David Hurwitz

[Brian]

In a review of Stanford's symphonies on Naxos, he called Mendelssohn and Bruch "gutless wimps" whose music has a "near total lack of passion" and little emotional depth. Where does this horrid man get this garbage? Mendelssohn and Bruch, lacking passion or emotion? The overplayed and overexposed Bruch VC1 is, if nothing else in the world, a dictionary definition of passion - and to say of Mendelssohn - and - and - and - danger danger - overheating -

I'm going to stop talking now because if I do I will rant and be incoherent and it will be ugly. Suffice to say:



Actually let's find a larger one:



Or:

[springrite]

I do not bother to read Hurwitz, Teachout, etc. Just skip them instead of getting upset. It is not worth it. You can spend your time and emotion (!) better by listening to Bruch. 

[david johnson]

hurwitz? ...don't think i have any recordings by him 

dj

[jochanaan]

Hurwitz pissed someone off?  Is this unusual?

David, that post is right on the mark.  Maybe Hurwitz should try to do what the people he's criticizing do; might evoke a little more respect. -- Naaah, probably not.

[david johnson]

prolly not...chuckle

dj

[Grazioso]

I won't necessarily agree with him, but I do understand the point re: Mendelssohn, whose music, as charming and well-crafted as it can be, does come across as rather wimpy salon stuff, devoid of the deep passion and personal angst you might find from other Romantics. It's more pleasant than moving--which is not, in my mind, to denigrate it.

[The new erato]

I think this is well put by Grazioso, but would add that I think some of his chamber music IS above that, particularly the op 81 quartet, one of the great romantic quartets.

[Hector]

I won't necessarily agree with him, but I do understand the point re: Mendelssohn, whose music, as charming and well-crafted as it can be, does come across as rather wimpy salon stuff, devoid of the deep passion and personal angst you might find from other Romantics. It's more pleasant than moving--which is not, in my mind, to denigrate it.

Hurwitz is wrong about Mendelssohn but I think he was making the point that the composer had a wide influence that not only extended into the first years of the 20th century but sucked (or suckered) in composers such as Stanford.

The examples he cited were spot on.

However, although he implies fault, many of us enjoy these composers be they Reinecke or Stanford.

As for Bruch try his threes, 3rd Symphony and 3rd Violin Concerto.

[Lilas Pastia]

The Hurwitzer is a very potent diuretic marketed by Merck-Frosst. For some people it also acts as a run-to-the-can laxative.

[Sergeant Rock]

In a review of Stanford's symphonies on Naxos, he called Mendelssohn and Bruch "gutless wimps" whose music has a "near total lack of passion" and little emotional depth.

Welcome to the club  I used to get upset with Hurwitz too occasionally. For example, he savaged my favorite Kullervo, quite unfairly in my opinion. But I've since become used to him and expect the over-the-top negative review. I've even come to look forward to them. His rants can be very entertaining if you don't take it personally.

To be accurate, and fair to the critic, he said of the Stanford 4th and 7th Symphonies, "The problem with these symphonies is their near total lack of passion, an accusation often leveled at Victorian English music, and with some justification." In other words, those specific remarks you quote are aimed at the Stanford pieces, not Mendelssohn and Bruch. And nowhere does he say there is little emotional depth in their music (although you may think he implies it). And yes, I agree with him: relative to Liszt, Schumann, Brahms and Wagner, Bruch and Mendelssohn are emotional wimps.

Hurwitz gave the recording a 9/9. Obviously he recommends it. He's just warning you not to expect anything like full-blooded Romantic passion. That's fair I think.

Sarge

[Michel]

I won't necessarily agree with him, but I do understand the point re: Mendelssohn, whose music, as charming and well-crafted as it can be, does come across as rather wimpy salon stuff, devoid of the deep passion and personal angst you might find from other Romantics. It's more pleasant than moving--which is not, in my mind, to denigrate it.

What? Have you heard his fourth string symphony?

[Guido]

Welcome to the club  I used to get upset with Hurwitz too occasionally. For example, he savaged my favorite Kullervo, quite unfairly in my opinion. But I've since become used to him and expect the over-the-top negative review. I've even come to look forward to them. His rants can be very entertaining if you don't take it personally.

Totally agree.

Is it a peculiarly English trait to denigrate Medelssohn, or is this a world-wide phenomenon?

[Sergeant Rock]

Totally agree.

Is it a peculiarly English trait to denigrate Medelssohn, or is this a world-wide phenomenon?

Well, Hurwitz is an American. I believe the British, more than any other nationality, including the Germans, generally like Mendelssohn and rate him highly. I base my opinion on not a single fact but only a fuzzy feeling from four decades of reading reviews.

Sarge

[Lilas Pastia]

The Sarge is right. Brits love Mendelssohn, esp. his instrumental/orchestral works. I think the Germans love his choral works a bit more. Mediterranean people (French, Italian, Spanish) generally dismiss him.

[MishaK]

Where is Saul when you need him...?  0:)

[karlhenning]

Do you need him?  0:)

[Florestan]

Where is Saul when you need him...?  0:)

Probably drawing magical circles around a picture of Hurwitz while uttering some kabbalistic curses upon DH's wicked soul.

[jochanaan]

Emotionless wimps, huh?  I disagree totally.  Mendelssohn is proof that music can be moving without being stormily Romantic.

[stingo]

Sounds like Hurwitz needs to listen to Abbado's readings of the symphonies on DG - passionless? hardly... quite the opposite.

[PerfectWagnerite]

I am not a Mendelssohn fan. He's probably the only "big-name" composer I don't really like. I like the Mid-Summer Night's Dream and the Violin Concerto. Don't particularly care for his chamber music such as the string quartets, Songs without Words, etc., but I do like the Octet. Probably don't like him much because he is just for the most part really really bland.