David Hurwitz

[Madiel]

He regularly resorts to telling people he was being funny. It's one of his least impressive qualities.

[71 dB]

He regularly resorts to telling people he was being funny. It's one of his least impressive qualities.

What I find less impressive quality is lack of critical thinking skills. Whenever something someone says doesn't make sense to you stop for a few seconds to think if it's because the other person was possibly joking about it. It's also good to remember Youtube video titles tend to be clickbaity / provocative because that's how you get more views! If someone is known for regularly joking about things don't take everything that person says seriously.

[Madiel]

What I find less impressive quality is lack of critical thinking skills. Whenever something someone says doesn't make sense to you stop for a few seconds to think if it's because the other person was possibly joking about it. It's also good to remember Youtube video titles tend to be clickbaity / provocative because that's how you get more views! If someone is known for regularly joking about things don't take everything that person says seriously.

Disagree completely. He resorts to the "I was only joking" defence when he gets challenged on things when it's pretty clear he meant exactly what he said but knows it was provocative.

You want to talk about critical thinking skills? Critical thinking includes being aware of the long history of "I was only joking" and "why can't you take a joke?" as responses when a certain kind of little bullying misfires.

He's done it to me by the way. I can't even remember what the topic was, but his response to something was a nasty little remark, and then it became how I didn't have a sense of humour.

He wraps lots of little nasty remarks as "humour". But if your "humour" regularly consists of attacking other people, you're not actually being funny. You're employing a tactic to get away with being nasty.

A reviewer, of all people, should not be constantly claiming they didn't really mean it.

[Irons]

Disagree completely. He resorts to the "I was only joking" defence when he gets challenged on things when it's pretty clear he meant exactly what he said but knows it was provocative.

You want to talk about critical thinking skills? Critical thinking includes being aware of the long history of "I was only joking" and "why can't you take a joke?" as responses when a certain kind of little bullying misfires.

He's done it to me by the way. I can't even remember what the topic was, but his response to something was a nasty little remark, and then it became how I didn't have a sense of humour.

He wraps lots of little nasty remarks as "humour". But if your "humour" regularly consists of attacking other people, you're not actually being funny. You're employing a tactic to get away with being nasty.

A reviewer, of all people, should not be constantly claiming they didn't really mean it.

I have noted a strange mannerism. He says something half-jokingly - take it how you will, and in an instant his head drops and his face takes on a serious pose. He then isn't playing to the crowd but saying what he really thinks.

It was said back in the thread that he was professional reviewer. Don't know how true but told yesterday he worked in real estate? 

[71 dB]

I have noted a strange mannerism. He says something half-jokingly - take it how you will, and in an instant his head drops and his face takes on a serious pose. He then isn't playing to the crowd but saying what he really thinks.

Hurwitz seems to be a VERY extrovert person. Being familiar with his mannerism is clearly beneficial in understanding what he means. Maybe that's why I enjoy watching his videos. For a dull introvert person like me that kind of colourful "show" of body language and facial expression is magic. 

It was said back in the thread that he was professional reviewer. Don't know how true but told yesterday he worked in real estate?

Real estate ??  WHAAAT?!? Must be one of his jokes!

[Madiel]

For a dull introvert person like me that kind of colourful "show" of body language and facial expression is magic. 

For many introverts, a person who is showy is a total turnoff.

[71 dB]

For many introverts, a person who is showy is a total turnoff.

Yes, if it's about mutual communication, but I don't communicate anything to Hurwitz so his ability or lack thereof to understand me doesn't matter. Also introverts are fact-based so Hurwitz's SUBJECTIVE opinions about classical music don't matter and there is even the fact that he doesn't try to make the audience feel good. He states his opinion and if you disagree that's your own problem! Introverts are similar and speak to tell something, not to make other people feel good. So, the subject matter makes it suitable for introverts. Maybe if he talked about climate change or calculus, I would get annoyed in 5 seconds. 

[Irons]

Hurwitz does not rub me up the wrong way, I don't find him as annoying as others. The enthusiasm he feels shines through which is more important then what he actually says in my book. He reckons Slatkin is better then Boult in Vaughan Williams maybe, maybe not. I take enough notice to purchase a Slatkin CD (minimal cost) to find out but would never take his word.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

Yes I agree, John, and I have to conclude he was making an inept joke. Or maybe he was sincere. Who knows. I'm not a devout Elgarian, but there are some wonderful works - the Enigmas, In the South, the Cello Concerto, violin sonata, piano quintet - that lift him into the major composers in my book, and are far better than that March of the Moguls or whatever it is.

He doesn't always bother me. He really can be funny (that video on boxed sets of Carl Orff is a classic). Sometimes he has really good things to say about musical construction too, as when he analyzes phrase structures in Janacek's Sinfonietta or the Haydn C major op. 50 quartet. But his wholesale dismissal of what he calls "the avant-garde, academic, serial nightmare" is just a facile, thoughtless re-hashing of clichés long ago proposed by Henry Pleasants and Terry Teachout. It's not only short-sighted but wrong. Boulez and Stockhausen were anything but academic; Elliott Carter (whose Concerto for Orchestra and Third Quartet are for me two of the top 5-10 works of the 20th century) wasn't a serialist at all. And to dismiss Boulez, Norgard, Xenakis, Ligeti when he will then enthuse about a mediocrity like Don Gillis, whose Symphony 5 1/2 you can find on YouTube. (I thought the piece was a cringe-worthy 15 minutes without a single interesting idea. If you want an American neo-classic symphony with plenty of charm and imagination, try instead Meyer Kupferman's Little Symphony.)

Hurwitz is not important in himself, but his presence looms large on the Internet and he's got a large following. He has plenty of good things to say, but he ought to edit himself and plan his improvised chats for greater conciseness. And watch the blanket dismissals. Fine if you don't care for Boulez's music, many don't, but to call works like Rituel or Pli Selon Pli "garbage" is unprofessional in my opinion.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Hurwitz does not rub me up the wrong way, I don't find him as annoying as others. The enthusiasm he feels shines through which is more important then what he actually says in my book. He reckons Slatkin is better then Boult in Vaughan Williams maybe, maybe not. I take enough notice to purchase a Slatkin CD (minimal cost) to find out but would never take his word.

I watched that video a few days ago.  I haven't heard any VW with him conducting but am intrigued.  I'll ask in the VW thread if anyone else here has heard those recordings.

PD

p.s.  And yes, I do (like you) appreciate his enthusiasm and the delight that he takes in music.

[Mirror Image]

Yes I agree, John, and I have to conclude he was making an inept joke. Or maybe he was sincere. Who knows. I'm not a devout Elgarian, but there are some wonderful works - the Enigmas, In the South, the Cello Concerto, violin sonata, piano quintet - that lift him into the major composers in my book, and are far better than that March of the Moguls or whatever it is.

He doesn't always bother me. He really can be funny (that video on boxed sets of Carl Orff is a classic). Sometimes he has really good things to say about musical construction too, as when he analyzes phrase structures in Janacek's Sinfonietta or the Haydn C major op. 50 quartet. But his wholesale dismissal of what he calls "the avant-garde, academic, serial nightmare" is just a facile, thoughtless re-hashing of clichés long ago proposed by Henry Pleasants and Terry Teachout. It's not only short-sighted but wrong. Boulez and Stockhausen were anything but academic; Elliott Carter (whose Concerto for Orchestra and Third Quartet are for me two of the top 5-10 works of the 20th century) wasn't a serialist at all. And to dismiss Boulez, Norgard, Xenakis, Ligeti when he will then enthuse about a mediocrity like Don Gillis, whose Symphony 5 1/2 you can find on YouTube. (I thought the piece was a cringe-worthy 15 minutes without a single interesting idea. If you want an American neo-classic symphony with plenty of charm and imagination, try instead Meyer Kupferman's Little Symphony.)

Hurwitz is not important in himself, but his presence looms large on the Internet and he's got a large following. He has plenty of good things to say, but he ought to edit himself and plan his improvised chats for greater conciseness. And watch the blanket dismissals. Fine if you don't care for Boulez's music, many don't, but to call works like Rituel or Pli Selon Pli "garbage" is unprofessional in my opinion.

Some good points. I, too, find his reviews or videos dismissing avant-garde music as 'garbage' to be really uncalled for and shows zero insight into actually making an attempt to understand and enjoy this music. I also found it distasteful when he continuously referred to Strauss' tone poems as trash. I mean he does seem to like this music, but insulting your way through a review only confuses the reader/viewer. He also mentioned how there's no profundity in any of these tone poems, which is an ignorant statement as there are moments that reveal a depth of emotion that I guess he doesn't or can't allow himself to feel. Anyway, it's Christmas and I'm done talking about this guy.

[Todd]

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


So Hurwitz dislikes the Honeck Ninth.  That's OK.  What is not OK is the fit of that shirt.  Seriously.

[DavidW]

Well there is 27 pages here so this has probably mentioned... but my problem is when he personally attacks musicians.  He accused period instrument performers of just being day job workers with no passion.  You wouldn't believe the things that he has said about Norrington in particular.

[Brian]

The video on Dvorak's Fifth Symphony was unusually focused on the music and musical examples. If you're wondering why he spends 30 minutes choosing his top 5 recordings, it's because he spends the first 25 minutes analyzing the music (and pondering its influence on Brahms) before the obligatory list of Kubelik, Kertesz, Neumann (analog), Jansons, and another I forgot.

[Christo]

Hurwitz does not rub me up the wrong way, I don't find him as annoying as others. The enthusiasm he feels shines through which is more important then what he actually says in my book. He reckons Slatkin is better then Boult in Vaughan Williams maybe, maybe not. I take enough notice to purchase a Slatkin CD (minimal cost) to find out but would never take his word.

+1

[Biffo]

The video on Dvorak's Fifth Symphony was unusually focused on the music and musical examples. If you're wondering why he spends 30 minutes choosing his top 5 recordings, it's because he spends the first 25 minutes analyzing the music (and pondering its influence on Brahms) before the obligatory list of Kubelik, Kertesz, Neumann (analog), Jansons, and another I forgot.

How much of the analysis is silly voices and lame jokes?

[DavidW]

btw if you want a youtuber that is passionate about music, but also insightful and not particularly abrasive or odd... try David Bruce.  He is a composer that has a channel with plenty of interesting videos.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/user/davidbrucedotnet

[Florestan]

Well there is 27 pages here so this has probably mentioned... but my problem is when he personally attacks musicians.  He accused period instrument performers of just being day job workers with no passion.  You wouldn't believe the things that he has said about Norrington in particular.

So what? More power to him! Especially in this age of ours when one is increasingly becoming afraid of saying "It's a fine day today!" just because someone somewhere might be in so bad a mood as to consider sunshine a personal offence.

[DavidW]

in this age of ours when one is increasingly becoming afraid of saying "It's a fine day today!" just because someone somewhere might be in so bad a mood as to consider sunshine a personal offence.

If this is how you perceive the world around you, you are living in a fantasy land!  This is not at all an apt description of the state of rhetoric in 2021.  Social media is always blowing up with ad hominem attacks and insane outrage over anything and everything.

[Florestan]

insane outrage over anything and everything.

Which only proves my point --- and that's the last you'll ever hear from me on this very (non-Hurwitz related) topic.