Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

[BachQ]

BEETHOVEN, Symphonies Nos. 4 & 7
Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie Bremen / Paavo Järvi





This second disc from Paavo Järvi's complete Beethoven cycle is just as fine as the first (containing Symphonies 3 and 8 ). Once again the playing of the Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie Bremen is phenomenal. *** The outer movements of the Seventh Symphony have an almost elemental force, and while some listeners might prefer a stronger presence from the horns, the prominence of the wind and trumpet parts is very welcome, particularly in the finale's refreshingly un-opaque main theme. You can really hear the colorful mosaic of timbres that comprises the first subject.

--David Hurwitz

[Que]

BEETHOVEN, Symphonies Nos. 1 & 6 "Pastoral"
Minnesota Orchestra / Osmo Vänskä
BIS- 1716(SACD)




Osmo Vänskä's Beethoven cycle with his own Minnesota Orchestra represents a triumph of basic musical values as much as keen interpretive insight. ***  once again Vänskä has turned in two outstanding performances. ***  These performances represent the difference between interpretations whose curiosity value rapidly wanes with each encounter, revealing a musically hollow core, and those--such as we find here--that have genuine staying-power and substance. They are permanently enjoyable.


--David Hurwitz

I was particularly amused & annoyed by this comment by "Hurwitzer":

"So let's be clear. No period instrument group in existence can play this music as well as a superbly trained, regularly constituted major symphony orchestra such as we find here,..

What The Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique (Gardiner), Tafelmusik (Weil), the Orchestra of the 18th Century (Brüggen) and the Academy of Ancient Music (Hogwood) are all clearly inferior to a "major" (?) symphony orchestra like the Minnesota Orchestra? LOL! 

Q

[BachQ]

Beethoven's Missa Solemnis (Bernstein)

Here are the beautiful Sanctus & Benedictus

Sanctus http://www.youtube.com/v/cVPXd1b-pxU
Benedictus Continued http://www.youtube.com/v/D4JSH7LLX6s

Moser-Schwarz-Kollo-Moll
Hilversum Radio Chorus
Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam

[M forever]

I was particularly amused & annoyed by this comment by "Hurwitzer":

"So let's be clear. No period instrument group in existence can play this music as well as a superbly trained, regularly constituted major symphony orchestra such as we find here,..

What The Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique (Gardiner), Tafelmusik (Weil), the Orchestra of the 18th Century (Brüggen) and the Academy of Ancient Music (Hogwood) are all clearly inferior to a "major" (?) symphony orchestra like the Minnesota Orchestra? LOL! 

Q

The annoyed part you totally deserve for even reading that crap. Hurwitz is an extremely bad reviewer, a hobby percussionist who has snapped up a few things here and there which make him look professional in the eyes of the uninformed. But he doesn't really know much about the things he reviews, he doesn't understand music making and performing traditions. The way this works is that he trumpets out "strong" opinions based on clichées, so superficially informed readers can understand these "strong" opinions and feel good about participating in that.They feel they "know" and "understand" a lot, too, and they can also have "strong" opinions. Plus he is embarrassing to read because everything he writes shows clear signs of an American cultural inferiority complex when it comes to European music culture and ensembles. For which there is no reason, but he totally has it.

[Que]

The annoyed part you totally deserve for even reading that crap.

I know, but it's quite funny at the same time.   It does however brings the risk of automatically avoiding anything the Hurwitzer abundantly sprinkles his 10/10's over. I still visit Classictoday because of some other reviewers, like Jed Distler.

Q

[M forever]

You don't have to justify yourself! You are entitled to wasting your time in whatever ways please you. But yes, keep in mind, if Hurwitz gives 10/10, that doesn't mean it's bad either. It's just otally random nonsense. How fitting that "Witz" means "joke" in German - nomen est omen.

[George]

I know, but it's quite funny at the same time.   It does however brings the risk of automatically avoiding anything the Hurwitzer abundantly sprinkles his 10/10's over. I still visit Classictoday because of some other reviewers, like Jed Distler.

Q

Jed has certainly guided me to a number of great recordings.

[Sergeant Rock]

Jed has certainly guided me to a number of great recordings.

And guided me to a great number of mediocre recordings. He's not a reviewer I trust. We have radically different taste apparently.

Sarge

[PerfectWagnerite]

And guided me to a great number of mediocre recordings. He's not a reviewer I trust. We have radically different taste apparently.

Sarge

He is actually not as clueless as Robert Levine, who is totally tone-deaf in my opinion.

[George]

Jed has certainly guided me to a number of great recordings.

Three examples:

https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=6783

https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=3182

https://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=9625

[M forever]

We have radically different taste apparently.

Differences in taste don't matter. Nobody can separate that from his views, and "impersonal" musical criticism isn't interesting to read either, but a good reviewer can more or less "accurately" describe what he hears and put it into context. Especially when it comes to "classial" music, there is a lot of context, performance traditions, other performances of the same repertoire etcetc. Which is what they all appear to do. But especially Hurwitz can't keep his emotional over-reactions and silly biases under control. That's why he is a very bad reviewer. And I am not saying that because we have "different tastes". Some albums I recently enjoyed a lot and thin are very good got "10/10" or similar from him as well (e.g. Jansons - Rachmaninoff symphonies, Harnoncourt - Bruckner 9). But I just don't like the journalistic style, or lack thereof.

[BachQ]

Differences in taste don't matter.

[Sergeant Rock]

Differences in taste don't matter.

They do to me, in the way I meant in my earlier post: Whether or not I'll enjoy a recommended recording has very much to do with the critic's taste, far more than whether or not he understands the performing traditions of any particular orchestra. I've discovered after years of reading that Distler and I have radically different taste. What he considers great I often find underwhelming--not bad, just not worth the investment. So, yes, it does matter--not in the context of the review, which I can enjoy whether or not I agree with his recommendation, but in the decision to explore further, or forget, the item he reviewed.

Hurwitz can't keep his emotional over-reactions and silly biases under control. That's why he is a very bad reviewer

His biases, silly or not, are there for everyone to see. He's emotionally open, like many Americans, and I, maybe because I'm an American too, appreciate that. He's not wishy-washy--I also appreciate that. When I read a critic, I want an opinion. A strong opinion and a consistent opinion. I get that from Hurwitz. It's then up to me to decide whether he's right or wrong about any one recording. I know when to take him with a grain of salt: I don't read him to find out which HIP recording to buy. I don't read him for insight into Barbirolli and Horenstein 

I just don't like the journalistic style

Your perogative, of course.

Sarge

[BachQ]

First, we have the music performance.
Next, we have the person who reviews the music.
Then, we have the person who reviews the reviewer of the music.
Then, we have the person who reviews the reviewer of the reviewer of the music.
Then .........

[Don]

His biases, silly or not, are there for everyone to see. He's emotionally open, like many Americans, and I, maybe because I'm an American too, appreciate that. He's not wishy-washy--I also appreciate that. When I read a critic, I want an opinion. A strong opinion and a consistent opinion. I get that from Hurwitz. It's then up to me to decide whether he's right or wrong about any one recording. I know when to take him with a grain of salt: I don't read him to find out which HIP recording to buy. I don't read him for insight into Barbirolli and Horenstein 

Sarge

Hurwitz seems to have quite a hatred for Barbirolli and Horenstein.  It would be best if he didn't do reviews of their recordings.

[Sergeant Rock]

Hurwitz seems to have quite a hatred for Barbirolli and Horenstein.  It would be best if he didn't do reviews of their recordings.

I think so too. The negative things he points out are usually obvious and, quite simply, don't matter to anyone who appreciates these two conductors. Still, I suppose the reviews do serve at least one purpose: they give the newbie fair warning.

Sarge

[M forever]

I've discovered after years of reading that Distler and I have radically different taste.

You have been reading that crap for years and it took you that long to figure that out?

He's emotionally open, like many Americans

That's pretty funny, Sarge! Thanks for the laugh!

When I read a critic, I want an opinion. A strong opinion and a consistent opinion. I get that from Hurwitz.

No, you don't. You don't get a *strong* opinion from him. You get a *strongly* voiced one, and you are old enough to see there is a big difference between the two. And it's not consistent either. It's pretty random, since it's not based on solid knowledge and good critical appreciation.

[Sergeant Rock]

No, you don't. You don't get a *strong* opinion from him. You get a *strongly* voiced one, and you are old enough to see there is a big difference between the two. And it's not consistent either. It's pretty random, since it's not based on solid knowledge and good critical appreciation.

How would you know?  Help me out here, M. You claim you don't read him (and that anyone who does is, at best, wasting his time, at worst, an idiot). So how do you know he's not consistent? 

What amuses me is how much you resemble Hurwitz. I guess that's why I like reading you. 

Sarge

[MishaK]

How fitting that "Witz" means "joke" in German - nomen est omen.

...and that Hur' means... never mind. 

[M forever]

...and that Hur' means... never mind. 

That means "whore". Strange, that never occurred to me befoe...

How would you know?  Help me out here, M. You claim you don't read him (and that anyone who does is, at best, wasting his time, at worst, an idiot). So how do you know he's not consistent? 

Sure I have read some of his reviews. That should be pretty obvious. Otherwise I wouldn't have that opinion about them. I even check classicstoday once in a while because I like to read interesting and stimulating - and provocative - reviews, and just because most of which I have read so far were nonsense - and not really provocative either, I don't mean provocative in the sense of insulting, but in the sense of having some uncommon views, but views which are uncommon because they are based on more reflection than common views, but that doesn't apply to the random emotional nonsense he writes -, I think there might still be some interesting ones now and then, or some interesting points among all the nonsense. But the signal-to-noise ratio is just too high.

Is that a waste of time? Dunno, depends on your attitude towards that. If you are entertained by it, I don't think it is a waste of time. Does that make the reader an idiot? Not necessarily, only if the reader picks up the nonsense.

What amuses me is how much you resemble Hurwitz. I guess that's why I like reading you. 

We really don't have much in common. I have the background he pretends to have. I don't write reviews, my posts here are just casual chit chat, they don't pose as reviews. Sometimes I do write little review-like paragraphs, and when I do, these are much better than anything he can write.