Discussing Critical Content (written reviews, YT vlogs, podcasts etc.)

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm a bit confused. If some members are students, nominally or not, isn't it by definition "not fully professional"? Professional doesn't mean "excellent;" it means you earn your living by performing an activity...anyway, sorry to quibble   I'm an English teacher

No, "professional" has always meant "adhering to the high standard expected of a profession," not just (or even necessarily) "being compensated."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional

[Karl Henning]

I'm a bit confused. If some members are students, nominally or not, isn't it by definition "not fully professional"? Professional doesn't mean "excellent;" it means you earn your living by performing an activity...anyway, sorry to quibble   I'm an English teacher

A neutral remark, then, would have been "not professional." "not fully professional" is derisive.

[Daverz]

Here's some "other critical content", Chales Coleman on Bax's Garden of Fand:

[DavidW]

Oh I have that recording, it is great!

[Karl Henning]

Here's some "other critical content", Chales Coleman on Bax's Garden of Fand:

I like the balance of a fan's enthusiasm with reasonably musical comment, and the musical examples are a good component. I guess I needn't be surprised that there are so many Fand recordings. I don't recall feeling any disappointment with the Lloyd-Jones account, but we don't all hear things the same, of course, and I enjoyed his discussing what he liked and didn't about each account of the piece.

[Daverz]

I like the balance of a fan's enthusiasm with reasonably musical comment, and the musical examples are a good component. I guess I needn't be surprised that there are so many Fand recordings. I don't recall feeling any disappointment with the Lloyd-Jones account, but we don't all hear things the same, of course, and I enjoyed his discussing what he liked and didn't about each account of the piece.

I usually just go for Boult in glorious Lyrita sonics.  This was part of a small batch of recordings that Lyrita redid in hi-res a few years ago, with notable improvements. That project seems to have fizzled unfortunately.

https://www.prostudiomasters.com/search?q=lyrita

I have heard the Barbirolli; it's an early stereo Pye recording, and a bit pale sounding.  I don't recall anything about the other recordings, so they are in the notional listening pile.

EDIT: Handley with the BBC Philharmonic  is good, but Bryden Thomson with the Ulster Orchestra is downright sexy.

[Karl Henning]

I usually just go for Boult in glorious Lyrita sonics.  This was part of a small batch of recordings that Lyrita redid in hi-res a few years ago, with notable improvements. That project seems to have fizzled unfortunately.

https://www.prostudiomasters.com/search?q=lyrita

I have heard the Barbirolli; it's an early stereo Pye recording, and a bit pale sounding.  I don't recall anything about the other recordings, so they are in the notional listening pile.

I first heard the piece in the Barbirolli doorstop, and he sold me on the piece ... and that was a further inducement to plunge into the symphonies.

[mahler10th]

Just so most folks can kick and spit at me, I actually LIKE Dave Hurwitz A LOT.  I agree with him much more often than not.  He is not pompous nor does he lord it with snobbery, which is rife in the Classical World, and which I too despise.  Some of his information is priceless for musically gawky people like me.  It was his reference to Szells Beethoven that made me buy it (second hand on ebay.) and I am mighty glad I did.  I do disagree with some of his rhetoric (Granville Bantok, Hans Rott, Klaus Makela to name just three), but for people like me who don't really know any better, his delivery on YouTube is friendly, comprehensive and on point, even if the point is not quite what was expected.

[Roasted Swan]

Just so most folks can kick and spit at me, I actually LIKE Dave Hurwitz A LOT.  I agree with him much more often than not.  He is not pompous nor does he lord it with snobbery, which is rife in the Classical World, and which I too despise.  Some of his information is priceless for musically gawky people like me.  It was his reference to Szells Beethoven that made me buy it (second hand on ebay.) and I am mighty glad I did.  I do disagree with some of his rhetoric (Granville Bantok, Hans Rott, Klaus Makela to name just three), but for people like me who don't really know any better, his delivery on YouTube is friendly, comprehensive and on point, even if the point is not quite what was expected.

Apologies - but isn't this the thread where we DON'T discuss the pros and cons of Hurwitz's style?

[mahler10th]

Apologies - but isn't this the thread where we DON'T discuss the pros and cons of Hurwitz's style?

Too bad with your apology.  I apologise for uttering the word Hurwitz too.  I'm discussing what his output has done for me, by his 'giving' me Szell's Beethoven.  I may have strayed with my approval of his 'style' - but the main point is, he gave me Beethoven like I've never heard before.  So I like the guy.  I listen to him.  I posted this here because I thought it would be the best place for it because the other Hurwitz post is dripping with...alternative ideas.  Alas, it seems I was wrong - there is NO  place in GMG for Hurwitz hugging.  So I've got the message.
Things have changed around here a lot in only 2 years - I can't believe just my third post back has already annoyed someone.  A lot more of that will come for sure.  But I will not mention or refer to the Hurwitz 'style' again here or anywhere on GMG.  Not that I'll post on this thread much anyway, or say anything further about Hurwitz at all, it's the music that matters in the end.

[Brian]

Too bad with your apology.  I apologise for uttering the word Hurwitz too.  I'm discussing what his output has done for me, by his 'giving' me Szell's Beethoven.  I may have strayed with my approval of his 'style' - but the main point is, he gave me Beethoven like I've never heard before.  So I like the guy.  I listen to him.  I posted this here because I thought it would be the best place for it because the other Hurwitz post is dripping with...alternative ideas.  Alas, it seems I was wrong - there is NO  place in GMG for Hurwitz hugging.  So I've got the message.
Things have changed around here a lot in only 2 years - I can't believe just my third post back has already annoyed someone.  A lot more of that will come for sure.  But I will not mention or refer to the Hurwitz 'style' again here or anywhere on GMG.  Not that I'll post on this thread much anyway, or say anything further about Hurwitz at all, it's the music that matters in the end.

Hey John - no need to worry - just about a week ago we split Hurwitz into two threads because he's such a big character. The original thread here is where people discuss his videos, whether they like him or not, etc. This one is for the contents of the reviews. We created a separate thread for the contents of the reviews because there were so many haters in the other thread who kept interrupting the discussion. We might change the name if people get confused over which thread is which.

So you rejoined just in time to miss that kerfuffle. The existence of two different threads is all that RS meant, no other harm intended I'm sure. but yes, in the future, there are two doors to the Hurwitz club here...

Cheers and good to see you back again. Hope all's well and the music is sounding great!

[DavidW]

Apologies - but isn't this the thread where we DON'T discuss the pros and cons of Hurwitz's style?

Yes but John just came back so I didn't want to police him if the debate didn't kick off here because I didn't want him to feel like this:



Just please everyone else don't take that as an invitation to turn this thread into the other thread.

[DavidW]

@mahler10th Is Szell Beethoven one of DH's reference sets?

[Wanderer]

Hey John - no need to worry - just about a week ago we split Hurwitz into two threads because he's such a big character. The original thread here is where people discuss his videos, whether they like him or not, etc. This one is for the contents of the reviews.

I thought, as per the explanation in the initial thread post, that this was a thread for all youtube reviewers, like e.g. Gil Zilkha (link here), not just Hurwitz. In fact, I think his name should be removed from this thread's title to reflect that. One thread solely dedicated to this odious character is quite enough, we don't need - and certainty don't want - two. 

[DavidW]

I thought, as per the explanation in the initial thread post, that this was a thread for all youtube reviewers, like e.g. Gil Zilkha (link here), not just Hurwitz. In fact, I think his name should be removed from this thread's title to reflect that. One thread solely dedicated to this odious character is quite enough, we don't need - and certainty don't want - two.

Good point... and changed.

[Roasted Swan]

Hey John - no need to worry - just about a week ago we split Hurwitz into two threads because he's such a big character. The original thread here is where people discuss his videos, whether they like him or not, etc. This one is for the contents of the reviews. We created a separate thread for the contents of the reviews because there were so many haters in the other thread who kept interrupting the discussion. We might change the name if people get confused over which thread is which.

So you rejoined just in time to miss that kerfuffle. The existence of two different threads is all that RS meant, no other harm intended I'm sure. but yes, in the future, there are two doors to the Hurwitz club here...

Cheers and good to see you back again. Hope all's well and the music is sounding great!

Brian - thankyou for your correct interpretation of my post.  I was certainly not annoyed - my intention was to try and ensure that the aims of the two threads were indeed kept distinct.  As it happens I have chosen to keep my own thoughts on Hurwitz to myself since it is clearly an incendiary topic and I do not seek to stoke that fire.  I - like John - prefer to keep the bulk of my posts focussed on music and wherever possible be positive!

[Madiel]

No, "professional" has always meant "adhering to the high standard expected of a profession," not just (or even necessarily) "being compensated."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional

This is not how dictionaries work.

Many people, depending on context, use "professional" to mean "being compensated". And the dictionary duly records this. The fact that a dictionary also records its other usage as meaning "of a high standard" is NOT any kind of proof that it has "always meant" something. Or always does.

In fact your link quite specifically TELLS you which kind of usage is the first recorded. And it's not even the one you are claiming it has "always" had.

But it's even clearer that the link demonstrates several different meanings of the word. To prioritise one of them and declare that that is The Meaning is completely contrary to what Merriam-Webster is actually trying to tell you about how people actually use the word "professional".  Including that different people are liable to use it differently.

Besides, it's fairly obvious to me that the phrases "professional standard" and "I'm a professional" are immediately likely to pick up different shades of meaning. The one word in isolation doesn't do it, it's how it is attached to other words. And some attachments are more ambiguous.

[(poco) Sforzando]

This is not how dictionaries work.

Many people, depending on context, use "professional" to mean "being compensated". And the dictionary duly records this. The fact that a dictionary also records its other usage as meaning "of a high standard" is NOT any kind of proof that it has "always meant" something. Or always does.

In fact your link quite specifically TELLS you which kind of usage is the first recorded. And it's not even the one you are claiming it has "always" had.

But it's even clearer that the link demonstrates several different meanings of the word. To prioritise one of them and declare that that is The Meaning is completely contrary to what Merriam-Webster is actually trying to tell you about how people actually use the word "professional".  Including that different people are liable to use it differently.

Besides, it's fairly obvious to me that the phrases "professional standard" and "I'm a professional" are immediately likely to pick up different shades of meaning. The one word in isolation doesn't do it, it's how it is attached to other words. And some attachments are more ambiguous.

I could respond, but that would be unprofessional.

[Madiel]

I could respond, but that would be unprofessional.

...because you haven't been paid to do it?

Context is everything. You just used a word in a way that makes little sense in context.

[Brian]

As the person who caused all this ruckus... all that this conversation ever needed was a distinction between "professional" as noun, and as adjective. A youth orchestra may not literally be professionals as a noun (people who get paid to engage in a job) while being professional in their standard. Yeah?

As so often on here, everyone here is right, they just don't understand how we can all be right at the same time. 

OK, keep it professional amateur dignified, everyone!