David Hurwitz

[(poco) Sforzando]

Sir George Grove is dead and burried; so is Weber; so is Schindler. Who is going to shed light upon this strange case, I wonder?

Hurwitz?

[Florestan]

Hurwitz?

Hah! 

Is he even remotely related to Emanuel Hurwitz, I wonder.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Is he even remotely related to Emanuel Hurwitz, I wonder.

One can only hope.

[Florestan]

One can only hope.

I think you're being too harsh to him, Mr. Sforz. He's a human being, ergo he's deeply flawed --- but I can think of much worse ways of being deeply flawed than his.

Seriously now, what amuses me no end is people not caring for, or even despising, David Hurwitz yet who keep posting about he said or did.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I think you're being too harsh to him, Mr. Sforz. He's a human being, ergo he's deeply flawed --- but I can think of much worse ways of being deeply flawed than his.

Seriously now, what amuses me no end is people not caring for, or even despising, David Hurwitz yet who keep posting about he said or did.

I don't despise him - not by a long shot - but he is "deeply flawed" to say the least. He definitely knows his recordings, he's very funny, and he says useful things about the music in a non-technical way. What I most dislike are his tolerance for some (in my view) mediocre 20th-century modern tonal composers, and his corresponding contempt for the high points of the atonal avant garde (Stockhausen, Boulez, Carter, among others). Real blind spots (or should I say deaf spots) there, as well as his blanket dismissal of the whole genre of the art song. That would be one thing if it were one of us casual listeners, quite another from a professional critic whose opinions are published and can be expected to carry greater weight.

Fair enough, Andre?

[Brian]

Ah yes. I was mixing up two Weber reactions. But he said this for sure about the 4th:

"First a slow movement full of short disjointed unconnected ideas, at the rate of three or four notes per quarter of an hour; then a mysterious roll of the drum and passage of the violas, seasoned with the proper quantity of pauses and ritardandos; and to end all a furious finale, in which the only requisite is that there should be no ideas for the hearer to make out, but plenty of transitions from one key to another."

Really that quote sounds remarkably similar to Leibowitz on Sibelius! I guess a certain sort of bad review never changes.

[Florestan]

I don't despise him - not by a long shot -

I didn't imply you do.

he is "deeply flawed" to say the least.

Welcome to the club!

He definitely knows his recordings, he's very funny,

Yep!

he says useful things about the music in a non-technical way.

I wonder how many musical critics qualify...

What I most dislike are his tolerance for some (in my view) mediocre 20th-century modern tonal composers,

Such as...?

his corresponding contempt for the high points of the atonal avant garde (Stockhausen, Boulez, Carter, among others).

I couldn't care less about them myself but I don't hold them in any contempt --- they do nothing for me, yet more power to those who enjoy them!

his blanket dismissal of the whole genre of the art song.

Yes, in this respect he is guilty of an unqualified cultural crime. Unqualified, I tellya!

Fair enough, Andrei?

Absolutely faiir, Larry!

[Brian]

Such as...?

A lot of post-Mahlerian romantics. Back when I was in college, I wasted a lot of time seeing a new CT review of an obscure composer like Sigmund von Hausegger or Joly Braga Santos, checking the disc out of the college library, and discovering that the music was (to me) super boring. Not to say they ALL were. I found people like Dag Wiren that way whom I still enjoy. But Hurwitz definitely has a thing for big gloopy orchestral stuff.

[Florestan]

A lot of post-Mahlerian romantics. Back when I was in college, I wasted a lot of time seeing a new CT review of an obscure composer like Sigmund von Hausegger or Joly Braga Santos, checking the disc out of the college library, and discovering that the music was (to me) super boring.

Hah!

I listened to the first two Braga Santos symphonies upon enthusiastic GMG reviews--- only to discover they are precisely the doom&gloom stufff that I can't stand even when paid in gold!

Never heard  a note of Hausegger but if it's anything like Braga Santos, then I'll pass!

Give me Mozart, Schubert and Chopin any time of the day or of the night, call me a philistine and thank you!

[(poco) Sforzando]

I couldn't care less about them myself but I don't hold them in any contempt --- they do nothing for me, yet more power to those who enjoy them!

Where he crossed the line, imo, is in referring to Leibowitz as a man "who taught a whole generation of composers we all despise." And that's a direct quote. And coming from someone in a position of authority, whose opinions which some (judging by the comments) take at face value, that's a bad slip. It really is. He's purporting to speak for everybody, he dismisses this music out of hand, and I think his judgment on Leibowitz's remarks is colored by his contempt for the avant-garde generation. I quote the complete text of his video on the music of Boulez:

"Hello friends! This is Dave Hurwitz, executive editor of Classics Today, here to talk about the very best of Pierre Boulez the composer! Ah, who am I kidding? (throws CDs away) It's all garbage! There is no best of Pierre Boulez the composer. End of video! Keep on listening to anything else! Bye-bye!"

And of course the comments mostly applaud Dave for his great insights and perspicacity, with the occasional exception:
COMMENT: Respectfully disagree.
HURWITZ: Respectfully don't care.

COMMENT: Boulez, like Elliott Carter, took the Boulanger technical work to heart, and produced wonderful fastidious scores of great beauty. The Boulez complete works on DG is one of my keep for life boxes. I'm currently working through Per Norgard's work, and find wonderful things in this derived seemingly from non-musical ideas. I suppose the ravishing Xenakis is also out of bounds? How about the collected Ligeti split between two labels?
HURWITZ: Nothing is out of bounds, including criticizing any of the above for producing crap.

Pot-kettle-black, as I said above. Geez, you'd think we were talking about Braga Santos here.  Hurwitz is just making himself look bad.

[Florestan]

Where he crossed the line, imo, is in referring to Leibowitz as a man "who taught a whole generation of composers we all despise." And that's a direct quote. And coming from someone in a position of authority, whose opinions which some (judging by the comments) take at face value, that's a bad slip. It really is. He's purporting to speak for everybody, he dismisses this music out of hand, and I think his judgment on Leibowitz's remarks is colored by his contempt for the avant-garde generation. I quote the complete text of his video on the music of Boulez:

"Hello friends! This is Dave Hurwitz, executive editor of Classics Today, here to talk about the very best of Pierre Boulez the composer! Ah, who am I kidding? (throws CDs away) It's all garbage! There is no best of Pierre Boulez the composer. End of video! Keep on listening to anything else! Bye-bye!"

And of course the comments mostly applaud Dave for his great insights and perspicacity, with the occasional exception:
COMMENT: Respectfully disagree.
HURWITZ: Respectfully don't care.

COMMENT: Boulez, like Elliott Carter, took the Boulanger technical work to heart, and produced wonderful fastidious scores of great beauty. The Boulez complete works on DG is one of my keep for life boxes. I'm currently working through Per Norgard's work, and find wonderful things in this derived seemingly from non-musical ideas. I suppose the ravishing Xenakis is also out of bounds? How about the collected Ligeti split between two labels?
HURWITZ: Nothing is out of bounds, including criticizing any of the above for producing crap.

Pot-kettle-black, as I said above. Geez, you'd think we were talking about Braga Santos here.  Hurwitz is just making himself look bad.

Does it even matter? I mean, David Hurwitz trashing Boulez on YouTube! Unheard of! Crime! Assassin!

Oh, pulleeaaseee, Larry!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Does it even matter? I mean, David Hurwitz trashing Boulez on YouTube! Unheard of! Crime! Assassin!

Oh, pulleeaaseee, Larry!

Of course it doesn't matter! But why else do we have an Internet?

[Florestan]

why else do we have an Internet?

Ask my wife!

[staxomega]

Seriously now, what amuses me no end is people not caring for, or even despising, David Hurwitz yet who keep posting about he said or did.

One of the bigger non-politically related head scratchers of this forum.

[Mirror Image]

Seriously now, what amuses me no end is people not caring for, or even despising, David Hurwitz yet who keep posting about he said or did.

I only post about him because of what I think are outrageous opinions like those videos I posted on the Elgar thread. I mean this Elgar video is just beyond baffling to me:

https://www.youtube.com/v/Ar3HqhHTsI0

To me, it's like saying Beethoven's best work is the Leonore Overture or something along these lines. I mean he's free to believe and say what he wants, but by the same token, I think it's perfectly valid for anyone to criticize his opinion or, in this case, what I view as a lapse of judgment.

[Symphonic Addict]

Hah!

I listened to the first two Braga Santos symphonies upon enthusiastic GMG reviews--- only to discover they are precisely the doom&gloom stufff that I can't stand even when paid in gold!

Braga Santos' first two symphonies are anything but "doom&gloom". Clearly you listened to the last two (which are superb too, above all No. 5). 

[Madiel]

When it comes to written reviews, those of Hurwitz (and everyone else on his site) are models of clarity and concision compared to what you find on Musicweb International.

People might complain about Hurwitz's opinions, but at least you know what the hell they are.

[Jo498]

Never heard  a note of Hausegger but if it's anything like Braga Santos, then I'll pass!

I am not sure I ever consciously listened to anything by either composer, but von Hausegger is supposed to be similar to Bruckner (he was a famous Bruckner conductor as well).

I think it is fairly easy why people love to discuss and hate Hurwitz. In my case, I often find his reviews entertaining and informative, as I share some of his enthusiasms (e.g. Haydn) or at least the general thrust that some music deserves more attention (e.g. some of Mendelssohn, shorter concert pieces with piano). One problem is that he often explicitly claims that as a professional reviewer he does and can fairly review music he does not particularly care about. And sometimes he does that.
But it seems that far more frequently he gleefully indulges in tearing up (or throwing into garbage) his bêtes noires, both certain artists (Horenstein, Rattle, Furtwängler) and composers (almost all non-tonal avantgarde after the first generation, not sure about his stance on Schönberg, Berg, Webern, but also late romantics like Reger and Pfitzner and probably more I forgot about), areas of musicological research (Bruckner symphony versions) or whole genres (Lieder, which he didn't throw into the garbage but claimed that any claim they could be serious classical music and not "basically the same" as pop songs was pretentious elitism).

Spicing up reviews occasionally with tantrums about how bad something is, is one thing, but the extent is unprofessional and often more annoying than amusing. To reject in a sophomoric way the items I just listened is in direct contradiction to the professional fairnesses he professes elsewhere. And by this he also exhibits the very same parochialism he makes fun of elsewhere.
This was more understandable 70 years ago when composers and critics like Leibowitz fought tooth and nail for the avantgarde music they loved (and keep in mind that some composers of interwar avantgarde had barely escaped physical annihilation (or not) which is hardly conducive to fair evaluation of opponents) and didn't shy from unfair attacks on popular favorites (and Sibelius was an ironical case because he had "dropped out" already in 1930). But Hurwitz does not have such excuses, he only does it for fun or spite.

[Florestan]

I am not sure I ever consciously listened to anything by either composer, but von Hausegger is supposed to be similar to Bruckner (he was a famous Bruckner conductor as well).

I think it is fairly easy why people love to discuss and hate Hurwitz. In my case, I often find his reviews entertaining and informative, as I share some of his enthusiasms (e.g. Haydn) or at least the general thrust that some music deserves more attention (e.g. some of Mendelssohn, shorter concert pieces with piano). One problem is that he often explicitly claims that as a professional reviewer he does and can fairly review music he does not particularly care about. And sometimes he does that.
But it seems that far more frequently he gleefully indulges in tearing up (or throwing into garbage) his bêtes noires, both certain artists (Horenstein, Rattle, Furtwängler) and composers (almost all non-tonal avantgarde after the first generation, not sure about his stance on Schönberg, Berg, Webern, but also late romantics like Reger and Pfitzner and probably more I forgot about), areas of musicological research (Bruckner symphony versions) or whole genres (Lieder, which he didn't throw into the garbage but claimed that any claim they could be serious classical music and not "basically the same" as pop songs was pretentious elitism).

Spicing up reviews occasionally with tantrums about how bad something is, is one thing, but the extent is unprofessional and often more annoying than amusing. To reject in a sophomoric way the items I just listened is in direct contradiction to the professional fairnesses he professes elsewhere. And by this he also exhibits the very same parochialism he makes fun of elsewhere.
This was more understandable 70 years ago when composers and critics like Leibowitz fought tooth and nail for the avantgarde music they loved (and keep in mind that some composers of interwar avantgarde had barely escaped physical annihilation (or not) which is hardly conducive to fair evaluation of opponents) and didn't shy from unfair attacks on popular favorites (and Sibelius was an ironical case because he had "dropped out" already in 1930). But Hurwitz does not have such excuses, he only does it for fun or spite.

This is a fair assessment.

[71 dB]

I only post about him because of what I think are outrageous opinions like those videos I posted on the Elgar thread. I mean this Elgar video is just beyond baffling to me:

https://www.youtube.com/v/Ar3HqhHTsI0

To me, it's like saying Beethoven's best work is the Leonore Overture or something along these lines. I mean he's free to believe and say what he wants, but by the same token, I think it's perfectly valid for anyone to criticize his opinion or, in this case, what I view as a lapse of judgment.