Okay here is the rule for this thread. We are discussing his YT videos and CT articles ONLY and not the man. What you think positive or negative about say his recent review of Grumiaux' Mozart set. BUT... not HOW he says it, or what you think of him as a person. Just agree or disagree like you would any poster here.
If DH riles you up, go to the David Hurwitz thread and vent your spleen. 8)
I've done the same thing with the audiophile thread, and it has worked fairly well. I know this can work too. That means that ranting about Hurwitz in this thread is trolling. This is not the thread for that.
But also I think a wider umbrella would also be nice. He is not the only classical music critic. Any review or YT video you wish to discuss, these would be a good place for it.
There doesn't seem to be anyone doing reviews with anything close to Hurwitz's breadth, but perhaps The Algorithm has failed me here. (I get a lot of classical vinyl channels coming into my feed, and I always mark those "Not Interested" sight unseen. I mean, just get over it already.)
The only other music channel I'm subscribed to is Samuel Andreyev, who mostly does interviews and musical analysis, but he did recommend some late Stravinsky CDs:
CD recommendations are at about 31:40. I also recommend his interviews with Julian Anderson, a really interesting guy.
Quote from: David HurwitzBerlioz's Te Deum is one of his largest works--not quite the extravaganza that he made of the Requiem, with its 4 brass bands and 16 timpanists, but big enough! It requires three choruses, an augmented orchestra, and solo organ. The opening measures, in which the orchestra and organ alternate in throwing huge chords out into space, were made for a cathedral acoustic such is offered here. Unfortunately, that's about the best part of this performance, which takes on a distinctly amateurish cast from there on. The various choruses are simply not up to the demands of the piece (they are utterly defeated by the warlike Judex crederis, just when they should sound strongest), and the conducting, which has to simply blaze with conviction, seems more concerned with simply getting through a tough job. Yet there are no other recordings of this work readily available in the domestic catalog, and this will give you a sense of what the piece is about--but certainly no more than that.
Quote from: Bob ZeidlerHopefully, you, the reader, will have moved past the unfairly negative editorial review by David Hurwitz and on to this one, and to the one by urcrewer below mine, someone who participated in the performance captured in this recording. The performance, and the recording as well, are far, far better than Mr. Hurwitz would have you believe.
I have had the pleasure of attending many musical performances in "Big John" (an affectionate nickname for the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, and the world's largest Gothic cathedral). Even with a full crowd (which I believe is in excess of 3,000 not counting standees), its reverberation time is approximately seven seconds, which can be a challenge to not only musicians but to a recording crew as well. But the Delos crew - one of the finest in the industry - was more than up to the task of capturing not only this remarkable Berlioz work but a good deal of the natural Big John acoustic ambience in truly lifelike sound.
Hector Berlioz, a "sui generis" composer if ever there were one, wrote this Te Deum as an "occasion piece" with the idea in mind that it would (and should) be performed in a cathedral, not a concert hall. For its full impact, it fairly cries out for the antiphonal sounds of the full orchestra and the pipe organ to provide a "call and response" at various points in the work (most prominently at the beginning and end, but elsewhere as well). This antiphonal intent of Berlioz simply cannot be realized in a concert hall - no matter how fine the organ - if the organ itself is not antiphonally disposed, as it can only be in a proper cathedral.
The occasion for this performance, as is well spelled out in the booklet notes but totally ignored by Mr. Hurwitz, was the 100th anniversary celebration of the American Guild of Organists, which meets each year in Big John. In honor of that event, and to show off the musical and acoustical possibilities of Big John as a performance and recording venue for a work of this size, some person or persons had the foresight and the imagination to choose this Berlioz work as being perfect for the occasion. And perfect it is.
Largely because of its performance requirements, Berlioz' Te Deum is infrequently performed, and even more infrequently recorded. But the Te Deum is not minor Berlioz (whatever could be called "minor" Berlioz, anyway?) but a mature, fully thought-out work. All of the forces required - choruses, orchestra, brass bands, organ, and John Aler as the tenor soloist - are fully up to the task and acquit themselves very well in a work, had it been performed under less idea circumstances, and/or recorded with less skill, would likely have turned out to be sonic mush. But this is a recording to revel in. And a pretty fair test of your sound system.
A nice bonus on this disc is the illustrated discussion by Dennis Keene. It complements the performance and perfectly fills out the available time.
I have only one quibble, and it is a very minor one. For this performance, Maestro Keene - of course having every right to do so - elicited the services of an organist who, while excellent, was not the Big John organist, Dorothy Papadakos. Having heard Ms. Papadakos many times, and believing her to be more than up to the task, I wonder why not? Particularly since it has been on her watch that this very fine Aeolian-Skinner organ has been restored to its earlier glory.
Were there really no other available recordings of the Te Deum in 1997? The well-recieved John Nelsons recording came out in 2001.
Here's Adrian Corleonis's review in Fanfare:
QuoteBERLIOZ Te Deum, op. 22. • Dennis Keene, conductor; Mark Kruczek, organ; John Aler, tenor; Young Singers of Pennsylvania (Susan Ohrt and Joseph Ohrt, chorus director); Voices of Ascension Chorus & Orchestra; Bonus track: Spoken Commentary by Dennis Keene . • DELOS DE 3200 [DDD]; 49:26, commentary 22:55. Produced by Amelia S. Haygood, Carol Rosenberger (executive producers), and Ramiro Belgart (recording producer). LIVE performance: July 1996.
The main event of the American Guild of Organists' centennial celebration in July of last year, this splendid performance is radiant with a sense of occasion and animated by conductor Dennis Keene's loving divination—evident in his fine, extensive liner notes—which projects with equal assurance the work's hushed mystery and its colossal grandeur. Captured in Delos's "Virtual Reality" Dolby Surround Sound, the spaciousness of New York's Cathedral of St. John the Divine leaves the quieter moments and John Aler's fervent Te ergo quaesumus hovering—glowingly, transparently, movingly—in the distance, but a distance awesomely filled at climaxes and almost overflowing in the mounting tension of the Judex crederis. Magnificent. Overwhelming. Of the total disc time of 72:36, nearly twenty-three minutes are given over to Keene reading his notes with appropriate passages from the performance in the background, a smooth, illuminating, even inspiring presentation that brings to mind Bernard van Dieren's observation that "Our participation has been devitalized by the trouble that is taken for us. Personal zest disappears when we become too well informed." Moreover, in the music appreciation rush the Prelude and a concluding Call to the Colors have once again been ignored. Though not on the same exalted plane as the body of the Te Deum, they are an effective part of its ceremonial character, framing its sublimities, and, given the superb pacing of the present performance, which sweeps by like a visionary flicker, would have added a measure of perspective (as they do to the Inbal performance, the only recording to include them—Denon 81757 614 2, Fanfare 14:3). Enthusiastically recommended, anyway.
Adrian Corleonis
Quote from: Daverz on March 31, 2024, 02:09:54 PMWere there really no other available recordings of the Te Deum in 1997? The well-recieved John Nelsons recording came out in 2001.
Here's Adrian Corleonis's review in Fanfare:
Excellent review! It was an early-ish
Berlioz purchase of mine.
Quote from: Daverz on March 31, 2024, 02:09:54 PMWere there really no other available recordings of the Te Deum in 1997? The well-recieved John Nelsons recording came out in 2001.
Here's Adrian Corleonis's review in Fanfare:
Abbado on DG was recorded in the early 1980s - although it also uses not fully professional musicians and Nelson is my preference. I was just going through my collection today, thinking about donating or selling the Abbado performance.
Liked Dave's nice review of the David Zinman box set. Our old (and long gone) friend Ken really liked Zinman, and I saw his box set on sale for an insanely low sum and snapped it up. That was...several years ago. And, sad to say, I never played a disk from it. Not one. No one mentions Zinman, and it just disappeared into my stack of boxes.
Anyway, Dave's "tempered-rave" of the set put it back on my radar. I think I'll start giving it a spin...
He basically likes all of his core repertoire (and this box has a lot of core rep symphony cyles, with some cool exceptions) , except for the Mahler. His criticism is interesting. He argues that with Mahler you either have to
A. Cut loose for a passionate performance, or
B. Go analytical--BUT, if you go analytical, you need to have flawless execution.
In Dave's book, Zinman fails on both of these fronts, so it's, at best, just an OK Mahler cycle.
https://youtu.be/bmFymnmWDoo?si=Cyh1g0kub50pPVTV
Quote from: Mookalafalas on April 01, 2024, 04:32:24 AMLiked Dave's nice review of the David Zinman box set. Our old (and long gone) friend Ken really liked Zinman, and I saw his box set on sale for an insanely low sum and snapped it up. That was...several years ago. And, sad to say, I never played a disk from it. Not one. No one mentions Zinman, and it just disappeared into my stack of boxes.
Anyway, Dave's "tempered-rave" of the set put it back on my radar. I think I'll start giving it a spin...
He basically likes all of his core repertoire (and this box has a lot of core rep symphony cyles, with some cool exceptions) , except for the Mahler. His criticism is interesting. He argues that with Mahler you either have to
A. Cut loose for a passionate performance, or
B. Go analytical--BUT, if you go analytical, you need to have flawless execution.
In Dave's book, Zinman fails on both of these, fronts, so it's, at best, just an OK Mahler cycle.
https://youtu.be/bmFymnmWDoo?si=Cyh1g0kub50pPVTV
Boy, I think that the only David Zinman CD that I own is a Barber one (with the Adagio, etc.) on Argo? Actually, I'm fairly certain that I also own another Barber one (with Dawn Upshaw).
Quote from: Mookalafalas on April 01, 2024, 04:32:24 AMHe argues that with Mahler you either have to
A. Cut loose for a passionate performance, or
B. Go analytical--BUT, if you go analytical, you need to have flawless execution.
In Dave's book, Zinman fails on both of these, fronts, so it's, at best, just an OK Mahler cycle.
Hmm, this would be an interesting discussion for "Mahler Mania" - my immediate thought is that there is an option C., which is to be Czech. Kubelik, Ancerl (in the First at least), and Neumann all have a more relaxed, bucolic view that makes the music feel fresh and youthful...but it is not really "passionate" or "analytical," it exists outside that duality.
Quote from: Brian on April 01, 2024, 06:23:53 AMHmm, this would be an interesting discussion for "Mahler Mania" - my immediate thought is that there is an option C., which is to be Czech. Kubelik, Ancerl (in the First at least), and Neumann all have a more relaxed, bucolic view that makes the music feel fresh and youthful...but it is not really "passionate" or "analytical," it exists outside that duality.
Thanks for this, it captures my reactions well. I love those Czech readings a great deal, and this is exactly why.
Quote from: Brian on April 01, 2024, 06:23:53 AMHmm, this would be an interesting discussion for "Mahler Mania" - my immediate thought is that there is an option C., which is to be Czech. Kubelik, Ancerl (in the First at least), and Neumann all have a more relaxed, bucolic view that makes the music feel fresh and youthful...but it is not really "passionate" or "analytical," it exists outside that duality.
A good dissent to what on its face is rather a facile duality.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on April 01, 2024, 04:32:24 AMHis criticism is interesting. He argues that with Mahler you either have to
A. Cut loose for a passionate performance, or
B. Go analytical--BUT, if you go analytical, you need to have flawless execution.
In Dave's book, Zinman fails on both of these, fronts, so it's, at best, just an OK Mahler cycle.
https://youtu.be/bmFymnmWDoo?si=Cyh1g0kub50pPVTV
But two of his favorite sets are Kubelik and Bertini which do neither of the two!
For my money I think that Zinman's Mahler is underrated. It has a lower volume level which I think made people (perhaps including DH) subconsciously equate that with dull. But crank the volume, and you have something sumptuous and fairly unique. If you like for example the Mandelring Quartet and their more harmonious, melodic approach to music playing... that is kind of like the feeling that Zinman's Mahler conveys, and as it is fairly unique, and I think it definitely has its place out there in the Mahler recording sphere.
Mahler doesn't need to be high octane or some kind of transparent lens on proto-modernism. That is just overthinking it. I think sometimes we forget that when Mahler was first performed Leonard Bernstein and Pierre Boulez were not even alive. We've kind of allowed the history of recordings we have imprinted on to build a false narrative of what a correct or right or in good taste recording should sound like. Especially in DH's case where he dismisses any attempts at PI Mahler out of turn (not Zinman, I'm just mentioning this).
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on April 01, 2024, 06:20:26 AMBoy, I think that the only David Zinman CD that I own is a Barber one (with the Adagio, etc.) on Argo? Actually, I'm fairly certain that I also own another Barber one (with Dawn Upshaw).
Time to fix this! Gorecki's third, Beethoven's symphonies, and Schumann's symphonies. Get on it PD!!!! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: DavidW on April 01, 2024, 06:59:26 AMTime to fix this! Gorecki's third, Beethoven's symphonies, and Schumann's symphonies. Get on it PD!!!! ;D ;D ;D
Ah! Thank you! I had forgotten that Gorecki symphony (also with Upshaw); I
do own (and have played) that one! :)
Don't have any of his Beethoven and Schumann though. Are those also with Baltimore? I do however have Schumann/Kubelik recordings. :)
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on April 01, 2024, 07:18:23 AMAh! Thank you! I had forgotten that Gorecki symphony (also with Upshaw); I do own (and have played) that one! :)
Don't have any of his Beethoven and Schumann though. Are those also with Baltimore? I do however have Schumann/Kubelik recordings. :)
I recall liking his Schumann symphonies with Baltimore on Telarc.
Quote from: Brian on March 31, 2024, 02:50:40 PMAbbado on DG was recorded in the early 1980s - although it also uses not fully professional musicians and Nelson is my preference. I was just going through my collection today, thinking about donating or selling the Abbado performance.
To say the Abbado performance is "not fully professional" is a rather misleading description. The ECYO at that time was a nominally student orchestra but packed with players destined for high-flying professional careers. Technically they were easily the equal of most 'professional' orchestras.
Nice comments. Good thread 8)
Quote from: Roasted Swan on April 01, 2024, 08:37:50 AMTo say the Abbado performance is "not fully professional" is a rather misleading description. The ECYO at that time was a nominally student orchestra but packed with players destined for high-flying professional careers. Technically they were easily the equal of most 'professional' orchestras.
I'll be honest: I only said that because I forgot which orchestra it was and was too lazy to look :( :(
No disrespect intended, but of course disrespect done by the negligence!
Quote from: Roasted Swan on April 01, 2024, 08:37:50 AMTo say the Abbado performance is "not fully professional" is a rather misleading description. The ECYO at that time was a nominally student orchestra but packed with players destined for high-flying professional careers. Technically they were easily the equal of most 'professional' orchestras.
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 :-\
Quote from: Mookalafalas on April 02, 2024, 12:45:54 AMI'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 :-\
To me there is an
implication behind the use of that phrase which has to do with executional excellence. You are of course correct - if somebody is paid £1 to play their kazoo on a street corner they could claim to be a professional kazoo player. In this case I happen to know both the mentioned versions of the Berlioz Te Deum well and while there might be disagreements in terms of interpretative preferences I would challenge
anyone to be able to choose between the two on grounds of the actual playing.....
Quote from: Mookalafalas on April 02, 2024, 12:45:54 AMI'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
Quote from: Mookalafalas on April 02, 2024, 12:45:54 AMI'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.
Here's some "other critical content", Chales Coleman on Bax's Garden of Fand:
Oh I have that recording, it is great!
Quote from: Daverz on April 02, 2024, 11:24:50 AMHere'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.
Quote from: Karl Henning on April 02, 2024, 12:12:08 PMI 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.
Quote from: Daverz on April 02, 2024, 12:49:27 PMI 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.
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.
Quote from: mahler10th on April 09, 2024, 08:46:22 AMJust 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?
Quote from: Roasted Swan on April 09, 2024, 10:59:09 AMApologies - 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.
Quote from: mahler10th on April 09, 2024, 12:13:54 PMToo 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 (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,25494.1220.html) 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. ;D 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!
Quote from: Roasted Swan on April 09, 2024, 10:59:09 AMApologies - 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:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F45quj1.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=826f3744fdcc42d9d252d1ebdc875bff1c4cb74a44563d2e1b553b9460fe6a82&ipo=images)
Just please everyone else don't take that as an invitation to turn this thread into the other thread.
@mahler10th Is Szell Beethoven one of DH's reference sets?
Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2024, 12:45:07 PMHey 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 (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,25494.1220.html) 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 (https://youtube.com/@GilZilkha?si=kYthHGb8SsjCa3Xs)), 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.
Quote from: Wanderer on April 09, 2024, 01:08:45 PMI 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 (https://youtube.com/@GilZilkha?si=kYthHGb8SsjCa3Xs)), 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.
Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2024, 12:45:07 PMHey 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 (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,25494.1220.html) 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. ;D 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!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 02, 2024, 04:14:58 AMNo, "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.
Quote from: Madiel on April 09, 2024, 02:06:02 PMThis 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.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 09, 2024, 04:23:57 PMI 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.
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. ;D
OK, keep it professional amateur dignified, everyone!
Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2024, 05:12:25 PMAs so often on here, everyone here is right, they just don't understand how we can all be right at the same time. ;D
No. It's not logically possible for the person who says "professional always has this meaning" and the person who says "professional doesn't always have this meaning" to be right at the same time. What exactly is dignified about not ever correcting anyone? Especially when what they were doing was "correcting" other people?
If you want an example of a context where "professional" and "amateur" are strictly used to refer to payment, not to standards, look at sport. The Olympics were exclusively amateur for a long period. Those people were setting world records. Some sports still maintain a rigorous distinction between the amateurs and the professionals.
Whether or not the reference to a "professional orchestra" was meant one way or another is not my concern. My concern is someone going around asserting that only one interpretation was possible, and telling
other people that THEY were wrong for using a different interpretation.
Going around soothing people by telling them that everyone is right is the kind of thing that, taken to extremes, leads to Trumpian egos, and it sure as hell isn't the way your school teacher worked.
Quote from: Madiel on April 09, 2024, 05:26:12 PMNo. It's not logically possible for the person who says "professional always has this meaning" and the person who says "professional doesn't always have this meaning" to be right at the same time. What exactly is dignified about not ever correcting anyone?
Well, your correction could be wrong, as it is in this case. You seem to think "professional has always meant this thing" (notice I corrected the tense) is meant to say "professional
exclusively and only ever had this meaning," when it is perfectly reasonable to believe that he meant "professional
has also had this additional meaning," which is the interpretation supported by his use of the phrase "not just."
Quote from: Madiel on April 09, 2024, 05:26:12 PMIf you want an example of a context...
I don't, because I'm the person who originally used the word in that context.
Quote from: Brian on April 09, 2024, 05:37:50 PMWell, your correction could be wrong, as it is in this case. You seem to think "professional has always meant this thing" (notice I corrected the tense) is meant to say "professional exclusively and only ever had this meaning," when it is perfectly reasonable to believe that he meant "professional has also had this additional meaning," which is the interpretation supported by his use of the phrase "not just."
If you're going to correct tenses, maybe you should go back and correct everything else as well.
I'm done here.
Quote from: DavidW on April 09, 2024, 12:52:11 PM@mahler10th Is Szell Beethoven one of DH's reference sets?
It is, IIRC it was his favorite set before the Wand/NDR.
Quote from: Atriod on April 10, 2024, 10:09:06 AMIt is, IIRC it was his favorite set before the Wand/NDR.
Well the Wand set is exceptional, I definitely agree with him there!
Article in the Guardian damned Manacorda's LvB cycle with faint praise:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/may/16/beethoven-complete-symphonies-album-review
How many Beethoven symphony cycles do we need anyway? Especially if the musicians involved are not inspired to make it special... maybe don't record it? Perhaps do something else?