David Hurwitz

[Florestan]

I find him always funny and good-humoured.

This.

Hear, hear!

Word.

QFT.

+ 1

etc.

[(poco) Sforzando]

His blind spots (deaf spots?) regarding music like Boulez and all of Lieder are unfortunate, but he is a lot of fun, sitting in front of his tam-tam like a Brooklyn Buddha, and he's obviously heard a lot of music. I can't help enjoying him even when I feel he's full of crap, because he has the guts to say things that probably many feel but aren't willing to admit. (Such as his antipathy towards the Grosse Fuge and the St. Matthew Passion. Phooey nonetheless, because I love them both.) Every once in a while I feel I must acquire a recording he champions, but at this stage of my life I'm not buying a lot of music and I don't need the umpteenth Beethoven cycle. I wish he would say more about chamber and piano music, not to mention opera, but those are not his fortes. I give him props too for taking interest in early music, something I would not expect from a critic who so specializes in common-practice orchestral music.

[Florestan]

I can't help enjoying him even when I feel he's full of crap, because he has the guts to say things that probably many feel but aren't willing to admit.

Good point! Very good point indeed!

[MN Dave]

I am on a Brahms symphony journey because of heeeeem.

[Symphonic Addict]

I like him because of his sincerity and total enthusiasm, but I get annoyed when he's too dismissive with certain recordings/works/composers. Despite his channel is a fun musical source, I don't buy all what he says. I've listened to some recordings he recommends and my impression is "seriously?"

In addition, I've noticed that he tends to favour fast performances and cataloguing them as the best.

[Brian]

In addition, I've noticed that he tends to favour fast performances and cataloguing them as the best.

Actually this overlaps with the comment about having the guts to deliver unpopular opinions. Hurwitz definitely believes that orchestral performances should be exciting and fun and thrilling (with exceptions where the composer clearly did not intend those things). In my experience concertgoing, that's become a minority view among conductors and performers, except for the HIP movement. There's definitely more expectation these days of "musicianly" qualities, integrity, depth, the long line, structure. Those things are good, but many conductors seem to sacrifice the let's just go for it guts and thrills of people like, oh, say, Charles Munch or 60s Lenny in order to achieve them. (Is the rise of Bruckner concert performance related??)

I personally am having a progression of opinion the opposite of what people are supposed to as they age - from wanting lots of beauty to wanting lots of excitement. Which is part of why Hurwitz is useful to me. But it's definitely part of his personality, and honestly, a welcome dissenting voice to the prevailing cultural mood.

PS. A couple modern conductors who are definitely thrill seekers - V. Jurowski and S. Denève.

[Symphonic Addict]

Actually this overlaps with the comment about having the guts to deliver unpopular opinions. Hurwitz definitely believes that orchestral performances should be exciting and fun and thrilling (with exceptions where the composer clearly did not intend those things). In my experience concertgoing, that's become a minority view among conductors and performers, except for the HIP movement. There's definitely more expectation these days of "musicianly" qualities, integrity, depth, the long line, structure. Those things are good, but many conductors seem to sacrifice the let's just go for it guts and thrills of people like, oh, say, Charles Munch or 60s Lenny in order to achieve them. (Is the rise of Bruckner concert performance related??)

I personally am having a progression of opinion the opposite of what people are supposed to as they age - from wanting lots of beauty to wanting lots of excitement. Which is part of why Hurwitz is useful to me. But it's definitely part of his personality, and honestly, a welcome dissenting voice to the prevailing cultural mood.

PS. A couple modern conductors who are definitely thrill seekers - V. Jurowski and S. Denève.

I take your point, and I definitely am another fan of exciting performances. I look for a balance where there is thrill but at once it doesn't affect lyricism (depending on the work).

[staxomega]

Actually this overlaps with the comment about having the guts to deliver unpopular opinions. Hurwitz definitely believes that orchestral performances should be exciting and fun and thrilling (with exceptions where the composer clearly did not intend those things). In my experience concertgoing, that's become a minority view among conductors and performers, except for the HIP movement. There's definitely more expectation these days of "musicianly" qualities, integrity, depth, the long line, structure. Those things are good, but many conductors seem to sacrifice the let's just go for it guts and thrills of people like, oh, say, Charles Munch or 60s Lenny in order to achieve them. (Is the rise of Bruckner concert performance related??)

I personally am having a progression of opinion the opposite of what people are supposed to as they age - from wanting lots of beauty to wanting lots of excitement. Which is part of why Hurwitz is useful to me. But it's definitely part of his personality, and honestly, a welcome dissenting voice to the prevailing cultural mood.

PS. A couple modern conductors who are definitely thrill seekers - V. Jurowski and S. Denève.

This is one reason I'm less keen to explore popular standard repertoire new recordings of symphony music. Others are that you typically have to listen through entire performances to find any gems of insight which often means long pieces which could amount to a decent amount of time that could have been spent listening to other music or better performances. And lastly I'm not really sure what more there is to be said. I feel like there are still endless possibilities left in piano and chamber music. I like all these qualities "integrity, depth, the long line, structure" but I often find modern performances are sort of a master at none but instead try to do it all, except often lacking that excitement factor you mention.

I think more labels need to record live, forget about being worried about things like mistakes; let the professional critics tear into them for that, just go for it anyway. I think we must have all been to plenty of concerts where the live performance is much better than the respective recording.

On Hurwitz I find a lot of his choices are fairly safe and filled with the warhorses, which is fine. He said there is a general professional critic consensus that is agreed upon so I don't think he is trying to be some maverick. I've listened to around a dozen of his videos on my commute so maybe I need to listen for more. One recording that did surprise me and I was absolutely thrilled to discover was Eiji Oue in Das Lied von der Erde.



If he did an entire series on newer recordings I'd be more keen to tune into him.

One other conductor I feel fits that excitement category is Manfred Honneck, I would love to see him and that world class brass section of Pittsburgh at some point.

Oh yeah that Boulez video, that caused a few embolic strokes on Talk Classical  I greatly admire Boulez but I won't let things like that ruffle my feathers. I set the bar pretty low with humor and cracked up at some of his more juvenille jokes like that one about Michael Tilson Thomas getting arrested with cocaine and could have used some of that cocaine for some boring performance he mentioned, maybe this was extra funny with an eventless performance of MTT's Berg Three Pieces for Orchestra recording fresh in mind.

[Jo498]

In addition, I've noticed that he tends to favour fast performances and cataloguing them as the best.

I am not sure that this can be said in general. Maybe for (late) romantic stuff some of which tends to get played more slowly. But in his Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann recs it seemed like a mix without clear preferences for fast or extremely fast and he just recommended the Klemperer St. Matthew which is probably the slowest among well known recordings.

[André]

The beginning of this one is really ... unforgettable. 

Re: Hurwitz' take on the Sea Symphony.

It's a good one. I take his point that Whitman's brand of poetry may be genius for some but fake and pedantic to others. When it comes to the analysis of recordings his biases take him to some excesses: using timings to determine an interpretation's character (even if he denies it) for example. The slowest (Haitink) is a « snooze fest ». It's not. The fastest (Spano) he likes a lot. I don't - it's rushed beyond acceptability. That doesn't make it 'exciting', merely impatient.

There's a large measure of subjectivity in one's tastes and distastes. Justifying them with some pseudo-rationalization is not necessary. Once he has hit his soft spot, he is an excellent guide to the performances he describes. I happen to agre with his top choices: Slatkin, Previn, Boult.

[Florestan]

a welcome dissenting voice to the prevailing cultural mood.

Well said.

[Florestan]

Hurwitz definitely believes that orchestral performances should be exciting and fun and thrilling

Witness his love for Haydn, Mendelssohn, Dvorak and Mahler --- whose music is exciting and fun and thrilling.

I share both his opinion and his preferences.

[Florestan]

I personally am having a progression of opinion the opposite of what people are supposed to as they age - from wanting lots of beauty to wanting lots of excitement.

Hmmmm... my impression is that teenagers want lots of excitement --- hence their preference for orchestral music, first and foremost Beethoven and Mahler (which as a teen I shared unreservedly); while mature people want beauty --- hence my current preference for chamber music, especially Mozart, Schubert and Chopin.

[Brian]

Hmmmm... my impression is that teenagers want lots of excitement --- hence their preference for orchestral music, first and foremost Beethoven and Mahler (which as a teen I shared unreservedly); while mature people want beauty --- hence my current preference for chamber music, especially Mozart, Schubert and Chopin.

Yes exactly, and I am having the opposite, from beauty to excitement. 

[Florestan]

Yes exactly, and I am having the opposite, from beauty to excitement. 

I got it alright, Brian!

Would you agree that in order to deliver exciting and fun and thrilling orchestral performances, one must first have exciting and fun and thrilling orchestral music to perform?

[Brian]

I got it alright, Brian!

Would you agree that in order to deliver exciting and fun and thrilling orchestral performances, one must first have exciting and fun and thrilling orchestral music to perform?

Hmmm... I think there must be an example somewhere of an orchestra and conductor who successfully made some not-very-good music sound super exciting...

[some guy]

Take a piece of music, any piece of music.

You can easily find people who think that that piece is exciting, fun, and thrilling.

You can just as easily find people who think that that piece is boring.

Given that situation, which everyone acknowledges, it seems irresistible to conclude that the words "exciting, fun, thrilling, and boring" none of them describe the music itself but the responses that different people will make to the music.

I have observed for almost sixty years that the overwhelming majority find it quite easy to resist that conclusion, however. Mr. Hurwitz hasn't resisted it any more completely than anyone else, but he has resisted that conclusion publically. He consistently and perhaps* even without exception uses evaluative terms--terms that point to responses--as if they described the music he discusses. This ends up meaning that if one agrees with his assessments, one likes him. If one does not agree, then one dislikes him. Of course there are other possibilities, people who disagree with certain assessments but still like him overall, and people who often agree with his assessments but don't particularly like him.

But persistently using evaluative terms as if they were descriptive means that what you won't ever get is any sort of discussion about the music itself. It could happen, I suppose, by accident. But not often.

*I have not watched all of Mr. Hurwitz's videos. After the first two dozen or so of him saying that this or that performance is "great; it really, really is" or that it's "horrible; trust me, avoid this recording" or that this or that kind of music is something that "nobody wants to listen to," well, I don't really have watch any more, do I? (Quotes are approximate.)

[(poco) Sforzando]

I wish he would just list his recs in the comments section, so you don't have to slog through a half hour of his shtick to get the thing you came for.

[MN Dave]

I wish he would just list his recs in the comments section, so you don't have to slog through a half hour of his shtick to get the thing you came for.

Sometimes I fast forward until I see him holding up the next CD. Pause. Look for it on Spotify. Continue. Etc.

[Symphonic Addict]

I wish he would just list his recs in the comments section, so you don't have to slog through a half hour of his shtick to get the thing you came for.

That would be a good idea, but it would spoil the essence of the video.