David Hurwitz

[lordlance]

You may be right. Over the years I've heard the NYP perform under such music directors as Bernstein, Boulez, Masur, Maazel, Gilbert, and Dudamel. The underrated Gilbert was notably self-effacing, but he did put on some spectacular events such as semi-staged productions of Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre and Janacek's Cunning Little Vixen. I'll be going even more often to hear the Phil now that they finally have solved the acoustic problems plaguing what is now called David Geffen Hall since its inception. (But I am still waiting to hear the authoritative truth as to why the NYP is not a great orchestra; I remain in the dark.)

Perhaps that's from some other discussion but I don't think anyone would say it's not one of the greats... One of the oldest... Part of the big five... Prestigious...

I imagine a lot of people here would disagree with my assessment but truthfully having spent the past decade exploring conductors discographies and live performances, I really don't think the idea of these sort of giants of the 20th Century stands up to scrutiny or that of the current lot being worse/lacking as much personality (held by some, not all)

In reality the more you explore a conductor, the more you realize how many duds they produced - across the board regardless of whom we're talking about. I'm aware some consider people like Reiner as consistently of high standard (and of course his discography with CSO is mug  more compact at 60 odd discs) but I haven't explored Reiner.

Those I have dug into like Karajan, Bernstein, Abbado, Mehta, Masur, Klemperer, Walter, Giulini, Bohm, Davis certainly don't stand up to scrutiny. Of course a lot of these I find just dull but even those I enjoy... You need to find the gems amid the duds. 

Similarly, I've often found performances by contemporary conductors which were simply better than whoever was considered sort of the go-to guy. Feels like cult of personality ultimately perhaps (and I'm certainly a sucker for them) but these reputations, I feel, are built on certain key recordings or composers rather than actually sitting down and listening to all their recordings.

___

All of this aside, I think maybe Toscanini kind of comes close to being consistent but even with him you can clearly tell in his Beethoven studio cycle that he's mellowed (only fair for someone who's almost a nonagenarian... Toscanini defies his age... One can only admire.) 

[71 dB]

I have been watching his videos lately. While I am not a newbie to classical music anymore (haven't been for 25+ years    ), I have been watching his new video series of how to build a basic classical music collection. In my opinion those videos have been very good (considering the target audience).

The list by Hurwitz for beginners has so far been:

1. Beethoven - Symphony No. 5
2. Brahms - Symphony No. 1
3. Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 4
4. Grieg - Piano Concerto
5. Mendelssohn - Violin Concerto

I have one recording of all of these works except for Tchaikovsky. For some reason I have never felt the urge to dive into his symphonies and I don't have any recording of any of his symphonies. None of these works are among my TOP favorites*, but I enjoy all of them. However, I agree with Hurwitz, that these are good choices for beginners to get into classical music. When I got into classical music 25+ years ago, I kind to "jumped over" the most basic repertoire and instead explored works like Elgar's oratorios and the cantatas by Buxtehude/Bruhns. In that sense I can kind of come back to this basic repertoire and in some instances explore it as a new thing to me. That's why these videos by Hurwitz are interesting to me: I can in a way start exploring classical music for the second time bringing some new excitement which help me further connecting with it.

-----------------------------------------
*I prefer Beethoven's chamber music over his orchestral works the 6th symphony being my favourite. Pretty much the same with Brahms. I adore his chamber music, but his orchestral music is a bit "meh" to me. As for Tchaikovsky, I am not a huge fan, but I do appreciate his ballets and smaller  scale orchestral works like Rococo Variations and Serenade for Strings. Grieg is an interesting case. I do enjoy his music, but I have never listened to it much. It is hard to take Grieg "seriously" and it is easy to think his music is for children. Mendelssohn I do like quite a lot actually, but again I haven't listened to his music much.

[Jo498]

I would have expected a bit more variety in 2025...

Below's a link to an 1980s "Great composers" series that were sold like magazines (with an LP or tape, they re-did the series 10 years later with CDs but then had to rely on "cheapo" recordings whereas the older one were licensed from DG, Decca etc).
A friend of mine who also helped me getting into classical music from ca. 1987 on had collected most of these back then.
That series started with 20 "romantic" pieces/composers and except for Grieg (and Tchaikovsky 6th and also b flat minor piano concerto instead of the 4th) there's total overlap with DH. I'd actually pick Tchaikovsky's 5th rather than 4 or 6, I think it's the best to start with: more "regular" than 6, more consistent with the motto theme than 4, gorgeous slow movement.

https://www.musik-sammler.de/lists/roman69/show/grosse-komponisten-und-ihre-musik/

[Daverz]

I would have expected a bit more variety in 2025...

It's a list for beginners.  Hurwitz has other lists aimed at weirdos like us.

[Jo498]

I got that, otherwise I would not have compared it to a beginner's series of 40 years ago. But apart from the fact that I find Brahms' 1st a horrible piece for beginners, there would nothing be wrong with giving a beginner a Bach, Mozart or Vivaldi piece among the first 5. Or one by Ravel, Debussy or Prokofiev.

[AnotherSpin]

I have been watching his videos lately. While I am not a newbie to classical music anymore (haven't been for 25+ years    ), I have been watching his new video series of how to build a basic classical music collection. In my opinion those videos have been very good (considering the target audience).

The list by Hurwitz for beginners has so far been:

1. Beethoven - Symphony No. 5
2. Brahms - Symphony No. 1
3. Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 4
4. Grieg - Piano Concerto
5. Mendelssohn - Violin Concerto

I have one recording of all of these works except for Tchaikovsky. For some reason I have never felt the urge to dive into his symphonies and I don't have any recording of any of his symphonies. None of these works are among my TOP favorites*, but I enjoy all of them. However, I agree with Hurwitz, that these are good choices for beginners to get into classical music. When I got into classical music 25+ years ago, I kind to "jumped over" the most basic repertoire and instead explored works like Elgar's oratorios and the cantatas by Buxtehude/Bruhns. In that sense I can kind of come back to this basic repertoire and in some instances explore it as a new thing to me. That's why these videos by Hurwitz are interesting to me: I can in a way start exploring classical music for the second time bringing some new excitement which help me further connecting with it.

-----------------------------------------
*I prefer Beethoven's chamber music over his orchestral works the 6th symphony being my favourite. Pretty much the same with Brahms. I adore his chamber music, but his orchestral music is a bit "meh" to me. As for Tchaikovsky, I am not a huge fan, but I do appreciate his ballets and smaller  scale orchestral works like Rococo Variations and Serenade for Strings. Grieg is an interesting case. I do enjoy his music, but I have never listened to it much. It is hard to take Grieg "seriously" and it is easy to think his music is for children. Mendelssohn I do like quite a lot actually, but again I haven't listened to his music much.

One of the genuinely nice things about growing up in the USSR was that proper classical music was just... everywhere. All the time. On the telly, on the radio, blasting out in concert halls, even in the background at school assemblies. Yeah, the repertoire was tightly controlled and pre-approved, but even within those limits there was more than enough to sink into.

When I started buying records as a teenager, I'd pretty much always go for stuff I already knew inside-out from radio or TV. My first proper "serious" LP was Beethoven's Fifth conducted by Ivanov – felt like I'd known every note since primary school. Sometimes I'd take a punt on something that looked unfamiliar on the sleeve, only to stick it on and go "oh yeah, of course" five bars in, because it had been drifting around the ether for years anyway.

Spot on about Hurwitz's recommendations, solid starting points. Brahms's First Symphony absolutely floored me the very first time I heard it back then; still gives me goosebumps. And Tchaikovsky? No point even talking about him, felt like one of his symphonies was on every single day, so you never actually needed to own them. They were just part of the air.

[71 dB]

One of the genuinely nice things about growing up in the USSR was that proper classical music was just... everywhere. All the time. On the telly, on the radio, blasting out in concert halls, even in the background at school assemblies. Yeah, the repertoire was tightly controlled and pre-approved, but even within those limits there was more than enough to sink into.

Why do you use the word "proper" here?

It is possible I heard less classical music in my childhood than you did growing up in Finland. I heard of course Sibelius. Finlandia everywhere. Perhaps I heard more popular music instead of "proper" classical music. My memory is quite vague in this respect, because music in general had quite small appeal to me up to high-school. Almost all music I heard be it classical, rock or pop sounded simply uninteresting to me. In fact I often wondered why are other people more into music. What's the appeal?

When I started buying records as a teenager, I'd pretty much always go for stuff I already knew inside-out from radio or TV. My first proper "serious" LP was Beethoven's Fifth conducted by Ivanov – felt like I'd known every note since primary school. Sometimes I'd take a punt on something that looked unfamiliar on the sleeve, only to stick it on and go "oh yeah, of course" five bars in, because it had been drifting around the ether for years anyway.

The first LP I ever bought was S-Express - Original Soundtrack. I was 17. I had discovered acid house music and for the first time in my life there was music that I found very exciting! It took almost a decade from this point for me to get into classical music (hearing Elgar's Enigma Variations on radio being THE decisive moment). Just a few years earlier I hold the opinion that classical music is simply too old music for modern ears. How are modern people with computers supposed to relate with music that was written in candle light 250 years ago? 

Spot on about Hurwitz's recommendations, solid starting points. Brahms's First Symphony absolutely floored me the very first time I heard it back then; still gives me goosebumps. And Tchaikovsky? No point even talking about him, felt like one of his symphonies was on every single day, so you never actually needed to own them. They were just part of the air.

Even still today I don't personally find these works "super-exciting", but I do like then at least. I am still struggling to understand the appeal fully, but I also understand it is mostly about personal taste. In a way I am interested of how other people experience these works and how it differs from how I experience them.

Anyway, the mystery of how does music have appeal to other people got solved long ago: When you find your favourite music, it has huge appeal to you. My music taste is simply "weird" compared to the general public which means it takes me much more time and effort to find my own favourites. Also, by listening one can develop and extent his/her music taste and appreciating music can become easier. 

[71 dB]

I got that, otherwise I would not have compared it to a beginner's series of 40 years ago. But apart from the fact that I find Brahms' 1st a horrible piece for beginners, there would nothing be wrong with giving a beginner a Bach, Mozart or Vivaldi piece among the first 5. Or one by Ravel, Debussy or Prokofiev.

Mozart made it to place 6:

6. Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 20
7. Sibelius - Finlandia

In fact, of all these first 7 works selected by Hurwitz, Mozart's Piano Concerto has the strongest appeal to me. Piano Concertos were THE works that got me into Mozart.

[71 dB]

I would have expected a bit more variety in 2025...

The purpose of his list isn't to gain the maximal variety using minimal amount of works. He started with 3 symphonies, then 3 concertos, then smaller scale orchestral works etc. He is systematic in this sense.

[AnotherSpin]

Why do you use the word "proper" here?

[...] 

Some might find it amusing that two non-native speakers are debating the use of English words, but properly speaking, what I probably meant was that the music was real, meaning Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart, not some crossover stuff like André Rieu.

[steve ridgway]

Some might find it amusing that two non-native speakers are debating the use of English words, but properly speaking, what I probably meant was that the music was real, meaning Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart, not some crossover stuff like André Rieu.

The established European canon then, nothing modern or revolutionary .

[71 dB]

Some might find it amusing that two non-native speakers are debating the use of English words, but properly speaking, what I probably meant was that the music was real, meaning Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart, not some crossover stuff like André Rieu.

Okay, understood.

[Karl Henning]

Some might find it amusing that two non-native speakers are debating the use of English words, but properly speaking, what I probably meant was that the music was real, meaning Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart, not some crossover stuff like André Rieu.

Well, clear enough.