David Hurwitz

[Madiel]

Well, I've got about 6000 CDs and I may well have hundreds of them that I think of very fondly.

But if we're going to allow hundreds of things we "prefer above others", we are quite close to being in the sort of linguistic territory where "very unique" is considered acceptable!

Regardless, it's still a scatter-gun approach that meant I switched him off for long months.

That is not AT ALL the same linguistic territory. You've confused the difference between "better" and "best".

I find this whole exercise bizarre frankly. There are any number of legitimate things that can be said about Hurwitz' style and why people don't like it. And just occasionally someone manages one of those critiques. But a huge number of things that people are saying here about Hurwitz are nonsense.

Mostly that's because too many of you go for a big critique that doesn't hold up to scrutiny instead of a smaller critique that would. Instead of a criticism of aspects of his style, we get an attempt to delegitimise his entire work. Instead of dealing with things he's actually said we get claims about implications and what might happen if he went further than he actually did.

If you don't like him, either you're not watching in which case that might explain all the inaccuracies, or if you are watching him then that's kind of masochistic.

Either way, the determination to pull down pretty much the only prominent reviewer is baffling. By no means do I think Hurwitz is perfect. I certainly don't watch all his videos, and those that I do watch I might skip forward quite a bit through sections. But he is pretty close to the only person doing what he's doing, and I completely fail to see how having NO-ONE trying to do those sorts of recommendations would be an improvement.

[Roasted Swan]

That is not AT ALL the same linguistic territory. You've confused the difference between "better" and "best".

I find this whole exercise bizarre frankly. There are any number of legitimate things that can be said about Hurwitz' style and why people don't like it. And just occasionally someone manages one of those critiques. But a huge number of things that people are saying here about Hurwitz are nonsense.

Mostly that's because too many of you go for a big critique that doesn't hold up to scrutiny instead of a smaller critique that would. Instead of a criticism of aspects of his style, we get an attempt to delegitimise his entire work. Instead of dealing with things he's actually said we get claims about implications and what might happen if he went further than he actually did.

If you don't like him, either you're not watching in which case that might explain all the inaccuracies, or if you are watching him then that's kind of masochistic.

Either way, the determination to pull down pretty much the only prominent reviewer is baffling. By no means do I think Hurwitz is perfect. I certainly don't watch all his videos, and those that I do watch I might skip forward quite a bit through sections. But he is pretty close to the only person doing what he's doing, and I completely fail to see how having NO-ONE trying to do those sorts of recommendations would be an improvement.

Absolutely right - the very fact that someone/ANYONE is stimulating debate/interest in a field which is at best a minority one and quite possibly a threatened one at that must be a good thing.  I am indeed one of those masochists(!) but I watch/skip through his videos mainly out of curiosity and I would be lying to say that I have not listened to recordings specifically because he has enthused about them - this Delius disc was a recent "fave" and guess what; it is genuinely excellent



However (you knew there was going to be a however...), I would suggest that most people on this forum - and I say this as a matter of fact not any sense of self-regard - have knowledge/experience/own opinions that can temper Mr Hurwitz's extremes.  What does niggle me a bit it when he goes off on one of his "this is so cr*p" diatribes whether its the music , the performer etc etc.  I think this has the distinct possibility of making some of his followers believe that opinion without ever having heard the recording in question.  He is very passionate (forceful?) in his point of view and that can be entertaining but also an issue.  Just recently he dismissed the Previn/LSO/Tchaikovsky Manfred for no really better reason than he didn't like the tam-tam Previn added (which quite a few old-school Russian conductors do too).  My other main concern is that for all his undoubted knowledge I simply do not believe there are enough hours in the day for him to revisit and reconsider all the versions he mentions especially in the comparative reviews.  So a lot of his views are shot from the hip of his memory.  Make no mistake he is a fluent and articulate presenter but prone to making off the cuff comments as if they were holy writ.

[Madiel]

Absolutely right - the very fact that someone/ANYONE is stimulating debate/interest in a field which is at best a minority one and quite possibly a threatened one at that must be a good thing.  I am indeed one of those masochists(!) but I watch/skip through his videos mainly out of curiosity and I would be lying to say that I have not listened to recordings specifically because he has enthused about them - this Delius disc was a recent "fave" and guess what; it is genuinely excellent



However (you knew there was going to be a however...), I would suggest that most people on this forum - and I say this as a matter of fact not any sense of self-regard - have knowledge/experience/own opinions that can temper Mr Hurwitz's extremes.  What does niggle me a bit it when he goes off on one of his "this is so cr*p" diatribes whether its the music , the performer etc etc.  I think this has the distinct possibility of making some of his followers believe that opinion without ever having heard the recording in question.  He is very passionate (forceful?) in his point of view and that can be entertaining but also an issue.  Just recently he dismissed the Previn/LSO/Tchaikovsky Manfred for no really better reason than he didn't like the tam-tam Previn added (which quite a few old-school Russian conductors do too).  My other main concern is that for all his undoubted knowledge I simply do not believe there are enough hours in the day for him to revisit and reconsider all the versions he mentions especially in the comparative reviews.  So a lot of his views are shot from the hip of his memory.  Make no mistake he is a fluent and articulate presenter but prone to making off the cuff comments as if they were holy writ.

And I think those are reasonable criticisms. It doesn't take all that long to work out that he has particularly strong feelings about percussion, which is something consumers of his reviews need to factor in.

And I think that you're right to say that the comparative reviews must be relying to a fair extent on past memory - although that could include written notes/review texts rather than pure memory.

I also take your point about the knowledge/opinions of people on the forum. But here's my response (and I was already thinking about this): many people on the forum don't turn that into useful "review" information as often as one might hope. Or it's just hard to find when they do.

Partly that is just the message board format and the way conversations flow. Then some people don't have the inclination, some don't have the communication skills... there's a whole range of reasons why this forum is inconsistent as a source of that kind of information.

We do have threads about particular works or sets of works that are somewhat helpful for comparisons of recordings, but even then you get a fair few responses (and I'm sure I've done this) which identify someone's favourite recording but go no further. Hurwitz in all his rambling and repetitive phrasing does give me some inkling of his reasoning, and in his comparative reviews there's usually a range of recommended options with different styles.

And that takes work. I've engaged in a few attempts here at conscious reviews or descriptions of music on the forum. One section of the Holmboe thread is awash with my obsession, and my attempt at listening to every full recording of Shostakovich's op.87 preludes and fugues is happening in fits and starts... it's bloody hard work! And generally, forum members aren't coming here consciously working at being reviewers.

[Todd]

I think this has the distinct possibility of making some of his followers believe that opinion without ever having heard the recording in question.

David Hurwitz has followers? 

[Brian]

In my experience looking through the comments of his videos, about 60% of the viewers are just as opinionated and cranky as he is, or even more so. Like that guy who replied to the Berlioz Requiem video recently with a bunch of obscure 1970s radio broadcast recommendations.

[Herman]

his videos are still a worthy watch just because of the in-depth discussions of some of the repertoire he talks about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the typical Hurwitz vid about Hurwitz reading aloud the contents of a multi-CD box and making brief comments about those, clearly without having refreshed his memory of those recordings?

It's not my idea of in-depth.

[Todd]

In my experience looking through the comments of his videos, about 60% of the viewers are just as opinionated and cranky as he is, or even more so.

His audience is an exceptionally tiny population of classical music obsessives.  The stats prove it.  He has ~17,000 YouTube subscribers, though how many are bots is unclear.  In contrast, Bad Bunny has 43 million subscribers.  ClassicsToday itself cites 30,000 unique monthly visitors.  (similarweb estimates that is sufficient to put the site in the $25-$50 million in annual revenue category, which demonstrates how awful some web analytics are.)  The insignificant reach of Mr Hurwitz's opining makes complaints about him all the more amusing.  But people do spell his name properly.

[Spotted Horses]

Curiosity got the best of me and I randomly stumbled on a video review of a recording of Mahler 4 by Roth. It struck me as the ranting of a lunatic! Like getting buttonholed by your unhinged uncle at a family gathering. Did I learn anything? I seem to come away with the idea that the piece was performed by a wind octet, except for the "racist" portamento of the solo violin?  It followed the approach of Bruno Walter, except that Walter wasn't an idiot?  Perhaps the classical music review web site he founded is good for the business, but I can't imagine these reviews are drawing uninitiated into the classical music world. And why drag his cat into it?

[Karl Henning]

However (you knew there was going to be a however...), I would suggest that most people on this forum - and I say this as a matter of fact not any sense of self-regard - have knowledge/experience/own opinions that can temper Mr Hurwitz's extremes.  What does niggle me a bit it when he goes off on one of his "this is so cr*p" diatribes whether its the music , the performer etc etc.  I think this has the distinct possibility of making some of his followers believe that opinion without ever having heard the recording in question.  He is very passionate (forceful?) in his point of view and that can be entertaining but also an issue.  Just recently he dismissed the Previn/LSO/Tchaikovsky Manfred for no really better reason than he didn't like the tam-tam Previn added (which quite a few old-school Russian conductors do too).  My other main concern is that for all his undoubted knowledge I simply do not believe there are enough hours in the day for him to revisit and reconsider all the versions he mentions especially in the comparative reviews.  So a lot of his views are shot from the hip of his memory.  Make no mistake he is a fluent and articulate presenter but prone to making off the cuff comments as if they were holy writ.

Appreciate this, thanks. Anyone who wants to find his schtick entertaining is entitled to. And those of us who find him tiresome aren't mere "haters." File both these sentences under Stating the Obvious.

[Karl Henning]

I very carefully got out my trusted Oxford English Dictionary and checked the meaning of the word 'favourite' before I posted, so I'm fairly confident in my choice of linguisitc territory.

Hence I consider my comments perfectly "legitimate".

And I don't quite see how "It was funny. I think it was snarky at times, insightful at others. " and " he has his moments of insight and acute observation" counts as "deligitimising his entire work".

Maybe you've replied to my post but your comments are mostly directed at others? Hope so, because you're pointing at the wrong person otherwise. I like Hurwitz far more than I dislike him, and I am very keen that he should continue what he's doing, but that doesn't mean he's beyond criticism, and pointing out that I personally found an ever-growing list of 200+ 'favourites' to be trivialising and unenjoyable seems an entirely legitimate criticism to make (whatever 'legitimate' is supposed to mean in this context).

Appreciate this post, too.

[Karl Henning]

Curiosity got the best of me and I randomly stumbled on a video review of a recording of Mahler 4 by Roth. It struck me as the ranting of a lunatic! Like getting buttonholed by your unhinged uncle at a family gathering. Did I learn anything? I seem to come away with the idea that the piece was performed by a wind octet, except for the "racist" portamento of the solo violin?  It followed the approach of Bruno Walter, except that Walter wasn't an idiot?  Perhaps the classical music review web site he founded is good for the business, but I can't imagine these reviews are drawing uninitiated into the classical music world. And why drag his cat into it?

"That's entertainment ... what'd you call it?"

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcYG_sPHGSI

[Todd]

Curious about the coverage of Gramophone, I used the Google machine and found that Hurwitz had covered that previously, but I also checked out the magazine's most up to date press kit.

Hurwitz on Gramophone

Gramophone on Gramophone

Gramophone has a monthly circulation of ~18000.  Online stats have larger numbers, though they are still rather small.  Average reader age is 62, average income is £70,000, and 95% of readers are male.  So, classical music recordings appeal mostly to well off, late middle-aged or elderly (white) men.

Who knew?

[Madiel]

I very carefully got out my trusted Oxford English Dictionary and checked the meaning of the word 'favourite' before I posted, so I'm fairly confident in my choice of linguisitc territory.

Hence I consider my comments perfectly "legitimate".

And I don't quite see how "It was funny. I think it was snarky at times, insightful at others. " and " he has his moments of insight and acute observation" counts as "deligitimising his entire work".

Maybe you've replied to my post but your comments are mostly directed at others? Hope so, because you're pointing at the wrong person otherwise. I like Hurwitz far more than I dislike him, and I am very keen that he should continue what he's doing, but that doesn't mean he's beyond criticism, and pointing out that I personally found an ever-growing list of 200+ 'favourites' to be trivialising and unenjoyable seems an entirely legitimate criticism to make (whatever 'legitimate' is supposed to mean in this context).

Much of my comment was general rather than directed at you personally, yes.

[Madiel]

Curious about the coverage of Gramophone, I used the Google machine and found that Hurwitz had covered that previously, but I also checked out the magazine's most up to date press kit.

Hurwitz on Gramophone

Gramophone on Gramophone

Gramophone has a monthly circulation of ~18000.  Online stats have larger numbers, though they are still rather small.  Average reader age is 62, average income is £70,000, and 95% of readers are male.  So, classical music recordings appeal mostly to well off, late middle-aged or elderly (white) men.

Who knew?

That's who Gramophone appeals to. Not least because Gramophone is expensive.

[Madiel]

Appreciate this, thanks. Anyone who wants to find his schtick entertaining is entitled to. And those of us who find him tiresome aren't mere "haters." File both these sentences under Stating the Obvious.

But this is my point: much of the commentary is not about whether he's entertaining or tiresome. I get why people dislike his style. My problem is that people jump from that to much broader claims that the entire enterprise is illegitimate.

[vers la flamme]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the typical Hurwitz vid about Hurwitz reading aloud the contents of a multi-CD box and making brief comments about those, clearly without having refreshed his memory of those recordings?

It's not my idea of in-depth.

The ones I've seen are not like that. If you really are curious to be proven wrong, check out one of his videos on the Shostakovich symphonies.

[staxomega]

https://youtu.be/M5s5gIf2aAk

Great review from Hurwitz. Completely agree with him on these pretentious "concept" albums that are being released, Víkingur Ólafsson is the perfect example too. Comparing any of his individual performances against others reveals them to be average to completely missing the mark of the works. The photos in the booklet seem to be a reflection of this kind of nonsense as well.

The only thing off about Hurwitz's review is his straw man argument about Kurtag, no one really "worships" him, so there was no need to say that to get his point across about this being uninteresting music... that's just Kurtag.

I bit my tongue when I saw that he was recording some parts of an album on an upright piano, as I thought maybe I'm only the only one thinking "what the hell?" about this.

Some others I can think of is Igor Levit's latest album, a phenomenal performance of Henze's Tristan, I might even say better than the one with the composer conducting. But the rest of the album is bland, topped off with a horrendously dull and uninteresting transcription of the Adagio from Mahler's tenth symphony. Who wants to hear this on piano? This is one of Mahler's single greatest movements with the varied colors, textures, the aching violins, in general just how much his orchestration conveys.

Schuch has idiotic album that comes to mind as well, one of the best recordings of Musica Ricercata that alternates between Beethoven's Bagatelles. Fortunately I have a playlist of this arranged in a sensible order of Ligeti followed by Beethoven, which I never listen to the second half as it's some of Beethoven's least interesting music.

[Madiel]

Well, I wrote to Deutsche Grammophon when the release was announced. Telling them trying to get me to buy 2 discs would mean that I bought none.

I might listen once on streaming.

In some ways it fits with Vikingur's earlier releases, but yes, with the self-indulgence turned way up. I agree with Hurwitz (and disagree with you) that he's a good pianist. But in this case with a terrible idea.

[Jo498]

I find "Concept albums" mostly silly, but to be fair, it's often just another way of presenting an anthology. Then it just depends if it's an attractive or sensible combination. Tbh the latest Olafsson disc does not look attractive to me but his earlier ones were a bit more "conservative" (I have not heard any of them). The closest to "concept" I have are Pletnev's "Rachmaninoff" (incl. pieces by the composer and from his repertoire as a pianist), Mustonen alternating pieces from Bach WTC 1 and Shostakovich P&F and a similar one with Joao Carlos Martins and another pianist who take turns with Chopin Preludes and pieces from Bach's WTC. I can understand people finding the last two gimmicky but I found them interesting enough to keep.

[Madiel]

Concept albums can be good. In that video Hurwitz mentions the Debussy/Rameau album favourably and I concur.

Singers arguably do concept albums a lot, and often they're highly effective.