool information in a visually appealing, informative and entertaining way. Although they might not really discuss and compare recordings themselves (and honestly reading amazon reviews gives me a better idea of the interpretations of various recordings that Hurwitz does), there's some fantastic content being made. Hurwitz, by comparison, is what I would probably call the WatchMojo.com of classical music youtube with his low-effort, frequent uploads that provide next to no information outside from saying 'this thing good, that thing bad.'
> 
> Some youtubers I think are fantastic for music (and I've added their channel descriptions as well):
> 
> David Bruce Composer
> _Join composer David Bruce on an interesting and entertaining journey through music._
> 
> Tantacrul
> _Interested in music or design? In this channel, I delve into novel and interesting aspects of song-writing, composition, visual aesthetics and design-oriented disciplines with the goal of being both informative, well researched and entertaining. This channel isn't about repeating material you can find elsewhere.
> 
> I am an active composer with national and international awards in classical composition and a UX/UI designer with experience working on software that's used by millions of people (I've worked on high profile projects for Microsoft, PlayStation and Ubuntu). I also like to occasionally have a bit of fun - so you'll sometimes see me being a little mean. Why not? It's YouTube._
> 
> Richard Atkinson
> _Video analyses of classical music with an emphasis on counterpoint and craftsmanship._
> 
> Sarah Jeffery / Team Recorder
> _I'm Sarah, and I'm a recorder player!
> 
> My goal: Making music accessible for all. Sharing my favourite thing: recorders! From in-depth tutorials to lessons for beginners to general music FUN. Creating a global community of recorder players ❤
> 
> I'm a classically trained musician based in Amsterdam. I studied music degrees in the recorder at the Conservatorium van Amsterdam and Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, and my current adventure is translating all of this into a professional career!_
> 
> Samuel Andreyev
> _Samuel Andreyev is a composer, oboist and professor. He lives in Strasbourg, France.
> 
> This channel features several types of content:
> 
> • Analyses of key 20th- and 21st-century compositions
> • Interviews with prominent / historically significant musicians
> • Videos of Samuel Andreyev compositions_
> 
> One thing I love about classical music youtube is the sense of community; people are aware and interested in what other music youtubers are doing. There are collaborations, responses, a sense of interactivity between viewers and creators and above all a real sense that the viewers are always excited to learn and discover from these listed creators (as well as others I haven't listed here-not AuthenticSound, though, that guy is a conspiracy theorist lmao, don't sub to him ahaha).
> 
> David Hurwitz has made some really interesting contributions elsewhere and mainly in the written word rather than the stuff he puts up on youtube. . I know that he has written a fantastic article (and another couple hundred pages!!!) on orchestral vibrato, for example, so there's definitely some potential for his youtube content to grow based on what he realises the classical music youtube audience actually like to watch the most (channels listed above). I'm glad to see he has made some more in-depth talks about repertoire, like he did with Bruckner's 6th symphony, so I have some hope for his channel!
> 
> I might check back in to his channel towards the end of the year to see which direction his channel is going in. Slowly but surely it's taking a shape....I think....(I might be wishful thinking here, lol)


Great post, agree with so much of what you say.

Love your avatar - total respect to anyone who can play the double entendre!


----------



## Lilijana

HenryPenfold said:


> Great post, agree with so much of what you say.
> 
> Love your avatar - total respect to anyone who can play the double entendre!


Thanks......double entendre? I'm really bad with understanding double meanings, irony etc.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Lilijana said:


> I unsubscribed. I subscribed when someone shared his video of Currentzis's Beethoven 5 with me (because I mentioned how much I dislike it, lol) watched some of his videos but I realise that he's not really doing any music criticism at all. I never get a sense of what the recordings he is talking about would sound like or what actually makes them good, or not so good. At best he uses adjectives superficially, at worst he throws CDs on the ground and says nothing of interest just for some unintelligent joke.
> 
> There's a number of youtubers who make fantastic music related content which actually provide interesting and cool information in a visually appealing, informative and entertaining way. Although they might not really discuss and compare recordings themselves (and honestly reading amazon reviews gives me a better idea of the interpretations of various recordings that Hurwitz does), there's some fantastic content being made. Hurwitz, by comparison, is what I would probably call the WatchMojo.com of classical music youtube with his low-effort, frequent uploads that provide next to no information outside from saying 'this thing good, that thing bad.'
> 
> Some youtubers I think are fantastic for music (and I've added their channel descriptions as well):
> 
> David Bruce Composer
> _Join composer David Bruce on an interesting and entertaining journey through music._
> 
> Tantacrul
> _Interested in music or design? In this channel, I delve into novel and interesting aspects of song-writing, composition, visual aesthetics and design-oriented disciplines with the goal of being both informative, well researched and entertaining. This channel isn't about repeating material you can find elsewhere.
> 
> I am an active composer with national and international awards in classical composition and a UX/UI designer with experience working on software that's used by millions of people (I've worked on high profile projects for Microsoft, PlayStation and Ubuntu). I also like to occasionally have a bit of fun - so you'll sometimes see me being a little mean. Why not? It's YouTube._
> 
> Richard Atkinson
> _Video analyses of classical music with an emphasis on counterpoint and craftsmanship._
> 
> Sarah Jeffery / Team Recorder
> _I'm Sarah, and I'm a recorder player!
> 
> My goal: Making music accessible for all. Sharing my favourite thing: recorders! From in-depth tutorials to lessons for beginners to general music FUN. Creating a global community of recorder players ❤
> 
> I'm a classically trained musician based in Amsterdam. I studied music degrees in the recorder at the Conservatorium van Amsterdam and Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, and my current adventure is translating all of this into a professional career!_
> 
> Samuel Andreyev
> _Samuel Andreyev is a composer, oboist and professor. He lives in Strasbourg, France.
> 
> This channel features several types of content:
> 
> • Analyses of key 20th- and 21st-century compositions
> • Interviews with prominent / historically significant musicians
> • Videos of Samuel Andreyev compositions_
> 
> One thing I love about classical music youtube is the sense of community; people are aware and interested in what other music youtubers are doing. There are collaborations, responses, a sense of interactivity between viewers and creators and above all a real sense that the viewers are always excited to learn and discover from these listed creators (as well as others I haven't listed here-not AuthenticSound, though, that guy is a conspiracy theorist lmao, don't sub to him ahaha).
> 
> David Hurwitz has made some really interesting contributions elsewhere and mainly in the written word rather than the stuff he puts up on youtube. . I know that he has written a fantastic article (and another couple hundred pages!!!) on orchestral vibrato, for example, so there's definitely some potential for his youtube content to grow based on what he realises the classical music youtube audience actually like to watch the most (channels listed above). I'm glad to see he has made some more in-depth talks about repertoire, like he did with Bruckner's 6th symphony, so I have some hope for his channel!
> 
> I might check back in to his channel towards the end of the year to see which direction his channel is going in. Slowly but surely it's taking a shape....I think....(I might be wishful thinking here, lol)


Agreed on David Bruce!

Inside the Score is another great channel that does interesting deep dives.





I find Authentic Sound amusing, if only to imagine a world in which everything is played at 2X speed


----------



## Knorf

JAS said:


> So what you are complaining about is the fact that he is a human being, since the tendency to abuse power is all too common and restraint the exception. (That observation does not excuse the fact that you may be correct in the accusation. And Mr. Hurwitz himself might be surprised at the discovery.)


I can't name another contemporary classical music critic, at Hurwitz's level of influence or above, who is remotely as splenetic, destructive, and abusive in expressing his opinion. In this niche, even among critics, Hurwitz stands out as the exception, in this day and age.

The closest thing you'll find to Hurwitz's level of bile is in reviews on Amazon, or among critics of the distant past. But even as such all of those I can think of (e.g. Eduard Hanslick, Claudia Cassidy) were far more knowledgeable _about music_.


----------



## JAS

Knorf said:


> I can't name another contemporary classical music critic, at Hurwitz's level of influence or above, who is remotely as splenetic, destructive, and abusive in expressing his opinion. In this niche, even among critics, Hurwitz stands out as the exception, in this day and age.
> 
> The closest thing you'll find to Hurwitz's level of bile is in reviews on Amazon, or among critics of the distant past. But even as such all of those I can think of (e.g. Eduard Hanslick, Claudia Cassidy) were far more knowledgeable _about music_.


I was not really limiting myself to _music_ critics, let alone _contemporary_ music critics.

But I am almost getting a sense that in some way you may not particularly care for Mr. Hurwitz as a music critic. (I will not defend him, although I happen to agree with his statement about Boulez. It probably is poor taste for him to say so in the way that he did. It might bother me more if I held an opposition position on that question.)


----------



## Knorf

JAS said:


> But I am almost getting a sense that in some way you may not particularly care for Mr. Hurwitz as a music critic.


Yeah, maybe not so much.

Who knows, maybe I'd like him as, say, a chef?


----------



## JAS

Knorf said:


> Yeah, maybe not so much.
> 
> Who knows, maybe I'd like him as, say, a chef?


He does look like someone who might know his food, but not so much his exercise regime.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Elvis said:


> *This is Hurwitz squaring off against Matt - *
> 
> " I have heard this sort of sanctimony disguised as rationality many times. It rang hollow then and does so now. It is mere pomposity.
> 
> *Look at the comments under this video--the overwhelming sense of enjoyment that they project, whether the writers agree with me or not. Tell all of those people that they are wrong to feel that way. *You may pride yourself on being polite, but scorn, however expressed, is still scorn, and no one needs you to wag a disapproving finger at them because they had the temerity to be entertained. Your concern about "impressionable minds" merely confirms your desire to seek validation of your own sense of superiority. Do you honestly think these people need you to look out for them? I prefer to trust them to understand what they choose to watch.
> 
> *Most significantly, you misunderstand the role of humor, provocation, and controversy in stimulating debate and creating a healthy environment for the enjoyment and appreciation of music, especially a type of music that many find intimidating or off-putting. The right to sneer, to mock, and to disparage are critical components of the freedom and the right to choose.* You know perfectly well that Liszt and Schoenberg have nothing to fear from me.
> 
> There are many paths to the same goal. Not all are ideal for all listeners. This is mine. If you feel strongly about the (self) righteousness of your position, then I recommend that you promote yourself accordingly and see how well you do. That would be a more productive use of your time than trying to encourage me to change my sometimes dissolute ways, I assure you. Good day."


Late to the party, and I don't see any of those comments anymore. Guess they were taken off. I do agree with Hurwitz's last point. That is HIS platform, and he can operate any way he wants, including deleting comments that make him look bad, or unprofessional. As he said in the above "I prefer to trust them to understand what they choose to watch." Works both ways. Someone naive enough to trust every word they hear from him was always at risk.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Phil loves classical said:


> Late to the party, and I don't see any of those comments anymore. Guess they were taken off. I do agree with Hurwitz's last point. That is HIS platform, and he can operate any way he wants, including deleting comments that make him look bad, or unprofessional. As he said in the above "I prefer to trust them to understand what they choose to watch." Works both ways.


The comments are still present as far as I can see. A transcript:



> *Matthew Weflen*
> It's true: this List is trash. ;-)
> 
> I can chuckle at the notion that Bruckner is slow, Mozart all sounds the same. Heh heh. But dismissing material like Liszt and Schoenberg seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think the annoying thing is the pretension - as if Mr. Hurwitz's opinions somehow represent "classical music" as a whole, hence the title of the video.
> 
> I guess this is another example of the old saying: opinions are like @$$holes. Everyone's got one, and most of them stink.
> 
> *David Hurwitz*
> And humor remains a quality in the classical music business most notable for its absence. Lighten up! Stop taking yourself so seriously!
> 
> *Matthew Weflen*
> @David Hurwitz I chuckled at the items that were chuckle-worthy. I rose at the items that were risible.
> 
> I just think you might catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
> 
> *David Hurwitz*
> @Matthew Weflen I don't believe you, but leaving that aside, I appreciate your opinion. However, and with all due respect, I've been doing this for more than 35 years, and am very comfortable with how I operate.
> 
> *Matthew Weflen*
> @David Hurwitz On TalkClassical, your reputation is that of a bomb thrower and provocateur, and not a serious critic. Take it as a data point, for whatever it's worth.
> 
> For my part, I appreciate those videos much more in which you do comparisons and contrasts with a minimum of vitriol. Those are informative. Videos like your recent Pierre Boulez one are probably more destructive than entertaining, in my opinion. People who are new to classical almost certainly come to these sorts of videos and are given fully formed opinions presented as fact - opinions that might prevent further exploration, as opposed to the tools to listen and evaluate for themselves (like your repertoire comparison videos).
> 
> *Matthew Weflen*
> @David Hurwitz For instance: I dislike Mahler. I find it pretentious, boring and over-long. But if I were to choose to do a video on Mahler (which I would have second thoughts about doing given my predilection), I would state my bias upfront and then try my best to engage with it, or ask the audience for suggestions. I wouldn't dismiss it as trash.
> 
> Impressionable minds can easily be led astray. I remember early in my college career reading that a particular philosopher was evil and wrong. As an impressionable freshman, this led me astray for several years. In fact, on surveying his work, he was anything but. A more charitable approach, while less "exciting" and "incendiary," could have introduced his ideas and given me tools for deciding on my own whether he was evil or not.
> 
> For better or worse, you possess a certain level of stewardship when it comes to classical music on the internet. The algorithm promotes your content. You should try to be responsible with it.
> 
> *David Hurwitz*
> @Matthew Weflen I have heard this sort of sanctimony disguised as rationality many times. It rang hollow then and does so now. It is mere pomposity.
> 
> Look at the comments under this video--the overwhelming sense of enjoyment that they project, whether the writers agree with me or not. Tell all of those people that they are wrong to feel that way. You may pride yourself on being polite, but scorn, however expressed, is still scorn, and no one needs you to wag a disapproving finger at them because they had the temerity to be entertained. Your concern about "impressionable minds" merely confirms your desire to seek validation of your own sense of superiority. Do you honestly think these people need you to look out for them? I prefer to trust them to understand what they choose to watch.
> 
> Most significantly, you misunderstand the role of humor, provocation, and controversy in stimulating debate and creating a healthy environment for the enjoyment and appreciation of music, especially a type of music that many find intimidating or off-putting. The right to sneer, to mock, and to disparage are critical components of the freedom and the right to choose. You know perfectly well that Liszt and Schoenberg have nothing to fear from me.
> 
> There are many paths to the same goal. Not all are ideal for all listeners. This is mine. If you feel strongly about the (self) righteousness of your position, then I recommend that you promote yourself accordingly and see how well you do. That would be a more productive use of your time than trying to encourage me to change my sometimes dissolute ways, I assure you. Good day.
> *
> Matthew Weflen*
> @David Hurwitz I suggest you do some research on "projection," Mr. Hurwitz. The only person being pompous and superior here is you.
> 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/projection
> 
> If you find criticism of your methods so injurious, perhaps you should disable comments.


----------



## BenG

It's not that I'm defending Hurwitz, but I really don't understand why he gets so much attention on TC. He doesn't even get that many views on youtube.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

To me, he comes off as very thin skinned, insecure, dismissive of perspectives that are not his own, and self important (e.g. "I've been doing this for 35 years; I don't believe you; why don't you make your own videos and see how well you do," etc.). He also argues against obvious straw men (e.g. "no one needs you to wag a disapproving finger at them because they had the temerity to be entertained.").

Of course, anyone here is well within their rights to agree with him and not me. I just think he frequently engages in crappy and destructive "hot takes" to the detriment of substantive criticism and informing the viewer. I am glad I did not find his YouTube channel early in my own exploration of CM.

If there's something the internet doesn't need more of, it's provocative hot takes.


----------



## JAS

MatthewWeflen said:


> To me, he comes off as very thin skinned, insecure, dismissive of perspectives that are not his own, and self important (e.g. "I've been doing this for 35 years; I don't believe you; why don't you make your own videos and see how well you do," etc.). He also argues against obvious straw men (e.g. "no one needs you to wag a disapproving finger at them because they had the temerity to be entertained."). , , ,


Are you _sure_ that he isn't already posting at TC?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

JAS said:


> Are you _sure_ that he isn't already posting at TC?


I am not. I do think he would fit in with some of the more rhetorically flamboyant members here


----------



## JAS

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am not. I do think he would fit in with some of the more rhetorically flamboyant members here


Well, in case anyone was about to cast an eye in my direction, I can prove that I am not he. I freely admit that I do not know everything about classical music, and have not listened to every recording released since 1919.


----------



## BachIsBest

JAS said:


> Well, in case anyone was about to cast an eye in my direction, I can prove that I am not he. I freely admit that I do not know everything about classical music, and have not listened to every recording released since 1919.


You philistine.


----------



## Dimace

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I don't mean to keep ranting about his arrogance and negativity, but I promise this is the last time I'm letting myself get annoyed by him. This video...yeah. No "professional" music critic has any business doing something like this whether it's supposed to be "humor" or not. And seriously...has he even heard Sur Incises?


This is funny video... Of course the man separated the composer from the conductor and this is a serious declaration of his intensions. Sometimes kindness is/isn't donated to people they deserve it. I don't really know which is the case here... I want to see more of this man.


----------



## Elvis

JAS said:


> Well, in case anyone was about to cast an eye in my direction, I can prove that I am not he. I freely admit that I do not know everything about classical music, and have not listened to every recording released since 1919.


Thou doth protest too much, methinks... Dave... :lol:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

His latest video on Mozart cycles is actually quite good and informative.


----------



## Phil loves classical

MatthewWeflen said:


> His latest video on Mozart cycles is actually quite good and informative.


That's where Elvis comes in to quote the interesting parts.


----------



## millionrainbows

After seeing that comment on Boulez, I'd say he's a troll, and he certainly looks the part.


----------



## JAS

MatthewWeflen said:


> His latest video on Mozart cycles is actually quite good and informative.


Watching that now. Again with that quirky sense of humor in it, which many may not get. In this case, it is not in a negative vein, so probably few will be offended, even if some go out looking for sonograms of Mozart conducting as a fetus.

Edit: Interesting that he hates one HIP set (Hogwood) and generally likes another one (Pinnock)

Edit2: I also note that he is a bit inconsistent in his response to the use of harpsichord continuo in the later symphonies. Here, he is not thrilled by them, but seems okay with them. In the video of just the late symphonies, he seems much more annoyed by them. (He strikes me as someone who, on minor matters where he might go either way, tends to set his position for that moment, almost by whim, and once set the intensity increases as he thinks about or expresses that opinion.)


----------



## JAS

I see from one of the videos that he apparently has a cat, so all is forgiven.


----------



## Knorf

JAS said:


> I see from one of the videos that he apparently has a cat, so all is forgiven.


What you don't know is that he fattens them up for BBQ.


----------



## JAS

Knorf said:


> What you don't know is that he fattens them up for BBQ.


I don't think that cats will generally eat BBQ . . . . oh, wait a minute . . .


----------



## annaw

JAS said:


> Watching that now. Again with that quirky sense of humor in it, which many may not get. In this case, it is not in a negative vein, so probably few will be offended, even if some go out looking for *sonograms of Mozart conducting as a fetus*.


This sounds very weird when you read it out of context :lol:.

EDIT: Hurwitz talks about it with such a serious face that if it wasn't so absurd, one could even believe him.


----------



## Azol

JAS said:


> I see from one of the videos that he apparently has a cat, so all is forgiven.


In fact, his cat (named Pipo) is a star of this video:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Knorf said:


> I can't name another contemporary classical music critic, at Hurwitz's level of influence or above, who is remotely as splenetic, destructive, and abusive in expressing his opinion.


Ever heard of David C F Wright?
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/benjamin-britten.pdf
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/frederick-chopin.pdf
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/elgar.pdf
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/alexander-scriabin.pdf


----------



## Knorf

hammeredklavier said:


> Ever heard of David C F Wright?


Nope. My point stands, I think. No one would be surprised that there are even bigger cranks than Hurwitz who are _less_ well known.


----------



## Marc

JAS said:


> [...]
> Edit: Interesting that he hates one HIP set (Hogwood) and generally likes another one (Pinnock)
> [...]


Especially interesting because Hurwitz claims to prefer interpreters who make something happen.
And, even though I realize that this is again very subjective, Hogwood is making more happen than Pinnock. The latter might be 'perfect' when sound and ensemble playing is concerned, but also less exciting, and a bit too slick and smooth for my taste.


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> This sounds very weird when you read it out of context :lol:.
> 
> EDIT: Hurwitz talks about it with such a serious face that if it wasn't so absurd, one could even believe him.


Actually, I think it sounds very weird even when read in context. Mozart may well have already been composing symphonies in the womb, but there were no sonograms anywhere near that time.


----------



## Manxfeeder

hammeredklavier said:


> Ever heard of David C F Wright?


Wow! I just read one paragraph of his Debussy essay, and good grief! Why is this guy allowed with something sharper than a crayon?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Manxfeeder said:


> Wow! I just read one paragraph of his Debussy essay, and good grief! Why is this guy allowed with something sharper than a crayon?


You're only saying that because you obviously fail to understand that Debussy was a self-indulgent sexual pervert who had problems with writing music and was nowhere near as good as Schoenberg.

I love the bit at the end threatening people with lawsuits if they used any portion of the essay, however small.

I think I can count on no fingers how many times that's happened.


----------



## JAS

MatthewWeflen said:


> . . . I love the bit at the end threatening people with lawsuits if they used any portion of the essay, however small. . . .


Generally, scholars are eager for portions of their essays and books to be used, as long as they are properly cited. Indeed, that is usually the better extent of compensation for writing it in the first place.


----------



## millionrainbows

All I can tell you is that when I watched a couple of his videos on this thread, suddenly my YouTube channel was INUNDATED with his videos!


----------



## millionrainbows

MatthewWeflen said:


> You're only saying that because you obviously fail to understand that *Debussy was a self-indulgent sexual pervert *who had problems with writing music and was nowhere near as good as Schoenberg.
> 
> I love the bit at the end threatening people with lawsuits if they used any portion of the essay, however small.
> 
> I think I can count on no fingers how many times that's happened.


Hmm, I wonder where Hurwitz got his ideas about "sexual perversion?"


----------



## Manxfeeder

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm, I wonder where Hurwitz got his ideas about "sexual perversion?"


I think that quote was from the David Wright essay.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> All I can tell you is that when I watched a couple of his videos on this thread, suddenly *my YouTube channel* was INUNDATED with his videos!


Give us a link then....


----------



## JAS

Manxfeeder said:


> I think that quote was from the David Wright essay.


Okay, now we are all gonna be sued just for mentioning it!


----------



## Manxfeeder

JAS said:


> Okay, now we are all gonna be sued just for mentioning it!


On the bright side, we all would make an interesting group sitting together in the dock.


----------



## hammersrocco

MatthewWeflen said:


> To me, he comes off as very thin skinned, insecure, dismissive of perspectives that are not his own...


You have described some of the responses here. That attitude is not exclusive to Mr. Hurwitz.



BenG said:


> It's not that I'm defending Hurwitz, but I really don't understand why he gets so much attention on TC. He doesn't even get that many views on youtube.


It seems that Mr. Hurwitz crime is disagreeing with the esteemed members of this forum. Dear friends, the fact that an opinion is not necessarily the truth applies to everyone, members here and Mr. Hurwitz himself. Those who dislike him can just dismiss him and his opinions; that is OK.
Laugh and move on.

hammers


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

hammersrocco said:


> It seems that Mr. Hurwitz crime is disagreeing with the esteemed members of this forum.


No! That is not it.

He shows a severe lack of respect for anyone who sees thing differently, to the point of claiming that anyone who hears it differently is not even responding to the music, for his way is the only objectively true way. He's sort of like a classical music Rush Limbaugh, proclaiming himself to be the ultimate truth-teller and demonizing those with a different viewpoint.


----------



## Dimace

Mr. Hurwitz has the right to say whatever he wants. We have the right to say whatever we want for him and not only... To reject someone a composer(s) isn't something new or bad. The only difference between him and an anonymous listener is that he is saying his opinion publicly. If someone of us believes that Boulez (example is this) is the new Beethoven, is fine. He believes that he isn't. Is also fine. In this fantastic forum, I have red, that Tchaikovsky isn't good composers! So what? For the friend he wrote this comment, he isn't. Respect and we jump to the next post.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Dimace said:


> Mr. Hurwitz has the right to say whatever he wants. We have the right to say whatever we want for him and not only... To reject someone a composer(s) isn't something new or bad. The only difference between him and an anonymous listener is that he is saying his opinion publicly. If someone of us believes that Boulez (example is this) is the new Beethoven, is fine. He believes that he isn't. Is also fine. In this fantastic forum, I have red, that Tchaikovsky isn't good composers! So what? For the friend he wrote this comment, he isn't. *Respect and we jump to the next post. *


Does Hurwitz show such respect towards others? Have you read his reviews? Have you watched his videos? Have you witnessed his hostility?

And some say that his schtick is merely humorous and all in good fun. Sometimes it is. But humor can also be used to marginalize others.


----------



## hammersrocco

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does Hurwitz show such respect towards others? Have you read his reviews? Have you watched his videos? Have you witnessed his hostility?
> 
> And some say that his schtick is merely humorous and all in good fun. Sometimes it is. But humor can also be used to marginalize others.


Ah... respect. Unfortunately respect it not the law. And the reason is that "respect" is in the eye of the beholder. "Disrespect" in North Korea and China is just disagreeing with those governments. And is a crime in their eyes. While not offended by his Boulez video, since I pretty much agree, he has also seriously dissed things I love and have made an impact on me, changed my life, etc. 
I just chuckle. And move on.


----------



## regnaDkciN

Dimace said:


> The only difference between him and an anonymous listener is that he is saying his opinion publicly.


The _other_ difference being, of course, that he's made enough money from his "day job" in real-estate banking to be able to bankroll an online magazine, not to mention an apartment in Brooklyn, a country home in Connecticut, and enough CDs to make _my_ collection (which is rapidly consuming every inch of wall space in my home) look downright skimpy. :lol:

I find Hurwitz quite entertaining; it's the reason why he's become a YouTube star among classical music aficionados and I haven't. He has a good delivery and can make it seem like he's addressing the viewer personally. He's also quite funny (his "Nazis On Parade" review was hilarious), to the extent that I wonder if he's more a comedian than a reviewer by temperament. And I've had some decent interactions with him in the comments, although it must be admitted that, though I've disagreed with him about one or another recording, I've never actually expressed it in a way that might appear to him to be "challenging his authority."

As to his opinions about recordings...well, his obvious tendency to favor everything by certain conductors (Mackerras, Ormandy, Dohnányi, Gibson) or orchestras (Czech Philharmonic, Paris Conservatoire), reaches the level where it's almost possible to predict ahead of time what's going to get the top spot on his video reviews by checking if any of the above has recorded it.

But you know what they say about opinions and certain body parts that are now, uh, behind me. Specifically, "everybody's got one." However, in Mr. Hurwitz's case, that might not be quite fair, as it seems he can have more than one (opinion, that is, not the other thing) on a given piece or recording, depending on when you ask him.

This struck me while watching his Mozart symphony cycle roundup from a few days ago. In that video, he declared that the Hogwood/Schröder cycle "hadn't aged well," and had since been surpassed in the period-instruments category by Pinnock's (and, to a lesser extent, Linden's) set. Fine...except, in the Amazon listing for Hogwood/Schröder, we find this blurb from Mr. Hurwitz:

_"This was the set that really got the 'authentic instrument' craze going. It was a big, ambitious project that promised a fresh look at familiar music, as well as lots of exciting new discoveries. Christopher Hogwood tailored his forces to match what we know of the actual size and constitution of the orchestras of the period, and since Mozart wrote symphonies in every country in Europe, including England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, the result is practically a blueprint of 18th-century orchestral practice. Then everyone else got into the act, and these performances sort of fell off the musical map. *Listening to them again, one finds they hold up rather well.* There's still the sense of discovery, and of course the music itself is glorious. At budget price, this is history in sound."_

Now, one could argue that this was true at the time he wrote it, but, since then, the other, much better, sets he mentions had eclipsed it. However, this blurb was written, as can be deduced from the final sentence, when the budget all-in-one box of the Hogwood/Schröder was released, which was in 2006, four years _after_ either the Pinnock or Linden (indeed, the Pinnock was released in bits and pieces throughout the early 1990s; the 2002 release was, similarly, the first appearance in one box of the whole cycle). If there's any doubt, the 2006 box is the one Hurwitz holds up during his video review. So one would have to assume that Hurwitz had heard at least one and probably both the Pinnock and Linden at the time he "listened to them again" and judged the Hogwood/Schröder to "hold up rather well."

Then, on Classics Today, he assigns the same set (in an "Insiders Only" review, of course) to the "CDs from Hell."

So, Mr. Hurwitz, which is it? One could witness the same phenomenon later in the same review, when he taps the Mackerras (as usual) set with the Prague Chamber Orchestra as tied for the best overall Mozart cycle. However, if you look at Classics Today, you'll find the same set ("Insiders Only" review, again) dismissed as a "Near-Miss."

I'm not suggesting that Hurwitz is being disingenuous; I have little doubt that he strongly and sincerely holds to the opinion he has of a work, whatever it may be at the moment, and that he's convinced that said opinion is the best and fairest conclusion possible at the time. However, I'm reminded of the old saying about New England weather -- to paraphrase, "If you don't like Hurwitz's opinion of a recording, wait a minute."

In a way, Hurwitz reminds me a bit (any audiophiles here will know what I'm talking about) of the late Harry Pearson, founder and longtime editor of The Abso!ute Sound. Harry was a larger-than-life personality, able to write, in great detail, fascinating evaluations of multi-megabuck audio components and the recordings best able to evaluate them. His work was a sheer pleasure to read; he could describe a component's sound in ways that resembled the most erudite of wine critics enthusing in detail over the refinement and complexity of a 1996 Château Margaux. He also, like Hurwitz, tended to the absolutist, where everything he reviewed was either an amazing breakthrough or complete garbage, and, likewise, also came across as viewing his opinions as far above those of ordinary commoners who didn't have his judgment, taste, and intellect. The thing about Harry (one of many), though, was that his enthusiastic opinions were subject to change without notice. That amplifier proclaimed to, for the first time, "remove the final veil" between the listener and the music? Within a couple of issues, that same product might well be declared to be "fatally flawed," and, by the end of the year, totally forgotten. It was said, of The Abso!ute Sound, that it was a compulsively-entertaining "read" but that you'd be a fool to give it much weight in your own buying decisions (assuming you had the wherewithal to afford any of those products in the first place, that is). And so, I would say, it is with Hurwitz. Enjoy his YouTube channel, for it's never less than entertaining, and you'll probably learn a lot. But I wouldn't base any purchasing decision on what he picks for his "However..." choice without first checking it out via Tidal or some other streaming service, and "judging (it) mercilessly" myself.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> [Hurwitz is] sort of like a classical music Rush Limbaugh, proclaiming himself to be the ultimate truth-teller and demonizing those with a different viewpoint.


A very apropos comparison, as I see it.



Dimace said:


> Mr. Hurwitz has the right to say whatever he wants.


Opinions are not necessarily innocent. Please re-read what I wrote here.

By the way, no, he doesn't have "the right to say whatever he wants." No one does. No rights are absolute. There are laws against libel, plagiarism (copyright infringement), yelling "fire" in crowded theatres, etc. Much of what Hurwitz writes is frankly libelous, and that's where I have a problem with him.

But the bigger problem for me is the degree to which he sets himself up as a scholar, as a musicologist, which is flat-out not warranted. He claims expertise and insight he flatly has not earned and does not have.


----------



## Plague

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does Hurwitz show such respect towards others? Have you read his reviews? Have you watched his videos? *Have you witnessed his hostility?*
> 
> And some say that his schtick is merely humorous and all in good fun. Sometimes it is. But humor can also be used to marginalize others.


Well, I did. He once said Wagner - one of my favorite composers - was a Nazi pygmy whose talent was nothing compared to Verdi. Another time he implied that those who couldn't eventually get over their love for Wagner had some mental problems. So as a Wagner fan, maybe I have a reason to be as angry as some others in this thread with Hurwitz. But I'm not angry at all and certainly don't feel I was "marginalized" by his videos.

Nor do I feel necessary to describe what he did with a bunch of political/social/legal terms, like marginalization, libel, intolerance, etc. To me, when he talks about recordings, he's just an entertainer in the classical music criticism business, perhaps funnier, more straightforward, less polite than many others. When he talks about scores and music history, is he as professional as real scholars and musicologists should be? I don't know, but I did learn a thing or two from him every now and then.


----------



## techniquest

I totally agree with you, Plague; well put.


----------



## david johnson

He is obviously brilliant when he agrees with my tastes, and a wretch when he doesn't.


----------



## Bulldog

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does Hurwitz show such respect towards others? Have you read his reviews? Have you watched his videos? Have you witnessed his hostility?


I've seen much more hostility here on TC than in the Hurwitz reviews.


----------



## Knorf

Bulldog said:


> I've seen much more hostility here on TC than in the Hurwitz reviews.


Is this a platform for professional reviews?


----------



## Bulldog

Knorf said:


> Is this a platform for professional reviews?


I wasn't referring to any reviews on TC.


----------



## Knorf

Chalk and cheese, then.

Spoiler: TC is the cheese.


----------



## Marc

Hurwitz kicks booty against Bruckner scholarship in this vid about Bruckner's 2nd symphony...






... and he's just plain wrong. This time he claims that the 1872 version of Bruckner 2 was never meant to be performed, and that it's only a 'first concept'. And that therefore Bruckner-scholar William Carragan, who has picked the 1872 version and made a complete edition of it, is a dumb donkey.
So I reacted, told him (very politely) that he is wrong and also said which version I preferred. 
He has threatened in the vid to delete anyone's comment about which versions might be preferable, so... exciting times ahead.

:devil:

I couldn't care less though. I really like his enthousiasm when he talks about favourite recordings/performances of romantic and late romantic orchestral works, but for the rest there's a lot of condescension and balderdash going on.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Marc said:


> I couldn't care less though. I really like his enthousiasm when he talks about favourite recordings/performances...


Same here - Mr Hurwitz has fired me up to give some pieces a second chance, and introduced me to works I've never heard before, so for that alone I'm very grateful. The fact that he does it so entertainingly is a welcome bonus, even if our opinions differ.


----------



## Marc

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Same here - Mr Hurwitz has fired me up to give some pieces a second chance, and introduced me to works I've never heard before, so for that alone I'm very grateful. The fact that he does it so entertainingly is a welcome bonus, even if our opinions differ.


You selected the positive part from my comment. I like that!


----------



## Marc

Marc said:


> Hurwitz kicks booty against Bruckner scholarship in this vid about Bruckner's 2nd symphony...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and he's just plain wrong. This time he claims that the 1872 version of Bruckner 2 was never meant to be performed, and that it's only a 'first concept'. And that therefore Bruckner-scholar William Carragan, who has picked the 1872 version and made a complete edition of it, is a dumb donkey.
> So I reacted, told him (very politely) that he is wrong and also said which version I preferred.
> He has threatened in the vid to delete anyone's comment about which versions might be preferable, so... exciting times ahead.
> 
> :devil:
> 
> I couldn't care less though. I really like his enthousiasm when he talks about favourite recordings/performances of romantic and late romantic orchestral works, but for the rest there's a lot of condescension and balderdash going on.


As expected, Hurwitz deleted my comment about the verions and the 1872 version being not just a 'concept'.
He doesn't want to be proven wrong. :lol:

This is what the little bearded child disliked and therefore deleted:

_AFAIK, from an article that I once read about Bruckner's versions (written by Cornelis van Zwol (1935-2020)), Carragan was already working on those earlier versions in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Publication of Carragan's score(s) lasted until 2005, but Kurt Eichhorn performed and recorded in 1991 the world premières of both the 1872 and 1873 versions. The recordings were recorded and released by the Brucknerbund für Oberösterreich. The 1872 version is an entirely worked out version by Bruckner by the way, who DID want it to be played, despite the claims that you make in your video. He offered it to the Wiener Philharmoniker, it was accepted by them and the orchestra rehearsed it in October 1872 with conductor Otto Dessoff, who eventually rejected it because of some "too difficult" passages. It's definitely not true that the 1872 was a version that Bruckner himself never wanted to be heard. This might have been the reason why Carragan decided to go for that first version (not a concept version, but a true first version), instead of the 1873 version, which was conducted by Bruckner himself, but you would have to ask him that yourself. There's another plus that goes with the 1872: it's (most likely) entirely Bruckner, without any influence or 'nay-saying' from friends, conductors or 'advisers '. No deletions at all; it includes the repeats in the Scherzo and it has all quotations from his Mass in F minor.
For the rest: it is indeed true, that it's quite messy with all those versions and editions of Bruckner symphonies, and it's mostly interesting and/or entertaining for true Bruckner afficionados. I do admit though, that I (only slightly) prefer the long 1872 version. Well, to each their own, as we can say when preferences are concerned..._

I think we should ask mr. Hurwitz to be a moderator at TC.
He knows how to deal with naughty people who have different opinions, even when they are stated by facts.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Marc said:


> You selected the positive part from my comment. I like that!


Thanks! I always like to take the positives


----------



## brunumb

Marc said:


> As expected, Hurwitz deleted my comment about the verions and the 1872 version being not just a 'concept'.
> He doesn't want to be proven wrong. :lol:


Hmmm. The sort of thing you might expect in China or Russia. Your comment was very informative and hardly offensive.


----------



## kyjo

Bulldog said:


> I've seen much more hostility here on TC than in the Hurwitz reviews.


I can only nod my head in agreement....


----------



## Marc

brunumb said:


> Hmmm. The sort of thing you might expect in China or Russia. Your comment was very informative and hardly offensive.


Hurwitz also deleted a comment by another user who said that he was exaggerating about the insanity and huge (negative) influence of modern day musicology.
The editor-in-chief of Classics Today dot com is just a little toddler who doesn't want to hear different opinions.


----------



## hammersrocco

Guaranteed to make the Furtwaenglerians go upset, I guess

Hammers


----------



## JAS

Marc said:


> Hurwitz also deleted a comment by another user who said that he was exaggerating about the insanity and huge (negative) influence of modern day musicology.
> The editor-in-chief of Classics Today dot com is just a little toddler who doesn't want to hear different opinions.


I don't see why he would delete a comment just because he disagreed with it, but I think he is probably not exaggerating in this case. (That said, his sense of humor clearly does revel in hyperbole.)


----------



## JAS

hammersrocco said:


> Guaranteed to make the Furtwaenglerians go upset, I guess
> 
> Hammers


Although, to be fair, he is complaining about the sound and claims of remastering, not about Furtwangler himself or the performances.

In his companion video about the 12 best box sets, I think he grossly misstates his role as a critic. I agree that he should try to represent a general sense of what other critics say, as well as providing expertise on the context of what is available related to the release being evaluated. To the extent that I am aware of the context, I think he does okay on the latter, but I think he is far more interested in his personal response than he seems to acknowledge, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing (just be honest about it).


----------



## Malx

Marc said:


> Hurwitz also deleted a comment by another user who said that he was exaggerating about the insanity and huge (negative) influence of modern day musicology.
> *The editor-in-chief of Classics Today dot com is just a little toddler who doesn't want to hear different opinions.*


*
*

Maybe he should run as leader of a country


----------



## annaw

There was some talk about Hurwitz not doing reviews of opera recording. But yesterday a recommendation popped up on my Youtube:






Hurwtiz seems to have a bit of a love-hate relatsionship with Wagner, but his choices are all quite reasonable and sensible. He even mentions that he likes Furtwängler's _Tristan_ .

He doesn't seem to think very highly of _Holländer_, _Tannhäuser_, _Lohengrin_, and, somewhat surprisingly, _Parsifal_ but loves _Der Ring_. So, while his opinion of Wagner is in some respects very different from mine, his recording choices are all relatively good. (Although... Karajan's _Das Rheingold_ with DFD's Wotan is the only one that is in my opinion a somewhat unconventional choice.)

The case with Hurwitz is that he simply is err... opinionated but if I was a Wagner newcomer and wanted to get better acquainted with his operas, Hurwitz's recommendations would give me a very decent understanding of Wagner's works and the best recordings. My aesthetic assessment of the works themselves will not be influenced by Hurwitz's negative views.


----------



## Azol

He is a bit "this is great because singers are great and recording is fabulous - what's not to love" kinda reviewer which doesn't always work with opera. I rather enjoy his style and enthusiasm but, of course, I've already formed my own opinion on most these recordings long ago. Still no harm if an opera neophyte would follow the recommendations given by David Hurwitz.

P. S. His detailed non-opera reviews are much more noteworthy, check his Mahler 2 one for example, highly entertaining!


----------



## annaw

Azol said:


> He is a bit "this is great because singers are great and recording is fabulous - what's not to love" kinda reviewer which doesn't always work with opera. I rather enjoy his style and enthusiasm but, of course, I've already formed my own opinion on most these recordings long ago. Still no harm if an opera neophyte would follow the recommendations given by David Hurwitz.
> 
> P. S. His detailed non-opera reviews are much more noteworthy, check his Mahler 2 one for example, highly entertaining!


Exactly - it's a review for an opera neophyte. It would certainly require a different style to review, let's say, 50s Bayreuth recordings with largely overlapping casts or Callas's _Norma_ recordings. Reviewing those would require him to pay a lot more attention to the conducting, vocal technique, and interpretative choices of both the conductor and the singers. But the recommendations themselves were good and quite a few of them were also my own intro recordings.

Tbh, I think he went for the "safe" recordings which the majority of people accept as, at least, good recordings. By making a "newcomer" review, he was able to justify dismissing all mono and more obscure recordings. There's not a single overly controversial choice, like Bernstein's _Tristan_ or any 21st century _Ring_ recording, for example :lol:.


----------



## Ned Low

annaw said:


> There was some talk about Hurwitz not doing reviews of opera recording. But yesterday a recommendation popped up on my Youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hurwtiz seems to have a bit of a love-hate relatsionship with Wagner, but his choices are all quite reasonable and sensible. He even mentions that he likes Furtwängler's _Tristan_ .
> 
> He doesn't seem to think very highly of _Holländer_, _Tannhäuser_, _Lohengrin_, and, somewhat surprisingly, _Parsifal_ but loves _Der Ring_. So, while his opinion of Wagner is in some respects very different from mine, his recording choices are all relatively good. (Although... Karajan's _Das Rheingold_ with DFD's Wotan is the only one that is in my opinion a somewhat unconventional choice.)
> 
> The case with Hurwitz is that he simply is err... opinionated but if I was a Wagner newcomer and wanted to get better acquainted with his operas, Hurwitz's recommendations would give me a very decent understanding of Wagner's works and the best recordings. My aesthetic assessment of the works themselves will not be influenced by Hurwitz's negative views.


I saw the video today and i agree with that his choices are decent. He chose Klemperer for Der Fliegende Höllander, Solti for Tannhäuser, Kempe for Lohengrin, Karajan for Das Rheingold, Leinsdrof for Die Walküre, Solti for Siegfried, Böhm for Gotterdammerung and Tristan und Isolde, Kubelik for Meistersinger and Knap for Parsifal( though he could spoken more of the singers, not just reading their names from the CD covers!). However,months ago, he did a video on Wagner's orchestral music, and he made fun of the operas saying they were boring and so on. He mocked Forest Murmur in Siegfried. That video made think he hated Wagner. Does he?( I think he's no Wagnerian.)


----------



## Littlephrase

annaw said:


> There was some talk about Hurwitz not doing reviews of opera recording. But yesterday a recommendation popped up on my Youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hurwtiz seems to have a bit of a love-hate relatsionship with Wagner, but his choices are all quite reasonable and sensible. He even mentions that he likes Furtwängler's _Tristan_ .
> 
> He doesn't seem to think very highly of _Holländer_, _Tannhäuser_, _Lohengrin_, and, somewhat surprisingly, _Parsifal_ but loves _Der Ring_. So, while his opinion of Wagner is in some respects very different from mine, his recording choices are all relatively good. (Although... Karajan's _Das Rheingold_ with DFD's Wotan is the only one that is in my opinion a somewhat unconventional choice.)
> 
> The case with Hurwitz is that he simply is err... opinionated but if I was a Wagner newcomer and wanted to get better acquainted with his operas, Hurwitz's recommendations would give me a very decent understanding of Wagner's works and the best recordings. My aesthetic assessment of the works themselves will not be influenced by Hurwitz's negative views.


It is quite impressive how easily he dismisses Höllander, Tannhäuser, and Lohengrin as operas that no one particularly likes or cares about. It is obvious he is not a Wagnerian, which is of course understandable, but to nonchalantly speak of those operas in such a broadly diminishing way... it was curious.


----------



## Gallus

On the money with this one. Definitely a great and overlooked quartet, which I hadn't heard before.


----------



## Marc

JAS said:


> I don't see why he would delete a comment just because he disagreed with it, but I think he is probably not exaggerating in this case. (That said, his sense of humor clearly does revel in hyperbole.)


To me, Hurwitz is/was exaggerating in this case, because, when he tries to explains why he despises the Bruckner musicologists so much, it becomes clear that he has no clue what he is talking about, and therefore he informs his audience with false claims. Or, as some people would say: alternative facts.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Ned Low said:


> He mocked Forest Murmur in Siegfried.


To be honest, as a Wagner nut for almost exactly 40 years now, I'd tend to agree, at least inasmuch that Forest Murmurs has never convinced me as a stand-alone orchestral piece. Conversely, I find this to be one of the more moving scenes in the entire Ring whenever I see it in the theatre, and it always reduces me to tears. I think it's the whole "innocence of Nature" vibe getting to me, I think, which benefits from the singers, action and scenery being there.


----------



## perempe

His reviews make me a a proud BFO season ticket holder.


----------



## science

I really enjoy Hurwitz whether he's right or wrong. He manages to be honest and even strongly opinionated yet humble. I was surprised by his videos because that humility -- or even his love for the music -- doesn't come across as much in his writing. I don't agree with him all the time but I'd enjoy many, many glasses of wine and mugs of beer with him.


----------



## KenOC

I am very much enjoying quite a few of Hurwitz's videos. He pretty much knows the music and the recordings, and he has a lot of enthusiasm for the things that he likes. I just finished watching this recap of Mozart wind ensemble recordings, posted yesterday, which I found entertaining and informative.


----------



## bluto32

I must confess I'm quite a big fan of Hurwitz, despite disagreeing quite strongly with some of his views. I find him both interesting and entertaining to listen to, and he has made me aware of a large repertoire outside the somewhat narrow range to which I normally listen. His sense of humour also strikes a chord with me (boom boom). In short, he cheers me up!


----------



## 13hm13

His latest on best and worst of Vaughan-Williams symph cycles totally lambastes Haitink (the "worst" by far).
Well, I've heard all the ones Mr. H. surveys ... and my fave RvH symph (5) is the 1995 Haitink (EMI) version. Listening to the Romanza mvt. now ... just beautiful. 

About Mr. H's vlog in general. ... Of the composers and recordings I'm especially (already) familiar with (i.e., before reading his reviews or watching his channel vlog), I usually don't agree with his favorites. For example, his recent fave for Barber VC was Shaham/Previn/LSO ... which I find unimpressive (J. Bell/Zinman/Baltimore is my fave).
OTOH, Mr. H. does come up with many winners of recordings I was not too familiar with. Mahler 9/Karajan/DG is good recommendation by Mr. H. Thx!
The vlog format is good ... not too long, with some audio samples as needed. And a good sense of humor. Again ... nice work, Mr. H.


----------



## Skakner

I like him! I don't always agree with him but I enjoy his videos. He knows about music, he loves music and has it's own way to present his opinion (I personally find it amusing). He has favorite composers, works, performers but who doesn't? Show me one listener or critic which is 100% unbiased. I recall Gramophone praising (almost) everything Rattle has recorded. We all are critics in our way, we like some stuff and we don't like some other. We are talking about musical performances, which is, to some serious extent, a subjective issue. It's not math, 1+1=2.


----------



## caracalla

When he started out on YT, one of Hurwitz's greatest shortcomings was Baroque and earlier music. Reviews (none too frequent) were slapdash in the extreme, and little more than an excuse for yet another tedious harangue about the evils of HIP.

Fair's fair. Of late, he has improved dramatically in this department.


----------



## etipou

To be fair, I think the patchiness of the Baroque reviews is more a result of the period not being a great one for orchestral music than anything else. His reviews of chamber music etc remain similarly infrequent. It's clear what his true love is. I also happen to think he is much, much more sympathetic to the HIP folk than he is usually given credit for. 

I have no problem with Mr H, though I much preferred the shorter and more formal videos he was putting out at the beginning. I skip through a lot of the longer ones. Like everyone else, I can happily credit him with several excellent recommendations.


----------



## DjPooChoo

When he's enthusiastic and knowledgeable about a topic, especially when discussing a work or a composer he loves, like others here I find his videos incredibly enjoyable and informative. In particular his videos on lesser known repetoire by the likes of Kalliwoda, Halffter, Boccherini, Rautavaara and others have introduced me to a ton of great music and I'm really thankful to him for having done them.

When he's not so passionate and knowledgeable about something, the results can be cringeworthy. His video on the Wagner operas was particularly juvenile, ill-informed and embarrassing, and there have been others I didn't waste my time sitting through.


----------



## 13hm13

DjPooChoo said:


> When he's not so passionate and knowledgeable about something, the results can be cringeworthy. .


In his latest video on RVW cycles, he was very passionate about how much he despised Haitink. Not sure he was serious. Perhaps a nod, nod, wink wink, to get audience to explore that very cycle. He has pulled that trick before. But you can only cry wolf so many times !


----------



## GrosseFugue

Ditto on appreciating his brio and vast knowledge. It is cool that he's making these vids and putting his thoughts out there. He has a lot of pull in that regard, but, yes, he can be very dismissive too. Like dumping on Furtwangler is plain wrong in my book. Thus my worry that newcomers to Classical may be conditioned to only like what he likes. I would love to see a counter-YouTube reviewer give another take on things. Perhaps ideally we could have a kind of Siskel/Ebert show for recordings.


----------



## Manxfeeder

GrosseFugue said:


> I would love to see a counter-YouTube reviewer give another take on things. Perhaps ideally we could have a kind of Siskel/Ebert show for recordings.


Maybe we can talk Dimace into it. 

When he first started, I found myself agreeing with him. For the past couple months, his recommendations haven't been clicking with me. There are times when I wonder if we're even listening to the same recording. I'm starting to lose enthusiasm for his reviews. Now I listen for his introductions to the pieces and kind of tune him out when he gets into his picks.


----------



## Guest002

GrosseFugue said:


> Ditto on appreciating his brio and vast knowledge. It is cool that he's making these vids and putting his thoughts out there. He has a lot of pull in that regard, but, yes, he can be very dismissive too. Like dumping on Furtwangler is plain wrong in my book. Thus my worry that newcomers to Classical may be conditioned to only like what he likes. I would love to see a counter-YouTube reviewer give another take on things. Perhaps ideally we could have a kind of Siskel/Ebert show for recordings.


The trouble I find is in the use of terms like 'dumping on Furtwangler' or, as another poster just above you put it, 'he despised Haitink'. I see this sort of approach quite often when discussing Hurwitz: instead of summarising what he actually said and critiquing it, people tend to boil his carefully-argued views into two-word summaries so that they can dismiss him (and not have their own opinions challenged, I rather suspect).

So no, he didn't "dump on Furtwangler". He produced a video on why the 1942 Beethoven 9th recording "really sucks" -and, having listened to it afterwards, I entirely agree with him! I could barely hear anything above the booming timpani! He didn't suggest Furtwangler was a rubbish conductor or a bad human being. He argued that that particular recording is awful (which it is, as far as my ears are concerned!) He has subsequently -and very recently- recommended a recording of Furtwangler's very own Symphony No. 2, for example, by way of 'anti-dumping'.

Ditto, the Haitink Vaughan Williams Cycle. Hurwitz didn't say he hated Haitink. He said Haitink's conducting _of these particular symphonies_ was slow and boring. A simple look at the clock tells you that he's entirely correct, about the 'slow' part, anyway. The 'boring' is more of a personal opinion, I guess.

I think worrying that people will rely on him for their tastes rather then try stuff out for themselves is a valid concern. There is so much classical music out there, the strong temptation is surely to find a 'guide' through it all, and he's certainly the most prominent one out there doing that at the moment.

But if one disagrees with his opinion about something, at least state what his opinion _is_ fairly, without distilling it into a mere strawman (and I direct that comment at anyone, generally, not you specifically).


----------



## GrosseFugue

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> having listened to it afterwards, I entirely agree with him! I could barely hear anything above the booming timpani! He didn't suggest Furtwangler was a rubbish conductor or a bad human being. He argued that that particular recording is awful (which it is, as far as my ears are concerned!)
> 
> I think worrying that people will rely on him for their tastes rather then try stuff out for themselves is a valid concern. There is so much classical music out there, the strong temptation is surely to find a 'guide' through it all, and he's certainly the most prominent one out there doing that at the moment.
> 
> But if one disagrees with his opinion about something, at least state what his opinion _is_ fairly, without distilling it into a mere strawman (and I direct that comment at anyone, generally, not you specifically).


Well, you noticing only what's "wrong" with Furtwangler's recording may be case in point. He told you what's was so awful and that's all you heard. Is it the most exact playing? No. Is it the best sound quality? No. But Furtwangler as an interpreter of the work in toto is another story. That's all I meant by being "too dismissive." He could've been a tad more balanced by mentioning a few things that Furtie actually does well (or that's at least interesting). To suggest it's completely unlistenable with no redeeming value is just too much. Btw, if you want to hear Furtie with more technically exact playing -- I recommend the Lucerne '54 version, less edgy but in clearer sound than the wartime one.

But as I've said I still listen to Hurwtiz and respect his incredible knowledge. The guy's a walking encyclopedia. But at the same time I'm glad I'm coming to the vids having already appreciated Furtie, otherwise I might be made prejudiced toward hyper-romantic conducting. Not everything has to be "accurate" to be great. These days I feel the push has been toward the opposite extreme where pin-point precision counts more than the vision, IMHO. They start to sound like clones.


----------



## BachIsBest

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The trouble I find is in the use of terms like 'dumping on Furtwangler' or, as another poster just above you put it, 'he despised Haitink'. I see this sort of approach quite often when discussing Hurwitz: instead of summarising what he actually said and critiquing it, people tend to boil his carefully-argued views into two-word summaries so that they can dismiss him (and not have their own opinions challenged, I rather suspect).
> 
> So no, he didn't "dump on Furtwangler". He produced a video on why the 1942 Beethoven 9th recording "really sucks" -and, having listened to it afterwards, I entirely agree with him! I could barely hear anything above the booming timpani! He didn't suggest Furtwangler was a rubbish conductor or a bad human being. He argued that that particular recording is awful (which it is, as far as my ears are concerned!) He has subsequently -and very recently- recommended a recording of Furtwangler's very own Symphony No. 2, for example, by way of 'anti-dumping'.
> 
> Ditto, the Haitink Vaughan Williams Cycle. Hurwitz didn't say he hated Haitink. He said Haitink's conducting _of these particular symphonies_ was slow and boring. A simple look at the clock tells you that he's entirely correct, about the 'slow' part, anyway. The 'boring' is more of a personal opinion, I guess.
> 
> I think worrying that people will rely on him for their tastes rather then try stuff out for themselves is a valid concern. There is so much classical music out there, the strong temptation is surely to find a 'guide' through it all, and he's certainly the most prominent one out there doing that at the moment.
> 
> But if one disagrees with his opinion about something, at least state what his opinion _is_ fairly, without distilling it into a mere strawman (and I direct that comment at anyone, generally, not you specifically).


I have no real issues with Hurwitz the music critic; in fact, I often listen to his videos giving general surveys of recordings or repertoire and find them interesting and engaging. He has, very evidently, listened critically to a myriad of recordings and has more than enough musical theoretical knowledge to back it up.

However, I often find he slips in shabby, sometimes downright false, historical and musicological claims and too often dismisses contrary opinion for the wrong reason. For example, on the topic of the Furtwängler's performance of the ninth that is the subject of the video, he makes multiple factual errors. He claims that the reason people like the recording is because a whole bunch of top Nazi's were in attendance; this is incorrect. The true "Nazi ninth" was recorded later and nobody much reveres that recording despite it's greater significance historically, which puts to rest the "people just like it because Goebbels was in the audience" argument; he wasn't and any real Furtwängler nut very well knows this. Furthermore, he claims that the expulsion of the Jewish members of the orchestra was to blame for the poor playing and that the BPO had to "rebuild" from this loss and the musicians playing here didn't know the music that well. Although I have no doubt the BPO lost some fine musicians this is obvious hogwash if you think for more than three seconds. They weren't finding Arayan replacements for the BPO from introductory violin classes and this is Beethoven's ninth. All those players would have played the ninth before and would know the music. We're not talking about Hindemith here (pardon the bad joke) but Beethoven. In addition, Furtwängler made many technically superior war-time recordings that obviously demonstrate no severe deficits in the playing of the orchestra. Just listen to them.

I have no problem with him expressing his opinions but I wish he would stick to things he knew something about. I prefer to watch videos who's claims I don't have to fact check.


----------



## Guest002

GrosseFugue said:


> Well, you noticing only what's "wrong" with Furtwangler's recording may be case in point. He told you what's was so awful and that's all you heard.


Well, first I'd like to say that your post I'm replying to (#316) and BachIsBest's (#317) are both _great_ examples of what intelligent music debate should be about. They nicely underline my point that if you cite Hurwitz's arguments _properly_ and not summarise them into strawmen, you get very intelligent responses and can have a decent discussion and exchange of (equally valid) opinions, and everyone benefits! So thank you for that.

I will just take issue with the quoted bit however: no-one tells me what to listen to and directs my hearing in such a way that that is 'all I will hear'.

By way of explanation: I fairly recently threw away my boxed set of Elgar's electric recordings from around 1927. Why? Because I hated them. The sound quality was awful and the playing was shabby at best, and I knew that I would never willingly to choose to listen to them ever again, so why on earth did I let them occupy hard disk space? So I deleted them from the hard disk, and because I knew I would never re-rip them either, I tossed the box into the bin. (I would have taken them to a charity shop, but (a) it's Covid and they're all shut; and (b) I don't think it an act of charity to foist those particular recordings on anyone).

My point: I am pretty allergic to rotten sound quality recordings at the best of times, no matter who is conducting them or how historical the performance might be.

So, no Hurwitz didn't tell me about the timpani and that's all I heard. Hurwitz got me to listen to that recording, which I'd not previously been aware of, and just about the _only_ damn thing I could hear in the playing was the timpanist! It was, actually, quite comical and I enjoyed the listening experience because I hadn't chuckled at a Beethoven performance so much before. I wasn't really in a position to judge the 'exactness of the playing', because the only thing I could notice was the booming of the artillery guns in the percussion section. I'd have had more luck with a string quartet played at the end of Heathrow's main runway 

Obviously, you can overlook the sonic deficiencies in a way I cannot, and that's fine and why breadth of opinion is a good thing.

Having said that, I think BachIsBest's comments about Hurwitz's commentary on the recording containing *factual* inaccuracies is thought-provoking and I'm not in a position to comment on them, since I simply lack the knowledge of German wartime recordings. But I can comment on the way he dismissed Britten's recording of his own _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ because of Alfred Deller's singing, and that kind of seemed to me another example of unthinking prejudice on his part (because it's one of Britten's best operas and Britten chose Deller to sing it for a reason, and defended Deller against all criticism at the time... and if it's good enough for Britten, it ought to be good enough for Hurwitz!). But... meh. You take the rough with the smooth. I don't tune into him expecting to agree with everything, basically.

In regard specifically to war-time Furtwangler recordings, though: he got me to listen to one of them, which is an achievement on his part, I think.


----------



## mbhaub

As an Insider on his Classics Today site, I have to say I'm getting tired - and annoyed - at these video reviews. I can read much faster than he can talk and too many of his reviews are just too long. I don't need a 30 minute review of a new recording. A two minute would be ok, but a print version better. More and more I find myself skipping over long parts of his reviews to get to the end. He doesn't seem to understand that brevity is a virtue.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> But... meh. You take the rough with the smooth. I don't tune into him expecting to agree with everything, basically.


This right here. There's some good information that can be gleaned. Other than that, the dude is like a cartoon. He's hilarious.


----------



## Guest002

mbhaub said:


> As an Insider on his Classics Today site, I have to say I'm getting tired - and annoyed - at these video reviews. I can read much faster than he can talk and too many of his reviews are just too long. I don't need a 30 minute review of a new recording. A two minute would be ok, but a print version better. More and more I find myself skipping over long parts of his reviews to get to the end. He doesn't seem to understand that brevity is a virtue.


But he doesn't review "a" new recording, does he? All the videos I've seen are either comparative reviews of the best 154 recordings of somebody's Tuba Concerto in C sharp minor, or a review of a new boxed set of 354 recordings made by Conductor Maestro X. Or a quite detailed walk-through of a single composition.

I must have missed the videos where he spends 30 minutes talking about one recording (Furtwangler's 1942 Ninth excepted!).


----------



## perdido34

Hurwitz's videos have led me to explore some music that I hadn't heard before, such as a lot of the Haydn string quartets and the "unnamed" symphonies, Dvorak's Wind Serenade, etc. They have also led me to the excellent work of some conductors that before now were only names in a list to me, e.g., Silvestri. So while I don't always agree with his opinions, I benefit from listening to his videos.

BTW, it's perfectly fine to skip around in a video that is longer than you want to spend time on!


----------



## Chilham

perdido34 said:


> Hurwitz's videos have led me to explore some music that I hadn't heard before,,,,


Ditto. Some of his explanations too, have helped me to appreciate the music in a different and better way, one example being polyphony when discussing Tallis, and to different and excellent recordings of works I'd previously listened to without feeling inspired, Mullova/Ozawa/BSO's Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto being the most obvious example.


----------



## Chilham

mbhaub said:


> As an Insider on his Classics Today site, I have to say I'm getting tired - and annoyed - at these video reviews. I can read much faster than he can talk and too many of his reviews are just too long. I don't need a 30 minute review of a new recording. A two minute would be ok, but a print version better. More and more I find myself skipping over long parts of his reviews to get to the end. He doesn't seem to understand that brevity is a virtue.


:lol: ..................


----------



## GrosseFugue

mbhaub said:


> As an Insider on his Classics Today site, I have to say I'm getting tired - and annoyed - at these video reviews. I can read much faster than he can talk and too many of his reviews are just too long. I don't need a 30 minute review of a new recording. A two minute would be ok, but a print version better. More and more I find myself skipping over long parts of his reviews to get to the end. He doesn't seem to understand that brevity is a virtue.


I don't think he has a real handle on the medium. His metier is clearly writing. There are teenage YouTubers who understand more about visuals and presentation and soundbites, etc than he does. He definitely could use some editing. But I don't think he cares about any of that. A shame. Because I can imagine a really cool roundtable review show on Classical Music involving him and maybe one or two others (with differing opinions and examples given, etc).

All that notwithstanding, I have learned more about CM through him.


----------



## Jsoule

I don't agree that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You disagree, obviously, but I have enjoyed and learned about performances, soloists, composers and conductors that have enhanced my enjoyment and listening pleasure. Isn't that worthwhile? Reading is also a good medium, but different and each author has their point of view. I play oboe, soprano/alto sax and guitar so I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, musically speaking. I think you are a little harsh. Hurwitz for me provides exposure and insight that are helpful. I have my own ears and brain to make judgments, too. I think his explanations of likes and dislikes are every bit as credible as most--music is quite subjective, and he will be the first to say make up your own mind. You probably hated the The Joy of Music, too. Imagine making music more fun, interesting and approachable!


----------



## Guest002

GrosseFugue said:


> I don't think he has a real handle on the medium. His metier is clearly writing. There are teenage YouTubers who understand more about visuals and presentation and soundbites, etc than he does. He definitely could use some editing. But I don't think he cares about any of that. A shame. Because I can imagine a really cool roundtable review show on Classical Music involving him and maybe one or two others (with differing opinions and examples given, etc).
> 
> All that notwithstanding, I have learned more about CM through him.


I was going to agree with you about his handle on the medium, and then I thought, 'I dunno'. I mean, clearly, his videos are not glitzy and glamorous. His cut-edits are painfully obvious at times. And holding up a CD cover as a music example plays is... well, old-school clunky!

So yes, he clearly doesn't have the production values of some of the other people I watch regularly (such as Techmoan and Linus Tech Tips, who both clearly know what 'production values' are. And in the case of Techmoan, it's a one-man outfit doing stunning work, so a good demonstration of what Hurwitz _could_ be, with effort).

But... but... I finally swing to the view that his production values don't matter (and I think they are improving slightly over time, anyway). He gets his message across. He engages the audience. Everything else is just veneer. There are times he could tighten up the dialogue, too, I guess (so yes, some editing would help at times!), but even then: the 'discoursing, somewhat vague professor' schtick is working for him (and us, I think).

So I suppose I do agree with you... but ultimately think it doesn't matter, in his case. The content is what counts and he's getting that across. That it takes him 35 minutes to say something he should perhaps have said in 20... well, it's part of his charm, really, isn't it?


----------



## 13hm13

*Ahem................*

I'm not sure how many new subscribers(or Un-subscribers) Mr. H expects to gain with bean-count videos like his latest .... ahem ...


----------



## Bulldog

13hm13 said:


> I'm not sure how many new subscribers(or Un-subscribers) Mr. H expects to gain with bean-count videos like his latest .... ahem ...


I like this video; he's a funny and entertaining guy. As for his not being technologically current, I don't care.


----------



## perempe

correct pronunciations (from Hungary):
Lanner - lʌnner (not lenner)
Lehár - lehɑːr (not lejhɑːr)
Takács - tʌkɑːtʃ (I share the same family name with the 1st violinist of the quartet)


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> correct pronunciations (from Hungary):
> Lanner - lʌnner (not lenner)
> Lehár - lehɑːr (not lejhɑːr)
> Takács - tʌkɑːtʃ (I share the same family name with the 1st violinist of the quartet)







I think he has a point.


----------



## perempe

I posted these because some people might learn wrong pronunciation from him, and it's pretty confusing for me to hear tʌkɑːsh instead of tʌkɑːtʃ.

Kodály - Kodɑːj
Bartók - Bʌrtɔːk

If a TC member is interested in pronunciation, feel free to ask me!


----------



## Agamenon

This man thinks that DFD is an uneven and boring Lied singer.


----------



## Agamenon

Plague said:


> Well, I did. He once said Wagner - one of my favorite composers - was a Nazi pygmy whose talent was nothing compared to Verdi. Another time he implied that those who couldn't eventually get over their love for Wagner had some mental problems. So as a Wagner fan, maybe I have a reason to be as angry as some others in this thread with Hurwitz. But I'm not angry at all and certainly don't feel I was "marginalized" by his videos.
> 
> Nor do I feel necessary to describe what he did with a bunch of political/social/legal terms, like marginalization, libel, intolerance, etc. To me, when he talks about recordings, he's just an entertainer in the classical music criticism business, perhaps funnier, more straightforward, less polite than many others. When he talks about scores and music history, is he as professional as real scholars and musicologists should be? I don't know, but I did learn a thing or two from him every now and then.


The problem is the thousands of followers that are pretty convinced about his statements: for them, his words are the gospel of the lord.

Take for example, Wagner. One of my cousins adore Hurwitz. And now, my cousin hates Wagner, and on the basis of Hurwitz´s reviews, he denigrates Wagner´s music dramas among his friends.


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> I posted these because some people might learn wrong pronunciation from him, and it's pretty confusing for me to hear tʌkɑːsh instead of tʌkɑːtʃ.
> 
> Kodály - Kodɑːj
> Bartók - Bʌrtɔːk
> 
> If a TC member is interested in pronunciation, feel free to ask me!


I know why you posted them, but the point of his video, which I generally agree with, is that whether the fellow is called Bahrtk, Baaartock, or Betohck is really kind of irrelevant, especially amongst the mostly English-speaking crowd that makes up his audience: we all know who's being talked about in each case.

Same for Kohdaiee v Kodahi v etc.

Especially if we're all going to have to master the International Phonetic Alphabet before we're allowed to say we like the Sinfonietta.

I'm sorry if you get confused, but as an Englishman who has daily to live with the consequence of all bar half a dozen composers *not* being English, and thus having to put up with accents, diacritics and quite often the complete absence of apparent vowels for entire paragraphs...I have to say, join the club!

If people want to learn "proper" pronunciation of these names, it's kind of you to offer to help. But I'd rather people felt able and empowered to listen to and talk about the music than sweat the specifics of pronouncing what is, at the end of the day, a foreign language. (IE, as practically all of them are, for practically everyone!)


----------



## Guest002

Agamenon said:


> This man thinks that DFD is an uneven and boring Lied singer.


Well, I've heard plenty of people who aren't him argue that DFD was a terrible Verdi singer. I don't see how expressing either view instantly and obviously renders the speaker's every word naught thereafter.


----------



## Guest002

Agamenon said:


> The problem is the thousands of followers that are pretty convinced about his statements: for them, his words are the gospel of the lord.
> 
> Take for example, Wagner. One of my cousins adore Hurwitz. And now, my cousin hates Wagner, and on the basis of Hurwitz´s reviews, he denigrates Wagner´s music dramas among his friends.


And that's Hurwitz's fault... How, exactly?

If your cousin hates a composer without having listened to him because some critic says so, your cousin is lacking critical thinking skills. And that's your cousin's problem.

Maybe you can help your cousin think for him/herself? I think that would be what I try. Or does your cousin adopt a political opinion because an editorial in a newspaper directs him/her to as well?

A critic can certainly poison wells for those who are too frightened (or perhaps too uncertain) to make up their own minds. But the critics' thoughts shouldn't be substites for one's own. Tell your cousin to think for himself, basically


----------



## amfortas

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think he has a point.


But twenty-two minutes' worth?


----------



## Guest002

amfortas said:


> But twenty-two minutes' worth?


To be fair, he makes his point in the first 25 seconds fairly punchily! The rest is just entertainment, for some definitions of that word. And also rebuttals in advance for those who are going to slag him off as ignorant of the subject matter.


----------



## perempe

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm sorry if you get confused, but as an Englishman who has daily to live with the consequence of all bar half a dozen composers *not* being English, and thus having to put up with accents, diacritics and quite often the complete absence of apparent vowels for entire paragraphs...I have to say, join the club!
> 
> If people want to learn "proper" pronunciation of these names, it's kind of you to offer to help. But I'd rather people felt able and empowered to listen to and talk about the music than sweat the specifics of pronouncing what is, at the end of the day, a foreign language. (IE, as practically all of them are, for practically everyone!)


Do you post videos with wrong pronunciation as a professional critic like Mr. Hurwitz?


----------



## FastkeinBrahms

perempe said:


> Do you post videos with wrong pronunciation as a professional critic like Mr. Hurwitz?


I am ok with not everyone pronouncing everybody correctly but I hope English speaking participants are equally happy when at the receiving end of this argument. I am a big fan of Voggan Williams and other English composers, and the Wagner recordings of Sir Adrian Boolt.


----------



## Guest002

FastkeinBrahms said:


> I am ok with not everyone pronouncing everybody correctly but I hope English speaking participants are equally happy when at the receiving end of this argument. I am a big fan of Voggan Williams and other English composers, and the Wagner recordings of Sir Adrian Boolt.


I was perhaps ten before I learnt it was (probably) Baithohven and not Beathoven.

I think we can show a little latitude in return!

Just so long as you don't call him Ralf but Rayf.


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> Do you post videos with wrong pronunciation as a professional critic like Mr. Hurwitz?


Not sure of the relevance of the question, because I'm not brave enough to stick my neck out making videos in the first place.

I have long argued (unlike Mr Hurwitz) that English computer keyboard users have no excuse for not getting their diacritics correct, and for Heaven's sake To Not Capitalize The First Letter Of Every Word, especially when typing German. And I tut loudly when people type it piu mosso and not più mosso.

So yes, were I a video making person, I'm sure I'd make a video or two on my pet peeves such as those.


----------



## Azol

He also pronounces Khatchaturian as "-torian" like "stentorian", but it's "-tou-'rya-n"
Guess transcription is misleading.


----------



## Guest002

Azol said:


> He also pronounces Khatchaturian as "-torian" like "stentorian", but it's "-tou-'rya-n"
> Guess transcription is misleading.


I think the East Coast American accent is kicking in, that's all. I've not heard him get that one so wrong that it triggered me at any rate!


----------



## perempe

I don't know the original armenian name. I'm sure he's familiar with russian (Хачатурян), but he's lazy.


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> I don't know the original armenian name. I'm sure he's familiar with russian (Хачатурян), but he's lazy.


Well, it's not Russian is it? As you say, it's Armenian. Արամ Խաչատրյան if you want to get precise about it. Good luck with that one. The Russian is a transliteration, which means it might not be entirely phonetically accurate!

I don't know why you (and everyone else, I hasten to add) has to pick at Hurwitz so _personally_. He has an American accent; he's a busy man doing more productive work in the realm of classical music than probably any of us right now... and he makes pronunciation slip-ups as we _all_ do. Does that really warrant abusing the guy personally as 'lazy'?

I would suggest the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our video critic, but in yourself.


----------



## Haydn man

I have only recently come across Hurwitz on YouTube and must say I have enjoyed what I have seen so far.
Yes, he is can be rather over the top in his videos but at least he has an opinion and says why he either does or doesn’t like something.
More power to him I say


----------



## perempe

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't know why you (and everyone else, I hasten to add) has to pick at Hurwitz so _personally_. He has an American accent; he's a busy man doing more productive work in the realm of classical music than probably any of us right now... and he makes pronunciation slip-ups as we _all_ do. Does that really warrant abusing the guy personally as 'lazy'?
> 
> I would suggest the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our video critic, but in yourself.


I've written in my first post. Imagine your name is Weaver and he keeps saying Waver. (Takács means weaver in hungarian.)


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> I've written in my first post. Imagine your name is Weaver and he keeps saying Waver. (Takács means weaver in hungarian.)


I used to get called 'Buck' at school (my surname is 'Rogers'). I didn't let it scar me. Much.

No-one here speaks Hungarian. No-one but Estonians and Finns do. And the Hungarians, I suppose. Which is where you come in, I guess.

But the point is that you wanted to go all Finno-Ugric on us, so you get to deal with the consequences of being the only peoples in Europe not speaking an Indo-European language some millennia later. Not being able to pronounce Fred Weaver's name correctly is one of them. There are about 18 million of you Finno-Ugric speakers, give or take a million. Don't have a go at the other 7.8 billion of us just because your ancestors decided to be different 

And in any case, that's not an answer to my question. Why the need to attack him _personally_ because he can't pronounce "Takács" properly? Criticise his pronunciation, fine: I think it's a weird thing to pick him up on, particularly when he's specifically addressed the issue. But fine: you don't like his pronunciation, you can criticise him for it. You can dismiss his musical insights because he can't say some words properly: that's entirely your perogative. But calling him "lazy"?

Do you walk the streets of Eger telling people they're fat or ugly because they don't walk fast enough for you, or drive well enough for your tastes or because they annoy you in any of a thousand other minor ways? I suspect you don't, because throwing personal abuse around for behavioural 'faults' is generally considered unacceptable. Calling him 'lazy' because his Hungarian isn't perfect is… well, just perverse, I would suggest.


----------



## Azol

I enjoy most his videos, sometimes there's too much of his specific humour but I see no harm if he enjoys it to that extent. In fact, some of it (RVW Sea Symphony video comes to mind) is hilarious. I only wish he would accept some of the corrections (we always learn, don't we?) but he knows so much I would describe him anything but lazy.


----------



## Guest002

Azol said:


> I enjoy most his videos, sometimes there's too much of his specific humour but I see no harm if he enjoys it to that extent. In fact, some of it (RVW Sea Symphony video comes to mind) is hilarious. I only wish he would accept some of the corrections (we always learn, don't we?) but he knows so much I would describe him anything but lazy.


I don't recall seeing a Sea Symphony one... I must hunt it out! Thanks 

PS. I found it. Hilarious opening. And I love the deadpan 'The trouble with the Sea Symphony is that it's a setting of poetry by Walt Whitman'!

I don't think I was watching him regularly back in October.


----------



## perempe

I wrote the corrent pronunciation for those who who are interested.

I've seen dozens of his videos, he had good recommendations, Sejna's Slavonic Dances might be my favorite.
However, I don't know why he said such bad things about the Furtwängler box on his anniversary yesterday. He should have waited a few days at least.


----------



## Azol

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't recall seeing a Sea Symphony one... I must hunt it out! Thanks
> 
> PS. I found it. Hilarious opening. And I love the deadpan 'The trouble with the Sea Symphony is that it's a setting of poetry by Walt Whitman'!
> 
> I don't think I was watching him regularly back in October.


I got my family interested in RVW music just by playing this opening for them, following with the actual music, that got them hooked


----------



## Guest002

Azol said:


> I got my family interested in RVW music just by playing this opening for them, following with the actual music, that got them hooked


It's a very good review. As ever, I was relieved to see Previn make the final three (he was my first, on LP). And trebly relieved to see he agrees with me (!) that Boult is unbeatable. Am grateful for you pointing me in its direction! (I'm going to buy the Manze now...)

My subtler point is, I think, that people get their noses out of joint with Hurwitz because he _doesn't_ confirm them in their choices. He thus appears to be criticising _them_ and their musical sensibilities, and so they take against him, _personally_. Same as I feel a bit relieved when he supports me in my prejudices, then I know I'm smart and knowledgeable!

Shrug it off, is my advice, bad pronunciation and all, whichever way it goes.


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> I wrote the corrent pronunciation for those who who are interested.
> 
> I've seen dozens of his videos, he had good recommendations, Sejna's Slavonic Dances might be my favorite.
> However, I don't know why he said such bad things about the Furtwängler box on his anniversary yesterday. He should have waited a few days at least.


Well, I rather think Furtwängler is beyond caring about what is said about him and when.

I don't get why _you_ don't get that his opinions and comments fundamentally don't matter, good, bad or indifferent. One _chooses_ to allow him to influence your thoughts about a piece, a composer, a conductor or a recording, if you are so inclined. In the same way, if you are offended by something he's said, that's you _choosing_ to be offended, I think.

Rather than fret about why he said X or Y on such and such a date, just be a duck and let it fall off your back. Take the good bits (which you obviously have done in the past) and ignore the bits that irritate or annoy or offend. File them under 'no-one's perfect'. He had some really nasty things to say about Benjamin Britten's operas, for example... I consider them his defects, not mine for liking those operas, and I pay no further heed to them.

And Jenő Takács: Yénna Tókatch. Approximately. I think? But I'm not spending 10 minutes struggling with the IPA every time I encounter a non-English composer (which I did spend on John Weaver on this occasion). I have 540 of them in my collection. That would be 90 hours, assuming I had perfect recall. It's not going to happen. You need to get used to that, too.


----------



## perempe

jenɜː tʌkɑːtʃ

I know that there's no ɜː, but it's a long ɜ.


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> jenəː tʌkɑːtʃ
> 
> I know that there's no əː, but it's a long ə.


Seriously: you talk IPA, I have no idea. As I said, I spent 10 minutes coming up with that transliteration with the IPA right in front of my nose. If it isn't correct, come up with a transliteration that is (or is approximately so).

I would be genuinely interested to know, but I've done my IPA fix for the day and if I've got it wrong, you need to spell it out, not merely re-iterate that which I've already been unable to work out for myself.


----------



## perempe

I recorded it, but can not upload here, despite it's only 200KB. Give me an email in PM.

Checked it here, but they're wrong.


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> I recorded it, but can not upload here, despite it's only 200KB. Give me an email in PM.
> 
> Checked it here, but they're wrong.


Well, I thought the Australian "Jenno Tak-aarse" was probably a bit on the nose. 

(As an ex-Aussie, even I wouldn't have been quite that crass!)

I don't want to rub the point in, but do you see the difficulty here? A website that purports to do foreign pronunciation is "wrong"... and you can't upload a recording... and you expect Hurwitz to get it right ... and when he doesn't, he's "lazy"?!

Do you want to retract that adjective now? I'll PM you an email if you do. And I have a website that will happily host said recording if it helps spread the word.


----------



## Merl

Im still confused about how you pronounce Takacs, Kodaly and Bartok properly. I need some sound files from perempe to help me hear those names. Im not _that_ bothered tbh but it would be interesting to hear the correct pronunciation. Why not put the sound files in pcloud? If theres any other odd composer / conductor names that you can think of, that us Brits/Americans may struggle with, then throw them in too. I am interested.


----------



## Guest002

Merl said:


> Im still confused about how you pronounce Takacs, Kodaly and Bartok properly. I need some sound files from perempe to help me hear those names. Im not _that_ bothered tbh but it would be interesting to hear the correct pronunciation. Why not put the sound files in pcloud? If theres any other odd composer / conductor names that you can think of, that us Brits/Americans may struggle with, then throw them in too. I am interested.


I've offered to host all such material. I would genuinely be interested. But I'm afraid I'm holding the line at doing favours for anyone that criticises someone _personally_ for having opinions or behaviours they disagree with. The claim that Hurwitz is lazy gets walked back, we're fine and I'll do my bit. Without the walking back bit, however, and I'm not touching it.

I'm not in any of that suggesting anything nefarious or unpleasant in any way about the beliefs of "perempe", whom I do not know and about whom I know nothing. I'm just saying it's my own personal standard on this occasion, such as it is: don't make _personal_ criticisms about someone because of a disagreement you may have about their thoughts or speech patterns.

I will conclude by saying that the final syllable of Takacs is pronounced "ch" as in "chop". So "Te' katch" is close. The first syllable is unstressed, so its 'tuh', or 'ter'. I think. The "cs" is (almost) definitely "ch", however.


----------



## perempe

He should take more care on pronunciation as a professional critic. is it better than lazy?

https://filebin.net/y0f04hwc931f4uxc
Ferencsik János
Kertész István (interesting fact: kertész means gardener)
Ormándy Jenő
Takács Jenő
Bartók Béla
Kodály Zoltán
Reiner Frigyes
Lajtha László
Végh Sándor
Doráti Antal
Széll György (interesting fact: szél means wind)


----------



## Guest002

perempe said:


> He should take a more care on pronunciation as a professional critic. is it better than lazy?
> 
> https://filebin.net/y0f04hwc931f4uxc
> Ferencsik János
> Kertész István
> Ormándy Jenő
> Takács Jenő
> Bartók Béla
> Kodály Zoltán
> Reiner Frigyes
> Lajtha László
> végh Sándor
> Doráti Antal
> Széll György


No. 
Apparently I have to expand upon this answer before the forum software will accept it.

So No. It won't do.
"I should have said not that he was lazy, but that if he's in the role of a professional critic, I would expect more from him by way of checking his pronunciation' would be acceptable.

And then we could discuss how many composers you think he's got represented in that enormous CD collection behind him in every video and whether that's a reasonable expectation on your part.

But until you say "I didn't mean lazy. I meant...", there is no basis of discussion.

And I would still be interested in hosting audio clips of every one of those names you have just listed.


----------



## KenOC

I am amused by the idea that Mr. Hurwitz, as a professional critic, is "lazy" if he mispronounces the surnames of some musicians.

First, is he really a "professional critic"? The most common definition of "professional" is someone who is paid for practicing their profession. I'm not sure who is paying Mr. Hurwitz or how much, if at all. There's no money in what he does, unless he's lucky enough to have a sinecure in academia - which I don't believe he does. His YouTube videos don't even have a sponsor!

Which brings us to the "lazy" part. He seems to be churning out plenty of those half-hour YouTube spots, evidently doing them by himself without assistance, accompanied only by his cat. Anybody who has done this will appreciate how much time it takes to prepare and then shoot and edit these spots. On top of that, he is well into the Herculean task of introducing all of Haydn's symphonies, each with its own video. In these, he has to find interesting things to say not just about every symphony, but about every _movement_ of every symphony, and to convincingly enthuse over each small detail! I love Haydn as much as the next guy, but find this plan to be staggeringly ambitious - and certainly not the undertaking of a lazy man.


----------



## perempe

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I will conclude by saying that the final syllable of Takacs is pronounced "ch" as in "chop". So "Te' katch" is close. The first syllable is unstressed, so its 'tuh', or 'ter'. I think. The "cs" is (almost) definitely "ch", however.


The end of the word is right.

Takács
t tea
ʌ up (vowel)
k car
ɑː far (vowel)
tʃ cheese

The table can be used in this case, but for words like 'über' it can't be used.


----------



## MusicSybarite

Just watched a bit of Hurwitz's video about Massenet. Fluff and Spam. He believes he's funny by mentioning and comparing them with Massenet and Bruckner respectively.

At least many here put him on a pedestal.


----------



## Azol

MusicSybarite said:


> Just watched a bit of Hurwitz's video about Massenet. Fluff and Spam. He believes he's funny by mentioning and comparing them with Massenet and Bruckner respectively.
> 
> At least many here put him on a pedestal.


Sometimes it works for him, sometimes it does not (especially when he beats the same joke to death and beyond). I couldn't get through this one, but will keep checking for next videos. Have to fish for pearls in the tide.


----------



## HenryPenfold

> Just watched a bit of Hurwitz's video about Massenet. Fluff and Spam. He believes he's funny by mentioning and comparing them with Massenet and Bruckner respectively.


Quite poor, really. He lets himself down


----------



## HenryPenfold

MusicSybarite said:


> Just watched a bit of Hurwitz's video about Massenet. Fluff and Spam. He believes he's funny by mentioning and comparing them with Massenet and Bruckner respectively.


I have mixed feelings about David Hurvitz. I used to watch every video as they were uploaded, and I'm indebted to him for some learning and an improvement in my listening approach and increased enjoyment. I've stopped watching in the most part as I can't abide him when he gets all stupid. I'll only tune in when there is something that I definitely fancy (like something about Mahler, Bruckner et al).



> At least many here put him on a pedestal.


I find this strange. He even has a little fan-boy on here!

Each to his own, I suppose!


----------



## Guest002

MusicSybarite said:


> Just watched a bit of Hurwitz's video about Massenet. Fluff and Spam. He believes he's funny by mentioning and comparing them with Massenet and Bruckner respectively.
> 
> At least many here put him on a pedestal.


I didn't have a problem with it. I thought it quite funny, especially because I could imagine the hoards of Bruckner fans over here getting quite worked up by it (they do seem to take things rather seriously!). Not having the faintest idea what 'Fluff' as a product is, and not having eaten Spam in living memory, the humour was slightly lost for me in translation, but I just like the way he says 'Bruckner'! I realise he has something of a blind spot there, so I just let it ride.

Personally, I can't be dealing with his Bach Cantata 'schlepp' or whatever he calls it, nor his Haydn crusade. His 'beautiful melodies' threads are also a bit of a turn-off. And I don't bother watching 'worst album covers' style of humour. When he tries _hard_ to be funny, I often find him anything but.

You take what you can from him, in other words; and leave what you find not to your taste. Personally, I prefer the 'best recording...' or 'best cycle' or 'ideal cycle' threads. Or the ones where he goes into a single work in quite some detail, explaining what you ought to be listening out for. I think that's quite educational.

Where I get somewhat annoyed is people here who post to the current listening thread essentially showing off the breadth of their musical taste because they're listening to Massenet, or Romeo and Juliet or whatever it might be... two hours after Hurwitz put up a video about it, and with not one whiff of acknowledgment of where 'their' listening ideas actually have come from. That seems to me show-boating of the worst sort. It's not because I think Hurwitz is the hottest thing since sliced bread: I just can't stand the fakery involved in pretending you've come up with an idea that was actually someone else's. I don't think that means I'm putting _Hurwitz_ on a pedestal. I'm just calling others to account.


----------



## FastkeinBrahms

I had never heard of him until I stumbled across his name on this thread. I have watched a couple of his videos since. All in all, I found them very amusing. He obviously relishes to stomp on some toes, especially of those worshipping at the altar of Furtwängler, Karajan or even Carlos Kleiber. When he thrashes one of my favourites such as Kleiber I chuckle and move on. He made me really laugh when he once actually praised a Karajan Tchaikovsky recording, because that praise was accompanied by such a scowl as if he had just bitten into two dozen sour lemons. But why take that seriously? What matters is that he tries very effectively to interest me in little known repertoire or musicians by cleverly mixing these with warhorses and stars. I watched his programme on string serenades, where he of course talked about the Holberg Suite or Tchaikovsky and Dvorak but also sang the praises of Robert Fuchs, Karlowics and early works by Nielsen and Suk, composers or works I at least had never heard of. And I must say that I enjoyed these immensely. I can imagine that watching too many of his videos can get annoying with some of his mannerisms. As long as he gets me to discover new things, I don't care.


----------



## Manxfeeder

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Where I get somewhat annoyed is people here who post to the current listening thread essentially showing off the breadth of their musical taste because they're listening to Massenet, or Romeo and Juliet or whatever it might be... two hours after Hurwitz put up a video about it, and with not one whiff of acknowledgment of where 'their' listening ideas actually have come from.


I guess there are a few who might do that to show off their taste. But maybe they just heard his video and just wanted to hear what he was talking about before they forgot what he was talking about. I hope we don't get to the point around here that we have to acknowledge everything and everyone that has influenced us to listen to a particular recording. That sounds exhausting, and it would probably call for a footnote feature.


----------



## Guest002

Manxfeeder said:


> I guess there are a few who might do that to show off their taste. But maybe they just heard his video and just wanted to hear what he was talking about before they forgot what he was talking about. I hope we don't get to the point around here that we have to acknowledge everything and everyone that has influenced us to listen to a particular recording. That sounds exhausting, and it would probably call for a footnote feature.


Well, you're being charitable, and I get that just because Fred posted a Nielsen Symphony three weeks ago and I happened to listen to it today, probably with Fred's endorsement in my mind, that doesn't warrant an acknowledgement to Fred. Though I have myself posted something along the lines of 'I can't remember who recommended this X days ago, and I can't find the post now, but whoever it was, thanks... because this is a great recording etc etc'. A little politeness never hurts, I think.

But anyway. That's not what we're really talking about, is it? We're talking about posters (one in particular, but he's not entirely alone, though perhaps the most brazen) who posts _exactly_ what Hurwitz videoed about within 2 hours of the video going live... and then has the cheek to actually quote the precise words Hurwitz used without so much as an attribution, as though the 'Dvorak... early student work...whatever else it was...' were his own original thoughts. And then he does it again three days later. And then again.

That crosses a line for me, and I definitely hope standards have not yet slipped that we just nod and wink and excuse that sort of brainless plagiarism that is intended to impress but has no shred of original thought behind it. I definitely hope we get to the point that that sort of thing is just not considered acceptable.

It is, of course, a matter of degree. But really: there are some people who just do it blatantly and shamelessly.

Aside from anything else, if there's a new Hurwitz video that got you listening to something, how about mentioning it so that we can *all* get inspired? A little sharing (with an actual link, not just some words and vague hand-gesures) also never hurt.


----------



## Manxfeeder

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Aside from anything else, if there's a new Hurwitz video that got you listening to something, how about mentioning it so that we can *all* get inspired? A little sharing (with an actual link, not just some words and vague hand-gesures) also never hurt.


I got nervous, because yesterday I posted that I was listening to Massenet without attributing it to Hurwitz. I don't want to have to always look over my shoulder and feel the need to justify whatever I choose to listen to.


----------



## Guest002

Manxfeeder said:


> I got nervous, because yesterday I posted that I was listening to Massenet without attributing it to Hurwitz. I don't want to have to always look over my shoulder and feel the need to justify whatever I choose to listen to.


Well, I don't want to make you nervous, and you shouldn't be.

But you're conflating two issues. No-one, least of all me, is asking you to *justify* your listening choices. You listen to what you want to, and all power to your elbow, whatever it is. You don't have to explain why you like listening to X or Y to me or anyone else.

But that's not the same thing as asking you to _attribute_ your posts if they are directly inspired by another.

You've seen the thread lately: because of X listening to Boulez, 58 others decided to do similarly. No-one said, 'thanks to Fred', but we all knew that there was a commonality to the thread, and people _did_ cross-reference within it, so following the chain wasn't difficult.

So, you watch a Hurwitz Massenet video and it gets you listening. You had Massenet in your collection before Hurwitz; you'd have it in your collection without Hurwitz. No-one's suggesting a brain-transplant went on... but would it kill you to have copied-and-pasted a link? "I'm listening to Massenet because of this video. I am enjoying it a lot...etc...etc". Then we know what you're listening to, why you're listening to it... and can perhaps go and be inspired to listen to it ourselves.

Again, if you get inspired to listen to Wagner because you watched a 1960s Bugs Bunny cartoon, no-one's expecting you to admit to the fact (though I think it makes you sound more human if you do!). But a guy who's making no direct money out of his efforts is putting stuff out there which I know a lot of us are watching and getting provoked by into listening to things we wouldn't have listened to otherwise. (Or things we've had in the library for ages, but hadn't listened to in years). I think acknowledging that fact is not something we should be ashamed of, but _not_ acknowledging it... yeah, I would regard that as mere decency.

That said, I don't want a bun-fight about it. You didn't declare deep thoughts about Dvorak as if they were your own, when they were lifted verbatim from the relevant video. You're not the guy doing this stuff flagrantly. I'm also not the forum policeman or anyone's conscience: people do what they feel is right. I can only say what _I_ think is right, can't I?


----------



## Manxfeeder

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You're not the guy doing this stuff flagrantly.


Thanks. But I agree with you that credit should be given when credit is due, so I'll try, just personally, to point out, as a gesture of gratitude, those who influence me to hear something.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FastkeinBrahms said:


> When he thrashes one of my favourites such as Kleiber I chuckle and move on.


He can trash any artist he wants. Where he crosses the line is in attacking people who disagree by painting them with broad strokes. In doing so, he is not merely stating his opinion but discrediting anyone who disagrees with him. That's out of bounds IMO. It's bullying behavior. Hurwitz is an insecure person who cannot handle disagreement. Even responders on his edited comments section act apologetically so as not to incur his wrath.

The thing is he has every reason to be insecure. He understands music on a very simplistic level. So he lashes out at others to protect his ego. It is sophomoric and has no place in classical music discourse, which is supposed to be about broadening our horizons, not intimidating people away from freely exploring what they like.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He can trash any artist he wants. Where he crosses the line is in attacking people who disagree by painting them with broad strokes. In doing so, he is not merely stating his opinion but discrediting anyone who disagrees with him. That's out of bounds IMO. It's bullying behavior. Hurwitz is an insecure person who cannot handle disagreement. Even responders on his edited comments section act apologetically so as not to incur his wrath.


I will agree to the extent that I've given up trying to leave comments. He reacts to them in a 'particular' way which I can't be dealing with. To be fair, it's me and him, but from his perspective, it's him an 3000 other guys all going for him!

I think he does not suffer fools gladly. I can understand that, because of the 3000:1 ratio involved. But when you don't think you're the fool and he's treating you like one... well, you soon learn not to indulge! But clearly, some manage it. I don't know their secret blend of herbs and spices, but I clearly don't have it!



Brahmsianhorn said:


> The thing is he has every reason to be insecure. He understands music on a very simplistic level.


Well, I don't agree with that. I don't think you can assess his understanding of music from videos that are pumped out to keep an audience engaged. He can't go into every nuance and subtlety, so we cannot know if he _could_ go into every nuance and subtlety.

When I've heard him say things like 'you can't take the introduction to the Romeo and Juliet too slow', he sounds as if he knows something.

When he discussed how to clash two cymbals together, he sounded as if he knew something and I learnt something!



Brahmsianhorn said:


> So he lashes out at others to protect his ego.


Not wanting to bait you, but can you give me an example where he does that? I don't know of any video I can think of where he slags someone off as a person (as opposed to being too slow, too boring and so on). I don't see him lashing out at anyone. But I haven't watched everything he's churned out, so I could have missed it.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is sophomoric and has no place in classical music discourse, which is supposed to be about broadening our horizons, not intimidating people away from freely exploring what they like.


The thing is, I don't think he does scare people away from things. I know he's said things like 'Oh my God, Haitink's Vaughan Williams is so boring!'. But I've also heard him say things like, 'but you may well disagree. Let us know in the comments'. He has his opinions, clearly. He states them forcefully. He tends to back them up when push comes to shove. I've never yet heard him say, 'my view is right and yours is wrong', unless he's doing so in a deliberately provocative way that clearly has the subtext 'these are just my views, about which I'm single-minded!'.


----------



## KenOC

BTW Hurwitz has just posted on the "wrist-slittingly miserable" music of a certain composer, with a couple of excerpts. A good time was had by all, as they say...

(3) Repertoire: Oh, The Pain! Pettersson's Lacerating String Concertos - YouTube


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My impression based on his reviews is that Hurwitz understands music on a very nuts and bolts level. He does not understand very well the conductor's art of creating and setting up tension. I don't think he understands very well how the emotional effects of the music reach the listener, and he disavows people who do understand such nuances as people who are conceited hair-splitters imagining things, and belonging to cults. You can snicker if you want, but I don't understand the point of a reviewer needing to insult people who hear things on a level that he does not share. His Wagner video is a clear example of this.


----------



## ManateeFL

Brahmsianhorn said:


> His Wagner video is a clear example of this.


"Uchk, no one _likes_ Tannhauser..." was about the extent of his insights on that one. While, as you say, openly mocking the music dramas and anyone who appreciates Wagner.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My impression based on his reviews is that Hurwitz understands music on a very nuts and bolts level. He does not understand very well the conductor's art of creating and setting up tension. I don't think he understands very well how the emotional effects of the music reach the listener, and he disavows people who do understand such nuances as people who are conceited hair-splitters imagining things, and belonging to cults. You can snicker if you want, but I don't understand the point of a reviewer needing to insult people who hear things on a level that he does not share. His Wagner video is a clear example of this.


I'm not snickering at all, but I would like some examples of which you speak, because I have never experienced what you're talking about.

I have heard of you by reputation, of course: but I know nothing of you. If it turns out you used to conduct the LSO and therefore I should be paying a hell of a lot more attention to what you're saying than I am, please forgive me. Seriously: I'm dealing with avatar v. avatar at this point! I know nothing of actual facts;

So at the moment, I've got someone I don't know, who speaks sense as far as I can tell about music, and who makes me laugh; and someone I don't know, who claims the other guy should be more serious about things and less hair-splitting and cultish. Who am I going to vote for?

And I just read your last sentence. Can you please _link_ to the Wagner video you're talking about, so I know which one you are taking offence at? There's 8 months of this stuff to wade through. I don't know whether I'm going to stumble across it or not. Just paste the URL, if you wouldn't mind.

Looking at your avatar, I'm guessing that's Furtwängler. So I am expecting you to like, for example, Furtängler's 1942 Beethoven 9th that I know Hurwtitz did a destroy-job on several months ago. So I would guess that you like Furt, and you don't like Hurwitz because he doesn't. I don't know if any of that's true, and I don't want to tread on toes... but you can see where this is going, surely?


----------



## Guest002

KenOC said:


> BTW Hurwitz has just posted on the "wrist-slittingly miserable" music of a certain composer, with a couple of excerpts. A good time was had by all, as they say...
> 
> (3) Repertoire: Oh, The Pain! Pettersson's Lacerating String Concertos - YouTube


Well, thank you for the link: another funny tour through the compositions of someone you're not supposed to like, but underneath the gruff, he clearly can't help himself!

He even does a 'why am I talking about these works' thing, where he admits (grudgingly, perhaps!) at 14'45": 'they have an obstinate unattractiveness I kind of respect'...which sort of sums up me and most of the music of the post-1950 twentieth century, as far as I'm concerned, if truth be told!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> ISo I would guess that you like Furt, and you don't like Hurwitz because he doesn't. I don't know if any of that's true, and I don't want to tread on toes... but you can see where this is going, surely?


That's insulting.

I made it expressly clear my issue with Hurwitz is not his musical taste but his demeaning attitude towards anyone who disagrees with his tastes.

I debated him over Furtwängler's Beethoven 9th, and he proceeded to tell me I am a cult member who deludes myself into hearing what is not there. He claimed that his views are based on facts. He stated there and elsewhere that people who disagree with him make "excuses" for performances that are clearly terrible, as if his truth is the only objective truth.

This is sophomoric level stuff. That's why I can't even give him credit for understanding music. No one who understands the point of art and music would say such things. With Hurwitz it is all about his ego and being "right," which is nonsensical. As John Cusack said in the movie High Fidelity, "How can someone be wrong about a preference?"


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's insulting.


It certainly wasn't meant to be, and I tried to tread around the subject as lightly as possible to minimise any bad feeling arising from the suggestion. I apologise for any offence I gave, however.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I made it expressly clear my issue with Hurwitz is not his musical taste but his demeaning attitude towards anyone who disagrees with his tastes.


Well, what you actually said was "He does not understand very well the conductor's art of creating and setting up tension. I don't think he understands very well how the emotional effects of the music reach the listener…" and that sounds very much like you have an issue with his _lack of_ musical insight and understanding, in general, which are surely matters of 'musical taste'. It is true that you went on to say 'he disavows people who do understand such nuances as people who are conceited hair-splitters imagining things, and belonging to cults', but that was third in your list and wasn't expressly clear that it was the only thing you were criticising him for (in my view, anyway).



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I debated him over Furtwängler's Beethoven 9th, and he proceeded to tell me I am a cult member who deludes myself into hearing what is not there. He claimed that his views are based on facts. He stated there and elsewhere that people who disagree with him make "excuses" for performances that are clearly terrible, as if his truth is the only objective truth.
> 
> This is sophomoric level stuff. That's why I can't even give him credit for understanding music. No one who understands the point of art and music would say such things. With Hurwitz it is all about his ego and being "right," which is nonsensical. As John Cusack said in the movie High Fidelity, "How can someone be wrong about a preference?"


Well, at the risk of causing offence again, I think it clear from that, that you have judged his 'understanding of music' in the general case because of a disagreement about what can be heard in the specific case of a Furtwängler recording and the way he dealt with you when you discussed it with him. (And I've already said up-thread that I've given up trying to engage with him because I find him prickly at best, so I know what being on the wrong end of his 'wit' can feel like!)

You may well be right about that recording. I can't really comment because I think it's dreadful myself. But regardless of the merits of a specific recording of a specific work by a specific conductor, I think dismissing him as having no understanding of music at all, period, seems a bit of an over-reaction.

But there's really no point pursuing the matter further if I merely give offence when I do so.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It certainly wasn't meant to be, and I tried to tread around the subject as lightly as possible to minimise any bad feeling arising from the suggestion. I apologise for any offence I gave, however.
> 
> Well, what you actually said was "He does not understand very well the conductor's art of creating and setting up tension. I don't think he understands very well how the emotional effects of the music reach the listener…" and that sounds very much like you have an issue with his _lack of_ musical insight and understanding, in general, which are surely matters of 'musical taste'. It is true that you went on to say 'he disavows people who do understand such nuances as people who are conceited hair-splitters imagining things, and belonging to cults', but that was third in your list and wasn't expressly clear that it was the only thing you were criticising him for (in my view, anyway).
> 
> Well, at the risk of causing offence again, I think it clear from that, that you have judged his 'understanding of music' in the general case because of a disagreement about what can be heard in the specific case of a Furtwängler recording and the way he dealt with you when you discussed it with him. (And I've already said up-thread that I've given up trying to engage with him because I find him prickly at best, so I know what being on the wrong end of his 'wit' can feel like!)
> 
> You may well be right about that recording. I can't really comment because I think it's dreadful myself. But regardless of the merits of a specific recording of a specific work by a specific conductor, I think dismissing him as having no understanding of music at all, period, seems a bit of an over-reaction.
> 
> But there's really no point pursuing the matter further if I merely give offence when I do so.


All I am asking is please stick to facts instead of trying to put your own spin on what I am saying. Here is my very first post yesterday, the one you first responded to. Note the first sentence. Note the first paragraph.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> He can trash any artist he wants. Where he crosses the line is in attacking people who disagree by painting them with broad strokes. In doing so, he is not merely stating his opinion but discrediting anyone who disagrees with him. That's out of bounds IMO. It's bullying behavior. Hurwitz is an insecure person who cannot handle disagreement. Even responders on his edited comments section act apologetically so as not to incur his wrath.
> 
> The thing is he has every reason to be insecure. He understands music on a very simplistic level. So he lashes out at others to protect his ego. It is sophomoric and has no place in classical music discourse, which is supposed to be about broadening our horizons, not intimidating people away from freely exploring what they like.


In the second paragraph I move towards criticizing Hurwitz's own understanding of music, or lack thereof. I base that first and foremost on his attitude - and I made that clear yesterday as well - of his taste constituting fact and the opinions of others constituting delusion. Once again, you put your own spin on it saying I am only criticizing him because he doesn't like a specific Furtwangler recording. That is an assertion on your part, seemingly with the goal of simply discrediting my opinion. It is not based on anything I have said. I have been expressly clear about my reasons for criticizing Hurwitz.

If I don't like a recording, I can at least try to understand why other people appreciate it. I have certain criteria, and others have different criteria. I wouldn't make ridiculous statements such as saying people are imagining what they hear, my opinion is based on fact, or people just imagine a recording is great because Nazis were in the audience. Furthermore, when he focuses merely on technical qualities of a performance, as if that is the only way to grade a performance, he paints himself as a person with low musical intelligence. As I said above, there is so much more that goes into why a performance affects us. Hurwitz cannot even acknowledge this.

I argued with Hurwitz about his disrespect for people who see things differently on the subject of the Furtwangler Beethoven 9th, and these were his responses:

"I can explain exactly why I arrive at the conclusions I do, citing plainly audible facts, while you, on the other hand, and those like you, seem always to resort to the same nebulous nonsense about the ineffable amazingness of the whole thing. You are right, I do care about bad sound, bad playing, and bad conducting. if you don't, then, as you say, own it."

"Just admit that you're a cultist and enjoy your rituals of worship. It's OK, really. After all, it's only entertainment at the end of the day and you should enjoy whatever floats your boat."

"The technical shortcomings of that performance are objective truth. They are real and they exist. That is not my opinion. My view of that recording is based, at least partly, on those facts. My opinion is that F's vision of the work is best realized on his Philharmonia recording. I fully recognize that you have a different opinion, legitimately so, based on what you believe you hear of the music and despite the limitations of execution and engineering. That's fine. I don't see what you are getting so worked up over just because, based on those objective facts, i think the performance is garbage."

"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."

"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've been dealing with the Furt nuts for decades, and I don't pretend I will change anyone's mind (and I see no need to). I wish them well and they can enjoy what they like and pretend to hear."


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> All I am asking is please stick to facts instead of trying to put your own spin on what I am saying. Here is my very first post yesterday, the one you first responded to. Note the first sentence. Note the first paragraph.


I do, and I note you are now getting selective...



Brahmsianhorn said:


> In the second paragraph I move towards criticizing Hurwitz's own understanding of music, or lack thereof.…


Right, and that's what I responded to. I didn't put my own spin on anything. I quoted your own words at post #306, making nothing up in doing so.

You can't make 4 statements, 2 of which criticise his musicality and 2 of which criticise his treatment of others who criticise him... and then complain when I happen to pick up on the 2 which criticise his musicality as though my doing so was an outrage!

Back at post #379, I explicitly _agreed_ with your criticism of the way he deals with people who quesiton him. And then I said, 'I don't agree [with the statement that He understands music on a very simplistic level].

IE, I've never argued with you about his unpleasantness when dealing with criticism or questioning. I've *only* ever said, that's not a reason for dismissing his musicality. I think I've been clear on that throughout. I haven't spun your words to make that point. I've agreed with some of them.. and then disagreed with others *of your own words*.

When you make a two-part statement, and people take issue with the second part of that statement, don't call that 'spin' or 'not sticking to the facts'. That's people taking issue with a part of what you've said and not having an issue with the other stuff you said. Calling it 'spin' or 'not fact-based' is just... well, not nice.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I base that first and foremost on his attitude - and I made that clear yesterday as well - of his taste constituting fact and the opinions of others constituting delusion. Once again, you put your own spin on it saying I am only criticizing him because he doesn't like a specific Furtwangler recording. That is an assertion on your part, seemingly with the goal of simply discrediting my opinion. It is not based on anything I have said. I have been expressly clear about my reasons for criticizing Hurwitz.


You said you engaged him in debate on the Furtwangler recording. He was rude and dismissive towards you and said you were hearing things that didn't exist. He equated you therefore to being part of a Furtwangler cult.

Tell me if I got any of that wrong. But that's what *you* wrote. I'm spinning nothing.

And I've alread _dismissed_ your claim to have been "expressly clear about my reasons for criticising Hurwitz". You criticised him and his dismissal of you (and others like you) who don't share his opinions. *And then you criticised his musicality*. As you've just admitted yourself: "I move towards criticizing Hurwitz's own understanding of music, or lack thereof".



Brahmsianhorn said:


> If I don't like a recording, I can at least try to understand why other people appreciate it. I have certain criteria, and others have different criteria. I wouldn't make ridiculous statements such as saying people are imagining what they hear, my opinion is based on fact, or people just imagine a recording is great because Nazis were in the audience. Furthermore, when he focuses merely on technical qualities of a performance, as if that is the only way to grade a performance, he paints himself as a person with low musical intelligence. As I said above, there is so much more that goes into why a performance affects us. Hurwitz cannot even acknowledge this.


And again, you confirm that I'm spinning nothing. He didn't like a recording; you remonstrated with him; he was rude and dismissive; you now therefore dislike him personally and, as a side dish on that plate, you dismiss him having any musical insight _at all_.

I get that you think others should be more thoughtful when they criticise recordings. That they should try to understand others' likes and dislikes and not dismiss them as not being factual. I don't actually disagree with *any* of that.

Our point of difference is that I wouldn't condemn the man as being unmusical because he slagged off a recording and then dismissed my views of it unreasonably.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I argued with Hurwitz about his disrespect for people who see things differently on the subject of the Furtwangler Beethoven 9th, and these were his responses:
> 
> "I can explain exactly why I arrive at the conclusions I do, citing plainly audible facts, while you, on the other hand, and those like you, seem always to resort to the same nebulous nonsense about the ineffable amazingness of the whole thing. You are right, I do care about bad sound, bad playing, and bad conducting. if you don't, then, as you say, own it."
> 
> "Just admit that you're a cultist and enjoy your rituals of worship. It's OK, really. After all, it's only entertainment at the end of the day and you should enjoy whatever floats your boat."
> 
> "The technical shortcomings of that performance are objective truth. They are real and they exist. That is not my opinion. My view of that recording is based, at least partly, on those facts. My opinion is that F's vision of the work is best realized on his Philharmonia recording. I fully recognize that you have a different opinion, legitimately so, based on what you believe you hear of the music and despite the limitations of execution and engineering. That's fine. I don't see what you are getting so worked up over just because, based on those objective facts, i think the performance is garbage."
> 
> "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."
> 
> "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've been dealing with the Furt nuts for decades, and I don't pretend I will change anyone's mind (and I see no need to). I wish them well and they can enjoy what they like and pretend to hear."


That's a lot of quoting.

It doesn't alter the fact that he's put your nose out of joint regarding a specific recording (and that's not spin on my part).

It also doesn't change my opinion, which is that you shouldn't dismiss his entire musicality because you dislike the way he reacted to your views on that recording.

And now I'm really done having this discussion with you. You declare I'm spinning and leaping to conclusions.. and then you practically quote an entire novel that demonstrates I span nothing and that my analysis of the situation is sound. He dismissed you; you don't like the way he did it; you've therefore taken against him personally; and therefore have decided that _nothing_ he now says has any musical validity at all.

As I say, I think you're wrong and you've over-reacted. And we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, because me causing you further offence, whilst you baldy declare I'm putting 'spin' on things (which, by the way, is also offensive since it isn't true) isn't helping either one of us.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Our point of difference is that I wouldn't condemn the man as being unmusical *because he slagged off a recording and then dismissed my views of it unreasonably*.


That is, once again, an assertion on your part. I base my opinion of his lack of musical understanding on the totality of his reviews, not simply his opinion on one recording I happen to like. And I was very specific about HIS OWN WORDS stating that grading a performance is a simple factual matter based on an orchestra technically playing together and that all other considerations are IMAGINARY.

This was one of my responses to Hurwitz:

"I just finished pointing out how my opinion on this performance is based on the music, and how the same aspects about it that I admire are likewise widely admired, and you resort to the same simplistic Hurwitzian nonsense that all opinions contrary to yours are based on something imaginary whereas yours are based on fact. You wrote the same trite nonsense about the great Horenstein Mahler 8th - that everyone who admires it, including the patrons wildly applauding at the end, are ignorantly imagining that it is worthy while you the great Hurwitz are armed with "facts" proving it is not. You are not armed with facts. You are armed with simplicity. You reduce music to its most base level and refuse to even acknowledge that there are more complex reasons than mere clarity and precision that elicit music appreciation. The important point is that people reading your reviews understand the inherently limited standard of music appreciation from which you operate."


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I argued with Hurwitz about his disrespect for people who see things differently on the subject of the Furtwangler Beethoven 9th, and these were his responses:
> 
> "I can explain exactly why I arrive at the conclusions I do, citing plainly audible facts, while you, on the other hand, and those like you, seem always to resort to the same nebulous nonsense about the ineffable amazingness of the whole thing. You are right, I do care about bad sound, bad playing, and bad conducting. if you don't, then, as you say, own it."
> 
> "Just admit that you're a cultist and enjoy your rituals of worship. It's OK, really. After all, it's only entertainment at the end of the day and you should enjoy whatever floats your boat."
> 
> "The technical shortcomings of that performance are objective truth. They are real and they exist. That is not my opinion. My view of that recording is based, at least partly, on those facts. My opinion is that F's vision of the work is best realized on his Philharmonia recording. I fully recognize that you have a different opinion, legitimately so, based on what you believe you hear of the music and despite the limitations of execution and engineering. That's fine. I don't see what you are getting so worked up over just because, based on those objective facts, i think the performance is garbage."
> 
> "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."
> 
> "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've been dealing with the Furt nuts for decades, and I don't pretend I will change anyone's mind (and I see no need to). I wish them well and they can enjoy what they like and pretend to hear."


I am a great admirer of Furtwängler's art - and I find nothing objectionable about Hurwitz's response to you. I may not entirely agree with his conclusion about the 1942 9th (I wouldn't call it "garbage"), but his comments about a certain subset of Furwängler aficionados contains a great deal of truth.

As I'm sure other have pointed out, you're confusing criticism of Furtwängler with criticism of *you*. You're not alone - this is a widespread problem with public discourse in 2021.

Additionally, I think that you're worrying too much about what Hurwitz thinks of you. Enjoy what you enjoy, and sei gesund.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> I am a great admirer of Furtwängler's art - and I find nothing objectionable about Hurwitz's response to you. I may not entirely agree with his conclusion about the 1942 9th (I wouldn't call it "garbage"), but his comments about a certain subset of Furwängler aficionados contains a great deal of truth.
> 
> As I'm sure other have pointed out, you're confusing criticism of Furtwängler with criticism of *you*. You're not alone - this is a widespread problem with public discourse in 2021.
> 
> Additionally, I think that you're worrying too much about what Hurwitz thinks of you. Enjoy what you enjoy, and sei gesund.


You're missing the point. Hurwitz sees his reaction to music as factual and others' as imaginary. That exposes his simplistic approach to music and why as a reviewer he should not be taken seriously.

And for the record, I was telling him specifically what I like about the recording, and he was dismissing what I said as imaginary nonsense.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That is, once again, an assertion on your part. I base my opinion of his lack of musical understanding on the totality of his reviews, not simply his opinion on one recording I happen to like.


You haven't mentioned other opinions of his. You've quoted extensively from a discussion you had with him about Furtwangler's 9th. And in one sentence, you mentioned something about him being dismissive about Wagner, and I asked you for a link to that video, and none was provided.

I'm asserting nothing! I'm responding to what you've actually posted. If there's a pile of other insights you have and which you haven't mentioned which are all conducive to dismissing Hurwitz's musicality... well, I can't be expected to know what's in your head, can I?

You mentioned Furtwangler at length. You mentioned Wagner in passing. And that's it. If there's more, please share!



Brahmsianhorn said:


> And I was very specific about HIS OWN WORDS stating that grading a performance is a simple factual matter based on an orchestra technically playing together and that all other considerations are IMAGINARY.


Well, I don't want to get into Hurwitz-decoding classes. But he said that he's citing facts, and those who disagree with him are citing 'ineffable amazingness'. He's *not* saying that the *only* basis on which to judge a performance is technical playing. He's saying that in the 1942 recording they're not playing together and the timpani are miked so far forward that they are often the only thing you can hear, and he's claiming those are facts. (And I agree with him on the timpani, btw).

He's *not* saying that's the only basis on which to assess any recording in general, but that those are the facts he can use to base an assessment of that particular recording.

He even explicitly says that others are welcome to think there are musical considerations that outweigh the defects of that recording he's perceived, but that he can't hear them, because the technical defects that affect that particular recording make it impossible for him to do so.

And in the stuff of his you've quoted, he's even saying, explicitly, that there are musical considerations about the greatness of Beethoven's 9th and the greatness of a performance which should be taken into account: but that "what you can hear of it [on that specific recording] only poorly approximates Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."

I have heard him recommend countless recordings for their pace, or the wonderful sound quality, or the fact that the conductor/orchestra 'get' the style involved, or that they sound a tam-tam in the right way, or that it's excellent _despite_ the cymbal split... and a bazillion other factors. In none of them I can think of is he saying that it's good because the orchestra plays together and maintains 'precision'. You're using that as a stick to beat him with _generally_ when it was something he criticised about a single, individual recording. That's my point.

I can't comment on Horenstein's Mahler. If you've got a link to that video so I can make an assessment of it, I'd be grateful. And the request for the Wagner link still stands, too.


----------



## Malx

Get a room guys it's really not that important.

ETA - I must be a delusioned simpleton who listens to music primarily for pleasure and if I can glean anything more thats great - but it will never be worth fretting over others opinions to this degree.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're missing the point. Hurwitz sees his reaction to music as factual and others' as imaginary. That exposes his simplistic approach to music and why as a reviewer he should not be taken seriously.


No, I see the point quite clearly. It reminds me of a frequent contributor to this forum, who dismisses those who don't agree with his views as "unmusical".


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're missing the point. Hurwitz sees his reaction to music as factual and others' as imaginary. That exposes his simplistic approach to music and why as a reviewer he should not be taken seriously.


That is explicitly not so.

He's dismissing people's comments about Furtwangler's 1942 9th as imaginary _because the recording engineering is so bad that you cannot possibly actually hear anything in it_. That's not a "reaction to music". It's a reaction to a specific recording.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> And for the record, I was telling him specifically what I like about the recording, and he was dismissing what I said as imaginary nonsense.


Because (he's saying) that the recording engineering is so bad that you cannot possibly hear what you are claiming to hear. If you say you can hear the beautiful way the violins step back a bit at bar 86, he's saying the timpani are booming out so loudly at the time, how can you possibly hear the violins doing anything that subtle!

Now, maybe your ears are better than his. Maybe your brain can filter things out that his can't. Fine: you are naturally allowed to assert that you _can_ hear things he isn't hearing. But that is not a broad, general declaration on his part that music performances need to be assessed on 'fact' alone!

I get that you have probably stopped watching his videos since your run-ins with him -but that means you are basing your judgment of his musicality or lack thereof on _waaay_ insufficient information: he made that Furtwangler video six months ago! He makes sweeping statements all the time ("Bruckner!"), but taken as a whole, it's quite clear that he has very nuanced reactions to recordings. And you presumably aren't aware of that because you gave up watching in around August last year.

You've had a bad reaction to him because you've taken his specific comments about a specific recording and claimed that that's the way he always judges music in general -and that simply isn't true.

The sad irony here is, in fact, that your mind is as closed on the subject of Hurwitz as you claim Hurwitz's is on the matter of music judgment!

But, each to their own. (But try not to claim 'you're missing the point' or 'you're making assertions' or 'you're spinning things' when actually, we just don't think you're right on this particular matter. It's quite rude).


----------



## Guest002

Malx said:


> Get a room guys it's really not that important.[
> 
> ETA - I must be a delusioned simpleton who listens to music primarily for pleasure and if I can glean anything more thats great - but it will never be worth fretting over others opinions to this degree.


It's as important as anything else that gets debated here. You can always look away (and perhaps contribute to the 'Beethoven's 9th ends lazily' thread) if you think we're wasting our time, right?

Regarding your ETA. Discussions go where they go. I've never personally worried about why X is worth debating so vigorously... if the pub conversation goes in that direction, so be it. Tomorrow, it will be something different.

But I have never really understood people fretting over what others decide is important at any given moment, to be honest. If you think it pointless, don't join in! (I think that was always the argument with Mrs Whitehouse, wasn't it: if it's disgusting or distasteful, switch channels?)


----------



## Malx

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> It's as important as anything else that gets debated here. You can always look away (and perhaps contribute to the 'Beethoven's 9th ends lazily' thread) if you think we're wasting our time, right?


Was that really necessary? 
Frankly debate is one thing but personal slagging matches are something else.

I usually stand on the sidelines and pass no comment but today when I've just heard that my brother in law has contracted advanced prostrate cancer to add to his blood cancer - I find getting so wound up about Hurwitz pathetic.

I'll apologise its probably just the way I'm feeling right now - you carry on and I'll go and look at the Beethoven thread you suggest.

One thing I have learned today is not to post when I'm feeling compltetly down.


----------



## Guest002

Malx said:


> Was that really necessary?
> Frankly debate is one thing but personal slagging matches are something else.


OK, I genuinely don't understand where the 'personal slagging' came in to my comment. I was simply saying that the forum is full of 'threads' whose importance might be considered by some to be less than major. The 'Beethoven 9th is lazy' thread sprang to mind as a classic example of something that is really a very silly thread indeed. I don't even know if you've posted to it or not: I gave up reading on page 1, I think, and haven't checked back since.

Nothing I said was intended personally, merely as a rejoinder to the suggestion that *this* thread wasn't important enough to warrent debate. I am very sorry if it came across in any other way, particularly since...



Malx said:


> I usually stand on the sidelines and pass no comment but today when I've just heard that my brother in law has contracted advanced prostrate cancer to add to his bolld cancer - I find getting so wound up about Hurwitz pathetic.
> 
> I'll apologise its probably just the way I'm feeling right now - you carry on and I'll go and look at the Beethoven thread you suggest.


...that is a nightmare and I feel very much for you and I can only powerlessly hope that things work out for him (and you).

I absolutely agree Hurtwitz is irrelevant in the face of that sort of thing. So is much else that we debate here. But... well, we _are_ here, not having to put up with that kind of sh^t.

All the best to both of you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> No, I see the point quite clearly. It reminds me of a frequent contributor to this forum, who dismisses those who don't agree with his views as "unmusical".


Because I see Hurwitz that way that means everyone who disagrees with me I see as simplistic? Are you serious with this crap?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The sad irony here is, in fact, that your mind is as closed on the subject of Hurwitz as you claim Hurwitz's is on the matter of music judgment!


With every new post, you put me in the position of having to defend more and more of your baseless personal attacks against me.

Needless to say, simply having an opinion on something is not the same as having a closed mind. And you have no basis for claiming that I am not basing my opinion on Hurwitz after having read many of his reviews and seen many of his videos.

Why are you so intent on virulently debating every single point I make about Hurwitz and demanding evidence of what I am talking about? Are you his personal lawyer?


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because I see Hurwitz that way that means everyone who disagrees with me I see as simplistic? Are you serious with this crap?


No, those are two unrelated things. You see, I'm able to hold two thoughts in my head simultaneously (simplistic though I may be).


----------



## Malx

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> OK, I genuinely don't understand where the 'personal slagging' came in to my comment. I was simply saying that the forum is full of 'threads' whose importance might be considered by some to be less than major. The 'Beethoven 9th is lazy' thread sprang to mind as a classic example of something that is really a very silly thread indeed. I don't even know if you've posted to it or not: I gave up reading on page 1, I think, and haven't checked back since.
> 
> Nothing I said was intended personally, merely as a rejoinder to the suggestion that *this* thread wasn't important enough to warrent debate. I am very sorry if it came across in any other way, particularly since...
> 
> ...that is a nightmare and I feel very much for you and I can only powerlessly hope that things work out for him (and you).
> 
> I absolutely agree Hurtwitz is irrelevant in the face of that sort of thing. So is much else that we debate here. But... well, we _are_ here, not having to put up with that kind of sh^t.
> 
> All the best to both of you.


I didn't make myself clear, 'the slagging', perhaps the wrong phrase, I was referring to was between you and Brahmsian - not your comment to me.

I thank you for your good wishes, and I should not have posted in my current frame of mind.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why are you so intent on virulently debating every single point I make about Hurwitz and demanding evidence of what I am talking about? Are you his personal lawyer?


Why do you care what Hurwitz, or AbsolutelyBaching think of you?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Why do you care what Hurwitz, or AbsolutelyBaching think of you?


I don't. And I never called you simplistic.

Why do you create arguments out of nothing?


----------



## Bulldog

wkasimer said:


> Why do you care what Hurwitz, or AbsolutelyBaching think of you?


There are a few members who grind on and on relentlessly about a debated subject many days in a row. if a person allows himself to get sucked in, he will be doing the same. Get off the train.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> With every new post, you put me in the position of having to defend more and more of your baseless personal attacks against me.


I seriously haven't attacked you _at all_. I've suggested you've criticised Hurwitz generally for an issue you have with him over a specific recording. That's it. That's a _criticism_ of you, I suppose (but not one you couldn't refute if you cared to do so). But it's not an attack. And the point made over several posts now is that it's not _baseless_ either



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Needless to say, simply having an opinion on something is not the same as having a closed mind.


Well, you're making that up out of whole cloth now. No-one has ever suggested any such equivalence. I do think you have a closed mind about Hurwitz. The post you objected to is over six months old and he's provided plenty of new material since that you could use to build up a thoughtful, evidence-based critique of his musicality if you wanted to. But you haven't.

I'm not saying your opinion of Hurwitz is the same thing as having a closed mind. I'm saying you have an erroneous opinion of him _and_ you have a closed mind about him.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> And you have no basis for claiming that I am not basing my opinion on Hurwitz after having read many of his reviews and seen many of his videos.


Now, that statement I will agree with. I _assumed_ you stopped watching his videos soon after the Furtwangler 1942 video. In fairness, I made that assumption 100% clear when I wrote "I get that you have *probably* stopped watching his videos since your run-ins with him". But yes, it was an assumption -based on the fact that if he'd accused me of being a member of a cult, I'd probably have stopped watching him too.

I am impressed and gratified to learn that you are magnanimous enough not to stoop to such petty tactics. I certainly would have.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why are you so intent on virulently debating every single point I make about Hurwitz and demanding evidence of what I am talking about? Are you his personal lawyer?


Oh, come now. 'Virulent debate' and 'demanding evidence'? Really?!

No. I agreed with you that he could be personally slighting when trying to interact with him via comments on his videos and then you went one step further and said (and I paraphrase) 'he lacks musicality and his approach to music is sophomoric'. And I disagreed with that last part, at which point you started taking offence and giving it in equal measure back. It's a specific debate on a specific point, hopefully done without insults or groundless claims of 'spin' or 'assertion'. Oh...

Anyway no, I'm not his personal lawyer, but I think people should be able to justify their words. You want to slag him off as a nasty sort of person that doesn't handle personal criticism nicely -I think I'd have your back on that one and be right in the queue behind you. But you stepped over the line when you then went on to criticise his _general_ musicality.

That's actually the *only* point I've ever debated with you about. And I haven't resorted to personal abuse to make my points.

I've not "demanded" evidence either. You claimed he dismissed Wagner, and about three posts back you mentioned some Mahler diss-job he allegedly did. *You* made the claims, not I. Is it OK in your world to make claims and then provide *no* evidence? Because in my world, it isn't. Two simple Youtube links to the relevant videos would resolve the matter in a heart-beat.

Meh. You either back your claims up or you don't. For the rest, we have your reporting of an incredibly-specific debate about a particular recording you like and which he doesn't, versus his 500+ videos.

I'm perfectly happy for that balance of evidence to be judged on its merits.


----------



## wkasimer

Bulldog said:


> There are a few members who grind on and on relentlessly about a debated subject many days in a row. if a person allows himself to get sucked in, he will be doing the same. Get off the train.


You're right, of course - thanks for the advice.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I’m not the one driving this train. I made my observations on Hurwitz yesterday and that should be the end of it.


----------



## amfortas

With all due respect, I'll suggest that some of you may be spinning your wheels to no discernible purpose.

Of course, if you disagree, carry on.


----------



## Merl

Im just waiting for someone to mention Wagner, Hitler and nazi ideology. Then this could go on for years.


----------



## Guest002

wkasimer said:


> Why do you care what Hurwitz, or AbsolutelyBaching think of you?


Actually, I just wanted to respond to this with a particular point: I actually don't think of Brahmsianhorn _at all_. I don't mean any slight by that either. I simply mean, I'm engaged in a debate on facts, and a particular question about whether Hurwitz is generally quite insightful on musicality or not. And yes, debating that issue means I have to lock horns with Brahmsianhorn about certain things.

But I honestly do not have an opinion about Brahmsianhorn as a person. He's an avatar and a 'handle' as far as I'm concerned. A 'thing' making points, and it's the points I debate. I don't know enough (or anything, to be frank) to be starting making personal judgments about him/her as a _person_.

Now, if over the course of several posts, it appears that Brahmsianhorn is keen to claim insult, and attack, and factless assertion... when none of those things are actually present... then yes, I _will_ eventually come to an opinion about Brahmsianhorn as a poster. It still won't be a thought about him/her as a person, but only a judgment about that which I interact with.

Anyway: I figure none of that will be terribly clear, but I simply mean that there is (at this point, at least) zero _personal_ animus about it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm trying to ascertain and debate _facts_, and that's all.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm not the one driving this train. I made my observations on Hurwitz yesterday and that should be the end of it.


You're the one making claims about the musicality of the guy whose mentioned in this thread's _title_, for Heaven's sake. Don't go all meek and mild on us now with claims of 'Who, me?!'

You made your observations on Hurwitz yesterday based on a disgruntled, personal animus between you and him about a particular 1942 recording.

You don't just get to say, 'he's musically sophomoric' because you had a tiff with the guy about a 1940s Nazi!


----------



## Guest002

Merl said:


> Im just waiting for someone to mention Wagner, Hitler and nazi ideology. Then this could go on for years.


Yup. 1942, Furtwangler, Nazis in attendance... So long as we can agree in advance that the presence of Wagner or Nazis doesn't _necessarily_ mean Hurwitz is a Schitt, then we're fine


----------



## Guest002

amfortas said:


> With all due respect, I'll suggest that some of you may be spinning your wheels to no discernible purpose.
> 
> Of course, if you disagree, carry on.


I disagree. (Apparently, that's not enough to allow a reply)
I disagree strongly. I actually care that if you slag off a music critic as having no musicality, you should be able to back that opinion up. You're entitled to believe anything you like, but you should be able to explain it as something more than a biffo about a 1942 recording that you adore and your critic hates.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You made your observations on Hurwitz yesterday based on a disgruntled, personal animus between you and him about a particular 1942 recording.
> 
> You don't just get to say, 'he's musically sophomoric' because you had a tiff with the guy about a 1940s Nazi!


Again with the baseless claims. I had this opinion of Hurwitz long before that tiff.

It's not that I care what you think of me. It's that you use personal swipes to try to undermine my points.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again with the baseless claims. I had this opinion of Hurwitz long before that tiff.


Oh, OK. I'm supposed to know this... how? Care to share? (But it's nice you finally admit to a tiff with the guy).



Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not that I care what you think of me. It's that you use personal swipes to try to undermine my points.


Name *one*. Adduce one piece of evidence to that effect. Go on, I dare you. Because you can't. I haven't attacked you personally _at all_. I don't care about *you*. I care about *anyone* that says 'the guy's a musical sophomore' on the basis of... what? Nothing.

I've simply asked that you back that statement up with facts and reasoned argument. You haven't. _Everything_ you've posted comes down to the rude way he treated you when you tried to stick up for Furt's 1942 recording. Everything. And I agree he was brusque and I've already said, I'd have your back in any debate about his lack of personal "niceness" when dealing with disagreement. That doesn't warrant the extraordinary broadbrush claim you made about his 'sophomoric approach to music' that you made, is my point and the only thing I'm disagreeing with you about!

Do you get that this isn't about *you*? I couldn't give a flying fig who you are, what you're life achievements might be... or anything else. Which is not to demean them, simply that they *dont matter*. You made a statement. I've asked you to justify it. And you haven't. You keep _claiming_ secret knowledge ("I thought this long before that tiff") but if you don't adduce the evidence, it's just ...hot air.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Claiming I have an axe to grind over a personal tiff is a way of trying to discredit what I say. Yes, it’s a personal attack. And again I only care to the extent you are trying to undermine the validity of my statements on Hurwitz.

I question Hurwitz’s musical intelligence. I provided his own quotes to back that up. You are free to disagree, and let’s leave it at that.


----------



## Bulldog

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm not the one driving this train. I made my observations on Hurwitz yesterday and that should be the end of it.


Right, you're not driving the train but you keep boarding it.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think the East Coast American accent is kicking in, that's all.


Indeed. He also says "Carlowce" for Carlos, "Naxowce" for Naxos and "kudowce" for kudos, which bugs the hell out of me, but it's not Mr Hurwitz's fault - it's how Americans pronounce words that end with "-os", for some baffling reason. Well, I say "American", but I note with horror that this phenomenon seems to be catching on elsewhere


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Claiming I have an axe to grind over a personal tiff is a way of trying to discredit what I say.


No, it's a statement of perceived fact, and it's an invitation to refute.
But everything you've quoted makes it abundantly clear that he riled you over your defence of Furtwängler's 1942 recording of Beethoven's 9th. He _really_ p^ssed you off -and I can entirely understand why being called a 'Furt nut' would have rankled.

So all you have to do to refute the suggestion that your nose is out of joint over that criticism of your defence of that recording is... to cite a few other examples of his musical crassness. Yet you don't. 'Nuff said.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Yes, it's a personal attack.


Er, no it isn't.

There you go: we can do this assertion/counter-assertion all day if you insist. I merely ask: cite _one_ piece of evidence that shows I've "attacked" you "personally" as opposed to criticisng your opinions about Hurtwitz.

Whereas, I can do the game in reverse: asking if I'm Hurwitz's personal lawyer is expressly intended as a personal attack. 'Pay no heed to what this guy says, because he's a paid employee of the subject of this investigation'. Straight out of the Trump playbook, frankly.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> And again I only care to the extent you are trying to undermine the validity of my statements on Hurwitz.


I don't give a flying fig for the 'validity of your statements on Hurwitz'! If you were St. John the Baptist and claiming to be able to pronounce from on high (or from the depths of the River Jordan) my response would be the same: *evidence!*

You don't _have_ validity if you can't make the case. This isn't a particularly difficult concept to grasp: you _claiming_ validity for what you state doesn't make it so. Back it up and _prove_ it so!



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I question Hurwitz's musical intelligence.


Don't start back-tracking the minute the waters get a bit luke-warm. You didn't "question his musical intelligence". You said he had none. You said he was 'sophomoric', musically. You said, and I quote, "[he has a] simplistic approach to music" that "intimidat[es] people away from freely exploring what they like." That he "understands music on a very nuts and bolts level".

You _attacked_ him as being musically unintelligent, simplistic, and antagonistic to anyone wanting to freely explore musical tastes. Don't back off from your own words now!



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I provided his own quotes to back that up. You are free to disagree, and let's leave it at that.


I offered you the chance to 'leave it at that' about 30 posts back. See post #388. 
I get that you've been pummelled into submission since, by the sheer weight of your own verbosity on the subject.

If you'd like to 'leave it at that', I'm happy to do so, since we can all see your fact-less attack on the man is inspired by a simple personal animus about a 1942 recording.

Yup. Let's leave it at that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> since we can all see your fact-less attack on the man is inspired by a simple personal animus about a 1942 recording.


I have said over and over that my opinion of him predated that. And I have zero personal animus. I thought he made a fool of himself, and I used his quotes to demonstrate that, since you were demanding "evidence."

You are obsessed with painting me as someone with a personal axe to grind. You're like an attorney trying to discredit a witness. Why? What's your personal stake in this?


----------



## wkasimer

Bulldog said:


> Right, you're not driving the train but you keep boarding it.


And shoveling the coal into the engine....


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have said over and over that my opinion of him predated that. And I have zero personal animus. I thought he made a fool of himself, and I used his quotes to demonstrate that, since you were demanding "evidence."


Well, I shall quote a word that starts with 'c' and ends in 'rap'.

You have NOT said "over and over" that my opinion of him predated the Furtwängler 1942 review. You mention it for the very first time in post #415.

And Hurwitz, as quoted by you, clearly said 'the facts are I can hear X, and you claiming you can hear Y, given the recorded evidence, is false'. And that's it. But from that, you've created this nonsense of he only judges recordings on what he can factually hear, and on the precision of the orchestra, despite around 400 of his videos since being quite explicit on the fact that those are not things he judges _other_ recordings by



Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are obsessed with painting me as someone with a personal axe to grind. You're like an attorney trying to discredit a witness. Why? What's your personal stake in this?


I have zero personal stake in this except the tiny, trivial matter of... integrity.

Claim X, back X up. It's really as simple as that.

I agreed with you regarding Hurwitz's personal skills (or lack thereof). I disagree that he lacks musical critical skills. What about that is so hard to grasp, and why do you keep questioning my personal motivation on the matter? Talk about personal 'attacks'!

I call you to account for your sweeping generalisation about someone's musico-critical skills, and you repeatedly fail to respond with facts, but quote at exhaustive length from a correspondence about a 1942 recording review you disliked. What is complicated about that?

For the record: I was born in Kent, England. I migrated to Sydney, Australia. I moved back to England in 2017. I had never heard of Hurwitz until this thread started and I have no financial or other relationship with him whatsoever. I haven't visited the USA since I landed in New York in 2004 and drove to Los Angeles a month later.


----------



## Merl

Is it safe to come in yet? I, personally, have no axe to grind with Hurwitz. He's a larger than life character who's been around the music industry and classical music for a long time. He can be stubborn, rude, biased, arrogant, opinionated and make some silly generalisations yet he can also be highly entertaining, funny, perceptive, passionate and highly knowledgeable about music. He's a wealth of information on music he loves and has a gigantic music collection that he knows well. Whether you love or hate him, he's promoting CM (and his website) and introducing people to a lot of relatively unknown composers so there's a lot of positives to counter the negatives. I wouldnt question his musical knowledge as he's probably forgotten more than i'll ever know about CM and would leave me for dead talking about music theory (he has a couple of Masters degrees) and the history of CM (hes written many books on most of the major composers and is recognised as an authority on Haydn - his hero). Sometimes i wholeheartedly agree with him on recordings (Furty's 9th, the Panocha's Dvorak SQs) and sometimes not (Lindsays late recordings, Norrington) but tbf to him, if he doesnt like something at least he explains why. If he doesnt its because he hasnt heard it. He has bias but I know what he likes and dislikes now so i factor that into what he says. At the end of the day he's promotong his site and himself and i applaud him for that in the current situation. We can all be opinionated pr#cks at times and we all disagree (and often do on here). Hes no different in that respect.


----------



## Guest002

Merl said:


> Is it safe to come in yet?


Yes, of course. It is a debate, not a fight to the death with leg-knives attached.



Merl said:


> I, personally, have no axe to grind with Hurwitz. He's a larger than life character who's been around the music industry and classical music for a long time.


I interrupt only to mention I'd never heard of him and I had no idea he had a long career as a music critic, until he started mentioning things like hob-nobbing with assorted composers at assorted musical industry events in some of his videos.



Merl said:


> He can be stubborn, rude, biased, arrogant, opinionated and make some silly generalisations yet he can also be highly entertaining, funny, perceptive, passionate and highly knowledgeable about music. He's a wealth of information on music he loves and has a gigantic music collection that he knows well. Whether you love or hate him, he's promoting CM (and his website) and introducing people to a lot of relatively unknown composers so there's a lot of positives to counter the negatives. I wouldnt question his musical knowledge as he's probably forgotten more than i'll ever know about CM and would leave me for dead talking about music theory (he has a couple of Masters degrees) and the history of CM (hes written many books on most of the major composers and is recognised as an authority on Haydn - his hero). Sometimes i wholeheartedly agree with him on recordings (Furty's 9th, the Panocha's Dvorak SQs) and sometimes not (Lindsays late recordings, Norrington) but tbf to him, if he doesnt like something at least he explains why. If he doesnt its because he hasnt heard it. He has bias but I know what he likes and dislikes now so i factor that into what he says. At the end of the day he's promotong his site and himself and i applaud him for that in the current situation. We can all be opinionated pr#cks at times and we all disagree (and often do on here). Hes no different in that respect.


And to that I raise my metaphorical hat and say 'Amen' (I'm not sure what raising a hat has to do with that, but anyway... I like your summation!)


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> I wouldnt question his musical knowledge as he's probably forgotten more than i'll ever know about CM and would leave me for dead talking about music theory (he has a couple of Masters degrees) and the history of CM.


This is misleading. His graduate degrees are in Modern European History. In terms of music, and especially music scholarship, he is an amateur and not in any way a noted scholar in music, certainly not in music theory. And even in historical musicology, his qualifications and output are that of a lay person, an enthusiast at best. He has received vanishingly few citations for his meagre publications on orchestral vibrato and in general is not a noted professional authority in music at all. His other publications are of a non-scholarly nature.

I do and will question his musical knowledge.


----------



## Guest002

Knorf said:


> This is misleading. His graduate degrees are in Modern European History. In terms of music, and especially music scholarship, he is an amateur and not in any way a noted scholar in music, certainly not in music theory. And even in historical musicology, his qualifications and output are that of a lay person, an enthusiast at best. He has received vanishingly few citations for his meagre publications on orchestral vibrato and in general is not a noted professional authority in music at all. His other publications are of a non-scholarly nature.
> 
> I do and will question his musical knowledge.


Well, this is at least factual, so thank you for that!

I kind of knew he was an amateur (his constant references to a local community orchestra kind of gave that away).

I will readily acknowledge he's not cited in academic papers. I'm just not sure it makes a difference to what he's doing. He's not claiming to pronounce form on-high, from a rigid, academically-sound background. His sign-off is 'keep on listening' which, if it isn't an invitation to people to make their own minds up, I don't know what is.

I have no problem with you questioning his musical knowledge (which is at least a blessed relief from _dismissing_ it).

Personally, I would prefer a lay-person laying out a pathway through the morass of classical music than an academic telling me, for example, how stupid I am for not appreciating X or Y. And I think that's what he does: lays out some path that people can explore at their own leisure and pleasure. I don't hold him to a higher standard than that -and judging only by the content of the Current Listening thread, he's actually quite good at getting people to listening to varied repertoire.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Are we being graded?


----------



## Knorf

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I have no problem with you questioning his musical knowledge (which is at least a blessed relief from _dismissing_ it).


Indeed, this is only fair. Two of the people whose musical insights I trust very highly are not professional musicians at all; in fact the owner of one of the best pair of ears for music I know is not only not a musician, he didn't go to college! (He made a career in photography and videography.)



> And I think that's what he does: lays out some path that people can explore at their own leisure and pleasure.


But here's the rub: that's not all he does, is it? He's at least as well known for his unrestrained vitriol and calumnies, and a number of posters in this thread myself included have laid out examples where he's caused real damage, including to the career of a very good colleague of mine.

If how you describe him above was indeed a clear, generally accurate summation of his activities, I'd have zero beef with him, whether I agreed with his opinion or not. But it just isn't.



> ...judging only by the content of the Current Listening thread, he's actually quite good at getting people to listening to varied repertoire.


That's fair, to a point, until you notice how often he also goes out of his way to attack and lead people _away_ from repertoire he neither likes nor understands.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Are we being graded?


Just you. You have an A-.


----------



## Guest002

Knorf said:


> That's fair, to a point, until you notice how often he also goes out of his way to attack and lead people _away_ from repertoire he neither likes nor understands.


I'm not commenting about the issue about damage to a career, only because I know *zero* about the facts.

I will only say that I've not been aware of him ever guiding me away from particular repertoire. Indeed, his semi-latest video is about someone he seems to hate, but also has a sneaking regard for.

Anyway: I don't expect a critic to guide me to stuff he loathes. I sort of take him at face value, watch a dozen videos, and get a sense of his personal likes and dislikes and know he's not going to stray outside of those guidelines too often.

For example, I know he's never going to like anything conducted by Simon Rattle! He's made that clear enough. Would I therefore look to him for guidance in Rattle's recorded repertoire? Nope.

I take him for what he can give: had I heard of Erwin Schulhoff before his video of about a week ago? No. Shamefully no. My fault, not blaming anyone else. I suppose I _could_ have heard of him. But I didn't. So did Hurwitz open some windows with *that video*? Definitely, yes. Julius Röntgen, ditto.

I'd forgive him a hell of a lot for those two on their own.

I get there may be personal issues in the sense that he undermined a friend of yours. I simply can't comment, and I don't know enough to comment even if I knew any of the facts. I respect your position on the matter, is the best I can come up with.

I really don't think he's someone I'd ever be friends with, is my point. I definitely get the sense that he's "difficult".

For what he's producing and the audience he's aiming it at... I just don't think that matters.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Are we being graded?


Well if we are, you get an E- for facts.
A D- for social awareness
And a C for pertinence.

But that's just me and I'm sure others will grade you more leniently because you are you and I am I.


----------



## Knorf

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I get there may be personal issues in the sense that he undermined a friend of yours. I simply can't comment, and I don't know enough to comment even if I knew any of the facts. I respect your position on the matter, is the best I can come up with.


This is more than fair.

I'd like to add for clarification that I had problems with Hurwitz's often ignorant and excessively polemical style before he trashed my friend's recording and heaped calumnies on his quality as a conductor. My issues with Hurwitz mispresenting himself on occasion, as more of a historical musicology scholar than he has any right to claim, predate that incident as well.

But if he led you to music that you now are excited about, all I can say is, I'm glad for that.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> This is misleading. His graduate degrees are in Modern European History. In terms of music, and especially music scholarship, he is an amateur and not in any way a noted scholar in music, certainly not in music theory. And even in historical musicology, his qualifications and output are that of a lay person, an enthusiast at best. He has received vanishingly few citations for his meagre publications on orchestral vibrato and in general is not a noted professional authority in music at all. His other publications are of a non-scholarly nature.
> 
> I do and will question his musical knowledge.


I didn't write that. A big boy did it and ran away.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I don’t know any other current or recent music critics who conduct themselves the way Hurwitz does. Who intimidate and demean. Who relish going over the top in trashing musicians. Who insult people as “cultists” for simply appreciating Wagner or Bruckner.

With regard to the argument Hurwitz and I had on Furtwängler’s 1942 B9, it was in the comments section of his general video on the Beethoven 9th. It was shortly thereafter that he made the video specifically titled “Why Furtwängler’s 1942 Nazi 9th really sucks.”

I don’t think that was an accident. IMO Hurwitz has psychological problems. He takes glee in tearing people down and the feeling of power he gets from being able to do so.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't know any other current or recent music critics who conduct themselves the way Hurwitz does. Who intimidate and demean. Who relish going over the top in trashing musicians. Who insult people as "cultists" for simply appreciating Wagner or Bruckner.
> 
> With regard to the argument Hurwitz and I had on Furtwängler's 1942 B9, it was in the comments section of his general video on the Beethoven 9th. It was shortly thereafter that he made the video specifically titled "Why Furtwängler's 1942 Nazi 9th really sucks."
> 
> I don't think that was an accident. IMO Hurwitz has psychological problems. He takes glee in tearing people down and the feeling of power he gets from being able to do so.


Of course you think he has psychological problems! He thinks *you* have psychological problems!

Do you not get that you and he have a difference of opinion?

Good lord. You have abused me, personally, quite as much as you accuse Hurwitz of. And you don't give a fig.

Your opinion of Hurwitz is demonstrably of no worth.

Come back with _evidence_!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Come back with _evidence_!


I quoted him directly. He stated the following directly to me simply because I appreciate a recording that he does not:

"Just admit that you're a cultist and enjoy your rituals of worship."

He said in the same exchange that his opinion on this recording equates to fact and that my differing opinion equates to fantasy.

Only a person of low intelligence would discuss art this way. That is my opinion of the man, and I am entitled to it.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I quoted him directly. He stated the following directly to me simply because I appreciate a recording that he does not:
> 
> "Just admit that you're a cultist and enjoy your rituals of worship."
> 
> He said in the same exchange that his opinion on this recording equates to fact and that my differing opinion equates to fantasy.


You made two claims. First, that "he attack people who disagree by painting them with broad strokes". The long quotes you've provided are definitely evidence of that (in a specific context), but that wasn't really anything that needed evidence because I think the general consensus here is that he is a prickly person that can be quite rude to people, even if they're agreeing with him!

But second, you claimed "He understands music on a very simplistic level" [#378], he "understands music on a very nuts and bolts level." [#381] and " I can't even give him credit for understanding music" [#385]. Those are claims about his _general_ level of musicality. You've not provided any evidence for that, only that in a specific context, he was rude to you and judged a recording by what, according to you, are 'wrong criteria'.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Only a person of low intelligence would discuss art this way.


Wow. See: you have now made a general assessment of his overall intelligence level. That's even more sweeping a judgment than commenting on his musicality! And you make it on the basis that he was rude to you about a Furtwangler recording. I assume you can't see how disproportionate that is, but I think others will.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> That is my opinion of the man, and I am entitled to it.


You are absolutely entitled to any opinion about anything at all. It is entirely valid to have opinions. The more interesting question, however, is not whether you have opinions, but whether they are worth anything or helpful to anyone else -and the answer to _that_ question depends entirely on the soundness of the basis on which you hold those opinions.

Your opinion of Hurwitz, it is now abundantly clear, is based on no actual assessment of his 500+ videos and their musical appreciation content but on a fit of personal pique because he dared to rudely contradict you about a particular 1942 recording.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion about him. It's just that it has no merit.


----------



## Merl

If you think Hurwitz is a poor reviewer then try reading some of the Allmusic reviews of classical releases. Some contain bizarre comments that don't correlate with the recordings they're reviewing. Not all their reviewers are bad, btw, but they have deleted and rewritten their reviews possibly to correspond with the positive / negative views of other music sites. However, when I read reviews of recordings I tend to look at as many different reviews as possible as the amount of bias out there can be overbearing. With Hurwitz you know that recordings by Rattle, Norrington, The Lindsays, modern British SQs, most British conductors, etc are going to get panned. However, if they score anything more than 7 then you should probably check them out! On the flip side all recordings by many American orchestras, Ormandy, Szell, Czech SQs, etc are going to be lauded to the sky. I just accept it and check them against other sites to get some balance. They're just critics. I can't get that wound up about them. We have a site full of critics here.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Your opinion of Hurwitz, it is now abundantly clear, is based on no actual assessment of his 500+ videos and their musical appreciation content but on a fit of personal pique because he dared to rudely contradict you about a particular 1942 recording.


You have no basis for making this statement. I have refuted it many times. Yet you keep making it. Why are you so desperate to discredit my opinion of Hurwitz?

This quote from me in that exchange on the Furtwangler 9th conclusively proves that my opinion on Hurwitz was formed well before the exchange, and it is not based on some "fit of personal pique" as you are so desperate to assert:

"I just finished pointing out how my opinion on this performance is based on the music, and how the same aspects about it that I admire are likewise widely admired, and you resort to the same simplistic Hurwitzian nonsense that all opinions contrary to yours are based on something imaginary whereas yours are based on fact. You wrote the same trite nonsense about the great Horenstein Mahler 8th - that everyone who admires it, including the patrons wildly applauding at the end, are ignorantly imagining that it is worthy while you the great Hurwitz are armed with "facts" proving it is not. You are not armed with facts. You are armed with simplicity. You reduce music to its most base level and refuse to even acknowledge that there are more complex reasons than mere clarity and precision that elicit music appreciation. The important point is that people reading your reviews understand the inherently limited standard of music appreciation from which you operate. And stop pretending that Furtwangler himself would agree with you. You know very well that his priority was on the spirit of the music and not simpleminded clarity."


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You have no basis for making this statement. I have refuted it many times. Yet you keep making it. Why are you so desperate to discredit my opinion of Hurwitz?


You constantly resort to belittling and questioning of motives, don't you? It's not a terribly attractive trait.

But for the record, I'm not desperate and my only motive in having this debate with you is to understand why you have such a low opinion of Hurwitz and whether that low opinion indicates a level of musical sophistication on your part to which I (and others) would do well to pay attention.

I mean, you started this all by mentioning in your critique of him that "He does not understand very well the conductor's art of creating and setting up tension. I don't think he understands very well how the emotional effects of the music reach the listener". Those are some deep-sounding observations. If true, they pretty much rule out spending any more time on watching any of his videos, no? I mean, if he doesn't understand a conductor's creative process, or cannot understand the emotional impact of music... well, he sounds pretty dumb.

So those were big statements on your part, and don't you think they might be worth investigating to see if you're right and Hurwitz really lacks general music insight and understanding? I did.

So: the interest level is set. Are you right about his musical insights and understanding? And if you are, what actual evidence is there to support that opinion?

And that's it. That was my motivation. Is Brahmsianhorn full of musical wisdom and insight that makes paying attention to what he says worthwhile? Am I wasting my time watching Hurwitz videos? Simple questions, no profound or mysterious motivation required or present.

And so I weigh his 500+ videos (which I think I've probably watched about 350 of) on the one hand; and you and your expressed views of him on the other.

I have to tell you that you have not been… persuasive. You sound like an angry man. You sound angry because your view of a particular recording was rejected. I put it no stronger than that.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> This quote from me in that exchange on the Furtwangler 9th conclusively proves that my opinion on Hurwitz was formed well before the exchange, and it is not based on some "fit of personal pique" as you are so desperate to assert:
> 
> "I just finished pointing out how my opinion on this performance is based on the music, and how the same aspects about it that I admire are likewise widely admired, and you resort to the same simplistic Hurwitzian nonsense that all opinions contrary to yours are based on something imaginary whereas yours are based on fact. You wrote the same trite nonsense about the great Horenstein Mahler 8th - that everyone who admires it, including the patrons wildly applauding at the end, are ignorantly imagining that it is worthy while you the great Hurwitz are armed with "facts" proving it is not. You are not armed with facts. You are armed with simplicity. You reduce music to its most base level and refuse to even acknowledge that there are more complex reasons than mere clarity and precision that elicit music appreciation. The important point is that people reading your reviews understand the inherently limited standard of music appreciation from which you operate. And stop pretending that Furtwangler himself would agree with you. You know very well that his priority was on the spirit of the music and not simpleminded clarity."


So you're pîssed because he slagged off _two_ recordings you thought wonderful, and that's supposed to change my opinion …how, exactly?

You simply don't get to go around calling people musical sophomores or someone of low intelligence because they disagree with your opinions. Do you not get that? Certainly not without being challenged on the evidence backing up your "opinion" anyway (and I put the word "opinion" in quotes because, frankly, at this point, it looks more like mere bigotry on your part: an obstinate and _unreasonable_ attachment to an opinion).

Feel free to have the last word. I'm done with you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Would you please show respect to my actual words instead of making baseless assertions? 

I never said I was pissed. 
I never said I was offended.

I base my opinion on Hurwitz on the way he conducts himself and the level of his reviews. Period.

And that is my right to have an opinion. Why you get so wound up about it is bizarre.

EDIT: And note how in your response you completely glossed over the substantive musical points I made against Hurwitz in my prior post. This is why I don’t take it seriously when you say you are simply badgering me over my opinion out of curiousity.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Would you please show respect to my actual words instead of making baseless assertions?
> 
> I never said I was pissed.
> I never said I was offended.
> 
> I base my opinion on Hurwitz on the way he conducts himself and the level of his reviews. Period.
> 
> And that is my right to have an opinion. Why you get so wound up about it is bizarre.
> 
> EDIT: And note how in your response you completely glossed over the substantive musical points I made against Hurwitz in my prior post. This is why I don't take it seriously when you say you are simply badgering me over my opinion out of curiousity.


And still you question my motives. Are you calling my extensive explanation of my reason for tackling you on this subject untrue?

For the record, "will you show respect to my actual words": I quoted you _extensively_ in posts #437 and #440. I went out of my way to fetch your quotes from at least half a dozen different posts you've made. I've shown nothing but respect for your actual words. How could it be otherwise when it's your own words that make *my point* for me!

As you are entitled to whatever baseless opinions you like, so I am entitled to draw inferences and conclusions from your actual words. And my conclusion is that you are a very angry and offended man, because Hurwitz didn't take your opinions on a couple of recordings terribly seriously. And that's OK: you're allowed to feel that way. But when you pose as someone who is making judgments about his musical abilities, I think we deserve to know the personal animus behind your actual words, which you've documented so fully here. Knowing it puts your judgments on him in their proper context, and we can accordingly ignore them.

I don't particularly know why you think I'm wound up about this at all. I'm actually laughing my socks off at the ludicrous proposition your posts here amount to: "My opinions are right; Hurwitz disagreed with them; therefore Hurtwitz is the fool". It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to post like that... and yet here you are!

Now, I broke my own rule to reply to you because I'm tired of you questioning my motives. Stop doing that, or I'll take it to the mods. I've put you on my ignore list, so I really do not intend to reply to you further. I'm leaving it at that. You do as you like. But don't question my motives again.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> But when you pose as someone who is making judgments about his musical abilities, I think we deserve to know the personal animus behind your actual words, which you've documented so fully here. Knowing it puts your judgments on him in their proper context, *and we can accordingly ignore them*.


This is disgusting on your part. You have no right to assert personal animus on my part without any basis and when on top of all I am categorically denying it. You can disagree with someone without feeling personal animosity.

I have been very explicit about how I think Hurwitz's responses to me as well as his reviews in general display him as a person of low maturity and low intelligence, musical and otherwise. That doesn't mean I personally hate the man. I just don't respect his reviews. And yes, the way he goes around trashing various musicians speaks to this. Most of them are not musicians I even care about. But I don't know any other reviewer who thinks it is so important to go over the top in trashing others. I personally think he does it out of insecurity to puff himself up and intimidate others. Again, something I just don't respect about him.

I'm glad you admit in the above quote how the reason you are making such baseless assertions about me personally are so that you can ignore my opinion.


----------



## amfortas

Oh for God's sake.


----------



## Guest002

amfortas said:


> Oh for God's sake.


I realise. What can I say? I'm keeping shtumm.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I realise. What can I say? I'm keeping shtumm.


You're the one who has been out of line.

I've seen dozens upon dozens of Hurwitz's reviews. Compared to others he is simplistic and overly technical. That's my considered opinion based not only on his videos but his print reviews going back years. It's the damn truth!

The idea that I can't say that without being personally smeared in attempt to invalidate my opinion is bizarre. I'm sorry you can't handle criticism of your hero Hurwitz.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread concerns the music criticism of Hurwitz. Please keep comments focused on that topic and not on other members. Remember our Terms of Service states, "Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a civil and respectful manner." Being civil and respectful does not include chiding or referring to another member in a negative manner.


----------



## 13hm13

Note that this video is on the DG channel ...


----------



## Merl

13hm13 said:


> Note that this video is on the DG channel ...


LOL, it looks like he's being forced at gunpoint to say all that. Never seen him look so nervous.


----------



## Azol

Merl said:


> LOL, it looks like he's being forced at gunpoint to say all that. Never seen him look so nervous.


He does not wear a tie in this video - which conveys a subliminal message: "Don't listen to me!"
He always got his tie on for any Beethoven 9 discussion.


----------



## Helgi

I had a very negative impression of him from having read a handful of reviews on his website, but as I watch more of the videos I like him more and more. I do avoid the overtly negative stuff, though.

It'd be a better situation overall if he had more competition. I wish Rob Cowan would publish more videos, he's my favourite YouTube critic.


----------



## Guest002

Helgi said:


> I had a very negative impression of him from having read a handful of reviews on his website, but as I watch more of the videos I like him more and more. I do avoid the overtly negative stuff, though.
> 
> It'd be a better situation overall if he had more competition. I wish Rob Cowan would publish more videos, he's my favourite YouTube critic.


I agree about the need for more choices of reviewers, very much so. It's never good to have a monopoly of anything, and when wanting to find ways up the foothills of music, the more sherpas the better. Unfortunately, he seems to have the market cornered (at least for now). It _is_ quite hard to do, I think: a lot of technical stuff to get right; permissions to use musical examples; and, not forgetting, 40 years of musical experience. It's never going to be an exactly crowded field, I fear!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Helgi said:


> It'd be a better situation overall if he had more competition. I wish Rob Cowan would publish more videos, he's my favourite YouTube critic.


Cowan is one of the very best out there. Unfortunately he is not as ambitiously egotistical and narcissistic as Hurwitz, part of why he is also a better reviewer! He did publish a book that I own, however. I don't whether it is on Amazon.


----------



## Bulldog

Helgi said:


> I had a very negative impression of him from having read a handful of reviews on his website, but as I watch more of the videos I like him more and more.


Same here. On video, he has a charming and humorous way about him that I find appealing.


----------



## etipou

I'll dissent from those praising the videos relative to the writing. I think DH came across much better in his written reviews, and also in the first 2-3 months of videos. The style he has settled into is too unfocused and sprawling, and frankly the more his private mannerisms and sense of humour are revealed, the less I enjoy watching. Like many or even most people, he has everything to gain from a veneer of professionalism.

His writing I have always enjoyed. Direct and honest negative criticism is a fine and necessary part of reviewing, and it has always been this way. There is no point mincing words about a record you think is bad. Not only does it dilute your true impression - and why do we read critics but that they have unusually interesting impressions? - but it always produces feeble, timid writing that is annoying to read. A critic is not a junior school sports coach. As long as they restrict unkind words to the art of those they criticise rather than their persons, and as long as they have a reasonable sense of proportion, they are within not only their rights but their proper sphere of action. Of course, you don't want critcism to be _mostly_ this sort of thing, but no-one can accuse the exceptionally broad-minded DH of that in good faith. We could all aspire to have such a wide appreciation of music and recording in all their variety.

It is also necessary to have a distinct critical voice. You all know the adage of the "newspaper that tried to please everybody". Many fields simply benefit from adversarial rather than consensus-seeking discussion. Classical music recording is too big a subject for any one critic to comprehend and synthesise all possible human responses to everything. The most a good critic can do is harvest truths and insights in the scope their prejudices allow - and they will get a better harvest for staying inside that scope. The total information we get from reviews would be considerably less if everyone toned down their writing (or speaking). And if your worry is that DH has too large a voice for a single person, that he is _too strong_ a critic relative to his competition, the right response is to encourage other strong (though civil) voices to counterpose his. It is not to wish him a third-rate mumbling praise-monger.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

I’ll say it one last time: You can have strong opinions without disrespecting people who disagree with you by labeling them as cultists or people who merely imagine what they are hearing. That displays an immaturity of having to be “right” and seen as superior to others. In music - of all things - people are going to have different tastes and different criteria. A competent reviewer understands and respects that.

.


----------



## etipou

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll say it one last time: You can have strong opinions without disrespecting people who disagree with you by labeling them as cultists or people who merely imagine what they are hearing. That displays an immaturity of having to be "right" and seen as superior to others. In music - of all things - people are going to have different tastes and different criteria. A competent reviewer understands and respects that.
> .


I disagree with this sentiment. I will say, I don't wish every critic to be a David Hurwitz, it is good to have moderate voices too. But suppose you are an intelligent listener. You trust your judgement as far as it goes. You hear many people praising some feature of a piece or style of music - in fact, they are making the most lofty and exalted claims about it. You listen, and can't hear it at all. You sit down and talk with those who praise it and try to understand what they are about. You still can't hear it. Privately, you think they're all kind of crazy. You talk to some of your friends, who also think they're kind of crazy.

It's good that there is a type of person who would keep this opinion to themselves, and publicly state "I can't hear it, but if so many others do there must be something I'm missing". But it's also good that there is a type of person who will say, "Hey, aren't all these folks just crazy?". For one thing, it is likely that there are many others who have the same reaction, who will welcome having their opinion validated. More importantly, there will be yet others desperately trying to listen for this mysterious quality and blaming themselves for failing to hear it. You might save them some agony.

Why should one side have to swallow it and just pretend the reaction doesn't exist? It's not like they are claiming something necessarily false. Of course people impute imaginary qualities to works of art and entertainment all the time (those practical-joke modernist poems that got serious critical attention, or the heirloom family recipes that all turned out to come from 1950s packets of cake mix). That's just the sort of thing people do. It should be fine and welcome to call it out if that's how you see it.

Edit: typo.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Completely disagree. It’s logically impossible for so many people to just imagine they are hearing the same thing. Obviously there is something about the recording which appeals to some and not to others. Chalking it up to some magical conspiracy where everyone imagines what they are hearing is logically silly and myopic.


----------



## etipou

It's not a conspiracy, it's a fundamental way that people work. People like to form communities, they like to feel that their community is the best one, and if that requires altering their beliefs a little and selectively noticing some things but not others, so be it. Of course that's not all there is to people, they also care about truth and and so on, but it's part of us that can't be ignored. And people especially love esoteric knowledge - "come over here, our stuff might be less immediately appealing than the common stuff, but you are smart and perceptive enough to see that it's better and deeper". This might be true or false or neither in any particular case, but the underlying social dynamic is real and always present.

As for historical recordings, if I were their sworn enemy - which I am not - I would say there is an obvious explanation for what is appealing about them, that is the mysterious aura that attaches itself to anything old:



> We have all had the experience, on a visit to one of the great temples of Kyoto or Nara, of being shown a scroll, one of the temple's treasures, hanging in a large, deeply recessed alcove. So dark are these alcoves, even in bright daylight, that we can hardly discern the outlines of the work; all we can do is listen to the explanation of the guide, follow as best we can the all-but-invisible brush strokes, and tell ourselves how magnificent a painting it must be. Yet the combination of that blurred old painting and the dark alcove is one of absolute harmony. The lack of clarity, far from disturbing us, seems rather to suit the painting perfectly.


Tanizaki, In Praise of Shadows. Age can add a beauty of its own - quite real - independent of the underlying object.

Edit: clarity.


----------



## Guest002

^ ^ Nicely put .


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

No. False.

You cannot lecture me about my own tastes. That is what Hurwitz does.

It is a personal experience with the music. Period. I don’t give a damn what people think of my taste.

When I hear the 1942 Furtwängler Beethoven 9th, I hear the most intense performance of the work that has ever reached my ears, the closest rendition to how I have imagined it in my dreams.

Has nothing to do with aura, or history, or any of that other BS meant to invalidate people’s tastes and opinions.

Why is invalidation so important to Hurwitz and apparently his followers? Ask yourself that.


----------



## HenryPenfold

etipou said:


> "..... if I were a sworn enemy of historical recordings - which I am not - I would say there is an obvious explanation for what is appealing about them, that is the mysterious aura that attaches itself to anything old"


Ballshit. Furt's 1942 LvB 9 is a pure, transcendental Zen experience. It has jack-diddly-squat-all to do with nostalgia. Don't waste my time ......


----------



## Helgi

Yes, the energy and atmosphere of wartime Furtwängler is probably enhanced by the recorded sound, historical context etc., but I doubt that today's Berlin Philharmonic could match them in intensity even if (and because) they are a better orchestra. More refined, professional, less willing to take risks and so on.

And then there's opera...


----------



## etipou

My point doesn't really hinge on whether Hurwitz is right. Believe me, I have no stake or interest in arguing that either way! I just think it's fine for a critic to say that sort of thing if that's what they hear. If I were in your shoes, I'd argue that _Hurwitz is missing something that's really there_ rather than _Hurwitz is saying something that critics shouldn't say_. If he called me a cultist, I'd call him a prosaic, earthbound clod and I'd have forgotten it all by the time his next review appeared.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

etipou said:


> If I were in your shoes, I'd argue that _Hurwitz is missing something that's really there_ rather than _Hurwitz is saying something that critics shouldn't say_.


He can say whatever he wants. My point is that his attempts to explain what he cannot hear expose him as both musically and generally lacking in intelligence.


----------



## GrosseFugue

etipou said:


> It's not a conspiracy, it's a fundamental way that people work. People like to form communities, they like to feel that their community is the best one, and if that requires altering their beliefs a little and selectively noticing some things but not others, so be it. Of course that's not all there is to people, they also care about truth and and so on, but it's part of us that can't be ignored. And people especially love esoteric knowledge - "come over here, our stuff might be less immediately appealing than the common stuff, but you are smart and perceptive enough to see that it's better and deeper". This might be true or false or neither in any particular case, but the underlying social dynamic is real and always present.
> 
> As for historical recordings, if I were their sworn enemy - which I am not - I would say there is an obvious explanation for what is appealing about them, that is the mysterious aura that attaches itself to anything old:
> 
> Tanizaki, In Praise of Shadows. Age can add a beauty of its own - quite real - independent of the underlying object.
> .


I have a very low threshold for old recordings. Like I find Nikisch's Beethoven unlistenable. David Caruso is probably a great singer but hard for me to appreciate because of the sound quality. And I don't even bother with any mono Kempff or Karajan (I like them in stereo).

So if even someone like me can admire Furtwangler then surely it has little to do with the gloss of "history."

I sort of equate his wartime 9th with Picasso's Guernica -- a jolting, in-your-face experience (with both relying not on "technical accuracy" but on the total effect). Is it for everyone? Probably not. But either way, its POWER is there.

PS -- For something that truly examplifies the cult of "esoteric knowledge" then try John Cage's 4'33". Talk about the Emperor having no clothes!


----------



## Merl

Interesting choices.


----------



## Guest002

Merl said:


> Interesting choices.


I really liked that video. For a Bruckner noob like me, knowing that for every symphony there are six and a half bajillion versions, and you don't know which are the good, bad or indifferent ones: it was a relief to be told there are two versions, and you want the 1890 one; and there are two editions of the 1890 one, and it doesn't matter which one you get... well, it just calms the mind a bit and you can get on with listening to the music!

I liked he was able to demonstrate the difference between the 1887/1890 editions, too, with soundclips.

I also appreciated that, though he now affects a certain voice when saying "Bruckner!", he clearly likes the stuff a lot.


----------



## Azol

Nice video, but dubbing everyone interested in 1887 version as "mentally ill, all of them" is typical "Hurwitz effect". If you don't agree with him, consult the doctors. (1890 one is indeed superior and I really have to search my memory to differentiate between Haas and Nowak, but I enjoy them all! 1887 is fun to listen to from time to time, mainly for the 1st movement coda and different climax of the Adagio).


----------



## Guest002

Azol said:


> Nice video, but dubbing everyone interested in 1887 version as "mentally ill, all of them" is typical "Hurwitz effect". If you don't agree with him, consult the doctors. (1890 one is indeed superior and I really have to search my memory to differentiate between Haas and Nowak, but I enjoy them all! 1887 is fun to listen to from time to time, mainly for the 1st movement coda and different climax of the Adagio).


You're right: "Typical Hurwitz". Absolutely. But it's the broad-brush that sweeps cleanest. Which is to say, of course he isn't subtle (and I don't think he invites anyone to think he's actually _serious_ about the 'mentally ill' claim!). He's got more important things to get subtle about (like the use of a tam-tam v. a triangle, for example!)

I don't know. I can see how some people might be offended by those sorts of comments. I just personally don't, though in a different context, I might.


----------



## wkasimer

GrosseFugue said:


> I have a very low threshold for old recordings. Like I find Nikisch's Beethoven unlistenable.


I listen to lots of old recordings, but even I find the Nikisch Beethoven 5th impossible to enjoy. Orchestral music from the acoustic era is pretty tough going.



> David Caruso is probably a great singer but hard for me to appreciate because of the sound quality.


David Caruso? He sings???:devil:









Seriously, Caruso's voice (Enrico) recorded very, very well.


----------



## Sondersdorf

I read almost this entire thread. When I started I had the third movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 30 Op.109 in E going through my head. About half-way through the thread all I could hear was "It's Only Rock'n'Roll (But I Like It)". I'm going back to listening to Beethoven piano sonatas. And, I am always ready to listen to what David Hurwitz says.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Sondersdorf said:


> All I could hear was "It's Only Rock'n'Roll (But I Like It)" . . . I am always ready to listen to what David Hurwitz says.


That's a good way to put it. Hurwitz is opinionated, sometimes maddening, but he's entertaining. I listen to him when I'm exercizing, and he always takes my mind away from the monotony of the treadmill.


----------



## GrosseFugue

Haha! The Caruso's aren't related??? :lol: 
Thought that was his great-great Uncle?

What recording do you like best of David, oops I mean...Enrico? 

In all seriousness, the only singer of the ancient days I can truly appreciate is Lauritz Melchior. Is that his name??????? :tiphat:
Anyway, whatever his name may be -- the sheer enormity of the voice comes through despite all the delightful scratches and hisses which I just can't live without!


----------



## Marc

Had not listened to Hurwitz for about 2 months... checked the Bruckner 8 clip and stopped listening after about 2 minutes.

Well, some people call his rants and ignorance 'entertaining'. 
It's probably meant as 'good fun', but I find it utterly boring.
We all have our preferences.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I’ve often referred to Hurwitz as the Rush Limbaugh of classical reviewers. Watching tributes on Rush yesterday, they talked about his legacy of venomous name-calling of anyone he disagreed with. But his defenders said he was funny. Sound familiar?

Again, for me it’s not about taking offense. I just find his reviews to be low level on top of the smug narcissism.

But he is funny. He made me laugh on his Monteverdi Vespers video yesterday saying that the minimalist John Butt would perform the work with three amoebae if he could.

Rush could make me laugh as well. It didn’t make him right politically.


----------



## Chilham

I think by now, we get it.


----------



## Bulldog

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But he is funny. He made me laugh on his Monteverdi Vespers video yesterday saying that the minimalist John Butt would perform the work with three amoebae if he could.


Entertainment is the key for enjoying Hurwitz reviews. I liked the Bruckner video - good escapist fun. Even when he goes into insulting mode, it's a fun ride and not to be taken all that seriously. He's a man of the people. If you want serious analysis and expertise, look elsewhere for that academic stuff.


----------



## Marc

Bulldog said:


> Entertainment is the key for enjoying Hurwitz reviews. I liked the Bruckner video - good escapist fun. Even when he goes into insulting mode, it's a fun ride and not to be taken all that seriously. He's a man of the people. If you want serious analysis and expertise, look elsewhere for that academic stuff.


Yeah, I took him seriously once and he deleted my messages almost immediately.
So you do have a point.


----------



## bluto32

I really enjoyed the Bruckner 8 video, particularly the clips comparing the original 1887 version with the 1890 revisions.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

bluto32 said:


> I really enjoyed the Bruckner 8 video, particularly the clips comparing the original 1887 version with the 1890 revisions.


That video prompted me to get Günter Wand's Lübeck Cathedral recording, and I was so glad I did. It's wonderful.


----------



## Rach Man

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> That video prompted me to get Günter Wand's Lübeck Cathedral recording, and I was so glad I did. It's wonderful.


Wand's Bruckner 9 at the church is also great.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Rach Man said:


> Wand's Bruckner 9 at the church is also great.


My memory tells me that I bought 8 & 9 as a double CD, back in the day ......


----------



## starthrower

This guy is bad for business. Bad for the record companies. Bad for impressionable listeners who may be new to classical music. When he doesn't like something he states it as if it were an indisputable fact. And he keeps going to the point of humiliating conductors and orchestras with world renowned reputations. He advises listeners to not even go there. Don't even think of listening to this recording I hate. He's so certain he's right.


----------



## SanAntone

He's a non-entity to me. In fact, I had never heard of him before seeing this thread and another one on a different forum.

I looked at one of his videos and turned it off short of a minute, his voice and mannerisms struck me as obnoxious. I couldn't care less what he thinks of recordings of classical music. I am surprised he has _any_ fans.


----------



## HenryPenfold

SanAntone said:


> He's a non-entity to me. In fact, I had never heard of him before seeing this thread and another one on a different forum.
> 
> I looked at one of his videos and turned it off short of a minute, his voice and mannerisms struck me as obnoxious. I couldn't care less what he thinks of recordings of classical music. I am surprised he has _any_ fans.


It's obvious you are plainly jealous of such a handsome man, who is clearly hung like a meerkat.


----------



## Plague

I think perhaps we need two separate threads about Hurwitz, the first for discussions about his personality, knowledge, taste and biases *in general*. Those who can't help but talking about these topics every couple of months or weeks can enjoy themselves there (or here) without boring others - including some who agree with their judgments on Hurwitz - with their repetitive arguments and snarks. Those who want to defend Hurwitz on these issues can also contribute to this first thread.

The second thread, maybe a new one, is for discussions about the *specific content* of his videos, where detailed criticisms of his commentaries are welcome, like this one:



BachIsBest said:


> For example, on the topic of the Furtwängler's performance of the ninth that is the subject of the video, he makes multiple factual errors. He claims that the reason people like the recording is because a whole bunch of top Nazi's were in attendance; this is incorrect. The true "Nazi ninth" was recorded later and nobody much reveres that recording despite it's greater significance historically, which puts to rest the "people just like it because Goebbels was in the audience" argument; he wasn't and any real Furtwängler nut very well knows this. Furthermore, he claims that the expulsion of the Jewish members of the orchestra was to blame for the poor playing and that the BPO had to "rebuild" from this loss and the musicians playing here didn't know the music that well. Although I have no doubt the BPO lost some fine musicians this is obvious hogwash if you think for more than three seconds. They weren't finding Arayan replacements for the BPO from introductory violin classes and this is Beethoven's ninth. All those players would have played the ninth before and would know the music. We're not talking about Hindemith here (pardon the bad joke) but Beethoven. In addition, Furtwängler made many technically superior war-time recordings that obviously demonstrate no severe deficits in the playing of the orchestra. Just listen to them.


The reason for this separation is that people who are interested in the first thread may not be interested in the second, and vise versa.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Moved forward due to thread clutter


----------



## Guest002

Plague said:


> I think perhaps we need two separate threads about Hurwitz, the first for discussions about his personality, knowledge, taste and biases *in general*. Those who can't help but talking about these topics every couple of months or weeks can enjoy themselves there (or here) without boring others - including some who agree with their judgments on Hurwitz - with their repetitive arguments and snarks. Those who want to defend Hurwitz on these issues can also contribute to this first thread.
> 
> The second thread, maybe a new one, is for discussions about the *specific content* of his videos, where detailed criticisms of his commentaries are welcome, like this one:
> 
> The reason for this separation is that people who are interested in the first thread may not be interested in the second, and vise versa.


My answer to your main point: I don't think it helps to try and micro-manage where people post which stuff in that way.

My other answer is to 'BachisBest', whose quoted remarks I hadn't really noticed before and which I found interesting for a number of reasons.



BachIsBest said:


> However, I often find he slips in shabby, sometimes downright false, historical and musicological claims…For example, on the topic of the Furtwängler's performance of the ninth that is the subject of the video, he makes multiple factual errors. He claims that the reason people like the recording is because a whole bunch of top Nazi's were in attendance; this is incorrect.


Well, unless there were two recordings by Furtwängler of Beethoven's 9th in 1942, or unless Youtube is citing the wrong recording, there's this:






Now, anyone want to tell me what the flag to the left of the stage at 0'28" is? (Or indeed, at the right of the stage in the 'thumbnail' that is used to represent the video before you play it). Anyone want to tell me what the guy's wearing on his arm at 3'31".

Oh, and what was the occasion of this performance? Oh, that's right. Hitler's birthday. You want to argue that in Berlin in the middle of the war, at a concert to celebrate Hitler's 53rd birthday, there _wouldn't_ be Nazis in attendance? Seriously??



BachIsBest said:


> The true "Nazi ninth" was recorded later and nobody much reveres that recording despite it's greater significance…


Well, now you're changing the criticism. Either nazis were present or they weren't. If they were, then your first criticism is invalid. I didn't hear Hurwitz claim the 1942 recording was the "true Nazi ninth" (who knew there were degrees of veracity of Naziness!), so to say, 'well this isn't the _real_ Nazi ninth' is irrelevant.



BachIsBest said:


> … historically, which puts to rest the "people just like it because Goebbels was in the audience" argument; he wasn't and any real Furtwängler nut very well knows this.


You want to tell me who's _credited_ with sitting in the audience at 1'30" in the video I embedded above? Oh, and who goes up to the podium to shake Furt's hand at 4'24"? That would be Goebbels too.



BachIsBest said:


> …Furthermore, he claims that the expulsion of the Jewish members of the orchestra was to blame for the poor playing…


He doesn't actually. At 5'27", He certainly mentions the loss of the Jewish players, but he then says the orchestra were not in the best estate 'in the 1940s' as a separate clause without a 'because' in between. That is, he's saying the loss of the Jewish players contributed to the BPOs loss of excellence, but he's not saying 'they were not in a good state _because_ of the loss of the Jewish players. Non-Jewish orchestral players might have been called up for war duties, some might have been killed in bombing raids, some might have been starving from war rations, others might have been terrified for their lives because of visits by the Gestapo! Who knows? He says the orchestra was not in a good state. You can't really push it further than that.



BachIsBest said:


> … and that the BPO had to "rebuild" from this loss and the musicians playing here didn't know the music that well.


At 18'06" he literally says 'obviously, the orchestra knows this music like the backs of their hands'. So that's not accurate either.



BachIsBest said:


> … All those players would have played the ninth before and would know the music.


Er, which is precisely what he says at 18'06".

Short version: Goebbels is present at a performance of the 9th as best I can see in 1942; he shakes Furt's hand at the end; it _was_ a Nazi-infested concert hall; Hurwitz acknowledges the BPO players knew that material; he doesn't blame the state of the wartime BPO on the loss of Jewish players _exclusively_... so the "shabby, sometimes downright false, historical claims" don't, on this occasion at least, appear to be coming from Hurwitz.

That said, I'm not a 'Furtwängler Nut', so if I've misinterpreted the video evidence available on Youtube, I'm sure someone will correct me on the point.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Funny, I've been waiting for that to arrive and just found out the Amazon seller cancelled the order without even telling me. (!!!)


I sincerely hope I didn't "gazump" your copy! Unlikely, as I'm on a different continent, but you never know...


----------



## Ned Low

Don't you think he's biased towards Jochum's Bruckner symphony cycle(Staatskepelle Dresden)? I've seen he's mentioned it a couple of times ,overemphasising it's better than the one he made with Berlin(DG). I personally find the former(SD) rather dull and slow.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I really warmed to Hurwitz during his early videos and I changed my attitude towards him from someone I'd clearly be happy to hang out the window by his ankles, to someone whose hand I'd warmly shake and buy a beer (my previous dislike was based on his many silly musings on his review website)

I'm enormously indebted to him for 'leading me' out of my listening cul de sac. Following his videos caused me to appreciate tonal music melody and orchestral instrument, in a way I never could. My tastes were overly modernist and sometimes, quite frankly no fun at all. I now really get a kick out of what I listen to, and credit where credit's due, it really is all down to Hurwitz.

However, HOWEVER, he seriously lets himself down when his childish, immature and arguably obnoxious traits get the better of him. For example, his unbelievably flippant handling of Bax and Rubbra's work is disgraceful. Perhaps a little joke about 'Planet Baxia', 'Baxians' and 'Planet Rubbra' etc might be tolerable, but to go on and on about it like silly schoolchild is inexcusable. And it does no-one any service; I, as fan of Bax and Rubbra, can just chalk Hurwitz down as a tosser and move on, but what about the people who know nothing of these composers?

Hurwtitz is hugely influential. For example, if he recommends an old Sony Ormandy or Szell performance, when you check out a used copy on Amazon UK, CDs that were selling at £3.27p are now going for £10.50. As a free market capitalist, I have no problem with that, but it shows you the high level of influence he has. That's to say nothing of the little fanboys who crop up on this forum.

His inexplicable dismissal of recordings is also quite disgraceful. For example, why did he dismiss Dudamel's recent Ives survey? His unfalsifiable 'reason' of 'lacking involvement' 'mystery' or some such vagary is obviously nonsense. What's the real reason? Dudamel isn't the only example of this.

And with this, he is seriously letting down his audience and classical music fans. this can be no part of the role of a professional critic or broadcaster - responsibility comes with the role, like it or not.

In the final analysis, I don't *trust *him. The more I followed his broadcasts, the more the basic level of intellectual and professional trust that needs to exist, evaporated. Now I only tune in to the most relevant (to me) videos, and when I do, it's with a huge amount of caution. This is such a shame, because his videos are otherwise informative, funny and very enjoyable. Also, he's 'one of us' and his passion and commitment to our beloved classical music is enormous. I will say again, I'm enormously indebted to him, he has caused my enjoyment of music to soar beyond its previously existing height, and that is a big, big present he's given me!


----------



## Ned Low

> His inexplicable dismissal of recordings is also quite disgraceful. For example, why did he dismiss Dudamel's recent Ives survey? His unfalsifiable 'reason' of lacking involvement or some such vagary is obviously nonsense. What's the real reason? Dudamel isn't the only example of this.


Totally agree with you on this. Im partial to his videos, yet ive been through his Bruckner reviews and i have to say some important recordings are clearly intentionally missing. No mention of Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch or Simone Young? I know he can't talk about every recording available, yet that doesn't mean he should discard some conductors. Like, there are some good conductors who have gone for Bruckner's early versions : Simone Young and Elaihu Inbal. Even so he's only mentioned Tintner for the original versions. Tintner's made decent recordings but others deserve to be mentioned.


----------



## Guest002

Ned Low said:


> Totally agree with you on this. Im partial to his videos, yet ive been through his Bruckner reviews and i have to say some important recordings are clearly intentionally missing. No mention of Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch or Simone Young? I know he can't talk about every recording available, yet that doesn't mean he should discard some conductors. Like, there are some good conductors who have gone for Bruckner's early versions : Simone Young and Elaihu Inbal. Even so he's only mentioned Tintner for the original versions. Tintner's made decent recordings but others deserve to be mentioned.


I don't know the specifics, but I suspect it's because "they've gone for Bruckner's early versions". He has an aversion to recordings of the early versions of Bruckner's symphonies for well-publicised reasons. That's to say, whilst you may not agree with him, he's made no secret of the fact that he thinks, on the whole, that a composer's _final_ thoughts on a work are the ones we should listen to, especially since Bruckner (he says) was particularly prone to not be able to 'get it right' on the first try.

I mean, I don't know if that's valid or not, but if that's his opinion, it stands to reason that he's not going to like, nor waste time mentioning, recordings of those early versions which he doesn't consider to be 'Bruckner's best and final thoughts'.

Again, I don't have the knowledge to know whether that reasoning also explains the Furt and Knapp omissions too, but it would certainly account for the omission of Young and Inbal.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Ned Low said:


> Totally agree with you on this. Im partial to his videos, yet ive been through his Bruckner reviews and i have to say some important recordings are clearly intentionally missing. No mention of Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch or Simone Young? I know he can't talk about every recording available, yet that doesn't mean he should discard some conductors. Like, there are some good conductors who have gone for Bruckner's early versions : Simone Young and Elaihu Inbal. Even so he's only mentioned Tintner for the original versions. Tintner's made decent recordings but others deserve to be mentioned.


I can, for various reasons, forgive him for omissions and the like; I have no problem with that. What I can't forgive, is when he dismisses recordings/performances inexplicably - John Wilson's Respighi Roman Trilogy and Dudamel's Ives are examples. We're all intelligent people, we know this is NOT simply a matter of taste or preference. As I said, I can no longer trust him intellectually and professionally.


----------



## Ned Low

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't know the specifics, but I suspect it's because "they've gone for Bruckner's early versions". He has an aversion to recordings of the early versions of Bruckner's symphonies for well-publicised reasons. That's to say, whilst you may not agree with him, he's made no secret of the fact that he thinks, on the whole, that a composer's _final_ thoughts on a work are the ones we should listen to, especially since Bruckner (he says) was particularly prone to not be able to 'get it right' on the first try.
> 
> I mean, I don't know if that's valid or not, but if that's his opinion, it stands to reason that he's not going to like, nor waste time mentioning, recordings of those early versions which he doesn't consider to be 'Bruckner's best and final thoughts'.
> 
> Again, I don't have the knowledge to know whether that reasoning also explains the Furt and Knapp omissions too, but it would certainly account for the omission of Young and Inbal.
> 
> PS. You're missing a '/' on your closing quote.


This so called Bruckner Problem is something that we have dealt with or have to deal with at one point or another. And because of the fact that we will never be able to know which one is Bruckner's final choice, i think it's all now a matter of taste. I only listen to the 1873 version of the 3rd symphony. But i wont tell someone whos new to Bruckner to shun the 1877 version or the 1889 version. Instead of saying " you're mentally ill if you like the first version of the 8th" he can say i personally prefer the revised version but i do urge you to listen to the original version and decide for yourself. He's a critic and he has to introduce us to various discogrophies regardless of his personal taste. That's all i think is missing from his youtube channel. It would be great if he tried to be a little bit objective and impartial. Otherwise, i do appreciate the time he spends making the videos and reviewing all those recordings.


----------



## Guest002

Ned Low said:


> This so called Bruckner Problem is something that we have dealt with or have to deal with at one point or another. And because of the fact that we will never be able to know which one is Bruckner's final choice, i think it's all now a matter of taste. I only listen to the 1873 version of the 3rd symphony. But i wont tell someone whos new to Bruckner to shun the 1877 version or the 1889 version. Instead of saying " you're mentally ill if you like the first version of the 8th" he can say i personally prefer the revised version but i do urge you to listen to the original version and decide for yourself. He's a critic and he has to introduce us to various discogrophies regardless of his personal taste. That's all i think is missing from his youtube channel. It would be great if he tried to be a little bit objective and impartial. Otherwise, i do appreciate the time he spends making the videos and reviewing all those recordings.


I didn't really want to discuss the versions problem. It's beyond my pay grade. I merely mention it by way of explanation for the question you asked: why didn't he menion Young and Inbal.

As I said, you're free to disagree with him on the substance of that discussion, but it at least explains his 'omissions' in this case, no?

I don't expect him to be 'objective and impartial'. He's him. Warts and all, I take him for what he is, not for what 58 other people variously wish he were (each of whom, in this thread at least, have tended to be rather intemperate in their criticisms of him, and baldy biased, subjective and very much less than impartial in their own opinions!) I mean, if you want impartial and objective recommendations for Beethoven 9ths, I'd take Hurtwitz any day over the _incredibly_ partial 'reviewers' that inhabit these waters, if you know what -and who- I mean!


----------



## starthrower

In several cases there is no distinguishing between his grossly biased comments and musical criticism because he doesn't provide any. He simply rants in his condescending tone about how worthless a composer or recording is because he doesn't like it. According to Hurwitz, none of Boulez's music is even worth discussing so he makes a crude gesture of tossing his entire body of work in the trash bin.

I watched his VW symphonies video and he was relentless in his complete dismissal of Haitink's cycle as if there wasn't one good phrase or movement among all nine symphonies. He then tells his listeners to go buy the Slatkin box because it's great and you can pick it up for 23 dollars. But the Slatkin box is not available. It's out of stock at every online retailer.


----------



## bluto32

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> <Snip>
> Well, unless there were two recordings by Furtwängler of Beethoven's 9th in 1942, or unless Youtube is citing the wrong recording, there's this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, anyone want to tell me what the flag to the left of the stage at 0'28" is? (Or indeed, at the right of the stage in the 'thumbnail' that is used to represent the video before you play it). Anyone want to tell me what the guy's wearing on his arm at 3'31".
> 
> Oh, and what was the occasion of this performance? Oh, that's right. Hitler's birthday. You want to argue that in Berlin in the middle of the war, at a concert to celebrate Hitler's 53rd birthday, there wouldn't be Nazis in attendance? Seriously??
> 
> Well, now you're changing the criticism. Either nazis were present or they weren't. If they were, then your first criticism is invalid. I didn't hear Hurwitz claim the 1942 recording was the "true Nazi ninth" (who knew there were degrees of veracity of Naziness!), so to say, 'well this isn't the real Nazi ninth' is irrelevant.
> <Snip>


The video footage above is from the 19 April 1942 recording and was originally found with no sound. Audio from the 22-24 March 1942 recording was added to this video footage, and this is what you can see/hear in that Youtube clip.

The well-known March recording has therefore become infamous for the wrong reasons; it was just another wartime performance, albeit an extremely fine one to my ears. I'm not aware of any evidence that it was attended by hoards of Nazis. The actual "Nazi 9th" (i.e. April) recording made for Hitler's birthday surfaced relatively recently by means of a pirate recording from live radio at the time. I've heard it once (it's on Youtube as well) and it's terrible in just about every way, including the worst possible sound imaginable.


----------



## Guest002

starthrower said:


> In several cases there is no distinguishing between his grossly biased comments and musical criticism because he doesn't provide any. He simply rants in his condescending tone about how worthless a composer or recording is because he doesn't like it. According to Hurwitz, none of Boulez's music is even worth discussing so he makes a crude gesture of tossing his entire body of work in the trash bin.


He does. And so?

Clearly, you think Boulez is worth listening to, and he doesn't. I don't see the issue. He can't be you, so what do you expect him to do?

Usually, at this point, the person who is really wishing Hurwitz thought like they do, resorts to 'I want him to be objective, and impartial, and to at least not make newbies think Boulez is just trash'. As if their own partial, biased and subjective _liking_ of Boulez was any more objective and impartial than Hurwitz's _disliking_ it!

Logically, it makes no sense. I see you are not based in the UK, so this analogy may not work for you, but you don't buy a copy of the Daily Mail because you want to learn about gender and racial equality programs that need promoting by those in central government. You buy it for the right-wing attacks on immigrants and Europe. Similarly, you don't by the Sun for its in-depth investigative reporting about tax havens in the Seychelles, but because of the page 3 girls with big breasts. I mean, simply: it's horses for course, and wishes your horse was on a different course seems pointless to me. It is what it is. Hurwitz has his opinions, you get to know them over time, and if they don't match yours, you can stop watching.

That said, I'm not saying that he couldn't be 'nicer' in the way he tackles his bugbears. But it's part of his act, so that's again like wishing Woody Allen would get to the point more quickly. It's just an inappropriate expectation for the man.



starthrower said:


> I watched his VW symphonies video and he was relentless in his complete dismissal of Haitink's cycle as if there wasn't one good phrase or movement among all nine symphonies. He then tells his listeners to go buy the Slatkin box because it's great and you can pick it up for 23 dollars. But the Slatkin box is not available. It's out if stock at every online retailer.


Well, I can't get hold of the Slatkin either, so I don't disagree, but he's usually quite good in saying things like 'I'd recommend X, but you simply can't get it these days, so I'm going to talk about Y instead'. Maybe it was (more) readily available when he made the video? Maybe he was remembering it was widely available and hadn't re-checked before making the video. He can't get it 100% right, I think.

As to the matter of him dismissing Haitink's cycle: I agreed with him. It is objectively, measurably slow in many of the areas I've bothered to actually time it: significantly slower than the next-slowest. Now, slow doesn't equal boring... but I agreed with him on that, too. I found Haitink quite dull, in a way I never find Previn (who he also wasn't too keen on at times, if I recall). I wouldn't say there was _nothing_ in it to like, but if there are ones out there that are streets ahead of it for life and interest, why would you bother straining the pudding for the odd currant?!

Anyway: my point is, you think his comments on Haitink were dreadful; I think they were pretty much OK. Just as his dismissal of Dudamel's Ives symphonies upsets some people here -and yet, the sixth comment on *that video* at the time of writing says, 'That was a great talk and I agree regarding the Dudamel -there is something missing in all of the performances, like they are all rushed as you described'. So who's right? The commentator here who thinks Hurwitz's Dudamel dismissal was disappointing, or the commentator there that thinks it was spot on?!

My point is: he can't be everything for all people. I'd stop expending the energy wishing he were otherwise.


----------



## Guest002

bluto32 said:


> The video footage above is from the 19 April 1942 recording and was originally found with no sound. Audio from the 22-24 March 1942 recording was added to this video footage, and this is what you can see/hear in that Youtube clip.
> 
> The well-known March recording has therefore become infamous for the wrong reasons; it was just another wartime performance, albeit an extremely fine one to my ears. I'm not aware of any evidence that it was attended by hoards of Nazis. The actual "Nazi 9th" (i.e. April) recording made for Hitler's birthday surfaced relatively recently by means of a pirate recording from live radio at the time. I've heard it once (it's on Youtube as well) and it's terrible in just about every way, including the worst possible sound imaginable.


Ah well, since that's so, then all my Nazi-related comments up-thread can be ignored. I did wonder if there was more than one performance that year, so thank you for the clarification. My points about what Hurwitz does or does not say in his video still stand, however.


----------



## HenryPenfold

starthrower said:


> In several cases there is no distinguishing between his grossly biased comments and musical criticism because he doesn't provide any. He simply rants in his condescending tone about how worthless a composer or recording is because he doesn't like it. According to Hurwitz, none of Boulez's music is even worth discussing so he makes a crude gesture of tossing his entire body of work in the trash bin.
> 
> I watched his VW symphonies video and he was relentless in his complete dismissal of Haitink's cycle as if there wasn't one good phrase or movement among all nine symphonies. He then tells his listeners to go buy the Slatkin box because it's great and you can pick it up for 23 dollars. But the Slatkin box is not available. It's out of stock at every online retailer.


Most of that would be ok if we were thinking about your, my or a fellow forum member's views of a work/performance/recording. But we're not. During his broadcasts, Hurwitz has explained more than once that he is a professional music critic. He therefore will be judged on that basis. Which is what many of us are doing. If he were merely a vlogger/blogger, we should simply take or leave what he says.

I suppose it boils down to how we take him - Hurwitz is clear about that, we should take him as a professional music critic. Therein lies the problem.


----------



## Guest002

Just out of fun and interest: some examples of how nasty, bitchy (and occasionally wrong) professional music critics have been in history *is available here.*. Other, similar examples abound:

*Percy Scholes* (English professional music critic) on Bartok: "I suffered more than upon any occasion in my life apart from an incident or two connected with 'painless dentistry.' To begin with, there was Mr. Bartok's piano touch. But 'touch,' with its implication of light-fingered ease, is a misnomer, unless it be qualified in some such way as that of Ethel Smyth in discussing her dear old teacher Herzogenberg - 'He had a touch like a paving-stone.' I do not believe Mr. Bartok would resent this simile"

*Rodolf Louis* (German professional music critic) on Mahler: "If Mahler's music would speak Yiddish, it would be perhaps unintelligible to me. But it is repulsive to me because it acts Jewish. This is to say that it speaks musical German, but with an accent, with an inflection, and above all, with the gestures of an eastern, all too eastern Jew. So, even to those whom it does not offend directly, it can not possibly communicate anything. One does not have to be repelled by Mahler's artistic personality in order to realize the complete emptiness and vacuity of an art in which the spasm of an impotent mock-Titanism reduces itself to a frank gratification of common seamstress-like sentimentality."

*W.F. Apthorp* (American professional music critic) on Tchaikovsky: "The Pathetique Symphony threads all the foul ditches and sewers of human despair; it is unclean as music well can be. Indisputably there is power in it: who but Tchaikovsky could have made the vulgar, obscene phrase powerful? The second movement, with its strabismal rhythm, is harldy less ignoble; the third, sheer billingsgate. In the finale, bleary-eyed paresis meets us face to face; and that solemn closing epitaph of the trombones might begin with: 'Here continues to rot..."

So when did we expect better of our professional music critics? And if we ever did, which I don't think we do, Hurwitz is still a puss-cat in comparison to these exemplars! (Apparently the word puss with a y at the end of it is banned by the forum software! Prudes!)


----------



## starthrower

Yes, that is the problem because in many instances he adopts a highly unprofessional attitude which makes it difficult to take him seriously. He treats his audience like a bunch of sheep.


----------



## Guest002

starthrower said:


> Yes, that is the problem because in many instances he adopts a highly unprofessional attitude which makes it difficult to take him seriously. He treats his audience like a bunch of sheep.


No, nothing unprofessional about it, given a long enough perspective. I don't think you read my post #503 while you were writing yours.


----------



## starthrower

> Clearly, you think Boulez is worth listening to, and he doesn't. I don't see the issue. He can't be you, so what do you expect him to do?


I expect him not to display the crudeness of a philistine. I don't care if he hates Boulez but what bearing should this have on all of the other listeners in the world? At the least he could say it's not for me but check it out for yourself. But he doesn't do that. He acts like a dictator.


----------



## starthrower

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> No, nothing unprofessional about it, given a long enough perspective. I don't think you read my post #503 while you were writing yours.


I was responding to Henry's post while you were writing your post.


----------



## HenryPenfold

would be nice if we could delete our own posts when we mess them up ........


----------



## Guest002

starthrower said:


> I expect him not to display the crudeness of a philistine. I don't care if he hates Boulez but what bearing should this have on all of the other listeners in the world? At the least he could say it's not for me but check it out for yourself. But he doesn't do that. He acts like a dictator.


The logical circularity here is just fascinating. 
He mustn't be a dictator, says the man demanding someone not exhibit behaviours that he considers crude and Philistine!

And to answer your penultimate sentence, he very frequently says the equivalent of 'I can't stand it, but feel free to listen and decide for yourself'. He didn't for the RVW Haitink and the Boulez, I agree. But he often does.

And to answer your #507: I wasn't suggesting you were replying to me. I was merely saying: if you _had_ read my post #503, I don't think you'd be so keen to hold Hurwitz to a standard of professionalism that has seldom been exhibited by many previous professional art critics. Compared to his professional predecessors, he seems really quite reasonable, non-dictatorial and sane in his expressions of opinion!


----------



## HenryPenfold

starthrower said:


> I was responding to Henry's post while you were writing your post.


He knows, but he was actually responding to me.


----------



## HenryPenfold

starthrower said:


> Yes, that is the problem because in many instances he adopts a highly unprofessional attitude which makes it difficult to take him seriously.


Indeed. Which would be fine for a vlogger, but is a show-stopper for a professional music critic.



> He treats his audience like a bunch of sheep.


But we are sheep! As a species, that's what we're like. I can excuse his audience and his little fanboys, but not Hurwitz as a professional critic.


----------



## starthrower

I didn't demand anything of Hurwitz. I merely commented on some of my observations of his style and his complete dismissal of some recordings. He doesn't like the Haitink VW which is fine but telling listeners to avoid it like the plague strikes me as irresponsible.


----------



## Guest002

starthrower said:


> I didn't demand anything of Hurwitz.


"I expect him not to display the crudeness of a philistine."

Your words. Now, look at the heading for *meaning 2 here*: "_expect verb (DEMAND), [as in] I expect punctuality from my students._"

So you can understand why I read 'expect' as I did. But I'm happy to accept that you meant 'I have an innocent and entirely non-demanding hope that he would not display the crudeness of a philistine'... but I have no idea where that non-demanding expectation came from, since he has a 500-video track record and you know exactly what to 'expect' in that sense from him by now, surely! It seems to me to be something of an unrealistic 'expectation' in that sense, therefore.



starthrower said:


> I merely commented on some of my observations of his style and his complete dismissal of some recordings. He doesn't like the Haitink VW which is fine but telling listeners to avoid it like the plague strikes me as irresponsible.


And I think that's entirely fine on your part. Anyone is of course entitled to think anyone else's expressions are irresponsible. Can't argue with that at all.

ETA: By which I genuinely mean, I have no problem whatsoever with people saying 'he's rubbish and his opinions are dreadful and I won't bother watching him further'. My problem is with people saying 'he's rubbish and his opinions are dreadful _and I wish he'd think more as I do_, and since he doesn't he must be stupid/mentally defective/an intellectual pygmy/unprofessional'. Which a lot (not all) of criticism of him here, at least, seems to consist of.


----------



## wkasimer

starthrower said:


> He then tells his listeners to go buy the Slatkin box because it's great and you can pick it up for 23 dollars. But the Slatkin box is not available. It's out of stock at every online retailer.


But it's very, very easy to find on eBay. I just bought a copy of the original issue of the set for $20. And there are several other copies - not quite that cheap, but fairly reasonable.


----------



## Guest002

wkasimer said:


> But it's very, very easy to find on eBay. I just bought a copy of the original issue of the set for $20. And there are several other copies - not quite that cheap, but fairly reasonable.


Good tip. I found *this*, which seems reasonably priced... but I'm not keen on ordering from the States, given the unexpected custom duties and VAT that gets thrown on them when they finally arrive! But maybe it will be of more use to States-side thread-watchers?!

I agree with starthrower that a nice, readily available digital download would be excellent, and it's sad Hurwitz ended up recommending something that even Presto draws a blank on.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> That video prompted me to get Günter Wand's Lübeck Cathedral recording, and I was so glad I did. It's wonderful.


Funny, I've been waiting for that to arrive and just found out the Amazon seller cancelled the order without even telling me. (!!!)

Hurwitz's Bruckner 8th video was a lot like his other ones. He rattles off a list of well-known versions, usually saying something like "Of course, you have to have this one, right? Just, just really well played. Classic version. (reads off contents from back of CD) So get _____. You can't go wrong."

He might trash a well known recording once in a while just to stick out, usually a really old one because it is so clever and original to fault old recordings for poor sound quality.

Then he'll finish with "But....if I had to choose one recording, it would be this one. And it may surprise you." He then proceeds to name a little known recording to create the illusion of his singular brilliance as a reviewer.

In the case of Bruckner 8, he chose Otmar Suitner with the Staatskapelle Berlin, recorded in the late 80s.

I have heard dozens of 8ths the past few months during my Bruckner kick and never came across this one. The only place I found it was YouTube, so I decided to sample it this afternoon.

Surprise, surprise....it is completely deserving of its forgotten, neglected status. This was one of the most dull, pedestrian, brain dead versions of the Bruckner 8th I've ever had to sit through. Everything is just slogged though carelessly. No sense of Brucknerian atmosphere, mystery, or anticipation at all.

So why did it appeal to Hurwitz, other than offering an apparent opportunity to differentiate himself? It is well-recorded, has excellent intonation, very good orchestral balance, and the percussion is particularly on top of things. That is the full extent of Hurwitz's ability to assess musical performance quality. He has no ear for musical architecture, interpretation, or phrasing. Just be together, in time, and have clear articulation. And anyone who has a more developed sense of musicality is either a cultist or a snob.

And this is the guy who lectures and insults others as if he alone is the God of classical music knowledge.

More like the Wizard of Oz. A humbug.


----------



## wkasimer

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Good tip. I found *this*, which seems reasonably priced... but I'm not keen on ordering from the States, given the unexpected custom duties and VAT that gets thrown on them when they finally arrive! But maybe it will be of more use to States-side thread-watchers?!


There's also https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vaughan-Williams-The-9-Symphonies-Slatkin-6-CDs/152972673242 and https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vaughan-Williams-The-9-Symphonies-CD-6-Discs-RCA-Victor-Red-Seal/223506622276

The white box version has no notes; the ones I linked above are the original set of individual discs.


----------



## starthrower

I'm pretty happy with my Adrian Boult VW cycle. If I bought another set it would be for the modern sound. Seems as though the Slatkin is more forceful and hard driven but I haven't listened to any of it yet. But he's a pretty safe bet judging by the other recordings I have.


----------



## Guest002

starthrower said:


> I'm pretty happy with my Adrian Boult VW cycle. If I bought another set it would be for the modern sound. Seems as though the Slatkin is more forceful and hard driven but I haven't listened to any of it yet. But he's a pretty safe bet judging by the other recordings I have.


Yeah, to be honest I have 8 cycles and a miscellaneous bunch of singletons, so I don't really _need_ Slatkin either. But I'd quite like to hear it, so I knew what I was (allegedly) missing out on!


----------



## starthrower

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yeah, to be honest I have 8 cycles and a miscellaneous bunch of singletons, so I don't really _need_ Slatkin either. But I'd quite like to hear it, so I knew what I was (allegedly) missing out on!


According to other reviews I've read you'd be missing out on the nuance, atmosphere, and soul of these works. But everybody's got their opinions. Great sound is the most positive comment I've read.


----------



## Guest002

starthrower said:


> According to other reviews I've read you'd be missing out on the nuance, atmosphere, and soul of these works. But everybody's got their opinions. Great sound is the most positive comment I've read.


Unfortunately, I don't routinely stream and I can't find a samples website. So I shall have to forego the pleasure!

This is one of those occasions where I _suspect_ Hurwitz's conclusion was (a) somewhat screwball/perverse and (b) influenced by the fact he's American. (On the other hand, after Boult, my undoubted favourite would be Previn, so it's not all Right-Pondian hereabouts!)

I entirely agree that a star recommendation being for something you can't readily get your mitts on is a bit pointless, and I too wish he hadn't done it. (Of course, Amazon is merely telling me that it's 'out of stock': it is quite possible that the 'Hurwitz Effect' is to make whatever he recommends go out of a stock in a hurry! I know *Techmoan* on Youtube achieves the same thing: he finds an old player or piece of audio tech on Ebay, prices double or quadruple within hours of his videos going up! It happens. So I guess I shall just have to be patient!)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

starthrower said:


> According to other reviews I've read you'd be missing out on the nuance, atmosphere, and soul of these works. But everybody's got their opinions. Great sound is the most positive comment I've read.


As I said if you want great sound, orchestral balance, and technical perfection, listen to Hurwitz. If you want "nuance, atmosphere, and soul" listen to other reviewers. According to Hurwitz, these are imaginary things invented by bourgeoisie snobs and cultists.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> As I said if you want great sound, orchestral balance, and technical perfection, listen to Hurwitz. If you want "nuance, atmosphere, and soul" listen to other reviewers. According to Hurwitz, these are imaginary things invented by bourgeoisie snobs and cultists.


Oh dear. I think you may have missed the point that the nuance, atmosphere and soul is contained *within the works that Hurwitz recommended*... but that neither starthrower nor myself are actually able to obtain. Or did you miss that subtlety and nuance?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Oh dear. I think you may have missed the point that the nuance, atmosphere and soul is contained *within the works that Hurwitz recommended*... but that neither starthrower nor myself are actually able to obtain. Or did you miss that subtlety and nuance?


What I read was that according to other reviewers, the Slatkin recording was missing nuance, atmosphere, and soul, but it had great sound. Am I wrong?


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What I read was that according to other reviewers, the Slatkin recording was missing nuance, atmosphere, and soul, but it had great sound. Am I wrong?


Here's an excerpt from a Fanfare review of Symphonies 5&6:

"Anyway, from the turbulent opening of the Sixth's first movement, through the radiant apotheosis of its second subject, Slatkin everywhere provides the temperament that Davis lacks. His second movement rises to a more shattering climax, and the scherzo is a true witch's cauldron (though again, no English orchestral player will ever play the saxophone solos with the bite and swing that an American can). After this much higher level of emotional intensity, the ghostly finale makes its point all the more simply, if without quite Davis's subtlety. Add to this a lovely, lyrical performance of the totally gorgeous Fifth Symphony, with a brilliantly light scherzo and rapt Romanza, and this disc offers better value than Davis's, despite the fact that the sound is not quite up to Teldec's demonstration quality. Make no mistake, I'm keeping Davis, which is quite fine in its own right, but Slatkin takes the palm."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Here's an excerpt from a Fanfare review of Symphonies 5&6:
> 
> "Anyway, from the turbulent opening of the Sixth's first movement, through the radiant apotheosis of its second subject, Slatkin everywhere provides the temperament that Davis lacks. His second movement rises to a more shattering climax, and the scherzo is a true witch's cauldron (though again, no English orchestral player will ever play the saxophone solos with the bite and swing that an American can). After this much higher level of emotional intensity, the ghostly finale makes its point all the more simply, if without quite Davis's subtlety. Add to this a lovely, lyrical performance of the totally gorgeous Fifth Symphony, with a brilliantly light scherzo and rapt Romanza, and this disc offers better value than Davis's, despite the fact that the sound is not quite up to Teldec's demonstration quality. Make no mistake, I'm keeping Davis, which is quite fine in its own right, but Slatkin takes the palm."


That's all fine and dandy, but it has nothing to with whether I misread starthrower's post.


----------



## Guest002

wkasimer said:


> Here's an excerpt from a Fanfare review of Symphonies 5&6:
> 
> "Anyway, from the turbulent opening of the Sixth's first movement, through the radiant apotheosis of its second subject, Slatkin everywhere provides the temperament that Davis lacks. His second movement rises to a more shattering climax, and the scherzo is a true witch's cauldron (though again, no English orchestral player will ever play the saxophone solos with the bite and swing that an American can). After this much higher level of emotional intensity, the ghostly finale makes its point all the more simply, if without quite Davis's subtlety. Add to this a lovely, lyrical performance of the totally gorgeous Fifth Symphony, with a brilliantly light scherzo and rapt Romanza, and this disc offers better value than Davis's, despite the fact that the sound is not quite up to Teldec's demonstration quality. Make no mistake, I'm keeping Davis, which is quite fine in its own right, but Slatkin takes the palm."


@Brahmsianhorn. Well there you go.

It has everything to do with whether Hurwitz misunderstood or misrepresented the subtlety, nuance or whatever in the Slatkin recording, don't you think?

'Brilliantly light' and 'rapt' and 'ghostly, simply' don't sound like 'thumping, but in time and they all ended together', does it?

I think it better that I go back to ignoring your repetitive and personally-driven animus against him, anyway. Byeee.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's all fine and dandy, but it has nothing to with whether I misread starthrower's post.


Probably not, but it was written by Fanfare reviewer...David Hurwitz.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Probably not, but it was written by Fanfare reviewer...David Hurwitz.


First, I do not know that particular recording, but I can say that Hurwitz tends to like performances that are interpretively bland and merely technically good. If he hears something he likes, he will be descriptive while simultaneously discounting others' descriptive responses as not based on audible fact. He's a hypocrite, as I have pointed out before. It's okay for him to make subjective responses to music, but if other people make them and he doesn't agree, then he lectures them about how his opinion is based "audible facts" as opposed to imaginary nonsense.

Again, his own words in my exchange with him:

Hurwitz: I can explain exactly why I arrive at the conclusions I do, citing plainly audible facts, while you, on the other hand, and those like you, seem always to resort to the same nebulous nonsense about the ineffable amazingness of the whole thing. You are right, I do care about bad sound, bad playing, and bad conducting. if you don't, then, as you say, own it.

Me: I just finished pointing out how my opinion on this performance is based on the music, and how the same aspects about it that I admire are likewise widely admired, and you resort to the same simplistic Hurwitzian nonsense that all opinions contrary to yours are based on something imaginary whereas yours are based on fact. You wrote the same trite nonsense about the great Horenstein Mahler 8th - that everyone who admires it, including the patrons wildly applauding at the end, are ignorantly imagining that it is worthy while you the great Hurwitz are armed with "facts" proving it is not. You are not armed with facts. You are armed with simplicity. You reduce music to its most base level and refuse to even acknowledge that there are more complex reasons than mere clarity and precision that elicit music appreciation. The important point is that people reading your reviews understand the inherently limited standard of music appreciation from which you operate. And stop pretending that Furtwangler himself would agree with you. You know very well that his priority was on the spirit of the music and not simpleminded clarity.

Hurwitz: Ah, more metaphysial twaddle. Yes, your opinions are based on the music, it's "higher" meaning, etc, etc, etc. I've heard these tiresome explanations for decades. If you wish to believe tham, please continue to do so.

Me: I am NOT basing my opinion on metaphysial twaddle! I am basing it on the music, as I have been saying. I earlier alluded to various aspects of the recording. I don't have space here to do a full review, though a few words would already trump your simplistic "It's garbage, Nazis in the audience" analysis. The opening has the most thunderous announcement of the main theme on record, certainly eclipsing WF's own later efforts (Wand sounds conventional and tame by comparison). The climax at around 9 minutes is cataclysmic. Nothing on record approaches it. Then in the final coda WF manages to shift gears, pulling then pushing, into a ferocious conclusion. In the Adagio, everything falls into place with heartaching commitment. The main theme emerges almost imperceptibly, never more poignantly so on record. In the finale the Bruno Kittel chorus contribution is by far the finest of WF's recordings. The men on "Seid umschlungen" sing as if their hair is on fire. True, the final coda almost spirals out of control, and yet with such an emotionally draining performance it is almost appropriately frenetic. The most common criticism of this performance is that it is TOO intense and TOO extreme. IMO the extremes of emotion do full justice to the score, though I can understand others feeling differently. But we get none of this from your simpleminded analysis. You cannot even articulate the pros and cons of the performance. Commenting merely on the sound quality is amateurish.

Hurwitz: " ...on 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.

Me: Good Lord, it's music! Your own reviews are full of the same descriptive responses, even this one where you simply say modern performance practice sounds "better." In another video I heard you say something to the effect of HIP sounding like crap, and you don't like listening to crap. At the end of the day your problem is you are trying to attach "objectivity" and "facts" to your own opinions where the entire concept is fallacious and self-serving. I might even go as far as to say it disqualifies you as a reputable reviewer. And by the way, the feelings the music elicits as one listens is something that can be scientifically explained. It is not a hollow concept. It is the whole point! The bottom line is that characterizing your emotional reaction, or lack thereof, to the 1942 Furtwangler 9th as "based in fact" is asinine.

Hurwitz: 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.

Me: This is what you do, Hurwitz. When other people appreciate recordings that you do not, you cannot handle it. So you invent alternate explanations to disqualify their opinions and give yours a veil of authority. Never mind that you use the same descriptive analysis when describing recordings you happen to like. It's sophomoric. A classical music reviewer should be above that.

Hurwitz: 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.

Me: So widespread belief in the musical qualities of a performance you hate equates to belief in a religious cult? You keep saying the same thing over and over, that your opinion is based on the music, and the opinions of those who disagree with you is not. That's a load of self-absorbed crap.


----------



## Guest002

When will you get that every time you post that exchange, Hurwitz sounds almost entirely reasonable, and you sound almost entirely... well, slightly bonkers?

(Note to self: click Ignore and _mean_ it!)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> When will you get that every time you post that exchange, Hurwitz sounds almost entirely reasonable, and you sound almost entirely... well, slightly bonkers?
> 
> (Note to self: click Ignore and _mean_ it!)


I don't care how we sound. I care that I was right in exposing him as someone who hypocritically discounts others' reactions to a performance as imaginary and his own reaction as based on fact. I absolutely exposed him in that exchange. The fact that I was more emotional in the exchange does not change that truth.

Note: You respond to how we "sound" as opposed to the actual substance of the conversation


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't care how we sound. I care that I was right in exposing him as someone who hypocritically discounts others' reactions to a performance as imaginary and his own reaction as based on fact. I absolutely exposed him in that exchange. The fact that I was more emotional in the exchange does not change that truth.
> 
> Note: You respond to how we "sound" as opposed to the actual substance of the conversation


I think you misunderstand the medium. There's no sound file attached to your post. I read what you and he wrote and I drew my conclusions.

If you think you 'absolutely exposed him in that exchange', I can only politely suggest that you're delusional.

I see the disparity in logic.

If he dislikes a recording you like, he can't handle it and is peddling a load of self-absorbed crap.
But if you dislike a recording he likes, he lacks intelligence, is sophomoric and is stupid.

And all because he dared slag off a recording made by your evident hero.

I think it sad. I think you probably deserve to come across better than you do. All I can tell you is, no-one need criticise a single thing you write on the subject of Hurwitz, because you condemn yourself by everything you've posted about him here, in this very thread. It's like the Nixon tape transcripts all over again!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> But if you dislike a recording he likes, he lacks intelligence, is sophomoric and is stupid.


Completely false. His own words demonstrate how he attaches his own opinion to fact. My believing he's lacks intelligence and displays sophomoric behavior is my considered opinion not merely based on his disliking a recording. There are plenty of people on this forum who don't like the same recordings I like, and I don't think they are lacking intelligence or are sophomoric. You know why? Because they don't act the way Hurwitz does.



AbsolutelyBaching said:


> All I can tell you is, no-one need criticise a single thing you write on the subject of Hurwitz, because you condemn yourself by everything you've posted about him here, in this very thread. It's like the Nixon tape transcripts all over again!


How much is he paying you for this drivel?

.


----------



## Guest002

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Completely false. His own words demonstrate how he attaches his own opinion to fact. My believing he's lacks intelligence and displays sophomoric behavior is my considered opinion not merely based on his disliking a recording. There are plenty of people on this forum who don't like the same recordings I like, and I don't think they are lacking intelligence or are sophomoric. You know why? Because they don't act the way Hurwitz does.
> 
> How much is he paying you for this drivel?
> 
> .


Ah, back to questioning the motives of others, I see.

You've already been told the answer to this question. It hasn't changed. Neither have you, it seems.

So much for hoping.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Was looking for a good version of Britten's 3rd Quartet to buy. I noticed Naxos had a version with a 10/10 rating from Hurwitz. I listened to another one by the British Belcea Quartet. Night and day! The Naxos version sounded drab even before I heard the Belcea version. Hurwitz used only 1 reference recording which he didn't even mention in his review, and gives a 10/10.

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-3152/


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Phil loves classical said:


> Was looking for a good version of Britten's 3rd Quartet to buy... I listened to another one by the British Belcea Quartet


You can't go wrong with the Belcea, and you might also like to sample the Takács on Hyperion and the Emperor String Quartet on BIS. I enjoy all three of them in the Britten quartets, and they're all beautifully recorded.


----------



## Bulldog

Phil loves classical said:


> Was looking for a good version of Britten's 3rd Quartet to buy. I noticed Naxos had a version with a 10/10 rating from Hurwitz. I listened to another one by the British Belcea Quartet. Night and day! The Naxos version sounded drab even before I heard the Belcea version. Hurwitz used only 1 reference recording which he didn't even mention in his review, and gives a 10/10.
> 
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-3152/


The Maggini Quartet is roundly praised for its Naxos recordings of British chamber music, so it's hardly surprising that Hurwitz gives a high rating to the recording.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Phil loves classical said:


> . Hurwitz used only 1 reference recording which he didn't even mention in his review, and gives a 10/10.


Is it just me, or does it seem like Hurwitz really likes the Naxos label? He's recommended a few Naxos recordings that have left me scratching my head.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Bulldog said:


> The Maggini Quartet is roundly praised for its Naxos recordings of British chamber music, so it's hardly surprising that Hurwitz gives a high rating to the recording.


Have you listened to the Maggini recording? I've not, but I'll happily withhold judgement until I do.


----------



## Bulldog

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Have you listened to the Maggini recording? I've not, but I'll happily withhold judgement until I do.


Yes, but I'm not a big fan of the group. Actually, I'm not a fan of Britten either.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bulldog said:


> The Maggini Quartet is roundly praised for its Naxos recordings of British chamber music, so it's hardly surprising that Hurwitz gives a high rating to the recording.





Manxfeeder said:


> Is it just me, or does it seem like Hurwitz really likes the Naxos label? He's recommended a few Naxos recordings that have left me scratching my head.


I used to pick up the free Naxos catalogue from the record stores, when they were still around here (sadly no more, except for used CD's). I see some works having awards and some with high ratings, and they are probably the cream of the crop of current recordings, but I noticed a number of them don't have the individuality of a lot of "Classic" or bigger name label recordings, and the Maggini is no exception (at least compared to the Belcea and Britten Quartets to me). So for Hurwitz to have only 1 reference recording, which is not mentioned within the review for comparison, and giving out a 10 sounds kind of premature. What would the Belcea recording be? 11, 12?


----------



## AClockworkOrange

I’ve found Dave Hurwitz’s channel very useful. It has introduced me to a number of recordings I may not have heard of or considered, likewise to some pieces I may have overlooked or not encountered. I enjoy the discussions of existing Symphony Cycles and then looking at what a good Fantasy Cycle may be.

I don’t always agree with his opinions or conclusions and he does have some biases but that is true of most critics and I still respect his opinion when when he includes his reasons - again whether I agree or not. I find a different perspective quite stimulating to be honest. It can be easy to get into a rut or get tunnel vision and though I can see why some may find him a little abrasive at times, it doesn’t bother me and I find his videos largely interesting.

At the end of the day, I don’t take it too seriously - as with any reviewer in any field. He is offering his opinion or perspective. Technical points aside, there is a lot of room for subjectivity. We listen for ourselves and our tastes. He offers some interesting information and reasoning on his preferences and if nothing else at least offers a launch point for discussions or debates.


----------



## geralmar

I have just read every post in this contentious thread.

I have watched and continue to watch Mr. Hurwitz's videos and for each in a dedicated notebook religiously write down every one of his recommendations -- as well as his condemnations. That said, for five decades I have collected books, going back to the 1930s, and magazines of classical recording reviews. Mr. Hurwitz is just another recording critic and while I value his opinions they sway me neither towards nor away from a particular recording/conductor/composer/orchestra. I mostly find him amusing-- like a knowledgeable but amiable opponent in a bull session-- and am surprised he has generated such heat here. I didn't know he merited being taken so seriously.


----------



## robertzombie

I like him. He's harmless and the videos are fun. Don't take it too seriously. I do wish he'd get a better webcam though.


----------



## amfortas

I've seen a couple of his videos on opera sets. One thing I'll say: Don't look to him for accurate synopses of the plots.


----------



## perempe

Széll is one of his favorites, but can't pronounce his name.
Interested in proper pronunciation? It's not <zel>, it's <seɪl>.
https://en.glosbe.com/hu/en/szél


----------



## Kreisler jr

<seɪl> does not seem correct to me, if "eɪ" is like the vowel in face. IPA gives ɛ (as in "dress"), so <sɛl> seems closer.

And compared to the mangling of French or multi-syllable German names, his pronunciation of Szell is fairly tolerable...


----------



## perempe

Are You Hungarian? I am. Szél means wind, his family name is just written differently.
Should we pronounce his name <sel> because there's no 'é' in the English language?
I used this chart. Open the link in my previous post, so you can hear it.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I am not Hungarian but the _very site you linkend_ does give my IPA code with ɛ [the one that looks like an epsilon, if it does not appear on screen], not yours with eɪ [e + i without dot], unless this is a problem of different representations on screen. This is an exact copy/paste from the site you linked: /ˈsɛl/ 
Neither have I ever heard the latter pronunciation (eɪ) and the voice at the site you link doesn't pronounce it eɪ either. The latter sound would almost rhyme with "mail" or "pale" then which Szell does not. Either we use the common IPA or we don't...

In any case, there is only so much one can do wrong in a monosyllable and Hurwitz mangles dozens of other names worse, simply because they are longer and more complex.


----------



## perempe

It's <lake / take / bake / fake>. Another audio example.

He has no problems with Sándor Végh.


----------



## Kreisler jr

ɛ does not appear in the chart as it is rare or absent in standard english but appears in dialects, I think (the northern English pronunciation of "lake" or "bed" seems quite close to that sound). 
The duolingo pronunciation lengthens the vowel a bit (but is still is not a diphthong e-i as in "lake"), the one you linked first is closer to what I would have thought, also I usually heard it pronounced shorter. Does the double ll have no effect at all in hungarian? In many languages it would tend to shorten the preceding vowel.

I am still a bit puzzled that the first site you linked to does give both a different pronunciation and different IPA code to what you write in #546.

Anyway, I think it is a bit of a moot point as Szell lived/worked far longer in Germany and the US than in Hungary/Austria, so his name was very probably pronounced not exactly correct most of his live 
One should avoid "shell" or "zell" but the exactl "ɛ" or whatever will probably be somewhat adapted to more common e-sounds in the native language of the respective speaker but close enough to not appear as total mangling (unlike "Firtwaingler" or "Montooh")


----------



## perempe

Kreisler jr said:


> ɛ does not appear in the chart as it is rare or absent in standard english but appears in dialects, I think (the northern English pronunciation of "lake" or "bed" seems quite close to that sound).
> The duolingo pronunciation lengthens the vowel a bit (but is still is not a diphthong e-i as in "lake"), the one you linked first is closer to what I would have thought, also I usually heard it pronounced shorter. Does the double ll have no effect at all in hungarian? In many languages it would tend to shorten the preceding vowel.
> 
> I am still a bit puzzled that the first site you linked to does give both a different pronunciation and different IPA code to what you write in #546.
> 
> Anyway, I think it is a bit of a moot point as Szell lived/worked far longer in Germany and the US than in Hungary/Austria, so his name was very probably pronounced not exactly correct most of his live
> One should avoid "shell" or "zell" but the exactl "ɛ" or whatever will probably be somewhat adapted to more common e-sounds in the native language of the respective speaker but close enough to not appear as total mangling (unlike "Firtwaingler" or "Montooh")


The IPA code is not correct, but the audio sample is. The double l has no effect at all.


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm amazed at the extent of Hurwitz's popularity. The man's huge ego and huge disdain for a large number of great recordings - along with the way he rarely even bothers to acknowledge that many others revere them (apparently signalling that those people must be morons) - are intolerable to me. He does sometimes like good recordings but he also often likes recordings that are also-rans for many. Not reliable and an unpleasant personality is how I feel about him and I feel the CM world would be a better place without him.


----------



## Chilham

He certainly triggers a lot of people. :lol:

I'm surprised at the animosity.


----------



## amfortas

Chilham said:


> He certainly triggers a lot of people. :lol:
> 
> I'm surprised at the animosity.


He does provoke strong reactions. Personally, I don't think much of him as a critic. But I want to have his child.


----------



## Manxfeeder

amfortas said:


> He does provoke strong reactions. Personally, I don't think much of him as a critic. But I want to have his child.


I think you're out of luck. From piecing his comments together that he makes about his personal life, I think he's gay.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Chilham said:


> He certainly triggers a lot of people. :lol:
> 
> I'm surprised at the animosity.


Just because you have a negative opinion of someone does not mean you are "triggered." But it makes for a convenient cop out in a debate, doesn't it?

Hurwitz has come out with more videos recently where he repeats his common misguided diatribes:

- claiming that people who revere recordings pre-1950, i.e. recordings he does not care for, are delusional fanatics claiming to hear musical nuances that don't really exist (this is the type of myopic narcissism that most people outgrow in their teens). He even made the claim that it is impossible for ANY historical recording not to have been bettered in stereo, and he stated that this is a "fact," not an opinion.

- stating that his musical opinions are actually musical "facts," and that those with opposite viewpoints are imbuing recordings with imaginary qualities. Never mind that there is often widespread agreement and even consensus on these qualities. See above - myopic narcissism.

*Narcissistic personality disorder*

Narcissistic personality disorder - one of several types of personality disorders - is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they're not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them.

Treatment for narcissistic personality disorder centers around talk therapy (psychotherapy).

.


----------



## Olias

For me, he does have the two things I like in a critic:

1) He is entertaining (at least to me)

2) He isn't shy about stating opinions

BUT, I keep in mind that they are just opinions. I've agreed with some and disagreed with others...but that's okay. PLUS, his reviews have made me discover recordings I didn't know about (some of which I like very much and would not have stumbled upon had I not watched his channel). Other recommended recordings I'm not a fan of but it's up to me to make that decision. His job is to make me aware of them and give his opinion (whether I agree with it or not). For me, he does that well. If you disagree that's fine, just listen to someone else (or no one at all).


----------



## amfortas

Manxfeeder said:


> I think you're out of luck. From piecing his comments together that he makes about his personal life, I think he's gay.


Well, I'm male, so there's that in my favor. But also straight, which makes the having his child part even more problematic.


----------



## fbjim

Olias said:


> For me, he does have the two things I like in a critic:
> 
> 1) He is entertaining (at least to me)
> 
> 2) He isn't shy about stating opinions
> 
> BUT, I keep in mind that they are just opinions. I've agreed with some and disagreed with others...but that's okay. PLUS, his reviews have made me discover recordings I didn't know about (some of which I like very much and would not have stumbled upon had I not watched his channel). Other recommended recordings I'm not a fan of but it's up to me to make that decision. His job is to make me aware of them and give his opinion (whether I agree with it or not). For me, he does that well. If you disagree that's fine, just listen to someone else (or no one at all).


It kind of reminds me of the complaint - "why are you saying 'IMO', you're posting it, everyone knows it's your opinion!"

His biases are really evident which is fine. I actually think it's good for a reviewer to have their biases be obvious- it lets you know when you should and shouldn't pay attention to them, and it's better than if they try to dispassionately review something they clearly dislike.

One film critic I like hates, hates, hates Bergman, and gave low ratings to almost all of his films. Bergman to him represents almost every stylistic trope he dislikes about a certain period of film- I find these reviews interesting to read (because it's rare for anyone to say much bad about Bergman) but because he's very up-front about disliking Bergman, I also know that the reviews are from the perspective of someone whose tastes in art are almost oppositional to Bergman's, and not an "unbiased, objective" view.


----------



## fbjim

perempe said:


> Are You Hungarian? I am. Szél means wind, his family name is just written differently.
> Should we pronounce his name <sel> because there's no 'é' in the English language?
> I used this chart. Open the link in my previous post, so you can hear it.


now i'm concerned, Fricsay is "free-choy", right? that's how i've always said it


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> His biases are really evident which is fine. I actually think it's good for a reviewer to have their biases be obvious- it lets you know when you should and shouldn't pay attention to them, and it's better than if they try to dispassionately review something they clearly dislike.


I am very opinionated. I like people to express their opinions. That's why I participate in forums. But with Hurwitz it is a lecture, not a conversation. And he will outright insult people whose tastes differ from his, even creating videos to convince the public they should dismiss and ignore people with viewpoints and tastes he doesn't share. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of classical music. He has the platform to himself, and he uses it to paint anyone who disagrees with him as inferior. There's a certain sickness to that.

Anyone who paints his own artistic preference as "based in fact" has aims beyond just informing and assisting the public. He wants to be seen as superior.


----------



## Parley

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I am very opinionated. I like people to express their opinions. That's why I participate in forums. But with Hurwitz it is a lecture, not a conversation. And he will outright insult people whose tastes differ from his, even creating videos to convince the public they should dismiss and ignore people with viewpoints and tastes he doesn't share. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of classical music. He has the platform to himself, and he uses it to paint anyone who disagrees with him as inferior. There's a certain sickness to that.
> 
> Anyone who paints his own artistic preference as "based in fact" has aims beyond just informing and assisting the public. He wants to be seen as superior.


I was listening to BBC record review and it is amusing the way the critics give a completely different list of 'best' recordings. Of course it is inevitable but we need to acknowledge this.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *Narcissistic personality disorder*


https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...sists-dating-attractiveness-flattery-charisma
"*They deeply believe in their own attractiveness*
Narcissists are good-looking. Or, perhaps more importantly, they believe that they are - and this belief plays a role in how they move through the world: confident in their ability to make other people want to have sex with them."


----------



## fbjim

I remember a recent article making fun of a Gramophone list of Bach recordings where like 8 of the top ten were British or English speaking "commonwealth" artists. I definitely don't think he invented the canard that Gramophone had that bias. Of course, everyone has their biases, but I tend to prefer it when reviewers express them more or less openly.


It may just be preference, really. I like it when reviewers come off as fully confident about their own views, even if those views strike me as wrongheaded, weird, or just strange. If someone takes his word as gospel, that's a personal failing- reviewers are nice and are good for providing context to a work, but one's own ears and tastes rule over everything else.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Parley said:


> I was listening to BBC record review and it is amusing the way the critics give a completely different list of 'best' recordings. Of course it is inevitable but we need to acknowledge this.


A big part of his agenda is that he feels threatened by the British reviewers, which frankly have always constituted the center of the classical music reviewing world, and feels the need to try and upstage them. He often goes into a mock British voice while putting down British musicians.


----------



## Charlie Mac

I think part of the problem with Hurwitz is that he has a platform, and a name, and that is clearly something that a lot of classical music fans don't have. He is also very blunt and dismissive of recordings/conductors he doesn't like. But there are lots of people who post reviews of classical music on Amazon who do the exact same thing. Why is Hurwitz more vexing to people? Because he has a bigger platform. That's it.

If you love a certain recording, such as the Furtwängler Beethoven 9th from 1942, then someone coming along with his YouTube channel and subscribers and saying it's total crap is annoying. Very annoying. But that doesn't mean he's not allowed to say so.

With that particular recording in mind, he goes to great lengths to specifically point out aspects of it that he considers musically poor. So he will obviously believe that anyone who likes that recording is ignoring what he considers to be strong evidence against it. I don't get the impression he is criticising that recording just to annoy people who like it - he genuinely believes it's weak.

He hates Currentzis, but there are also those who like Currentzis and his approach. Who is right and who is wrong? However, I don't expect someone in Hurwitz's position to be wishy-washy about it; I would expect him to be fairly blunt. If you like Currentzis and his take on Mozart, being outraged that Hurwitz hates the guy is pointless. He has presented his reasons why he doesn't like Currentzis; if those reasons don't matter to you, that's called a difference of opinion. 

I don't know why people go so far as to suggest Hurwitz 'can't be trusted', etc.


----------



## Parley

Charlie Mac said:


> I think part of the problem with Hurwitz is that he has a platform, and a name, and that is clearly something that a lot of classical music fans don't have. He is also very blunt and dismissive of recordings/conductors he doesn't like. But there are lots of people who post reviews of classical music on Amazon who do the exact same thing. Why is Hurwitz more vexing to people? Because he has a bigger platform. That's it.
> 
> If you love a certain recording, such as the Furtwängler Beethoven 9th from 1942, then someone coming along with his YouTube channel and subscribers and saying it's total crap is annoying. Very annoying. But that doesn't mean he's not allowed to say so.
> 
> With that particular recording in mind, he goes to great lengths to specifically point out aspects of it that he considers musically poor. So he will obviously believe that anyone who likes that recording is ignoring what he considers to be strong evidence against it. I don't get the impression he is criticising that recording just to annoy people who like it - he genuinely believes it's weak.
> 
> He hates Currentzis, but there are also those who like Currentzis and his approach. Who is right and who is wrong? However, I don't expect someone in Hurwitz's position to be wishy-washy about it; I would expect him to be fairly blunt. If you like Currentzis and his take on Mozart, being outraged that Hurwitz hates the guy is pointless. He has presented his reasons why he doesn't like Currentzis; if those reasons don't matter to you, that's called a difference of opinion.
> 
> I don't know why people go so far as to suggest Hurwitz 'can't be trusted', etc.


Absolutely right. The guy gives his opinion AND reasons for it. Of course whether you agree with it or not is up to you. And whether you agree with any other music critic is up to you.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Parley said:


> I was listening to BBC record review and it is amusing the way the critics give a completely different list of 'best' recordings. Of course it is inevitable but we need to acknowledge this.


Why wouldn't they give different recordings as 'the best'? Wouldn't we all? What has this got to do with anything? Why do 'we need to acknowledge this'?

A lack of consensus makes someone wrong, does it?

Of course not.


----------



## Parley

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A big part of his agenda is that he feels threatened by the British reviewers, which frankly have always constituted the center of the classical music reviewing world, and feels the need to try and upstage them. He often goes into a mock British voice while putting down British musicians.


I don't think so. I just think he tries to give an amusing review. Whether of course you think it's amusing he's up to you. He's a bit like Norman Lebrecht who has a following yet irritates a whole lot of people


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A big part of his agenda is that he feels threatened by the British reviewers, which frankly have always constituted the center of the classical music reviewing world, and feels the need to try and upstage them. He often goes into a mock British voice while putting down British musicians.


No.

Australians often express the exact same sort of dismissal of the British and what they perceive to be British ideas ('poms', to be precise, in the case of Aussies). I imagine some Americans see the British in a similar way. He has probably noticed certain trends in the British press over the years and is now using his platform on YouTube to caricature them.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> No.
> 
> Australians often express the exact same sort of dismissal of the British and what they perceive to be British ideas ('poms', to be precise, in the case of Aussies). I imagine some Americans see the British in a similar way. He has probably noticed certain trends in the British press over the years and is now using his platform on YouTube to caricature them.


I'm American and don't feel the least bit threatened by the British or feel the need to caricature them.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Knorf said:


> Except there are a couple things you can count on: he hates period instruments, and he hates HIP in general.


Incorrect.

He hates period instruments in certain repertoire, yes. But he at other times praises period instrument-based recordings, for some works that he thinks can take the approach, and many of the recordings he praises are most definitely historically informed (HIP).


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm American and don't feel the least bit threatened by the British or feel the need to caricature them.


Well, good for you. But it doesn't mean that others don't. People throughout the 'New World' like to take the mickey out of the Brits. It's commonplace. I've seen it countless times, in many contexts. The fact you don't do it personally doesn't really change that.

It's because we used to be in charge, long ago, in America and (more recently) Australia.

The legacy of that is that it's considered good sport to poke fun at British people. I don't think 'feeling threatened' has anything whatsoever to do with it.


----------



## Charlie Mac

People are also missing the point that provoking reaction is a huge component of social media success.

The more controversial things you say, the more recordings you criticise or ignore, the more comments you get. All of which drives your algorithms and prominence.


----------



## Parley

Charlie Mac said:


> Why wouldn't they give different recordings as 'the best'? Wouldn't we all? What has this got to do with anything? Why do 'we need to acknowledge this'?
> 
> A lack of consensus makes someone wrong, does it?
> 
> Of course not.


Yes but the BBC always announce it as 'the best recording'.


----------



## Parley

Charlie Mac said:


> Well, good for you. But it doesn't mean that others don't. People throughout the 'New World' like to take the mickey out of the Brits. It's commonplace. I've seen it countless times, in many contexts. The fact you don't do it personally doesn't really change that.
> 
> It's because we used to be in charge, long ago, in America and (more recently) Australia.
> 
> The legacy of that is that it's considered good sport to poke fun at British people. I don't think 'feeling threatened' has anything whatsoever to do with it.


There is usually more culture in yoghurt than in Aussies so that's why Hurwitz has to shout so loud!


----------



## Charlie Mac

Parley said:


> Yes but the BBC always announce it as 'the best recording'.


Yes, but so do most sites/reviews/forum members. It's just a phrase, that anyone is likely to use when discussing what they consider to be 'the best recording' of something.


----------



## Charlie Mac

If you are on a radio show about 'building a library', of course you are going to refer to something as 'the best recording'. The idea is that we all understand it's still subjective. I don't know why people get so uptight unless absolutely everything is prefixed with 'in my humble opinion...'

Of course it's just an opinion. If someone thinks something is 'the best', why can't they use that phrase? Just because it upsets someone who thinks something else is 'the best'?!


----------



## Charlie Mac

Parley said:


> There is usually more culture in yoghurt than in Aussies so that's why Hurwitz has to shout so loud!


This doesn't make sense.


----------



## Bulldog

Charlie Mac said:


> The legacy of that is that it's considered good sport to poke fun at British people.


Actually, it's childish behavior exhibited by those displaying the maturity of kids in school. Get a grip.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bulldog said:


> Actually, it's childish behavior exhibited by those displaying the maturity of kids in school. Get a grip.


I go back again to the Rush Limbaugh comparison. People always said Rush was just being funny as he displayed bigoted views. But beneath the humor was insecurity and contempt.

Hurwitz has good reason to be insecure. He is not on par with the British reviewers. A big part of his shtick is trying to be a "man of the people" by eschewing nuance and intellectualism. It's simple immaturity trying to find a niche for himself.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> If you love a certain recording, such as the Furtwängler Beethoven 9th from 1942, then someone coming along with his YouTube channel and subscribers and saying it's total crap is annoying. Very annoying. But that doesn't mean he's not allowed to say so.


He doesn't see the recording's virtues, which is perfectly fine. There are plenty of people who don't appreciate pre-1950 recordings, particularly live ones.

Where he crosses the line is in calling the people who do see the virtues of that recording "delusional cultists" who merely imagine what they hear based on the presence of Nazis in the audience. He is remarkably immature and myopic for a classical music reviewer.

.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm American and don't feel the least bit threatened by the British or feel the need to caricature them.


I don't think that it is mainly a feeling of threat. Since I first got into anglophone internet fora about classical music in ca. 1995 it was common to poke fun at the stuffy and quaint British reviewers and their huge pro-British biases that were expressed in the dominating publications such as Gramophone, Penguin Guide etc. Such mockery did not only come from Americans. 
It's a bit silly by Hurwitz to keep doing this as these print media hardly matter anymore and their authors are mostly dead.

Of course such bickering is especially funny from central Europe because the cheek of the "Land ohne Musik" to stage itself as "center of the classical music reviewing world" (or rather without the "reviewing") certainly deserves the mockery.


----------



## Chilham

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He doesn't see the recording's virtues, which is perfectly fine. There are plenty of people who don't appreciate pre-1950 recordings, particularly live ones.
> 
> Where he crosses the line is in calling the people who do see the virtues of that recording "delusional cultists" who merely imagine what they hear based on the presence of Nazis in the audience. He is remarkably immature and myopic for a classical music reviewer.
> 
> .


Do you need a hug?


----------



## Charlie Mac

Bulldog said:


> Actually, it's childish behavior exhibited by those displaying the maturity of kids in school. Get a grip.


You're using expressions like 'get a grip' towards those with a different perspective, while calling others out for being 'childish' because they don't respond as well as you think they should to those with a different perspective?

Interesting approach.

Incidentally, I've lived in Australia, and it's absolutely the case that it's part of their culture to poke fun at/stereotype British people. I think Hurwitz is doing something broadly similar; it's just a new world/old world thing.

I stand by my remarks. Thank you, all the same, for your advice.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He doesn't see the recording's virtues, which is perfectly fine. There are plenty of people who don't appreciate pre-1950 recordings, particularly live ones.
> 
> Where he crosses the line is in calling the people who do see the virtues of that recording "delusional cultists" who merely imagine what they hear based on the presence of Nazis in the audience. He is remarkably immature and myopic for a classical music reviewer.
> 
> .


He often expresses himself using hyperbole, yes. But so do a number of well-known reviewers on Amazon, and so do a lot of critics, in general. So do a lot of people on these boards.

His point that people are swayed by the 'mystique' or 'historical context' that surrounds something is hardly unique, and hardly controversial. People are indeed influenced by such things, all the time. There are plenty of rock/pop albums, plenty of films, plenty of books, where the context of how it came into being, or what was happening to the band/director/writer at the time, has very plainly influenced how the end product is viewed.

At the end of the day, if Hurwitz bothers you, the solution is simple: switch off/unsubscribe.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Where he crosses the line is in calling the people who do see the virtues of that recording "delusional cultists" who merely imagine what they hear based on the presence of Nazis in the audience. He is remarkably immature and myopic for a classical music reviewer.


I think that you're wasting far too much psychic energy fretting about what Hurwitz thinks.


----------



## Parley

Charlie Mac said:


> This doesn't make sense.


it was a joke! ..


----------



## Parley

wkasimer said:


> I think that you're wasting far too much psychic energy fretting about what Hurwitz thinks.


Agreed! When people use phrases like that it is time for the OFF switch


----------



## fbjim

Charlie Mac said:


> He often expresses himself using hyperbole, yes. But so do a number of well-known reviewers on Amazon, and so do a lot of critics, in general. So do a lot of people on these boards.


It's not a writing style I particularly care for but I think Charles Rosen does something similar - make a big sweeping generalization as a "hook" when the actual argument is more reasonable and measured.

Personally I like it when he's talking about someone he's biased toward in a *positive* way - I love seeing anyone get enthusiastic about anything and it's nice to see him stumping for Dvorak and Mendelssohn.


----------



## Enthusiast

If Hurwitz was a member here then he would have been banned long ago.


----------



## wkasimer

Enthusiast said:


> If Hurwitz was a member here then he would have been banned long ago.


If you're correct - but I think that you are not - that would be a pity.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> At the end of the day, if Hurwitz bothers you, the solution is simple: switch off/unsubscribe.


As I said at the beginning of this exchange, having a negative opinion of someone is not the same as being bothered or triggered. Apparently my opinion of him bothers you, however.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> I think that you're wasting far too much psychic energy fretting about what Hurwitz thinks.


I think you're wasting too much psychic energy fretting about what I think about what Hurwitz thinks.



wkasimer said:


> If you're correct - but I think that you are not - that would be a pity.


Precisely. All opinions should be shared and respected.

But that goes back to my earlier point. Hurwitz is not interested in opinions or sharing of perspectives as we have here. He wants one thing - a platform where his ideas are treated as fact and not challenged. That's why he effectively demonizes those with a different perspective. His ulterior message is "Don't listen to anyone except me. I am the ultimate authority."

.


----------



## fbjim

I do agree that his hyperbole is off-putting sometimes, though that's also part of the humor to an extent. I don't really see why a reviewer should be expected to provide platforms for people with differing perspectives- if I want another perspective, I'll read another one, and frequently do. There are many writers I know who adore Furtwangler and stump hard for period instruments - I don't expect them to provide platforms for people who don't like those things. 

I do think the hyperbole is a shame because re: Furtwanger, it covers up what is a fundamentally reasonable argument - that a) arguments for wartime recordings focus excessively on exegetic factors which aren't actually in the music, and b) the cult of old maestros is harmful because it gives the impression that all the greatest recordings have already been made, and any new ones can't possibly measure up - the latter, especially, is the one I think he's most passionate about.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> As I said at the beginning of this exchange, having a negative opinion of someone is not the same as being bothered or triggered. Apparently my opinion of him bothers you, however.


"Bothers" is very much the wrong term, actually.

I mainly think you're making a big deal out of next to nothing. I think others here concur, too.

He personally offended you and criticised a recording you love, and now you can't let it go.

You might be aware of a noted reviewer on Amazon who often makes reference to the year and circumstances of historical recordings. The idea that people are influenced by such things when they listen to music is perfectly reasonable, and perfectly true.

Journalists and writers often use hyperbole and generalisations to make a point. It seems that you got personally offended by Hurwitz but you ought to be able to put it in context and move on.

You talk constantly of immaturity, but the person having a prolonged tantrum, a year later, over the matter is you, not Hurwitz.


----------



## fbjim

I don't want to speak for him, and frankly give the impression that I have more invested in a fairly entertaining Youtube channel than I actually do, but the impression I get on his "worldview" is a sort of "just listen to the music" view that rejects mythology- which is why he dislikes historical recording community members who he sees as being more invested in the thrill of finding "holy grail" recordings than actually listening to them, or people who he sees as being more concerned with authenticity than aesthetics. 

A lot of this is definitely unfair generalizations, of course. But I do have sympathy that as far as evaluating music goes, aesthetic pleasure should be paramount. I think the disagreement with him is that you can absolutely get aesthetic pleasure out of listening to an old recording in poor quality sound - he just happens not to.

(like I said- as far as his biases go, there's a reason I find it more fun for him to stump for composers or conductors he's passionate about than to complain about HIP or Furtwangler for the nth time)


----------



## Charlie Mac

I think his point is that it's not merely the sound of the 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th that's poor; it's the performance itself.


----------



## fbjim

Charlie Mac said:


> I think his point is that it's not merely the sound of the 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th that's poor; it's the performance itself.


and I think many would argue that an "objectively" flawed performance can be aesthetically great. (I mean, Charles Ives's worldview as a composer was based on this). but that's not his worldview as a critic, and there's no real reason I can see that he needs to present that view for some principle of "fairness" rather than simply put his opinion out there


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think you're wasting too much psychic energy fretting about what I think about what Hurwitz thinks.


Possibly. But there's a difference between one sentence and several dozen posts.


----------



## Agamenon

That channel isn´t a good reference for newcomers in classical music.

Take for example, Mr Hurwitzs comments about some composers and key works:

1. Beethoven´s third symphony: a bad symphony, bad written, etc.
2. Bach´s vocal music and passions: rigid, harsh, boring...
3. Wagner: nasty.
etc, etc, etc

Yes, he is free to express anything, but for newcomers, those kind of assessments are harmful, very harmful. Newcomers are sensitive and believe in people who are famous both in the social media and in the web, as well.

*One of my friends (newcomer) decided to exclude Bach forever because Mr Hurwitzs said "boring" and....blah, blah,...*


----------



## fbjim

like- this is not the New York Times drama critic*, or even Roger Ebert- he isn't going to end careers. He's a dude with an old classical review site and one opinion among many. I think people are overrating his "platform" when suggesting that he's damaging the art or something

*the NYT drama critic is probably one of the few critics who can straight up end a career if they want to- I don't think any performing art has a critic with as much influence as that



Agamenon said:


> *One of my friends (newcomer) decided to exclude Bach forever because Mr Hurwitzs said "boring" and....blah, blah,...*


you should tell your friends to listen and judge for themselves, hah. I actually think it's good for newcomers to know that it's OK to dislike canonical classics, and that there isn't a deficiency in their brains if they think the Mozart Requiem is boring.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> "Bothers" is very much the wrong term, actually.
> 
> I mainly think you're making a big deal out of next to nothing. I think others here concur, too.
> 
> He personally offended you and criticised a recording you love, and now you can't let it go.
> 
> You might be aware of a noted reviewer on Amazon who often makes reference to the year and circumstances of historical recordings. The idea that people are influenced by such things when they listen to music is perfectly reasonable, and perfectly true.
> 
> Journalists and writers often use hyperbole and generalisations to make a point. It seems that you got personally offended by Hurwitz but you ought to be able to put it in context and move on.
> 
> You talk constantly of immaturity, but the person having a prolonged tantrum, a year later, over the matter is you, not Hurwitz.


You are completely distorting my position and trying to personally attack and discredit me.

My issues with Hurwitz as a reviewer extend way beyond his review of one recording or our personal interaction. And my issue with regard to that one recording is not his opinion of it but the way he distorts and misrepresents the opinions of those who think it's a great recording. I have had this opinion on Hurwitz for decades.

If you don't share my opinion, just say so and leave it at that. Why the personal attacks?


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are completely distorting my position and trying to personally attack and discredit me.
> 
> My issues with Hurwitz as a reviewer extend way beyond his review of one recording or our personal interaction. And my issue with regard to that one recording is not his opinion of it but the way he distorts and misrepresents the opinions of those who think it's a great recording. I have had this opinion on Hurwitz for decades.
> 
> If you don't share my opinion, just say so and leave it at that. Why the personal attacks?


I don't see that you've been "personally attacked" by anyone, and certainly not me. I only mention maturity because it's a concept you've been throwing around in your posts, in a way that doesn't exactly seem, well, mature.

You do seem somewhat oversensitive, which does seem to be a theme here.

And the fact your ill-feeling apparently extends to "decades" only serves to further reduce the relative rationality of it.


----------



## Parley

Agamenon said:


> That channel isn´t a good reference for newcomers in classical music.
> 
> Take for example, Mr Hurwitzs comments about some composers and key works:
> 
> 1. Beethoven´s third symphony: a bad symphony, bad written, etc.
> 2. Bach´s vocal music and passions: rigid, harsh, boring...
> 3. Wagner: nasty.
> etc, etc, etc
> 
> Yes, he is free to express anything, but for newcomers, those kind of assessments are harmful, very harmful. Newcomers are sensitive and believe in people who are famous both in the social media and in the web, as well.
> 
> *One of my friends (newcomer) decided to exclude Bach forever because Mr Hurwitzs said "boring" and....blah, blah,...*


Yes comments at least like 1 and 2 prove the man is a musical idiot. If one thinks such things one is a fool to say them. Beethoven's 3 is an acknowledged iconoclastic masterpiece by just about every musician. If one finds Bach boring it is generally to do with one's own musical inadequacies. But if Hurtwitz wants to parade his inanities on a YouTube channel he is free to do so.


----------



## Kreisler jr

to be fair, I think these points are somewhat too condensed/distorted summaries of things Hurwitz might have said. He is usually a bit more respectful at least to classics (not to musicians he dislikes).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> And the fact your ill-feeling apparently extends to "decades" only serves to further reduce the relative rationality of it.


This is a perfect example of a personal attack.

First you distort my position as "ill-feeling" as opposed to an objective opinion on his reviews and reviewing style. You then insinuate that this is a personal vendetta on my part that lacks rationality.

You have no basis to say any of this. I could have told you in 2003 just as easily now why I think Hurwitz's reviews are simple-minded, lacking nuance and intelligence, and arrogantly dismissive of tastes he does not appreciate. Further I think this is destructive for classical music when he has such a visible public platform.

Having this opinion does not make me irrational just because you don't agree. Resorting to personal attacks on me does however call into question your own maturity level.

.


----------



## fbjim

Ironically, I think "if you find Bach boring it's due to your own musical inadequacies" is the precise kind of attitude that there could stand to be less of in classical music criticism.


----------



## Bulldog

Parley said:


> Yes comments at least like 1 and 2 prove the man is a musical idiot. If one thinks such things one is a fool to say them. Beethoven's 3 is an acknowledged iconoclastic masterpiece by just about every musician. If one finds Bach boring it is generally to do with one's own musical inadequacies.


Hurwitz is not a musical idiot, it's okay to not like Beethoven's 3rd, and it's also okay to find Bach boring.

FWIW, Bach is by far my favorite composer.


----------



## Parley

Bulldog said:


> Hurwitz is not a musical idiot, it's okay to not like Beethoven's 3rd, and it's also okay to find Bach boring.
> 
> FWIW, Bach is by far my favorite composer.


It is not Okay to say it though unless you want to make a fool of yourself. Like Gould saying Mozart died too late rather than too early.


----------



## fbjim

I can pull up all sorts of composers, performers and conductors saying nasty things about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Debussy, etc etc. It seems like most people involved in actually making classical music didn't have some sort of venerating, elevated view of the Great Works - they saw them as artistic works which could be criticized like any other.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> I think his point is that it's not merely the sound of the 1942 Furtwangler Beethoven 9th that's poor; it's the performance itself.


And what does he say about the performance itself? Does he give us any insight as to the interpretation at all?

All he says is that the sound is terrible (it's actually pretty tolerable for a live 1942 performance, objectively speaking) and that there are mistakes of intonation here and there. That's it. He tells us absolutely zero about the interpretation. It is basic, sophomoric level analysis, which is why I think Hurwitz is such a terrible reviewer.

If I said, for example, that the opening statement of the main theme is the most violent, thunderous I have ever heard, his response is that it is just what I am imagining and that the "facts" of the performance are that the instruments are not entirely together. This is caveman stuff which most importantly does not provide any real guidance to the listener. The most most common negative critique of this performance is that it is too extreme, intense, and violent. Even that sort of analysis is beyond what Hurwitz can give you.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Parley said:


> Yes comments at least like 1 and 2 prove the man is a musical idiot. If one thinks such things one is a fool to say them. Beethoven's 3 is an acknowledged iconoclastic masterpiece by just about every musician. If one finds Bach boring it is generally to do with one's own musical inadequacies. But if Hurtwitz wants to parade his inanities on a YouTube channel he is free to do so.


You and others must have watched a different video to me.

He didn't say anything remarkably negative about the Eroica other than that it wasn't until the 4th Symphony that LvB mastered the art of all the movements, specifically the final movement, which he found some flaws with in the case of the 3rd Symphony. I'd say that is entirely reasonable, frankly, whether you agree or not with his conclusions.

He doesn't dismiss Bach in anything like the sweeping way being portrayed here, so that's also incorrect and again I have to conclude that you've either not really watched or not fully understood the videos in question. He has entire videos dedicated to things like the Passions, so to suggest he thinks Bach is "boring" is plainly wrong.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I am pretty certain that Hurwitz never earnestly said anything as shallow as that Bach is boring (or even just the Passions). He conceded that he does not really connect personally to the Passions, partly because he is not religious but he certainly didn't dismiss them as boring.
He has said very shallow stuff about lieder, though. I had a row with him about that more than 10 years ago but he is still of the same opinion. He has sang in choirs as a student, so I would not extend the caution to all vocal music but I personally don't give much for his opinion in any vocal music or opera neither anything before Haydn or after ca. 1940.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> Ironically, I think "if you find Bach boring it's due to your own musical inadequacies" is the precise kind of attitude that there could stand to be less of in classical music criticism.


He once did a review of Bach's Brandenburgs where he tossed the CDs around and said they all sound the same. He has no capacity for hearing even the most basic nuance. If you share his opinion, good for you. I certainly do not.


----------



## fbjim

If you want something really nasty about Mozart, check out what Ives said about him...


----------



## Enthusiast

Agamenon said:


> That channel isn´t a good reference for newcomers in classical music.
> 
> Take for example, Mr Hurwitzs comments about some composers and key works:
> 
> 1. Beethoven´s third symphony: a bad symphony, bad written, etc.
> 2. Bach´s vocal music and passions: rigid, harsh, boring...
> 3. Wagner: nasty.
> etc, etc, etc
> 
> Yes, he is free to express anything, but for newcomers, those kind of assessments are harmful, very harmful. Newcomers are sensitive and believe in people who are famous both in the social media and in the web, as well.
> 
> *One of my friends (newcomer) decided to exclude Bach forever because Mr Hurwitzs said "boring" and....blah, blah,...*


Yes, critics have a responsibility arising from the influence they have, particularly on people in the early part of their classical journey. I can remember my own early days and the influence that critics had on what I listened to and probably even what I liked. Most serious critics manage to express their criticisms without putting down those who disagree and without claiming that theirs is the only acceptable position. True critics are rigorous and yet also leave things open enough that readers can hear that there may be other justifiable views.

It would be so easy to be a Hurwitz - just shout out your prejudices and never mind respecting the many better informed people who would disagree - and so damaging. He is entitled to his own views and prejudices, of course, as are we all. But, look at this site over an extended time, most of us struggle with our own prejudices and often overcome them. Most of us are better critics and more entitled to the term that Hurwitz is.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Kreisler jr said:


> I am pretty certain that Hurwitz never earnestly said anything as shallow as that Bach is boring (or even just the Passions). He conceded that he does not really connect personally to the Passions, partly because he is not religious but he certainly didn't dismiss them as boring.
> He has said very shallow stuff about lieder, though. I had a row with him about that more than 10 years ago but he is still of the same opinion. He has sang in choirs as a student, so I would not extend the caution to all vocal music but I personally don't give much for his opinion in any vocal music or opera neither anything before Haydn or after ca. 1940.


He thinks that Lieder is a poor substitute for modern pop songs. Again, he is phrasing his views in a deliberately provocative way, but there is a reasonable point behind it, nonetheless.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He once did a review of Bach's Brandenburgs where he tossed the CDs around and said they all sound the same. He has no capacity for hearing even the most basic nuance. If you share his opinion, good for you. I certainly do not.


I find it astonishing that you take him so literally. Is that how you interpret everything and everyone?


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is a perfect example of a personal attack.
> 
> First you distort my position as "ill-feeling" as opposed to an objective opinion on his reviews and reviewing style. You then insinuate that this is a personal vendetta on my part that lacks rationality.
> 
> You have no basis to say any of this. I could have told you in 2003 just as easily now why I think Hurwitz's reviews are simple-minded, lacking nuance and intelligence, and arrogantly dismissive of tastes he does not appreciate. Further I think this is destructive for classical music when he has such a visible public platform.
> 
> Having this opinion does not make me irrational just because you don't agree. Resorting to personal attacks on me does however call into question your own maturity level.
> 
> .


And there you go again. Oh dear. Have a lie down, mate.


----------



## Kreisler jr

No, there is no reasonable point there. It's about as valid a point as the claim that symphonic poems like Vltava or Alpensinfonie were a poor substitute for modern film music. Hurwitz is just being a provocative idiot wrt Lieder. (And like in the case of Bach passions it simply seems a genre he personally does not connect with, not enough tam tam strokes,I guess.)


----------



## Charlie Mac

Kreisler jr said:


> No, there is no reasonable point there. It's about as valid a point as the claim that symphonic poems like Vltava or Alpensinfonie were a poor substitute for modern film music. Hurwitz is just being a provocative idiot wrt Lieder.


Yes, there is. He doesn't like Lieder. He is allowed not to like a particular genre of classical music. He expresses it in an over the top way, yes, but it is entirely reasonable for him, or anyone, to dislike Lieder. If you love it, perhaps it offends you, but that's ultimately not relevant.


----------



## fbjim

He's absolutely said stuff I've found overly dogmatic or just wrong before. What I don't get is the idea that he has a "responsibility" to platform other views on things when he's expressing his own opinion. If I want another viewpoint, I'll read other viewpoints, which I frequently do.


----------



## Charlie Mac

fbjim said:


> He's absolutely said stuff I've found overly dogmatic or just wrong before. What I don't get is the idea that he has a "responsibility" to platform other views on things when he's expressing his own opinion. If I want another viewpoint, I'll read other viewpoints, which I frequently do.


Precisely correct. It simply seems, reading this thread, that when someone's pet recording or genre or composer or conductor gets critiqued by Hurwitz, some listeners can't cope with that and have to argue the point with him.

Hurwitz, justifiably, refuses to back down and then the people he's upset head over to these forums to have a good old moan about it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> He's absolutely said stuff I've found overly dogmatic or just wrong before. What I don't get is the idea that he has a "responsibility" to platform other views on things when he's expressing his own opinion. If I want another viewpoint, I'll read other viewpoints, which I frequently do.


He doesn't have a responsibility to anyone. He's just a lousy critic with a huge ego.


----------



## perempe

Agamenon said:


> That channel isn´t a good reference for newcomers in classical music.
> 
> Take for example, Mr Hurwitzs comments about some composers and key works:
> 
> 1. Beethoven´s third symphony: a bad symphony, bad written, etc.
> 2. Bach´s vocal music and passions: rigid, harsh, boring...
> 3. Wagner: nasty.
> etc, etc, etc
> 
> Yes, he is free to express anything, but for newcomers, those kind of assessments are harmful, very harmful. Newcomers are sensitive and believe in people who are famous both in the social media and in the web, as well.
> 
> *One of my friends (newcomer) decided to exclude Bach forever because Mr Hurwitzs said "boring" and....blah, blah,...*


I also find Bach boring in general, but would never say such things on my channel if I had one.

I'll listen to Delius' Florida Suite, a piece he recommended yesterday.


----------



## Parley

Charlie Mac said:


> You and others must have watched a different video to me.
> 
> He didn't say anything remarkably negative about the Eroica other than that it wasn't until the 4th Symphony that LvB mastered the art of all the movements, specifically the final movement, which he found some flaws with in the case of the 3rd Symphony. I'd say that is entirely reasonable, frankly, whether you agree or not with his conclusions.
> 
> He doesn't dismiss Bach in anything like the sweeping way being portrayed here, so that's also incorrect and again I have to conclude that you've either not really watched or not fully understood the videos in question. He has entire videos dedicated to things like the Passions, so to suggest he thinks Bach is "boring" is plainly wrong.


The problem is that in an effort to be entertaining he makes statements which make him look foolish. I can't point the exact videos but oh dear!


----------



## Charlie Mac

perempe said:


> I also find Bach boring in general, but would never say such things on my channel if I had one.
> 
> I'll listen to Delius' Florida Suite, a piece he recommended yesterday.


Why not? You'd pretend to hold views you don't really have?

Since when is that what music critics do? Rock critics are the same. When they hate something, they say so. They don't hold back for fear of offending someone who might read it and get all hurt over it. Plenty of rock critics hate Queen, and happily say so, even though they are among the most popular bands ever. It's part of what music critics do. If you don't like that, then you don't understand the role of the critic.

People here saying 'I'd never say that sort of thing, and I'd be a much better music critic than Hurwitz as a result' are missing almost all the point.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Parley said:


> The problem is that in an effort to be entertaining he makes statements which make him look foolish. I can't point the exact videos but oh dear!


He looks foolish only in the eyes of those who a) take him way too seriously and b) get far too easily offended by what he says.

Take his expression with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Parley

fbjim said:


> If you want something really nasty about Mozart, check out what Ives said about him...


Charles Ives had no use for Mozart, Haydn Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and Wagner. Mind you, I have no use for his music!


----------



## perempe

Charlie Mac said:


> Why not? You'd pretend to hold views you don't really have?
> 
> Since when is that what music critics do? Rock critics are the same. When they hate something, they say so. They don't hold back for fear of offending someone who might read it and get all hurt over it.


Let people decide what's boring and what's not. Some might take his opinion (on respected works) as fact.


----------



## Charlie Mac

perempe said:


> Let people decide what's boring and what's not. Some might take his opinion (on respected works) as fact.


Yes, of course. It is up to everyone to decide what they like.

Why do you and others a) think that Hurwitz expects people not to listen and choose for themselves, and b) think that it's the job of a critic to please everyone and sit on the fence?

Sorry, but if someone is actually daft enough to read or listen to something on the Internet and unflinchingly "take it as fact", that is entirely their problem. I find it remarkable that people are, apparently, so unable to filter information they receive.


----------



## perempe

Charlie Mac said:


> Yes, of course. It is up to everyone to decide what they like.
> 
> Why do you and others a) think that Hurwitz expects people not to listen and choose for themselves, and b) think that it's the job of a critic to please everyone and sit on the fence?
> 
> Sorry, but if someone is actually daft enough to read or listen to something on the Internet and unflinchingly "take it as fact", that is entirely their problem. I find it remarkable that people are, apparently, so unable to filter information they receive.


Some people new to classical music might only watch his channel instead of reading books to explore new pieces. Agamenon wrote a good example.


----------



## wkasimer

Charlie Mac said:


> It simply seems, reading this thread, that when someone's pet recording or genre or composer or conductor gets critiqued by Hurwitz, some listeners can't cope with that and have to argue the point with him.


I've participated on numerous CM forums over several decades, and this is a phenomenon that I've seen over and over; it's particularly noticeable on opera forums. When person A writes a harsh critique of person B's favorite singer, the latter interprets it as a personal insult, which often results in person A doubling down on the criticism.

Internet forums involving music require a thick skin. When people don't have one, well, threads like this one are the result.


----------



## Merl

wkasimer said:


> I've participated on numerous CM forums over several decades, and this is a phenomenon that I've seen over and over; it's particularly noticeable on opera forums. When person A writes a harsh critique of person B's favorite singer, the latter interprets it as a personal insult, which often results in person A doubling down on the criticism.
> 
> Internet forums involving music require a thick skin. When people don't have one, well, threads like this one are the result.


As I've said before, if you could hack it on the old, unmoderated Google groups then any criticism on TC is uber-mild. I once criticised Furty for being a "one-trick pony" (just to wind the shellacophiles up) . That was a fun few days of personal abuse aimed at me. Lol


----------



## Kreisler jr

It's understandable that one is better at stuff one loves. Hurwitz mostly has the freedom to discuss/review mostly stuff he loves and is fairly knowledgeable about. However, he said himself that as a professional critic he can also review stuff he personally does not care much about and he is still good enough to do that. 
But there he often reaches the point where he is either rather obviously at sea or curiously neutral. In the latter cases he says things like it was really hard to ever mess this piece up or that most recordings were very good and it did hardly matter which one one listened to. 
While he can be too passionate about Mahler, Sibelius, Rattle or Furtwängler, he often is a bit too balanced and impassionate about Mozart operas or Handel concerti. He refrains from trashing things but neither is he very informative and one has the impression that he balances his recs between some classics and some recent recordings without really caring either way.


----------



## Charlie Mac

wkasimer said:


> I've participated on numerous CM forums over several decades, and this is a phenomenon that I've seen over and over; it's particularly noticeable on opera forums. When person A writes a harsh critique of person B's favorite singer, the latter interprets it as a personal insult, which often results in person A doubling down on the criticism.
> 
> Internet forums involving music require a thick skin. When people don't have one, well, threads like this one are the result.


Exactly. Well said.

People think that, if Hurwitz doesn't change his mind when they start arguing with him on his YouTube channel, that means he's being outrageously unreasonable. Why should he backtrack? If he hates your favourite recording of Bruckner's 4th Symphony, that's simply tough luck.

Instead, though, people then come on these forums to label Hurwitz "myopic" and so on, when all he has really done is disagree with them. And using his hyperbole and (obviously deliberate) dismissive style as 'evidence' against him is totally absurd.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> He looks foolish only in the eyes of those who a) take him way too seriously and b) get far too easily offended by what he says.
> 
> Take his expression with a pinch of salt.


I don't take offense to him. I think he is a limited person who has no business lecturing others on classical music while referring to his personal preferences as "factual." Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?


----------



## fbjim

perempe said:


> Some people new to classical music might only watch his channel instead of reading books to explore new pieces. Agamenon wrote a good example.


and they might also read a book that says Bach is the most divine music ever made, and bash their heads against some Bach cantanas and a recording of the WTC for a few weeks before deciding that since they don't like Bach, classical music clearly holds no appeal for them. Which is worse?

I think it's only healthy to treat classical works as any other artistic work, and not above criticism, reproach, or even humor.

I think a problem really is the approach he takes in some of his videos - in an article he wrote, I remember he brought up him not liking the Eroica, and he mentioned this as a reassuring thing to listeners- basically saying "If you are listening to something everyone says is a masterpiece, and you're giving it an honest shot, and you don't like it- there's nothing wrong with you, because sometimes you just don't like certain works of art that everyone else does".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> As I've said before, if you could hack it on the old, unmoderated Google groups then any criticism on TC is uber-mild. I once criticised Furty for being a "one-trick pony" (just to wind the shellacophiles up) . That was a fun few days of personal abuse aimed at me. Lol


Calling Furty a one-trick pony is perfectly fine. It is your opinion.

Stating that I, Brahmsianhorn, am a religious cultist simply for having a different opinion of Furt is taking things to an immature, self-righteous extreme. Agree or disagree?

The problem with Hurwitz is doesn't stop at just giving his opinion. He gives alternate rationales to explain away why anyone would dare have a different reaction or opinion from his, all in an attempt to cloak himself in a veil of authority, something he neither deserves nor has earned.

I have never seen another classical reviewer with such a personal need to be seen himself as an unquestioned authority, and it is not surprising it comes from someone like Hurwitz who is actually quite limited in his musical understanding.


----------



## fbjim

I also want to say that i don't think he's a particularly "deep" critic because he's really in the position of more a consumer/buyers' guide than as a critic. There are certainly other critics I go to for when I want actual capital-C criticism of a work, or a performance- I like the videos because they are entertaining, and they also provide a a nice selection of recordings when I'm interested in listening to a given work- this was a big deal for me because wanting to listen to "Mozart" and being overwhelmed at how many recordings of "Mozart" exist if you just type in "Mozart" on Amazon (and knowing well enough that "the 100 greatest mozart pieces" is probably a bad recording to start with) was always something intimidating to classical for me.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't take offense to him. I think he is a limited person who has no business lecturing others on classical music while referring to his personal preferences as "factual." Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?


I see the lie down didn't help.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Calling Furty a one-trick pony is perfectly fine. It is your opinion.
> 
> Stating that I, Brahmsianhorn, am a religious cultist simply for having a different opinion of Furt is taking things to an immature, self-righteous extreme. Agree or disagree?
> 
> The problem with Hurwitz is doesn't stop at just giving his opinion. He gives alternate rationales to explain away why anyone would dare have a different reaction or opinion from his, all in an attempt to cloak himself in a veil of authority, something he neither deserves nor has earned.
> 
> I have never seen another classical reviewer with such a personal need to be seen himself as an unquestioned authority, and it is not surprising it comes from someone like Hurwitz who is actually quite limited in his musical understanding.


Trouble is, you're obsessed with making it all about "I, Brahmsianhorn".

And you keep saying, over and over, "The problem with Hurwitz is..."

Get over it now.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> Trouble is, you're obsessed with making it all about "I, Brahmsianhorn".
> 
> And you keep saying, over and over, "The problem with Hurwitz is..."
> 
> Get over it now.


There you go again with the personal attacks.

I wasn't making it about me. Hurwitz did that.

Would "idiot cultists who delude themselves into thinking Furty's Nazi 9th is worth more than garbage" work better for you than "I, Brahmsianhorn?"


----------



## amfortas

Perhaps we can at least agree that most of what people have to say in this thread has already been said . . . multiple times.

Maybe such an acknowledgment would have some bearing on the thread's future.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Parley said:


> Charles Ives had no use for Mozart, Haydn Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and Wagner. Mind you, I have no use for his music!


Plus, he's non-European, and a contemporary music composer, like Cage (who said that traffic noise is more musically interesting than Mozart, Beethoven). Even if he and his music never existed, it wouldn't bother me.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> Plus, he's non-European, and a contemporary music composer, like Cage (who said that traffic noise is more musically interesting than Mozart, Beethoven). Even if he and his music never existed, it wouldn't bother me.


Who cares if he is non-European? You are comparing him with Cage merely because they are from the same country? Did you know that Stockhausen is from the same country as Bach and Beethoven, I guess maybe you should stop liking German composers now.

I love American classical music by the way. Ives, Copland, Barber and many more, for example Partch who in my view is among the giants of the 20th century for sure. I also quite enjoy the Cuban composer Leo Brouwer, and Japanese composer Takemitsu. Believe it or not, non-Europeans are actually capable of composition too!

I don't agree with Ives regarding Mozart, but I love his music.

I seem to recall you comparing Monteverdi to formless jelly and Buxtehude to AI. We all have our own tastes.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Who cares if he is non-European? You are comparing him with Cage merely because they are from the same country? Did you know that Stockhausen is from the same country as Bach and Beethoven, I guess maybe you should stop liking German composers now.


All the stuff you mention isn't really "bad" by any means. It's just that I feel there's way too much good stuff in all things "European" and "common practice". I feel that life is too short to care about other things. (It's just my view).



tdc said:


> I seem to recall you comparing Monteverdi to formless jelly


It was mainly Palestrina 


tdc said:


> and Buxtehude to AI.


and Buxtehude and Pachelbel's organ music that I was talking about though.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> All the stuff you mention isn't really "bad" by any means. It's just that I feel there's way too much good stuff in all things "European" and "common practice". I feel that life is too short to care about other things. (It's just my view).


There is certainly a wealth of good music there to keep someone occupied with for a long time. It allows you to get a deep knowledge of the common practice period and know about composers that fly under the radar for many. So your approach has its advantages, for me it would get really boring and monotonous though from a listening (and also a playing perspective).

Personally I enjoy composers like Ives, Partch and Takemitsu more than many of the biggest names of the common practice era, never mind the more obscure ones. So when someone says that European music is so special, it doesn't ring true to me at all. Sure no one has surpassed Bach or Mozart in my view but essentially I think European classical music just has a longer history, that is about it.

Also I think snobby attitudes towards non European music can create similar biases that you claim people have regarding Haydn. A lot of people just follow the well trodden paths and copy what they see others doing, rather than really giving other music a fair shake and coming to their own conclusions.


----------



## Enthusiast

Charlie Mac said:


> He looks foolish only in the eyes of those who a) take him way too seriously and b) get far too easily offended by what he says.
> 
> Take his expression with a pinch of salt.


So why defend him if his opinions are such rubbish? But, really, it isn't about agreeing or not with the things he spouts: it's about his manner ("my opinion is the only right one"). I wouldn't mind so much if he used a set up that placed his opinions within the context of a debate. But, no, he has to dominate and that involves putting down every other view without any need to justify his position or debate it with the majority who disagree. You have to ask what is it he wants to achieve? It's about him. That's all.


----------



## Parley

Charlie Mac said:


> He looks foolish only in the eyes of those who a) take him way too seriously and b) get far too easily offended by what he says.
> 
> Take his expression with a pinch of salt.


I do not take him seriously and am not offended by what he says. Why should I be? But it doesn't stop me finding what he says foolish.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Enthusiast said:


> So why defend him if his opinions are such rubbish? But, really, it isn't about agreeing or not with the things he spouts: it's about his manner ("my opinion is the only right one"). I wouldn't mind so much if he used a set up that placed his opinions within the context of a debate. But, no, he has to dominate and that involves putting down every other view without any need to justify his position or debate it with the majority who disagree. You have to ask what is it he wants to achieve? It's about him. That's all.


My point is that his opinions are largely fine by me and he is entitled to them, even though I only occasionally agree with him.

My point is that he expresses his opinions using, at times, wilfully exaggerated and generalised terms, for effect. That's a stylistic choice he makes that some journalists (Piers Morgan, etc) and people in the media sometimes make. I understand that some people take that too seriously and get upset by it, but it's of no significance, ultimately. It's just his style. It does not make his basic points wrong or invalid, as people here seem to believe. If he doesn't have much interest in a composer, and expresses that in a dismissive way, it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about music. I think people are making some very odd connections when they draw that conclusion. He clearly knows music very well. If he dismisses a recording or work you adore, that is not a sign he is 'myopic' or 'unintelligent'. Not at all.

People are confusing the style of delivery with the message behind it. That's my point.


----------



## perempe

fbjim said:


> and they might also read a book that says Bach is the most divine music ever made, and bash their heads against some Bach cantanas and a recording of the WTC for a few weeks before deciding that since they don't like Bach, classical music clearly holds no appeal for them. Which is worse?
> 
> I think it's only healthy to treat classical works as any other artistic work, and not above criticism, reproach, or even humor.
> 
> I think a problem really is the approach he takes in some of his videos - in an article he wrote, I remember he brought up him not liking the Eroica, and he mentioned this as a reassuring thing to listeners- basically saying "If you are listening to something everyone says is a masterpiece, and you're giving it an honest shot, and you don't like it- there's nothing wrong with you, because sometimes you just don't like certain works of art that everyone else does".


There are recommended pieces from composers and eras. They should listen to those, and let them decide.

I rarely listen to Bach, but know some of his pieces. In fact, it's hard to avoid (oratorios, masses, organ pieces in churches). I agree with the last sentence.


----------



## Enthusiast

Charlie Mac said:


> My point is that his opinions are largely fine by me and he is entitled to them, even though I only occasionally agree with him.
> 
> My point is that he expresses his opinions using, at times, wilfully exaggerated and generalised terms, for effect. *That's a stylistic choice he makes that some journalists (Piers Morgan, etc) and people in the media sometimes make. *I understand that some people take that too seriously and get upset by it, but it's of no significance, ultimately. It's just his style. It does not make his basic points wrong or invalid, as people here seem to believe. If he doesn't have much interest in a composer, and expresses that in a dismissive way, it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about music. I think people are making some very odd connections when they draw that conclusion. He clearly knows music very well. If he dismisses a recording or work you adore, that is not a sign he is 'myopic' or 'unintelligent'. Not at all.
> 
> People are confusing the style of delivery with the message behind it. That's my point.


I would respond to your highlighted point but it is a political one and therefore I can't. Yes, he expresses his opinions forcefully and with exaggeration. And, yes, he is entitled to do so. But he has bought the right to dominate the scene and impose his views on others. When politically motivated journalists do that it is often called fake news and is always despised by people who care about truth and reality. It still does a lot of harm. When a self-styled music critic does it I suppose you could say it is harmless. But it is certainly not worthy or to be admired (or defended?). He deserves to be ignored which is more or less how I feel about the much despised journalist you mention as well. That he is not ignored even by people who know better surprises me.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Enthusiast said:


> I would respond to your highlighted point but it is a political one and therefore I can't. Yes, he expresses his opinions forcefully and with exaggeration. And, yes, he is entitled to do so. But he has bought the right to dominate the scene and impose his views on others. When politically motivated journalists do that it is often called fake news and is always despised by people who care about truth and reality. It still does a lot of harm. When a self-styled music critic does it I suppose you could say it is harmless. But it is certainly not worthy or to be admired (or defended?). He deserves to be ignored which is more or less how I feel about the much despised journalist you mention as well. That he is not ignored even by people who know better surprises me.


Firstly, hyperbole and fake news are not synonyms.

Secondly, Hurwitz talks about music. Music. Art. Let's maintain a sense of perspective here.

Thirdly, in a free world, everyone has the right to free speech and a voice. If you dislike what they say, or how they say it, yes, ignore them. But don't suggest they should go away or shut up. Especially when their subject matter is music.


----------



## Parley

Charlie Mac said:


> My point is that his opinions are largely fine by me and he is entitled to them, even though I only occasionally agree with him.
> 
> My point is that he expresses his opinions using, at times, wilfully exaggerated and generalised terms, for effect. *That's a stylistic choice he makes that some journalists (Piers Morgan, etc) and people in the media sometimes make*. I understand that some people take that too seriously and get upset by it, but it's of no significance, ultimately. It's just his style. It does not make his basic points wrong or invalid, as people here seem to believe. If he doesn't have much interest in a composer, and expresses that in a dismissive way, it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about music. I think people are making some very odd connections when they draw that conclusion. He clearly knows music very well. If he dismisses a recording or work you adore, that is not a sign he is 'myopic' or 'unintelligent'. Not at all.
> 
> People are confusing the style of delivery with the message behind it. That's my point.


The point is, I think, whether the style of a tabloid hack like Morgan is appropriate for discussing classical music. Of course, Morgan is entertaining when he raves on about certain ex-royals, but whether that style is appropriate for discussing seri0us music is another matter.


----------



## Enthusiast

Charlie Mac said:


> Firstly, hyperbole and fake news are not synonyms.
> 
> Secondly, Hurwitz talks about music. Music. Art. Let's maintain a sense of perspective here.
> 
> Thirdly, in a free world, everyone has the right to free speech and a voice. If you dislike what they say, or how they say it, yes, ignore them. But don't suggest they should go away or shut up. Especially when their subject matter is music.


Can I ask that you read and digest what I said before responding with thoughts that imply I said something other to what I did say!


----------



## fbjim

To be blunt I associate excessive veneration of the classics (pre-Schoenberg, of course) as beyond criticism and morally elevated far more with distasteful rhetoric than someone who feels free to criticize.

I think his style is not for everyone, which, sure. He's said before that a reason for it, ironically, is to make classical music generally seem more accessible by not taking it so seriously, or portraying either the great composers or maestros as beyond criticism. I think it's definitely unfortunate if his excessive dogmatism turns people off when his intent is the opposite, but I do like the idea.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> Can I ask that you read and digest what I said before responding with thoughts that imply I said something other to what I did say!


He's been doing that to me the whole time. I finally just stopped responding. His goal is to "win" the debate by continuously distorting what people say.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Calling Furty a one-trick pony is perfectly fine. It is your opinion.
> 
> Stating that I, Brahmsianhorn, am a religious cultist simply for having a different opinion of Furt is taking things to an immature, self-righteous extreme. Agree or disagree?


Lol, I Don't really think that, BHS, but at the time I was sick of that site and just wanted to leave. I thought I'd rattle a few cages on my way out. Perhaps that's what Hurwitz is doing? He knows he's going to get a reaction on certain subjects which is why when he makes an asanine comment about only Czech ensembles being able to do Janacek's 2nd quartet justice (and then only recommending a fairly average performance as the best alternative example of a non-Czech recording) I just roll my eyes and laugh. Usually that will have been preceded with a tirade against any post-Lindsays British Quartet (the Doric Quartet are the current whipping-boys). I've come to expect it. If its not them then it will be the "vulgar" Lindsays. If not he might be mouthing off about HIP performances, especially if they use limited vibrato. I know this so I don't even bother arguing with him or his sycophants. I just smile. I only comment on his threads if I largely agree with him cos otherwise you're the heckler at a comedy gig, insulting a well-established comedian. You're never going to win.

Similarly, I was at a family gathering the other week and was confronted with a gobshite neighbour who informed me that was a "big classical music fan" (he only had one of those cheap classical collection box sets from Europe) and that Beethoven was deaf all his life. I just ignored him. I knew he was talking crap but the guy is otherwise harmless, OK company and he was holding centre stage. I would have looked like the bad guy for p*ssing on his bonfire. There are times to challenge and times to smile, roll your eyes and laugh to yourself at stupid statements.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> So why defend him if his opinions are such rubbish? But, really, it isn't about agreeing or not with the things he spouts: it's about his manner ("my opinion is the only right one"). I wouldn't mind so much if he used a set up that placed his opinions within the context of a debate. But, no, he has to dominate and that involves putting down every other view without any need to justify his position or debate it with the majority who disagree. You have to ask what is it he wants to achieve? It's about him. That's all.


This, all this. And the ultimate irony is that it seems that to some the critic himself is above criticism. Bizarre.


----------



## Itullian

I enjoy watching them. His humor cracks me up.
So what if i don't agree with him. I like that he usually gives his reasons why he likes or dislikes recordings. That helps, I think.
They're fun and informative.
That's why i watch them.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Hurwitz has unfortunately shifted the focus in his videos from recordings to musical analysis, which I don't think is all that interesting.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AndorFoldes said:


> Hurwitz has unfortunately shifted the focus in his videos from recordings to musical analysis, which I don't think is all that interesting.


His latest Beethoven 5th video is very revealing. He states that wanting to hear correct balances in orchestration is what got him into criticism in the first place. And there is nothing wrong with that except when he completely negates other facets of music appreciation.

One of my first introductions to Hurwitz's brand of carping was his review of Horenstein's legendary live Mahler 8th. I still have never heard a coda to this work that gives me goosebumps like this one. All Hurwitz could say in his review of this section is that the percussion were not together. He then stated that the audience erupting in applause had no clue what good music should sound like. It's exactly like his video on Furtwängler's 1942 B9. He can only talk about technical details and has no ear for the big picture, even going so far as to claim that people who hear what he does not are engaged in witchcraft or cultishness.

He cannot admit that there is more to music than mere pedantry. That's the Hurwitz problem in a nutshell.

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I am passionate about classical music. That is why I became a musician myself.

A story I often go back to is when I was working in a music store decades ago, while in college. A co-worker once told me he didn't care for classical music because he thought of it as "more academic." That saddened me, because for me this is the music that stirs my soul.

Hurwitz represents the opposite of my raison d'etre for being a classical musician. He wants it to be about right vs wrong, correct vs incorrect, an academic exercise to correct other people. For me, classical music above all has to move people. So when Hurwitz takes the emotional impact of the music completely out of the picture, and stresses only the mechanical minutiae, he reduces classical music exactly to what my co-worker saw it as, an academic exercise.

The thing about classical music is that it is so vast it can easily become a platform for ego-building, people who want to prove their worth by showing how much they know about it. That misses the point.


.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He cannot admit that there is more to music than mere pedantry. That's the Hurwitz problem in a nutshell.


If you dislike Hurwitz's videos so much, why are you still watching them?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> If you dislike Hurwitz's videos so much, why are you still watching them?


Because I am passionate about the topic, obviously.

And it's not like I dislike him for posting videos on classical music. I just disagree with his viewpoints.


----------



## Art Rock

Let's close this thread for the time being for cool off. Several posts have been edited or deleted.


----------



## Art Rock

A reminder:



> Guidelines for General Behavior
> 
> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.
> 
> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


As stated, several posts have been edited or deleted because they did not meet the criteria above.

The thread has been re-opened.


----------



## 13hm13

One of his recent videos on best LvB Sy 5 was quite good and enlightening .... this was H's fave ... and it's a good one prev. unknown to me:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

13hm13 said:


> One of his recent videos on best LvB Sy 5 was quite good and enlightening .... this was H's fave ... and it's a good one prev. unknown to me:


It's a justly famous recording and good Szell, but I wouldn't call it the greatest 5th. Szell is a literalist in the Toscanini mold, and in Beethoven I find that dull, particularly in this symphony where there is so much room for freedom.

I agree with Hurwitz that the Carlos Kleiber is overrated, and I do in fact like his father Erich's version slightly better, but to leave Carlos entirely off a list of 12 is going too far.

Giulini/LAPO also deserves mention.

But to me the most overlooked 5th is Leonard Bernstein live with the Bavarian RSO in a 1976 Amnesty International concert. It's on fire throughout AND Lenny understands how to pace the work harmonically.


----------



## perempe

Still can't pronounce Széll...

If you are interested in Hungarian, here are the letters:
SZ - this is the english/american S
(alone S is hard like Stuttgart, Sándor)
É - eɪ (the vowel of face/lake/bake/fake)


----------



## Shaughnessy

This requires a bit of background...









This is "Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra - The Columbia Legacy -

Volume One - The Mono Recordings"

It is a 120 disc box set... I neither have nor want it... Once I have twenty-five versions of something I become somewhat loathe to add a 26th or 27th...

At some point, someone may want to chirp up with "Mono" may be, in theory, short for "Monotonous" due to the "Philadelphia Sound" equaling the "orchestra as one instrument" approach to recordings - but that someone won't be me...

Here is the review of the set which appeared in "Gramophone" -

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/review/eugene-ormandy-the-columbia-legacy

It's a lengthy review but one worth reading - fair, thoughtful, and well-written...

Here is David Hurwitz's response to the Gramophone review (which he characterizes as "full of bullshite" - with a straight face completely unaware of just how rich irony can be) of Ormandy's Columbia Legacy

Note: It clocks in at 42 minutes or so...






and this is his review of the actual box set - Note: it clocks in at an hour and 30 plus minutes...






It's up to you to read or watch however much you want and to agree or disagree to your heart's content.


----------



## Art Rock

A reminder that political remarks and discussions are not allowed in this forum. I have deleted a statement from one post and deleted a reply to that statement.


----------



## 13hm13

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Giulini/LAPO also deserves mention.
> 
> But to me the most overlooked 5th is Leonard Bernstein live with the Bavarian RSO in a 1976 Amnesty International concert. It's on fire throughout AND Lenny understands how to pace the work harmonically.


Yeah ... I like (and own) Giulini/LAPO. 
Didn't know about the Lenny 1976 concert .... sampled a few tracks on Amazon and they were GOOD. 
I also like Zinman/Tonhalle.


----------



## 13hm13

About that "recent" Mono Ormandy box set .... much of it has been avail since at least 2017 ... and in 24/96k format to boot.

https://www.hdtracks.com/#/artist/Eugene Ormandy

Not sure how much new stuff has been added to the box -- but that HD stuff has been remastered by Sony???


----------



## Sid James

I've only watched a few of his videos, most recently the one on Dvorak's Piano Concerto, and I've found them informative. I'm more interested in the content he provides about the piece, rather than comparisons of various recordings. I've got mixed feelings about his delivery, and I find his humour a bit lame. Judging from his online reviews and especially the liner notes he has written for some of the Eloquence reissue series, I think he can be a perceptive writer.


----------



## Malx

Sid James said:


> I've only watched a few of his videos, most recently the one on Dvorak's Piano Concerto, and I've found them informative. I'm more interested in the content he provides about the piece, rather than comparisons of various recordings. I've got mixed feelings about his delivery, and I find his humour a bit lame. Judging from his online reviews and especially , I think he can be a perceptive writer.


I wasn't aware he had contributed notes to some of these releases - can you provide a couple of examples of the discs concerned.
Thanks.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Sid James said:


> I've only watched a few of his videos, most recently the one on Dvorak's Piano Concerto, and I've found them informative. I'm more interested in the content he provides about the piece, rather than comparisons of various recordings. I've got mixed feelings about his delivery, and I find his humour a bit lame. Judging from his online reviews and especially the liner notes he has written for some of the Eloquence reissue series, I think he can be a perceptive writer.


Yep. The people who, on this forum, have suggested that he knows very little (or even nothing) about music, are making some frankly ludicrous assertions.

Being excessively dismissive of a certain recording or a certain composer or a certain conductor is very obviously part of his 'schtick'. If you don't like that, or it offends you in some way, that's up to you, but it doesn't mean that he knows nothing about music, and it doesn't mean there is nothing of interest/value in his videos.


----------



## Sid James

Malx said:


> I wasn't aware he had contributed notes to some of these releases - can you provide a couple of examples of the discs concerned.
> Thanks.


These are the ones I have (the last two are out of print):
https://www.eloquenceclassics.com/releases/nielsen-symphony-no-4-fs76-the-inextinguishable/
https://www.eloquenceclassics.com/releases/the-best-of-ravel/
https://www.eloquenceclassics.com/releases/berlioz-harold-in-italy/
Hindemith Mathis der Maler Symphony, Violin Concerto, Symphonic Metamorphosis (Decca 466 271-2)
Bartok Concerto for Orchestra, Kodaly Concerto for Orchestra, Janacek Taras Bulba (Decca 467 602-2)

I think that he is a perceptive writer on music because he not only provides information but also his own opinions and analysis of it. I particularly like how he not only looks at the differences, but also the connections between composers and their works. He also leaves some questions open for the reader to decide. Here's a snippet from the Berlioz/Bloch disc:

_Composed in six interconnected movements which flow into each other without a break, Bloch refrains from giving specific titles to the individual sections, preferring to let the mood of the music speak for itself. However, unlike Berlioz's title, which doesn't really tell you anything about the sound or tone of the work itself, Bloch's really does reflect the emotional climate of the work: this is pensive, at times lonely music that offers the full range of emotions, from anguish and despair to exultation and hope. It's perhaps no surprise that the date of the composition is 1936, and that the Swiss/Jewish Bloch would find himself only a couple of years later fleeing Europe for good. Is the music a reaction to external events or a purely personal expression of some inner emotional state? Listeners must decide this for themselves._


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> Yep. The people who, on this forum, have suggested that he knows very little (or even nothing) about music, are making some frankly ludicrous assertions.
> 
> Being excessively dismissive of a certain recording or a certain composer or a certain conductor is very obviously part of his 'schtick'. If you don't like that, or it offends you in some way, that's up to you, but it doesn't mean that he knows nothing about music, and it doesn't mean there is nothing of interest/value in his videos.


I have been explicitly clear about this. He will dismiss a recording but talk about nothing except the old sound quality and nitpick about sections not being exactly together. That's a very elementary standard of analysis and tells us absolutely nothing about why people may or may not like it despite its age. Hurwitz could not even distinguish between this and the conductor's other interpretations, which again makes me question Hurwitz's credentials as the differences are pretty obvious to anyone with a musical ear and has been written about extensively over the decades.

Another recording I revere from that same time and same conductor was dismissed on this forum for the interpretation being too herky, jerky. I disagree, but the analysis is perfectly valid in that this poster was actually talking about the music and not just simple matters of sound balance and intonation. That is Hurwitz's limitation. It has nothing to do with whether he likes or dislikes a recording. He provides simplistic, superficial analysis, and even worse, he then castigates anyone who dares to provide more in depth analysis as believing in sorcery or belonging to cults.

Music appreciation is obviously always going to come down to subjective impressions. You cannot get away from that. And to pretend it can be reduced to simple factual analysis, as Hurwitz does for his own aggrandizement, is folly. Hurwitz is avoiding the central question of whether a recording will appeal to people or not. You cannot reduce this to simple "fact." The only quasi-fact is when a musical work or recording becomes widely appreciated over time. It the the job of the reviewer to understand this appeal, even if he does not share it, and at least be able to competently present the pros and cons and explain who a recording might appeal to and who it might not.

Hurwitz takes his own subjective impressions and gives them a veil of authority by saying they are based in fact. That's ridiculous and self-serving. And instead of understanding and explaining the appeal of a recording he does not like, something a competent reviewer ought to be able to do, Hurwitz explains it away as if some conspiracy of the universe is causing people to imagine they like a recording. All that does is cover up Hurwitz's own incompetence as a reviewer.

The bottom line is that there so many more competent reviewers out there. Hurwitz absolutely deserves praise for helping to increase awareness and appreciation of classical music, but he must be taken with a grain of salt when he tries to present himself as the only true authority and implores people to ignore any counter-opinions.


----------



## Charlie Mac

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He will dismiss a recording but talk about nothing except the old sound quality and nitpick about sections not being exactly together.


Some people who listen to classical music care about the technical accuracy of the performance. Given a choice between one they consider 'well conducted/played' and one they think is 'poorly conducted/played', they will opt for the former and dismiss the latter. If you don't approach music that way, well, that's jolly good for you, but it doesn't make it invalid.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Hurwitz could not even distinguish between this and the conductor's other interpretations,


Hurwitz has praised, and likes, the August 1954 Lucerne performance of the B9, which many, many people prefer to the 1942. I'd say that disliking one interpretation and liking another is evidence of 'distinguishing between interpretations'. Hurwitz praises the conductor's 'concept' of the work, but makes the (I would say, sensible) point that this 'concept' was better realised in a later performance.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Another recording I revere from that same time and same conductor was dismissed on this forum for the interpretation being too herky, jerky. I disagree, but the analysis is perfectly valid in that this poster was actually talking about the music and not just simple matters of sound balance and intonation.


Again, who are you to decide what is and what isn't 'valid'? You accuse Hurwitz of pomposity but then you make statements such as that. If someone believes that 'sound balance and intonation' are sufficient to make a recording/performance poor, then that is their right. It is not wrong, simply because you say it is. You think these things don't matter, because the emotion of the performance, or whatever you want to call it, is all that counts, but that doesn't mean everyone else who listens to classical music has to follow the same criteria as you.

You have decided what the criteria for 'valid' criticism is and are holding others to account against that, dismissing and complaining about people who don't use the precise criteria that you use. In other words, you are guilty of being just as dismissive as you claim Hurwitz is.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> All that does is cover up Hurwitz's own incompetence as a reviewer.


An 'incompetent reviewer' who has done a lot more in the field of classical music journalism than most of us here have or will ever do.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> implores people to ignore any counter-opinions.


And yet you would have people here ignore his 'counter-opinions'...


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think incompetent is not a fair complaint. He is competent (although in some fields far more than others which is only natural) but in some cases very biased/suffering or cultivating blind spots (which goes a bit against his self proclaimed professionality). 
And these biases are then combined with silly attempts at humor which can get gringey. And can come across as contempt for the fans of certain composers/artists/genres he sometimes derides as stupid and conceited.


----------



## fbjim

I think it's unfortunate if his humor turns people off because I think he's specifically said it's an attempt to make the videos seem less serious, and (classical music) more accessible. But he's just one dude, and there's the problem of taste, so...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> I think it's unfortunate if his humor turns people off because I think he's specifically said it's an attempt to make the videos seem less serious, and (classical music) more accessible. But he's just one dude, and there's the problem of taste, so...


I like the humor. I'm all for taking the stuffiness out of classical music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Charlie Mac said:


> Some people who listen to classical music care about the technical accuracy of the performance. Given a choice between one they consider 'well conducted/played' and one they think is 'poorly conducted/played', they will opt for the former and dismiss the latter. If you don't approach music that way, well, that's jolly good for you, but it doesn't make it invalid.


This discussion can go on forever if I am continually forced to defend statements I did not make. I never said it's not okay to dismiss a recording on the basis of sound quality and/or perfect intonation. I said a competent reviewer should be able to at least discuss the pros and cons of a performance beyond that simple analysis. A person who knows nothing about classical music could tell you a live 1942 recording will have murky sound. Why do I need a supposedly knowledgeable classical music reviewer to tell me that? He is not so much reviewing as he is trying to impose his opinion that no one should bother with such recording. So it becomes a narcissistic soapbox instead of a review.

For example, my friend the fellow poster hated the 1944 Bruckner 8th by Furtwangler, a recording on my personal Mt Rushmore of great orchestral recordings. He said that the interpretation does not do justice to the work, that it needlessly rushes ahead and then relaxes in a way that does not help but actually hinders the musical case. If he were to then say that ON TOP of that the recording is so old and lacking in detail that he would never listen to it anyway, at least he has demonstrated that he is able to discuss both the interpretive and the technical qualities. Hurwitz does not. It is almost as if he has an agenda of convincing people that the interpretative qualities are irrelevant, going as far as to personally insult anyone who says otherwise as being "delusional." That's narcissistic, sophomoric behavior.



Charlie Mac said:


> Hurwitz has praised, and likes, the August 1954 Lucerne performance of the B9, which many, many people prefer to the 1942. I'd say that disliking one interpretation and liking another is evidence of 'distinguishing between interpretations'. Hurwitz praises the conductor's 'concept' of the work, but makes the (I would say, sensible) point that this 'concept' was better realised in a later performance.


Good for him. I could care less what he likes or dislikes. My focus is on the faulty standard and breadth of analysis. You are incorrect when you say that he distinguished between the interpretations. He actually stated that the only difference is that the 1954 version has much better sound and better playing. That is not telling you anything about the interpretations. Most people with an ear for classical music generally agree that you either prefer the volcanic intensity of the 1942 or you prefer the more reflective, less intense 1954, or maybe you like or dislike them both equally. That's speaking to the interpretation irrespective of the sound quality. Hurwitz has not demonstrated that he can distiguish between the two.



Charlie Mac said:


> Again, who are you to decide what is and what isn't 'valid'? You accuse Hurwitz of pomposity but then you make statements such as that. If someone believes that 'sound balance and intonation' are sufficient to make a recording/performance poor, then that is their right. It is not wrong, simply because you say it is. You think these things don't matter, because the emotion of the performance, or whatever you want to call it, is all that counts, but that doesn't mean everyone else who listens to classical music has to follow the same criteria as you.
> 
> You have decided what the criteria for 'valid' criticism is and are holding others to account against that, dismissing and complaining about people who don't use the precise criteria that you use. In other words, you are guilty of being just as dismissive as you claim Hurwitz is.


Why is the critic himself above criticism? When have I ever said people have no right to their opinions?

Again, we could go on forever if I am forced to defend statements I have never made. I have no problem with Hurwitz hating and dismissing a recording and it has no bearing by itself on his credentials as a reviewer. The issue I take is with his simplistic standard of review, his inability to even discuss relative pros and cons, and worst of all his broad characterization of people with a different opinion as "delusional" or belonging to a "religious cult" simply because they hear what he does not. THAT is when I begin to question Hurwitz's credentials. He is very good at technical matters - knowing the details of the score and orchestration. But big picture aspects are something that he often ignores and even dismisses as if they don't exist. He does not spend a whole lot of time if any describing what a composer is doing harmonically, the key relationships and how they relate to our intended response to the music. Composer/conductors like Furtwangler and Bernstein to name a few understand this aspect deeply, and you will hear this in their interpretations. It is an essential aspect of interpretation. Classical music is more than just a collection of sounds that are pleasing. There is a harmonic narrative in progress, like in a movie or a book.



Charlie Mac said:


> An 'incompetent reviewer' who has done a lot more in the field of classical music journalism than most of us here have or will ever do.


By that standard, Hurwitz should never criticize a conductor who has likewise done more in the field of classical music than most of us will ever dream of. Again, you seem to be shielding the critic himself from criticism, which I find Orwellian.



Charlie Mac said:


> And yet you would have people here ignore his 'counter-opinions'...


To the contrary, I am bringing attention to it.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Hurwitz generally annoys me with his mannerisms. Just his overall delivery is nails on a chalkboard, but I wouldn't say his opinion is any more valid than anyone else on this forum. One thing that frustrates me about him is when he says things like "Oh, it's not important. Nobody cares..." or "Who cares how it's pronounced" etc. These are such presumptuous assertions to make as what he thinks is important is completely different than what someone else thinks. He comes across hugely disrespectful to people in this regard. But his general attitude is that of a typical critic where what he believes is the best _is_ the best and whatever everyone else likes is garbage or is somehow insignificant. The last videos I watched were the ones on Mahler and Bruckner, which were excruciatingly dull to watch. He should really come up with some kind of new format or find a way to excite the viewer. Oh and I absolutely hate it when he sings a melody from a piece. So obnoxious.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The other day in a Mahler video he stated that he "detests" Kathleen Ferrier, but that she is treated as a "saint" in Britain. He went on to mock Barbirolli and the British with a fake accent.

I get that a lot of people don't like Ferrier's dark tone and heavy vibrato. It can be an acquired taste. Her strength is in her IMO unmatched artistry. The day of my graduate voice recital I listened to her recordings for inspiration, her phrasing, her absolute commitment to meaning and text.

But to say you "detest" Ferrier? This speaks to several things. namely Hurwitz's lack of heart and emphasis on superficial sound above artistry. But it mainly speaks to his own insecurity. He hates that there are people who understand and appreciate music at a deeper level than he does. So he mocks them, both the listeners and the artists. And he hates the British "intelligentsia" for the same reason. They run circles around him, and he knows it. So he mocks them.

Lastly, to say "but Ferrier is treated like a saint in Britain" once more demonstrates the juvenile way he tries to invalidate the opinions of others, as if those of us who respond to Ferrier are blinded by irrationality. Again, there can only be one truth - his - and all others must be mocked and invalidated to appease his insecurity.


----------



## fbjim

It's kind of weird as a throwback - I remember hearing that way back when (probably when magazines were more important) in places like newsgroups and pre-forum days you would have constant flamewars about the perception of British bias in classical journalism and criticism. Maybe it's a generational thing (from back when the only comprehensive guides to recordings were Gramophone and the Penguin Gudie)? I do remember someone posting a top ten list of Bach recordings put out by Gramophone or the BBC in the last year or so and making fun that like 8 of the performers were Anglophones.


----------



## science

fbjim said:


> It's kind of weird as a throwback - I remember hearing that way back when (probably when magazines were more important) in places like newsgroups and pre-forum days you would have *constant flamewars about the perception of British bias in classical journalism and criticism*. Maybe it's a generational thing (from back when the only comprehensive guides to recordings were Gramophone and the Penguin Gudie)? I do remember someone posting a top ten list of Bach recordings put out by Gramophone or the BBC in the last year or so and making fun that like 8 of the performers were Anglophones.


I remember those days too.

One thing I remember from back then was Naxos very, very slowly beginning to earn just a tiny little bit of grudging respect. I wonder when labels like Hyperion and CPO began to command routinely positive reviews. I wasn't paying attention at that time.


----------



## JohnP

For all his a$sholery, I learn things. I tire of the mean-spirited "CD from Hell" stuff on his site, but he generally sticks to the stuff he likes in his videos. (Rozhdesvensky's Sibelius isn't to my taste, but it's hardly "a crime against humanity.) I also get weary of his disliking entire recordings because one or two tam-tam strikes aren't loud enough to suit him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Well, I’m from Texas and have no reason to be biased towards the British. I just like good art when I hear it. There is some bias, but I have noticed it more in regards to coverage of British repertoire.

At the end of the day, people are just going to have their opinions on music. Why can’t we just respect those opinions for what they are? I get tired of people trying to conjure up ulterior motives for everything.


----------



## fbjim

science said:


> I remember those days too.
> 
> One thing I remember from back then was Naxos very, very slowly beginning to earn just a tiny little bit of grudging respect. I wonder when labels like Hyperion and CPO began to command routinely positive reviews. I wasn't paying attention at that time.


I think Hyperion was always something like a "Cool" label. I think on the US side of the Atlantic it'd be Nonesuch, especially once they shifted their repertoire from mostly early music to avant-garde releases.

You do definitely see throughout their awards that the big labels start to get fewer and fewer awards as the likes of Hyperion, Harmonia Mundi, Chandos etc begin to get bigger and bigger with regards to putting out things the major labels wouldn't touch.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The other day in a Mahler video he stated that he "detests" Kathleen Ferrier, but that she is treated as a "saint" in Britain. He went on to mock Barbirolli and the British with a fake accent.
> 
> I get that a lot of people don't like Ferrier's dark tone and heavy vibrato. It can be an acquired taste. Her strength is in her IMO unmatched artistry. The day of my graduate voice recital I listened to her recordings for inspiration, her phrasing, her absolute commitment to meaning and text.
> 
> But to say you "detest" Ferrier? This speaks to several things. namely Hurwitz's lack of heart and emphasis on superficial sound above artistry. But it mainly speaks to his own insecurity. He hates that there are people who understand and appreciate music at a deeper level than he does. So he mocks them, both the listeners and the artists. And he hates the British "intelligentsia" for the same reason. They run circles around him, and he knows it. So he mocks them.
> 
> Lastly, to say "but Ferrier is treated like a saint in Britain" once more demonstrates the juvenile way he tries to invalidate the opinions of others, as if those of us who respond to Ferrier are blinded by irrationality. Again, there can only be one truth - his - and all others must be mocked and invalidated to appease his insecurity.


This is true. He always has some kind of axe to grind, which leads him into long tangents or tirades that do nothing but make him look pathetic and juvenile. I understand his argument of the British bias in the classical press, but this can be said of any country that has a well-known musical establishment, but is this bias a reason to go into a 40 minute long rant on why you dislike them and think they're a bunch of phonies? Absolutely not. If he spent more time trying to be humble and thoughtful rather than going on tirades against everything that he feels to be wrong in classical music (i. e. his rants about Roger Norrington), then we probably wouldn't be coming to thread to post our complaints about him.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I like looking/listening to them. I’ve learned some things. I don’t hold one opinion as the gospel truth but it does cause me to think about certain classical music issues. Even if one person came across it who was not familiar with classical music comes across Hurwitz’ channel and begins exploring Classical music,then it’s worth.


----------



## Granate

I may not be the first to say this, but his truthful call-out for the British press bias is less serious when he constantly preaches about the so-called qualities of all those American orchestras.

He's been now doing entertaining "best of" videos that I've been watching. Mostly useful for beginners. But I hardly ever have coincidences in our favourites.


----------



## Neo Romanza

FrankinUsa said:


> I like looking/listening to them. I've learned some things. I don't hold one opinion as the gospel truth but it does cause me to think about certain classical music issues. Even if one person came across it who was not familiar with classical music comes across Hurwitz' channel and begins exploring Classical music,then it's worth.


If I was new to classical and I came across Hurwitz's videos, I'd be tempted to never even bother with the music.  Thankfully, my classical journey predates his video 'reviews'.  But on a more serious note, if I were someone who was just getting into classical, I would've done what I did in the beginning: dive in headfirst and never look back. If one is passionate about this music, then all they have to do is follow their own ears and listen to what their heart tells them.

FYI, the dozen or so Hurwitz videos I watched, I didn't learn anything that I already didn't know or learn about from someone else. I'm not saying I'm 'smarter' than him or anything, but I can do my own research.


----------



## fbjim

It's probably different for different people. I know that for me, the sheer amount of recordings out there of warhorses stuck me with choice overload  which made it very difficult for me to actually sit down and choose a recording to listen to. It can be good to have someone just provide a list from an informed perspective, even a biased one to get started with.


----------



## Knorf

One of the real "dirty secrets" in recorded classical music (Hurwitz's "dirty secrets" list is horrible and stupid) is that the vast majority of commercially available recordings are uniformly very, very good. There is almost nothing separating them in terms of quality besides matters of taste, which, if you're new to classical music, you shouldn't pay any attention to at all because tastes will change, and if you're a seasoned listener you will learn to value greatly what is different about different recordings, and you'll know what a hopeless chimera you're chasing, in searching for "THE BEST" recording. 

Seriously. Finding a corked bottle of wine is more common than finding a truly non-recommendable modern recording of classical music, at least by those involving acknowledged professional performers/ensembles.

Hurwitz's always hammering on about "THE BEST" and "THE WORST" and "CDs FROM HELL*" is one of the biggest reasons I detest his reviews. 

Classical music is not a forking horse race. 

It's art.

*I have found it remarkable over time how many of my own, personally treasured recordings were at some point trashed in his "CDs FROM HELL" column...


----------



## HenryPenfold

fbjim said:


> It's probably different for different people. I know that for me, the sheer amount of recordings out there of warhorses stuck me with choice overload  which made it very difficult for me to actually sit down and choose a recording to listen to. It can be good to have someone just provide a list from an informed perspective, even a biased one to get started with.


I think you overestimate how much work is involved in just rooting around the available sources of information for yourself.


----------



## fbjim

HenryPenfold said:


> I think you overestimate how much work is involved in just rooting around the available sources of information for yourself.


Well, it's called a cognitive impairment because it's fundamentally not rational. It's been a big issue for me in lots of art fields with enormous width and depth. Certainly not limited to classical music.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Knorf said:


> Hurwitz's "dirty secrets" list is horrible and stupid


Personally, I found it a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun.


----------



## fbjim

also tbh "recordings you love that critics trashed" might be a fun topic


----------



## Neo Romanza

HenryPenfold said:


> I think you overestimate how much work is involved in just rooting around the available sources of information for yourself.


Yeah, I certainly agree. I can't imagine _not_ doing the work myself. Honestly, I'm more confused with someone who has a huge list of works to check out, because I don't know, I guess I just never needed someone to tell me what to check out. I can go to Google and type in 'most famous 20th Century composers' and pick/choose who I want to explore based on what their aesthetic is all about. Hurwitz doesn't have the best intentions for the listener. He has what he believes to be, as Knorf so rightfully pointed out, "the best", "the worst" etc. and, if I was just starting off listening to classical right now, I would ignore Hurwitz and pursue the music that I interested me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Again, I could care less about Hurwitz's opinions per se than I do about the way he tries to distort, undermine, and invalidate where others are coming from in their opinions, essentially saying "Ignore everyone else."

I first came to collecting as a result of wandering into Tower Records when I was 19 in search of a recording of the Brahms Requiem, which I was singing that summer. I bought Barenboim's CSO version for no other reason that I liked the cover. I assumed they all must be good recordings, so why not pick this one. I found the tempos to be slow and dull, and the entire thing to be lacking fire and muted. So I started consulting CD guides, and that led me to the Gardiner, which I loved. Since that time, finding really awesome recordings of central repertoire has been an endless source of excitement and fulfillment. It also has gone hand in hand with my own pursuit as a performer of trying to make music come alive for the audience.

So I am all for exposure. Give people the same chance I had to explore. To the extent he contributes to that, I applaud Hurwitz. But when he tries to monopolize opinion under his own limited, myopic umbrella, that's when he crosses a line for me. He actually posted a video a couple of months ago where he warned of the "danger" of too much opinion floating around the internet, essentially saying too many people don't know what they are talking about. What??!! Exposure to different opinions is how we learn and grow. If his goal is to monopolize and control classical music dialogue, then his video lambasting the "Nazi 9th" could not be more ironic.


----------



## FrankinUsa

So we are up to +\- 750. I find it amusing how many have felt compelled to post multiple comments. Hurwitz has been posting reviews for many years an started aYoutube channel. Good for him! Let me say this. Every single post on Talkclassical,including mine,is just an opinion. Nothing more,nothing less. Hurwitz’ reviews comments/reviews are opinions. Nothing more,Nothing less. I also find some of these comments,especially the repeaters,to be guilty of exactly what they are accusing Hurwitz of. There is a haughty, I know more, attitude. People should relax. In terms of Hurwitz, listen to what he says or ignore it. I do the same thing with other classical reviews/opinions including those here. This is my second and last comment on this subject. Thank you.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

FrankinUsa said:


> Let me say this. Every single post on Talkclassical,including mine,is just an opinion. Nothing more,nothing less. Hurwitz' reviews comments/reviews are opinions. Nothing more,Nothing less.


You cant say "every post is an opinion", because that would be trying to state a fact. Your undermining what your saying.


----------



## HenryPenfold

fbjim said:


> Well, it's called a cognitive impairment because it's fundamentally not rational. It's been a big issue for me in lots of art fields with enormous width and depth. Certainly not limited to classical music.


I should also have said 'and you're missing out on an enjoyable pastime and some fun" ..............


----------



## Phil loves classical

FrankinUsa said:


> So we are up to +\- 750. I find it amusing how many have felt compelled to post multiple comments. Hurwitz has been posting reviews for many years an started aYoutube channel. Good for him! Let me say this. Every single post on Talkclassical,including mine,is just an opinion. Nothing more,nothing less. Hurwitz' reviews comments/reviews are opinions. Nothing more,Nothing less. I also find some of these comments,especially the repeaters,to be guilty of exactly what they are accusing Hurwitz of. There is a haughty, I know more, attitude. People should relax. In terms of Hurwitz, listen to what he says or ignore it. I do the same thing with other classical reviews/opinions including those here. This is my second and last comment on this subject. Thank you.


I think we're on a totally different sort of stage from Hurwitz. He's supposedly a professional, editor and author, but the way he trashes not just some conductors, but also composers, all due to a matter of different taste, is inexcusable in my view.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Latest video: Der Ring des Nibelungen

Hurwitz gives an elementary list of reviews that could have done by anyone spending a couple of hours doing a google search, ending in telling us we should get the Solti because everyone knows that. 

He also wants us all to know that people who are really knowledgeable about Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, and yes, even Furtwangler (He must read these posts) are "cultists" to be ignored.

In other words, Hurwitz is the expert despite his elementary, brain-dead analysis, and everyone who knows more is a "cultist." On the one hand, yes it is classical music recording discussion which we junkies eat up. But it is also a huge ego trip. You don't see this behavior with competent reviewers.


----------



## wkasimer

Phil loves classical said:


> I think we're on a totally different sort of stage from Hurwitz. He's supposedly a professional, editor and author, but the way he trashes not just some conductors, but also composers, all due to a matter of different taste, is inexcusable in my view.


I disagree. Hurwitz wears his biases on his sleeve for everyone to see. I prefer that to a critic who claims objectivity while hiding his or her biases and preconceptions.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Latest video: Der Ring des Nibelungen
> 
> Hurwitz gives an elementary list of reviews that could have done by anyone spending a couple of hours doing a google search, ending in telling us we should get the Solti because everyone knows that.
> 
> He also wants us all to know that people who are really knowledgeable about Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, and yes, even Furtwangler (He must read these posts) are "cultists" to be ignored.
> 
> In other words, Hurwitz is the expert despite his elementary, brain-dead analysis, and everyone who knows more is a "cultist." On the one hand, yes it is classical music recording discussion which we junkies eat up. But it is also a huge ego trip. You don't see this behavior with competent reviewers.


I don't think that Hurwitz's RING video was intended for an audience familiar with the RING discography - it was clearly intended for an audience much less familiar with the works.

BTW, I thought that his comments about Furtwangler's two cycles were right on the money, although I'm a little more positive about RAI set, but that's no matter.

And for the life of me, I cannot understand why you insist on watching his videos.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> On the one hand, yes it is classical music recording discussion which we junkies eat up..





wkasimer said:


> And for the life of me, I cannot understand why you insist on watching his videos.


I answered this in the post you quoted. Why shouldn't I watch them? Why does Hurwitz listen to recordings that he ends up trashing? Same reason. I'm a critic just like everyone else.

Regarding his comments...they are very generalized. Good singing. Good conducting. Lousy sound. He spends a great deal of time simply reading the names of the singers.

His one insight on the Furtwangler was that the first one had more zip. Sure, it was earlier and that tends to hold true. I will assume he probably at least sampled them.

I will take huge issue with something Hurwitz said that he has said in the past, that you cannot appreciate a work coming to it first from a "historic" recording. I disagree based my own experience. To name but one example I grew to love Bruckner symphonies from Furtwangler recordings, which were my first exposure based on critical recommendations. You don't need great sound to appreciate what is going on in the composition. There have also been times when I thought I didn't like a work based on having only heard it though a dull, modern interpretation. So Hurwitz is simply wrong about this.

I still will always have a modern recording handy to hear a work in its fullness. But if there is a historic recording that really grabs me, the modern version will sit on the shelf. Like Solti's Ring cycle.

Incidentally, I also disagree that newbies to the Ring should start with Solti. I think the Bohm version is more likely to convert newbies to Wagner, whereas the Solti is more for audiophiles. Also, I would recommend Knappertsbusch/Bayreuth 1957 above all the historic recordings he mentioned, including Furtwangler. It is a fantastic cycle in great sound.

.


----------



## Chilham

:lol: .......................


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I answered this in the post you quoted. Why shouldn't I watch them?


Because life is too short to watch videos by people for whom I have no respect, and who have nothing to offer.



> Why does Hurwitz listen to recordings that he ends up trashing?


Because it's tough to trash something that you haven't heard.



> I will take huge issue with something Hurwitz said that he has said in the past, that you cannot appreciate a work coming to it first from a "historic" recording. I disagree based my own experience. To name but one example I grew to love Bruckner symphonies from Furtwangler recordings, which were my first exposure based on critical recommendations. You don't need great sound to appreciate what is going on in the composition. There have also been times when I thought I didn't like a work based on having only heard it though a dull, modern interpretation. So Hurwitz is simply wrong about this.


He's not "wrong". He has a different point of view than you do. I think that it depends on the listener and the work in question.



> Incidentally, I also disagree that newbies to the Ring should start with Solti. I think the Bohm version is more likely to convert newbies to Wagner, whereas the Solti is more for audiophiles.


I'm not so sure about that. In my experience, people who are relatively new to opera tend to dislike live recordings with a lot of stage and audience noise.



> Also, I would recommend Knappertsbusch/Bayreuth 1957 above all the historic recordings he mentioned, including Furtwangler. It is a fantastic cycle in great sound.


I finally found a reasonably priced copy of this a couple of weeks ago. I'd hardly call the sound "great" - it's decent for a live 1957 broadcast, but misses a lot of orchestral nuance. And the cast has some...issues. Aldenhoff is horrible as the young Siegfried; between he and Kuen, the first act is virtually unlistenable. Loge wasn't a great role for Suthaus, the Greindl's Hagen catches him on a particularly woofy day. I agree with Hurwitz that the 1955 cycle is the best choice for a 50's Bayreuth Ring cycle, although I have a soft spot for the two 1953 cycles with Krauss and Keilberth.

Hurwitz is, though, incorrect about EMI's treatment of the RAI Furtwangler Ring. He said that it's been remastered repeatedly, and that's not the case. Other than a ridiculously expensive Japanese SACD version (I haven't heard it - I'm not that demented), EMI and Warner have persisted in issuing the same 1990 version.

.


----------



## fbjim

wkasimer said:


> I disagree. Hurwitz wears his biases on his sleeve for everyone to see. I prefer that to a critic who claims objectivity while hiding his or her biases and preconceptions.


yeah, this is where I am.

and i am honestly confused at the whole "he presents his opinions as objective facts" thing, which- frankly reminds me of the people who get mad when you post things without prefacing it with "IMO". like, of course it's his opinion, that's why he's saying it! is it really necessary to preface everything with "by the way this is my subjective opinion that you are free to disagree with"?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> He's not "wrong". He has a different point of view than you do. I think that it depends on the listener and the work in question.
> .


By his own words, he is offering guidance for listeners, not simply expressing his opinion. When he counsels that you cannot appreciate a work without "knowing" it through a modern recording, he is applying this to everyone.

Hurwitz and I have different approaches and inherently different modes of listening, obviously. The difference is I can hear what he listening for: clarity and fidelity to the score. He considers what I am listening for to be made-up witchcraft. He doesn't hear it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Because life is too short to watch videos by people for whom I have no respect, and who have nothing to offer.


More power to you. I have always been someone who listens to what the "other side" is saying, in music and politics. I have no need for echo chambers.


----------



## Bulldog

Hurwitz would likely be thrilled to know that this thread has stretched to 48 pages and still counting - it's all about exposure.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bulldog said:


> Hurwitz would likely be thrilled to know that this thread has stretched to 48 pages and still counting - it's all about exposure.


Well according to his YouTube channel he now needs only 40 subscribers to catch up to mine, so I am hurting my own cause here.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> More power to you. I have always been someone who listens to what the "other side" is saying, in music and politics. I have no need for echo chambers.


I listen to other opinions when those other opinions are thoughtful, and if I have some level of respect for their owners. If I think that someone is FOS, I ignore them.


----------



## BachIsBest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well according to his YouTube channel he now needs only 40 subscribers to catch up to mine, so I am hurting my own cause here.


Out of curiosity, what is your youtube channel? (Perhaps your last post was a devious ploy for you to counteract all the free advertising you gave Hurwitz).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BachIsBest said:


> Out of curiosity, what is your youtube channel? (Perhaps your last post was a devious ploy for you to counteract all the free advertising you gave Hurwitz).


----------



## HenryPenfold

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well according to his YouTube channel he now needs only 40 subscribers to catch up to mine, so I am hurting my own cause here.


He needs 41 now!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I made that video a decade ago and still don't know what I was thinking on some of the symphony omissions. Oh well. Could do it again but will take a lot of work as I don't even have that same video program anymore.

Missing:

Bruckner 9 - Giulini
Mahler 6 - Bernstein DG
Mahler 9 - Karajan 
Sibelius 2 - Barbirolli
Sibelius 5 - Bernstein Sony
Shostakovich 10 - Karajan '81

Symphonies are my favorite genre, so I may have been thinking along the lines of not wanting to overload newbies. But no Mahler 9? Makes me cringe today.

.


----------



## fbjim

just a random positive thing

i know his humor isn't everyone's thing but I still laugh any time he (very horribly) summarizes an opera plot and makes it sound as stupid and incoherent as possible, and finishes with "it's great!" or "it's so much fun" 

i think "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" (which I'm still looking for a recording for at a decent price - i simply can't do on-screen non-physical librettos) is the absolute peak of this


----------



## amfortas

fbjim said:


> just a random positive thing
> 
> i know his humor isn't everyone's thing but I still laugh any time he (very horribly) summarizes an opera plot and makes it sound as stupid and incoherent as possible, and finishes with "it's great!" or "it's so much fun"
> 
> i think "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" (which I'm still looking for a recording for at a decent price - i simply can't do on-screen non-physical librettos) is the absolute peak of this


I've said it before, but just to be clear: He's not very accurate in his plot summaries, so some of the stupidity and incoherence is of his own making. One senses he doesn't pay much attention to anything besides the music.


----------



## Knorf

amfortas said:


> One senses he doesn't pay much attention to anything besides the music.


I'm not convinced of even that; my impression is that he always just hears what he already decided he wanted to hear.


----------



## fbjim

amfortas said:


> I've said it before, but just to be clear: He's not very accurate in his plot summaries, so some of the stupidity and incoherence is of his own making. One senses he doesn't pay much attention to anything besides the music.


I think La Forza del Destino or Die Zauberflote are almost impossible to summarize coherently, to be fair.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> Hurwitz would likely be thrilled to know that this thread has stretched to 48 pages and still counting - it's all about exposure.


Should we let him know? And invite him to come to TC and discuss?


----------



## science

hammeredklavier said:


> Should we let him know? And invite him to come to TC and discuss?


Anyone who cares for his well-being should advise him to stay away from here - and not to read the comments on his videos!


----------



## AClockworkOrange

I’ve commented before that I find his videos interesting in that at best, they introduce me to pieces or performances I have never heard before and I can sample many of them via streaming. This has been a real benefit. His coverage of newer releases as well as the old guard is also very useful.

Where I disagree with him, I simply disagree - I listen, I consider and simply move on - life’s too short. If we all liked the same and thought the same in any art, it would be terribly dull. He said rather aptly in a recent video to the date of my reply that reviews should be taken with a ouch of salt - his own included. I actually value our disagreements because it prompts me think, a challenge to our viewpoint can be useful, whether it confirms what we believe ourselves or it opens us to something we may not have considered. 

His recommendations of recordings tend to be strong and as he often says aren’t always his personal preferences and in individual pieces gives multiple recommendations with attention given to the differences and why they may appeal. He also frequently states that there many recordings which may not be mentioned but isn’t an indication of their quality. 

His humour can be hit and miss but humour is very subjective. Generally I don’t mind it or his delivery, including the singing (it’s nice to hear someone as bad or worse than me :lol: ). I guess I’m going against the grain for some here in speaking positively about him and his channel but I find the pro’s outweigh the cons. 

He’s putting himself out there, his face and name both in print (online) and on YouTube without anonymity. He’s clearly passionate about the topic and has worked within Classical Music Criticism in a professional sense for a long period of time. Like any reviewer he has much to offer but you wouldn’t just go solely by his review - you contrast with other sources and in the case of music where YouTube and Streaming come into play, sample it yourself and trust your ears.

Even if he only stimulates discussion on the range of recording choices or where we choose to compromise and what we prioritise in our listening he has value.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AClockworkOrange said:


> Where I disagree with him, I simply disagree - I listen, I consider and simply move on - life's too short. If we all liked the same and thought the same in any art, it would be terribly dull. He said rather aptly in a recent video to the date of my reply that reviews should be taken with a ouch of salt - his own included.s.


He dedicates entire videos to trashing artists and recordings and advising people not to even bother with them at all.

And he has said many times that his opinion is based on "fact," which is a complete and utter fallacy. Art appreciation can never be stated as a fact. And to try and do so as Hurwitz does is simply self-serving, the same way Antonin Scalia would take his personal prejudices and agendas on the Supreme Court bench and cloak them in "judicial objectivity."

.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He dedicates entire videos to trashing artists and recordings and advising people not to even bother with them at all.
> 
> And he has said many times that his opinion is based on "fact," which is a complete and utter fallacy. Art appreciation can never be stated as a fact. And to try and do so as Hurwitz does is simply self-serving, the same way Antonin Scalia would take his personal prejudices and agendas on the Supreme Court bench and cloak them in "judicial objectivity."
> 
> .


You edited your post and now threw in the Scalia bit. I'm completely against the originalist interpretation of The US Constitution favored by Scalia. But give us a break. First of all,this is political. Second of all,connecting Dave Hurwitz with Antonio Scalia is bit of a stretch. How many comments have you already made in this thread?


----------



## FrankinUsa

science said:


> Anyone who cares for his well-being should advise him to stay away from here - and not to read the comments on his videos!


Do I detect a physical threat? "Anyone who cares for his well-being should advise to stay away from here."

"Not to read the comments on his video." Is this directed towards Hurwitz or those here who might possibly look at his videos on an occasional basis. Either way. You have no right to tell Hurwitz or the people on TalkClassical as to what or what not they can do.


----------



## amfortas

fbjim said:


> I think La Forza del Destino or Die Zauberflote are almost impossible to summarize coherently, to be fair.


Forza is a bit sprawling, no doubt. I'm not sure I see as much difficulty with Zauberflöte. A young prince is sent on a mission to rescue a beautiful captive, finds out all is not as it seems, and ultimately passes a series of initiation tests (the last with the young lady's help) to win both a bride and a higher wisdom. All while a comic sidekick undergoes a similar but less exalted journey. One may or may not care for the story, but it doesn't strike me as incoherent.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He dedicates entire videos to trashing artists and recordings and advising people not to even bother with them at all.


It's criticism. Speaking negatively of some recordings or artists as opposed to treating some like sacred cows beyond reproach doesn't do anyone any favours. No artist is perfect with a library of perfect releases.

It's also opinion, personal preference which is why he states ultimately to take all reviews, including his own with a pinch of salt.

I wouldn't use the term trashes necessarily. Where he has a dislike he states his reasons which is a distinguishing point for me - whether I agree with him or not. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

Where he rates some artists or performances negatively, he also suggests alternatives which one may wish to consider.

Whether you agree with some/any/all of those reasons he presents is entirely down you. Again, I don't always agree but I can often see where he is coming from in many cases.

The same can be said of any critic in any field.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He dedicates entire videos to trashing artists and recordings and advising people not to even bother with them at all.
> 
> And he has said many times that his opinion is based on "fact," which is a complete and utter fallacy. Art appreciation can never be stated as a fact. And to try and do so as Hurwitz does is simply self-serving, the same way Antonin Scalia would take his personal prejudices and agendas on the Supreme Court bench and cloak them in "judicial objectivity."
> 
> .


That edit - the second paragraph- was thrown in after I began my response. Let's leave politics out of this, it is not relevant.

It looks like you have your own agenda with regards to Hurwitz.


----------



## science

FrankinUsa said:


> Do I detect a physical threat? "Anyone who cares for his well-being should advise to stay away from here."
> 
> "Not to read the comments on his video." Is this directed towards Hurwitz or those here who might possibly look at his videos on an occasional basis. Either way. You have no right to tell Hurwitz or the people on TalkClassical as to what or what not they can do.


Rights aside, *none* of that has anything to do with what I actually wrote.

What I very clearly and obviously meant was that he'll be healthier and happier if he doesn't see what the online horde of anonymous people say about him.

Physical threat. Lolz.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

science said:


> Anyone who cares for his well-being should advise him to stay away from here - and not to read the comments on his videos!


Why shouldn't he be welcome here if he wanted to appear, not that I would expect him to?

Why would anyone's well being be affected by reading his YouTube comments (more than anyone else's) or by him participating here?

*I have edited this I caught post whilst typing and rewording on my phone.


----------



## science

AClockworkOrange said:


> It would be inconvenient if he were to present a different viewpoint or a counterpoint to the criticism he is receiving.
> 
> It's a bit melodramatic.


A lot of online content creators find it difficult to read the nastiness people write about them, and some just choose to ignore all of it and do their thing. Hopefully he knows what's best for him.

What matters for now is whether FrankinUsa feels threatened by this post. It may be necessary for me to explain that nothing I've written in this particular post is intended to be anything like a threat to anyone. Should, however, anyone happen to feel that I'm using this post as a form of extortion, feel free to send me money. Cash only because I'm old-fashioned.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Yes. I do have an agenda. Everyone should just make up their own mind whether or not to look/listen to Hurwitz. I do subscribe to his YT channel. I listen to what he has to say and then I make up my own mind. I read other reviews as well. To be honest,I am cutting back on my purchases of recordings(CD’s etc). My emphasis from now on is to attend live performances. I live approximately 50 miles outside of NYC so I guess I have plenty of opportunities to go to live performances. My bottom line is that I listen/read what Hurwitz and others have to say. And then I make up my own mind.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I’m not threatened. I’m just reading what you printed.


----------



## science

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm not threatened. I'm just reading what you printed.


Creating an implausible and uncharitable misreading of what I "printed."

Look, bro, welcome to the forum. Enjoy Horwitz. I appreciate and enjoy his views myself. There's no need to antagonize me.


----------



## FrankinUsa

You just keep on digging a deeper foxhole.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

science said:


> A lot of online content creators find it difficult to read the nastiness people write about them, and some just choose to ignore all of it and do their thing. Hopefully he knows what's best for him.


I can understand and agree on that, the internet in general can be a very negative place. I'm starting to regret not avoiding this thread completely. I hope I reworded my original post better, typing on a phone and trying select, delete and rewrite is tricky.

Hurwitz has mentioned that he does read his comments and will delete some comments if necessary.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Ok. I made the.comment about digging a deeper foxhole. I really don’t want to antagonize you. Most respectfully.


----------



## wkasimer

science said:


> A lot of online content creators find it difficult to read the nastiness people write about them, and some just choose to ignore all of it and do their thing. Hopefully he knows what's best for him.


I've seen Hurwitz engage with his detractors on other online forums. He's quite capable of defending himself.


----------



## Knorf

If by "defending himself" you mean hamfistedly insulting anyone who criticizes his methods or behavior, and deleting negative comments whenever possible, then I agree.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AClockworkOrange said:


> It's criticism. Speaking negatively of some recordings or artists as opposed to treating some like sacred cows beyond reproach doesn't do anyone any favours. No artist is perfect with a library of perfect releases.


Fine, just stop trying to sugarcoat his style by making him out to be respectful of other opinions when he is mostly clearly, definitely not. He even dedicated an entire video to trashing a Gramophone reviewer, and it was a pathetic whinefest that was largely nonsensical. The guy has maturity problems.


----------



## Knorf

I have to strenuously disagree with some of the posters on recent pages who seem to wish to characterize Hurwitz as a strongly opinionated but more-or-less garden-variety critic.

No, I am sorry, but Hurwitz stands out, and not in a good way.

His extraordinary vitriol, his pig-ignorance that flies in the face of his supercilious attitude and wanna-be-scholar pretense, his unnecessary personal attacks on performing artists both living and dead, his willfulness in inventing derogatory critical description that suits what he wants to be true rather than having any obvious relation to what he is actually listening to: all of it adds up to a critic who _stands out_ as being much, much worse than average. Also he is not witty in his opprobrium, nor erudite; this is no George Bernard Shaw. Hurwitz is a crude, playground-level slinger of insults and mud.

There is no other critic, living or dead, about whom so many different posters here on TC-including many who frequently disagree on almost everything else-all agree is unnecessarily divisive, vitriolic, and generally a narrow-minded pissant, one who too often does more harm to music than he does good.

As I mentioned upthread, David Hurwitz savaged the debut release CD of a very dear conductor friend of mine, one who had a very promising career up to that point. Hurwitz went beyond panning the interpretation into savaging my friend as incompetent, which he most certainly is not; he has a solid background and is a top-tier musician. Hurwitz bluntly dismissed the whole enterprise as a total waste of time and money. The album has since vanished, and my friend's career has languished. In truth, it cannot be said that this one review ruined his career; that's a longer story, but let's be clear mostly not my friend's fault. But Hurwitz's unnecessarily harsh review definitely hurt, tragically and unfairly so, because it's actually a really impressive achievement. Hurwitz just couldn't see past a conductor he knew nothing about, and so he verbally blasted it with insults that are not particularly recognizable to anyone who's actually heard the recording, because it's all about earning attention for Hurwitz, and not about the actual profession of criticism.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Knorf said:


> I have to strenuously disagree with some of the posters on recent pages who seem to wish to characterize Hurwitz as a strongly opinionated but more-or-less garden-variety critic.
> 
> No, I am sorry, but Hurwitz stands out, and not in a good way.
> 
> His extraordinary vitriol, his pig-ignorance that flies in the face of his supercilious attitude and wanna-be-scholar pretense, his unnecessary personal attacks on performing artists both living and dead, his willfulness in inventing derogatory critical description that suits what he wants to be true rather than having any obvious relation to what he is actually listening to: all of it adds up to a critic who _stands out_ as being much, much worse than average. Also he is not witty in his opprobrium, nor erudite; this is no George Bernard Shaw. Hurwitz is a crude, playground-level slinger of insults and mud.
> 
> There is no other critic, living or dead, about whom so many different posters here on TC-including many who frequently disagree on almost everything else-all agree is unnecessarily divisive, vitriolic, and generally a narrow-minded pissant, one who too often does more harm to music than he does good.
> 
> As I mentioned upthread, David Hurwitz savaged the debut release CD of a very dear conductor friend of mine, one who had a very promising career up to that point. Hurwitz went beyond panning the interpretation into savaging my friend as incompetent, which he most certainly is not; he has a solid background and is a top-tier musician. Hurwitz bluntly dismissed the whole enterprise as a total waste of time and money. The album has since vanished, and my friend's career has languished. In truth, it cannot be said that this one review ruined his career; that's a longer story, but let's be clear mostly not my friend's fault. But Hurwitz's unnecessarily harsh review definitely hurt, tragically and unfairly so, because it's actually a really impressive achievement. Hurwitz just couldn't see past a conductor he knew nothing about, and so he verbally blasted it with insults that are not particularly recognizable to anyone who's actually heard the recording, because it's all about earning attention for Hurwitz, and not about the actual profession of criticism.


Beautifully said, Knorf and I feel for your friend whose career he slung through the mud. He didn't deserve that kind of treatment. It's one thing to say he doesn't like something, but when he maliciously attacks someone he doesn't know anything about, it makes him look like an uneducated moron. This guy just needs to put the proverbial sock in it and find something else to do. For me, it's not so much what he dislikes, but _how_ he goes about expressing this dislike. Everything else is garbage unless _he_ likes it, then it's not. Give me a break. Recess is over, Mr. Hurwitz now return to your desk like a good little boy.


----------



## AndorFoldes

Knorf said:


> As I mentioned upthread, David Hurwitz savaged the debut release CD of a very dear conductor friend of mine, one who had a very promising career up to that point. Hurwitz went beyond panning the interpretation into savaging my friend as incompetent, which he most certainly is not; he has a solid background and is a top-tier musician. Hurwitz bluntly dismissed the whole enterprise as a total waste of time and money. The album has since vanished, and my friend's career has languished.


Who? Let's hear it!


----------



## Neo Romanza

AndorFoldes said:


> Who? Let's hear it!


Do you not respect that Knorf wanted to keep this confidential? If he wanted you to know or anyone else to know, he would've mentioned it in his initial post. Geez...some people just can't respect someone else's privacy.


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> I have to strenuously disagree with some of the posters on recent pages who seem to wish to characterize Hurwitz as a strongly opinionated but more-or-less garden-variety critic.
> 
> No, I am sorry, but Hurwitz stands out, and not in a good way.
> 
> His extraordinary vitriol, his pig-ignorance that flies in the face of his supercilious attitude and wanna-be-scholar pretense, his unnecessary personal attacks on performing artists both living and dead, his willfulness in inventing derogatory critical description that suits what he wants to be true rather than having any obvious relation to what he is actually listening to: all of it adds up to a critic who _stands out_ as being much, much worse than average. Also he is not witty in his opprobrium, nor erudite; this is no George Bernard Shaw. Hurwitz is a crude, playground-level slinger of insults and mud.
> 
> There is no other critic, living or dead, about whom so many different posters here on TC-including many who frequently disagree on almost everything else-all agree is unnecessarily divisive, vitriolic, and generally a narrow-minded pissant, one who too often does more harm to music than he does good.
> 
> As I mentioned upthread, David Hurwitz savaged the debut release CD of a very dear conductor friend of mine, one who had a very promising career up to that point. Hurwitz went beyond panning the interpretation into savaging my friend as incompetent, which he most certainly is not; he has a solid background and is a top-tier musician. Hurwitz bluntly dismissed the whole enterprise as a total waste of time and money. The album has since vanished, and my friend's career has languished. In truth, it cannot be said that this one review ruined his career; that's a longer story, but let's be clear mostly not my friend's fault. But Hurwitz's unnecessarily harsh review definitely hurt, tragically and unfairly so, because it's actually a really impressive achievement. Hurwitz just couldn't see past a conductor he knew nothing about, and so he verbally blasted it with insults that are not particularly recognizable to anyone who's actually heard the recording, because it's all about earning attention for Hurwitz, and not about the actual profession of criticism.


I wonder if "savaged by Hurwitz" could be a successful marketing category. Knowing that he savaged your friend's record makes me wan to hear it. Perhaps it is as good as the many favourites of mine that he has dismissed.


----------



## Enthusiast

hammeredklavier said:


> Should we let him know? And invite him to come to TC and discuss?


He would be banned after a day or two. That would be good to see!


----------



## Merl

This is an open forum. I'm sure he's probably already read some of the comments about him. I doubt he's @rsed about it, tbh.


----------



## amfortas

hammeredklavier said:


> Should we let him know? And invite him to come to TC and discuss?





Merl said:


> This is an open forum. I'm sure he's probably already read some of the comments about him. I doubt he's @rsed about it, tbh.


Maybe I can help:

"Hey Hurwitz, you suck!"

That should draw him in.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Enthusiast said:


> He would be banned after a day or two. That would be good to see!


I invited him with the url link of this thread in the comment a few hours ago, but it seems he deleted it.


----------



## Neo Romanza

hammeredklavier said:


> I invited him with the url link of this thread in the comment a few hours ago, but it seems he deleted it.


That figures. Once a coward, always a coward.


----------



## fbjim

hammeredklavier said:


> I invited him with the url link of this thread in the comment a few hours ago, but it seems he deleted it.


He probably saw all the rude things you said about Joe Haydn


----------



## Neo Romanza

I just read on another forum that Hurwitz has multiple sclerosis. While I wouldn’t wish such a thing on my worst enemy, it does come as a surprise as most people would be much more humble in this particular circumstance --- or, at least, you would think they would.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fbjim said:


> He probably saw all the rude things you said about Joe Haydn


Probably, and so he's scared out of his witz


----------



## amfortas

Neo Romanza said:


> I just read on another forum that Hurwitz has multiple sclerosis. While I wouldn't wish such a thing on my worst enemy, it does come as a surprise as most people would be much more humble in this particular circumstance --- or, at least, you would think they would.


I know a young lady who was diagnosed at the age of seventeen with an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis, but has been symptom free since a stem cell transplant five years ago. There's been some remarkable work in the field, though further study lies ahead. Here's hoping the best for Hurwitz and others afflicted by this awful disease.


----------



## Chilham

Neo Romanza said:


> I just read on another forum that Hurwitz has multiple sclerosis. While I wouldn't wish such a thing on my worst enemy, it does come as a surprise as most people would be much more humble in this particular circumstance --- or, at least, you would think they would.


Why should a diagnosis of MS make anyone more humble?


----------



## FrankinUsa

amfortas said:


> Maybe I can help:
> 
> "Hey Hurwitz, you suck!"
> 
> That should draw him in.


To the moderator/owner of this website. 
THIS POSTING IS HOMOPHOBIC.

I've notice others here having the strain of hate.

What does this comment have to do with the qualitative discussion of Hurwitz'.

ITS UGLY.

SHAME IN YOU.


----------



## Bulldog

FrankinUsa said:


> To the moderator/owner of this website.
> THIS POSTING IS HOMOPHOBIC.


Nonsense. That posting was done for humor, so lighten up.


----------



## amfortas

Bulldog said:


> Nonsense. That posting was done for humor, so lighten up.


People react in different ways. For the record, my intentions were as you say.


----------



## science

FrankinUsa said:


> THIS POSTING IS HOMOPHOBIC.


Lots of people study creative writing, and even attempt it. But you're far past them, already pioneering creative reading.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Chilham said:


> Why should a diagnosis of MS make anyone more humble?


Perhaps I should rephrase _would_ to _should_. Why you ask? Well, life is nothing more than a fleeting moment and perhaps people with this kind of diagnosis will allow them to understand that it's best to leave the world making a positive impression rather than a negative one.


----------



## Neo Romanza

amfortas said:


> I know a young lady who was diagnosed at the age of seventeen with an aggressive form of multiple sclerosis, but has been symptom free since a stem cell transplant five years ago. There's been some remarkable work in the field, though further study lies ahead. Here's hoping the best for Hurwitz and others afflicted by this awful disease.


This is excellent news, indeed.


----------



## Merl

My ex-wife has secondary progressive MS. It's a horrendous, debilitating disease that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Men who get it tend to deteriorate quicker (or so my ex-wife says). I lost an acquaintance to it 10 years ago. He was diagnosed at the same time as my wife.


----------



## Enthusiast

FrankinUsa said:


> To the moderator/owner of this website.
> THIS POSTING IS HOMOPHOBIC.
> 
> I've notice others here having the strain of hate.
> 
> What does this comment have to do with the qualitative discussion of Hurwitz'.
> 
> ITS UGLY.
> 
> SHAME IN YOU.


I must be too innocent to see the homophobia. But if the man is gay I still don't see how the apparently offending post was homophobic.

Did you join the forum just to say that? Are you Hurwitz in disguise? If so, tell us again how you hate Horenstein's recordings.


----------



## amfortas

Enthusiast said:


> I must be too innocent to see the homophobia. But if the man is gay I still don't see how the apparently offending post was homophobic.


For the record, I know nothing about Hurwitz's sexuality. When I made my lighthearted post, I didn't even consider that question, and still don't feel any need to.


----------



## wkasimer

Neo Romanza said:


> Perhaps I should rephrase _would_ to _should_. Why you ask? Well, life is nothing more than a fleeting moment and perhaps people with this kind of diagnosis will allow them to understand that it's best to leave the world making a positive impression rather than a negative one.


Positive or negative based on whose judgement?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> To the moderator/owner of this website.
> THIS POSTING IS HOMOPHOBIC.
> 
> I've notice others here having the strain of hate.
> 
> What does this comment have to do with the qualitative discussion of Hurwitz'.
> 
> ITS UGLY.
> 
> SHAME IN YOU.


Have you talked to Hurwitz about his homophobia?

"Review: Why Furtwangler's 1942 Nazi Ninth Really Sucks"


----------



## Neo Romanza

wkasimer said:


> Positive or negative based on whose judgement?


Just do good and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## science

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you talked to Hurwitz about his homophobia?
> 
> "Review: Why Furtwangler's 1942 Nazi Ninth Really Sucks"


I watched this video all the way through but I missed the homophobic part. What is the time stamp on it?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

science said:


> I watched this video all the way through but I missed the homophobic part. What is the time stamp on it?


Oh my word, I was just referring to the title of the video, so no need to go through the whole video.

This poster claimed it is homophobic for another poster to say that Hurwitz "sucks."


----------



## fbjim

as much as I don't like to say so, I'm going to assume that person isn't making that complaint in good faith


----------



## amfortas

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh my word, I was just referring to the title of the video, so no need to go through the whole video.
> 
> This poster claimed it is homophobic for another poster to say that Hurwitz "sucks."


Yes, and I was the accused poster when, as the above poster points out, the earlier poster made that claim against another poster.

My head hurts.


----------



## Art Rock

If you think a poster makes an inappropriate remark, please report it, and do not keep on talking about it in the thread. Continued 'discussion' of it makes our heads hurt as well.

:tiphat:


----------



## science

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh my word, I was just referring to the title of the video, so no need to go through the whole video.
> 
> This poster claimed it is homophobic for another poster to say that Hurwitz "sucks."


Ah, I get it now.


----------



## bluto32

The humour in some reviews can be hit-and-miss, but this one had me in hysterics:


----------



## amfortas

Just watched Hurwitz's video on the ideal Wagner recordings. His picks for each opera were entirely reasonable (though not very daring). But as he demonstrates in other videos, his understanding of opera as anything beyond some pretty music is about at the level of an apathetic high-school student. I'd be embarrassed to put my name on content like that, but he's the purported expert, so I guess he can do what he wants.

There. Now I feel better.


----------



## fbjim

Yeah I think he doesn't actually write the opera reviews on his website, and there's probably a reason for that.


----------



## Kreisler jr

If one has read Hurwitz on CT for a few years or followed his videos, it seems quite clear that his area of competence is strongest in orchestral music from Haydn to 20th century, with the main focus probably on late romantic and early modern composers. It drops sharply off in chamber music and oratorio but he still has some knowledge and experience there. 
You can pretty much ignore him in piano solo (there's Jed Distler and another person for this on CT), music before ca. 1700, opera and lieder (he actively dislikes the latter, at least he is honest about it). If he comments on these areas, it is mostly received wisdom or whatever his buddies at CT think about it.


----------



## starthrower

I'd love to have that box but I don't have the time or the space to devote to it.


----------



## RobertJTh

I'm not a big fan of YouTube or any social media but when I discovered Hurwitz' channel last year, I thought I finally had found a nice place to discuss music with some erudite people, himself and the many commenters. I even revived a dead YouTube account just for that purpose.
And I gotta say, Hurwitz didn't disappoint when it came to providing entertainment. Say whatever you want about him, but he knows his stuff and more importantly, he's great at delivering a captivating speech, funny, interesting and not without intellectual depth.

It's just that the discussion part was sorely lacking. To put it simple, Dave doesn't want anyone stealing the spotlights by providing new insights in the comments, going in-depth on his analysis, or - god forbid - disagreeing with him.
So I noticed my contributions were regularly deleted. Fine, I admit that sometimes they were a bit on the pedantic side. But even after I tried to keep everything I wrote ultra-polite, concise and constructive, and I banned every thought of ever disagreeing with him, my stuff still got binned.
Of course no-brainer one line comments like "Dave, you're the best" or "Yeah, Furtwängler sucks!", got to stay. Apparently only yes-men and people that he assumes are no threat to his self-erected castle of wisdom have the right to attach themselves to his videos.

So I wrote a nice and polite email to him explaining I'd still enjoy his talks and wished him the best of luck, but I wouldn't contribute anymore, because every deletion felt like a personal insult to me. Got no answer and of course he won't care, one less out of god knows how many fans he has now.

tl;dr, I still love his videos and I still think he's a very talented and entertaining guy, but he's just not interested in the opinions of others. If you join his channel with the idea of discussing music with him or other contributors on a professional level, you'll be disappointed.


----------



## trazom

RobertJTh said:


> I'm not a big fan of YouTube or any social media but when I discovered Hurwitz' channel last year, I thought I finally had found a nice place to discuss music with some erudite people, himself and the many commenters. I even revived a dead YouTube account just for that purpose.
> And I gotta say, Hurwitz didn't disappoint when it came to providing entertainment. Say whatever you want about him, but he knows his stuff and more importantly, he's great at delivering a captivating speech, funny, interesting and not without intellectual depth.
> 
> It's just that the discussion part was sorely lacking. To put it simple, Dave doesn't want anyone stealing the spotlights by providing new insights in the comments, going in-depth on his analysis, or - god forbid - disagreeing with him.
> So I noticed my contributions were regularly deleted. Fine, I admit that sometimes they were a bit on the pedantic side. But even after I tried to keep everything I wrote ultra-polite, concise and constructive, and I banned every thought of ever disagreeing with him, my stuff still got binned.
> Of course no-brainer one line comments like "Dave, you're the best" or "Yeah, Furtwängler sucks!", got to stay. Apparently only yes-men and people that he assumes are no threat to his self-erected castle of wisdom have the right to attach themselves to his videos.
> 
> So I wrote a nice and polite email to him explaining I'd still enjoy his talks and wished him the best of luck, but I wouldn't contribute anymore, because every deletion felt like a personal insult to me. Got no answer and of course he won't care, one less out of god knows how many fans he has now.
> 
> tl;dr, I still love his videos and I still think he's a very talented and entertaining guy, but he's just not interested in the opinions of others. If you join his channel with the idea of discussing music with him or other contributors on a professional level, you'll be disappointed.


It's funny you mention this. I was just watching one of his videos last night on beautiful melodies, this one on Haydn's piano trio in E major. I do sometimes watch his videos on Haydn just because that composer seems to be his favorite and the one he knows the most about. Anyways, there was a rather detailed, politely written comment disagreeing with Dave's rather careless dismissal of Mozart and Beethoven's melodies as 'limited' in conception and I thought the post would likely be deleted and sure enough, just this morning, I went to look for it and it's now gone.


----------



## SanAntone

Not interested. From his reviews that I've read, we don't agree; and I find his tone off-putting. Reading them is bad enough, I can't imagine how unpleasant it would be to listen to and watch him.


----------



## FrankE

I chanced on his channel a couple of weeks back looking for "don't buy classical boxsets" to find examples of poorly-performed, poorly-recoded, poorly put-together sets with filler tracks, umpteen different ensembles, conductors periods - you know, tagging, filing and listening nightmares. I didn't find such a video but I watched his video on best boxsets but won't be buying any.
I watched another and they were mostly recordings from USA. Wasn't aware he was a music journalist or if he was just wearing magazine merch.
I prefer group reviews to find the best.


----------



## Bulldog

SanAntone said:


> Not interested. From his reviews that I've read, we don't agree; and I find his tone off-putting. Reading them is bad enough, I can't imagine how unpleasant it would be to listen to and watch him.


Actually, I find his videos much more enjoyable than his written reviews. He's a jovial guy - quite amusing.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Bulldog said:


> Actually, I find his videos much more enjoyable than his written reviews. He's a jovial guy - quite amusing.


Makes no difference whether I agree or disagree with his viewpoints _or_ choices, I find him amusing and enjoyable as well. He can have a Reuben on rye, and I'll take a chopped liver on rye.


----------



## SanAntone

Bulldog said:


> Actually, I find his videos much more enjoyable than his written reviews. He's a jovial guy - quite amusing.


I prefer skimming a review. With a video it is harder to skim.


----------



## FrankE

SanAntone said:


> I prefer skimming a review. With a video it is harder to skim.


Harder still to skip through if instead of superimposing a graphic of the review item on an inset on screen for a reasonable amount of time they hold it up just for a few seconds.


----------



## fbjim

they're basically 100% audio, with the video almost always superfluous, so I tend to just put one on between music when I'm on a walk or something


----------



## Neo Romanza

SanAntone said:


> Not interested. From his reviews that I've read, we don't agree; and I find his tone off-putting. Reading them is bad enough, I can't imagine how unpleasant it would be to listen to and watch him.


If you're "not interested", then you wouldn't have responded to this thread, so I say there is a degree of interest on your part.  But this doesn't mean we can't come here and trash him, though.  We're pretty much in agreement in that I think his attitude and general demeanor haven't done him any favors. Someone here called him a jovial guy and I have to laugh at this because I don't see it that way at all. If anything, I see someone who is obnoxious, uncouth and actually shows little understanding of the music he reviews.


----------



## Knorf

Neo Romanza said:


> Someone here called him a jovial guy and I have to laugh at this, but I don't see it that way at all. If anything, I see someone who is obnoxious, uncouth and actually shows little understanding of the music he reviews.


Totally agree.

He's a vindictive twit, with far, _far_ more influence and deference than he remotely deserves.

It's insane how often his name gets dropped around here, like no other critic living or dead.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Knorf said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> He's a vindictive twit, with far, _far_ more influence and deference than he remotely deserves.
> 
> It's insane often his name gets dropped around here, like no other critic living or dead.


Indeed. I remember reading someone called him "a breath of fresh air". Okay, if you call juvenile tirades against an establishment that has been around longer than he ever will be "a breath of a fresh air", then have fun with all of that. Outside of this thread, I don't name drop him, because he's nothing more than a troll with a YouTube channel.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

He posted a video recently where he complained about being called names. He is the ultimate cowardly hypocrite. He spews venom mercilessly at others and then cries like a baby if he gets criticized himself. He also referred to himself as an “artist” on the same level as the performers he critiques. The guy’s ego and myopia are off the charts.

What makes him stand out from all other critics is his juvenile need to have his opinion seen as authoritative. The venom he directs towards others simply because they have differing tastes from his is unhealthy. It seems to be his entire motivation for being a critic.

In fact, he “celebrated” his 60th birthday by trashing Anthony Collins and sticking it to the critics who like his recordings. The guy is sick in the head and cannot recognize it. He seriously cannot handle people having different tastes from his.


----------



## SanAntone

fbjim said:


> they're basically 100% audio, with the video almost always superfluous, so I tend to just put one on between music when I'm on a walk or something


The only purpose for me of reviews at this point in my Classical music journey would be to alert me of a new recording. Or if it is a monumental work, with a complex structure, and hundreds of recordings with a long history of interpretation, like _The Ring_, I am interested in a historical survey by a Wagner specialist.

But those are found in books, not online reviews - especially not YouTube clips. I vastly prefer reading instead of watching/listening to someone expound.


----------



## Neo Romanza

SanAntone said:


> But those are found in books, not online reviews - especially not YouTube clips. I vastly prefer reading instead of watching/listening to someone expound.


You don't enjoy watching/listening to Bernstein's thoughts on various composers and musical subjects like those found in his Harvard lectures?


----------



## vtpoet

Sorry I missed this thread. Just discovered it and discovered Hurwitz. He's a hoot. He's sort of the William Logan of music criticism and he's twisted a lot of panties in tight little wads, but he cracks me up. Since no human being agrees with any other human being, it's meaningless to say that I don't agree with all that he says. I like some of the HIP he doesn't. He's dead right about Fürtwangler's Nazi Ninth though. Blech....


----------



## Sondersdorf

Oh, my goodness. In the interest of accurate reporting, please know that David Hurwitz says over and over again that you might not agree with him. And, he is a truly sweet guy who seems to be attacked on talkclassical by the overly-important classical music crowd with no sense of humor-the very crowd he rails against.

Plus, as he says, there is something strange in his brain where he can recall the details of tens of thousands of recordings and talk about them off the top of his head. Somewhat of a marvel. You want to know what he is about? You can listen to this: 



, or even skip to the last few minutes.


----------



## vtpoet

Sondersdorf;2154203Plus said:


> Yeah, I noticed that. I'm somewhat like that with my own collection but still; would I be with as many collections as he owns? I doubt it.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I’m surprised that the Hurwitz haters have missed the sometimes positive comments lately posted. Usually there is a reaction within couple of seconds repeating what they said over and over.


----------



## Enthusiast

Bulldog said:


> Actually, I find his videos much more enjoyable than his written reviews. He's a jovial guy - quite amusing.


Don't you just want to give him a big slap when you watch him? I know I do.


----------



## JTS

Enthusiast said:


> Don't you just want to give him a big slap when you watch him? I know I do.


If he annoys you that much don't watch him.


----------



## vtpoet

Enthusiast said:


> Don't you just want to give him a big slap when you watch him? I know I do.


Nah. I think he's great. He's got opinions. So what? So does everybody on this forum. I'd love to hang out with him but then he's the kind of kid I was always best friends with when growing up.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I've been avoiding commenting on Hurwitz's recent wave of Furtwangler commentary, but on this one it begs coming forth with what Furt boxes people should be acquiring, because I agree with Hurwitz that this newest box is a waste of time, because his best stuff was live and the good studio stuff can be acquired separately. But at the same time, Hurwitz is the LAST person to be telling people what Furtwangler they should or should not listen to.

First, suffice it to say Hurwitz is out on left field when it comes to Furtwangler. He just doesn't get it. He is preoccupied with mere technicalities and completely misses the musical nuance that made Furtwangler the icon that he is. What's funny is seeing Hurwitz bang his head on the wall in frustration at why everyone else doesn't hear it the same simplistic way he does. He even comically issued a video recently whining about why the world doesn't appreciate Toscanini more and how it is all the record companies' fault. No Dave, people respond more to Furtwangler because he is more illuminating and interesting, and this is why we get all these reissues, to your ever growing consternation. Hurwitz is a Szell guy. He likes simple, straight-forward clarity. Furtwangler is over his head. And listening to his recent podcast with Rob Cowan - a real reviewer - was painful. Hurwitz is completely limited in his ability to understand or appreciate great artistry. This is a man who cannot even appreciate great works like Beethoven's Eroica, Brahms' Requiem, and Mozart's Requiem. He is a technician, completely out of tune with the spiritual, emotional side of music. Which is not a crime by itself, if it weren't for the fact that Hurwitz goes out of his way to preach to people about what they *should* like based on his own limited understanding of music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

What I would recommend to people who can appreciate an artist like Furtwangler and are not preoccupied with mere technicality and "correctness" is the following:

This collects his postwar live BPO recordings. The sound is often very good and gives a truer idea of the real Furtwangler sound than you can get just about anywhere.










The Orfeo box of live VPO recordings from both during and after the war also shows Furtwangler in some of his best performances, which (sorry, Dave) constitute among the greatest, most indispensable recordings of Romantic German repertoire in existence. (Incidentally, Dave keeps railing against German music....really, which videos have gotten you the most clicks, Dave? Care to do a scientific tally for us?)










The great studio recordings are the EMI Tristan and DG Schubert 9th and Schumann 4th. These are reference versions. But I would add that the DG/Decca complete box is very recommendable for the inclusion of supreme live recordings, including for example the 1951 BPO Tchaikovsky Pathetique and 1953 Beethoven 7th and 8th.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I would also add the following as indispensable live recordings that constitute supreme interpretations:

The Music and Arts box sets of his wartime Beethoven, his Brahms, and his Bruckner:




























And lastly, two live opera recordings which also constitute supreme interpretations:


----------



## fbjim

Of the things to complain about Hurwitz I wouldn't list his advocacy for French and American repitoire, which should absolutely be played more often.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> Of the things to complain about Hurwitz I wouldn't list his advocacy for French and American repitoire, which should absolutely be played more often.


Advocating is great. I'm all for that. That's different from claiming German music is overrated.

I like it all, from early music to modern. But that doesn't mean I need to deny the impact and greatness of the German music tradition. Look, I'm a Jewish American just like Hurwitz. I could just as easily play the German hate card. I don't. And I'm also adult enough to understand that there were Germans living under a totalitarian regime who were also victims of the Nazis' evil ideology.


----------



## fbjim

It's not like there's a paucity of opinions out there on the greatness of German music. And unlike Furtwangler which he does go on about too often (it's not a sin to dislike Furtwangler, but at some point you should really just shrug and say "not for me", rather than beat the dead horse), it's not as if I constantly see him trashing German music. Some of the finest music I've heard is American, Czech, Russian, Scandinavian, English and French, just to name a few, and unlike Beethoven and Mozart, much of it hasn't been recorded to death.


----------



## vtpoet

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No Dave, people respond more to Furtwangler because he is more illuminating and interesting, and this is why we get all these reissues, to your ever growing consternation.


I doubt that's the reason you're getting so many Furtwangler CDs. The cost of producing these CDs is very low and obviously some bean counter has decided there's just enough interest in Furtwangler to justify releasing these box sets. It does not ipso facto speak to the quality of his conducting, how illuminating or interesting they are. These companies would put out a retrospective 50 year history of pig farts if they thought it would sell-but they'd still be pig farts. Further, in defense of Hurwitz, he concedes that Furtwangler can be "absolutely marvelous", but I take Hurwitz's side of the argument as far as technicalities go.


----------



## fbjim

Also he hates Lebrecht so he can't be all bad.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

vtpoet said:


> Further, in defense of Hurwitz, he concedes that Furtwangler can be "absolutely marvelous".


The exceptions prove the rule. He can only appreciate Furtwängler on technical grounds. He will praise the Schubert 9th because of passages where Furtwängler "gets it right" technically, as if this is the only way to appreciate music.

Hurwitz needs to understand that the majority of classical listeners don't sit around listening for mistakes. We listen for enjoyment. We listen for emotional, spiritual communication, and artists who do more than simple technical reproduction of musical notations.

His preference for technical perfection is a personal preference, no more valid than anyone else's preference.


----------



## John Zito

I don't really know or care anything about Furtwängler, and when people start talking about "spirituality" in music (or anything else, honestly), I tend to roll my eyes. So I welcome Hurwitz pricking that bubble.

Overall, I've been watching his videos since the beginning. His humor and sensibilities work for me, and he's hipped me on to a ton of great stuff that I had never heard of before, so his effect on this listener has been resoundingly positive.


----------



## vtpoet

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Hurwitz needs to understand that the majority of classical listeners don't sit around listening for mistakes.


Well, that's a particularly loaded way of putting it. Probably nobody apart from critics sits around "listening for mistakes", but I'm willing to bet that the majority of classical listeners *notice* mistakes and would prefer their interpretations without them. *Edit*: I would add that the problem with Furtwangler is less "mistakes", rather than out and out sloppiness, of which Hurwitz has given a number of examples.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Hurwitz needs to understand that the majority of classical listeners don't sit around listening for mistakes. We listen for enjoyment. We listen for emotional, spiritual communication, and artists who do more than simple technical reproduction of musical notations.


I think it would be great if you create videos criticizing Hurwitz, on your channel.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

hammeredklavier said:


> I think it would be great if you create videos criticizing Hurwitz, on your channel.


I've thought about it. Maybe a video entitled "Why David Hurwitz's review of Furtwängler's 1942 Beethoven 9th is garbage." Throw his unprofessionalism back in his face. But I don't like stooping to that level.

It really is a garbage review though. The man has no understanding of music beyond commenting on sound quality and nitpicking at intonation. He's a charlatan who just seeks attention.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So, Hurwitz correctly identifies here which Furtwangler performances serve as the best gateway into his art. A couple are included in the Audite RIAS box I recommended above. The problem is that this Tahra box is impossible to find. You should get the Audite version of the Lucerne 9th, and the Brahms 1st comes in the excellent Music & Arts Brahms box.

But I want to call out one statement that he repeats in this video which is categorically, absolutely false. He states that Furtwangler was a conductor who had great individual moments but not a great conception of a work as a whole, and his flimsy evidence of this is how "Furtwangler people" always point to individual moments when describing his recordings. Well, first of all, people point to individual moments in EVERY recording that they like, because how else can you be specific in your remarks? Hurwitz himself ALWAYS does this in recordings he recommends, often playing specific passages for his audience.

Secondly, Furtwangler appreciation is the OPPOSITE of this. Hurwitz himself when he debated me on the 1942 9th challenged me to praise its virtues, and then when I responded he said, "See, you cultists always revert to describing some sort of ineffable greatness of it all, you never can be specific." So he's being hypocritical.

But most important is that the greatness of Furtwangler absolutely was in his conception of the whole and how everything fit together. This is the mark of every great artist. Classical music presents a narrative, like a movie or story, and the job of the artist is to make sense of it in a way that everything fits together and is compelling from first to last. That is what defines a great interpreter. Mediocre performers are the ones who either only focus on individual moments or who focus solely on a single device, like playing everything light and crisp, or playing everything fast, etc., as a substitute for true musicianship. This is the opposite of Furtwangler. As we always tell people, you cannot sample a Furtwangler recording. You have to hear it from first to last to get the full effect of its greatness. One prime example is his interpretation of the Tchaikovsky Pathetique. It is a shattering experience universally admired. Even Toscanini was a fan of this recording. Ironically and hypocritically, Hurwitz is the one out to lunch in not recommending this recording. And why? Not anything to do with the conception as a whole, but instead picking on things he considers "muddy" and unclear. So again, Hurtwitz is the last person to talk about Furtwangler because he always focuses on little details and misses the big picture, which is Furtwangler's greatest trait. And of course, the greatest example of this is his 1942 Beethoven 9th, the most cogently dramatic and intensely compelling conception of the work ever recorded. Does Hurwitz address this in his "Nazi 9th" video? Of course not. He focuses only on sound quality and intonation. So he is absolutely being hypocritical in claiming Furtwangler is a conductor only of effect and "moments." Precisely the opposite, and every admirer of Furtwangler on this forum will tell you the same.

That said, I agree that these four performances he lists are the best introduction to Furtwangler. Great performances in very good sound.


----------



## RobertJTh

@Brahmsianhorn, I gotta say, after a diet of Hurwitz videos your well-informed and well-written comments are like a fresh shower, a healthy return to reality. Thanks!

I still enjoy Dave's videos but I realized that he's not the witty, entertaining jolly uncle that he presents himself as. He's a rather narrow-minded person, who can't handle people criticizing his views and/or added their own opinions (the reason why I don't comment on his videos anymore - everything that makes him feel challenged gets deleted).

The one thing that gave me insight in what kind of guy he really is was his comment on Bach's St. Matthew's Passion, a work that he hates because it has a "revolting" story that he couldn't care less about. Just to be clear, he doesn't just find it revolting, in his view it IS revolting. Objective truth!
Well, I'm a Christian and I do care about the gospel of Jesus Christ, and while I hate the present cancel-culture, with everyone being offended by anything ever, I did find that comment pretty tasteless and insulting. I mentioned this - in the most polite wording - in the comment section, and within 5 minutes my post was gone.


----------



## fbjim

I like his videos, but yes, it's important to keep in mind that he has very specific tastes and that it's a mistake to ascribe truth values to them. 

On the other hand he's done like three videos on Feldman so hopefully that makes him more popular among youtube viewers.


----------



## vtpoet

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And of course, the greatest example of this is his 1942 Beethoven 9th, the most cogently dramatic and intensely compelling conception of the work ever recorded. Does Hurwitz address this in his "Nazi 9th" video?


Furtwangler's 1942 9th is a complete bloody mess in terms of performance and recording and Hurwitz is right to criticize it for all the reasons he does. He's also right to assert that those, like you, who nevertheless covet this version as "cogently dramatic and intensely compelling" (in my view complete rubbish), are well within your rights to do so. Personally, I don't care to listen to anything that was contemporaneously performed and recorded explicitly *for* the Nazis. I can judiciously separate the art from the artist, but in this case it's justifiably called the Nazi 9th. So. Enjoy your Nazi 9th.


----------



## WildThing

vtpoet said:


> Furtwangler's 1942 9th is a complete bloody mess in terms of performance and recording and Hurwitz is right to criticize it for all the reasons he does. He's also right to assert that those, like you, who nevertheless covet this version as "cogently dramatic and intensely compelling" (in my view complete rubbish), are well within your rights to do so. Personally, I don't care to listen to anything that was contemporaneously performed and recorded explicitly *for* the Nazis. I can judiciously separate the art from the artist, but in this case it's justifiably called the Nazi 9th. So. Enjoy your Nazi 9th.


----------



## Azol

Criticising a critic must be a new popular trend.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Okay, to turn the page a bit and in the interest of balance, here are some Hurwitz videos I have appreciated.

Here he draws attention to a Gershwin recording that I agree is superb and should be more widely known. It is in great sound and really captures the character of these fun works. This IMO should be the prime recommendation for this coupling over Bernstein, Fiedler, and Previn.






And here he draws attention to Peter Maag, a musician who gave us morsels of greatness in a truncated career. His Mozart 38th might be my favorite Mozart symphony recording. I wish they would release No. 32/No. 38/clarinet concerto as a Decca Legends single. That would be a real winner.


----------



## fbjim

Obligated to post these.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Expanding on Hurwitz’s video yesterday, these are the recordings that I’d say represent the best combination of performance and sound for Furt newbies:

Beethoven 3rd - 12/8/52 BPO (Tahra, Audite)

Beethoven 5th & 6th - 5/23/54 BPO (Tahra, Audite)

Beethoven 7th & 8th - 1953 BPO (DG, Tahra)

Beethoven 9th - 1954 Lucerne (Audite, Tahra)

Brahms 1st - 1951 NDR (Tahra, Music & Arts)

Brahms 3rd - 1954 BPO (DG, Audite, Music & Arts)

Brahms 4th/Mozart 40th - 1949 BPO Wiesbaden (Tahra)

Bruckner 8th - 1954 VPO (Orfeo)

Mozart, Gran Partita & Eine kleine Nachtmusik- 1947/49 VPO (EMI)

Mozart, Don Giovanni - 1954 Salzburg (EMI, DG DVD)

Schubert 8th & 9th - 1953 BPO (Tahra, Audite)

Schubert 9th/Haydn 88th - 1951 BPO (DG)

Schumann 4th - 1953 BPO (DG)

Strauss, Don Juan/Till Eulenspiegel/Tod und Verklarung - 1954/51 VPO (EMI)

Tchaikovsky 6th - 1951 BPO (DG)

Wagner, Overtures & Preludes - 1949-54 BPO (DG, Audite)

Wagner, Die Walkure - 1954 VPO (EMI)

Wagner, Tristan und Isolde - 1952 Philharmonia (EMI)

.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...these are the recordings that I'd say represent the best combination of performance and sound for Furt newbies...


As I mentioned, I'm completely uninitiated when it comes to Furtwängler, so my intentions with this question are innocent enough; what exactly is the reason for someone like me to dive into this stuff as opposed to: (a) listening to other versions of the same repertoire in very good stereo sound by the likes of Wand, Blomstedt, Szell, Jochum, Böhm, Mackerras, you name it, or (b) exploring other areas of the repertoire altogether. The opportunity cost of wading through all of this and tolerating the crumby sound seems pretty high. Is it really that good?

(I'll grant you that I'm probably not the most sophisticated listener, and so even if it is that good, the greatness could very well be lost on me, but nevertheless...)


----------



## amfortas

John Zito said:


> As I mentioned, I'm completely uninitiated when it comes to Furtwängler, so my intentions with this question are innocent enough; what exactly is the reason for someone like me to dive into this stuff as opposed to: (a) listening to other versions of the same repertoire in very good stereo sound by the likes of Wand, Blomstedt, Szell, Jochum, Böhm, Mackerras, you name it, or (b) exploring other areas of the repertoire altogether. The opportunity cost of wading through all of this and tolerating the crumby sound seems pretty high. Is it really that good?
> 
> (I'll grant you that I'm probably not the most sophisticated listener, and so even if it is that good, the greatness could very well be lost on me, but nevertheless...)


Perhaps the best solution is for you to spend even more time listening to those other versions in very good stereo sound, to help you become a more sophisticated listener and leave you that much more able to decide for yourself whether Furtwängler is really that good.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't know if it will be worthwhile for you. But Furtwängler is often really very different from almost everyone else in the last ~60 years. 
I think this is one reason why despite sometimes worse sound Furtwängler's recordings and concerts draw more attention nowadays than e.g. Toscanini. It's not because the former is better, but Toscanini's general approach "won". Despite some simplification it is fairly accurate to say that Szell, Karajan and many other famous 1960-70s stereo recordings of standard symphonic repertoire are "like Toscanini in better sound and a bit smoothed around the edges" than it is true of anyone in the last 50-60 years that it sounds like Furtwängler in better sound.

BTW I think the handful or two of Furtwängler's early 1950s studio recordings have pretty good sound but I am not sure they all show the extraordinary way of the conductor because he became often a bit inhibited in the studio; e.g. the 1951 Schubert 9th seems a pale shadow of the wartime live recording (that has decent sound for live from that vintage), although the Schumann 4th and Haydn 88 are very good.


----------



## John Zito

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't know if it will be worthwhile for you. But Furtwängler is often really very different from almost everyone else in the last ~60 years.
> I think this is one reason why despite sometimes worse sound Furtwängler's recordings and concerts draw more attention nowadays than e.g. Toscanini. It's not because the former is better, but Toscanini's general approach "won". Despite some simplification it is fairly accurate to say that Szell, Karajan and many other famous 1960-70s stereo recordings of standard symphonic repertoire are "like Toscanini in better sound and a bit smoothed around the edges" than it is true of anyone in the last 50-60 years that it sounds like Furtwängler in better sound.


This is very helpful. Thanks!

Thinking of the Beethoven symphonies for example, where do the old school French guys fall into this: Cluytens, Monteux, etc. Also in that Toscanini vein, or a different world entirely?


----------



## Kreisler jr

As I said, it is an oversimplification but Monteux is also closer to Toscanini. So are Germans/Austrians like Busch, Kleiber and most of the Hungarians. They all have relatively fast, steady tempi, a more "objective" approach in many ways. Transparent orchestral sound.
The quip was that "Furtwängler conducts everything like Wagner". This was not true, the Haydn I mentioned, is quite well behaved but in the more famous Schubert and Beethoven recordings Furtwängler has changes in tempo that are not quite captured by "flexibility", it's often rather a roller coaster. Then there is (if the recording is decent enough) a "big, warm" sound, wide dynamics (again not always reproducible) that I can understand many listeners find very special. I am a very selective fan and overall also more on the Toscanini side, admittedly; Brahmsianhorn and others are far better advocates although recommending 20 recordings for the beginner is a bit overwhelming.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Kreisler jr said:


> Despite some simplification it is fairly accurate to say that Szell, Karajan and many other famous 1960-70s stereo recordings of standard symphonic repertoire are "like Toscanini in better sound and a bit smoothed around the edges" than it is true of anyone in the last 50-60 years that it sounds like Furtwängler in better sound.


I have never understood the parallels drawn between Karajan and Toscanini. Instead, I have always heard Karajan, Jochum, and Bohm as coming from the same tradition as Furtwangler but with a more streamlined, less subjective approach. Karajan is more like a Maserati version of Furtwangler. Smoothing the edges and picking up the pace. But the main similarity is in the emphasis on large sonorities and colorful, blended tone in a manner that a Hurwitz would deride as muddy.

Szell and Reiner, by contrast, are more in line with Toscanini's clarity and precision.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> As I mentioned, I'm completely uninitiated when it comes to Furtwängler, so my intentions with this question are innocent enough; what exactly is the reason for someone like me to dive into this stuff as opposed to: (a) listening to other versions of the same repertoire in very good stereo sound by the likes of Wand, Blomstedt, Szell, Jochum, Böhm, Mackerras, you name it, or (b) exploring other areas of the repertoire altogether. The opportunity cost of wading through all of this and tolerating the crumby sound seems pretty high. Is it really that good?
> 
> (I'll grant you that I'm probably not the most sophisticated listener, and so even if it is that good, the greatness could very well be lost on me, but nevertheless...)


I would start the same place that Hurwitz recommended, the December 8, 1952 Beethoven Eroica. And get the Tahra if you can find it. The sound is just phenomenal. Of all Furtwangler's interpretations, I think the Eroica is arguably the least controversial and most universally praised. No one conducted the Marcia funebre with such gripping drama. And here, the final two movements are also wonderful, with the climax to the finale awe-inspiring.

If you cannot find the physical disc, there is the "Tahra Gold" online edition with the same cover as in this YouTube video:






Next, just as Hurwitz recommended, I would listen to the equally great-sounding Beethoven 5th and 6th from May 23, 1954. Again, same Tahra Gold edition, Furt 1009.






Next, again just as Hurwitz said, the 1951 NDR Brahms 1st:






Then, of course, is the interpretation for which Furtwangler was most famous, THE NINTH. Hurwitz recommends the best-sounding version - from Lucerne, recorded three months before WF's death in 1954:






It is a terrific version. However, I prefer the more alert, intense 1942 version, to me the greatest of all Furtwangler performances captured on record. To my ears, the 1954 version is just a bit too slack compared to this one.






Of course the DG Schumann 4th and Schubert 9th are also very recommendable as they represent perhaps Furtwangler's best studio efforts for orchestral works. It depends maybe on what works you want to hear first.

I grew up steeped in Beethoven and Brahms. Like everyone, I compared all the recordings by Karajan, Klemperer, Walter, Abbado, etc. I was always in search of that Holy Grail, the ultimate recording. When I first tried out Furtwangler, it was the EMI Beethoven 5th and 7th, recommended in many quarters simply because it comprises the "official" studio versions. However, Furtwangler was not usually as inspired in the studio, and this 5th sounds tired and dull compared to his live versions.

I then tried the 1942 9th through an old Music & Arts pressing. I had heard the plaudits of "greatest 9th ever" and decided I needed to see what the hubbub was about. I was sorely disappointed in the sound quality, particularly the percussion drowning out the orchestra in the coda to the finale, and I took it back to the store. Must be something I'm missing, I shrugged.

Then a few years later, I decided to try out the famous 1951 Bayreuth Beethoven 9th. This was on EMI, but a much better and more faithful version is the one on Orfeo. I prefer this to the Lucerne 9th, even though the recording quality is not nearly as good. But this Bayreuth recording was my "ah, ha" moment with Furtwangler. I finally heard what everyone was talking about - the depth, the searching spirit, the inspiration - it moved me like no other recording I had heard. I realized Furtwangler didn't just get his players to play correctly. He inspired them to go beyond themselves, and that is the infinite possibility this great music offers. Pedantic notions of correctness, whether it be tempo or intonation, fell by the wayside. I felt like I was finally hearing someone truly convey what the 9th _meant_.

Later, I came back to the 1942 9th in the superior Tahra version and heard it with new ears. Sure it would be great to hear this in modern stereo sound, but what comes through even with the old technology is the most intense, moving version of this great work I have ever heard. It is more cogent and concentrated than his later versions. This was Furtwangler in his prime, inspired to his greatest heights. Could it be the circumstances of being trapped in a Nazi nightmare? Perhaps, but that is not the reason I enjoy it. (And for the record, this was not the "Hitler birthday" concert)

And then I heard the NDR Brahms 1st on Tahra, and I thought this was the Brahms 1st of my dreams. And it went from there.

Do I think all Furtwangler recordings are perfect? Of course not. That's a Hurwitzian red herring. But I do think he was aiming for something deeper than any other conductor I know. He was swinging for the fences. Not technically, but emotionally. Spiritually.

Hurwitz describes Furtwangler as a conductor who simply gave us loud, big moments and nothing else. Rubbish. We can plainly see in the video of him rehearsing Schubert's 8th how he painstakingly coerces his musicians to play the hushed opening with more melancholy and legato, not letting them play onwards until it sounded right. Arguably his greatest trait was the way he lovingly, eloquently molded phrases in the great adagios such as those of Bruckner's 8th, Beethoven's 9th, as well as the beautiful Romanza of Schumann's 4th. Walter, Klemperer, and Barbirolli come to my mind as great "phrasiologists" in these movements, but Furtwangler is at the top of the list. He made it sound so natural, like the way a Callas would sing it.

.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have never understood the parallels drawn between Karajan and Toscanini. Instead, I have always heard Karajan, Jochum, and Bohm as coming from the same tradition as Furtwangler but with a more streamlined, less subjective approach. Karajan is more like a Maserati version of Furtwangler. Smoothing the edges and picking up the pace. But the main similarity is in the emphasis on large sonorities and colorful, blended tone in a manner that a Hurwitz would deride as muddy.
> 
> Szell and Reiner, by contrast, are more in line with Toscanini's clarity and precision.


They are even closer, but except maybe Jochum, the other younger Germans/Austrians are all very far from Furtwängler. Karajan has very little rubato, fast tempi etc. Just read accounts of both Berlin Philharmonic musicians or critics how deep the gulf between Furtwängler and Karajan was perceived in the 1950s. They were perceived as polar opposites; Maserati is just so far from Furtwängler that there can be no Maserati version of him.  Karajan did become even smoother and "wall of sound" later on, though. But I usually don't hear Furtwängler as "wall of sound" either.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Kreisler jr said:


> They are even closer, but except maybe Jochum, the other younger Germans/Austrians are all very far from Furtwängler. Karajan has very little rubato, fast tempi etc. Just read accounts of both Berlin Philharmonic musicians or critics how deep the gulf between Furtwängler and Karajan was perceived in the 1950s. They were perceived as polar opposites; Maserati is just so far from Furtwängler that there can be no Maserati version of him.  Karajan did become even smoother and "wall of sound" later on, though. But I usually don't hear Furtwängler as "wall of sound" either.


Let's put it another way: They were "bloated."

Far different from the Toscanini-Reiner-Szell sound.

And "polar opposites" is all within context.


----------



## Merl

John Zito said:


> As I mentioned, I'm completely uninitiated when it comes to Furtwängler, so my intentions with this question are innocent enough; what exactly is the reason for someone like me to dive into this stuff as opposed to: (a) listening to other versions of the same repertoire in very good stereo sound by the likes of Wand, Blomstedt, Szell, Jochum, Böhm, Mackerras, you name it, or (b) exploring other areas of the repertoire altogether. The opportunity cost of wading through all of this and tolerating the crumby sound seems pretty high. Is it really that good?
> 
> (I'll grant you that I'm probably not the most sophisticated listener, and so even if it is that good, the greatness could very well be lost on me, but nevertheless...)


As someone has already said your best option may be to listen to recordings by the likes of Wand, Szell, Jochum, Bohm, Mackerras, etc in decent stereo sound first and find what style you like. Some recordings will resonate others not. Saying that I started my Bruckner listening with Celi so who knows? :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I have to go back on my recommendation for THE NINTH and split with Hurwitz here. I know the 1954 Lucerne has excellent sound, but I think the newbie really needs to hear the Bayreuth recording first. It's just more intense. This is Furtwangler's most iconic, famous recording for a reason, and as I said earlier this was my "ah, ha" moment in appreciating Furtwangler. No matter how many times I hear the Lucerne performance it still sounds comparatively tired and slack to me.

The Orfeo remastering is the one to hear:






One of the more comical moments in Hurwitz's Furtwangler chat with Rob Cowan is when Hurwitz decided to present one of Furtwangler's most iconic utterances and claim it was an example of a MISFIRE. Good grief. Rather, it is an example of Hurwitz's utter tone deafness. He states that the opening of the slow movement of the Bayreuth 9th falls flat. Are you kidding, Dave? This is where Furtwangler sets the atmosphere of stillness and serenity as no conductor on record ever has, and Cowan rightly called him out on this. As the Penguin Guide states, "The spacious, lovingly moulded account of the slow movement is among Furtwangler's finest achievements on record." That's the way I hear it, and that's the way competent reviewers hear it.

This is a blind spot for Hurwitz. It's not a simple matter of difference of opinion. He doesn't hear nuance and artistry. He can only distinguish superficial technicalities and loud, obvious moments.

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So, this is pretty funny. I decided to try this new Honeck Brahms 4 on Hurwitz's enthusiastic recommendation. He declared it is better than Kleiber's. (a conductor he strangely detests)

I found it largely unmemorable. The opening movement was particularly perfunctory, strangely restrained. It reminded me of that Anna Russell line, "Well, love on the rocks certainly took the ginger out of her!" Where was the passion? Where was the beautiful sweep you get with masters like Furtwangler, Walter, Kempe, Jochum, etc.? All I heard was nice playing but little emotion. The second movement was much the same of going through the motions. The third movement was fast and alert, and I suppose this could count as the "highlight" of the performance, but seriously who listens to the Brahms 4 primarily for movement 3? It actually sounded a bit out of place in Honeck's interpretation, like it could be a stand alone work. I would have preferred a bit more body to it. The finale certainly had some moments of excitement, but it sounded heavily mannered, accentuated by Honeck's self-indulgent breathing. So, in short, I found this to be just an okay recording that I had no reason to hear again.

What was hilarious is that when I checked the comments on Hurwitz's video, someone had pretty much the exact same reaction as mine. I noted the post was only 7 minutes old, and sure enough when I checked again it was gone. I suspected this would happen, so I took a screenshot. There was absolutely nothing insulting in the comment in the least bit. It was just a guy expressing an opinion who was guilty of having a different reaction to the recording than Hurwitz. (I guess hearing the truth hurts, huh Dave?")

"I found this to be well and precisely played and nicely recorded, indeed very clearly, a performance that is easy to like, but for me not one I'd fall in love with in the manner of Bernstein/Vienna. It felt like an extremely competent presentation of the notes that seldom offered much insight into, or convincing expression of, the emotions that might have prompted it to be written. Much of it felt rather perfunctory to me, including to a certain extent the flute solo. I never felt much while listening and wasn't very engrossed by it, often feeling a bit bored, like "ok, I've heard how you do it, you play very nicely, but I've heard enough." it didn't really sweep me away and compel me to keep listening, hanging on to hear what comes next.

Overall, it's a performance that is easy to recognize as being very well and nicely played, well put together, well balanced and proportioned, almost anything nice one might care to say about it, except that I probably won't have much interest in listening to it again."

If Hurwitz had a shred of integrity, he could have simply responded to the guy with his disagreement. Instead, the Hurwitz secret police had to make sure nothing detracts from the supposed unquestionable supremacy of Hurwitz's dumb reviews. So his comments section reads like a bunch of Rush Limbaugh dittoheads inflating his ego.

The reality is that this is exactly the type of recording Hurwitz praises - perfectly boring and nicely played. That is the simplistic criteria under which he operates.

"...insight into, or convincing expression of, the emotions that might have prompted it to be written.." LOL. Hurwitz is the last person to understand such things.

.


----------



## RobertJTh

@Brahmsianhorn, what happened to that guy's comment reminds me of my own experiences in his comment section.

The first time I posted something that was immediately deleted was when he had one of his Sibelius talks. And as usual he praised his beloved Segerstam cycle to heaven and back. I commented that I listened carefully to Segerstam's performance, but found a couple of things, interpretative choices that I thought went against the letter and spirit of the music and highlighted the wrong elements at the expense of much of the tension and flow.

I was baffled to see my comment gone, thought it was a YouTube error and mailed him about it. Gotta say, I got a very polite and elaborate response from him, explaining that he never intended the comment section to be a place for extended discussion, something like that, in retrospective it was a gentleman-like but rather vague reply.

After that half of my comments got deleted by him, even when I tried to be as concise and non-confrontational as possible. The last drop being the Matthews Passion controversy I mentioned above. I decided it wasn't worth all the frustration and moved to a much nicer place. This place here. 

I still do enjoy his videos though. He's a really talented entertainer, and as long as you skip the videos that are bound to irritate the living daylight out of you (I skipped the Honeck one, because I saw in the comments that it included a lot of Kleiber bashing) they're still pretty enjoyable.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RobertJTh said:


> @Brahmsianhorn, what happened to that guy's comment reminds me of my own experiences in his comment section.


Yea; about 2~3 months ago, I wrote a nice comment inviting him to this thread, with an url link to it. He deleted it. He knows we're discussing about him.


----------



## vtpoet

RobertJTh said:


> I was baffled to see my comment gone, thought it was a YouTube error and mailed him about it.


Yeah, he deleted my latest comments as well. I like all the HIP recordings that he bashes, but I thought I was very nice about it. I like his reviews, but I won't be commenting there anymore-and it does cool my interest in his videos.


----------



## Sid James

Despite the criticisms, I still think he's okay. My earlier opinions here:

https://www.talkclassical.com/66419-hurwitzs-youtube-channel-your-46.html#post2091917
https://www.talkclassical.com/66419-hurwitzs-youtube-channel-your-46.html#post2093976

I remember when reviewers on television where not far in reality from the parody as presented on _The Fast Show_ (anyone here remember that?). Louis Balfour's _Jazz Club_ reviews would entirely consist of pretentious technical jargon and adjectives such as _nice, cool, great_.

I remember a reviewer on television who would always praise a band's new album in comparison to their last one. He would inevitably conclude with "it's fabulous" and "you've got to get it." I think that Hurwitz is a big improvement on that sort of thing.


----------



## RobertJTh

In his latest video he's rejoicing because "worst conductor in the world" Roger Norrington has retired. What an utterly rude and tasteless display of viciousness.
Of course Dave prefers to forget reviews like these:
https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-9250/
Worst conductor of the world gets a perfect 10 from his mortal enemy! but of course that was before Hurwitz decided he needed a boogeyman for his crusade against the non-vibrato mafia.

As for me, I wish to thank Norrington for showing me, back in the 80's, a new and exciting way of playing Beethoven, with period instruments. Not a way that would replace the old ways, as I realized later, but Norrington paved the way for all the either 100% HIP or HIP-"infused" performances that rejuvenated our way of playing and listening to Beethoven's music. What he did later for composers like Brahms, Bruckner, Berlioz etc, was of variable quality, but it was always done with courageousness and healthy enthusiasm.


----------



## 59540

hammeredklavier said:


> Yea; about 2~3 months ago, I wrote a nice comment inviting him to this thread, with an url link to it. He deleted it. He knows we're discussing about him.


It would seem sometimes that putting a link in a YT comment will get it auto-deleted as spam. I've had that happen a couple of times.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

RobertJTh said:


> Of course Dave prefers to forget reviews like these:
> https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-9250/


Hurwitz doesn't deny giving credit where it's due, and he gave good reviews to Norrington's Stuttgart Beethoven cycle overall.


----------



## RobertJTh

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Hurwitz doesn't deny giving credit where it's due, and he gave good reviews to Norrington's Stuttgart Beethoven cycle overall.


Doesn't strike you as weird or at least inconsistent that he gave some of Norrington's Stuttgart performances 10/10's before doing a 180, proclaiming him "worst conductor in the world" and throwing all of N.'s later Stuttgart recordings in the party cd bin?
No matter what you think of Norrington, such reviews tell us more about Dave than about Roger.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

RobertJTh said:


> Doesn't strike you as weird or at least inconsistent that he gave some of Norrington's Stuttgart performances 10/10's before doing a 180, proclaiming him "worst conductor in the world" and throwing all of N.'s later Stuttgart recordings in the party cd bin?


I've not heard too many of the later SWR recordings personally, so I can't comment; maybe Hurwitz has a point, maybe he doesn't. However, I do have Norrington's SWR Beethoven cycle and enjoy it very much, so - in this instance at least - his reviews pretty much reflect my experience.


----------



## fbjim

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Hurwitz doesn't deny giving credit where it's due, and he gave good reviews to Norrington's Stuttgart Beethoven cycle overall.


He's also reviewed a few Thielemann records highly even though he's one of his betes noire


----------



## John Zito

RobertJTh said:


> Doesn't strike you as weird or at least inconsistent that he gave some of Norrington's Stuttgart performances 10/10's before doing a 180, proclaiming him "worst conductor in the world" and throwing all of N.'s later Stuttgart recordings in the party cd bin?
> No matter what you think of Norrington, such reviews tell us more about Dave than about Roger.


I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think it has the virtue of being true that Hurwitz has at least remained consistent on the Norrington question ("I don't like him, but I'll give credit where's it due."):


----------



## staxomega

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've been avoiding commenting on Hurwitz's recent wave of Furtwangler commentary, but on this one it begs coming forth with what Furt boxes people should be acquiring, *because I agree with Hurwitz that this newest box is a waste of time, because his best stuff was live and the good studio stuff can be acquired separately*. But at the same time, Hurwitz is the LAST person to be telling people what Furtwangler they should or should not listen to.
> 
> First, suffice it to say Hurwitz is out on left field when it comes to Furtwangler. He just doesn't get it. He is preoccupied with mere technicalities and completely misses the musical nuance that made Furtwangler the icon that he is. What's funny is seeing Hurwitz bang his head on the wall in frustration at why everyone else doesn't hear it the same simplistic way he does. He even comically issued a video recently whining about why the world doesn't appreciate Toscanini more and how it is all the record companies' fault. No Dave, people respond more to Furtwangler because he is more illuminating and interesting, and this is why we get all these reissues, to your ever growing consternation. Hurwitz is a Szell guy. He likes simple, straight-forward clarity. Furtwangler is over his head. And listening to his recent podcast with Rob Cowan - a real reviewer - was painful. Hurwitz is completely limited in his ability to understand or appreciate great artistry. This is a man who cannot even appreciate great works like Beethoven's Eroica, Brahms' Requiem, and Mozart's Requiem. He is a technician, completely out of tune with the spiritual, emotional side of music. Which is not a crime by itself, if it weren't for the fact that Hurwitz goes out of his way to preach to people about what they *should* like based on his own limited understanding of music.


Replying to the bolded part. I agree with you that the best performances are not in that box, but that box is all newly transferred by Studio Art & Son extremely well with very little to no noise reduction. The timbral fidelity is just wonderful.

YMMV though if it is a must have or not for others, I'm a bit obsessive in trolling through the various digital releases to find the best sounding Furtwangler on digital. Some of the Tahra and SWF CDs I've paid a considerable amount for to get the best transfers, in the grand scheme for how little this box costs it's a hell of a bargain.

Same with the new Barbirolli Complete "Warner" box. I have the 80s/early 90s CDs, ART remasters and a few LPs and the new Art & Son transfers are the closest sounding to the good UK LPs. And it's only $150, I want to scream this one out from the rooftops!

Edit, this is the Furtwangler box I am referring to clear up any confusion as Hurwitz is holding up the older EMI box in the thumbnail.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So, this is pretty funny. I decided to try this new Honeck Brahms 4 on Hurwitz's enthusiastic recommendation. He declared it is better than Kleiber's. (a conductor he strangely detests)
> 
> I found it largely unmemorable. The opening movement was particularly perfunctory, strangely restrained. It reminded me of that Anna Russell line, "Well, love on the rocks certainly took the ginger out of her!" Where was the passion? Where was the beautiful sweep you get with masters like Furtwangler, Walter, Kempe, Jochum, etc.? All I heard was nice playing but little emotion. The second movement was much the same of going through the motions. The third movement was fast and alert, and I suppose this could count as the "highlight" of the performance, but seriously who listens to the Brahms 4 primarily for movement 3? It actually sounded a bit out of place in Honeck's interpretation, like it could be a stand alone work. I would have preferred a bit more body to it. The finale certainly had some moments of excitement, but it sounded heavily mannered, accentuated by Honeck's self-indulgent breathing. So, in short, I found this to be just an okay recording that I had no reason to hear again.
> 
> What was hilarious is that when I checked the comments on Hurwitz's video, someone had pretty much the exact same reaction as mine. I noted the post was only 7 minutes old, and sure enough when I checked again it was gone. I suspected this would happen, so I took a screenshot. There was absolutely nothing insulting in the comment in the least bit. It was just a guy expressing an opinion who was guilty of having a different reaction to the recording than Hurwitz. (I guess hearing the truth hurts, huh Dave?")
> 
> "I found this to be well and precisely played and nicely recorded, indeed very clearly, a performance that is easy to like, but for me not one I'd fall in love with in the manner of Bernstein/Vienna. It felt like an extremely competent presentation of the notes that seldom offered much insight into, or convincing expression of, the emotions that might have prompted it to be written. Much of it felt rather perfunctory to me, including to a certain extent the flute solo. I never felt much while listening and wasn't very engrossed by it, often feeling a bit bored, like "ok, I've heard how you do it, you play very nicely, but I've heard enough." it didn't really sweep me away and compel me to keep listening, hanging on to hear what comes next.
> 
> Overall, it's a performance that is easy to recognize as being very well and nicely played, well put together, well balanced and proportioned, almost anything nice one might care to say about it, except that I probably won't have much interest in listening to it again."
> 
> If Hurwitz had a shred of integrity, he could have simply responded to the guy with his disagreement. Instead, the Hurwitz secret police had to make sure nothing detracts from the supposed unquestionable supremacy of Hurwitz's dumb reviews. So his comments section reads like a bunch of Rush Limbaugh dittoheads inflating his ego.
> 
> The reality is that this is exactly the type of recording Hurwitz praises - perfectly boring and nicely played. That is the simplistic criteria under which he operates.
> 
> "...insight into, or convincing expression of, the emotions that might have prompted it to be written.." LOL. Hurwitz is the last person to understand such things.
> 
> .


I tried out the Honeck recording, and thought it was great, and found the performance full of purpose and great articulation. Not a fan of the heavy sort of Romanticism in Brahms, so it worked well for me.


----------



## staxomega

I watched the Mahler third symphony documentary earlier in the week, nice but not mandatory viewing for those that have read about this piece (or books on Mahler) and looked at the score. More like one of those documentaries of people that like the work singing its praises which is fine. 

I watched Hurwitz's video on it and gave a listen to the two I hadn't heard, Andrew Litton and Ozawa. Very nice brass playing from the BSO but otherwise one that shouldn't be making a greatest ever list. Same with the Litton performance though this was more special, I suspect I'll order this. 

The rant about Horenstein was bizarre. I have his performance in top 5. Same with complete omission of the Semyon Bychkov, for me this is the greatest performance of the third and is a bit more faithful to the score than Horenstein but has all the spirituality of the truly great performances (ie DG Bernstein) and in modern, reference level sound. (IIRC I first read about the Semyon Bychkov in a huge survey of every Mahler performance in a MusicWeb article, I find this author is more on the money with Mahler than Hurwitz whose main focus seems to be on orchestral playing, percussion and "excitement").

I also watched his videos on Morton Feldman and he likes all the pieces that I don't really listen to often. I've been participating in the Feldman composer thread on another classical forum which has recently had a flurry of activity and it seems like more people do like the pieces that Hurwitz likes, whereas my tastes lean towards his chamber works with my favorite piece being Piano, Violin, Viola, Cello.


----------



## fbjim

hey anything that gets people to listen to Feldman is A-OK in my book. 

i always wish he did more modernist/contemporary stuff, he makes fun of it a lot but his reviews (especially his written ones) do make it clear that he is no conservative grouch, though he definitely nurses an old ideological grudge against the Boulez-Stockhausen crowd. i think you'd have to have grown up in that era to really understand it, Boulez et al really liked to pooh-pooh the type of 20th century stuff coming out of the US, for instance, whereas some of the more notable modern-era videos I've seen him do are of guys like Feldman, Barber and Crumb. 

(Triadic Memories, which i'm not sure he covered, is my absolute favorite of Feldman, btw)


----------



## staxomega

fbjim said:


> hey anything that gets people to listen to Feldman is A-OK in my book.
> 
> i always wish he did more modernist/contemporary stuff, he makes fun of it a lot but his reviews (especially his written ones) do make it clear that he is no conservative grouch, though he definitely nurses an old ideological grudge against the Boulez-Stockhausen crowd. i think you'd have to have grown up in that era to really understand it, Boulez et al really liked to pooh-pooh the type of 20th century stuff coming out of the US, for instance, whereas some of the more notable modern-era videos I've seen him do are of guys like Feldman, Barber and Crumb.
> 
> (Triadic Memories, which i'm not sure he covered, is my absolute favorite of Feldman, btw)


Good points, my last bit about him on Feldman wasn't a complaint, more of an observation.

For me Boulez is quite different from Stockhausen. I've listened to as much Boulez talk about his own music as I can (unfortunately much of it in French with no subtitles) and looked at his scores and he composes within strict parameters. Stockhausen is a bit more foreign to me. So this is another thing that causes me to scratch my head when he entirely dismisses Boulez's music.

I like Triadic Memories as well. This is the most recent performance I heard, and also the fastest version:


----------



## fbjim

more than some of his obvious biases seem very much like an American classical music lover of his age might have. the other obvious one being his anti-Gramophone rants- i've seen enough old discussions to know that he absolutely did not invent the meme that Gramophone (and Penguin) was biased toward recordings by British artists. 

for the record i don't really mind obvious biases- i actually consider criticism from that sort of earnest place more "real" than when people try to contort themselves to objectively review something in a detached manner, especially when you're coming from a standpoint of criticizing based on entertainment/pleasure value of music. it's also useful since it lets you know when someone's criticism revolves around things that aren't going to be a problem for you


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

staxomega said:


> The rant about Horenstein was bizarre. I have his performance in top 5.
> .


Because he hears music on a simplistic, technical level and thinks that anyone who hears it differently, on a more elevated level, is deluded. His rants against musicians and their adherents are basically an embarrassing public therapy session on his insecurities and the need to stamp out all threats to his fragile ego.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> more than some of his obvious biases seem very much like an American classical music lover of his age might have. the other obvious one being his anti-Gramophone rants- i've seen enough old discussions to know that he absolutely did not invent the meme that Gramophone (and Penguin) was biased toward recordings by British artists.
> 
> for the record i don't really mind obvious biases- i actually consider criticism from that sort of earnest place more "real" than when people try to contort themselves to objectively review something in a detached manner, especially when you're coming from a standpoint of criticizing based on entertainment/pleasure value of music. it's also useful since it lets you know when someone's criticism revolves around things that aren't going to be a problem for you


I'm an American. Why don't I have the same biases? Why doesn't Jim Svejda? Biases and lack of objectivity are about the individual, not where they're from.

The Penguin Guide is of course imperfect. I disagree with a lot of their reviews, particularly the idea that JE Gardiner is a god who can do no wrong. But the closest thing we have to a bible on the best classical music recordings is the Penguin Guide, and it is the first source I would recommend to a new listener.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because he hears music on a simplistic, technical level and thinks that anyone who hears it differently, on a more elevated level, is deluded. His rants against musicians and their adherents are basically an embarrassing public therapy session on his insecurities and the need to stamp out all threats to his fragile ego.


When will you STOP?????


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> When will you STOP?????


When will Hurwitz stop deleting all comments on his YT channel from anyone who dares to illuminate with a different viewpoint?

When will he stop pretending that his biases and tastes speak for the rest of humanity?


----------



## FrankinUsa

And you don’t have any biases.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> And you don't have any biases.


Let's try to break this down logically.

Do I delete comments on my YT channel (which has over 8,000 subscribers) from people who are critical or present a different viewpoint?

No, never. I don't pretend mine is the only valid opinion.

Do I pretend my biases and tastes speak for the rest of humanity?

No, I am quite aware that people have different personalities and tastes and that different works and recordings will speak to people in different ways. It's no skin off my nose and no threat to my ego. I prefer that everyone has equal access to things they might like so they can make an informed choice. It's about individual enjoyment, not "being right."

.


----------



## Machiavel

Phil loves classical said:


> I tried out the Honeck recording, and thought it was great, and found the performance full of purpose and great articulation. Not a fan of the heavy sort of Romanticism in Brahms, so it worked well for me.


Neither was Brahms a fan of the heavy romanticism. He said the French do his music the best. All this intense gravitas, romanticism was not Brahms things at all. He is ambiguous, in between , subtle, many emotions woven together, reflective nostalgia, introvert. Others compose young music he compose adult music


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Machiavel said:


> Neither was Brahms a fan of the heavy romanticism. He said the French do his music the best. All this intense gravitas, romanticism was not Brahms things at all. He is ambiguous, in between , subtle, many emotions woven together, reflective nostalgia, introvert. Others compose young music he compose adult music


Weingartner and Reiner are examples of less Romanticized 4ths, and they are both among the best. I just didn't find the Honeck to be in any way compelling.


----------



## FrankinUsa

You will NEVER stop. You have already admitted this. You will always be the last post. 
How many people have quit this blog because of you. How many more people in the future will quit this blog because of you.
Everyone here knows your strategy.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> You will NEVER stop. You have already admitted this. You will always be the last post.
> How many people have quit this blog because of you. How many more people in the future will quit this blog because of you.
> Everyone here knows your strategy.


Mods?

…………


----------



## perempe

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Let's try to break this down logically.
> 
> Do I delete comments on my YT channel (which has over 8,000 subscribers) from people who are critical or present a different viewpoint?


Is it also a classical music channel? if so, what's the name of the channel?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

perempe said:


> Is it also a classical music channel? if so, what's the name of the channel?


It's a hodgepodge of different things, including some classical videos I have made, such as:


----------



## perempe

Thanks for the answer, Brahmsianhorn.


----------



## FrankinUsa

*Bad mood*



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Mods?
> 
> …………


I guess I was in a particular bad mood for a couple of days. I apologize to Brahmsianhorn to taking it to an unacceptable personal level. Will try to be better.


----------



## Granate

I agree that I've found too many members in this forum to discuss until they get the last word. I've been enjoying and studying classical works ever since, but I actually quited posting in this forum because there's more fragility in this forum than many would like to admit. Not only one member.

In the end I get why Hurwitz can be popular. He is in some kind of ideal world where he shares his experiences, tastes and dislikes, from him to his audience, blocking people who disagree because it ends up being useless and a waste of time. He takes the time to write a script and checklist, talk to the camera for an hour, and that's it, why wasting time replying to anyone who doesn't agree with you? You delete it. If you want your own audience, go build your own blog.

Many members try to explain how to divide truths from misconceptions, but often the very discussion is the entertainment instead of confrontations that after some years, start to repeat themselves.

I'm myself trying to develop like two or three articles discussing Günter Wand and Barenboim-in-Berlin Bruckner performances, only for me to post in in the forum, promote recordings, and never read the replies.

One day when I become hungry of knowledge again, I may go ask more questions on the forum, but fortunately I have much more life to live outside, in the phisical world, to try to have the last word like I also tried in my first year.

With the seasons, I start to get somehow why Hurwitz says "Life's too short to listen to bad music". In my life it's not actually as that and try to experiment and taste as many approaches as possible, but I shouldn't forget that there's more to do out there.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

To each their own. I enjoy discussion and different perspectives and detest efforts to limit, block, and censor. I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with my views. It is an opportunity to subject them to testing. And yes, I can discuss things ad infinitum. But not in an effort to be "right," but to expand and fine tune my knowledge. Everything I know is built upon what I have absorbed from others.

The question becomes of people who do block and censor disagreement: What are you so afraid of?

(And my issue with the above post was that it was not an answer to any of my previous posts or a continuation of discussion. It was the opposite. It was an ad hominem attack made for the express purpose of bullying me into silence. Essentially when you have nothing left to say, your stance becomes "Stop speaking because I have a need to be right.")


.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The question becomes of people who do block and censor disagreement: What are you so afraid of?


I don't think that anyone objects to disagreement. Some object, though, to endless repetition of the same points, over and over and over.....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> I don't think that anyone objects to disagreement. Some object, though, to endless repetition of the same points, over and over and over.....


Care to respond to the exact post where something is being repeated over and over?


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think Witz is currently participating in this discussion, with a forum account of his own.


----------



## Shea82821

Much as I find his opinions disagreeable at times, I also find the level of contempt he gets so often a bit overblown. Yes, he's a old, grumpy curmudgeon, who has at times a Glenn Gould-esque level of self righteousness. But to imply this equates to him being some sort-of demon critic, is a case of adding insult to injury. And given how YouTube comment sections tend to be these days, I get his reasoning for removing disagreements. On paper at least. It does, unfortunately, only clear the path to his own views being raised higher. But that's the way it goes - you gain some, you lose some. In any case, he's fundamentally just another "big-name" critic, albeit a divisive one in opinions and form. I myself don't have a lot against him, nor the will to do so. Apathetic, pretty much.

That said, I also understand why he's gained as much a following as he has. And also for why, for some, his reputation has "improved" somewhat. I've read forum posts from as far back as 2005, saying that his reviews are often harsh, rude, even arrogant and whiny. I agree: in text they often are. And I recall he made a point about this himself in one video. The lack of verbal intonation, mannerisms, cues and such, really does make him come off as a prick. On camera, however, he comes off (as one poster here has described him) as like an opinionated but kind-hearted uncle of sorts. The kind of guy who can complain about anything for hours on end, yet with a smile on their face and a friendly demeanor. He knows what'll work and, unfortunately perhaps to some who find this detestable, this usually equals success. It's a tale almost as old as time. Pointing the finger at him, forgets the fact that essentially every celebrity - small or large - will do it at some point. Take it as you will, but I think all he gets is a bit of an obsession towards nothing.


----------



## Shea82821

hammeredklavier said:


> I think Witz is currently participating in this discussion, with a forum account of his own.


Heh. Gossip, complaining, and conspiracies - this thread has it all! Too bad that's essentially the internet in general these days


----------



## Neo Romanza

FrankinUsa said:


> You will NEVER stop. You have already admitted this. You will always be the last post.
> How many people have quit this blog because of you. How many more people in the future will quit this blog because of you.
> Everyone here knows your strategy.


I don't have any issues with Brahmsianhorn, but if anyone leaves this forum purely based on the fact that they don't like this or that member isn't really using their head. There _is_ an ignore function for this reason.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Ignoring makes sense, unless you are more interested in policing what’s being said and controlling the dialogue.

That’s Hurwitz in a nutshell.

His latest slogan is “You can like things that suck. Just admit it.” In other words, you can like things that he does not, just admit that you’re wrong to like them. It’s a bizarre psychosis. I mean, what relevance does a slogan like that have to someone simply wanting to appreciate good music?

With the vast majority of sane, competent reviewers it’s about describing what they like, analyzing why that it is, and whether you might like it too. Like normal people do when listening to music and reacting to what they hear.

With Hurwitz it is some bizarre personal crusade to prove his own virtuousness by constructing artificially objective, self-aggrandizing divides between “good” and “bad.” You are either on his side, or you suck.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Ignoring makes sense, unless you are more interested in policing what's being said and controlling the dialogue.
> 
> That's Hurwitz in a nutshell.
> 
> His latest slogan is "You can like things that suck. Just admit it." In other words, you can like things that he does not, just admit that you're wrong to like them. It's a bizarre psychosis. I mean, what relevance does a slogan like that have to someone simply wanting to appreciate good music?
> 
> With the vast majority of sane, competent reviewers it's about describing what they like, analyzing why that it is, and whether you might like it too. Like normal people do when listening to music and reacting to what they hear.
> 
> With Hurwitz it is some bizarre personal crusade to prove his own virtuousness by constructing artificially objective, self-aggrandizing divides between "good" and "bad." You are either on his side, or you suck.


I know what you're referring to, but in those moments when he's really leaning into the "I'm right, you're wrong, get used to it" thing, I just read it as a sort of tongue-in-cheek schtick. He has other moments when his tone is more diplomatic: "this is not to my tastes, but I can appreciate why others would like it."

You've referred to him as a Rush Limbaugh-style figure, and as someone who enjoys Hurwitz, I don't necessarily disagree. I don't think he's an unpleasant, hateful guy, nor do I think his influence is toxic, but I do think that the niche he's trying to fill is "everyone else is too mealy-mouthed and diplomatic. I'm going to cut through the nonsense and tell it like it is." Pushed too far this can get really cheap and facile and tiresome, but for me Hurwitz isn't at that point.

The Presto Music podcast with Rob Cowan has been mentioned, and I consider it a good example of why Hurwitz and his approach basically work for me. I got the sense listening to that episode that, had Hurwitz not been there, the whole affair would have been a complete slobber-fest. I'm a Furtwängler neophyte*, but I know that reasonable people can have misgivings about his discography, just as reasonable people can find greatness in it. I liked hearing both perspectives, and I had to wonder if I would have gotten both if it was just Cowan discussing.

* though less of one after checking out some of the stuff you posted earlier. I really appreciate you taking the time to put all that down.


----------



## John Zito

John Zito said:


> I got the sense listening to that episode that, had Hurwitz not been there, the whole affair would have been a complete slobber-fest. I'm a Furtwängler neophyte*, but I know that reasonable people can have misgivings about his discography, just as reasonable people can find greatness in it. I liked hearing both perspectives, and I had to wonder if I would have gotten both if it was just Cowan discussing.


Which is not to say that "balance" is the be-all and end-all. I can enjoy a slobber-fest. Had he been alone, it wouldn't have been Cowan's responsibility to give loads of time (or any?) to views he didn't hold, just as it isn't Hurwitz's. But I thought the episode was ultimately more interesting for Hurwitz having been there.


----------



## FrankinUsa

*I am not Hurwitz*



hammeredklavier said:


> I think Witz is currently participating in this discussion, with a forum account of his own.


I can assure everyone that I am not Hurwitz incognito.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> "everyone else is too mealy-mouthed and diplomatic. I'm going to cut through the nonsense and* tell it like it is*." .


But it's not how it is. That's the point.

He takes it to the extreme of making it sound as if he is telling the truth and others are in a sense "lying." That's a load of crap. He DOES NOT speak for the rest of the world. His ability to appreciate and understand music is limited. He is out of sync with most of the listening public.


----------



## Granate

Ignore buttons do not work when other members continously fall into the discourse frame of the discussion leader or inquirer. Wagner discussions turned unbearable because of this dynamic.

The key of the matter is *time* and how much is spent developing an own argument and how much you give to other opinions. A forum is a shared frame. A channel is a single person's frame that needs work and preparation. A comment can be well-developed but when it throws one work to the bin, it stops being a healthy contrubution. Commenting is often easier than scripting and writing an article. And time is not meant to be wasted on spotlight cravers.

But sure, I'll put more members suffering from projection into the ignore list. What a great idea. Thank you.


----------



## wkasimer

Granate said:


> Ignore buttons do not work when other members continously fall into the discourse frame of the discussion leader or inquirer. Wagner discussions turned unbearable because of this dynamic.


Perhaps TC needs a <yawn> emoji.


----------



## Bulldog

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But it's not how it is. That's the point.
> 
> He is out of sync with most of the listening public.


That's just speculation on your part. I could easily say that I'm out of sync or you are.


----------



## vtpoet

The more I listen to Hurwitz, the more it's clear that his tastes are circumscribed by the era he grew up in. He favors the slick, lush, and smooth sounds of the DG era—the Abaddos, Giulini's and Karajans of the world. Setting aside obvious problems with sound quality and sloppy tempo (Furtwangler) he will always—always—favor any and all recordings that come closest to that ethos of the 50s, 60s and 70s (as do many classical music listeners) and he'll only approve of all such HIP performances that most successfully reproduce that sound world (with zero sense of irony). If one accepts that utterly predictable and clockwork bias, he's nonetheless incredibly informative and knowledgeable.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bulldog said:


> That's just speculation on your part. I could easily say that I'm out of sync or you are.


That's fine, but I don't consider my own taste to be gospel. By definition, it is TASTE.


----------



## FrankinUsa

vtpoet said:


> The more I listen to Hurwitz, the more it's clear that his tastes are circumscribed by the era he grew up in. He favors the slick, lush, and smooth sounds of the DG era-the Abaddos, Giulini's and Karajans of the world. Setting aside obvious problems with sound quality and sloppy tempo (Furtwangler) he will always-always-favor any and all recordings that come closest to that ethos of the 50s, 60s and 70s (as do many classical music listeners) and he'll only approve of all such HIP performances that most successfully reproduce that sound world (with zero sense of irony). If one accepts that utterly predictable and clockwork bias, he's nonetheless incredibly informative and knowledgeable.


Wait a minute. He derides most of Karajan,Abbado. So you are misinformed.


----------



## FrankinUsa

This thread is no longer about Hurwitz. It’s about US.


----------



## Shea82821

FrankinUsa said:


> Wait a minute. He derides most of Karajan,Abbado. So you are misinformed.


Not really. He seems to respect Karajan a decent amount - like many classical lovers - but doesn't seem to care about Abbado too much. Or, if he does, not as often as Karajan. Not to imply an apparent frequency in mentions, however.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Sorry but I think you are misinformed about his Karajan opinion. There is one video where he boils down HvK to a dozen(most) recordings. As for Abbado,he has stated the London recordings/time were the best.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Hurwitz is nothing more than a man with an opinion just as I'm a man with an opinion. I wouldn't take him seriously, because his opinion isn't any more valid than my own, but what does bother me is his attitude and general demeanor. Even worse, his videos are boring, predictable and just not entertaining to watch. They're nothing more than a bitter, bald guy sitting in front of a camera telling us how much he hates the British classical music press, Roger Norrington or HIP-style performances. Anyway, anyone with a good knowledge of classical music could do what he's doing --- it's not original or inventive. It's just dull and what gets me are the people that flock to his videos like he's some kind of celebrity. Someone like Rick Beato has 2 million subscribers and discusses a wide range of a musical topics and actually interviews well-known musicians. What does Hurwitz do? He continues to run his mouth with the same gestures, phrases and that trademark smug grin.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He takes it to the extreme of making it sound as if he is telling the truth and *others* are in a sense "lying."


On a micro level, I guess I don't believe that he just assumes bad faith in one-on-one disagreements, but that's not based on anything. I appreciate that you had a bad experience with him, so fair enough.

But at a macro level, the "others" from his point of view would seem to be things like the PR machines of the major labels, the British critical establishment, a certain HIP orthodoxy, certain strands of musicology (Bruckner scholarship or whatever), etc. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that there's some bad faith coming from each of those quarters.


----------



## Shea82821

FrankinUsa said:


> Sorry but I think you are misinformed about his Karajan opinion. There is one video where he boils down HvK to a dozen(most) recordings. As for Abbado,he has stated the London recordings/time were the best.


That actually isn't all too uncommon, least I find it isn't. Many I know whittle it down to the basics: his Beethoven, his Strauss, his Brahms, sometimes his Dvorak and Wagner. Really, the only special thing that Hurwitz has towards Karajan, is liking his Sibelius. Which I don't ever hear a terrible amount on, despite it being to me, the crown-jewel of all Sibelius cycles. So no, Hurwitz is very much in the standard-camp of the field. The only reason this seems off, is because he's a critic. If he wasn't, or not to his present caliber: we likely wouldn't care in the slightest.

And yeah he's mentioned Abbado's London recordings, some of his opera ones as well. Though that's about it, far as I've watched of him. Either that or I ignored/forgot it - such is life. Can't be bothered to remember everything about a critic I'm indifferent towards.


----------



## Shea82821

Neo Romanza said:


> Hurwitz is nothing more than a man with an opinion just as I'm a man with an opinion. I wouldn't take him seriously, because his opinion isn't any more valid than my own, but what does bother me is his attitude and general demeanor. Even worse, his videos are boring, predictable and just not entertaining to watch. They're nothing more than a bitter, bald guy sitting in front of a camera telling us how much he hates the British classical music press, Roger Norrington or HIP-style performances. Anyway, anyone with a good knowledge of classical music could do what he's doing --- it's not original or inventive. It's just dull and what gets me are the people that flock to his videos like he's some kind of celebrity. Someone like Rick Beato has 2 million subscribers and discusses a wide range of a musical topics and actually interviews well-known musicians. What does Hurwitz do? He continues to run his mouth with the same gestures, phrases and that trademark smug grin.


Pretty much, though more on the Brits and especially Norrington. That guy has a hatred of him a mile wide. And I mean...yeah alright, he ain't great. But I really don't get the level of his hatred, quite frankly.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Neo Romanza said:


> Hurwitz is nothing more than a man with an opinion just as I'm a man with an opinion. I wouldn't take him seriously, because his opinion isn't any more valid than my own, but what does bother me is his attitude and general demeanor. Even worse, his videos are boring, predictable and just not entertaining to watch. They're nothing more than a bitter, bald guy sitting in front of a camera telling us how much he hates the British classical music press, Roger Norrington or HIP-style performances. Anyway, anyone with a good knowledge of classical music could do what he's doing --- it's not original or inventive. It's just dull and what gets me are the people that flock to his videos like he's some kind of celebrity. Someone like Rick Beato has 2 million subscribers and discusses a wide range of a musical topics and actually interviews well-known musicians. What does Hurwitz do? He continues to run his mouth with the same gestures, phrases and that trademark smug grin.


Far too negative.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Far too negative


----------



## FrankinUsa

The haters and the bullies on this thread have crossed the line.


----------



## Neo Romanza

FrankinUsa said:


> Far too negative.


Far too negative? So any opinion that isn't one that matches your isn't welcomed?


----------



## fbjim

FrankinUsa said:


> Wait a minute. He derides most of Karajan,Abbado. So you are misinformed.


He likes Karajan, he just doesn't like him in the standard German repitoire.


----------



## Shea82821

FrankinUsa said:


> Far too negative.


What, because he doesn't idolize a mediocre critic?


----------



## FrankinUsa

Neo Romanza said:


> Far too negative? So any opinion that isn't one that matches your isn't welcomed?


It is not as of not welcomed.But you have gone off the deep end. Just complete HATE.


----------



## Shea82821

fbjim said:


> He likes Karajan, he just doesn't like him in the standard German repitoire.


Yep. If I remember right, he said in his Sibelius video that it was one of the best things he ever did. And you know, I do get his sentiment. Even if it's a bit of an over-correction, in my frame of view. My guess is he just prefers an iconoclastic liking of Karajan, compared to what the rest think.


----------



## Neo Romanza

FrankinUsa said:


> It is not as of not welcomed.But you have gone off the deep end. Just complete HATE.


I never said I hated Hurwitz, you did.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Shea82821 said:


> What, because he doesn't idolize a mediocre critic?


Remember that it's perfectly okay for Hurwitz to say whatever the hell he wants but, somehow, it's not okay to talk negatively about Hurwitz on a thread that is dedicated to expressing opinions about him.


----------



## Shea82821

Neo Romanza said:


> Remember that it's perfectly okay for Hurwitz to say whatever the hell he wants but, somehow, it's not okay to talk negatively about Hurwitz on a thread that is dedicated to expressing opinions about him.


Oh right, we cannot doubt the infallible. I should've remembered that...I await this post's immediate deletion.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Shea82821 said:


> Oh right, we cannot doubt the infallible. I should've remembered that...I await this post's immediate deletion.


There are plenty of members here who dislike Hurwitz...thankfully.


----------



## Shea82821

Neo Romanza said:


> There are plenty of members here who dislike Hurwitz...thankfully.


Well maybe. As said: I think it's all a bit overblown. I can't be bothered to dislike the guy to any real extent. He's a critic and he knows the business, and by God he's going to milk it dry. Life's too short to fret over such things, especially amongst the multitude of others who perform the same.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> On a micro level, I guess I don't believe that he just assumes bad faith in one-on-one disagreements, but that's not based on anything. I appreciate that you had a bad experience with him, so fair enough.


He is literally wearing a shirt in his latest videos that reads, "It's okay to like things that suck…just admit it."

I'm trying to think of anyone I have ever known at any age or any level of intelligence who would find such a statement remotely relatable. What kind of psychosis does it take for someone to want other people to "admit" that the things they like actually suck? I mean, step back and reflect on that for a second.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Shea82821 said:


> Well maybe. As said: I think it's all a bit overblown. I can't be bothered to dislike the guy to any real extent. He's a critic and he knows the business, and by God he's going to milk it dry. Life's too short to fret over such things, especially amongst the multitude of others who perform the same.


Oh, I'm not worried about him. I'm more or less commenting on the people who hang onto his every word as if it's the "classical gospel" and from reading comments on some of his videos there are many.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He is literally wearing a shirt in his latest videos that reads, "It's okay to like things that suck…just admit it."
> 
> I'm trying to think of anyone I have ever known at any age or any level of intelligence who would find such a statement remotely relatable. What kind of psychosis does it take for someone to want other people to "admit" that the things they like actually suck? I mean, step back and reflect on that for a second.


This is just another example of his holier-than-thou, "I can do no wrong" attitude that I find repulsive. He's nothing more than a troll who has happened to rope many people into believing that he's some kind of grand wizard of classical knowledge and we all must listen to what he says because it's "important".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> Far too negative.


Do you have a problem with Hurwitz's negative reviews? They go much further than the post you just quoted.

Not that I mind negative reviews per se, if the sentiment is warranted. I just find your reaction to someone criticizing the critic to be ironic. Why is he above the same criticism he levels at others?


----------



## Shea82821

Neo Romanza said:


> Oh, I'm not worried about him. I'm more or less commenting on the people who hang onto his every word as if it's the "classical gospel" and from reading comments on some of his videos there are many.


I get that, just saying in general, lest we disturb our comrade's cage once more. Doubt it'll do much, but hey - it's there and done.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He is literally wearing a shirt in his latest videos that reads, "It's okay to like things that suck…just admit it."


Meh, I think he's just kidding. I barely pay that stuff any mind.

You could maybe see what he means if you were talking to someone whose favorite recording of a work was a bonkers Stokowski Phase 4 or something. I can picture the conversation going "love what you love, but can we agree that thing is just looney?" But I basically agree with you. Hurwitz hates the Weissenberg/Karajan recording of Rach2, but it's my favorite version. If he said to me "can you just admit that it sucks," what do you even say to that?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> Hurwitz hates the Weissenberg/Karajan recording of Rach2, but it's my favorite version. If he said to me "can you just admit that it sucks," what do you even say to that?


When he says that, he doesn't mean his opinion vs your opinion. He literally believes it is a question of objective fact. It's so demented that it's hard to believe a grown man subscribes to such nonsense.

Even if you present poor recording technology and missed entrances as examples of "factual" data, the ultimate question of good vs bad still comes down to subjectively weighing these "facts" against the performance as a whole. A child can understand this, and yet someone in Hurwitz's position cannot, which is disturbing.

Sviatoslav Richter's otherworldly live 1958 Pictures at an Exhibition from Sofia includes a horribly exposed flubbed note in the second movement. Does this "fact" suddenly mean that the recording "sucks?" Surely there must be an objective formula for Hurwitz's idiotic philosophy, if it is to make any sense at all. So I need an answer. Dave, if you're reading this, please tell me whether or not Richter's 1958 Pics at an Exhibition sucks due to that flubbed note. Then I can throw away my copy. Or I'll keep it but guiltily admit to everyone who visits that I own and enjoy a recording that sucks. Why? Because obviously I don't care enough about Dave's laws of sucktitude, which are of course well defined and never arbitrary. There's a formula for it on his website.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Even if you present poor recording technology and missed entrances as examples of "factual" data, the ultimate question of good vs bad still comes down to subjectively weighing these "facts" against the performance as a whole. A child can understand this, and yet someone in Hurwitz's position cannot, which is disturbing.


I would give Hurwitz more credit than this. I don't think he would deny what you're saying. He'll often make a recommendation and tell you that the sonics are subpar or the playing is "scruffy," but nevertheless he likes it because it's "echt" this-or-that.

What recordings do you consider out-and-out bad, to the point that if someone told you they liked it, you wouldn't just chalk it up to differences in tastes? Off the top of my head, I might nominate the Richter/Eschenbach recording of the Gershwin concerto. It's just...bad. I fail to imagine the "tastes" that would lead someone to consider it good, assuming they're aware of what the alternatives are.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Hurwitz sometimes takes cheap shots but I think for relative newbies the warnings against sonically and/or executionally poor recordings with a high status (e.g. some, NOT ALL of Furtwängler, Horenstein and other usual suspects) is actually quite justified.

Of course I can think of a few recordings I find just bad as interpretations or marred so strongly by singers I consider bad or by sonics or other faults, that I'd never recommend them. Sometimes I would put it to taste differences if someone liked them but some would have me struggling to understand what anyone could like about them (especially if there are many other options). Not many but two that come to mind are Harnoncourt's (a conductor I usually like despite odd mannerism) older recording of the Schubert Unfinished with Vienna Symphony and the Rattle/Hampson/Seifert Lied von der Erde.


----------



## Shea82821

Kreisler jr said:


> Hurwitz sometimes takes cheap shots but I think for relative newbies the warnings against sonically and/or executionally poor recordings with a high status (e.g. some, NOT ALL of Furtwängler, Horenstein and other usual suspects) is actually quite justified.
> 
> Of course I can think of a few recordings I find just bad as interpretations or marred so strongly by singers I consider bad or by sonics or other faults, that I'd never recommend them. Sometimes I would put it to taste differences if someone liked them but some would have me struggling to understand what anyone could like about them (especially if there are many other options). Not many but two that come to mind are Harnoncourt's (a conductor I usually like despite odd mannerism) older recording of the Schubert Unfinished with Vienna Symphony and the Rattle/Hampson/Seifert Lied von der Erde.


To me, the worst of the worst was a recording of Mahler's 8th I heard once. Bit of a tale involved so I'll get it over with. Basically: one day when I was about 13, we were driving down a road and I decided to turn onto a classical radio station. All I heard as to the details was: "-hony orchestra, and their choir. And now: Mahler's 8th Symphony in E-flat." What I heard next was essentially the kind of organ they play in old-time horror movies, followed by what can only be described as the shrieks of the tormented. I almost thought they were playing a monster flick instead of Mahler!

Alas, who or what they were I don't know. I suspect it was older, judging from all the crackles. 40's, 50's, maybe the 60's or 70's. I can't say. I know it sounded absolutely horrendous though - that I can say.


----------



## John Zito

Shea82821 said:


> What I heard next was essentially the kind of organ they play in old-time horror movies, followed by what can only be described as the shrieks of the tormented.


I'm crying laughing. We must find this recording.


----------



## Shea82821

John Zito said:


> I'm crying laughing. We must find this recording.


I wish I could too. I've looked a few times before to find it, but so far no luck. Either that, or it was a standard old recording, which got corrupted somehow in transmission. I can't say either way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Phil loves classical

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He is literally wearing a shirt in his latest videos that reads, *"It's okay to like things that suck…just admit it."*
> 
> I'm trying to think of anyone I have ever known at any age or any level of intelligence who would find such a statement remotely relatable. What kind of psychosis does it take for someone to want other people to "admit" that the things they like actually suck? I mean, step back and reflect on that for a second.


Unbelievable. I read that, along with some of his other comments he has made and general demeanor, as a passive-aggressive statement saying his opinion is better or most closer to some objective truth. It's a cheap marketing trick. His opinion like all others can be useful when you know where he is coming from, but he sometimes doesn't even feel the need to explain with some of his more provocative statements. He demands your unwavering trust in his opinion, and treats it as gospel. I think his trick actually works on a lot of listeners, and is hindering them from developing their own musical perspective.


----------



## vtpoet

FrankinUsa said:


> Wait a minute. He derides most of Karajan,Abbado. So you are misinformed.


To clarify (because my comment wasn't clear) it's the sound-world of these conductors, not specifically these conductors, that Hurwitz almost exclusively prefers. I was just using them as typical of this era. Although I haven't listened to Hurwitz exhaustively, he does seem to be a big fan of Blomstedt and Sandor Vegh.


----------



## Manxfeeder

vtpoet said:


> Although I haven't listened to Hurwitz exhaustively, he does seem to be a big fan of Blomstedt and Sandor Vegh.


And Mackarras. He's a total fan boy.


----------



## vtpoet

Manxfeeder said:


> And Mackarras. He's a total fan boy.


Yeah, didn't he call Mackarras a genius at one point? He praised Mackarras's performance of the Brahms symphonies precisely because they were "historically informed performances" with a modern sound. You know, they were HIP without sounding HIP.


----------



## SanAntone

I find this thread curious. I have listened to Classical music for over fifty years and have managed to remain completely ignorant of this person who has caused such controversy. From the few seconds of the clips posted I am grateful for all those decades of ignorance, a condition I have no plans to change.


----------



## vtpoet

SanAntone said:


> I find this thread curious. I have listened to Classical music for over fifty years and have managed to remain completely ignorant of this person who has caused such controversy. From the few seconds of the clips posted I am grateful for all those decades of ignorance, a condition I have no plans to change.


And yet here you are, posting on a Hurwitz thread. Irony is dead.


----------



## fbjim

vtpoet said:


> Yeah, didn't he call Mackarras a genius at one point? He praised Mackarras's performance of the Brahms symphonies precisely because they were "historically informed performances" with a modern sound. You know, they were HIP without sounding HIP.


I think that's pretty common - HIP with modern instruments. Zinman, Jarvi and the like. He does love Mackarras irrationally - I think he mentioned he's "never made a bad record", but we all have our favorites.


----------



## SanAntone

vtpoet said:


> And yet here you are, posting on a Hurwitz thread. Irony is dead.


I was curious who this person was - so sue me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> He does love Mackarras irrationally - I think he mentioned he's "never made a bad record", but we all have our favorites.


Fitting, since Mackerras sucks the soul out of every adagio he conducts. But he's super clear and crisp.

Actually, Mackerras did a great Beethoven 5th, maybe my favorite stereo version. But that's a piece that thrives on rhythmic drive. By contrast, I find Mackerras' treatment of Mozart to be soulless. If you're in such a hurry to get on with it, why are you even playing it in the first place?

But, but, but…I digress. This is about Hurwitz. I do not give a flip about our musical disagreements. I probably agree with Hurwitz about 70% of the time. I like older maestros and think much of HIP is cheap and gimmicky. And truth be told, Hurwitz appreciates Furtwängler at a level that most HIPsters would not. He just likes Toscanini/Szell better, which is fine, I like them too from time to time.

Just stop with the moralizing and self-aggrandizement. It's. Just. Music. People are going to like what they like, and give credit to those artists who touch a nerve and produce recordings that are remembered. It's a beautiful thing that we should be thankful for as opposed to silly arguments over superiority.


----------



## vtpoet

SanAntone said:


> I was curious who this person was - so sue me.


Sue you? For changing your plans whilst denying you've changed your plans? I just found your post humorous is all-though you appear to be taking yourself quite seriously. I'm so sorry your decades of Hurwitz-ignorance are ruined. :devil:


----------



## vtpoet

fbjim said:


> I think that's pretty common - HIP with modern instruments. Zinman, Jarvi and the like. He does love Mackarras irrationally - I think he mentioned he's "never made a bad record", but we all have our favorites.


Yeah, it's the HIP "sound" that sends Hurwitz to the fainting couch. He does love that smooth homogeneity of the modern orchestra and, in fairness, it's a beautiful sound. I don't begrudge any listener liking it as long as they admit they're wrong. :devil:


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I probably agree with Hurwitz about 70% of the time. I like older maestros and think much of HIP is cheap and gimmicky. And truth be told, Hurwitz appreciates Furtwängler at a level that most HIPsters would not. He just likes Toscanini/Szell better, which is fine, I like them too from time to time.


So, how is he reaching the same conclusion as you 70% of the time and yet "[h]is ability to appreciate and understand music is limited"?


----------



## Kreisler jr

70% or maybe 50-60 % are consensus or "standard" (Pengraphone etc.) recommendations. In the case of Hurwitz this is most frequent with music beyond his core interests, namely baroque, choral, chamber, piano. In these fields he often "follows the crowd" or at least has not enough interest to pick provocative favorites (or supposed failures).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> So, how is he reaching the same conclusion as you 70% of the time and yet "[h]is ability to appreciate and understand music is limited"?


Look, it's all relative. Obviously anyone who appreciates classical music to this extent is already in the same one percentile of the Earth's population. I have a pretty broad reach. I'm a singer by trade, but my first instrument was piano, my first love is orchestral music, and I most identify with string instruments. There is no genre of classical music that is foreign to me. I listen to Bruckner symphonies more than anything else, and yet by trade I specialize in singing early music and Bach cantatas.

Hurwitz is a percussionist. He does not seem to identify very well with the singing line. Those long, emotive legato lines that Furtwängler did better than anyone else seem to go straight over his head. Hurwitz prefers the percussive clarity of a Szell or Mackerras.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ... I probably agree with Hurwitz about 70% of the time......


I'd say that's a standard percentage hit rate with many posters on here apart from his gaggle of sycophants. I'd be more than happy if over 70% of posters here agreed with my posts. He has strong (and fairly entrenched) opinions but once you know what they are it's easy to ignore his anti-Gramophone (and most British artists - especially string quartets) bias, plus all the other biases mentioned early in this thread, and just have a listen for a recording he's waffling on about of interest to you. He's a critic. We all are and none of us are perfect. I know I started this topic but tbh it's probably run its course. Some of his comments are asinine, some funny, some interesting. He's just doing what he does. I take it with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Manxfeeder

vtpoet said:


> Yeah, it's the HIP "sound" that sends Hurwitz to the fainting couch. He does love that smooth homogeneity of the modern orchestra and, in fairness, it's a beautiful sound.


And don't forget vibrato. Lack of vibrato is his bete noire.


----------



## FrankinUsa

*A thread that has run its course…….*



Merl said:


> I'd say that's a standard percentage hit rate with many posters on here apart from his gaggle of sycophants. I'd be more than happy if over 70% of posters here agreed with my posts. He has strong (and fairly entrenched) opinions but once you know what they are it's easy to ignore his anti-Gramophone (and most British artists - especially string quartets) bias, plus all the other biases mentioned early in this thread, and just have a listen for a recording he's waffling on about of interest to you. He's a critic. We all are and none of us are perfect. I know I started this topic but tbh it's probably run its course. Some of his comments are asinine, some funny, some interesting. He's just doing what he does. I take it with a pinch of salt.


I hope this thread has run its course. 900+ comments. What else can be said?


----------



## fbjim

vtpoet said:


> Yeah, it's the HIP "sound" that sends Hurwitz to the fainting couch. He does love that smooth homogeneity of the modern orchestra and, in fairness, it's a beautiful sound. I don't begrudge any listener liking it as long as they admit they're wrong. :devil:


Well, his actual favorite which he loves to pull out is the Paris Conservatory orchestra specifically for their very transparent, unblended sonority. I actually got the Carl Schuricht Beethoven/Bruckner box because he loved the sonority so much and found it really enjoyable.

There's some RCA/Readers Digest stuff with Rene Leibowitz on that orchestra too.

I do find it funny that he kind of pretends not to like Karajan but recommends him like, a lot. It's just that he thought Karajan's least great work was in standard German stuff like Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart, and his best work was outside, like Webern, Honegger, Berlioz and Sibelius.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> I hope this thread has run its course. 900+ comments. What else can be said?


By definition, the activity of the past couple of days proves otherwise.


----------



## fbjim

other Hurwitz tenets I completely agree with - the Cleveland/von Dohnanyi records being largely out-of-print is a total crime, and light French music should really be recorded more


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> I do find it funny that he kind of pretends not to like Karajan but recommends him like, a lot. It's just that he thought Karajan's least great work was in standard German stuff like Beethoven, Brahms and Mozart, and his best work was outside, like Webern, Honegger, Berlioz and Sibelius.


By biggest complaint about Hurwitz substantively is that he does waaaaaaaaay too much generalizing as a substitute for actual specific analysis of what he hears on a particular recording. When I review recordings I forget everything I know about a particular performer and focus only on the recording at hand. One day a Haitink may be inspired and a Karajan can be flat, and vice versa.

Yet often Hurtwitz's reviews amount simply to "It's Munch. What else could you want?" I don't know, an actual substantive review of the recording at hand?


----------



## hammeredklavier

FrankinUsa said:


> I hope this thread has run its course. 900+ comments.


Are you a Hurwitz fan?



FrankinUsa said:


> What else can be said?


Tell us what is it about him you find so attractive.


----------



## FrankinUsa

*I just listen.*



hammeredklavier said:


> Are you a Hurwitz fan?
> 
> Tell us what is it about him you find so attractive.


I just listen to what he says. And then I move on.


----------



## Capability Brown

*Haydn*

Just discoved Hurwitz's channel. It's highly entertaining and I have recommended it to various musical friends wholeheartedly. I used to work at Virgin Classics so am reasonably familiar with the industry but I see a clear market gap for authoritative recommendations of recordings in the streaming era, when there is so much choice. The Penguin & Gramophone guides seem to have disappeared. Finally, anyone who adores Haydn as much as Hurwitz does can't be all bad.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Overall I think Hurwitz knows what he's doing, even when he doesn't. What he recommends is always at least quite good. It's what he hates or writes off that could expose his own limitations, and that I think people shouldn't take for granted. I can't stand tuning in to his Youtube, and only have once or twice since the start of this thread, but his written reviews can be quite useful.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Found this on YouTube. I forgot to look at the exact date but seems quite recent. It’s an interview with Hurwitz and so Hurwitz can put his two cents in in this thread albeit indirectly. It’s quite lengthy. 

nGwYe9a8wj0

Well I guess the YouTube video did not post. Anyway,you can look up “David Hurwitz interview on YouTube. It’s from the YouTube page of “Daria Fedorova and Ilya Takser


----------



## Azol

Full interview -


----------



## FrankinUsa

Azol said:


> Full interview -


Thank you for providing the YouTube link


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The main takeaway from that interview is that Hurwitz views criticism as an objective process. He is relaying whether a performance faithfully and accurately reproduces what is in the score. He flat out says that "You opinion doesn't matter."

So what Hurwitz does has musicological utility, but by his own admission it has nothing to do with whether a listener will enjoy a particular recording. He has stated before that enjoying a performance that is "wrong" is like enjoying junk food.

I just think this is a bunch of schlemiel and the reason I so fundamentally disagree with Hurwitz. Music should absolutely be about enjoyment, not an academic exercise of correctness. It's as if instead of using a ruler to hit the piano student's hands, Hurwitz is using a ruler to hit the ears of the listener who dares enjoy an "incorrect" performance.

That's just gross. He's not simply controversial. He's sort of an ogre, and that's what he WANTS to be. I don't understand why, but it seems from his interview to be an exercise in self importance.

The bottom line is that he views "criticism" as finding something wrong. Finding inaccuracies. I fundamentally disagree.

.


----------



## Art Rock

Closed at the request of the thread starter.


----------

