David Hurwitz

[trung224]

 I think Hurwitz is the very good critic, but he always has the strong bias against Karajan and Furtwängler. In his opinion, most of recording from Karajan and Furtwängler is mediocre, and with the recording he can't trash , he give it for Jed Distler 
   In other case, especially the not very well known work, i can trust Hurwitz

[Mirror Image]

I think Hurwitz is the very good critic, but he always has the strong bias against Karajan and Furtwängler. In his opinion, most of recording from Karajan and Furtwängler is mediocre, and with the recording he can't trash , he give it for Jed Distler 
   In other case, especially the not very well known work, i can trust Hurwitz

This is what I don't like about Hurwitz. If he doesn't like these two conductors and has a bias against them, then he doesn't need to be reviewing them. I mean it's almost as if he'll review these discs and, instead of reviewing the music, he just uses them as a launching pad for his own tirades. I personally can't stand the guy regardless if we like some of the same music (are you reading this Sarge?).

[Geo Dude]

If he doesn't like these two conductors and has a bias against them, then he doesn't need to be reviewing them. I mean it's almost as if he'll review these discs and, instead of reviewing the music, he just uses them as a launching pad for his own tirades.

Absolutely correct, and the same applies to most of his reviews about period instrument recordings.

[eyeresist]

I think Hurwitz is the very good critic, but he always has the strong bias against Karajan and Furtwängler. In his opinion, most of recording from Karajan and Furtwängler is mediocre, and with the recording he can't trash , he give it for Jed Distler 
   In other case, especially the not very well known work, i can trust Hurwitz

Yes, I actually credit Hurwitz with some knowledge and taste (it helps that his tastes centre on the same area of late romantic/early modern symphonism that I like), but he is subject to personal fads and ego spurts which make him write some pretty silly hyperbolic stuff, and it happens often enough that I just can't count him as a reliable critic.

Of course these reasons are the same reasons he is a "name", just as in the case of Lebrecht (but without the fraud charges!).