David Hurwitz

[Madiel]

I know. My personal anecdotic example is on your side. Heck, my own thinking is on your side. 

Meanwhile we have a large chunk of the forum spontaneously reviewing Schumann piano works to help Harry out!

[Florestan]

Meanwhile we have a large chunk of the forum spontaneously reviewing Schumann piano works to help Harry out!

Love thy neighbor as thyself!

[KevinP]

Love Hurwtiz.

However, one point that I'm not hearing is that there's a big difference between getting a critic's recommendation of a work you are not familiar with and one that you are well versed in.

When you're exploring a new-to-you composer, or genre, era, etc., it's nice to have  recommendations with explanations. I remember when I first started exploring opera. I was still a steelworker at the time, and this was the early days of CDs, when multi-disc sets were super expensive. It was the pre-internet era when I had no one in my life who didn't think I was joking when I mentioned listening to opera. I usually just bought the cheapest ones. Sometimes that didn't work out too badly, but often I ended up with early mono radio broadcasts as my only recording. Some guidance would have been nice as I figured out what I did and didn't like.

On the other hand, critics raving about the latest Brandenburgs or Mozart Requiem...meh. Sometimes they pique my curiosity and I'll bite despite having 11 other renditions, but I end up being impressed only a fraction of those times.

[Madiel]

I did sort of make that point, though I was talking about recordings more than works.

But I agree with you. Reviews are not designed to make people change opinions they already have. They are designed to provide some information to people who are looking for it.

[Florestan]

Reviews are not designed to make people change opinions they already have. They are designed to provide some information to people who are looking for it.

This, in spades.

[Madiel]

I have to amend my answer about not remembering buying something because of a review, if we are talking about a 30 year time period. Because that goes back to before easy internet access, and I used to go to the local classical music shop's annual sale armed with my Penguin Guide.

I mean, I'm still not sure I would say that a purchase was made JUST because of a review. But it was a lot more influential in circumstances where it was difficult to hear for myself. If I went shopping back then at other times of year then I would go through the rigmarole of getting the store staff to put a recording on their headphones so I could have a listen. But the annual sale? There was no time. The Penguin Guide was an important part of whittling down the enormous stack of discs I grabbed down to something affordable. I was still a student after all. Even the culled version of the stack tended to be 200 dollars.

[DavidW]

I see posters arguing over whether people are reading reviews for entertainment or enlightenment.  But I would bet money that most visitors of the Classics Today website just look for the 10/10 rated album and buy it or stream it, having not read the review at all or only skimmed it.  Despite the internet being a factory of mass produced reviews, most people just want to look at a numerical rating and not invest anymore time.  Now obviously not the gmg crowd, but in general.

[Madiel]

I see posters arguing over whether people are reading reviews for entertainment or enlightenment.  But I would bet money that most visitors of the Classics Today website just look for the 10/10 rated album and buy it or stream it, having not read the review at all or only skimmed it.  Despite the internet being a factory of mass produced reviews, most people just want to look at a numerical rating and not invest anymore time.  Now obviously not the gmg crowd, but in general.

Sure. And?

I mean, I don't find your claim that plausible, because I doubt that many people automatically buy a top-rated album without ANY consideration of the content (a 5-star country and western album is still a country and western album, and a 10/10 Philip Glass album is still a Glass album, although to my astonishment Víkingur Ólafsson appears to have induced me to actually want to buy a Glass album).

But even if your proposition true, doesn't that fall into your "enlightenment" category? It's very limited enlightenment, yes, but the person is slightly more informed than before.

Someone has decided it's useful to them that a reviewer gave a high score. QED

[vers la flamme]

I have to admit, this Dave Hurwitz guy irritated me the first time I saw one of his videos. I didn't like his snobbish tone, didn't like how he spoke as if from a position of authority, and didn't like how he dismissed recordings that I personally find to be great as completely worthless. But I've come around and become a fan. He really knows the music, and if you don't agree with his opinions, who cares; his videos are still a worthy watch just because of the in-depth discussions of some of the repertoire he talks about. No one else on Youtube is doing what he's doing, and I don't have conversations like his discussions of music in real life with anyone. So I enjoy his videos.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

It's been some time since I've watched any of his videos, but felt in the mood to check out a recent one this morning.  It was of him discussing (briefly) composers who have only written two violin concerto and whether he considers them to be fraternal vs. identical twins--meaning in terms of style; had the composer evolved much musically from one he wrote the first one vs. the second.

It is an interesting list and enjoyed the descriptions.  Some of the works I haven't heard before and am now intrigued to visit them--like Raff, Glass, Roslavets, John Williams, Piston, etc.

More food for thought which is always a good things. 

PD

[KevinP]

I have to admit, this Dave Hurwitz guy irritated me the first time I saw one of his videos. I didn't like his snobbish tone, didn't like how he spoke as if from a position of authority, and didn't like how he dismissed recordings that I personally find to be great as completely worthless. But I've come around and become a fan. He really knows the music, and if you don't agree with his opinions, who cares; his videos are still a worthy watch just because of the in-depth discussions of some of the repertoire he talks about. No one else on Youtube is doing what he's doing, and I don't have conversations like his discussions of music in real life with anyone. So I enjoy his videos.

Since you've done an about-face, can I ask what made you find him snobbish? I actually find him quite the opposite, although you could argue he's an anti-snobbery snob. Is it just that he dismissed recordings that you like? (I fully get how off-putting that can be, so if it's it, no need to justify it.)

[Jo498]

I think "anti-snobbery snob" describes a considerable part of Hurwitz' presentation quite well.

He has a bunch of bêtes noires he always makes fun of, sometimes with disproportional effort (e.g. the Bruckner version scholars or (fans of some) historical recordings, the "anti-vibrato" fraction) and it's usually not only the "material position" of the opponents he dislikes, but as much or more the way the supposedly snobbish way they behave or present their case. To some extent he does a similar thing with musical works or composers he dislikes.

He also sometimes stresses that classical music has "no depth", it's just fun like any other pastime (that's why the listeners perceiving "deep revelations" in Furtwängler recordings are pretentious snobs). But of course, he is himself cocksure about his predilections and recommendations and thus implicitly about the importance of the music.

[Todd]

He also sometimes stresses that classical music has "no depth", it's just fun like any other pastime (that's why the listeners perceiving "deep revelations" in Furtwängler recordings are pretentious snobs).

This is true.  Classical music considered as a whole is merely entertainment.  It is socially irrelevant even in western civilization, let alone for the overwhelming majority of humanity past, present, and future.  Its commercial relevance is limited.  It is true that some people will divine nearly transcendental meaning from some music or certain performances of said music, and for such people, the meaning may be perceived as very real.  That does not make it objectively real.  The same applies to many other forms of entertainment - eg, other musical genres, movies (or rather, "films"), literature old and new, and so forth. 

But of course, he is himself cocksure about his predilections and recommendations and thus implicitly about the importance of the music.

If one accepts that classical music is basically irrelevant, then there is no reason not to take such an approach.  Hurwitz's opinions will fade into the ether, have faded into the ether.  And that's among people who know about his existence. 

[Madiel]

But of course, he is himself cocksure about his predilections and recommendations and thus implicitly about the importance of the music.

Eh? Your "implicitly" simply does not follow. I can (and do) have strong opinions about my favourite X-Files episodes without believing the X-Files is of any fundamental importance.

[Florestan]

He also sometimes stresses that classical music has "no depth", it's just fun like any other pastime

He's right about that and there are a few major composers who would have agreed with him.

(that's why the listeners perceiving "deep revelations" in Furtwängler recordings are pretentious snobs).

He might be right about that as well, at least in some cases.

[Karl Henning]

He also sometimes stresses that classical music has "no depth", it's just fun like any other pastime [snip]

He's right about that and there are a few major composers who would have agreed with him.

Yeah, I think that about Rakhmaninov's Op. 37 all the time.

[Florestan]

Yeah, I think that about Rakhmaninov's Op. 37 all the time.

Is this tongue-in-cheek or serious, Karl? 

If the latter, rest assured that Rachmaninoff was not among the composers I had in mind. 

[Spotted Horses]

He also sometimes stresses that classical music has "no depth", it's just fun like any other pastime (that's why the listeners perceiving "deep revelations" in Furtwängler recordings are pretentious snobs).

This seems like the sort of thing that can start one of those infinite arguments with the dog chasing its own tail. Music is just a sequence of sounds. It has as much or as little depth as the person listening perceives. I'll leave it at that.

[Florestan]

This seems like the sort of thing that can start one of those infinite arguments with the dog chasing its own tail. Music is just a sequence of sounds. It has as much or as little depth as the person listening perceives. I'll leave it at that.

I was considering starting a thread about that but you sort of killed it before birth. 

I'll just say that, if entertaining means engaging and enjoyable (as per Merriam-Webster) then Rachmaninoff's works are highly entertaining to me, including the Vespers. Conversely, Bruckner or Wagner have little, if any, entertaining value to me since I find them neither engaging nor enjoyable, save for Bruckner 4. As a rule of thumb, the more a work purports to be profound, the less I enjoy it and the less it engages me ---, ie, the less it entertains me.

No, really, it's a paradox: I find a lot of Romantic music entertaining but I am generaly opposed to the Romantic philosophy of music, especially the German Romantic one. 

[Karl Henning]

I was considering starting a thread about that but you sort of killed it before birth. 

I'll just say that, if entertaining means engaging and enjoyable (as per Merriam-Webster) then Rachmaninoff's works are highly entertaining to me, including the Vespers. Conversely, Bruckner or Wagner have little, if any, entertaining value to me since I find them neither engaging nor enjoyable, save for Bruckner 4. As a rule of thumb, the more a work purports to be profound, the less I enjoy it and the less it engages me ---, ie, the less it entertains me.

No, really, it's a paradox: I find a lot of Romantic music entertaining but I am generaly opposed to the Romantic philosophy of music, especially the German Romantic one. 

We all agree, I suppose that  there is overlap between "entertaining" and "just fun."