NB Original post removed, the following is a message from the moderator:
Scion7
I wake up, open the machine and find your post has been reported. I then read through the thread and despite plenty of members pointing out to you how offensive that specific post is, you just leave it there. It was homophobic. That means it is automatically offensive to those here who are gay and to all those who disapprove of homophobic attitudes being expressed; which, as you see, is a fair few. The offensiveness is also against the ethos of this site.
As you did not take all the comments seriously and amend the post; I am writing publicly to you and have basically removed it. It is not on to post material that makes people feel denigrated or uncomfortable.
PM me if you feel the need to continue a discussion on this issue.
Knight
I'm guessing you disagree with his views....but your comments makes you worse than whatever he said!
Perhaps the best way to deal with Hurwitz is not to deal with him. Give this a shot.
"Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic." - Jean Sibelius
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 06:52:42 PM"Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic." - Jean Sibelius
No longer true:
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ebert.jpeg?quality=75&strip=color&w=1680)
Quote from: Todd on January 11, 2016, 06:58:41 PM
No longer true:
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ebert.jpeg?quality=75&strip=color&w=1680)
Well, it's the intention
behind Sibelius' comment that remains important, which to me is pretty simple: forget the critics, they simply don't matter.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 06:52:42 PM
Perhaps the best way to deal with Hurwitz is not to deal with him. Give this a shot.
"Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic." - Jean Sibelius
Well, the highlighted part is actually inaccurate.
Somewhere along the line, a Brit pee'd in his cereal, apparently. He's constantly bashing us.
Quote from: Gordo on January 11, 2016, 07:03:07 PM
Well, the highlighted part is actually inaccurate.
See Reply #4 in this thread. :)
Quote from: Scion7 on January 11, 2016, 07:06:24 PM
Somewhere along the line, a Brit pee'd in his cereal, apparently. He's constantly bashing us.
Ignoring your strange homophobic remark about pink and which way Hurwitz "swings" (which was uncalled for and frankly offensive):
British critics do have a well-known "circle the wagons" mentality where they protect British artists and composers. Every nationality does this, to some extent, but - to take one example - when BBC Music Magazine listed the "50 Greatest Recordings of All Time," over 35 involved UK performers, composers, or labels. Plus, they also claimed Murray Perahia was British in order to boost their national pride.
Another element here: there is an (admirable?) eagerness among UK listeners to fall madly in love with their eccentric minor composers. Naxos and other label execs have confirmed that it's possible to make a weird amount of money with Bax chamber music, Moeran, various Irish rhapsodies, etc. As an American, I'm nowhere near as proud of people like John Knowles Paine as the Brits are of people like Rutland Boughton. More power to them.
Another element here: with certain notable exceptions (e.g. fire-breathing Guardian food critic Jay Rayner), British critics tend to be incredibly polite. There are code words and phrases used to say nice things about a recording one does not like. (I tend to ignore any album described as "worthy".)
I am an American who is a music critic for a British publication (MusicWeb). I have been writing for MusicWeb, with a team of 40-50 mostly UK-born colleagues, since 2009. I've seen too much stuff like the stuff Dave Hurwitz mocks to get angry at him for saying it.
Quote from: Scion7 on January 11, 2016, 07:06:24 PM
Somewhere along the line, a Brit pee'd in his cereal, apparently. He's constantly bashing us.
See Reply #2.
Quote from: Gordo on January 11, 2016, 07:03:07 PM
Well, the highlighted part is actually inaccurate.
So what? every one here is a critic by virtue of simply participating.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 07:08:37 PM
See Reply #4 in this thread. :)
A fair amount of important composers have been also talented critics, remarkably Schumann. Some critics as Theodor Adorno, for instance, have had a huge cultural importance. :)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:15:59 PM
So what? every one here is a critic by virtue of simply participating.
Well, I guess the adjective "professional" is implicit here; not related to any special qualification, but in the sense of doing something as a paid job rather than as a hobby. :)
Quote from: Scion7 on January 11, 2016, 07:06:24 PM
Somewhere along the line, a Brit pee'd in his cereal, apparently. He's constantly bashing us.
Oh, boo-hoo. Read what he actually writes, not what you think he writes. The review is actually a damning with faint praise of symphonies by a second-(or lower) tier American composer: http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/
There's no question, as Brian confirms, that "British critics do have a well-known 'circle the wagons' mentality where they protect British artists and composers." I've seen this repeatedly in BBC Music Magazine, one reason I no longer subscribe. It is a defensive over-reaction to the famous accusation of Britain as "das Land ohne Musik," as if it were necessary or inevitable that musical gifts must be distributed evenly over all the nations. Be happy you've produced some of the world's greatest literature.
And no reason to believe that anyone peed in his cereal. How do you know he even consumes cereal?
Quote from: Gordo on January 11, 2016, 07:18:09 PM
A fair amount of important composers have been also talented critics, remarkably Schumann. Some critics as Theodor Adorno, for instance, have had a huge cultural importance. :)
Oh and don't forget Berlioz and Debussy. ;) Anyway, I don't buy into the whole 'cultural importance' point-of-view about music critics and will continue to ignore them. No offense to Brian or Bruce who I know are no strangers to music criticism. :)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:24:52 PM
And no reason to believe that anyone peed in his cereal. How do you know he even consumes cereal?
Same way he presumably knows that Hurwitz "swings that way" and likes pink?
Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2016, 07:15:18 PM
Plus, they also claimed Murray Perahia was British in order to boost their national pride.
Next thing you know, they'll say Henry James was a British novelist.
Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2016, 07:28:09 PM
Same way he presumably knows that Hurwitz "swings that way" and likes pink?
Regarding the cereal, I am having some difficulty envisioning the mechanics of the situation, much as I have difficulty grasping the mechanics of Beecham's famous metaphor about the skeletons copulating on the tin roof, the genitalia not being part of the skeletal system. Is the cereal to be brought to Mr. Hurwitz pre-peed, as it were, or does the peeing take place while Mr. Hurwitz is eating his Frosted Flakes? If the latter, the bowl is presumably on Mr. H's breakfast table, and the pee-er would have to climb up the table, unzip, and perform the deed. Unless, of course, he collects a sample in a cup and simply pours it on, perhaps with the subterfuge that he is actually sweetening the cereal with apple juice . . . .
First of all, the OP should delete reference to animals with a certain reputation in relation to another human being (and other putdowns). There is no need for personal attacks behind someone's back, especially when that person is not here to defend themselves. It is really uncalled for and diminishes the poster.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:24:52 PM
Oh, boo-hoo. Read what he actually writes, not what you think he writes. The review is actually a damning with faint praise of symphonies by a second-(or lower) tier American composer: http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/
There's no question, as Brian confirms, that "British critics do have a well-known 'circle the wagons' mentality where they protect British artists and composers." I've seen this repeatedly in BBC Music Magazine, one reason I no longer subscribe. It is a defensive over-reaction to the famous accusation of Britain as "das Land ohne Musik," as if it were necessary or inevitable that musical gifts must be distributed evenly over all the nations. Be happy you've produced some of the world's greatest literature.
And no reason to believe that anyone peed in his cereal. How do you know he even consumes cereal?
It's a pet peeve of mine, but I really detest when critics go on and on about whether the music should be of interest to me or not. Dislike it? Say it and move on. The reviewer's job is NOT to provide verbose opinions of the composer, but of the disc/performance at hand. Some reference is good: 'sounds like', 'contemporary of', and other references that help the reader understand what type of music the composer composed. But then I guess history is riddled with music critics who think putting others down raises themselves up.
Finally, a lot of people seem to enjoy taking unsubstantiated potshots at British reviewers. It seems to be a filter many have.
Hurwitz is often an ass, but i find nothing problematic in this review and pretty much agree with all of it. You do want this excellent set if you are interested in Persichetti or American symphonic music, but it's a step below, say, Piston's best.
Labels like Chandos, Dutton, and Naxos do record a lot of forgettable British music that gets good notices from British critics. At least they do promote their own composers.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 11, 2016, 07:45:43 PM
First of all, the OP should delete reference to animals with a certain reputation in relation to another human being (and other putdowns). There is no need for personal attacks behind someone's back, especially when that person is not here to defend themselves. It is really uncalled for and diminishes the poster.
It's a pet peeve of mine, but I really detest when critics go on and on about whether the music should be of interest to me or not. Dislike it? Say it and move on. The reviewer's job is NOT to provide verbose opinions of the composer, but of the disc/performance at hand. Some reference is good: 'sounds like', 'contemporary of', and other references that help the reader understand what type of music the composer composed. But then I guess history is riddled with music critics who think putting others down raises themselves up.
Finally, a lot of people seem to enjoy taking unsubstantiated potshots at British reviewers. It seems to be a filter many have.
a) Hurwitz is a public figure. He is not protected from comments, pro or con, simply because he is not a member of this group.
b) There is no code of rules a reviewer must follow. I see no reason why a reviewer should not offer opinions on the music, especially if it's unfamiliar stuff, and I don't see how this constitutes self-aggrandizement. Again, everyone here does that sort of thing all the time.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 11, 2016, 07:45:43 PM
It's a pet peeve of mine, but I really detest when critics go on and on about whether the music should be of interest to me or not.
I do want critics to make value judgements of the music. I do not see reviewing a recording without mentioning that the music is dull or mediocre to be a service. It does annoy me when a critic keeps getting assigned music they are obviously not in sympathy with, but that's an editorial issue.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 07:00:17 PMWell, it's the intention behind Sibelius' comment that remains important, which to me is pretty simple: forget the critics, they simply don't matter.
I politely disagree. Critics are a healthy part of the whole 'artistic cycle'. It's just that some of them are lousy at their job, just like there are lousy composers or lousy plumbers.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:56:05 PM
a) Hurwitz is a public figure. He is not protected from comments, pro or con, simply because he is not a member of this group.
b) There is no code of rules a reviewer must follow. I see no reason why a reviewer should not offer opinions on the music, especially if it's unfamiliar stuff, and I don't see how this constitutes self-aggrandizement. Again, everyone here does that sort of thing all the time.
a) So what. This is common courtesy/etiquette.
b) I disagree. An opinion about the performance is one thing, but I am talking about repeated comments about how a composer is not worth listening to, the piece is crap, that they are 'second-rate', etc. This is not the place of the reviewer, in my opinion, and this will inevitably be the reason I stop reading a reviewer or a publication.
Quote from: Daverz on January 11, 2016, 07:58:14 PM
It does annoy me when a critic keeps getting assigned music they are obviously not in sympathy with, but that's an editorial issue.
That doesn't bother me either. A critic out of sympathy with a work may still offer valid insights about it, perhaps more valid than another critic who regards the work uncritically.
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 11, 2016, 08:00:05 PM
I politely disagree. Critics are a healthy part of the whole 'artistic cycle'. It's just that some of them are lousy at their job, just like there are lousy composers or lousy plumbers.
Let's ask Mr. Henning these questions since he's most definitely a part of an artistic cycle and I am not: what part does a critic play into your musical process and do you think their criticism of any of your work has been an asset or a liability to getting more of your work heard?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 11, 2016, 08:04:00 PM
a) So what. This is common courtesy/etiquette.
b) I disagree. An opinion about the performance is one thing, but I am talking about repeated comments about how a composer is not worth listening to, the piece is crap, that they are 'second-rate', etc. This is not the place of the reviewer, in my opinion, and this will inevitably be the reason I stop reading a reviewer or a publication.
So don't read. I like reading reviewers who possess the insight to see the flaws in a work. That doesn't mean they're always on target, but I learned more (say) from John Simon's analysis of the flaws in Bergman's "Cries and Whispers" (a film from a director he often reveres) than from other blandly laudatory comments.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 08:09:07 PM
So don't read. I like reading reviewers who possess the insight to see the flaws in a work. That doesn't mean they're always on target, but I learned more (say) from John Simon's analysis of the flaws in Bergman's "Cries and Whispers" (a film from a director he often reveres) than from other blandly laudatory comments.
Music reviewers generally do not provide a detailed analysis of a work. And film is a different animal - we are talking music reviews. But then there is a huge difference between making broad statements with no support (in a short review) vs a more detailed analysis.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 08:07:55 PM
Let's ask Mr. Henning these questions since he's most definitely a part of an artistic cycle and I am not: what part does a critic play into your musical process and do you think their criticism of any of your work has been an asset or a liability to getting more of your work heard?
It absolutely can work that way. Critics bring works they love or hate into public awareness. Barber was permanently crushed by the negative reviews of Antony and Cleopatra, for example. Conversely, a supportive review can do much for a creative figure's reputation: every one now wants to see Hamilton on Broadway following rave critical reviews; and directors like Martin Scorsese, Werner Herzog, and Ramin Bahrani have expressed public gratitude to Roger Ebert for championing their films. I think this notion that a critic is superfluous is fundamentally inaccurate.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:24:52 PM
It is a defensive over-reaction to the famous accusation of Britain as "das Land ohne Musik,"
Funny thing is though, the very accusation is historically inaccurate. England was one of the red-hot centers of European music in the 16th/17th centuries, and enjoyed a noteworthy revival in the 20th. The "Land ohne Musik" stereotype only applies if we're talking about the Classical and Romantic periods.
There wasn't an English Brahms or Beethoven; but on the other hand, there wasn't a German Byrd or Tallis.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 08:15:21 PM
It absolutely can work that way. Critics bring works they love or hate into public awareness. Barber was permanently crushed by the negative reviews of Antony and Cleopatra, for example. Conversely, a supportive review can do much for a creative figure's reputation: every one now wants to see Hamilton on Broadway following rave critical reviews; and directors like Martin Scorsese, Werner Herzog, and Ramin Bahrani have expressed public gratitude to Roger Ebert for championing their films. I think this notion that a critic is superfluous is fundamentally inaccurate.
Personally, I never understood the need for approval from a critic. People can make up their own minds about art and I'll leave it at that and will be curious to read Karl's answers.
Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2016, 07:15:18 PM
Ignoring your strange homophobic remark about pink and which way Hurwitz "swings" (which was uncalled for and frankly offensive):
I know it's been site policy for apparently forever, but is this really something we're expected to do? Just ignore all the random homophobia (misogyny, racism, admissions of being a literal rapist/possible child abuser, whatever) and allow that kind of behaviour to continue uncontested, in turn making the forum incredibly unwelcoming for lots of people?
I mean that's what I've been doing so far (for instance I found that putting a few members on my block list, eg Sgt Rock, Florestan, Greg, that Valkyrie guy and a few others, cut down the amount of misogyny I have to experience with my own eyes by about 80 percent) but is it really what we should be doing? I mean... whatever.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 08:04:12 PM
A critic out of sympathy with a work may still offer valid insights about it, perhaps more valid than another critic who regards the work uncritically.
Broadly agree with this as well. There aren't a lot of music critics whose insights I take seriously, but of those who do exist, I also value their assessments of works they dislike (even if I may fundamentally disagree).
I'm not sure how important critical response is to contemporary (classical) composers—mostly because the contemporary classical composer probably doesn't make a living from writing music alone—but it's definitely super important for record companies. Look how many people here for instance choose which CDs to sample or buy by reading reviews. >.>
Edited by Knight to remove the offending text of Scion 7
[Edit Add: ^^^ I kinda wished that had been left up, because it tells us more about the poster than it does about anyone or anything else. Ergo, you have a good idea of the quality of what and who you're dealing with if you respond -- or don't, lol. End Edit Add.]
Dude:
Pink is a color.
Your quote lacks any reference to what it is actually about; to what does it refer?
Swinging one way or t'other plus the fare gets anyone on the bus.
If you mean he's a queer, homo, pansy, etc. and can somehow prove that somehow affects his critical thinking, well, than I think you ought to have the balls to do so, man up, and say exactly what you mean.
The most irritating thing is your quote -- like hearing half of a conversation, no one knows what the hey it is about.
So, what is it about, and what is your point?
"If I were a British critic and thiswere a...." What is the 'this?' you are on about?
Folks,
I acted on the initial post in this thread as soon as I saw that it had been reported. I am sorry that mods can neither read all posts, nor be on-line to act at once when the reports are made. I have edited that post and removed the quotes of it. I know that makes some subsequent posts make less obvious sense, but the alternative was to bin much more material. I have left a message for the originator of the thread, and will contact him directly. Ideally, the thread would quickly have disappeared, but I am reluctant to bin it as you have produced an interesting discussion.
You are correct that on this site, we don't allow that sort of behaviour.
Knight
It would have been nice to have kept a link to the original review, which I find absolutely OK by the way - including the Hurwitzers view on the British Music Press and British reviewers - they are often laughably provincial making most mainstream UK Music publications occasionally cringeworthy reading.
Well, feel free to dig it out and link to it. Clearly you read it so can probably retreive it.
I was not prepared to validate any part of that post.
Knight
Here it is:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/?search=1 (http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/?search=1)
Quote:
"This description may sound like damning with faint praise, but it isn't meant to be. If I were a British critic and this were a Chandos production of some second-tier English composer (say, Dyson, or Finzi, or Moeran), I could carry on about "yet another triumphant example of the extraordinary musical resurgence of the early 20th century, etc., etc.," ad nauseam."
Quote from: Gordo on January 11, 2016, 07:23:16 PM
Well, I guess the adjective "professional" is implicit here; not related to any special qualification, but in the sense of doing something as a paid job rather than as a hobby. :)
Funnily enough, having mostly read page 2 of this thread before page 1, I was going to say "a critic is just an audience member for money".
I like critics so long as they're perceptive. Follow a given critic long enough and you can also work out their own leanings, biases, pet hates etc. and sort of develop a code for translating their comments to take into account your
own leanings, biases, pet hates etc. We've all got them, because we're all human beings.
As for Britons favouring Britons, I've thought that for a long time, for example after getting to know the Penguin CD guide. It's not necessarily harmful, for example any inclination they had to steer me towards the Hyperion label has been richly rewarded, but at the same time it's perfectly possible there are things I've missed out on on equivalent continental European labels (or America, or even Australian) that would have been just as satisfying. There's nothing wrong with Britons favouring good British stuff, so long as it doesn't tip over into an uncritical declaration that it's all good just because it's British.
Please don't mention Australia and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Ross Edwards as Nigel Westlake fandom... ::)
They write cool music, but wow, so many Australian composers still underrepresented even here!
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 12:33:20 AM
Funnily enough, having mostly read page 2 of this thread before page 1, I was going to say "a critic is just an audience member for money".
I like critics so long as they're perceptive. Follow a given critic long enough and you can also work out their own leanings, biases, pet hates etc. and sort of develop a code for translating their comments to take into account your own leanings, biases, pet hates etc. We've all got them, because we're all human beings.
As for Britons favouring Britons, I've thought that for a long time, for example after getting to know the Penguin CD guide. It's not necessarily harmful, for example any inclination they had to steer me towards the Hyperion label has been richly rewarded, but at the same time it's perfectly possible there are things I've missed out on on equivalent continental European labels (or America, or even Australian) that would have been just as satisfying. There's nothing wrong with Britons favouring good British stuff, so long as it doesn't tip over into an uncritical declaration that it's all good just because it's British.
Ideally one needs to read the occasional issue of Diapason or Fonoforum to get some perspective. My German isn't too bad (and jpc lists the latest recommendations), to get any sense out of Diapason (which I buy when I visit France) the star system is a good help to understand if they actuially like a disc :-) though my French is on the level that I understand a reviews general drift.
Quote from: The new erato on January 11, 2016, 11:37:35 PM
Here it is:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/?search=1 (http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/?search=1)
Quote:
"This description may sound like damning with faint praise, but it isn't meant to be. If I were a British critic and this were a Chandos production of some second-tier English composer (say, Dyson, or Finzi, or Moeran), I could carry on about "yet another triumphant example of the extraordinary musical resurgence of the early 20th century, etc., etc.," ad nauseam."
Would that more composers were so "second-tier"
And trying to reinforce some notion of composer caste system would never be what I want from a cd review. The dismissing text also doesn't tally with the 9,9 rating he awards the disc. Does he always write like this?
Quote from: The new erato on January 11, 2016, 11:37:35 PM
Here it is:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/?search=1 (http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/?search=1)
This is actually one of the mildest, most sympathetic and most positive Hurwitz reviews I have ever read. Quite unlike his usual stuff. :)
See, even saying that Hurwitz isn't usually positive is a stereotype. It's not true. I don't read that website regularly, but it is one of the ones I usually search if I'm curious about something and want to see what reviews are out there. He is perfectly capable of giving out 9s and 10s when he thinks they are warranted, and in any case a "critic" who gives out nothing but 9s and 10s simply isn't being critical enough.
Not everything can be the best of the best... and similarly not every composer can be the best of the best. That is completely different from saying a composer isn't enjoyable, and that particular review actually makes that distinction pretty explicitly. But if one is trying to distinguish what is good from what is outstanding, as a critic must to be any use, not everyone gets a prize.
Quote from: ComposerOfAvantGarde on January 12, 2016, 12:47:59 AM
Please don't mention Australia and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Ross Edwards as Nigel Westlake fandom... ::)
They write cool music, but wow, so many Australian composers still underrepresented even here!
I don't think the Australian attitude to Australian artists is necessarily the same as the British attitude to British artists. For classical music, I suspect we still tend to think of it as a European artform - and is that any wonder when all the most famous names, the ones that get programmed, are from Europe?
Many years ago the premiere of Carl Vine's piano concerto was televised. I remember thinking that was a pretty remarkable thing. These days it seems to be Elena Kats-Chernin who is capable of breaking through to get wider media references.
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 01:04:52 AM
See, even saying that Hurwitz isn't usually positive is a stereotype.
Granted. :D
QuoteHe is perfectly capable of giving out 9s and 10s when he thinks they are warranted, and in any case a "critic" who gives out nothing but 9s and 10s simply isn't being critical enough.
Not everything can be the best of the best... and similarly not every composer can be the best of the best. That is completely different from saying a composer isn't enjoyable, and that particular review actually makes that distinction pretty explicitly. But if one is trying to distinguish what is good from what is outstanding, as a critic must to be any use, not everyone gets a prize.
Agreed.
I got so sick of the UK critics eulogising over every last eructation by Simon Rattle, that it pushed me in the opposite direction and I hardly listen to his musicmaking. There have been exceptional recordings, but quite a few that I have heard do nothing for me.
Mike
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 11, 2016, 07:45:43 PM
It's a pet peeve of mine, but I really detest when critics go on and on about whether the music should be of interest to me or not. Dislike it? Say it and move on. The reviewer's job is NOT to provide verbose opinions of the composer, but of the disc/performance at hand.
Hear, hear. And when part of his opinion is:
QuotePersichetti, like his colleagues such as Giannini, Mennin, Piston, Creston, Schuman, and to some extent Barber and Harris, belongs to a fairly well-defined school of American neo-classicists ....
... he undermines his own credibility. "Neo-classicists"? Is that the best communal descriptor he could come up with? The lot all write less-interesting
Pulcinellas, is that it?
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 08:07:55 PM
Let's ask Mr. Henning these questions since he's most definitely a part of an artistic cycle and I am not: what part does a critic play into your musical process and do you think their criticism of any of your work has been an asset or a liability to getting more of your work heard?
No critics/reviewers have ever discussed my work in print (or pixels), so the question remains entirely abstract.
I've been writing for some while, and feel reasonably confident in my work and abilities. So I don't
think any negative review would "shake" me, as it might well a young composer who is trying to make his way in the musical world. I even wonder (though one must be careful of what one wishes for) whether a real stinker of a negative review would not be preferable to the decades of nothing, on Oscar Wilde's principle that "the only worse thing than being talked about is not being talked about."
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 02:51:20 AMNo critics/reviewers have ever discussed my work in print (or pixels), so the question remains entirely abstract.
What? It wasn't a professional critic who named
Suspension Bridge the worst viola sonata ever? ;)
Quote from: North Star on January 12, 2016, 02:55:53 AM
What? It wasn't a professional critic who named Suspension Bridge the worst viola sonata ever? ;)
Best review I ever had! 8)
Quote from: Daverz on January 11, 2016, 07:46:48 PM
Hurwitz is often an ass, but i find nothing problematic in this review and pretty much agree with all of it. You do want this excellent set if you are interested in Persichetti or American symphonic music, but it's a step below, say, Piston's best.
Agree with you (and
Andrei) that the review itself is quite tame (and I read it without realizing that the author was Hurwitz, believe it or not). I haven't listened to any of the
Persichetti symphonies, so I have no opinion on their relative worth compared to
Piston,
Schuman or
Mennin; sure, I discounted his opinion as one who hadn't the musical sense to appreciate distinctions among that clowder of mid-century US symphonists . . . but neither did I take his mildly negative appraisal as "significant damnation."
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 03:05:21 AM
I haven't listened to any of the Persichetti symphonies
Avoidance, or sheer lack of opportunity?
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 02:35:44 AM
Hear, hear. And when part of his opinion is:
... he undermines his own credibility. "Neo-classicists"? Is that the best communal descriptor he could come up with? The lot all write less-interesting Pulcinellas, is that it?
I have seen used "neo-classicism" far more broadly, so it would certainly also include less-interesting "Symphonies in three Movements" or "Mathis der Maler" etc.
As I hardly know any music of these American composers I have no opinion whether the lumping together is justified, but neo-classicism is often used extremely broadly.
I find extremely amusing when I (oftenly) hear that music unites people. That seems to me quite untrue. Music is actually highly divisive, witness this thread, or the one about avoidance, or the recently locked one, or countless other threads, active or locked, rife with disagreements, misunderstandings and recriminations occasioned by music. :D
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 03:15:56 AM
I find extremely amusing when I (oftenly) hear that music unites people. That seems to me quite untrue. Music is actually highly divisive, witness this thread, or the one about avoidance, or the recently locked one, or countless other threads, active or locked, rife with disagreements, misunderstandings and recriminations occasioned by music. :D
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/crazy_straws.png)
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 03:08:10 AM
Avoidance, or sheer lack of opportunity?
The latter, I think. Years ago, I played a couple of his minor works for symphonic band; nice, well written, but arguably minor works (and therefore no basis to judge the composer's overall work).
Quote from: Jo498 on January 12, 2016, 03:09:24 AM
I have seen used "neo-classicism" far more broadly, so it would certainly also include less-interesting "Symphonies in three Movements" or "Mathis der Maler" etc.
As I hardly know any music of these American composers I have no opinion whether the lumping together is justified, but neo-classicism is often used extremely broadly.
Well, that's reasonable enough, to be sure.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 11, 2016, 08:14:52 PM
Music reviewers generally do not provide a detailed analysis of a work. And film is a different animal - we are talking music reviews. But then there is a huge difference between making broad statements with no support (in a short review) vs a more detailed analysis.
The differences between the art forms are not so great as to invalidate my point. A major problem with music-reviewing is that to discuss musical points, a technical vocabulary is helpful but the readership is not generally versed in this vocabulary. In addition, the newspapers and other media generally cannot print musical examples.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 08:23:18 PM
Personally, I never understood the need for approval from a critic. People can make up their own minds about art and I'll leave it at that and will be curious to read Karl's answers.
Mr. Henning has replied, but I think my post has more than answered your objections. None of us, you included, exists in a vacuum where we are all just "making up our own minds" or "giving our own opinions" that haven't been somehow shaped by the cultural environment in which we take part, and that includes the influence of various critics. If 100 recordings are released in a week, or 50 shows are playing on Broadway, or 200 artists are on view in the galleries, what determines which recording you will buy or which show you'll see or which gallery you will visit? You can't take them all in so as to form your own opinion and make up your own mind; inevitably for every recording you hear there are 20 you'll miss. Critics, good ones that is or ones we can count on to share our own tastes, can perform a valuable filtering function directing us to the most interesting examples for us to explore ourselves.
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 03:08:10 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 03:05:21 AM
I haven't listened to any of the Persichetti symphonies
Avoidance, or sheer lack of opportunity?
It is true, though, that my first introduction to
Mennin was in just the same environment: regional high school symphonic band, playing
Mennin's Canzona . . . the
Mennin work made a much more striking impression upon my mind then, than did the
Persichetti; and as a result when I came, decades later, to seek out more works, my curiosity was keener upon
Mennin than
Persichetti.
My entrée to
Schuman was, similarly, a band arrangement of the
New England Triptych . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 03:36:54 AM
It is true, though, that my first introduction to Mennin was in just the same environment: regional high school symphonic band, playing Mennin's Canzona . . . the Mennin work made a much more striking impression upon my mind then, than did the Persichetti; and as a result when I came, decades later, to seek out more works, my curiosity was keener upon Mennin than Persichetti.
My entrée to Schuman was, similarly, a band arrangement of the New England Triptych . . . .
So they do actually have a common denominator: having written music for symphonic band, or which lends itself to such an arrangement. :D
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 03:39:40 AM
So they do actually have a common denominator: having written music for symphonic band, or which lends itself to such an arrangement. :D
Well, nothing really unusual about that: the symphonic band is a comparatively young ensemble, and therefore much of its literature is perforce New Music. (Of course, the
Mennin piece was actually composed before I was born, but it still felt mighty new to me 8) )
Parenthetically, symphonic band was my first introduction to
Holst as well, the classic
Suites for Military Band.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 03:49:31 AM
Well, nothing really unusual about that: the symphonic band is a comparatively young ensemble, and therefore much of its literature is perforce New Music. (Of course, the Mennin piece was actually composed before I was born, but it still felt mighty new to me 8) )
Parenthetically, symphonic band was my first introduction to Holst as well, the classic Suites for Military Band.
Is it customary for US high schools to have a symphonic band? I think it is an extraordinary pleasant way to be introduced to classical music as a teenager. I cannot think of a single Romanian high school that has a symphonic band, except those dedicated expressly to the study of music.
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 03:57:32 AM
Is it customary for US high schools to have a symphonic band? I think it is an extraordinary pleasant way to be introduced to classical music as a teenager. I cannot think of a single Romanian high school that has a symphonic band, except those dedicated expressly to the study of music.
It was, when I was in high school. It may remain more or less customary, even though at present more schools are wrong-headedly cutting out music programs (schools whose PTAs would never dream for an instant of paring back any sports programs).
My aunt (my mother's younger sister) is just a few years older than I; and there was still an orchestra in our high school when she was enrolled . . . but it had withered away before I reached junior high.
And yes, very pleasant. In fact, there are patches of the orchestral literature to which I was introduced via a symphonic band arrangement . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 03:24:52 AM
The differences between the art forms are not so great as to invalidate my point. A major problem with music-reviewing is that to discuss musical points, a technical vocabulary is helpful but the readership is not generally versed in this vocabulary. In addition, the newspapers and other media generally cannot print musical examples.
I think it is. Movie reviews are most often of new creative material never experienced before. Interestingly, I would say that reviews of live events tend to be much closer to movie style reviewing than classical disc reviewing. The same is for pop music, where the material is often new. But then, there aren't many reviewers I like (if any these days). But I do agree that the technical barrier is a problem in a classical music some of the time.
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 03:57:32 AM
Is it customary for US high schools to have a symphonic band? I think it is an extraordinary pleasant way to be introduced to classical music as a teenager. I cannot think of a single Romanian high school that has a symphonic band, except those dedicated expressly to the study of music.
Many do, though not all. As Karl wrote, the arts programs are often under threat when it comes to budget time (if there is some sort of drive to cut spending). My school system had this when I was there, and even had the bigger, more expensive instruments to use/borrrow during the school year (for example, the tuba).
Thanks for both replies. Well, the difference between US and Romania is that in US the musical education of teenagers is seemingly under threat, while in Romania it is conspicuously missing altogether... :(
Quote from: knight66 on January 12, 2016, 01:14:04 AM
I got so sick of the UK critics eulogising over every last eructation by Simon Rattle, that it pushed me in the opposite direction and I hardly listen to his musicmaking. There have been exceptional recordings, but quite a few that I have heard do nothing for me.
Mike
Entirely understand.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 12, 2016, 04:02:30 AM
I think it is. Movie reviews are most often of new creative material never experienced before. Interestingly, I would say that reviews of live events tend to be much closer to movie style reviewing than classical disc reviewing. The same is for pop music, where the material is often new. But then, there aren't many reviewers I like (if any these days). But I do agree that the technical barrier is a problem in a classical music some of the time.
Movie reviews don't disappear, and can be consulted via newspaper web sites or anthologies of reviews such as Roger Ebert published. In fact Ebert wrote his Great Movies series (probably never completed at his death) largely to introduce younger viewers to the entire heritage of film that gets overshadowed because everyone's running to the latest thing at the local multiplex. For new releases we're all at the mercy of whichever films the distributors and theaters allow us to see; and there was a time not so long ago where once a film disappeared from the theaters, you'd never see it unless it popped up at an art house or late-night TV. But thanks to DVDs, BluRays, Hulu, Turner Classics, etc., access to the entire history of filmmaking is increasingly available to anyone with a personal player, computer, or TV set; and many film lovers, myself included, have acquired substantial numbers of beautifully restored films from companies such as the Criterion Collection. Ebert certainly had his flaws and limitations, but if he flags a film as a Great Movie, I'll certainly be looking to find it on Hulu or for a used DVD on Amazon.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 04:54:24 AM
Movie reviews don't disappear, and can be consulted via newspaper web sites or anthologies of reviews such as Roger Ebert published. In fact Ebert wrote his Great Movies series (probably never completed at his death) largely to introduce younger viewers to the entire heritage of film that gets overshadowed because everyone's running to the latest thing at the local multiplex. For new releases we're all at the mercy of whichever films the distributors and theaters allow us to see; and there was a time not so long ago where once a film disappeared from the theaters, you'd never see it unless it popped up at an art house or late-night TV. But thanks to DVDs, BluRays, Hulu, Turner Classics, etc., access to the entire history of filmmaking is increasingly available to anyone with a personal player, computer, or TV set; and many film lovers, myself included, have acquired substantial numbers of beautifully restored films from companies such as the Criterion Collection. Ebert certainly had his flaws and limitations, but if he flags a film as a Great Movie, I'll certainly be looking to find it on Hulu or for a used DVD on Amazon.
Yes.
Quote from: amw on January 11, 2016, 08:41:48 PM
I know it's been site policy for apparently forever, but is this really something we're expected to do? Just ignore all the random homophobia (misogyny, racism, admissions of being a literal rapist/possible child abuser, whatever) and allow that kind of behaviour to continue uncontested, in turn making the forum incredibly unwelcoming for lots of people?
I mean that's what I've been doing so far (for instance I found that putting a few members on my block list, eg Sgt Rock, Florestan, Greg, that Valkyrie guy and a few others, cut down the amount of misogyny I have to experience with my own eyes by about 80 percent) but is it really what we should be doing? I mean... whatever.
You raise a good and disturbing point. This ties in to the broader public social-issue point that things won't change until we have the courage to tell offensive people that they're wrong, to their face.
I feel a bit of a hypocrite here, since being a "regular" at GMG has entailed some unwanted people deciding I'm their "friend". This, and the common "We're all just here to talk about music! Stick to the music and nothing else matters!" have made me more willing to look the other way than I should have been. But after hearing the explanation behind a very recent and unfortunate forum drama event, I will be hitting the Report button every damn time. I reported Scion's post to the mods before writing that reply to it.
I thought about sending this as a PM, but maybe it needs to be a separate thread.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 12, 2016, 04:02:30 AM
I think it is. Movie reviews are most often of new creative material never experienced before. Interestingly, I would say that reviews of live events tend to be much closer to movie style reviewing than classical disc reviewing. The same is for pop music, where the material is often new. But then, there aren't many reviewers I like (if any these days). But I do agree that the technical barrier is a problem in a classical music some of the time.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I would phrase it differently... it's not so much that something is "new" but there is generally only one version of it. If one wants to hear a Mozart symphony, one is generally asking "which version of this Mozart symphony is best". Of course, around here you can find people who are more than prepared to buy quite a lot of different recordings of the same Mozart symphony, but that isn't common.
Whereas with movies or pop music it's less common that there are multiple versions. If one wants a particular song, there might only be one of it, or the perception is that different versions are sufficiently different in instrumentation, style etc that they're not 'the same thing' in the way that 2 recordings of a symphony are using all the same notes and basic materials. Similarly, there are several versions of some stories on film, but each film is seen as a separate work.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 12, 2016, 04:06:54 AM
Many do, though not all. As Karl wrote, the arts programs are often under threat when it comes to budget time (if there is some sort of drive to cut spending). My school system had this when I was there, and even had the bigger, more expensive instruments to use/borrow during the school year (for example, the tuba).
Yes, Music and Art are the illegitimate children of what passes for Education these days. In my own school - A Catholic school with high standards - the attitudes of parents toward Music and Art are execrable. Part of the problem is that no grades are allowed, only "Meets standards" or "Not yet meeting standards."
I have heard parents say e.g. "Why is the Art teacher giving the kids essays to write. I mean, it's just Art!"
Our Music teacher has surrendered: no homework, no quizzes, no rigor. The kids listen to Basic Music History throughout the years, do some singing and Orff-instrument work, and that is enough.
Americans have in general never been persuaded of the value of a curriculum with Art and Music as equals to Mathematics or English.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 04:54:24 AM
In fact Ebert wrote his Great Movies series (probably never completed at his death) largely to introduce younger viewers to the entire heritage of film that gets overshadowed because everyone's running to the latest thing at the local multiplex.
Ebert's Great Movie series is maybe his greatest achievement, and for me an essential part of watching a classic film. If somebody chooses to ignore all the critics, this is one of the things they are missing: how fascinating and eye-opening it can be to hear an expert explain to you just why a great thing is great.
Critics are often seen (especially here) as serving an essentially
negative function, by saying they don't like things and slinging insults. And this is an essential service in some cases, like when you want people to avoid an awful restaurant (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/dining/reviews/restaurant-review-guys-american-kitchen-bar-in-times-square.html?_r=0) or avoid an awful movie (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994).
But critics are, in fact, at their most useful when they help you appreciate a great thing even more. Robert Schumann's writings on his contemporaries; Ralph Ellison's essays about jazz; numerous commentaries on Shakespeare (I have collections by Marjorie Garber and David Bevington); Alex Ross's
The Rest is Noise; Vagn Holmboe's essay about why he admires Haydn; the essays of David Foster Wallace, Joan Didion, John Jeremiah Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, etc.; Roger Ebert's Great Movies series.
There's hardly a more misunderstood profession than critic. Ugh: Maybe that's why I ended up in it. But as an idealist, I see it as an opportunity not just to advocate for things (like Ebert advocated for the young Scorsese) but to deepen people's understanding of the art, why they love it, and what makes it work.
Quote from: Cato on January 12, 2016, 05:07:06 AM
A Catholic school with high standards
Not Catholic enough, and not high enough standards, meseems. :D :D :D
I mean, really, for a Catholic school to downplay the importance of music and arts is surprising, to say the least. As for the Catholicity of those parents, there is a Romanian proverb:
God, protect me from my firends, for I can protect myself from my ennemies!.
I also question the idea that music critics should refrain from saying "this composer is second-rate." Movie, book, painting, etc. critics do that all the time. And, while we can certainly talk about the language and the tone which a specific music critic uses, in general the idea of evaluating the worth of music is, frankly, the whole damn point!
It helps to have a knowledge of the critic and his/her likes, dislikes, foibles, weaknesses, etc. For example, Dave Hurwitz really loves huge early 20th century romantic orchestral works, and I've found that if he gives a 10/10 to some obscure 70-minute symphony, I'm probably going to hate it. But once you have mapped out these sketches of who a critic is, even reviews you disagree with can be very very valuable. I hate "Santa Fe Listener." But I know if he gives an album 3 stars, it's an essential purchase.
I need to thank you Brian for reporting the post. In all the actions arising today, I forgot to get back to you. My apologies.
The instant anyone encounters that kind of post; report it. The site has been calm for quite some time; but in my experience, one problem often leads to another and threads sometimes suffer a domino effect. So the earlier the better.
We don't want to smother any remotely controversial discussions, but primarily this is a music board. We have suffered from members who prefer to discuss anything but music and often cause trouble.
When in the midst of a discussion, do bear in mind the onlookers who may be anxious to see too much cut and thrust, even if they are not involved.
Having written all of that; the most acrimonious outbreak of firefighting I ever recall was started on a Haydn String Quartets thread, (probably on the old site).
Knight
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 05:09:17 AM
Ebert's Great Movie series is maybe his greatest achievement, and for me an essential part of watching a classic film. If somebody chooses to ignore all the critics, this is one of the things they are missing: how fascinating and eye-opening it can be to hear an expert explain to you just why a great thing is great.
Critics are often seen (especially here) as serving an essentially negative function, by saying they don't like things and slinging insults. And this is an essential service in some cases, like when you want people to avoid an awful restaurant (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/dining/reviews/restaurant-review-guys-american-kitchen-bar-in-times-square.html?_r=0) or avoid an awful movie (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994).
But critics are, in fact, at their most useful when they help you appreciate a great thing even more. Robert Schumann's writings on his contemporaries; Ralph Ellison's essays about jazz; numerous commentaries on Shakespeare (I have collections by Marjorie Garber and David Bevington); Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise; Vagn Holmboe's essay about why he admires Haydn; the essays of David Foster Wallace, Joan Didion, John Jeremiah Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, etc.; Roger Ebert's Great Movies series.
There's hardly a more misunderstood profession than critic. Ugh: Maybe that's why I ended up in it. But as an idealist, I see it as an opportunity not just to advocate for things (like Ebert advocated for the young Scorsese) but to deepen people's understanding of the art, why they love it, and what makes it work.
Yes to all of this.
And of course, it's a lot more fun writing about something that you enjoyed. I doubt many reviewers/critics go into that work with the intention of being negative all the time. They go into it because of the prospect of being able to let people know about the good stuff.
People have occasionally suggested I get into music reviewing. It's an attractive idea on one level, but I'm not sure I could cope with a mandated pace. You want me to already tell you my reactions? It'll take months!
I did, though, at one point join a reviewing site where I only had to cope with one pop song at a time. Turns out the 3rd song I listened to remains one of my very favourite things... only at the time I believed I couldn't possibly have found an utterly fantastic song so early and drew back from scoring it as highly as I might have done... I later bought the CD from the artist and played it to anyone who would give me a chance.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 05:09:17 AM
Ebert's Great Movie series is maybe his greatest achievement, and for me an essential part of watching a classic film. If somebody chooses to ignore all the critics, this is one of the things they are missing: how fascinating and eye-opening it can be to hear an expert explain to you just why a great thing is great.
Critics are often seen (especially here) as serving an essentially negative function, by saying they don't like things and slinging insults. And this is an essential service in some cases, like when you want people to avoid an awful restaurant (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/dining/reviews/restaurant-review-guys-american-kitchen-bar-in-times-square.html?_r=0) or avoid an awful movie (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/north-1994).
But critics are, in fact, at their most useful when they help you appreciate a great thing even more. Robert Schumann's writings on his contemporaries; Ralph Ellison's essays about jazz; numerous commentaries on Shakespeare (I have collections by Marjorie Garber and David Bevington); Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise; Vagn Holmboe's essay about why he admires Haydn; the essays of David Foster Wallace, Joan Didion, John Jeremiah Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, etc.; Roger Ebert's Great Movies series.
There's hardly a more misunderstood profession than critic. Ugh: Maybe that's why I ended up in it. But as an idealist, I see it as an opportunity not just to advocate for things (like Ebert advocated for the young Scorsese) but to deepen people's understanding of the art, why they love it, and what makes it work.
Intelligent and sensitive criticism is an important contribution.
Bringing it back 'round to the OP, Hurwitz is here something of a blunt instrument, so I contest the review's value as a contribution.
On one hand,
(poco) Sfz's point is well taken, that [intelligent and sensitive] negative criticism may give us more and better insight upon a piece or performance than an uncritically positive review. On the other, two considerations:
There is the need for what
Alan (and he was perhaps citing
Ruskin) refers to as "the listener's share": that for fair assessment of the work, and genuine insight, some degree of sympathy with the artist's aims is necessary. And I suspect I may possibly be misusing "the listener's share" here . . . .
And (while I do not absolutely know this to be the case with the
Persichetti) say we have only one recording available of a piece which may be little understood not only by the general public, but perhaps even by musical professionals. I think there needs to be room for critiquing a recording/performance of a piece, without mistaking that for necessarily a true profile of the musical work – we take that for granted with literature for which there are ample recordings (the
LvB symphonies, e.g.). Critics ought to have wit enough to separate dissatisfaction with a given listening experience, from the nature of a composition.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 05:13:49 AM
I also question the idea that music critics should refrain from saying "this composer is second-rate." Movie, book, painting, etc. critics do that all the time. And, while we can certainly talk about the language and the tone which a specific music critic uses, in general the idea of evaluating the worth of music is, frankly, the whole damn point!
On one hand, I affirm the validity of your questioning that.
On the other, I wonder if, whenever (or if ever) a critic goes into print reacting to music of mine, his honest reaction will be to dismiss me as a second-rate composer. I should resent it, of course; and I may have only my own vanity interfering with my accepting the verdict. But I am certainly trying to be first-rate.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 05:09:17 AM
But critics are, in fact, at their most useful when they help you appreciate a great thing even more. Robert Schumann's writings on his contemporaries; Ralph Ellison's essays about jazz; numerous commentaries on Shakespeare (I have collections by Marjorie Garber and David Bevington); Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise; Vagn Holmboe's essay about why he admires Haydn; the essays of David Foster Wallace, Joan Didion, John Jeremiah Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, etc.; Roger Ebert's Great Movies series.
Maybe this is exactly the problem some people seem to have with critics. They somehow feel they are being forced somebody´s else opinion down their throat. Now, that many a composer expressed disdain for critics, is only too natural, all things considered. But we laymen might just not be that smart or that knowledgeable as we think we are so as not to need, or at the very least accept and consider, somebody´s else opinion, especially when that somebody knows about music and its technicalities more than we could ever hope to learn.
The final decision is of course individual (a thing Hurwitz himself acknowledged in his review), but there is no reason to reject beforehand what a professional critic has to say.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 05:28:51 AM
I wonder if, whenever (or if ever) a critic goes into print reacting to music of mine, his honest reaction will be to dismiss me as a second-rate composer.
You´ll then be in the honorable companionship of Richard Strauss. :D
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 05:28:51 AM
On one hand, I affirm the validity of your questioning that.
On the other, I wonder if, whenever (or if ever) a critic goes into print reacting to music of mine, his honest reaction will be to dismiss me as a second-rate composer. I should resent it, of course; and I may have only my own vanity interfering with my accepting the verdict. But I am certainly trying to be first-rate.
And if a critic of significance in the Boston area happens to hear one of your pieces and responds favorably, it could be a major stepping-stone in your musical career.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 05:41:58 AM
And if a critic of significance in the Boston area happens to hear one of your pieces and responds favorably, it could be a major stepping-stone in your musical career.
Indeed. I should learn not to cease hoping that this may happen.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 05:25:26 AM
On one hand, (poco) Sfz's point is well taken, that [intelligent and sensitive] negative criticism may give us more and better insight upon a piece or performance than an uncritically positive review.
Schumann once wrote word to the effect: the critic who is afraid to attack something bad is only a half-hearted supporter of something good.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 05:44:49 AM
Schumann once wrote word to the effect: the critic who is afraid to attack something bad is only a half-hearted supporter of something good.
Fair enough.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 05:43:55 AM
Indeed. I should learn not to cease hoping that this may happen.
But perhaps there needs more proactivity on your part, to bring your name to greater attention. It is beyond me for instance, having heard some of his music, why Nico Muhly has come to such prominence - even to the point of having an opera done at the Met - but I can only conclude he has a shameless genius for self-promotion.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 05:41:58 AM
And if a critic of significance in the Boston area happens to hear one of your pieces and responds favorably, it could be a major stepping-stone in your musical career.
+ 1.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 02:51:20 AM
No critics/reviewers have ever discussed my work in print (or pixels), so the question remains entirely abstract.
I've been writing for some while, and feel reasonably confident in my work and abilities. So I don't think any negative review would "shake" me, as it might well a young composer who is trying to make his way in the musical world. I even wonder (though one must be careful of what one wishes for) whether a real stinker of a negative review would not be preferable to the decades of nothing, on Oscar Wilde's principle that "the only worse thing than being talked about is not being talked about."
Don't worry, my friend, your time in the sun will come. I just hope it's not too late when it happens. I think if I was a composer, I wouldn't let a negative review shake me either as I'm reminded of this quote from Max Reger in relation to a critics negative review: "I am in the smallest room of the house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me." :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 05:53:06 AM
I'm reminded of this quote from Max Reger in relation to a critics negative review: "I am in the smallest room of the house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me." :)
This genuinely made me burst out laughing very loudly.
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:56:21 AM
This genuinely made me burst out laughing very loudly.
:D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 05:47:36 AM
But perhaps there needs more proactivity on your part, to bring your name to greater attention.
I feel I am quite proactive, which is not to gainsay your suggestion. I do tirelessly invite the
Boston Music Intelligencer to attend and review performances which include my music; but they have never yet done so.
But I must never become complacent or resigned.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 05:53:06 AM
Don't worry, my friend, your time in the sun will come. I just hope it's not too late when it happens.
Thanks for the kind thought. When it happens, it happens.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 05:53:06 AM
I'm reminded of this quote from Max Reger in relation to a critics negative review: "I am in the smallest room of the house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me." :)
Quite possibly the best review of anything, ever. :D
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 05:56:21 AM
This genuinely made me burst out laughing very loudly.
And I find it tiresome (as well as an overfamiliar cliché). Who listens to Reger today? The critic may have been entirely on point.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 06:03:56 AM
I feel I am quite proactive, which is not to gainsay your suggestion. I do tirelessly invite the Boston Music Intelligencer to attend and review performances which include my music; but they have never yet done so.
Perhaps there are other sources you are not approaching. Granted, what makes one career take off rather than another is hard to fathom, and may not necessarily reflect the merits of the work. It could be an entirely fortuitous combination of merit, luck, self-promotion, and just being in the right place at the right time.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 06:08:03 AM
And I find it tiresome (as well as an overfamiliar cliché). Who listens to Reger today? The critic may have been entirely on point.
Sheesh....lighten up.
At least Reger is known by his name, as opposed to "a critic". :)
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 05:28:51 AM
On one hand, I affirm the validity of your questioning that.
On the other, I wonder if, whenever (or if ever) a critic goes into print reacting to music of mine, his honest reaction will be to dismiss me as a second-rate composer. I should resent it, of course; and I may have only my own vanity interfering with my accepting the verdict. But I am certainly trying to be first-rate.
This of course goes back to what it means to be a GOOD critic. I have gotten to (or been forced to - MW just sent me an unrequested CD of someone from Norway I've never heard of) review probably 40-50 contemporary composers, and because the composer is still alive, it's best to focus on what their voice is, and what they're trying to do, and rather than passing judgment on if they're "second-rate", I try to communicate to the MW readers whether they would like it or not. If a reader can finish the review and think, "that does/does not sound interesting to me," that's my goal.
The reason being simple. Composers evolve, go through "periods," change their styles. Imagine somebody reviewing Janacek when he was your age! Back in college, I learned this lesson very vividly when I wrote negatively about a guy's new student work for the school magazine, then went to his next concert and was so entranced I became a fan for life. (Damage was already done. Dude hates me.)
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 05:53:06 AM
I think if I was a composer, I wouldn't let a negative review shake me either as I'm reminded of this quote from Max Reger -
Easy to say. You're not a composer and have not been in the situation. As noted above, Barber was devastated by the negative reviews of the opera he wrote to inaugurate the new Met at Lincoln Center. It colored the remainder of his life, led to alcoholism and depression, and we're talking here about a widely and justly admired composer. Anyone can write a clever comment like Reger's in a snit, but the very fact he wrote it shows that it did very much affect him.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 06:14:17 AM
Sheesh....lighten up.
So having nothing valid to say, you resort to personal attack.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 06:12:54 AM
Perhaps there are other sources you are not approaching. Granted, what makes one career take off rather than another is hard to fathom, and may not necessarily reflect the merits of the work. It could be an entirely fortuitous combination of merit, luck, self-promotion, and just being in the right place at the right time.
Good suggestion: I should see if there are avenues I have neglected.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 06:18:14 AM
This of course goes back to what it means to be a GOOD critic. I have gotten to (or been forced to - MW just sent me an unrequested CD of someone from Norway I've never heard of) review probably 40-50 contemporary composers, and because the composer is still alive, it's best to focus on what their voice is, and what they're trying to do, and rather than passing judgment on if they're "second-rate", I try to communicate to the MW readers whether they would like it or not. If a reader can finish the review and think, "that does/does not sound interesting to me," that's my goal.
The reason being simple. Composers evolve, go through "periods," change their styles. Imagine somebody reviewing Janacek when he was your age! Back in college, I learned this lesson very vividly when I wrote negatively about a guy's new student work for the school magazine, then went to his next concert and was so entranced I became a fan for life. (Damage was already done. Dude hates me.)
I richly appreciate the many notes which this post strikes.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 06:18:50 AM
So having nothing valid to say, you resort to personal attack.
Careful both please. I would like some time to myself this afternoon.
Knight
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 06:18:17 AM
Easy to say. You're not a composer and have not been in the situation. As noted above, Barber was devastated by the negative reviews of the opera he wrote to inaugurate the new Met at Lincoln Center. It colored the remainder of his life, led to alcoholism and depression, and we're talking here about a widely and justly admired composer. Anyone can write a clever comment like Reger's in a snit, but the very fact he wrote it shows that it did very much affect him.
Of course it was easy to say, because I was speaking hypothetically. Thankfully, Barber still was able to compose and regain some of his confidence. As for the Reger quote, I found it amusing and I only included because I enjoy joking around with people. The quote wasn't meant to be dissected and taken apart.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 06:18:50 AM
So having nothing valid to say, you resort to personal attack.
Oh, now I'm personally attacking you? Okay. ::)
Quote from: knight66 on January 12, 2016, 05:14:42 AM
Having written all of that; the most acrimonious outbreak of firefighting I ever recall was started on a Haydn String Quartets thread, (probably on the old site).
Knight
If you are going to have a hammer-fight, it is best that it is something worth pulling out your hammer about! 0:)
That said, I also want to reinforce what Knight was saying here; we have new members who came here, after watching for a long time, specifically because our community was more harmonious than almost any other on the 'Net. We need to make every effort to keep it that way and not return to the Wild, Wild, West of yesteryear.
That said, Hurwitz is an ass. There are, however, worthwhile critics who don't have an ax to grind all the time.
8)
Reger also dedicated a violin sonata to his critics in which he used musical motives "a-f-f-e" and "es-c-h-a-f" (meaning ape/monkey and sheep; in German h is b and es is e flat, cf. Shostakovich's signature D S C H)
There is a song by Hugo Wolf where the critic is kicked down the stairs after a visit at a composer; I can't recall the title of the piece right now, though.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 06:24:00 AM
Thankfully, Barber still was able to compose and regain some of his confidence.
But the reviews of that opera devastated him - he would never refer to A+C by name, but instead called it "My Disaster." Yes, he composed some more, but his output trickled and the effect on his personal life was disastrous.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 05:13:49 AMIt helps to have a knowledge of the critic and his/her likes, dislikes, foibles, weaknesses, etc. For example, Dave Hurwitz really loves huge early 20th century romantic orchestral works, and I've found that if he gives a 10/10 to some obscure 70-minute symphony, I'm probably going to hate it. But once you have mapped out these sketches of who a critic is, even reviews you disagree with can be very very valuable. I hate "Santa Fe Listener." But I know if he gives an album 3 stars, it's an essential purchase.
I always maintained that a good critic should be able to convey preferences through the writing, even if it's the first thing you've read (although familiarity obviously helps). And as for disagreeing with a review - that's what I loved about Ebert, who taught me how to appreciate opinions differing from my own. A critics' job is not to say what you should be thinking, but what he / she thinks.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 06:26:12 AM
Oh, now I'm personally attacking you? Okay. ::)
I'm not going to pursue this with you, John. Be honest to the effect you are having.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 06:08:03 AM
And I find it tiresome (as well as an overfamiliar cliché). Who listens to Reger today? The critic may have been entirely on point.
*shrug* So I'll write a positive review of the joke, and you'll right a negative one. And our readers will make of that what they will.
As to who listens to Reger today, I can't give you names and addresses but I'm quite certain they exist.
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 06:04:10 AMQuite possibly the best review of anything, ever. :D
My favourite is Christgau obliterating Lee Hazlewood's
Poet, Fool or Bum with a single word: Bum.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 06:24:00 AM
The quote wasn't meant to be dissected and taken apart.
What is in the quote is a matter of interpretation. Yes, it's funny. But the very fact that Reger chose to pursue it, is evidence enough of his prickly and defensive nature.
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 12, 2016, 06:36:30 AM
My favourite is Christgau obliterating Lee Hazlewood's Poet, Fool or Bum with a single word: Bum.
Or W.S. Gilbert visiting some actor, I think Beerbohm Tree, backstage and saying, "My dear fellow:
good is not the word!"
Or Dorothy Parker writing of Katharine Hepburn: "She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 06:34:45 AM
But the reviews of that opera devastated him - he would never refer to A+C by name, but instead called it "My Disaster." Yes, he composed some more, but his output trickled and the effect on his personal life was disastrous.
Keywords from my post are "some confidence". How many times are you going to tell me about Barber and the critic? I already was well aware of
how Barber's music changed after the failure of
Antony and Cleopatra and what his mental state was during those declining years.
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 06:36:06 AM
As to who listens to Reger today, I can't give you names and addresses but I'm quite certain they exist.
I do. Not all that frequently, perhaps; but I do.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 06:42:54 AM
I do. Not all that frequently, perhaps; but I do.
I should probably just go see if we have a composer discussion thread to hunt down other likely suspects...
Not that I care, personally, beyond deflating a rather over-inflated rhetorical question. I've heard of Reger, I'm aware of the general style of his music, and that can only be because others have mentioned his name and have been listening to him.
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 06:45:32 AM
I should probably just go see if we have a composer discussion thread to hunt down other likely suspects...
Not that I care, personally, beyond deflating a rather over-inflated rhetorical question. I've heard of Reger, I'm aware of the general style of his music, and that can only be because others have mentioned his name and have been listening to him.
I suppose the best description I can use for Reger is "Brahms on steroids," but, of course, this is over-simplifying his style and certainly doesn't do the composer any justice. :)
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 12, 2016, 06:34:58 AM
I always maintained that a good critic should be able to convey preferences through the writing, even if it's the first thing you've read (although familiarity obviously helps). And as for disagreeing with a review - that's what I loved about Ebert, who taught me how to appreciate opinions differing from my own. A critics' job is not to say what you should be thinking, but what he / she thinks.
Yes! And yes, that's what I loved about Ebert too. He took a work on his own terms. He didn't give horror movies low ratings just because they're horror movies, for instance (as you shouldn't dismiss a composer for writing in a style that isn't yours).
This is what frustrates me about my other critic gig, at a local newspaper. Newspapers strongly believe that you should never mention "I" in an article, and shouldn't try to infuse a review with your personal tastes and POV. But authoritative pronouncements are - unless backed up by an impressive body of evidence - just personal opinions in sheep's clothing. Better to be honest, methinks, than to be aggrandizing.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 06:18:14 AM
The reason being simple. Composers evolve, go through "periods," change their styles. Imagine somebody reviewing Janacek when he was your age! Back in college, I learned this lesson very vividly when I wrote negatively about a guy's new student work for the school magazine, then went to his next concert and was so entranced I became a fan for life. (Damage was already done. Dude hates me.)
Similarly, Hans von Bülow wrote scathingly of Verdi's middle-period operas, but was so bowled over by Aida, Otello, and the Requiem that he wrote Verdi a breast-beating letter of apology.
This is the dilemma any would-be critic faces: it's easy enough to praise, but how to give negative criticism to someone you might actually encounter? Tone, perhaps, is everything. John Simon could be a very generous critic, but at his worst he gave into almost apoplectic personalized venom especially towards women he found unattractive. There is the story that an actress (Sylvia Miles) he treated viciously in a review came up to him in a restaurant and dropped a plate of spaghetti on his head.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 06:48:21 AM
Yes! And yes, that's what I loved about Ebert too. He took a work on his own terms. He didn't give horror movies low ratings just because they're horror movies, for instance (as you shouldn't dismiss a composer for writing in a style that isn't yours).
This is what frustrates me about my other critic gig, at a local newspaper. Newspapers strongly believe that you should never mention "I" in an article, and shouldn't try to infuse a review with your personal tastes and POV. But authoritative pronouncements are - unless backed up by an impressive body of evidence - just personal opinions in sheep's clothing. Better to be honest, methinks, than to be aggrandizing.
A month ago I re-watched
Aliens, and warmly appreciated
Ebert's review:
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2015, 02:19:42 AM
. . . I admire both that he was entirely frank about how the pace and intensity wound him up ('But when I walked out of the theater, there were knots in my stomach from the film's roller-coaster ride of violence. This is not the kind of movie where it means anything to say you "enjoyed" it') yet he gave it 3-1/2 stars because it is so well made ('I was drained. I'm not sure "Aliens" is what we mean by entertainment. Yet I have to be accurate about this movie: It is a superb example of filmmaking craft.')
Quote from: orfeo on January 12, 2016, 06:36:06 AM
*shrug* So I'll write a positive review of the joke, and you'll right a negative one. And our readers will make of that what they will.
As to who listens to Reger today, I can't give you names and addresses but I'm quite certain they exist.
There are seven billion people in this world. Quite possibly some still listen to Reger. You will have to admit he is largely overlooked today. (Heads up for Reger fans: two works will be performed at NY's Carnegie Hall on March 17.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 06:57:09 AM
There are seven billion people in this world. Quite possibly some still listen to Reger. You will have to admit he is largely overlooked today. (Heads up for Reger fans: two works will be performed at NY's Carnegie Hall on March 17.)
Reger's
Piano Concerto and
Four Tone Poems after A. Böcklin are top-drawer and, for these works alone, you can count me as a fan of his music.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 04:54:24 AM
Movie reviews don't disappear, and can be consulted via newspaper web sites or anthologies of reviews such as Roger Ebert published. In fact Ebert wrote his Great Movies series (probably never completed at his death) largely to introduce younger viewers to the entire heritage of film that gets overshadowed because everyone's running to the latest thing at the local multiplex. For new releases we're all at the mercy of whichever films the distributors and theaters allow us to see; and there was a time not so long ago where once a film disappeared from the theaters, you'd never see it unless it popped up at an art house or late-night TV. But thanks to DVDs, BluRays, Hulu, Turner Classics, etc., access to the entire history of filmmaking is increasingly available to anyone with a personal player, computer, or TV set; and many film lovers, myself included, have acquired substantial numbers of beautifully restored films from companies such as the Criterion Collection. Ebert certainly had his flaws and limitations, but if he flags a film as a Great Movie, I'll certainly be looking to find it on Hulu or for a used DVD on Amazon.
But those Ebert reviews are very detailed and go into quite depth (which was typical of most of his reviews). Most music reviews these days are not like that, nor do they explain what they see as a flaw (or advantage) - they just state it and move on. The New York Times reviewers have also typically gone into quite high detail to explain why they give the review they do, just another example.
Perhaps an example would work better. I went to musicweb and picked the first review I came upon that was negative in the summary, this one: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2016/Jan/Mattheson_keyboard_OC1837.htm (http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2016/Jan/Mattheson_keyboard_OC1837.htm). Look at paragraph 2, where the reviewer writes:
QuoteComparison with Bach is inevitable for such a collection, but my hopes of finding something to rival The Art of Fugue were alas not realised. Mattheson himself is said to have appreciated J.S. Bach's skill, but he left his name out of an otherwise compendious "Grundlager einer Ehren-Pforte" that includes 149 biographies of other composers. A case is made for Mattheson's apparent rejection of "richly ornamented baroque magniloquence" and apparent "premonitions of romanticism", but to my ears we have here a composer who was no doubt reasonably skilled and highly knowledgeable, but couldn't quite hack it in comparison with Bach and wanted no part in elevating his contemporary's name over his own. There are entertaining aspects to these pieces, but you can either argue that they are the creations of a "free spirit" or someone who couldn't quite land on the kind of musical sweet-spot that delivers music satisfying at every level and in ways that defy period and style.
What exactly does this tell us? We're being told this music 'doesn't work'. Why? Well, we don't know really. There is no explanation. We're told that in comparison to Bach, he isn't as skillful. Well, that cover pretty much all of Bach's contemporaries excluding a small handful (perhaps). And would you go into a new piece of a less known composer with the expectation that it would rival one of the greatest pieces ever written? I mean, that seems to me a setup for failure.
Further, the reviewer writes:
QuoteThere are indeed some fascinating pieces which would reward study, though for what reasons will be for the listener to decide. The Corrente on track 6 caught my ear for its strange tonality, a winding path that changes from one bar to the next but always somehow finds its way back to the root. It's nice to think of this as forward-thinking exploration, but for myself I can't get around a general lack of sophistication or finish that would elevate such things into works that would work in a wider context. One can imagine many of Bach's pieces as useful with orchestra or any kind of instrumental combination, but Mattheson's stubbornly resist a life beyond the keyboard. The Sonata is one of Mattheson's earliest works but doesn't out-Handel Handel by a long way. While I'm all for breaking with convention this strikes me as worthy of study in how not to write a sonata.
So now he's being dumped on, because the music doesn't adapt as well to other instruments/instrumentation beyond the instrument for which the music is written, which seems a bit silly to me. And we're told this is not the way to write a sonata, but we're not told where he went wrong. Incidentally, it seems at least one of Mattheson's pieces WAS adapted for instruments other than the one it was written for, though it was not initially the keyboard in the case I am aware of. I wonder if the reviewer knows that.
So I don't like this type of composer bashing. If you read the last paragraph, you find out the musician did Mattheson no favors and bungled the music, which makes you wonder if a different musician would have had a completely different result (assuming we accept this as fact). Maybe you don't agree with me, but I hope I am a little clearer as to what I find frustrating in music reviewing today.
Whether you liked Ebert or not, he KNEW film, the processes and techniques of making film, and the history of film (in quite high detail).
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 06:48:21 AM
Yes! And yes, that's what I loved about Ebert too. He took a work on his own terms. He didn't give horror movies low ratings just because they're horror movies, for instance (as you shouldn't dismiss a composer for writing in a style that isn't yours).
This is what frustrates me about my other critic gig, at a local newspaper. Newspapers strongly believe that you should never mention "I" in an article, and shouldn't try to infuse a review with your personal tastes and POV. But authoritative pronouncements are - unless backed up by an impressive body of evidence - just personal opinions in sheep's clothing. Better to be honest, methinks, than to be aggrandizing.
Depends on the newspaper, I suspect. I just finished reading "On Conan Doyle" by Pulitzer winner Michael Dirda of the Washington Post (slight name-dropping: we were friendly when I studied at Oberlin in the late 60s, but I never kept up with him), and his criticism is always highly personal, always reflective not only of his tastes but of the circumstances which led him to discover any work he writes about. Mike's criticism takes on a uniquely relaxed and engaging quality as a result. I think some of these old strictures about never using the personal pronoun are starting to relax, and you see this even in the NY Times.
Now back to ol' Roger for a moment: early on I thought he was something of a horse's ass on that TV show, and Siskel seemed to have the upper hand intellectually. Perhaps the obese appearance and glasses aided in that impression, though I'm no one to talk when it comes to the avoirdupois department. But I found Ebert far more compelling when I started reading his reviews of the Great Movies. I doubt he finished the series; films like Wild Strawberries and North by Northwest are conspicuously absent, and he never wrote about Rossellini. Like Michael Dirda, however (who also loves all good writing, and not just "high art"), Ebert would never disdain a film like Star Wars, giving it four stars for being good of its kind, while at the same time he could appreciate the nuances of Ozu, Bergman, Antonioni, and Truffaut among many others. This lack of snobbery earned the venom of John Simon (who wrote a cowardly posthumous piece of vituperation on his personal blog), Simon being an exquisite who disdained anything smacking of the popular. However, if one looks at Simon's list of his dozen favorite films, you'll find every one of them also on Ebert's Great Movies list.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 12, 2016, 07:00:13 AM
Reger's Piano Concerto and Four Tone Poems after A. Böcklin are top-drawer and, for these works alone, you can count me as a fan of his music.
I will hunt down the CDs for each of these. Thanks.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:13:22 AM
Depends on the newspaper, I suspect. I just finished reading "On Conan Doyle" by Pulitzer winner Michael Dirda of the Washington Post (slight name-dropping: we were friendly when I studied at Oberlin in the late 60s, but I never kept up with him), and his criticism is always highly personal, always reflective not only of his tastes but of the circumstances which led him to discover any work he writes about. Mike's criticism takes on a uniquely relaxed and engaging quality as a result. I think some of these old strictures about never using the personal pronoun are starting to relax, and you see this even in the NY Times.
Now back to ol' Roger for a moment: early on I thought he was something of a horse's ass on that TV show, and Siskel seemed to have the upper hand intellectually. Perhaps the obese appearance and glasses aided in that impression, though I'm no one to talk when it comes to the avoirdupois department. But I found Ebert far more compelling when I started reading his reviews of the Great Movies. I doubt he finished the series; films like Wild Strawberries and North by Northwest are conspicuously absent, and he never wrote about Rossellini. Like Michael Dirda, however (who also loves all good writing, and not just "high art"), Ebert would never disdain a film like Star Wars, giving it four stars for being good of its kind, while at the same time he could appreciate the nuances of Ozu, Bergman, Antonioni, and Truffaut among many others. This lack of snobbery earned the venom of John Simon (who wrote a cowardly posthumous piece of vituperation on his personal blog), Simon being an exquisite who disdained anything smacking of the popular. However, if one looks at Simon's list of his dozen favorite films, you'll find every one of them also on Ebert's Great Movies list.
Interesting. I always felt that Ebert was the superior in this regard, but it isn't critical to the discussion. The thing that used to frustrate me about Siskel was that the things he didn't like about a film were often because something didn't happen in the film the way he wanted it to. Ebert, on the other hand, reviewed what happened. I'm simplifying, but that is basically the idea. You don't get that in music reviewing much though.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:14:50 AM
I will hunt down the CDs for each of these. Thanks.
Am listening to the piano concerto right now. It is really a slavish imitation of the Brahms First Concerto, although I'll admit the slow movement is quite beautiful. There's an interesting anti-virtuosic vein to the piano writing throughout (or more properly, anti-showing-off).
I'll try to listen to a bunch of Reger today and post a roundup in his composer thread.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:13:22 AM
Depends on the newspaper, I suspect. I just finished reading "On Conan Doyle" by Pulitzer winner Michael Dirda of the Washington Post (slight name-dropping: we were friendly when I studied at Oberlin in the late 60s, but I never kept up with him), and his criticism is always highly personal, always reflective not only of his tastes but of the circumstances which led him to discover any work he writes about. Mike's criticism takes on a uniquely relaxed and engaging quality as a result. I think some of these old strictures about never using the personal pronoun are starting to relax, and you see this even in the NY Times.
Depends, also, on whether the critic has "made it". Michael Dirda is a Pulitzer winner; NY Times voices like Ben Brantley, Janet Maslin, and A.O. Scott are very well-known in their fields by now. As a freelancer, I am still to some extent just some random guy, and my tastes/peculiarities do require more introduction.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:13:22 AM
Now back to ol' Roger for a moment: early on I thought he was something of a horse's ass on that TV show, and Siskel seemed to have the upper hand intellectually. Perhaps the obese appearance and glasses aided in that impression, though I'm no one to talk when it comes to the avoirdupois department. But I found Ebert far more compelling when I started reading his reviews of the Great Movies. I doubt he finished the series; films like Wild Strawberries and North by Northwest are conspicuously absent, and he never wrote about Rossellini. Like Michael Dirda, however (who also loves all good writing, and not just "high art"), Ebert would never disdain a film like Star Wars, giving it four stars for being good of its kind, while at the same time he could appreciate the nuances of Ozu, Bergman, Antonioni, and Truffaut among many others. This lack of snobbery earned the venom of John Simon (who wrote a cowardly posthumous piece of vituperation on his personal blog), Simon being an exquisite who disdained anything smacking of the popular. However, if one looks at Simon's list of his dozen favorite films, you'll find every one of them also on Ebert's Great Movies list.
"The avoirdupois department" has to go into the GMG Hall of Fame for great turns of phrase. But mostly I'm quoting this for the opportunity to quote Ebert's original 1977 review of a certain well-known movie:
"Every once in a while I have what I think of as an out-of-the-body experience at a movie. When the ESP people use a phrase like that, they're referring to the sensation of the mind actually leaving the body and spiriting itself off to China or Peoria or a galaxy far, far away. When I use the phrase, I simply mean that my imagination has forgotten it is actually present in a movie theater and thinks it's up there on the screen. In a curious sense, the events in the movie seem real, and I seem to be a part of them.
Star Wars works like that."
P.S. Maybe my young age contributes to my love of Ebert - never saw the TV show and only ever knew him through the writing archives.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 12, 2016, 07:06:08 AM
But those Ebert reviews are very detailed and go into quite depth (which was typical of most of his reviews). Most music reviews these days are not like that, nor do they explain what they see as a flaw (or advantage) - they just state it and move on. The New York Times reviewers have also typically gone into quite high detail to explain why they give the review they do, just another example.
Depends on the venue the critic publishes in. Film critics like John Simon and Pauline Kael were given almost unlimited space to develop their reviews. To restate in case you didn't see my post, the problem with music criticism is that to make a case, one needs to go into analytical detail that is often beyond the technical training of many listeners. I think I could make a case, for instance, for why Dittersdorf is inferior to Mozart, but it would require technical phraseology and, ideally, musical examples. I wonder too at times about the musical knowledge of some critics. Several years ago I heard Boulez conduct Dérive II in NY, and the Times reviewer several times referred to an oboe, when in fact no oboe was present and the instrument used was an English horn. I emailed the performer the next day, who wrote back: "Make you wonder, doesn't it?"
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:24:20 AM
Depends on the venue the critic publishes in. Film critics like John Simon and Pauline Kael were given almost unlimited space to develop their reviews. To restate in case you didn't see my post, the problem with music criticism is that to make a case, one needs to go into analytical detail that is often beyond the technical training of many listeners. I think I could make a case, for instance, for why Dittersdorf is inferior to Mozart, but it would require technical phraseology and, ideally, musical examples. I wonder too at times about the musical knowledge of some critics. Several years ago I heard Boulez conduct Dérive II in NY, and the Times reviewer several times referred to an oboe, when in fact no oboe was present and the instrument used was an English horn. I emailed the performer the next day, who wrote back: "Make you wonder, doesn't it?"
I agree for the most part. Funny story too (otherwise, I'd have to cry).
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 07:21:57 AM
Am listening to the piano concerto right now. It is really a slavish imitation of the Brahms First Concerto, although I'll admit the slow movement is quite beautiful. There's an interesting anti-virtuosic vein to the piano writing throughout (or more properly, anti-showing-off).
I'll try to listen to a bunch of Reger today and post a roundup in his composer thread.
Ha! funny, I checked the shelves and there are four Reger CDs, including the Böcklin Tone Poems and some chamber music, but not the PF concerto (which I think Serkin played). So I have a new project which both Brian and I can write about, and then you can all print our reviews and retire to the smallest room in your house.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 07:21:57 AM
P.S. Maybe my young age contributes to my love of Ebert - never saw the TV show and only ever knew him through the writing archives.
YouTube, Brian, YouTube. It's funny at times to watch Siskel and Ebert going at it, but even funnier to watch the clip where Ebert is debating John Simon on the merits of Star Wars. As with presidential debates, I suppose it tells a lot about you which side you think wins.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:38:19 AM
YouTube, Brian, YouTube. It's funny at times to watch Siskel and Ebert going at it, but even funnier to watch the clip where Ebert is debating John Simon on the merits of Star Wars. As with presidential debates, I suppose it tells a lot about you which side you think wins.
Link us up, dude!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:33:31 AMSo I have a new project which both Brian and I can write about, and then you can all print our reviews and retire to the smallest room in your house.
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:33:31 AM
Ha! funny, I checked the shelves and there are four Reger CDs, including the Böcklin Tone Poems and some chamber music, but not the PF concerto (which I think Serkin played). So I have a new project which both Brian and I can write about, and then you can all print our reviews and retire to the smallest room in your house.
Actually, it has been a while since I last listened to the PC, but I remember liking it on its own merits.
https://www.youtube.com/v/Ky9-eIlHzAE
Quote from: North Star on January 12, 2016, 07:58:03 AM
https://www.youtube.com/v/Ky9-eIlHzAE
I don't think Jn Simon can really both complain that it is "de-humanizing," and that it is
for children.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 07:21:57 AM
Am listening to the piano concerto right now. It is really a slavish imitation of the Brahms First Concerto
"really" --- your using this word means that either you are absolutely and utterly convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, or you have irrefutable proof, that what you state is true. Are you? Do you?
"slavish" --- short of you having the power to read people´s minds, and dead people´s mind for that matter, how do you know that what Reger set about when composing it was imitating Brahms´ First Concerto, and slavishly for that matter?
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 12, 2016, 07:19:32 AM
Interesting. I always felt that Ebert was the superior in this regard, but it isn't critical to the discussion. The thing that used to frustrate me about Siskel was that the things he didn't like about a film were often because something didn't happen in the film the way he wanted it to. Ebert, on the other hand, reviewed what happened. I'm simplifying, but that is basically the idea. You don't get that in music reviewing much though.
I remember a statement from him (I think in his autobiography) that one of the first films he reviewed was Bergman's
Persona. This proved to be decisive, because the strangeness of the film forced him to develop his no-nonsense approach to criticism: state the facts of the film as clearly as possible, and then explore and analyze your own feelings about it. You can sense him using this approach as a template throughout his career.
Pauline Kael on the other hand took a much more ideological approach, deciding in a certain a priori sense what cinema should and shouldn't be.
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 08:18:51 AM
"really" --- your using this word means that either you are absolutely and utterly convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, or you have irrefutable proof, that what you state is true. Are you? Do you?
Yes. Yes.
'My Piano Concerto is going to be misunderstood for years. The musical language is too austere and too serious; it is, so to speak,
a pendant to Brahms's D minor Piano Concerto. The public will need some time to get used to it.' - Max Reger
From the Hyperion CD booklet essay:
"Despite his dislike of the work, Walter Niemann's review identified the two dominant influences—Brahms and Liszt—on the sonority and layout of the piano part. The influence of Brahms is clear. What Charles Rosen called 'the inspiration of awkwardness' in Brahms's piano style is also evident in Reger's concerto. It makes huge technical demands on the soloist while avoiding the temptation to dazzle for the sake of it. As well as some daunting passages in octaves, the soloist has to negotiate some elaborate figurations in the inner parts, and some thoroughly Brahmsian leaps and cross-rhythms....
"The opening of the Allegro moderato (with a timpani roll and a rhythm that both echo the start of Brahms's D minor Concerto) shows Reger at his most advanced harmonically....Like Brahms's model, the first movement is much the longest of the three."
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 08:18:51 AM
"really" --- your using this word means that either you are absolutely and utterly convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, or you have irrefutable proof, that what you state is true. Are you? Do you?
"slavish" --- short of you having the power to read people´s minds, and dead people´s mind for that matter, how do you know that what Reger set about when composing it was imitating Brahms´ First Concerto, and slavishly for that matter?
In case anyone hasn't noticed, the finale of the Brahms 1st Concerto is a direct imitation of the finale to the Beethoven 3rd Concerto. (Charles Rosen has a full discussion of this somewhere.) To quote Melville from Moby Dick: "Who ain't a slave?"
Reger is often indebted to Brahms but this can hardly account for the relative obscurity of his music. The Grieg piano concerto is at least as closely following mood and gestures of the Schumann pc (at least at the beginning) as Reger Brahms but it is about as popular as the Schumann.
Reger wrote often as if to "out-Brahms Brahms" (and while he was at it to out-Bach Bach as well). He is extremely skillful in the counterpoint etc. department, but not great with melodies; the more popular works are often variations on other people's tunes (Mozart, Telemann, Bach, Beethoven...)
I am not sure if I really love anything by Reger but I find his music interesting and sometimes fascinating. (There was a guy on a German language forum who listened almost only to chamber music by Beethoven, Brahms, Reger and Schönberg.)
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 08:27:00 AM
'My Piano Concerto is going to be misunderstood for years. The musical language is too austere and too serious; it is, so to speak, a pendant to Brahms's D minor Piano Concerto. The public will need some time to get used to it.' - Max Reger
Funny how selecting what part to highlight makes all teh difference in the world. ;)
If Reger´s PC was really a slavish imitation of Brahms´ First, why then did he state that the public would need some time to get used to it? Wouldn´t it have been obvious at the first
sight hearing that this is so?
Quote
From the Hyperion CD booklet essay:
"Despite his dislike of the work, Walter Niemann's review identified the two dominant influences—Brahms and Liszt—on the sonority and layout of the piano part. The influence of Brahms is clear. What Charles Rosen called 'the inspiration of awkwardness' in Brahms's piano style is also evident in Reger's concerto. It makes huge technical demands on the soloist while avoiding the temptation to dazzle for the sake of it. As well as some daunting passages in octaves, the soloist has to negotiate some elaborate figurations in the inner parts, and some thoroughly Brahmsian leaps and cross-rhythms....
"The opening of the Allegro moderato (with a timpani roll and a rhythm that both echo the start of Brahms's D minor Concerto) shows Reger at his most advanced harmonically....Like Brahms's model, the first movement is much the longest of the three."
I read "influence", "echo" and "like". Why does they have to translate into "slavish imitation"?
Joseph Schuster´s string quartets have been attributed for a long time to Mozart. Eventually their authorship was proven beyond doubt. Now, you might as well said that Schuster´s SQs are "a slavish imitation of", ie undistinguishably from, Mozart´s ---IOW, that when it comes to SQs Schuster was at the very same level of Mozart, both stylistically and technically. Would you say that Reger´s PC might very well be attributed to Brahms without anyone noticing any difference for a long time? :D
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 09:55:37 AMWould you say that Reger´s PC might very well be attributed to Brahms without anyone noticing any difference for a long time? :D
No! Brahms is great.
Quote from: Brian on January 12, 2016, 10:08:30 AM
No! Brahms is great.
Voilà! :D
I remember having listened to Reger´s PC on Youtube last year and finding it too long. Or was it the VC? I will repeat the experience with both and report back.
Oh, sorry, I thought this thread was about Hurwitz's ass.
Quote from: Heavy Metal DaveHurwitz's ass is mine.
Quote from: Florestan on January 12, 2016, 10:17:29 AM
Voilà! :D
I remember having listened to Reger´s PC on Youtube last year and finding it too long. Or was it the VC? I will repeat the experience with both and report back.
Did a quick check of the timings in the Berlin Classics Reger set. The PC is 41 minutes, the VC 58 minutes.
I liked both, and think both of you gentlemen are undervaluing Reger.
Quote from: Super Blood Moon on January 12, 2016, 10:23:50 AM
Oh, sorry, I thought this thread was about Hurwitz's ass.
It seems you saw the original OP before it was deleted. From that hot-pink prose with its tone of a first-world level of importance hissy-fit, I could see where one might think that part of Hurwitz was the thing of greatest focus and interest.
The OP had all the quality of your having entered a room while hearing the balance of a sentence already begun and half-way done, after the subject had already been stated.
Just about anywhere you care to look, there is often a narrow nationalist take on 'home-boy' composers, even if that nation has but two well-known 'local boy makes good' composers to rub together.
I think the complaint was about a type of comment on such a group of collected composers, all British, with [the complained-about critic being an American] of course an American-style stamp on that. Another contributor pointed out this national/regional preoccupation to lionize the "local boys who done good" dynamic and called it "provincial." I think the more apposite word is "parochial."
Anyway, the post, imo, was a tempest in not a teacup, but more a tempest in the ancillary and even shallower saucer, and a
very minor first world bit of business.
I mean, who is this 'Hurwitz,' person, and is he of any real significance whatsoever?
Quote from: Super Blood Moon on January 12, 2016, 10:23:50 AM
Oh, sorry, I thought this thread was about Hurwitz's ass.
I thought it was a mule!
Now, let's see: mules can be bad tempered, they kick and are generally sterile.....does it fit? ::)
Mike
Whoops, 'mule' seems to be worse than 'ass' then, right?
Quote from: The new erato on January 11, 2016, 11:37:35 PM
Here it is:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/?search=1 (http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12140/?search=1)
Quote:
"This description may sound like damning with faint praise, but it isn't meant to be. If I were a British critic and this were a Chandos production of some second-tier English composer (say, Dyson, or Finzi, or Moeran), I could carry on about "yet another triumphant example of the extraordinary musical resurgence of the early 20th century, etc., etc.," ad nauseam."
Incidentally, what few of us would probably have expected (given Hurwitz's lumping all these US symphonists together), he actually gives a laudatory review to this CD of
Mennin:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51QMOf2jabL._SS280_PJStripe-Robin,TopLeft,0,0.jpg)
Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2016, 08:08:08 AM
I don't think Jn Simon can really both complain that it is "de-humanizing," and that it is for children.
Well, he means it in the sense that the movie is a live-action cartoon, with no human complexity. And while I admit I enjoyed the first Star Wars movie (episode IV) as the one that takes itself less seriously than all the heavy-handed others, I find myself closer to Simon than to S+E on this argument. While the occasional Star Wars-type movie is fine in small doses, I have a number of friends who gravitate almost exclusively to movies of this type: simplistic conflicts between Absolute Good and Absolute Evil always on a save-the-earth scale of monumental grandiosity, a total lack of introspection or growth in the characters, predictable plot development where the Good Guys are temporarily routed but always defeat the Bad Guys in the end, heavy reliance on CGI effects, excessive violence, and an ear-splitting bombastically derivative musical score.
These same people are always looking for escapism in the films they watch and reject virtually anything else as either boring or depressing (whether they have seen it or not). I wonder if the young kids or teenagers brought up on Star Wars and Hunger Games can still appreciate something as subtle or delicate as Albert Lamorisse's The Red Balloon, sometimes spoken of as the best little film for and about small children ever made, or Claude Berri's The Two of Us, about a little Jewish boy taken in by an anti-Semitic farmer during WW2 France, and more. I don't mean to point exclusively to films with subtitles as counter-examples, but the worst offenders of the Star Wars mentality seem always to be American films, and if that kind of cinematic junk food is one's sole movie-going diet, how is one to appreciate the achievements of an Ozu, a Mike Leigh, a Cassavetes, a Bresson?
The gender does not fit, curls are long gone and I'd modify the penultimate verse to "pretty decent" instead of "very good" but the last verse still fits DH unfortunately well.
There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very good indeed,
But when she was bad she was horrid.
He should stick to the (mostly late romantic orchestral) stuff he loves and has some knowledge about and keep silent otherwise (i.e about almost everything else, especially vocal music or almost everything pre-Haydn). He posted a rant about his dislike of Lieder. I got into a discussion with him when he wrote similarly inane stuff 15 or so years ago in the (now google) rec.music.classical.recordings newsgroup but I am not repeating such windmill fights at youtube.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 12, 2016, 07:33:31 AM
Ha! funny, I checked the shelves and there are four Reger CDs, including the Böcklin Tone Poems and some chamber music, but not the PF concerto (which I think Serkin played). So I have a new project which both Brian and I can write about, and then you can all print our reviews and retire to the smallest room in your house.
Indeed, Rudolf Serkin was a champion of the Reger Piano Cto.
Marc Hamelin has recorded the Reger PC recently and it was - coincidence! - subject to a slashing review by Hurwitz, who I suspect used this record, and a record of a Pfitzner's Piano Cto to boost his viewership by being as scathing as he could be.
I have watched two or three reviews on Hurwitz's youtube channel, and frankly it was a waste of time.
The first was about Elgar's Symphony nr 2. I was a little surprised to see him characterize the symphony as an unimportant throwaway piece compared to the Mogul March. I mean, you can say you like said march better than the symphony, but it's utter bullshit to say the symphony didn't mean anything to the composer. It's a little strange for a critic to talk about British music as if it's by definitition twee and second rate. If you think so, why review British music?
Also, why talk about Elgar as a Victorian who is afraid of sex? The second symphony is dedicated to Edward VII, the total opposite of Queen Victoria. Elgar was an Edwardian. I don't know if this is cynical trying-to-be-funny, or just ignorance, but it's embarrassing. Nor am I sure it's a good idea to "sing" themes to demonstrate what theme you're talking about. I mean, Hurwitz is no Maria Callas. It doesn't elucidate anything, it just makes you wonder if Hurwitz ever listens to himself, which is a prerequisite for a critic of any kind.
The other clip I saw was about "the most horrible piano concertos" of Reger and Pfitzner, a disgraceful cynical attempt to get laughs about Germans - including acting as if it is impossible to pronounce German names and words. Obviously most people interested in classical music tend to be in the second, if not third half of their lives, not young, and maybe there are one or two who think it's like old times again if you act as if Germans bark instead of talk. It's rather painful when a very large part of our classical music heritage happens to be composed by Germans. What are you going to do about it?
So I have no idea what the opening post was about, and I'm not even sure if Hurwitz is an ass. But why on earth would a sane person spend twenty friggin' minutes watching a guy laugh at his own mediocre jokes? I have been a (book) critic for fifteen years. I stopped in 2010, and never regretted it. I believe fifteen years as the maximum time one should spend doing this before one gets tired and cynical. Looking at these DH vids I see the pathology in optima forma. The self-importance, the cynical "humor", the need to grind reputations in the dust, and on the other hand, the need to safeguard the critic's importance (there's a bit about all critics basically agreeing about what is good in a Beethoven clip - in other words, critics are always right, which somehow, I don't know why, brings to mind Joyce Hatto, maybe as evidence music critics always parrot each other?) and, really, the tiredness of yet again visiting the tired ol' warhorses. I mean, really? does anybody need a twenty minute vid about 'the BEST Rach PC2"?
Quote from: Herman on July 14, 2020, 09:24:21 AM
I have watched two or three reviews on Hurwitz's youtube channel, and frankly it was a waste of time.
...
The other clip I saw was about "the most horrible piano concertos" of Reger and Pfitzner, a disgraceful cynical attempt to get laughs about Germans - including acting as if it is impossible to pronounce German names and words. Obviously most people interested in classical music tend to be in the second, if not third half of their lives, not young, and maybe there are one or two who think you're defending your country (in Hurwitz's case the UK) if you act as if Germans bark instead of talk. It's rather painful when a very large part of our classical music heritage happens to be composed by Germans. What are you going to do about it?
So I have no idea what the opening post was about, and I'm not even sure if Hurwitz is an ass. But why on earth would a sane person spend twenty friggin' minutes watching a guy laugh at his own mediocre jokes?
I find that strange. I have no interest in DH's youtube videos, and am not a Classics Today "Insider", but read a reasonable amount of reviews from the CT site. I have always considered that CT practically worships both Hamelin and Hyperion. Indeed, the Hyperion "Romantic Piano Cti" disc with the Reger, performed by Hamelin (it's not a new recording, c. 2010) got 9/9 from Jed Distler on CT.
So if I was shelling out money for the privilege of being a Classics Today "Insider", what source should I believe: the CT site or DH's youtube channel? ;D
David Hurwitz is American. One should not be so worked up about what is wrong with his reviews that one can't figure this out.
Quote from: Madiel on July 14, 2020, 09:39:28 AM
David Hurwitz is American. One should not be so worked up about what is wrong with his reviews that one can't figure this out.
I did not know he was an American, but on the other hand I'm not sure either one should know where a critic comes from when it's about historical classical music
"It's a little strange for a [edit] music critic to talk about British music as if it's by definitition twee and second rate. If you think so, why review British music?"
PEter Serkin also played Reger frequently, incl. the pc but AFAIK did not make a commercial recording of the latter.
I was angry enough after a few minutes of his Lieder rant, so I did not bother with the "horrible" piano concertos. I am not huge fan of either piece but they certainly deserve at least as much attention as the typical Hyperion excavation. They are also quite different from each other, as generally the main or only common element of Reger and Pfitzer is that they are late romantic German composers.
Yes, Peter Serkin played one of those large variation pieces by Reger, just like his dad.
If I were a music critic, the fact that several great interpreters find this music worth their while would give me pause. And it would certainly make me refrain from this onslaught of bad jokes.
Yes, Peter Serkin played one of those large variation pieces by Reger, just like his dad.
If I were a music critic, the fact that several great interpreters find this music worth their while would give me pause. And it would certainly make me refrain from this onslaught of bad jokes.
I don't even know what "the Lieder rant" is about but I am pretty sure DH is feeding people's prejudices a lot, hoping to get more clicks, which is ultimately a self-defeating strategy.
If you want to hear bad jokes about Germans you don't need all the twaddle about classical music.
Quote from: Herman on July 14, 2020, 09:24:21 AMObviously most people interested in classical music tend to be in the second, if not third half of their lives
Pray tell, what is the third half of a person's life?
As to Hurwitz, I believe at least one Barnum quote applies.
Alternatively, for younger readers, it's important to remember that haters gonna hate.
It is a fairly new video but in essence he said the same many years ago: Classical Lieder are essentially like popsongs, just more pretentious and their interpreters and listeners even more so. The texts are as silly as it gets which makes the affection and pretention worse. Symphonies have no analogue in modern popular music, so there is a good reason to listen to them. But there is not really a good reason to listen to Schubert or Wolf instead of contemporary pop music. If lieder are sung at all, they should be sung "artlessly" as historically in small circles of friends in a Salon etc.
He has a few vaild points that are either trivially true (that songs by Dowland, Purcells, Schubert, Wolf etc. have a bit more in common with 20th century popular songs than Bruckner symphonies do, but this does not negate the differences). And of course, there is often pretentiousness. But he, as a nerdy fan of classical music mocks the supposedly prententious lieder toffs in exactly the same way many fans of rock/pop would mock the opera/classical toffs.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 14, 2020, 10:21:22 AMClassical Lieder are essentially like popsongs, just more pretentious and their interpreters and listeners even more so.
That's basically true.
It may be time to repost this from the blog Stuff White People Like: #108 Appearing to enjoy Classical Music (https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/09/01/108-appearing-to-enjoy-classical-music/)
Meh. Hurwitz would probably be horrified if someone said there was no need to listen to the favourite songs of his youth because there were plenty of newer songs that were pretty much the same. It's a silly argument.
Maybe he just can't handle things that aren't in English.
Quote from: Herman on July 14, 2020, 09:24:21 AM
I have watched two or three reviews on Hurwitz's youtube channel, and frankly it was a waste of time.
The first was about Elgar's Symphony nr 2. I was a little surprised to see him characterize the symphony as an unimportant throwaway piece compared to the Mogul March. I mean, you can say you like said march better than the symphony, but it's utter bullshit to say the symphony didn't mean anything to the composer.
That was a joke. Delivered with a straight face, but definitely a joke.
The potential for pretentiousness applies in the same way to the person who prefers Couperin to Chopin, Vaughan Williams to Verdi, or generally the less familiar to the more popular or even classical music in favor of anything else. And by now, there are lot of pretentious fans of popular music (in my highschool time in the late 1980s there was a deep rift between hard'n heavy and "pop" fans and probably also between the infinite variety of these subgroups). Not even to start with jazz that was dance music even until after WW II and is now the abode of turtlenecked guys in late middle age with $$$ turntables in sparsely furnished living rooms ;)
Anything somewhat distinctive can lead to pretention and pretentiousness. And as appreciation can be feigned (unlike playing music or actually doing art or some other pretentious hobby), it will be sometimes. However, in a time and society where classical music (and even more some niches within classical music) are socially distinctive only in very small segments of society, real friends will draw more often mockery than gain any social status.
The very similarity between classical and popular songs could be used by someone trying to make more fans of classical music to recommend a bunch of Lieder, mélodies etc. that they might actually prefer to Bruckner symphonies. Instead he idiotically claims that the genre has basically been superseded. They same could be said of Ma vlast versus Star wars movie scores and it would be as wrong.
good definition of a joke is: something people laugh about or find funny.
not: the one who's making the joke is the only one laughing.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 14, 2020, 11:01:35 AM
The very similarity between classical and popular songs
The vocal range in classical vocal music is obviously way larger than in pop music.
In most pop songs the vocal line never exceeds an octave, and usually doesn't even come close to doing that.
Singers who do, like Mariah Carey, are exceptions and are lauded like they are divas.
However, Carey could not sing a line without microphone and amplification, and this goes for the entire pop / musical business. These performers have technical limitations that would make them utterly lost in classical vocal music.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 14, 2020, 11:01:35 AMThe potential for pretentiousness applies in the same way to the person who prefers Couperin to Chopin, Vaughan Williams to Verdi, or generally the less familiar to the more popular or even classical music in favor of anything else.
Yep.
I think it may be difficult for many people on this forum to accept the fact that classical music is basically irrelevant, very few people care about it, and that occasionally erudite exchanges about irrelevant distinctions among artists, recordings, performances, performance traditions, and perceived technical superiority - eg, extended vocal range - are intrinsically pretentious. Other verbs are preferred - discriminating, cultured, sophisticated, etc.
Quote from: Herman on July 14, 2020, 11:06:43 AM
The vocal range in classical vocal music is obviously way larger than in pop music.
In most pop songs the vocal line never exceeds an octave, and usually doesn't even come close to doing that.
Singers who do, like Mariah Carey, are exceptions and are lauded like they are divas.
However, Carey could not sing a line without microphone and amplification, and this goes for the entire pop / musical business. These performers have technical limitations that would make them utterly lost in classical vocal music.
Sigh. How the hell is stereotyping of pop singing by a classical fan any better than stereotyping of classical singing by a pop fan?
For one thing there are plenty of lieder and melodies that don't involve a wide compass.
Quote from: Madiel on July 14, 2020, 11:20:29 AM
Sigh. How the hell is stereotyping of pop singing by a classical fan any better than stereotyping of classical singing by a pop fan?
For one thing there are plenty of lieder and melodies that don't involve a wide compass.
I don't know any pop performer who sings without a microphone.
Even lousy street performers have since the turn of the century moved to amplification.
And, in classical, if your vocal range does not exceed an octave, good luck trying to get into a conservatory or music school.
Quote from: Herman on July 14, 2020, 11:02:37 AM
good definition of a joke is: something people laugh about or find funny.
not: the one who's making the joke is the only one laughing.
I think you have HDS, Hurwitzer Derangement Syndrome.
I got the joke the first time, though I did roll my eyes.
I'll also admit that I have a Lieder problem. I have books on Lieder, many lieder recordings, but I just can't get into it.
Quote from: Brian on July 14, 2020, 10:47:15 AM
That was a joke. Delivered with a straight face, but definitely a joke.
+1 That's how I saw it too.
PD
Quote from: Daverz on July 14, 2020, 01:45:04 PM
I think you have HDS, Hurwitzer Derangement Syndrome.
I got the joke the first time, though I did roll my eyes.
I'll also admit that I have a Lieder problem. I have books on Lieder, many lieder recordings, but I just can't get into it.
As a rule, I prefer Lieder in a recital, rather than via recording. The immediacy and a connection with the singer helps a great deal.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 14, 2020, 10:21:22 AM
It is a fairly new video but in essence he said the same many years ago: Classical Lieder are essentially like popsongs, just more pretentious and their interpreters and listeners even more so. The texts are as silly as it gets which makes the affection and pretention worse. Symphonies have no analogue in modern popular music, so there is a good reason to listen to them. But there is not really a good reason to listen to Schubert or Wolf instead of contemporary pop music. If lieder are sung at all, they should be sung "artlessly" as historically in small circles of friends in a Salon etc.
He has a few vaild points that are either trivially true (that songs by Dowland, Purcells, Schubert, Wolf etc. have a bit more in common with 20th century popular songs than Bruckner symphonies do, but this does not negate the differences). And of course, there is often pretentiousness. But he, as a nerdy fan of classical music mocks the supposedly prententious lieder toffs in exactly the same way many fans of rock/pop would mock the opera/classical toffs.
Sorry to hear that he dismissed(?) lieder as I do enjoy them. Yes, times change, but I think that in the best of them (lieder), the feelings are immortal. And to sing them well is a true art, gift, and work of ones life.
Best,
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 14, 2020, 02:18:52 PM
Sorry to hear that he dismissed(?) lieder as I do enjoy them. Yes, times change, but I think that in the best of them (lieder), the feelings are immortal. And to sing them well is a true art, gift, and work of ones life.
Best,
PD
Testify!
Quote from: Herman on July 14, 2020, 11:06:43 AM
The vocal range in classical vocal music is obviously way larger than in pop music.
In most pop songs the vocal line never exceeds an octave, and usually doesn't even come close to doing that.
Singers who do, like Mariah Carey, are exceptions and are lauded like they are divas.
However, Carey could not sing a line without microphone and amplification, and this goes for the entire pop / musical business. These performers have technical limitations that would make them utterly lost in classical vocal music.
Some pop/rock singers have had operatic training/background. I haven't dug further into it, but heard that Annie Lenox and Pat Benatar both had operatic/classical training or backgrounds?
Dolly Parton had an amazing range (probably rather more limited now) but not that kind of background/training (grew up poor in Appalachia in a large family).
Best wishes,
PD
Quote from: Herman on July 14, 2020, 11:06:43 AM
The vocal range in classical vocal music is obviously way larger than in pop music.
In most pop songs the vocal line never exceeds an octave, and usually doesn't even come close to doing that.
Singers who do, like Mariah Carey, are exceptions and are lauded like they are divas.
However, Carey could not sing a line without microphone and amplification, and this goes for the entire pop / musical business. These performers have technical limitations that would make them utterly lost in classical vocal music.
Needing a mike is a feature, not a bug - can thank Bing for pioneering how one can sing less obnoxiously by not bleating like stuck pig, which is what the generation of pop singers before him did.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 14, 2020, 02:29:59 PM
Some pop/rock singers have had operatic training/background. I haven't dug further into it, but heard that Annie Lenox and Pat Benatar both had operatic/classical training or backgrounds?
Dolly Parton had an amazing range (probably rather more limited now) but not that kind of background/training (grew up poor in Appalachia in a large family).
Best wishes,
PD
Genre demands are different ... you normally don't sing lieder in a concert stadium, for example. We've had an official conservatory for the genres of jazz, rock & pop, "The Rythmic Conservatory", in Copenhagen, for decades. I don't know how unusual that is; it was established in 1986, and typically has 30 professors & 200 students. Though it's certainly no ticket to commercial success (and there are still many examples of rather lousy singers in the genres of rock and pop), there's no doubt it has contributed to a generally improved quality level here.
Most bands don't play football stadiums. The reason why the singer(s) need a mike is because the other instruments are amplified too. However, many singers have developed a habit of keeping the mike at kissing range, and they are basically whispering with thousands of watts backing them up. They have no natural volume whatsoever, which is part of your training as a classical singer.
It has spread to the talking circuit. Whenever I do a reading, the organizer wants to hook me up to one of those horrifying (see, I'm using Hurwitz language!) wraparound mikes which make you look like you're on oxygen. However, normally you're talking to thirty or fifty people max, who've taken the trouble to show up. The room is usually a book store, a small church or a class room. Now, I don't think preachers needed a microphone in the days of yore, nor did teachers, and I always talk without a microphone, also because it necessitates using your voice, standing or sitting upright and making eye contact with the people who are listening. My younger, thirty-something colleagues all talk thru mikes, and they're usually gazing at the floor as they do, and the funny thing is, because they are whispering (amplified) it's often really hard to hear what they're saying. They are basically talking to themselves.
Rant über.
Well, the rock/folk/jazz performers I tend to like have plenty of vocal range and phrasing abilities as well as power, and they've often had success, but I agree that it's not the case with many of the currently really big commercial names in pop and rock.
Btw, larger venues and outdoor/festival concerts are of course the main thing here in Copenhagen, usually not intimate concerts, for the established names.
Meanwhile, I think you'll find that every classical recording involves microphones anyway, so what the heck is this particular debate about?
It's about non-artificially created, natural or acquired singing abilities ...
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2020, 11:11:34 AM
I think it may be difficult for many people on this forum to accept the fact that classical music is basically irrelevant, very few people care about it, and that occasionally erudite exchanges about irrelevant distinctions among artists, recordings, performances, performance traditions, and perceived technical superiority - eg, extended vocal range - are intrinsically pretentious.
This is a non sequitur. Classical music is by no means "irrelevant". Apart from still being a multimillion or billion dollar market and its rising popularity and cultural relevance in East Asia, it is not important how many people care about or understand something, as long as the number of interested people is sufficient to keep a field going. General Relativity Theory was important in 1922 when maybe about 100 people or so understood it, even fewer worked in the field and there were no technical applications (like GPS) for which it could be used. (And when there was also very sparse observational evidence for the theory.)
And as a lot of the supposedly pretentious features are clearly rooted in reality, i.e. in general classical music is in fact "technically superior", this is also different from tribal teenagers dissing Depeche mode fans in favor of Slayer or whatever the oppositions of my high school time were. If some brilliant artist or scientist is an arrogant ass this might be a deplorable feature of character but it does not at all follow that s/he is not really brilliant in a demanding and competitive field, only because there are also arrogant asses who became famous for some nonsense.
Quote from: MusicTurner on July 14, 2020, 11:56:39 PM
It's about non-artificially created, natural or acquired singing abilities ...
Hmm. I thought that it was about Herman's determination to counter Hurwitz' view that pop singing is better than lieder singing by asserting the reasons why lieder singing is better than pop singing.
Which to me is the same error of trying to compare 2 different art forms. They're just different. They're not even trying to do the same thing. I like them both. And I'd like to be allowed to like them both without
either of these guys telling me why I'm wrong to like one of them.
Personally I wouldn't pay any attention to Hurwitz' view that lieder aren't worth listening to. But I'm not going to pay any more attention to the view, which I've encountered here before, that pop music isn't worth listening to. You like it? Listen to it. You don't like it? Don't listen to it.
Anyone think Hurwitz is an ass? Then don't read or watch his reviews!
I actually think that there is some socialization problem today but this concerns all classical vocal music, opera and oratorio as well as lieder. We are now in the 3rd or 4th generation that has grown up with pop style microphone singing and therefore tends to find classical non-ampflified singing "artificial". There is nothing bad about artificial in art, and that some things outside classical are as artificial as inside (why should Ella Fitzgerald's scat be less artificial than Bartoli doing Rossini coloratura?) and what's more artifiical than electronic amplification?
Anyway, someone open-minded should be able to get beyond such socialization. And it wouldn't explain why opera seems to be still quite popular whereas Lieder never really were. (In my limited experience the singing style in the "West End musicals" like Lloyd Webber" is somewhere between opera and popular music and they are rather popular.)
Of course, one mostly correct answer is, that most Lieder were never meant to be really public music but thrived in private or semi-public settings. Again, this probably changed at the end of the 19th century (I have no idea but I'd have thought that Wolf, Strauss etc. tend to be more difficult to sing and accompany than Schubert?) and it was also true for a lot of other music, i.e. most solo piano and chamber music although these latter genres appeared in public settings already in the early 19th century.
Anyway, there are plenty of piano pieces that are neither longer nor more sophisticatedly composed than lieder. I never heard the claim that they had become irrelevant because now we have Einaudi, Clayderman and similar elevator music pianists (and presumably also a few that are better than that).
And finally, to get back to Hurwitz, it seems really poor criticism to rant on stuff one simply does not get and rationalize one's dislike with poor arguments or analogies. He also seems to make strange exceptions: Lied von der Erde is great because its orchestral and some of the songs are a bit longer than many with piano accompaniment, or what is the reason?
Quote from: Madiel on July 15, 2020, 12:01:41 AM
Hmm. I thought that it was about Herman's determination to counter Hurwitz' view that pop singing is better than lieder singing by asserting the reasons why lieder singing is better than pop singing.
Which to me is the same error of trying to compare 2 different art forms. They're just different. They're not even trying to do the same thing. I like them both. And I'd like to be allowed to like them both without either of these guys telling me why I'm wrong to like one of them.
(...)
I don't disagree, but there's a point in how abilities of classical singers can show partly hidden or overlooked limitations of otherwise popular pop and rock singers. That's a technical or formal aspect, but it can be relevant for shaping and developing expressive content too. I do think however that inspiration can actually go both ways, some lied singers can lack the passion or contemporary urge of good rock singers, for example.
Whether you find lieder/melodies/songs obsolete, can also partly be ascribed to whether you find classical literature at all relevant, or sampling a more complete picture of a period's cultural expression. Such songs are obviously related to the composers' other works, the ideas behind them, and their times.
Hurwitz doesn't strike me as a real polyhistor or a very literary person (I think Jo498 actually shows more of the quality, an excellent example of the solid virtues of the German educational system ;) ), he's more of an entertainer, but at least he has a good deal of knowledge about earlier recordings & he is not afraid to present strong musical opinions and preferences. The absence of both those characteristics can be frustrating in the case of many other, much more uninteresting or bland reviewers.
Quote from: Madiel on July 14, 2020, 11:52:51 PM
Meanwhile, I think you'll find that every classical recording involves microphones anyway, so what the heck is this particular debate about?
Sure, and looking at it from that perspective, classical performers don't need any skills anymore, because they can just patch the Hammerklavier Sonata together in 30 second bits.
Quote from: MusicTurner on July 15, 2020, 02:05:54 AM
Hurwitz doesn't strike me as a real polyhistor or a very literary person (I think Jo498 actually shows more of the quality, an excellent example of the solid virtues of the German educational system ;) ), he's more of an entertainer, but at least he has a good deal of knowledge about earlier recordings & he is not afraid to present strong musical opinions and preferences. The absence of both those characteristics can be frustrating in the case of many other, much more uninteresting or bland reviewers.
Indeed. There aren't actually many sources of classical reviews these days, and Classics Today (not Hurwitz specifically) to my mind has better
writing than most of them.
Out of the ones that actually let me read anything, anyway. Free access to Gramophone works on some bizarre and erratic principle I can't figure out, and I think they're hideously expensive. MusicWeb International writing is not that good, and seems to consist largely of people who want to say something kind of nice about almost everything which frankly isn't helpful. It's actually better to have a reviewer whose quirks are apparent, and you can be familiar with them and adjust for your own tastes.
I don't know who else does reviews that go beyond 2 paragraphs.
So I've recently been considering subscribing to Classics Today. Having said that, I'm not sure I'm that thrilled with this new video review thing. Partly that might just be because it's new and the style needs work.
In another thread I wrote that I was positively surprised by some other Hurwitz videos. And I hope not only because I accidentally agreed with him on some thing. I also used to like Classics Today, especially 15 years or so ago when most/all was free. It wasn't great but better than most other free online sources and overall not bad.
I think he is competent in some fields, basically 19th and early 20th century orchestral but he often seems not only amateurish but to lack listening experience and affection for chamber and piano (for piano he does have Distler and another one? at Classics Today), baroque music and even more for vocal music. And of course he has a lot of fun heaping trash on artists or music he dislikes. But this is quite disappointing. A good critic would at least to a certain extent be able to show why so many artists and a considerable audience value e.g. Lieder (and a few also Reger's piano concerto...) so highly without calling it all mere pretentious elitism. And he should realize the obvious retort that DH could be called pretentious himself when pontificating about the "best Bruckner 4th".
And I'd rather forget the German education system. It was barely o.k. when I went through it in the 1980s and most of my historical, musical and literary knowledge I acquired through private reading. (To be fair my school education was fairly solid in maths and languages and for me German literature class did not spoil the fun of reading).
Admittedly, as a German (or maybe "old European") I dislike the cultivation of ignorance of foreign languages and anti-intellectual arrogance vs. "high culture" favored by some Americans. I can see that the pretentiousness often correlated with old European high culture does deserve some scorn but for a reviewer and popularizer of old European classical music this seems somewhat inconsistent. And I'd also defend great German poetry or even mediocre poetry like Wilhelm Müller against being set equal to "let's spend the night together, baby, it's now or never etc.
Fun fact: Müller's son Max was one of the founders of Indology (and was active mostly at Oxford university). He is still so well known in India that the "Goethe-Institute", the institutions for the promulgation of German culture abroad, are called instead "Max Mueller Bhavan" in India.
I don't think a reviewer should bother with reviews when they dislike an entire genre. Get someone else to do it.
Because the people reading the reviews are most likely to be people who do like the genre, or at least are interested in it. What those readers want to know are which works and which performances are the ones to seek out.
A review that says a chamber work isn't exciting doesn't mean a lot if the reviewer thinks chamber music in general isn't exciting.
Equally, it's not that helpful if someone basically says everything is great. Which plenty of people do.
I actually did some music reviews of 'pop music' for a short period some years ago, it was quite fun and very interesting because of the way the website worked. You had to get 5 different short reviews before they were published and the weighted score shown. Partly it was interesting because I was very frequently the score in the middle nearest the overall rating. But I stayed away from styles I wasn't familiar with or didn't understand, because there was far too much risk I would be responding to the style and not the specific performance. Sometimes I would try listening to something but not go on to write a review, at least until I'd listened to a few things in that category to see if they actually sounded different in quality to me.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 15, 2020, 03:09:24 AM
But this is quite disappointing. A good critic would at least to a certain extent be able to show why so many artists and a considerable audience value e.g. Lieder (and a few also Reger's piano concerto...) so highly without calling it all mere pretentious elitism. And he should realize the obvious retort that DH could be called pretentious himself when pontificating about the "best Bruckner 4th".
This feeding of the philistine instinct (including acting as if no normal human being could pronounce a German word - or any word outside English) and calling everything outside Beethoven and Mozart 'pretentious' is obviously counterproductive.
All cultural pursuits are to a degree liable to be called pretentious by outsiders. It's about exerting oneself in hopes of getting better and having some fun along the way. It's what parents do with their kids and it's what adults do with themselves if they want to be more than a digestive system on two legs.
I read Sophocles in the original at nights. Super pretentious, except nobody knows or cares. I do it because I like to make things hard for myself and experience beauty occasionally.
Having been a critic myself, I'm very suspicious of reading critics because of their fun writing. I know how easy 'fun writing' is. It leads (in the critics) to cynical posturing and opinion farts, and I believe what Hurwitz is aiming for in this new channel.
Quote from: Madiel on July 15, 2020, 03:28:27 AM
I don't think a reviewer should bother with reviews when they dislike an entire genre. Get someone else to do it.
What Hurwitz is doing is quite calculated. He knows some people think it's a great spectacle if a critic slams something.
And of course in the living arts it does make sense sometimes to review someting in a negative way, if the critic thinks this is not the way the art form should go. In that case it helps if the critic is a great critic, rather than just some guy in his home office laughing at his own jokes.
However it doesn't make the slightest sense if you're reviewing work that is over a century old, and, to boot, has not been part of a continuing school.
It's just about getting clicks.
Quote from: Herman on July 15, 2020, 03:38:16 AM
It's just about getting clicks.
...working tremendously well right now with your help, isn't it?
I have no idea.
It's a cynical question, if you don't mind me saying so.
Quote from: Herman on July 15, 2020, 03:46:33 AM
I have no idea.
It's a cynical question, if you don't mind me saying so.
I do mind you saying so, because how is it any different to you being cynical about Hurwitz' motives? All I'm doing is following on from that logically and pointing out that if his aim is to provoke a reaction, it's working very well. ON YOU.
You said it was a waste of time watching Hurwitz and then wrote another 4 reasonable length paragraphs about the experience of watching Hurwitz. Which certainly doesn't give the impression that watching him was boring.
You and Jo have started a whole conversation all about Hurwitz thanks to your outrage, on a thread that had been dead for 4 years. You've got a bunch of other people involved. We're all talking about and thinking about Hurwitz. If YOU think his motive is to get clicks -
you said that was his motive, not me - then how can you have no idea whether it's working when this forum is repeatedly talking about Hurwitz? Of course it's working.
And if you don't want it to work, your best strategy is to stop talking about Hurwitz!
Quote from: Madiel on July 15, 2020, 03:54:05 AM
I do mind you saying so, because how is it any different to you being cynical about Hurwitz' motives? All I'm doing is following on from that logically and pointing out that if his aim is to provoke a reaction, it's working very well. ON YOU.
You said it was a waste of time watching Hurwitz and then wrote another 4 reasonable length paragraphs about the experience of watching Hurwitz. Which certainly doesn't give the impression that watching him was boring.
You and Jo have started a whole conversation all about Hurwitz thanks to your outrage, on a thread that had been dead for 4 years. You've got a bunch of other people involved. We're all talking about and thinking about Hurwitz. If YOU think his motive is to get clicks - you said that was his motive, not me - then how can you have no idea whether it's working when this forum is repeatedly talking about Hurwitz? Of course it's working.
And if you don't want it to work, your best strategy is to stop talking about Hurwitz!
You hit the nail on the head. Amen!
Quote from: Jo498 on July 15, 2020, 12:01:10 AMGeneral Relativity Theory...
...is in no way analogous to classical music.
Even with the growing market in East Asia - and here objective data would be helpful to gauge how much it is growing there - classical music remains entirely irrelevant to almost all of humanity, including in the West. It always has been, and always will be. Fans typically assign far more importance to their passions than everyone else does.
I'm one who actually loves the Hurwitzer's videos on Youtube very much & all criticism of it leaves me cold. :)
Quote from: Christo on July 15, 2020, 04:39:47 AM
I'm one who actually loves the Hurwitzer's videos on Youtube very much & all criticism of it leaves me cold. :)
I'm only recently aware of them but I certainly enjoyed the ones on Pettersson's Symphony No.8 and Elgar's 2nd Symphony, whilst not agreeing with some of his verdicts. They are entertaining and informative and I don't take them too seriously. I've also realised that I have his book on the Shostakovich Symphonies and Concertos unless it's written by someone with the same name.
Concerning the Pettersson video review, there was a serious flaw though. The entertaining impromptu style, with only some key points apparently having been rehearsed, also meant that he disclosed himself not knowing how many symphonies P had composed; he suddenly guessed about maybe '11-12', when the reality is 16, plus an unfinished one, plus a symphonic movement.
If you are to review a composer of a bunch of major symphonies, including characterizing the composer and recommending symphonies ahead of the others, you at least have to know how many that were composed, & something about the later ones ... This was just disappointing.
Quote from: Madiel on July 15, 2020, 03:54:05 AM
You and Jo have started a whole conversation all about Hurwitz thanks to your outrage, on a thread that had been dead for 4 years.
Well, I guess that's what quarantine does...
I was not aware this topic was that old; as many do I just responded to the most recent post.
If people enjoy watching a man laughing at his own jokes, I am all for sending them there.
Quote from: Madiel on July 15, 2020, 02:46:15 AM
I don't know who else does reviews that go beyond 2 paragraphs.
I'm no Hurwitz, of course. (https://www.earrelevant.net/2020/07/cd-review-gabrieli-showcases-all-star-brass/)
Quote from: Herman on July 15, 2020, 03:29:41 AM
This feeding of the philistine instinct (including acting as if no normal human being could pronounce a German word - or any word outside English) and calling everything outside Beethoven and Mozart 'pretentious' is obviously counterproductive.
All cultural pursuits are to a degree liable to be called pretentious by outsiders. It's about exerting oneself in hopes of getting better and having some fun along the way. It's what parents do with their kids and it's what adults do with themselves if they want to be more than a digestive system on two legs.
I read Sophocles in the original at nights. Super pretentious, except nobody knows or cares. I do it because I like to make things hard for myself and experience beauty occasionally.
Having been a critic myself, I'm very suspicious of reading critics because of their fun writing. I know how easy 'fun writing' is. It leads (in the critics) to cynical posturing and opinion farts, and I believe what Hurwitz is aiming for in this new channel.
Bingo.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 15, 2020, 03:09:24 AM
(...)
And I'd rather forget the German education system. It was barely o.k. when I went through it in the 1980s and most of my historical, musical and literary knowledge I acquired through private reading. (To be fair my school education was fairly solid in maths and languages and for me German literature class did not spoil the fun of reading).
Admittedly, as a German (or maybe "old European") I dislike the cultivation of ignorance of foreign languages and anti-intellectual arrogance vs. "high culture" favored by some Americans. I can see that the pretentiousness often correlated with old European high culture does deserve some scorn but for a reviewer and popularizer of old European classical music this seems somewhat inconsistent. And I'd also defend great German poetry or even mediocre poetry like Wilhelm Müller against being set equal to "let's spend the night together, baby, it's now or never etc.
Fun fact: Müller's son Max was one of the founders of Indology (and was active mostly at Oxford university) (...)
As a side remark - when I studied at university in the 80s-90s, German sources (= library books, articles ... this was before the internet) would generally be a guarantee for factual knowledge in depth, and a cultural/societal analysis with substance. Whereas some of the French and English fashionable names, though innovative, were often much more idiosyncratic, vague, relativistic and fluffy in their approach, with the risks and - in the long term - possible deficits that might follow. I'm pretty sure that generally, the German school system is still better at creating a background of factual knowledge, than for instance ours in Denmark. There's a more serious approach, to that, I think.
Denmark shouldn't be too bad...
Quote from: Jo498 on July 15, 2020, 03:09:24 AM
most of my historical, musical and literary knowledge I acquired through private reading.
Me too; emphatically so actually. And not only history, literature and music. Heck, when in high school I much prefered to read books about the history of mathematics and physics (George Gamow, anyone?) or books about fun mathematics and physics (Martin Gardner, anyone?) rather than solving the dull and headscratching exercises in the dull and headscratching math and physics handbooks.
Quote from: Mark TwainI have never let my schooling interfere with my education
Quote from: Christo on July 15, 2020, 04:39:47 AM
I'm one who actually loves the Hurwitzer's videos on Youtube very much & all criticism of it leaves me cold. :)
+1 Regardless of whether or not I agree with his opinions, I find his videos enormously entertaining (I legitimately laugh out loud quite frequently during them) and his enthusiasm for music is so infectious. Not to mention he has so much knowledge of and enthusiasm for both the standard repertoire and lesser-known music (mainly orchestral, that is, but understandable since he's a percussionist). :)
Quote from: kyjo on July 15, 2020, 09:02:45 AM
+1 Regardless of whether or not I agree with his opinions, I find his videos enormously entertaining (I legitimately laugh out loud quite frequently during them)
Yep.
This one (about Svetlanov's Mahler cycle), in particular, cracked me up: https://youtu.be/UBvECavsdog
How deep you find his knowledge kind of depends on your own knowledge.
As others have noted, he says a lot of ignorant things.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2020, 07:19:33 AM
I'm no Hurwitz, of course. (https://www.earrelevant.net/2020/07/cd-review-gabrieli-showcases-all-star-brass/)
Great review, Karl! Well done.
And look at you cleverly grabbing clicks from a thread dedicated to hating on Hurwitz. But be careful, become too controversial and we might start a new thread about you 8)
I subscribe to the Hurwitz video-circus. They are entertaining, sometimes informative, sometimes cringe-worthy, and I wish we had more similar video-discussions on classical music out there. Maybe there is and I haven't found them, or maybe we should start our own, a GMG YouTube Channel :)
Quote from: Herman on July 15, 2020, 09:46:17 AM
How deep you find his knowledge kind of depends on your own knowledge.
As others have noted, he says a lot of ignorant things.
Yeah, I don't subscribe to the Hurwitz fan club and never have liked him since I started to seriously dive into this music. His opinion isn't any more viable or important than my own. It's pretty sickening the amount of people that kiss his ass and shower him with superlatives. The man has done NOTHING. He's just a man with an opinion.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 15, 2020, 09:59:54 AM
Great review, Karl! Well done.
And look at you cleverly grabbing clicks from a thread dedicated to hating on Hurwitz. But be careful, become too controversial and we might start a new thread about you 8)
Damn it, I knew the risks!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2020, 10:06:13 AM
Damn it, I knew the risks!
And Karl, your review, on the other hand, was informative and actually was enjoyable to read even if I'm not particularly interested in the repertoire that you were reviewing.
Quote from: Herman on July 15, 2020, 09:46:17 AM
How deep you find his knowledge kind of depends on your own knowledge.
As others have noted, he says a lot of ignorant things.
There is a Zen story which applies exactly to you and the Hurwitzer.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 15, 2020, 10:05:42 AM
It's pretty sickening the amount of people that kiss his ass and shower him with superlatives. The man has done NOTHING. He's just a man with an opinion.
John, you seem outraged. It's alright to not like him or his criticism, but don't let it get to you too much. :)
Quote from: kyjo on July 15, 2020, 09:02:45 AM
+1 Regardless of whether or not I agree with his opinions, I find his videos enormously entertaining (I legitimately laugh out loud quite frequently during them) and his enthusiasm for music is so infectious. Not to mention he has so much knowledge of and enthusiasm for both the standard repertoire and lesser-known music (mainly orchestral, that is, but understandable since he's a percussionist). :)
Yeah, he never forgets to mention the tam-tam, if there's a part for it.
Otherwise - he's just a guy who's listened to a ton of recordings, has his own prejudices and blind spots, and is fairly upfront about them. As such, he's as useful or not as most critics.
I am one of those who enjoy the Hurwitz videos. Many times I don't agree with what he says, other times I don't give a damn about what he says (in the sense that I won't watch a video on a piece/composer/artist/recording I have no interest in), but other times there is informative stuff in his speeches, and they tend to be entertaining (bad jokes and all).
The man has gained some points with me recently, though ;): I listened to the Pfitzner Piano Concerto once (some 25 years ago), and the thought of it still gives me shivers. One of the ugliest pieces of music by a (kinda) major composer I've ever encountered. ::)
Quote from: Christo on July 15, 2020, 04:39:47 AM
I'm one who actually loves the Hurwitzer's videos on Youtube very much & all criticism of it leaves me cold. :)
I enjoy them. I don't watch regularly, but Monday listened to his Elgar and Zubin Mehta videos and a couple others while cleaning the bathroom. They're fun, and some of the people here are taking them waaaay too seriously. :)
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 15, 2020, 10:05:42 AM
The man has done NOTHING.
He's a former orchestral musician who arranged American premieres of a number of big European works like George Lloyd symphonies.
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2020, 10:39:28 AM
He's a former orchestral musician who arranged American premieres of a number of big European works like George Lloyd symphonies.
And, yet, I still stand by my initial comment.
Quote from: Mirror Image on July 15, 2020, 10:05:42 AM
It's pretty sickening the amount of people that kiss his ass and shower him with superlatives.
Who, for instance?
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2020, 10:39:28 AM
He's a former orchestral musician who arranged American premieres of a number of big European works like George Lloyd symphonies.
He's also written some guidebooks to some big-name composers (Mahler and Haydn, maybe others). You can like these books or not, but I think they count as "something."
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2020, 10:37:34 AMThey're fun, and some of the people here are taking them waaaay too seriously.
This.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 15, 2020, 10:11:04 AM
John, you seem outraged. It's alright to not like him or his criticism, but don't let it get to you too much. :)
I'm not outraged just more puzzled that people put so much stock into his opinion.
I don't really think people put much stock in his opinions, they're simply entertained by him (that's my case, at least).
Good day, John!
Quote from: ritter on July 15, 2020, 11:38:31 AM
I don't really think people put much stock in his opinions, they're simply entertained by him (that's my case, at least).
Good day, John!
I sure hope that's the case. G'day to you as well, Rafael. 8)
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on July 15, 2020, 10:44:47 AM
He's also written some guidebooks to some big-name composers (Mahler and Haydn, maybe others). You can like these books or not, but I think they count as "something."
Indeed.
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2020, 10:39:28 AM
He's a former orchestral musician who arranged American premieres of a number of big European works like George Lloyd symphonies.
Well, he's certainly got my respect for that! :)
And yeah, a lot of folks here are taking him wayyyy too seriously. Music is, of course, so subjective and we can't get offended whenever someone has a different opinion of it than we do. Yes, he has strong opinions, but he nowhere does he state (to my knowledge) that his opinion is the last word or that it's above anyone else's. He's simply another music lover sharing his thoughts.
Quote from: Old San Antone on July 15, 2020, 04:11:28 PM
I don't follow his blog, nor do I place any importance on his reviews. But, he is an ass. :laugh:
Word.
Quote from: Old San Antone on July 15, 2020, 04:11:28 PM
I don't follow his blog, nor do I place any importance on his reviews. But, he is an ass. :laugh:
Absolutely. ;D
Quote from: ritter on July 15, 2020, 10:32:30 AM
The man has gained some points with me recently, though ;): I listened to the Pfitzner Piano Concerto once (some 25 years ago), and the thought of it still gives me shivers. One of the ugliest pieces of music by a (kinda) major composer I've ever encountered. ::)
Did you listen past the first movement? ;) It's definitely the weakest of the four; the remaining three are much stronger IMO, especially the middle two. The boisterous scherzo is really catchy and the intimate slow movement quite lovely.
Quote from: kyjo on July 15, 2020, 05:39:32 PM
Did you listen past the first movement? ;) It's definitely the weakest of the four; the remaining three are much stronger IMO, especially the middle two. The boisterous scherzo is really catchy and the intimate slow movement quite lovely.
Rafael's tastes are very different to ours, so I don't have high expectations he is going to change his mind about the Pfitzner. ;)
Quote from: MusicTurner on July 15, 2020, 05:07:44 AM
Concerning the Pettersson video review, there was a serious flaw though. The entertaining impromptu style, with only some key points apparently having been rehearsed, also meant that he disclosed himself not knowing how many symphonies P had composed; he suddenly guessed about maybe '11-12', when the reality is 16, plus an unfinished one, plus a symphonic movement.
If you are to review a composer of a bunch of major symphonies, including characterizing the composer and recommending symphonies ahead of the others, you at least have to know how many that were composed, & something about the later ones ... This was just disappointing.
Yes. I agree. That's a fair point. It hardly takes complex research skills to work out how many symphonies Pettersson composed!
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on July 15, 2020, 07:34:14 PM
Rafael's tastes are very different to ours, so I don't have high expectations he is going to change his mind about the Pfitzner. ;)
I think you are right,
Cesar. :D
I have watched a couple. The Elgar 2 is OK even if I didn't agree with his assessment of Barbirolli. I enjoyed the one on the Beethoven piano concertos but his talk on Holst band music is so boring I gave up.
Something very similar but with a different style of delivery https://youtu.be/z-okey4m_gA
What is it with late middle-aged white dudes and messy stacks of CDs? Late middle-aged white dudes have heard of downloads and ripping, yes?
Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2020, 07:16:03 AM
What is it with late middle-aged white dudes and messy stacks of CDs? Late middle-aged white dudes have heard of downloads and ripping, yes?
Yes, and this one has also heard of streaming. I download and stream. Ripping is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. Perhaps I am just a natural hoarder and can't bear to part with LPs, CDs etc.
Quote from: Irons on July 17, 2020, 07:00:12 AM
I have watched a couple. The Elgar 2 is OK even if I didn't agree with his assessment of Barbirolli. I enjoyed the one on the Beethoven piano concertos but his talk on Holst band music is so boring I gave up.
Something very similar but with a different style of delivery https://youtu.be/z-okey4m_gA
Cool! I didn't know that he was doing online video reviews! Listened to part of it. Loved it when he talked about playing some Bartok for some kids who came in there want some pop music, but left with the Bartok and his subsequent comment about that! ;D
PD
Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2020, 07:16:03 AM
What is it with late middle-aged white dudes and messy stacks of CDs? Late middle-aged white dudes have heard of downloads and ripping, yes?
I was just thinking (and was going to add onto my posting) that I'm dying to see what goodies he has in there...CDs, books...and, yes, maybe downloads too? :D
Wondering what record labels are doing these days in terms of sending out promos? I'd imagine that there would be a way to allow certain people to download a copy for free in order to review it? Also, it would save on postage!
PD
This thread should be renamed "Anyone whom I disagree with is an ass...."
Or better still "Anyone whom I disagree with and I can't simply ignore is an ass...."
Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2020, 07:16:03 AM
What is it with late middle-aged white dudes and messy stacks of CDs? Late middle-aged white dudes have heard of downloads and ripping, yes?
Speaking for myself I much prefer hard copy CDs.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 17, 2020, 12:53:56 PM
Speaking for myself I much prefer hard copy CDs.
Jeffrey,
Is there a way which you could get a free download should you wish to review something for a record company? Do they give you that option?
PD
p.s. Just saw friend today (the one good at building things) and mentioned again about shelving. Lumber prices have apparently gone up as well as scarcity too for the time being, but I'd like to price some things out. Have you had to have extra CD/LP shelving built for your home?
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 17, 2020, 12:40:02 PM
Wondering what record labels are doing these days in terms of sending out promos? I'd imagine that there would be a way to allow certain people to download a copy for free in order to review it? Also, it would save on postage!
PD
As a former amateur critic - Naxos has switched to all online promo copies for labels it distributes. Critics get 8 full album downloads per month and they can request more after 8, or specially request a physical copy. BIS also allows critics to download high res files, using a payment box which is endearingly called "Free for testing purposes."
Hurwitz has occasionally mentioned in reviews when he purchased his copy, usually of an import from Italy or Japan which isn't sold in the US.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 17, 2020, 12:53:56 PM
Speaking for myself I much prefer hard copy CDs.
+ 1
I still love the CD medium and I don't really see this changing.
Quote from: Florestan on July 17, 2020, 12:45:43 PM
This thread should be renamed "Anyone whom I disagree with is an ass...."
Or better still "Anyone whom I disagree with and I can't simply ignore is an ass...."
Well I don't seek Herb-wits out for entertainment, but I don't believe that anyone here who finds him entertaining, is an ass . . . .
Videos. Visual. Try holding a download or stream in your hand. Of course CDs are a better visual.
Quote from: Brian on July 17, 2020, 02:26:15 PM
As a former amateur critic - Naxos has switched to all online promo copies for labels it distributes. Critics get 8 full album downloads per month and they can request more after 8, or specially request a physical copy. BIS also allows critics to download high res files, using a payment box which is endearingly called "Free for testing purposes."
Hurwitz has occasionally mentioned in reviews when he purchased his copy, usually of an import from Italy or Japan which isn't sold in the US.
Thanks for the info Brian; I had suspected that. Hope that they still keep manufacturing CDs for quite a while longer, but it's not looking good.
Best wishes,
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 17, 2020, 02:44:01 PM
Thanks for the info Brian; I had suspected that. Hope that they still keep manufacturing CDs for quite a while longer, but it's not looking good.
Best wishes,
PD
People have been predicting the demise of physical media since Napster hit the scene. I have been promised a paperless office for even longer.
Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2020, 02:49:01 PM
People have been predicting the demise of physical media since Napster hit the scene. I have been promised a paperless office for even longer.
lol We'll see...of course now vinyl is taking off (again)!
PD
Quote from: Old San Antone on July 15, 2020, 04:11:28 PM
I don't follow his blog, nor do I place any importance on his reviews.
Likewise. Also, I prefer reading and I find the concept of the "video review" of CD's a spectacularly dim idea, especially if it's just talking and not e.g. playing and commenting on musical examples, in which case the video format would indeed add some actual value instead of just being a waste of time.
Quote from: Wanderer on July 17, 2020, 10:04:37 PM
Likewise. Also, I prefer reading and I find the concept of the "video review" of CD's a spectacularly dim idea, especially if it's just talking and not e.g. playing and commenting on musical examples, in which case the video format would indeed add some actual value instead of just being a waste of time.
Same here, I watched several and was puzzled at the format. I prefer to read reviews than watch some guy in his den spout. I think he falls into the space we often identify here, which is: If I don't like it, it must be crap. His criticism seems as much about ego and the fun of the put down as knowledge. I read his review of Barbirolli's Mahler 9th last night, he so relishes trashing certain conductors, it's a kind of dishonesty really.
Reading through thIs thread, I learned of his views on lieder. What a tosser. He doesn't get it, doesn't like it, so it must be crap.
Of course, when he does agree with my views, I think he is OK.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on July 17, 2020, 10:56:52 PM
Same here, I watched several and was puzzled at the format. I prefer to read reviews than watch some guy in his den spout. I think he falls into the space we often identify here, which is: If I don't like it, it must be crap. His criticism seems as much about ego and the fun of the put down as knowledge. I read his review of Barbirolli's Mahler 9th last night, he so relishes trashing certain conductors, it's a kind of dishonesty really.
Reading through thIs thread, I learned of his views on lieder. What a tosser. He doesn't get it, doesn't like it, so it must be crap.
Of course, when he does agree with my views, I think he is OK.
Mike
Mike - I completely agree with your view - so you must be right (joke! :))
Quote from: Roasted Swan on July 17, 2020, 11:22:07 PM
Mike - I completely agree with your view - so you must be right (joke! :))
That makes us both right, which is just so satisfying.
Mike
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 17, 2020, 02:38:29 PM
Well I don't seek Herb-wits out for entertainment, but I don't believe that anyone here who finds him entertaining, is an ass . . . .
Masterful ;)
I enjoy Hurwitz's videos for the most part. But it has to be admitted that he often purposely expresses himself in a way meant to be annoying or even boorish. Who can forget "Kathleen Ferrier: England's Greatest Contralto, or Fruit Basket?"
https://www.classicstoday.com/kathleen-ferrier-englands-greatest-contralto-or-fruit-basket/
Quote from: knight66 on July 17, 2020, 10:56:52 PM
Same here, I watched several and was puzzled at the format. I prefer to read reviews than watch some guy in his den spout.
There's also the thing that these youtubes run up to 25 minutes if I recall. Compared to reading a Classics Today review in a couple minutes, that's just a massive waste of time, which you'll never get back, especially if it's just watching a guy laugh at his own jokes.
The review videos are not quite that long (but too long already), the longest ones are usually the "repertoire" when he goes through a lot of different recordings. Some of them I found interesting enough. I also like the idea of the "prequels/sequels" of somewhat less famous to more famous works. IIRC the BBC music magazine did have a similar series in the 1990s (the only time I somewhat regularly read it was in the mid-1990s), titled somewhat differently, something like "What to listen to after X?"
Quote from: Herman on July 18, 2020, 01:40:45 AM
There's also the thing that these youtubes run up to 25 minutes if I recall. Compared to reading a Classics Today review in a couple minutes, that's just a massive waste of time, which you'll never get back, especially if it's just watching a guy laugh at his own jokes.
Yes, of course it could be used like radio and You do something else while keeping an ear open. Looking at him is no aesthetic pleasure. But really, listening to him does me no good either.
Mike
Quote from: Wanderer on July 17, 2020, 10:04:37 PM
Likewise. Also, I prefer reading and I find the concept of the "video review" of CD's a spectacularly dim idea, especially if it's just talking and not e.g. playing and commenting on musical examples, in which case the video format would indeed add some actual value instead of just being a waste of time.
It takes nothing away from your point, to appreciate the oxymoron "spectacularly dim" 8)
Quote from: Wanderer on July 17, 2020, 10:04:37 PM
Likewise. Also, I prefer reading and I find the concept of the "video review" of CD's a spectacularly dim idea, especially if it's just talking and not e.g. playing and commenting on musical examples,
In the Elgar video he inserts musical examples played over a freeze-frame of his face. I think I saw a bit of score once, but generally I listen while cleaning house, effectively turning the videos into podcasts. Maybe he should consider podcasts.
Quote from: knight66 on July 17, 2020, 10:56:52 PM
Of course, when he does agree with my views, I think he is OK.
Mike
Isn't it funny how that works? ;) ;D
Best,
PD
p.s. I did quite enjoy what I watched of Rob Cowan's review...the one that Irons had posted a link to earlier. I have enjoyed reading his reviews in the past and liked how (on YT) he played some samples illustrating his comments too.
I watched his video on the Reger and Pfitzner concertos. I don't particularly like the Reger and don't think I've ever listened to the Pfitzner, though I haven't liked any of the music I've heard by him, but Hurwitz's argument against Reger's use of sonata form struck me as bizarre. If he doesn't think the harmonic language of the concerto is based on tonal conflict and resolution, what does he think it's based on?
(Also, isn't it past time to retire the idea that "sonata form" movements that aren't based on tonality are somehow flawed, after a century of successful examples, starting from La mer at the earliest?)
I like Pfitzner's Palestrina (Kubelik recording), with the caveat that "like" here means that I ignore the plot and just wallow in the orchestration. I'm also very fond of his Symphony in C Major, Op. 46.
(https://images.universal-music.de/img/assets/101/101194/4/720/palestrina-0028942741724.jpg)
[asin] B008P76VBW[/asin]
Let's be fair and allow David to speak for himself...
https://www.youtube.com/v/c_f6fkrSfqg&t=149s
Quote from: Todd on July 17, 2020, 07:16:03 AM
What is it with late middle-aged white dudes and messy stacks of CDs? Late middle-aged white dudes have heard of downloads and ripping, yes?
You do realise he's just sitting in front of a green backdrop and all that shelving is just a stock photo taken in some junk shop.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 19, 2020, 07:29:50 AM
Let's be fair and allow David to speak for himself...
https://www.youtube.com/v/c_f6fkrSfqg&t=149s
Quite interesting to watch that. Thank you for posting it! :)
PD
At least he likes Koechlin, so I'll give him kudos for that:
https://www.youtube.com/v/1hJxB37LYC0
https://www.youtube.com/v/zy81JZ_iRlY
Just watched his good, fun "big box sets we need" video and four of the 11 were already on my list of future box sets I'd have to buy (Ormandy/Columbia, Slatkin/RCA, Markevitch/DG, complete Orpheus Chamber Orchestra). Added a couple more to my list. Killing my hypothetical future budget, Dave!
Quote from: Brian on July 23, 2020, 02:16:56 PM
Just watched his good, fun "big box sets we need" video and four of the 11 were already on my list of future box sets I'd have to buy (Ormandy/Columbia, Slatkin/RCA, Markevitch/DG, complete Orpheus Chamber Orchestra). Added a couple more to my list. Killing my hypothetical future budget, Dave!
Dave,
Between this site and youtube, it's like being with Jason sailing on the seas and hearing the sirens calling!
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 24, 2020, 03:15:28 AM
Dave,
Between this site and youtube, it's like being with Jason sailing on the seas and hearing the sirens calling!
PD
Verily.
Not an ass by any means. His grasp on the recordings of Moeran's symphony and the work itself is impressive. He even mentioned the Dilkes recording which in my view the best and not available on CD I believe.
https://youtu.be/wJymxkTi8Vc
Quote from: Irons on July 28, 2020, 05:41:03 AM
Not an ass by any means. His grasp on the recordings of Moeran's symphony and the work itself is impressive. He even mentioned the Dilkes recording which in my view the best and not available on CD I believe.
https://youtu.be/wJymxkTi8Vc
The Dilkes recording is available on CD, as a used item on the market place. It's my favourite version of the work. I know it through Jeffrey's advocacy ;).
Quote from: André on July 28, 2020, 06:40:38 AM
The Dilkes recording is available on CD, as a used item on the market place. It's my favourite version of the work. I know it through Jeffrey's advocacy ;).
Excellent. Thanks for correction.
I've been rather unfair with this gent. I've been watching several of his videos and I've changed my mind about him. His stuff is informative, insightful and has a huge touch of good humour. But above all I admire his enthusiasm and certain impudence to share his knowledge and tastes. It's rather infectious, isn't it? I don't stumble upon people who have that spark to convey that authentic passion about classical music. I really admire that, and, of course, I feel fully identified with that behavior. And what about when he hums a tune while explaining? Very hilarious! I don't share many of his views on recordings and works, though, but I've found many of his reviews and comparisons spot on.
Quote from: André on July 28, 2020, 06:40:38 AM
The Dilkes recording is available on CD, as a used item on the market place. It's my favourite version of the work. I know it through Jeffrey's advocacy ;).
That recording had a huge impact on me when I bought the LP in the Record Dept. of Harrods when I worked there in my university summer holidays.
I recently watched and greatly enjoyed Mr Hurwitz's tribute to the conductor Maurice Abravanel and the Utah SO on the Vanguard label, focusing on CDs of music by Milhaud, Varese VW, Satie and Honegger.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 30, 2020, 03:36:30 AM
...I recently watched and greatly enjoyed Mr Hurwitz's tribute to the conductor Maurice Abravanel and the Utah SO on the Vanguard label, focusing on CDs of music by Milhaud, Varese VW, Satie and Honegger.
+1....and as proof thereof, https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21529.msg1309253.html#msg1309253
:)
Quote from: ritter on July 30, 2020, 03:42:07 AM
+1....and as proof thereof, https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21529.msg1309253.html#msg1309253
:)
Excellent!
The way in which he says 'Hello!' at the start of his presentations amuses me.
Can we please change the name of this thread to something less insulting? Just taking out the offending word would be the bare minimum. Thank you.
Hurwitz has a bunch of pet peeves and oddball favorites and he uses especially the former to provoke people (create traffic). It's been like that on ClassicsToday for a long time. Some of his bêtes noires are Rattle, Furtwängler, Horenstein, Norrington (and to a lesser extent historically oriented musicians in general), historical recordings, Lieder and the fans of all these artists or genres. Some of his obsessions are percussion, especially tamtam and string vibrato.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 30, 2020, 03:47:11 AM
Can we please change the name of this thread to something less insulting? Just taking out the offending word would be the bare minimum. Thank you.
+1
Quote from: mc ukrneal on July 30, 2020, 03:47:11 AM
Can we please change the name of this thread to something less insulting? Just taking out the offending word would be the bare minimum. Thank you.
Quote from: Christo on July 30, 2020, 04:56:33 AM
+1
+2
The thread title as-is gets more clicks. I suspect Mr Hurwitz would be fine with it if he paid any attention to this site.
Quote from: Todd on July 30, 2020, 06:36:27 AM
The thread title as-is gets more clicks. I suspect Mr Hurwitz would be fine with it if he paid any attention to this site.
He'd probably find this whole thread quite amusing (especially the edited/removed first post). Maybe we should forward it.
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on July 29, 2020, 06:13:52 PM
I've been rather unfair with this gent. I've been watching several of his videos and I've changed my mind about him. His stuff is informative, insightful and has a huge touch of good humour. But above all I admire his enthusiasm and certain impudence to share his knowledge and tastes. It's rather infectious, isn't it? I don't stumble upon people who have that spark to convey that authentic passion about classical music. I really admire that, and, of course, I feel fully identified with that behavior. And what about when he hums a tune while explaining? Very hilarious! I don't share many of his views on recordings and works, though, but I've found many of his reviews and comparisons spot on.
Welcome to the club!
Hurwitz has more pages in his thread than Alban Berg's.
And his videos continue to be a great watch. I also found out a few years ago that a book I bought back in high school, around 1993, titled Beethoven or Bust was written by Hurwitz. I believe it was his first book too.
I noticed a little while ago that someone has adjusted the thread's name. :)
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 30, 2020, 08:02:44 AM
I noticed a little while ago that someone has adjusted the thread's name. :)
PD
For which I offer my thanks!
Quote from: Jo498 on July 30, 2020, 03:52:59 AM
Hurwitz has a bunch of pet peeves and oddball favorites and he uses especially the former to provoke people (create traffic). It's been like that on ClassicsToday for a long time. Some of his bêtes noires are Rattle, Furtwängler, Horenstein, Norrington (and to a lesser extent historically oriented musicians in general), historical recordings, Lieder and the fans of all these artists or genres. Some of his obsessions are percussion, especially tamtam and string vibrato.
I very much agree with him about Rattle and Norrington but totally disagree with his verdict on Horenstein and Furtwangler.
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on July 29, 2020, 06:13:52 PM
I've been rather unfair with this gent. I've been watching several of his videos and I've changed my mind about him. His stuff is informative, insightful and has a huge touch of good humour. But above all I admire his enthusiasm and certain impudence to share his knowledge and tastes. It's rather infectious, isn't it? I don't stumble upon people who have that spark to convey that authentic passion about classical music. I really admire that, and, of course, I feel fully identified with that behavior. And what about when he hums a tune while explaining? Very hilarious! I don't share many of his views on recordings and works, though, but I've found many of his reviews and comparisons spot on.
I would largely agree with this. I definitely don't agree with all of his picks, but he's definitely knowledgeable and IMO the videos are worth the time if the repertoire under discussion is of interest. I've watched quite a few and enjoyed them.
As Hurwitz himself points out in one of videos, it can be very difficult sometimes to convey a sense of humor in writing -- a statement that might seem simplistic or needlessly argumentative in print can come across very differently when you can hear the tone of his voice and see the twinkle in his eye. I suspect the same thing happens quite often on this forum actually -- a lot of the misunderstandings and arguments we get into would probably never happen if we were in the same room, or could at least see and hear the cues that contribute to a good conversation... alas, there are inevitable downsides to a text-based format such as this... :-\
I see posters here saying they don't agree with Hurwitz 100% of the time, and that includes me saying that as well. But I've also never read, or watched, a critic of any art form that I agreed with 100% of the time, I don't see that being possible. I really enjoy reading negative reviews, or criticisms, that I don't agree with, or those that have a different opinion of mine. It helps me to experience the piece from a side I may have missed, or ignored. Or it could even confirm my opinion. Of course I would need more than a "I just didn't like it" review to make it worth it.
When shopping I often find myself seeking out negative reviews of that product, or service, more than I do the positive reviews. Anyone else find themselves doing this?
Quote from: j winter on July 30, 2020, 11:43:12 AM
I would largely agree with this. I definitely don't agree with all of his picks, but he's definitely knowledgeable and IMO the videos are worth the time if the repertoire under discussion is of interest. I've watched quite a few and enjoyed them.
As Hurwitz himself points out in one of videos, it can be very difficult sometimes to convey a sense of humor in writing -- a statement that might seem simplistic or needlessly argumentative in print can come across very differently when you can hear the tone of his voice and see the twinkle in his eye. I suspect the same thing happens quite often on this forum actually -- a lot of the misunderstandings and arguments we get into would probably never happen if we were in the same room, or could at least see and hear the cues that contribute to a good conversation... alas, there are inevitable downsides to a text-based format such as this... :-\
Very good point about text-based communications.
Quote from: vandermolen on July 30, 2020, 10:55:46 AM
I very much agree with him about Rattle and Norrington but totally disagree with his verdict on Horenstein and Furtwangler.
Exactly.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 30, 2020, 12:09:20 PM
I see posters here saying they don't agree with Hurwitz 100% of the time, and that includes me saying that as well. But I've also never read, or watched, a critic of any art form that I agreed with 100% of the time, I don't see that being possible. I really enjoy reading negative reviews, or criticisms, that I don't agree with, or those that have a different opinion of mine. It helps me to experience the piece from a side I may have missed, or ignored. Or it could even confirm my opinion. Of course I would need more than a "I just didn't like it" review to make it worth it.
When shopping I often find myself seeking out negative reviews of that product, or service, more than I do the positive reviews. Anyone else find themselves doing this?
Good sense!
Quote from: vandermolen on July 30, 2020, 10:55:46 AM
I very much agree with him about Rattle and Norrington but totally disagree with his verdict on Horenstein and Furtwangler.
It's not just his opinions on these conductors, these are very old feuds he picked himself (he got kicked off a Horenstein listserv, for example), and that Dave keeps coming back to again and again in a tiresome way. I've already mentioned his tendency toward boorishness and trolling (https://www.classicstoday.com/kathleen-ferrier-englands-greatest-contralto-or-fruit-basket/). That said, I really enjoy the repertoire videos, not so much the attack vids.
Quote from: Daverz on July 30, 2020, 04:14:51 PM
It's not just his opinions on these conductors, these are very old feuds he picked himself (he got kicked off a Horenstein listserv, for example)
Perhaps because he is an ass....
Quote from: Jo498 on July 30, 2020, 03:52:59 AM
Some of his bêtes noires are Rattle, Furtwängler, Horenstein, Norrington
I like recordings by all of these conductors (except Norrington, whose work I haven't really heard). None the less, sometimes Hurwitz can be worthwhile, as when he points out specific problems or issues in their recordings. I note that he often includes score references when he really wants to trash something, but never when he's being positive.
He does have his favorite conductors as well - never heard him say anything bad about Klemperer, Ancerl, or Giulini.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 30, 2020, 12:09:20 PM
I see posters here saying they don't agree with Hurwitz 100% of the time, and that includes me saying that as well. But I've also never read, or watched, a critic of any art form that I agreed with 100% of the time, I don't see that being possible.
Ain't it the truth. BTW I bought that
Beethoven or Bust book also, ages ago and secondhand.
Anyway, Hurwitz is one of the critics who turned me on to Martinu, along with Jim Svejda. So I will be eternally grateful for that.
He has made an enthusiastic Youtube video about Einar Englund. 0:)
Quote from: Daverz on July 30, 2020, 04:14:51 PM
It's not just his opinions on these conductors, these are very old feuds he picked himself (he got kicked off a Horenstein listserv, for example), and that Dave keeps coming back to again and again in a tiresome way. I've already mentioned his tendency toward boorishness and trolling (https://www.classicstoday.com/kathleen-ferrier-englands-greatest-contralto-or-fruit-basket/). That said, I really enjoy the repertoire videos, not so much the attack vids.
Very well put. I don't want him to agree with my preferences (he has a right to be wrong and so have I) but he can be very tiresome in preaching about his dislikes and especially about the stupid fans who are not able to see through the undeserved reputations of Furtwängler, Horenstein etc. As you said, these feuds are also too old to give Hurwitz any credit for pushing someone from a pedestal.
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on July 30, 2020, 12:09:20 PM
I see posters here saying they don't agree with Hurwitz 100% of the time, and that includes me saying that as well. But I've also never read, or watched, a critic of any art form that I agreed with 100% of the time, I don't see that being possible. I really enjoy reading negative reviews, or criticisms, that I don't agree with, or those that have a different opinion of mine. It helps me to experience the piece from a side I may have missed, or ignored. Or it could even confirm my opinion. Of course I would need more than a "I just didn't like it" review to make it worth it.
When shopping I often find myself seeking out negative reviews of that product, or service, more than I do the positive reviews. Anyone else find themselves doing this?
Good point. Me too re. the reviews.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 30, 2020, 07:26:34 PM
He has made an enthusiastic Youtube video about Einar Englund. 0:)
Yes, I've just spotted that.
Just watched his Walton 1 video. His enthusiasm for the symphony is without question and found of most interest his comments on the difficulty for the orchestra to play this symphony well. Haitink will not have Hurwitz on his Christmas card list for sure. His top choice held no surprises and I have no argument, but disappointing that he didn't audition Sargent.
Quote from: Irons on July 31, 2020, 06:37:13 AM
Just watched his Walton 1 video. His enthusiasm for the symphony is without question and found of most interest his comments on the difficulty for the orchestra to play this symphony well. Haitink will not have Hurwitz on his Christmas card list for sure. His top choice held no surprises and I have no argument, but disappointing that he didn't audition Sargent.
Yes, poor Sir Malcolm. His Walton Symphony No.1 is only appreciated by you, me and one or two others here 8)
I disagree with him a lot but at least he's got a great sense of humor even when he's dead wrong --- and in my book this is a big plus.
Besides, if some guy posting Youtube reviews can really make another guy lose their sleep over it then it's the latter guy's problem, not the former's.
Heck, the Earth would not stop revolving around the Sun and the world's troubles would not come to a halt just because someone is wrong on the internet.
A little more sense of proportion and perspective plus a little more relaxation and nonchalance would help enormously some people, methinks. For instance, I don't see how anyone can find Hurwitz tiresome except someone who constantly watches his videos or read his reviews --- but then again why would one do just that to begin with?
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2020, 07:01:10 AM
Heck, the Earth would not stop revolving around the Sun and the world's troubles would not come to a halt just because someone is wrong on the internet.
You mean that there is someone who is wrong on the internet [Insert blinking eyes.]?! :o ???
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 31, 2020, 09:26:58 AM
You mean that there is someone who is wrong on the internet [Insert blinking eyes.]?! :o ???
PD
Yes. His username is Florestan and he posts on GMG. He had been repeatedly trying to convince his wife that he's right both
on the internet and
about posting on the internet, but he hasn't made much headway.
;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 31, 2020, 09:37:33 AM
Yes. His username is Florestan and he posts on GMG. He had been repeatedly trying to convince his wife that he's right both on the internet and about posting on the internet, but he hasn't made much headway.
;D
:laugh: :)
I find this thread entertaining .... 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 31, 2020, 11:55:58 AM
I find this thread entertaining .... 8)
"The next show will be at 7 p.m. tonight. Please come and bring your family and friends."
PD
Quote from: Jo498 on July 30, 2020, 03:52:59 AM
Hurwitz has a bunch of pet peeves and oddball favorites
Which of us does not?
He can have them, but as Daverz pointed out, Hurwitz tends to overdo it in a predictable fashion, so for people who have not read him for years it might be entertaining for a while but for others it's like grinding horse skeletons to dust.
I also think that a professional critic could be held to slightly higher standards than some random dude on the internet.
Really?
You're basically criticising him for being a human being and having opinions.
If you want objective reviews, get them from an algorithm. The notion of the objective reviewer is a fantasy that people keep reaching for whenever a reviewer's personal preferences don't align with their own. Reviewers are most useful when you know and understand their personal tastes and how they align (or don't) with your own, not when you insist that the reviewer irons them out and doesn't tell you what they genuinely, personally thought.
The only people who don't have opinions on a subject are people who don't care about a subject. And having people that don't care about a subject writing reviews in that field is just pointless.
No, this is of course not the criticism. Didn't you read what I wrote? I wrote explicitly that it is not about clashing personal preferences; e.g. I am not even sure I have ever heard a recording by Horenstein and don't really have strong (or myself rather mixed) opinions on Rattle, Furtwängler or Norrington but I still find Hurwitz ranting about them literally for decades very silly and the extent to which he does it should be beneath a serious professional critic.
Apparently you have not had such a long acquaintance with Hurwitz's ramblings on certain topics. One can simply stay silent about a topic instead of annoyingly overdoing it. Like bringing up stuff like string vibrato and the tam tam parts all the time, even if not central to a particular review. Or simply not review Reger recordings, if one doesn't care for the music instead of trashing a lesser known composer, basically a cheap shot.
But here we have another quandary because a professional critic might not want to admit that he knows not that much about a certain field (e.g. vocal music) and obviously many people never shut up. To be fair, Hurwitz had solved this for Classics Today by leaving stuff he didn't know very well or care about to others. E.g. they have/had Jed Distler and I think another guy doing most of the solo piano reviews and similarly for opera/vocal stuff.
I've been reading Classics Today reviews for a number of years.
Can't be arsed with the videos.
I also like how coronavirus is making Hurwitz a little crazy. During the mostly glowing "big box" review of the Academy of St Martin-in-the-Fields megabox, he takes a break to observe his cat playing with a toy, and then there's this amusing exchange in the comment section:
Viewer: "This is waaaaaay too much music for me, though even at $160, this is a good deal for the sheer quantity."
Dave: "Oh, come on! What else have you got to do?"
Quote from: Brian on August 06, 2020, 07:20:25 AM
I also like how coronavirus is making Hurwitz a little crazy. During the mostly glowing "big box" review of the Academy of St Martin-in-the-Fields megabox, he takes a break to observe his cat playing with a toy, and then there's this amusing exchange in the comment section:
Viewer: "This is waaaaaay too much music for me, though even at $160, this is a good deal for the sheer quantity."
Dave: "Oh, come on! What else have you got to do?"
Nice!
Enjoyed the Hurwitz Frank Bridge and not too long which is a plus. Laughed out loud at his comments on English music and indeed England itself. As always an element of truth adds to the humour. Hurwitz does know his stuff over a vast repertoire and recordings. I am particularly impressed at his fulsome praise for Sir Charles Groves but less so at failing to mention the profound effect that WW1 had on Bridge's musical style.
https://youtu.be/2z-j1v64e8Q
Quote from: Irons on August 09, 2020, 02:19:10 AM
Enjoyed the Hurwitz Frank Bridge and not too long which is a plus. Laughed out loud at his comments on English music and indeed England itself. As always an element of truth adds to the humour. Hurwitz does know his stuff over a vast repertoire and recordings. I am particularly impressed at his fulsome praise for Sir Charles Groves but less so at failing to mention the profound effect that WW1 had on Bridge's musical style.
https://youtu.be/2z-j1v64e8Q
Pity it's only about a handful of orchestral works (though his choices make a lot of sense). I think Bridge's best stuff is in chamber music. But he does seem to have a handle on the music he's talking about.
Also... it's a bit creepy when the music is playing.
Eloquence seems to think David Hurwitz's reviews are worthwhile enough to cite in an email blast.
GMG gripers gonna gripe, though.
Quote from: Madiel on August 09, 2020, 04:44:09 AM
Pity it's only about a handful of orchestral works (though his choices make a lot of sense). I think Bridge's best stuff is in chamber music. But he does seem to have a handle on the music he's talking about.
Also... it's a bit creepy when the music is playing.
It is. Does he freeze the frame or go very still? His knowledge is impressive but lets face it he ain't no oil painting! Why not fill the screen with the booklet cover of music being played. Anything other then him.
He freeze frames it, yeah. It's a little unnerving. It's already weird that he stares straight at me when I might be watching the video while, say, using the john ??? .
I've been enjoying his youtube channel immensely. He comes off so much more humorous and thoughtful in video than he does in his writing. (Though his obsession with tam tams persists.)
Quote from: MishaK on September 07, 2020, 03:18:43 PM
I've been enjoying his youtube channel immensely. He comes off so much more humorous and thoughtful in video than he does in his writing. (Though his obsession with tam tams persists.)
Coincidentally, I just read a review of his (Gerhard Schjelderup on CPO) and as I read I tried to hear his voice and speech manner in my head. It actually made much more sense that way ! He really gains from being heard, despite his mannerisms.
Quote from: André on September 07, 2020, 04:05:15 PM
Coincidentally, I just read a review of his (Gerhard Schjelderup on CPO) and as I read I tried to hear his voice and speech manner in my head. It actually made much more sense that way ! He really gains from being heard, despite his mannerisms.
Yes, I agree. His writings take on a different tone when you know what he actually sounds like in speech. And it's easier to appreciate the sort of wink in the eye when he seemingly completely trashes a recording.
I think the voice and mannerisms are often grating but it adds a (intended or unintended) humourous dimension that is lacking in writing. The recent video on Hindemith's Weber Metamorphoses is very nice because Hurwitz dug out the obscure piano 4-hand pieces by Weber that served as material but that hardly anybody has ever heard before.
Quote from: Jo498 on September 07, 2020, 11:20:57 PM
I think the voice and mannerisms are often grating but it adds a (intended or unintended) humourous dimension that is lacking in writing. The recent video on Hindemith's Weber Metamorphoses is very nice because Hurwitz dug out the obscure piano 4-hand pieces by Weber that served as material but that hardly anybody has ever heard before.
He also has a video on the works by Domenico Gallo that Stravinsky's Pulcinella is based on. Very fun to listen to these works having known and loved the Stravinsky for decades.
https://www.youtube.com/v/qXioT4afCrs
Quote from: MishaK on September 07, 2020, 09:15:07 PMYes, I agree. His writings take on a different tone when you know what he actually sounds like in speech. And it's easier to appreciate the sort of wink in the eye when he seemingly completely trashes a recording.
On the other hand, a few days in the stocks at Thame wouldn't do him any harm ...
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvkcDY1z/1200px-Stocks-PSF.jpg)
Quote from: Irons on August 09, 2020, 02:19:10 AM
Enjoyed the Hurwitz Frank Bridge and not too long which is a plus. Laughed out loud at his comments on English music and indeed England itself. As always an element of truth adds to the humour. Hurwitz does know his stuff over a vast repertoire and recordings. I am particularly impressed at his fulsome praise for Sir Charles Groves but less so at failing to mention the profound effect that WW1 had on Bridge's musical style.
https://youtu.be/2z-j1v64e8Q
I just watched the Bridge video as a displacement activity from getting on with my school work preparation ;D.
Thank you Lol for alerting me to it. It was very enjoyable indeed and he is right about Sir Charles Groves who, IMO, conducted the best 'Morning Heroes' (Bliss) on disc (although everyone raves about Andrew Davis) and Bliss's 'A Colour Symphony'. amongst much else. I have the large Groves box which includes the marvellous Bridge tone poems. Hurwitz is also right about how good James Judd's 'Jeremiah Symphony' (Bernstein) is. His comments on England and English music are very funny including the way in which Bridge transformed from an 'uninteresting, late-romantic, pale, English, quasi-pastoral' composer (a representative of the 'Old Boy's Club') to a 'gnarly modernist'. Good to hear him still droning on about Elgar's 'March of the Moghul Emperors' as well. Highly entertaining and informative. I'd have liked to hear him say a bit more about 'Oration'.
Quote from: vandermolen on September 08, 2020, 01:48:31 AM
I just watched the Bridge video as a displacement activity from getting on with my school work preparation ;D.
Thank you Lol for alerting me to it. It was very enjoyable indeed and he is right about Sir Charles Groves who, IMO, conducted the best 'Morning Heroes' (Bliss) on disc (although everyone raves about Andrew Davis) and Bliss's 'A Colour Symphony'. amongst much else. I have the large Groves box which includes the marvellous Bridge tone poems. Hurwitz is also right about how good James Judd's 'Jeremiah Symphony' (Bernstein) is. His comments on England and English music are very funny including the way in which Bridge transformed from an 'uninteresting, late-romantic, pale, English, quasi-pastoral' composer (a representative of the 'Old Boy's Club') to a 'gnarly modernist'. Good to hear him still droning on about Elgar's 'March of the Moghul Emperors' as well. Highly entertaining and informative. I'd liked to hear him say a bit more about 'Oration'.
I know your expertise is channelled to older students Jeffrey, but driving past our village infants school this morning I got an unexpected buzz seeing for the first time for too long kiddies in their uniforms being taken to school by their parents. It felt like a small victory and a big step forward.
Pleased, as I did, you enjoyed the Bridge video. He only scratched the surface of a deep and interesting composer but we are all guilty of that, at least I am! As an American, I thought his judgements were sound and true, more so then many British commentators I think. As I commented he missed out on the WW1 influence on Bridge's music and indeed 'Oration' is a crucial part of that.
Quote from: Irons on September 08, 2020, 06:53:42 AM
I know your expertise is channelled to older students Jeffrey, but driving past our village infants school this morning I got an unexpected buzz seeing for the first time for too long kiddies in their uniforms being taken to school by their parents. It felt like a small victory and a big step forward.
Pleased, as I did, you enjoyed the Bridge video. He only scratched the surface of a deep and interesting composer but we are all guilty of that, at least I am! As an American, I thought his judgements were sound and true, more so then many British commentators I think. As I commented he missed out on the WW1 influence on Bridge's music and indeed 'Oration' is a crucial part of that.
It must have been touching to see the children returning to school Lol - a bit of normality restored. Last week I had to teach a Year 8 class while (unsuccessfully) attempting to include a pupil isolating at home via video-link with a background notice of continuous drilling going on from the building site outside the windows (which have to be kept open for ventilation purposes). Other than that the lesson went well! >:D
Yes, it would be good to hear David Hurwitz's views on some of Bridge's chamber music such as the excellent Piano Quintet. I find him a most interesting composer.
Quote from: vandermolen on September 08, 2020, 10:09:08 PM
It must have been touching to see the children returning to school Lol - a bit of normality restored. Last week I had to teach a Year 8 class while (unsuccessfully) attempting to include a pupil isolating at home via video-link with a background notice of continuous drilling going on from the building site outside the windows (which have to be kept open for ventilation purposes). Other than that the lesson went well! >:D
Yes, it would be good to hear David Hurwitz's views on some of Bridge's chamber music such as the excellent Piano Quintet. I find him a most interesting composer.
The only way I can approach Bridge is as two composers, Jeffrey. The one of "Summer" and the other of the 4th Quartet. I picked up a recording of the Piano Quintet just recently.
Hope for your sake the building work is finished soon as we are in for an "Indian" summer I have read. Thinking of rolling out the barbecue for weekend. 8)
Fair play to Hurwitz he has the power to surprise. His video talk on complete Nielsen cycles went pretty much as expected with the usual suspects achieving the Hurwitz seal of approval.
Moving on to single symphony recommendations I listened to his survey of the Nielsen "Inextinguishable". Well I never! Didn't see that one coming!!
https://youtu.be/6urJd0hEssc
Quote from: Irons on September 10, 2020, 08:30:12 AM
Fair play to Hurwitz he has the power to surprise. His video talk on complete Nielsen cycles went pretty much as expected with the usual suspects achieving the Hurwitz seal of approval.
Moving on to single symphony recommendations I listened to his survey of the Nielsen "Inextinguishable". Well I never! Didn't see that one coming!!
https://youtu.be/6urJd0hEssc
Have to admit that I discounted the later Gibson recordings on Chandos, but this is a cheap download on chandos.net.
https://www.chandos.net/products/catalogue/CHAN%206524
Quote from: Daverz on September 10, 2020, 12:16:10 PM
Have to admit that I discounted the later Gibson recordings on Chandos, but this is a cheap download on chandos.net.
https://www.chandos.net/products/catalogue/CHAN%206524
Unsuccessfully searched for CD but located a LP on RCA which I have ordered. Be interesting to see if as good Hurwitz says it is.
Quote from: Irons on September 10, 2020, 01:08:32 PM
Unsuccessfully searched for CD but located a LP on RCA which I have ordered. Be interesting to see if as good Hurwitz says it is.
Chandos will burn CDRs:
Available only as a playable CDR
Add this CDR to your basket and we'll burn the complete album in your basket to a CDR disc and send it you.
This is limited to single complete albums under 76 minutes only.
Can be played on any normal CD player, home, car or computer.
Please note: This is not an original CD manufactured by the label. Booklets and inlays are not included but can be downloaded from the media section (where available).
Quote from: Daverz on September 10, 2020, 02:45:20 PM
Chandos will burn CDRs:
Available only as a playable CDR
Add this CDR to your basket and we'll burn the complete album in your basket to a CDR disc and send it you.
This is limited to single complete albums under 76 minutes only.
Can be played on any normal CD player, home, car or computer.
Please note: This is not an original CD manufactured by the label. Booklets and inlays are not included but can be downloaded from the media section (where available).
As far as recordings go I live in the dark age with the LP being my favoured mode of music carrier. I did sample Gibson's Nielsen 4 from the link you posted. If vinyl had not been available I may well have followed your suggestion and that would have been a first!
You're gonna love this, guys. The discussion is about Mozart's String Quintets.
Typical. Whenever he puts something down, it's best to check out the recording, chop-chop, because it is probably smashing.
Looks like he had a change of mind? Perhaps newer ones have edged them out?
PD
Shock, horror. Different opinions 16 years apart.
Also, given that old Classics Today reviews didn't have names attached, was the old one definitely him?
I watched his enthusiastic recommendation of Anton Reicha fugues yesterday and was fascinated by the musical examples which he played and which I streamed afterwards. Reicha's big thing was that you could write a fugue any way you want, on any theme you want, with the voices in any key you want, as long as the result sounds good.
Well, this morning I had a dream about it ;D and dream composed a fugue on "Gnomus" from Pictures at an Exhibition. It sounds pretty gnarly but it works?! and cracks me up ;D
Quote from: Madiel on October 08, 2020, 06:09:11 AM
Shock, horror. Different opinions 16 years apart.
Also, given that old Classics Today reviews didn't have names attached, was the old one definitely him?
It was.
https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-10314/ (https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-10314/)
Anyway, this
volte face reminded me of our dear John (Mirror Image). :D
Quote from: Daverz on September 10, 2020, 12:16:10 PM
Have to admit that I discounted the later Gibson recordings on Chandos, but this is a cheap download on chandos.net.
https://www.chandos.net/products/catalogue/CHAN%206524
I liked Gibson's Nielsen and Sibelius recordings very much as well as his underrated VW Symphony No.5 and Walton Symphony No.1
I think one should also keep in mind that classical chamber music is not exactly Hurwitz' forte so he probably bothers only for specific reviews to check or double check. This can be both an explanation for changes of mind and for automatically mentioning some standard rec without really remembering it well.
Don't get me wrong, guys: the more I watch his videos, the more I like him. It's just that that memory slip was too funny to let it go unnoticed. :D
The beginning of this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mOVYUvX9E) is really ... unforgettable. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Brian on October 09, 2020, 10:15:08 AM
The beginning of this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mOVYUvX9E) is really ... unforgettable. ;D ;D ;D
:laugh: Thank you for posting that Brian. I had a good laugh (much needed these days). :)
PD
Quote from: Brian on October 09, 2020, 10:15:08 AM
The beginning of this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mOVYUvX9E) is really ... unforgettable. ;D ;D ;D
Almost as funny is when he hits the tam-tam.
I really, really, really love this guy. He sings the praises of Boccherini and Mendelssohn, he takes Handel over Bach, Dvorak over Brahms*, )Mahler over Bruckner and --- quite unexpectedly for me --- loves Chopin. He has a great sense of humor and an uncanny physical resemblance to one of my favorite Romanian writers (who happens to be Jewish too --- albeit a convert to Orthodox Christianity). Truly a man after my own heart. Way to go, Dave!
* when it comes to symphonies, Dvorak wins hands down in my book --- also he was a much better tunesmith than Brahms
...but he doesn't understand Boulez! >:( ::)
I suppose you'd say "and he doesn't like Boulez" as a plus, Andrei. ;D
Good day to you, Sir.
Quote from: ritter on October 10, 2020, 08:26:18 AM
...but he doesn't understand Boulez! >:( ::)
I suppose you'd say "and he doesn't like Boulez" as a plus, Andrei. ;D
You bet!
Quote
Good day to you, Sir.
Muy buenas tardes, señor don
Rafael!
Quote from: Florestan on October 10, 2020, 08:13:45 AM
I really, really, really love this guy. He sings the praises of Boccherini and Mendelssohn, he takes Handel over Bach, Dvorak over Brahms*, )Mahler over Bruckner and --- quite unexpectedly for me --- loves Chopin. He has a great sense of humor and an uncanny physical resemblance to one of my favorite Romanian writers (who happens to be Jewish too --- albeit a convert to Orthodox Christianity). Truly a man after my own heart. Way to go, Dave!
* when it comes to symphonies, Dvorak wins hands down in my book --- also he was a much better tunesmith than Brahms
Which proves that humour is an especailly personal thing as I find Hurwitz's "humour" of the worst kind of bar-room bore type. All a little too pleased with themselves and laughing at their own wit and insight. Literally about as unfunny as I can find anybody or anything......
Quote from: Roasted Swan on October 10, 2020, 08:41:23 AM
Which proves that humour is an especailly personal thing as I find Hurwitz's "humour" of the worst kind of bar-room bore type. All a little too pleased with themselves and laughing at their own wit and insight. Literally about as unfunny as I can find anybody or anything......
Ain't the infinite diversity of human nature just marvelous? I mean, if everybody, everywhere, everytime would like exactly the same sort of things, humor included, the world would be such an unbearable bore... :D
I find him always funny and good-humoured.
Quote from: Christo on October 10, 2020, 11:04:40 AM
I find him always funny and good-humoured.
This.
Hear, hear!
Word.
QFT.
+ 1
etc.
His blind spots (deaf spots?) regarding music like Boulez and all of Lieder are unfortunate, but he is a lot of fun, sitting in front of his tam-tam like a Brooklyn Buddha, and he's obviously heard a lot of music. I can't help enjoying him even when I feel he's full of crap, because he has the guts to say things that probably many feel but aren't willing to admit. (Such as his antipathy towards the Grosse Fuge and the St. Matthew Passion. Phooey nonetheless, because I love them both.) Every once in a while I feel I must acquire a recording he champions, but at this stage of my life I'm not buying a lot of music and I don't need the umpteenth Beethoven cycle. I wish he would say more about chamber and piano music, not to mention opera, but those are not his fortes. I give him props too for taking interest in early music, something I would not expect from a critic who so specializes in common-practice orchestral music.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 10, 2020, 12:02:16 PM
I can't help enjoying him even when I feel he's full of crap, because he has the guts to say things that probably many feel but aren't willing to admit.
Good point! Very good point indeed!
8) 8) 8)
I am on a Brahms symphony journey because of heeeeem. 8)
I like him because of his sincerity and total enthusiasm, but I get annoyed when he's too dismissive with certain recordings/works/composers. Despite his channel is a fun musical source, I don't buy all what he says. I've listened to some recordings he recommends and my impression is "seriously?"
In addition, I've noticed that he tends to favour fast performances and cataloguing them as the best.
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on October 10, 2020, 02:30:59 PM
In addition, I've noticed that he tends to favour fast performances and cataloguing them as the best.
Actually this overlaps with the comment about having the guts to deliver unpopular opinions. Hurwitz definitely believes that orchestral performances should be
exciting and
fun and
thrilling (with exceptions where the composer clearly did not intend those things). In my experience concertgoing, that's become a minority view among conductors and performers, except for the HIP movement. There's definitely more expectation these days of "musicianly" qualities, integrity, depth, the long line, structure. Those things are good, but many conductors seem to sacrifice the let's just go for it guts and thrills of people like, oh, say, Charles Munch or 60s Lenny in order to achieve them. (Is the rise of Bruckner concert performance related??)
I personally am having a progression of opinion the opposite of what people are supposed to as they age - from wanting lots of beauty to wanting lots of excitement. Which is part of why Hurwitz is useful to me. But it's definitely part of his personality, and honestly, a welcome dissenting voice to the prevailing cultural mood.
PS. A couple modern conductors who are definitely thrill seekers - V. Jurowski and S. Denève.
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2020, 04:57:45 PM
Actually this overlaps with the comment about having the guts to deliver unpopular opinions. Hurwitz definitely believes that orchestral performances should be exciting and fun and thrilling (with exceptions where the composer clearly did not intend those things). In my experience concertgoing, that's become a minority view among conductors and performers, except for the HIP movement. There's definitely more expectation these days of "musicianly" qualities, integrity, depth, the long line, structure. Those things are good, but many conductors seem to sacrifice the let's just go for it guts and thrills of people like, oh, say, Charles Munch or 60s Lenny in order to achieve them. (Is the rise of Bruckner concert performance related??)
I personally am having a progression of opinion the opposite of what people are supposed to as they age - from wanting lots of beauty to wanting lots of excitement. Which is part of why Hurwitz is useful to me. But it's definitely part of his personality, and honestly, a welcome dissenting voice to the prevailing cultural mood.
PS. A couple modern conductors who are definitely thrill seekers - V. Jurowski and S. Denève.
I take your point, and I definitely am another fan of exciting performances. I look for a balance where there is thrill but at once it doesn't affect lyricism (depending on the work).
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2020, 04:57:45 PM
Actually this overlaps with the comment about having the guts to deliver unpopular opinions. Hurwitz definitely believes that orchestral performances should be exciting and fun and thrilling (with exceptions where the composer clearly did not intend those things). In my experience concertgoing, that's become a minority view among conductors and performers, except for the HIP movement. There's definitely more expectation these days of "musicianly" qualities, integrity, depth, the long line, structure. Those things are good, but many conductors seem to sacrifice the let's just go for it guts and thrills of people like, oh, say, Charles Munch or 60s Lenny in order to achieve them. (Is the rise of Bruckner concert performance related??)
I personally am having a progression of opinion the opposite of what people are supposed to as they age - from wanting lots of beauty to wanting lots of excitement. Which is part of why Hurwitz is useful to me. But it's definitely part of his personality, and honestly, a welcome dissenting voice to the prevailing cultural mood.
PS. A couple modern conductors who are definitely thrill seekers - V. Jurowski and S. Denève.
This is one reason I'm less keen to explore popular standard repertoire new recordings of symphony music. Others are that you typically have to listen through entire performances to find any gems of insight which often means long pieces which could amount to a decent amount of time that could have been spent listening to other music or better performances. And lastly I'm not really sure what more there is to be said. I feel like there are still endless possibilities left in piano and chamber music. I like all these qualities "integrity, depth, the long line, structure" but I often find modern performances are sort of a master at none but instead try to do it all, except often lacking that excitement factor you mention.
I think more labels need to record live, forget about being worried about things like mistakes; let the professional critics tear into them for that, just go for it anyway. I think we must have all been to plenty of concerts where the live performance is much better than the respective recording.
On Hurwitz I find a lot of his choices are fairly safe and filled with the warhorses, which is fine. He said there is a general professional critic consensus that is agreed upon so I don't think he is trying to be some maverick. I've listened to around a dozen of his videos on my commute so maybe I need to listen for more. One recording that did surprise me and I was absolutely thrilled to discover was Eiji Oue in Das Lied von der Erde.
(https://img.discogs.com/rdc3SK4SMpeZUewccNkFQGWwiJs=/fit-in/600x606/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-7074743-1433107024-6764.jpeg.jpg)
If he did an entire series on newer recordings I'd be more keen to tune into him.
One other conductor I feel fits that excitement category is Manfred Honneck, I would love to see him and that world class brass section of Pittsburgh at some point.
Oh yeah that Boulez video, that caused a few embolic strokes on Talk Classical :D I greatly admire Boulez but I won't let things like that ruffle my feathers. I set the bar pretty low with humor and cracked up at some of his more juvenille jokes like that one about Michael Tilson Thomas getting arrested with cocaine and could have used some of that cocaine for some boring performance he mentioned, maybe this was extra funny with an eventless performance of MTT's Berg Three Pieces for Orchestra recording fresh in mind.
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on October 10, 2020, 02:30:59 PM
In addition, I've noticed that he tends to favour fast performances and cataloguing them as the best.
I am not sure that this can be said in general. Maybe for (late) romantic stuff some of which tends to get played more slowly. But in his Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann recs it seemed like a mix without clear preferences for fast or extremely fast and he just recommended the Klemperer St. Matthew which is probably the slowest among well known recordings.
Quote from: Brian on October 09, 2020, 10:15:08 AM
The beginning of this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mOVYUvX9E) is really ... unforgettable. ;D ;D ;D
Re: Hurwitz' take on the Sea Symphony.
It's a good one. I take his point that Whitman's brand of poetry may be genius for some but fake and pedantic to others. When it comes to the analysis of recordings his biases take him to some excesses: using timings to determine an interpretation's character (even if he denies it) for example. The slowest (Haitink) is a « snooze fest ». It's not. The fastest (Spano) he likes a lot. I don't - it's rushed beyond acceptability. That doesn't make it 'exciting', merely impatient.
There's a large measure of subjectivity in one's tastes and distastes. Justifying them with some pseudo-rationalization is not necessary. Once he has hit his soft spot, he is an excellent guide to the performances he describes. I happen to agre with his top choices: Slatkin, Previn, Boult.
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2020, 04:57:45 PM
a welcome dissenting voice to the prevailing cultural mood.
Well said.
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2020, 04:57:45 PM
Hurwitz definitely believes that orchestral performances should be exciting and fun and thrilling
Witness his love for Haydn, Mendelssohn, Dvorak and Mahler --- whose music
is exciting and fun and thrilling.
I share both his opinion and his preferences.
Quote from: Brian on October 10, 2020, 04:57:45 PM
I personally am having a progression of opinion the opposite of what people are supposed to as they age - from wanting lots of beauty to wanting lots of excitement.
Hmmmm... my impression is that teenagers want lots of excitement --- hence their preference for orchestral music, first and foremost Beethoven and Mahler (which as a teen I shared unreservedly); while mature people want beauty --- hence my current preference for chamber music, especially Mozart, Schubert and Chopin.
:D :D :D
Quote from: Florestan on October 11, 2020, 12:01:56 PM
Hmmmm... my impression is that teenagers want lots of excitement --- hence their preference for orchestral music, first and foremost Beethoven and Mahler (which as a teen I shared unreservedly); while mature people want beauty --- hence my current preference for chamber music, especially Mozart, Schubert and Chopin.
:D :D :D
Yes exactly, and I am having the opposite, from beauty to excitement. :)
Quote from: Brian on October 11, 2020, 12:08:30 PM
Yes exactly, and I am having the opposite, from beauty to excitement. :)
I got it alright, Brian!
Would you agree that in order to deliver exciting and fun and thrilling orchestral performances, one must first have exciting and fun and thrilling orchestral music to perform?
Quote from: Florestan on October 11, 2020, 12:16:07 PM
I got it alright, Brian!
Would you agree that in order to deliver exciting and fun and thrilling orchestral performances, one must first have exciting and fun and thrilling orchestral music to perform?
Hmmm... I think there must be an example somewhere of an orchestra and conductor who successfully made some not-very-good music sound super exciting...
Take a piece of music, any piece of music.
You can easily find people who think that that piece is exciting, fun, and thrilling.
You can just as easily find people who think that that piece is boring.
Given that situation, which everyone acknowledges, it seems irresistible to conclude that the words "exciting, fun, thrilling, and boring" none of them describe the music itself but the responses that different people will make to the music.
I have observed for almost sixty years that the overwhelming majority find it quite easy to resist that conclusion, however. Mr. Hurwitz hasn't resisted it any more completely than anyone else, but he has resisted that conclusion publically. He consistently and perhaps* even without exception uses evaluative terms--terms that point to responses--as if they described the music he discusses. This ends up meaning that if one agrees with his assessments, one likes him. If one does not agree, then one dislikes him. Of course there are other possibilities, people who disagree with certain assessments but still like him overall, and people who often agree with his assessments but don't particularly like him.
But persistently using evaluative terms as if they were descriptive means that what you won't ever get is any sort of discussion about the music itself. It could happen, I suppose, by accident. But not often.
*I have not watched all of Mr. Hurwitz's videos. After the first two dozen or so of him saying that this or that performance is "great; it really, really is" or that it's "horrible; trust me, avoid this recording" or that this or that kind of music is something that "nobody wants to listen to," well, I don't really have watch any more, do I? (Quotes are approximate.)
I wish he would just list his recs in the comments section, so you don't have to slog through a half hour of his shtick to get the thing you came for.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 11, 2020, 05:32:16 PM
I wish he would just list his recs in the comments section, so you don't have to slog through a half hour of his shtick to get the thing you came for.
Sometimes I fast forward until I see him holding up the next CD. Pause. Look for it on Spotify. Continue. Etc.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 11, 2020, 05:32:16 PM
I wish he would just list his recs in the comments section, so you don't have to slog through a half hour of his shtick to get the thing you came for.
That would be a good idea, but it would spoil the essence of the video.
Don't click below if you don't want spoilers. Here a list of Dave's picks for the ideal Mozart Piano Concertos (for 1 piano):
https://bit.ly/3jWARnO
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2020, 04:24:04 AM
Don't click below if you don't want spoilers. Here a list of Dave's picks for the ideal Mozart Piano Concertos (for 1 piano):
https://bit.ly/3jWARnO
I suppose this was meant as some kind of a joke.
Anyway, I like Hurwitz first and foremost because in an age of complete and total crelativism he has strong convictions and is not afraid of expressing them or making value judgments based on them.
Quote from: Florestan on October 14, 2020, 04:40:09 AM
I suppose this was meant as some kind of a joke.
Anyway, I like Hurwitz first and foremost because in an age of complete and total crelativism he has strong convictions and is not afraid of expressing them or making value judgments based on them.
No, why do you think it was a joke? I made the list from his video and thought I'd share it. But since some feel that discovery is part of the videos, I didn't just paste it in.
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2020, 04:24:04 AM
Don't click below if you don't want spoilers. Here a list of Dave's picks for the ideal Mozart Piano Concertos (for 1 piano):
https://bit.ly/3jWARnO
He is doing that thing that some GMGers do in the Polling board, where he only picks each pianist for one single piece. That definitely makes something like the Mozart concertos darn near impossible (and certainly not ideal). But I guess it makes the videos a lot more interesting than if it was the same three people doing 9 concertos each or whatever.
Quote from: Daverz on October 14, 2020, 08:58:10 AM
No, why do you think it was a joke?
Because when I first clicked the link a few hours ago what I got was very different from what I get now. Too bad I didn't save that image. I'm puzzled. ???
Quote from: Brian on October 14, 2020, 08:59:28 AM
He is doing that thing that some GMGers do in the Polling board, where he only picks each pianist for one single piece. That definitely makes something like the Mozart concertos darn near impossible (and certainly not ideal). But I guess it makes the videos a lot more interesting than if it was the same three people doing 9 concertos each or whatever.
"Ideal" was not an ideal way of describing what he's trying to do, which is show the range of what's available for these works by not repeating soloist or conductor.
An even less appropriate adjective would be "practical". Or "cheap".
I don't find this strategy very plausible in the case of Mozart piano concerti as it might be with Brahms or Mahler symphonies. Even in these cases "ideal" is obviously not always compatible with the constraint to never repeat conductors/orchestras.
In the case of the Mozart it also shows that even with Distler's help Hurwitz is not in his "element" as he would be with Sibelius or Bruckner. (Which is only natural, one would have to be a real Mozart concerto nut to have and compare a dozen or more recordings of eg. KV 238 or 413, I feel that I am fairly close to being such a nut and have only about 3-4 recordings of such lesser known pieces). So the justifications for the particular choices are often pretty thin. And the practical aspect also speaks against it for the dozen less frequently recorded concerti. Sure, wit spotify and used discs one can probably find even #5 or #11 with Barenboim or Bilson without buying the respective complete box.
Quote from: Florestan on October 14, 2020, 09:04:52 AM
Because when I first clicked the link a few hours ago what I got was very different from what I get now. Too bad I didn't save that image. I'm puzzled. ???
I clicked the link right now and this is what I got, the same image I got before calling it some sort of joke.
(https://www.paste.org/assets/images/spam.png)
I have no idea what was/is going on.
Quote from: Madiel on October 15, 2020, 12:58:51 AM
An even less appropriate adjective would be "practical". Or "cheap".
Oh stuff like that is purely for nerds who are bored during quarantine, not beginners going shopping. (Unless you count making a streaming playlist - then it makes sense.)
Quote from: Brian on October 15, 2020, 04:58:37 AM
Oh stuff like that is purely for nerds who are bored during quarantine, not beginners going shopping. (Unless you count making a streaming playlist - then it makes sense.)
It's true that streaming makes it possible. Not that an old stick-in-the-mud like me considers that possibility, and I certainly don't get the impression that Mr Hurwitz is a streaming kind of guy. What on earth would he wave in front of the camera?
;D ;D
Here's the "ideal" Strauss tone poems list at pastebin again:
https://www.paste.org/111207
Quote from: Florestan on October 15, 2020, 02:00:59 AM
I clicked the link right now and this is what I got, the same image I got before calling it some sort of joke.
(https://www.paste.org/assets/images/spam.png)
I have no idea what was/is going on.
Maybe they think I'm a spammer?
Quote from: Daverz on October 15, 2020, 05:21:08 AM
Maybe they think I'm a spammer?
Beats me.
I was as puzzled as you when seeing that.
Quote from: Daverz on October 15, 2020, 05:19:11 AM
Here's the "ideal" Strauss tone poems list at pastebin again:
https://www.paste.org/111207
Have you tried posting them in the comments of the video? I wonder if he would delete them.
I often see people make lists on Youtube and these usually have loads of likes putting them at the top of the page. One fitness/weight lifting guy I used to watch loved that monetization money and the sound of his own voice and would make these unnecessary 20+ minute videos for a few minutes worth of content. Someone would have a list of what he was talking about shortly after the video went up.
Quote from: hvbias on October 16, 2020, 04:58:00 AM
Have you tried posting them in the comments of the video? I wonder if he would delete them.
Putting the time stamps so that people can fast forward could be a compromise. ("Tod und Verklarung comes up at 18:15" or whatever)
Quote from: Daverz on October 15, 2020, 05:19:11 AM
Here's the "ideal" Strauss tone poems list at pastebin again:
https://www.paste.org/111207
Ooooh, I've gotta get that Ormandy Dance of the Seven Veils right now!
Quote from: Daverz on October 15, 2020, 05:19:11 AM
Aus Italien: Ashkenazy/Cleveland (brief mention of Muti/Berlin on
Philips or Decca)
Macbeth: Neeme Jarvi
Don Juan: Szell/Cleveland
Death and Tranfiguration: Dohnanyi/Vienna (or Karajan digital)
Til Eulenspiegel: Haitink/Concertgebouw
Also Sprach Zarathrustra: Karajan/Berlin/DG analog
Ein Heldenleben: Reiner/Chicago
Don Quixote: Tortelier/Kempe/Berlin (an earlier stereo recording than
the one with SKD)
Dance of the 7 Veils: Ormandy
Sinfonia Domestica: Maazel/DG
Ein Alpensonfie: Solti/Bavarian Radio
Metamorphosen: Suitner/SKD
5: Levin/Hogwood
6: Ashkenazy/Philharmonia (Decca)
8: Kempff/Leitner (DG)
9: Andsnes (Warner)
11: Bilson/Gardiner
12: Zacharias/Maksymiuk (Warner)
13: Perahia (Sony)
14: R. Serkin/Schneider (Sony)
15: Casadesus/Szell (Sony)
16: P. Serkin/Schneider (Sony)
17: Schiff/Vegh (Decca)
18: Anda (DG)
19: Haskil/Fricsay (DG, Decca)
20: Brendel/Mackerras (Decca)
21: Annie Fischer/Sawallish (EMI/Warner)
22: Buchbinder (Profil)
23: Moravec/Marriner (Hänssler)
24: Uchida/Tate (Decca)
25: Fleisher/Szell (Sony)
26: Vasary (DG)
27: Richard Goode/Orpheus Chamber Orchestra (Nonesuch)
Thank you.
Seriously, this is the type of post that the thread should be all about - and that clown's youtube page should have zero traffic coming from here. As it is, it feels more like a sickly vortex of obsession with an insufferable wannabe classical music Kardashian - where the medium and the narcissistic image becomes more important than the message (the obvious reason why, as mentioned above, a list of recordings is not included in each video's description).
Isn't there a feature in the forum's software to be able to exclude selected threads such as this from the "new posts" page? :D
Quote from: Wanderer on October 16, 2020, 09:11:16 AM
Thank you.
Seriously, this is the type of post that the thread should be all about - and that clown's youtube page should have zero traffic coming from here. As it is, it feels more like a sickly vortex of obsession with an insufferable wannabe classical music Kardashian - where the medium and the narcissistic image becomes more important than the message (the obvious reason why, as mentioned above, a list of recordings is not included in each video's description).
Isn't there a feature in the forum's software to be able to exclude selected threads such as this from the "new posts" page? :D
Aren't you a bit too harsh, Tasos? After all, nobody (Hurwitz least of all) forces you to watch his videos, or to take them seriously. He has his opinions, convictions and biases, like we all do. For all his flaws, he genuinely loves music and he's fun (at least for me). I don't always agree with him but I think one could do much worse than watching his YT videos.
Quote from: Wanderer on October 16, 2020, 09:11:16 AM
Thank you.
Seriously, this is the type of post that the thread should be all about - and that clown's youtube page should have zero traffic coming from here. As it is, it feels more like a sickly vortex of obsession with an insufferable wannabe classical music Kardashian - where the medium and the narcissistic image becomes more important than the message (the obvious reason why, as mentioned above, a list of recordings is not included in each video's description).
Isn't there a feature in the forum's software to be able to exclude selected threads such as this from the "new posts" page? :D
Dude, why do you think I went to the trouble of posting these on pastebin when I could have more easily posted them in directly?
Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2020, 09:23:27 AM
Aren't you a bit too harsh, Tasos?
Not really. :)
And I was not referring to his opinions about music.
Quote from: Herman on July 18, 2020, 01:40:45 AM
There's also the thing that these youtubes run up to 25 minutes if I recall. Compared to reading a Classics Today review in a couple minutes, that's just a massive waste of time, which you'll never get back, especially if it's just watching a guy laugh at his own jokes.
Exactly. A list of the recordings mentioned in each video would make this thread actually useful. Oherwise, it could just as well be in The Diner (the sorry little table by the toilet door).
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 18, 2020, 05:35:18 AM
It takes nothing away from your point, to appreciate the oxymoron "spectacularly dim" 8)
Thank you. Choice of words was not accidental. ;)
Quote from: Daverz on October 16, 2020, 05:39:42 PM
Dude, why do you think I went to the trouble of posting these on pastebin when I could have more easily posted them in directly?
I don't know, but I thank you for valiantly wasting your time so that others wouldn't have to. :D
If you think DH is basically a clown why should one be interested in his recommendations?
One observation I would make that would apply to any such comparative reviews in any media; I simply don't know how he finds the time to do an in-depth comparison! If you are listening to an hour long work (for example RVW Sea Symphony) I would say to make valid judgments EACH performance would have to be listened to afresh at least twice and notes about each performance taken. Then and only then with each version resonating anew in your head you can make reasonable comparisons from your own point of view.
Clearly DH cannot devote that amount of time to this alone - he has a website to run, new repertoire/discs to review etc etc. Therefore his comments must be based on memories/perception of a performance from possibly years back and/or "dipping in" to versions at various key moments to give a compare/contrast reading of those moments. This is in part why timings must then be given undue significance - its an easy way to call a version "slow"/"rushed". Of course, none of the above means that conclusions reached will be "wrong" - especially since in the midst of his sweeping generalisations there are grains of truth and insight. However, they have to be just that - sweeping generalisations. So as ever, it is "listener/watcher/buyer beware" (if I knew Latin I'd write the equivalent!)
Caveat emptor (buyer) is the classic phrase, I think. Cave hominem unius disci. Or maybe sometimes also the man with too many musical discs. I'd grant Hurwitz that with some music he has a huge experience that even statements from memory or brief refreshings of memory are not without value. Strauss tone poems or Sibelius symphonies might be pieces where this is true. But I doubt that this is the case with Mozart PC and the constraint to never repeat performers makes such a list more dubious. As does the fact that he is referring to the pieces by number, not Köchel number. ;)
Quote from: Roasted Swan on October 17, 2020, 03:23:17 AM
One observation I would make that would apply to any such comparative reviews in any media; I simply don't know how he finds the time to do an in-depth comparison! If you are listening to an hour long work (for example RVW Sea Symphony) I would say to make valid judgments EACH performance would have to be listened to afresh at least twice and notes about each performance taken. Then and only then with each version resonating anew in your head you can make reasonable comparisons from your own point of view.
Clearly DH cannot devote that amount of time to this alone - he has a website to run, new repertoire/discs to review etc etc. Therefore his comments must be based on memories/perception of a performance from possibly years back and/or "dipping in" to versions at various key moments to give a compare/contrast reading of those moments. This is in part why timings must then be given undue significance - its an easy way to call a version "slow"/"rushed". Of course, none of the above means that conclusions reached will be "wrong" - especially since in the midst of his sweeping generalisations there are grains of truth and insight. However, they have to be just that - sweeping generalisations. So as ever, it is "listener/watcher/buyer beware" (if I knew Latin I'd write the equivalent!)
I find it hard to believe he listens in depth to all the recordings especially boxed sets he recommends. Yesterday we had the 12 greatest boxed sets in existence, today it's 6 fabulous conductor boxes. Of his 12 boxed sets, I have two (Stravinsky and Haydn symphonies), and it took months to go through each. Does the man just listen 10 hours a day? Does he have time to eat and sleep?
Quote from: Jo498 on October 17, 2020, 03:47:46 AM
Caveat emptor (buyer) is the classic phrase, I think. Cave hominem unius disci. Or maybe sometimes also the man with too many musical discs. I'd grant Hurwitz that with some music he has a huge experience that even statements from memory or brief refreshings of memory are not without value. Strauss tone poems or Sibelius symphonies might be pieces where this is true. But I doubt that this is the case with Mozart PC and the constraint to never repeat performers makes such a list more dubious. As does the fact that he is referring to the pieces by number, not Köchel number. ;)
In all the years I've read music periodicals I've rarely seen K or D numbers used in american publications. Must be a question of habit, or a choice between different possibilities.
For me, identifying Schubert's sonata D 850 by its D number is more practical than by its tonality (in D). No confusion possible. When it comes to Bach, though, I rarely use BWV numbers. Trio sonata no 5, not BWV 529 for me, please.
It's pure habit but in many cases I have to think a few seconds or even count backwards to identify the piece if only the genre number is mentioned without the key. Because the Mozart piano concerti numbering is awkward, the first real concerto has #5 and the 2 and 3 piano concerti are not counted separately, I much prefer the K numbers here. Similarly the Schubert sonatas are a mess because of the many fragments, so I'd prefer D (although I don't know the numbers well before D 664).
OTOH if someone referred to Beethoven's or Brahms' symphonies mainly by opus number it would seem a bit mannered (Not for string quartets, trios or piano sonatas, in all of which I prefer opus numbers.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 17, 2020, 05:38:52 AM
I find it hard to believe he listens in depth to all the recordings especially boxed sets he recommends. Yesterday we had the 12 greatest boxed sets in existence, today it's 6 fabulous conductor boxes. Of his 12 boxed sets, I have two (Stravinsky and Haydn symphonies), and it took months to go through each. Does the man just listen 10 hours a day? Does he have time to eat and sleep?
I would have thought it blindingly obvious that he hasn't listened to all of the material between, say, that video and the previous video.
But I would also find it very weird to make any assumption that that is what he's remotely claiming in these comparisons. It's completely different to when a single new release album is reviewed.
We're frequently talking about performances that are
DECADES old. Hell, the classical music industry is perfectly happily to regurgitate and re-release recordings that are older than I am. So there has been plenty of time for a music reviewer of long standing to get to know those performances.
And every day here on GMG, you get people expressing opinions about which recordings they prefer of repertoire, including giving advice on box sets. And yet I cannot remember ever, EVER having an opinion challenged by someone saying "when's the last time you listened to it?". People just accept that other posters are familiar with the recording they are talking about.
Quote from: Madiel on October 17, 2020, 03:06:20 PM
I would have thought it blindingly obvious that he hasn't listened to all of the material between, say, that video and the previous video.
But I would also find it very weird to make any assumption that that is what he's remotely claiming in these comparisons. It's completely different to when a single new release album is reviewed.
We're frequently talking about performances that are DECADES old. Hell, the classical music industry is perfectly happily to regurgitate and re-release recordings that are older than I am. So there has been plenty of time for a music reviewer of long standing to get to know those performances.
And every day here on GMG, you get people expressing opinions about which recordings they prefer of repertoire, including giving advice on box sets. And yet I cannot remember ever, EVER having an opinion challenged by someone saying "when's the last time you listened to it?". People just accept that other posters are familiar with the recording they are talking about.
Yes, I understand perfectly well what's "blindlngly obvious." Yet some of Dave's recent recs are for large box sets of recently released new material, like that huge CPE Bach set and the huge HM Opera Baroque compilation. These are not recordings that are older than either of us, and that's what prompted my comment. Of course I recognize we can all comment on recordings we've lived with for years, even decades.
I actually find the boxes recommendations despite them being huge, slightly more plausible than the supposedly "best" among a series of pieces with a huge discography. Hurwitz wrote a book about Haydn more than 10 years ago and he probably lived with the Dorati recordings for 40 years. He also didn't claim that it is the absolute best Haydn, just that the box as a whole is worthwhile. In case of the CPE Bach, it could also be that he was involved in writing booklets, he did some for Hänssler in the past. And here there is also the fact that there is not that much competition, so if one thinks that the box is overall very good and CPE Bach deserving of a huge edition it is the only game in town for many pieces and auto-recommendation.
Haydn's Paris symphonies favs
below
written
in
white
to
avoid
spoilers
may
still
be
visible
depending
on
settings
82 Karajan
83 Sanderling
84 Fey
85 Vegh (live)
86 Harnoncourt
87 Bernstein
Bernstein and Harnoncourt are the set favorites with Fey getting honorable mention
Quote from: Jo498 on October 18, 2020, 12:58:34 PM
Haydn's Paris symphonies favs
below
written
in
white
to
avoid
spoilers
may
still
be
visible
depending
on
settings
Easily visible if you just drag your mouse over the white, which inverts the colors. I'll stay with Bernstein and Brüggen myself.
Is this just going to become a thread where we save people the bother of reading or seeing reviews for themselves?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 18, 2020, 07:29:58 PM
Easily visible if you just drag your mouse over the white, which inverts the colors. I'll stay with Bernstein and Brüggen myself.
Sure, this is the way to "resolve" the spoiler. But depending on the sharpness of one's eyes and some settings the white on light blue is readable without highlighting.
Quote from: Jo498 on October 18, 2020, 11:09:24 PM
Sure, this is the way to "resolve" the spoiler. But depending on the sharpness of one's eyes and some settings the white on light blue is readable without highlighting.
Yeah, when it's quoted it pops right out. I think there is a spoiler tag available for this forum software, but it's an extra.
Quote from: Madiel on October 18, 2020, 10:31:50 PM
Is this just going to become a thread where we save people the bother of reading or seeing reviews for themselves?
More like where people discuss Hurwitz's faves and reviews while pretending they ignore him.
Quote from: Florestan on October 19, 2020, 12:14:17 AM
More like where people discuss Hurwitz's faves and reviews while pretending they ignore him.
Well, if they actually DID discuss them, that might be something. That's kind of my point. Recently the thread seems to have devolved into a copy/paste exercise.
Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2020, 09:23:27 AM
I think one could do much worse than watching his YT videos.
Disagree.
I could imagine just listening to music without worrying what this clown constantly laughing at his own old-man jokes says is a much better way to spend one's time.
Quote from: Madiel on October 19, 2020, 12:18:15 AM
Well, if they actually DID discuss them, that might be something. That's kind of my point. Recently the thread seems to have devolved into a copy/paste exercise.
Yep, verily. My point is that pretty much everybody here seem to dislike Hurwitz yet many of them seem quite interested in his faves and preferences.
Quote from: Herman on October 19, 2020, 12:26:38 AM
Disagree.
I could imagine just listening to music without worrying what this clown constantly laughing at his own old-man jokes says is a much better way to spend one's time.
Who says I worry?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2020, 08:00:29 AM
Ooooh, I've gotta get that Ormandy Dance of the Seven Veils right now!
That's an image that's not going to go away easily ...
Quote from: Florestan on October 19, 2020, 12:37:02 AM
Who says I worry?
Note that Hurwitz is younger than Herman.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 16, 2020, 08:00:29 AM
Ooooh, I've gotta get that Ormandy Dance of the Seven Veils right now!
The best Dance of the Seven Veils was by Maria Ewing.
What do you watch on YouTube when you're not watching the Hurwitzer?
Quote from: Daverz on October 19, 2020, 12:46:58 PM
The best Dance of the Seven Veils was by Maria Ewing.
I met her as she was the mother of a girl that I once taught (the actress Rebecca Hall).
Can anyone elaborate on Hurwitz's insistence that they used vibrato in baroque/early classical era? I have heard him mention it once maybe twice but I don't think I caught any elaboration why he thinks this other than some comment about academics being idiots. I do listen to these in the car and sometimes my screaming flat 6 does drown out his squeaking 0:). I've tried searching and came up with nothing.
It's fine to have opinions and if he personally likes vibrato in that era more power to him, but I'm more curious as his proclamation was stated as a fact.
Quote from: hvbias on October 30, 2020, 07:07:59 AM
Can anyone elaborate on Hurwitz's insistence that they used vibrato in baroque/early classical era? I have heard him mention it once maybe twice but I don't think I caught any elaboration why he thinks this other than some comment about academics being idiots. I do listen to these in the car and sometimes my screaming flat 6 does drown out his squeaking 0:). I've tried searching and came up with nothing.
It's fine to have opinions and if he personally likes vibrato in that era more power to him, but I'm more curious as his proclamation was stated as a fact.
I am sure we have discussed this at length somewhere in this forum. From what I can remember vibrato was used in the periods you mentioned but very sparingly - it was a decoration, not something applied with a trowel.
Hurwitz has at least two major obsessions. One is with percussion, especially tam tam because he played this in the orchestra. From the earliest days of classicstoday this one was obvious because his reviews were uncommonly detailed on percussion.
The second that was apparently triggered by Norrington's "anti-vibrato" stance is the history of vibrato. He actually got a publication on this into a real musicological journal (I think).
There are some more minor obsessions I had not been aware of before he started the video series, namely his dislike of most earlier/alternative versions of e.g. Bruckner symphonies (and Mahler 1st) and his even more exaggerated dislike of the musicologists who do such editions/reconstructions.
Another pet peeve of his is the british musical establishment, especially their musical critics. Gramophone is a favourite target. :)
But this is not a Hurwitz speciality. In the mid-1990s I encountered both international internet discussions on classical music and the Penguin/Gramophone guides for the first time and people on the internet made fun of the British bias and general old-fashioned character of these publications.
While there was no opportunity in his written reviews, in the videos he also loves to mangle foreign languages despite claiming (probably correctly so) to understand/speak them. But with the either sloppy or deliberate mispronunciations he is exactly in line with cliché US boorishness in this regard.
Yes, I've rather winced at his efforts with foreign names. Not because he does them awkwardly, but because he then acts as if it doesn't matter at all whether he makes a decent effort or not.
It's a strange discrepancy. In one video he claimed being able to speak a whole bunch of languages (certainly French, German and Italian) and then he seems to deliberately make a Chaplinesque mess out of some musician's name or title of a piece or aria in German. Sure, it might be funny ONCE or when it is about Nazi caricatures but in Bach passions or even in Wagner it's quite unnecessary.
He also said "cum grano salis*, as we say in Yiddish". I don't know if it was a deliberate joke or a genuine mistake --- you never know with Hurwitz.
*actually 'twas another Latin expression, I can't remember it otomh so I replaced it with the first that came to my mind
Quote from: Jo498 on October 31, 2020, 07:50:21 AM
It's a strange discrepancy. In one video he claimed being able to speak a whole bunch of languages (certainly French, German and Italian) and then he seems to deliberately make a Chaplinesque mess out of some musician's name or title of a piece or aria in German. Sure, it might be funny ONCE or when it is about Nazi caricatures but in Bach passions or even in Wagner it's quite unnecessary.
I think he was a grad student in European history at one time, which means he needed to be able to read those languages, but not necessarily speak them.
Is there somebody on youtube doing similar enthusiastic videos of more contemporary repertoire and record labels?
I enjoyed his survey of recordings of 'Job' by Vaughan Williams last night as well as his enthusiasm for the Madetoja symphonies.
Ideal Chopin Works video was enjoyable to watch.
It's really surprising that this guy has ever talked about composers different to the hardcore Austro-German repertoire on his videos. Actually it's a miracle. But what the heck, I'm eager to watch Bach's cantatas, round 2, or Mahler's ideal cycle, volumes 2 and 3.
His Youtube videos are so cool. Started watching them a few days ago. His mannerism is my drug. Tam tam!! Funny man.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 15, 2020, 03:24:42 PM
His Youtube videos are so cool. Started watching them a few days ago. His mannerism is my drug. Tam tam!! Funny man.
Wow...you really need to get out more.
Well, at least Hurwitz isn't Don Vroon.
Quote from: flyingdutchman on December 15, 2020, 07:36:54 PM
Well, at least Hurwitz isn't Don Vroon.
I had to look up Don Vroon. Never heard of him. I think I
might have heard of the American Record Guide, but, honestly, I confess to have no knowledge of Vroon's work. Not that it matters one way or another since I don't actually make it a habit of reading 'professional' music criticism nor actually caring about they think.
Was taken aback seeing Hurtwitz's mug at Presto. It's an entertaining podcast with Hurwitz and Paul Thomas of Presto exchanging their favorite American and UK composers:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/articles/3689--presto-music-podcast-episode-10-across-the-pond-with-david-hurwitz
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 15, 2020, 09:47:16 PM
I had to look up Don Vroon. Never heard of him. I think I might have heard of the American Record Guide, but, honestly, I confess to have no knowledge of Vroon's work. Not that it matters one way or another since I don't actually make it a habit of reading 'professional' music criticism nor actually caring about they think.
I subscribed to ARG for many years, but gave up a decade ago. Vroon is embarassing, but that didn't prevent him from hiring some good writers.
I've also decided to give up on Fanfare. Too many Dentley Hunt (AKA Santa Fe Listener) reviews. I note that his Santa Fe Listener byline at a Amazon has now been replace by his "professional" name.
Quote from: Daverz on December 16, 2020, 01:43:51 AM
Was taken aback seeing Hurtwitz's mug at Presto. It's an entertaining podcast with Hurwitz and Paul Thomas of Presto exchanging their favorite American and UK composers:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/articles/3689--presto-music-podcast-episode-10-across-the-pond-with-david-hurwitz
Gonna listen to this while wrapping Christmas presents. I so hope Hurwitz gets into his encounters with George Lloyd.
He can be very funny. He really can. Take a look at his videos on Carl Orff box sets and his preferred Wagner operas. On the other hand one has to slog through a half-hour of drivel to get to his top recommendations, one really does, so I often just fast-forward to the last five minutes. I really do. Sometimes he surprises by saying good things about music one wouldn't expect from him, like Renaissance polyphony. He really does. But his comments on Lieder and the music of Pierre Boulez were puerile. They really were.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 16, 2020, 06:59:20 AM
He can be very funny. He really can. Take a look at his videos on Carl Orff box sets and his preferred Wagner operas. On the other hand one has to slog through a half-hour of drivel to get to his top recommendations, one really does, so I often just fast-forward to the last five minutes. I really do. Sometimes he surprises by saying good things about music one wouldn't expect from him, like Renaissance polyphony. He really does. But his comments on Lieder and the music of Pierre Boulez were puerile. They really were.
Hurwitz seems to have this principle of "subjective" and "objective" facts. He doesn't mind if you have different "subjective" facts such as a little different favorite cycle of something etc., but then there's "objective" facts such as certain recordings being so bad nobody should like them. I support this kind of thinking.
But Hurwitz is not very consistent. His silly behavior concerning some topics can fall into the clearly objective realm, such as the examples Sforzando mentioned or a bunch of others (and I would include some of his comments on Wagner also among the puerile stuff). And his antics and also the very fact that he spends his life reviewing and ranking recordings give the lie to the claim that most of such distinctions are merely subjective.
Quote from: Daverz on December 16, 2020, 01:43:51 AM
Was taken aback seeing Hurtwitz's mug at Presto. It's an entertaining podcast with Hurwitz and Paul Thomas of Presto exchanging their favorite American and UK composers:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/articles/3689--presto-music-podcast-episode-10-across-the-pond-with-david-hurwitz
Glad you enjoyed it!
Quote from: Brian on December 16, 2020, 06:35:06 AM
Gonna listen to this while wrapping Christmas presents. I so hope Hurwitz gets into his encounters with George Lloyd.
He sure does!
Quote from: PaulThomas on December 16, 2020, 08:59:04 AM
He sure does!
Loved learning that Lloyd is extremely bad at sending mail! Good, fun show.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 16, 2020, 06:59:20 AM
He really can. ...one really does.... I really do. .... He really does. ...They really were.
Oof, this is so true. (Less so on the Presto podcast for some reason - there are only one or two - maybe because he was prompted with questions rather than having to fill all the time himself?) It's one of several vocal mannerisms which remind me (dare I say it?) (I really do) of a certain current president. Is it a New York thing? Or just a guy who likes talking thing? Of course, this is one of the reasons I prefer writing to speaking...you can edit out the dumb bits before anyone else is exposed to them.
Quote from: Daverz on December 16, 2020, 01:49:45 AM
I subscribed to ARG for many years, but gave up a decade ago. Vroon is embarassing, but that didn't prevent him from hiring some good writers.
I've also decided to give up on Fanfare. Too many Dentley Hunt (AKA Santa Fe Listener) reviews. I note that his Santa Fe Listener byline at a Amazon has now been replace by his "professional" name.
Ah yes, I've had several run-ins with Santa Fe Listener and I find him to be laughable about best. I mean I know we all have our biases, but I really don't like when a critic takes it to the extreme. It just makes for bad reading, which is why, as I mentioned, I don't read reviews anymore. It's become a podium for tirades and diatribes and not actually getting to the root of why this person likes/dislikes the composer, work or recording in question.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 16, 2020, 06:59:20 AM
He can be very funny. He really can. Take a look at his videos on Carl Orff box sets and his preferred Wagner operas. On the other hand one has to slog through a half-hour of drivel to get to his top recommendations, one really does, so I often just fast-forward to the last five minutes. I really do. Sometimes he surprises by saying good things about music one wouldn't expect from him, like Renaissance polyphony. He really does. But his comments on Lieder and the music of Pierre Boulez were puerile. They really were.
This is gold.
Quote from: Daverz on December 16, 2020, 01:43:51 AM
Was taken aback seeing Hurtwitz's
Did I really write "Hurtwitz"? I really did. Freudian slip!
Quote from: Brian on December 16, 2020, 09:22:11 AM
Oof, this is so true. (Less so on the Presto podcast for some reason - there are only one or two - maybe because he was prompted with questions rather than having to fill all the time himself?) It's one of several vocal mannerisms which remind me (dare I say it?) (I really do) of a certain current president. Is it a New York thing? Or just a guy who likes talking thing? Of course, this is one of the reasons I prefer writing to speaking...you can edit out the dumb bits before anyone else is exposed to them.
No, no, my dear Texan friend! It is a Hurwitz thing, just as "a little bit" is a Lydia Bastianich thing, if you've ever been exposed to her cooking shows. (And if you haven't, please don't rectify, as she seems to me a wretched cook.) Hurwitz just can't shut up. He really can't. His latest installment, on of all things clarinet concertos, repeats the phrase five times that I counted despite all my fast-forwarding. And he takes a full five minutes to tell us that Spohr (pronounced correctly as Shpore) is a terrible composer - before telling us what recording to buy of
his clarinet concertos. I will pass on those. I really will.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 16, 2020, 01:21:00 PM
No, no, my dear Texan friend! It is a Hurwitz thing, just as "a little bit" is a Lydia Bastianich thing, if you've ever been exposed to her cooking shows. (And if you haven't, please don't rectify, as she seems to me a wretched cook.) Hurwitz just can't shut up. He really can't. His latest installment, on of all things clarinet concertos, repeats the phrase five times that I counted despite all my fast-forwarding. And he takes a full five minutes to tell us that Spohr (pronounced correctly as Shpore) is a terrible composer - before telling us what recording to buy of his clarinet concertos. I will pass on those. I really will.
Karl Leister was a really good clarinetist, so I wouldn't avoid these recordings based on Hurwitz's recommentation. Spohr's symphonies are tedious, but the clarinet concertos seem to bring out his best side, as does some of his chamber music with winds.
Just watched the clarinet concerto video. Nobody makes me as excited than him. I like his "there's plenty of good recordings of this piece - pick one and enjoy" attitude. It's the right way. Not the "has to have the ABSOLUTE BEST performance on this ultra obscure East-European label which has been OOP for 532 years and there's one copy of it on eBay for $777+shipping or you have to cry because the Naxos version sucks" attitude which takes all the enjoyment away.
Of all the works he talked about I only have/own Mozart (3 performances), Finzi and Nielsen.
But this is another one of his inconsistencies. If he claims that there are plenty of good recordings and one can really do nothing wrong, I get the suspicion that he does not care all that much about the music and its details. Of course, it is very probably true that even in pieces recorded many times like the Mozart clarinet concerto the range of interpretations is hardly comparable with Brahms' or Mahler's symphonies. But still there are differences, not the least in tone and aesthetic (e.g. vibrato) of clarinet playing.
The claim that all this hardly matters is in a way as extreme as the obsession with "the best" or the hyperbolic claims that hardly any recording does a certain music full justice or how absolutely terrible some highly regarded musicians or recordings supposedly are.
re: Spohr I agree with Daverz. He wrote some pretty good chamber music and if one likes clarinet concertos, his are probably at least as good as Weber's (a bit later and a bit more weighty). I'd rather listen to a Spohr clarinet concerto than to a Paganini violin concerto (although I will even listen to the latter for the fireworks every other year or so).
Quote from: Jo498 on December 17, 2020, 12:11:21 AM
But this is another one of his inconsistencies. If he claims that there are plenty of good recordings and one can really do nothing wrong, I get the suspicion that he does not care all that much about the music and its details. Of course, it is very probably true that even in pieces recorded many times like the Mozart clarinet concerto the range of interpretations is hardly comparable with Brahms' or Mahler's symphonies. But still there are differences, not the least in tone and aesthetic (e.g. vibrato) of clarinet playing.
The claim that all this hardly matters is in a way as extreme as the obsession with "the best" or the hyperbolic claims that hardly any recording does a certain music full justice or how absolutely terrible some highly regarded musicians or recordings supposedly are.
re: Spohr I agree with Daverz. He wrote some pretty good chamber music and if one likes clarinet concertos, his are probably at least as good as Weber's (a bit later and a bit more weighty). I'd rather listen to a Spohr clarinet concerto than to a Paganini violin concerto (although I will even listen to the latter for the fireworks every other year or so).
I think he means that if a work has been recorded 30 times, perhaps 10 of those are good, 10 are passable and 10 are bad and one can select anything from those 10 good ones and be happy. This kind of mindset indicates he cares about the music.
I don't know Spohr's music at all so I don't comment on that. Why don't I just check out his clarinet concertos? Because theres a million of other things to check out and I don't know where to start!! Bartok's Piano Concertos? Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas? Tippett's Piano Concerto (Hurwitz says it great)? When do I have the time when all I do is watch Youtube about PRN going against Anthony Fantano! :P
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2020, 04:37:27 AM
I think he means that if a work has been recorded 30 times, perhaps 10 of those are good, 10 are passable and 10 are bad and one can select anything from those 10 good ones and be happy. This kind of mindset indicates he cares about the music.
I don't know Spohr's music at all so I don't comment on that. Why don't I just check out his clarinet concertos? Because theres a million of other things to check out and I don't know where to start!! Bartok's Piano Concertos? Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas? Tippett's Piano Concerto (Hurwitz says it great)? When do I have the time when all I do is watch Youtube about PRN going against Anthony Fantano! :P
To the bolded text, you can have the time if you
make the time. If you're on YouTube watching one video after another, it's your own fault.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 17, 2020, 06:05:32 AM
To the bolded text, you can have the time if you make the time. If you're on YouTube watching one video after another, it's your own fault.
Yes, it's definitely my own fault. Before Youtube/internet came along it was MUCH easier to make the time and even my non-existing skills were adequate.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2020, 04:37:27 AM
I think he means that if a work has been recorded 30 times, perhaps 10 of those are good, 10 are passable and 10 are bad and one can select anything from those 10 good ones and be happy. This kind of mindset indicates he cares about the music.
I don't know Spohr's music at all so I don't comment on that. Why don't I just check out his clarinet concertos? Because theres a million of other things to check out and I don't know where to start!! Bartok's Piano Concertos? Prokofiev's Piano Sonatas? Tippett's Piano Concerto (Hurwitz says it great)? When do I have the time when all I do is watch Youtube about PRN going against Anthony Fantano! :P
Of those, you definitely need to hear the Bartok Piano Concertos toot suite.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2020, 07:08:59 AM
Yes, it's definitely my own fault. Before Youtube/internet came along it was MUCH easier to make the time and even my non-existing skills were adequate.
Why are you always playing the victim, 71 dB? I mean you could easily pull yourself away from YouTube and the internet if you truly wanted to, but I guess you'd rather complain about the fact that you believe you can't. :-\
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 17, 2020, 02:42:52 PM
Why are you always playing the victim, 71 dB? I mean you could easily pull yourself away from YouTube and the internet if you truly wanted to, but I guess you'd rather complain about the fact that you believe you can't. :-\
Maybe you are not a Youtube junky, but let me tell you the addiction is most powerful! ??? However, I was able to listen to
Rodrigo's Harp Concerto today...
Quote from: Daverz on December 17, 2020, 02:42:27 PM
Of those, you definitely need to hear the Bartok Piano Concertos toot suite.
Okay then. I have explored Bartok very little. I got his string quartets, but never really warmed up to them...
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2020, 09:18:30 PM
Okay then. I have explored Bartok very little. I got his string quartets, but never really warmed up to them...
Yeah, not the place to start with Bartok. You want to start with the late works like the
Concerto for Orchestra and the
Piano Concerto No. 3.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2020, 09:14:23 PM
Maybe you are not a Youtube junky, but let me tell you the addiction is most powerful!
I suggest, not for the first time, that you try listening to the podcast
Rabbit Hole. Addiction is an appropriate word.
Quote from: Daverz on December 17, 2020, 09:22:13 PM
Yeah, not the place to start with Bartok. You want to start with the late works like the Concerto for Orchestra and the Piano Concerto No. 3.
Of course
Concerto for Orchestra and
Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta are familiar and I have the Rahbari Naxos of those. I like those works. I also liked
Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion when I borrowed it from a friend, but that seems to be a rarely recorded piece for some reason*. The String Quartets (Takács Quartet) didn't do good for my enthusiam to explore Bartók further. Now I listened to the Piano Concertos on Spotify (Géza Anda/Ferenc Fricsay) and they were ok. I liked the second most, followed by the third while the first one contained the most "Bartok weirdness." Ironically the first concerto sounds most modern and the last the most romantic, but I guess that's Bartók for you: A strange man. :P
* David Hurwitz praised the Martha Argerich on DG, but when I checked it on Amazon the asked price was no less than £1.200! I got depressed.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2020, 04:28:42 AM
Of course Concerto for Orchestra and Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta are familiar and I have the Rahbari Naxos of those. I like those works. I also liked Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion when I borrowed it from a friend, but that seems to be a rarely recorded piece for some reason*. The String Quartets (Takács Quartet) didn't do good for my enthusiam to explore Bartók further. Now I listened to the Piano Concertos on Spotify (Géza Anda/Ferenc Fricsay) and they were ok. I liked the second most, followed by the third while the first one contained the most "Bartok weirdness." Ironically the first concerto sounds most modern and the last the most romantic, but I guess that's Bartók for you: A strange man. :P
* David Hurwitz praised the Martha Argerich on DG, but when I checked it on Amazon the asked price was no less than £1.200! I got depressed.
Piano Concertos 2 & 3 are my favorite as well, particularly for the middle movements, spooky in 2 and serene in 3.
The Argerich/Freire Sonata for 2 Pianos & Percussion is easy to find streaming or as a download. A physical disc can probably found in some Argerich box. Presto has a reasonable price on a single CD, but I believe it's a CDR:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8077250--bartok-ravel-works-for-2-pianos-and-percussion
It sounds like you've hit all the Bartok highlights except for the Violin Concerto. I'd add Bluebeard's Castle, Dance Suite, the Divertimento, Contrasts, and The Miraculous Manadarin (full ballet).
With the Bartok quartets, start with #4 or #5, or even the melancholy #6.
I think Hurwitz referred to an early Kovacevich/Argerich recording or the 2P&P sonata, if this exists? There is also the Kontarskys and others who are pretty good. (I like it but not quite as much as the piano concertos.)
Quote from: Jo498 on December 18, 2020, 05:13:14 AMI think Hurwitz referred to an early Kovacevich/Argerich recording or the 2P&P sonata, if this exists?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41QkNSikrdL._SY355_.jpg)
Quote from: 71 dB on December 17, 2020, 09:14:23 PM
Maybe you are not a Youtube junky, but let me tell you the addiction is most powerful! ??? However, I was able to listen to Rodrigo's Harp Concerto today...
If I get on YouTube, it's usually to watch a documentary about a composer or some kind of interview with a musician I like or simply to sample a piece of music from a recording I'm interested in acquiring. But let me tell you that it's NOT an addiction unless you allow it to be.
Quote from: Daverz on December 18, 2020, 04:42:19 AM
Piano Concertos 2 & 3 are my favorite as well, particularly for the middle movements, spooky in 2 and serene in 3.
I totally agree with this. The slow movements of 2 and 3 are the "reason" to listen to these. :)
Quote from: Daverz on December 18, 2020, 04:42:19 AMThe Argerich/Freire Sonata for 2 Pianos & Percussion is easy to find streaming or as a download. A physical disc can probably found in some Argerich box. Presto has a reasonable price on a single CD, but I believe it's a CDR:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8077250--bartok-ravel-works-for-2-pianos-and-percussion
It's actually "only" £14.29 + shipping (condition good) on Amazon.co.uk, but even that is a bit high, especially as I haven't even heard the CD. I can stream it on Spotify, althout tonight I will watch snooker on tv. I avoid downloads. I am a physical media guy. I looked for some Argerich boxes, but didn't find this one, maybe because this is DG and those boxes where Warner.
Quote from: Daverz on December 18, 2020, 04:42:19 AMIt sounds like you've hit all the Bartok highlights except for the Violin Concerto. I'd add Bluebeard's Castle, Dance Suite, the Divertimento, Contrasts, and The Miraculous Manadarin (full ballet).
Oh, okay. Thanks for the list of works to check out. I actually have the Divertimento on a Naxos disc of 20th century string music. :)
71db,
I'll chime in to recommend Bartok's 'The Wooden Prince' before 'The Miraculous Mandarin'.
Both are great, but I believe Wooden Prince is the more accessible of the two.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 18, 2020, 06:17:41 AM
If I get on YouTube, it's usually to watch a documentary about a composer or some kind of interview with a musician I like or simply to sample a piece of music from a recording I'm interested in acquiring. But let me tell you that it's NOT an addiction unless you allow it to be.
You have not found the "evil" addictive stuff on Youtube. Many Youtube content creators are geniuses in hooking people and making them subscribe and watch their videos. That's how they can have hundreds of thousand or even millions of subscribtions. That's their way of making their living. I am warning you. Keep watching only boring* composers documents if you don't want to become a Youtube junky, but be aware! Youtube keeps recommending all kind of videos and anyone of them may HOOK you depending on your taste, preferences and weaknesses. If you accidentally watch one of those videos Youtube begings recommending other similar videos and you are doomed! ???
* Yes, "boring" in the sense they don't give you an addiction.
Quote from: OrchestralNut on December 18, 2020, 08:14:05 AM
71db,
I'll chime in to recommend Bartok's 'The Wooden Prince' before 'The Miraculous Mandarin'.
Both are great, but I believe Wooden Prince is the more accessible of the two.
Thanks! I wrote myself a list of these recommended works Kept in my Naxos Bartók CD jewel box so it won't get lost:
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2020, 08:35:02 AM
You have not found the "evil" addictive stuff on Youtube. Many Youtube content creators are geniuses in hooking people and making them subscribe and watch their videos. That's how they can have hundreds of thousand or even millions of subscribtions. That's their way of making their living. I am warning you. Keep watching only boring* composers documents if you don't want to become a Youtube junky, but be aware! Youtube keeps recommending all kind of videos and anyone of them may HOOK you depending on your taste, preferences and weaknesses. If you accidentally watch one of those videos Youtube begings recommending other similar videos and you are doomed! ???
* Yes, "boring" in the sense they don't give you an addiction.
The only geniuses I see on YouTube are the composers of whom I watch these 'boring' documentaries. Those are the real geniuses in my mind. I wouldn't be caught dead watching one of those videos you watch on that site, because 1. I'm not brain-dead and 2. I'm not easily lead (i. e. gullible) into believing the propaganda in which you subscribe.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 18, 2020, 10:47:50 AM
The only geniuses I see on YouTube are the composers of whom I watch these 'boring' documentaries. Those are the real geniuses in my mind. I wouldn't be caught dead watching one of those videos you watch on that site, because 1. I'm not brain-dead and 2. I'm not easily lead (i. e. gullible) into believing the propaganda in which you subscribe.
Uh, did I miss something, maybe in another thread? I saw 71dB describing "evil" propaganda but never saw him say that he
believes any of it.
Quote from: Brian on December 18, 2020, 10:51:36 AM
Uh, did I miss something, maybe in another thread? I saw 71dB describing "evil" propaganda but never saw him say that he believes any of it.
I'm not sure about actual quotes from 71 dB saying he believed in the propaganda or not, but my point, more or less, was that he's wasted a lot of time watching junk, which is fine if that's what he wants to do, but the way he's talking about it sounds like he's a fallen victim to these types of YouTube videos and that he has no control over what he's actually watching and this couldn't be any further from the truth.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2020, 08:10:49 AM
I totally agree with this. The slow movements of 2 and 3 are the "reason" to listen to these. :)
It's actually "only" £14.29 + shipping (condition good) on Amazon.co.uk, but even that is a bit high, especially as I haven't even heard the CD. I can stream it on Spotify, althout tonight I will watch snooker on tv. I avoid downloads. I am a physical media guy. I looked for some Argerich boxes, but didn't find this one, maybe because this is DG and those boxes where Warner.
Yeah, there's an Argerich "Complete DG Recordings" box. Not many such boxes have such a high hit/miss ratio (well, at least for Argerich fans).
If you don't want to get the complete DG box, there's a "chamber ensemble" box with the Bartok Sonata for 2 Pianos & Percussion with Freire:
https://www.amazon.com/Martha-Argerich-Collection-Chamber-Ensembles/dp/B003W16TBS
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 18, 2020, 10:47:50 AM
The only geniuses I see on YouTube are the composers of whom I watch these 'boring' documentaries. Those are the real geniuses in my mind. I wouldn't be caught dead watching one of those videos you watch on that site, because 1. I'm not brain-dead and 2. I'm not easily lead (i. e. gullible) into believing the propaganda in which you subscribe.
I don't think you know what kind of videos I watch on Youtube. A small portion of those have been about US politics which is what I believe you are preferring to when you mention "the propaganda." By "evil" I mean the videos are addictive. For example Dan Bell documents dying/dead shopping malls in a genius way utilizing the psychological aspects of "liminal spaces" and nostalgia. The only political propaganda in those videos is
"People shop online these days so shopping malls in areas where people's income level is dropping are really struggling." Or how about recreational math? There is hardly anything political about calculating fancy integrals and the only propaganda is
"Math is cool!" Even if we talk about the US politics videos I watch I have said a million time people are much better believing the likes of TYT, Secular Talk, David Pakman, The Humanist Report, Christo Aivalis, etc. than the corporate media. I wish we could drop this negativity already and concentrate on positive things.
Quote from: Daverz on December 18, 2020, 01:11:20 PM
Yeah, there's an Argerich "Complete DG Recordings" box. Not many such boxes have such a high hit/miss ratio (well, at least for Argerich fans).
If you don't want to get the complete DG box, there's a "chamber ensemble" box with the Bartok Sonata for 2 Pianos & Percussion with Freire:
https://www.amazon.com/Martha-Argerich-Collection-Chamber-Ensembles/dp/B003W16TBS
Thanks for the link. The 6 CD box might be too much and the backcover photo is out of focus so it's hard to see what's in the box... :P
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2020, 02:17:53 PM
I don't think you know what kind of videos I watch on Youtube. A small portion of those have been about US politics which is what I believe you are preferring to when you mention "the propaganda." By "evil" I mean the videos are addictive. For example Dan Bell documents dying/dead shopping malls in a genius way utilizing the psychological aspects of "liminal spaces" and nostalgia. The only political propaganda in those videos is "People shop online these days so shopping malls in areas where people's income level is dropping are really struggling." Or how about recreational math? There is hardly anything political about calculating fancy integrals and the only propaganda is "Math is cool!" Even if we talk about the US politics videos I watch I have said a million time people are much better believing the likes of TYT, Secular Talk, David Pakman, The Humanist Report, Christo Aivalis, etc. than the corporate media. I wish we could drop this negativity already and concentrate on positive things.
To the bolded text, this would've made a lot of sense if you hadn't had written all of that other stuff
before you wrote that last sentence. In any case, fair enough. I won't bother you any longer about this. My point has been made.
Can we stop trying to micromanage other people's time management, please? When someone complains they don't have time for things, I usually just take it as small talk. Taking someone to task for it seems a bit gormless to me.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2020, 02:17:53 PM
For example Dan Bell documents dying/dead shopping malls in a genius way utilizing the psychological aspects of "liminal spaces" and nostalgia.
While truly dead malls are depressing, those dying mall videos (I usually watch the Retail Archeology ones), with their big, almost empty indoor spaces, can be so restive. 8)
I probably watch more SaveAFox videos than anything else. I don't have cable, so YT makes up most of my video watching. I do subscribe to some video streaming services, but I should stop as I've been barely using them lately, finding most movies and TV series not holding my interest anymore.
Hmm, it seems the political YT I watch is more radical than what 71dB is watching. I do not like TYT and don't care much for Pakman, but at least it's not Jimmy Dore. For a daily "current events" show, I usually watch The Majority Report. Most of my favorite "breadtube" channels have not been very productive lately: Contrapoints, Shaun, Three Arrows, Innuendo Studios, Big Joel, Timbah.On.Toast, LonerBox, Jonas Čeika, Bad Empanada.
Anyway...back to Hurwitz. Goodness, this guy never shuts up. Watching him is the equivalent of walking into a room of screaming babies. His voice is irritating and I really can't stand how he spends so much time on enunciation of composers and then says "Ah, who really cares how it's pronounced." He wastes a lot of time beating around the bush instead of just getting on with it and saying what he wants. I read on some forum (maybe this one?) that someone actually met him and he was the nicest guy and that's all well fine and all, but his videos need either trimming down or he should start thinking about adding in some graphics, because as it stands right now, they're a slog to get through.
Quote from: Daverz on December 18, 2020, 02:51:11 PM
While truly dead malls are depressing, those dying mall videos (I usually watch the Retail Archeology ones), with their big, almost empty indoor spaces, can be so restive. 8)
Wow, someone else on GMG watching dead malls videos on Youtube! 0:) Related to these I also watch Urbex videos (
The Proper People is my favorite, but there are so many to choose from.) Btw, "restive" was completely new english word for me. I suppose it's used VERY seldom?
Quote from: Daverz on December 18, 2020, 02:51:11 PMI probably watch more SaveAFox videos than anything else. I don't have cable, so YT makes up most of my video watching. I do subscribe to some video streaming services, but I should stop as I've been barely using them lately, finding most movies and TV series not holding my interest anymore.
Yeah, foxes are supercool animals. I watch TYR the White Fox, but also other fox channels (pun intented) occationally. I have "cable" meaning about 2 dozen free tv channels + maybe 200 pay channels which I don't subscribe to. Youtube rules for me. Sometimes I watch something from tv, but most of it is uninteresting garbage. I use Blu-ray a lot to watch movies.
Quote from: Daverz on December 18, 2020, 02:51:11 PMHmm, it seems the political YT I watch is more radical and anti-capitalist than what 71dB is watching. I do not like TYT and don't care much for Pakman, but at least it's not Jimmy Dore. I usually watch The Majority Report. Most of my favorite "breadtube" channels have not been very productive lately: Contrapoints, Shaun, Three Arrows, Innuendo Studios, Big Joel, Timbah.On.Toast, LonerBox, Jonas Čeika, Bad Empanada.
I used to watch Jimmy Dore in the beginning when I got into US politics in 2017, but I kind of got fed up with his "stand-up" style of politics. So, it's more of "how" he says than "what" he says. Sam Seder's laconic style isn't my style either. Of the other channels you mention I only know Contrapoints, althou I only watch a few of her videos couple of years back. There's just so many serious content creators! That's why everyone can discover their own favorites and that's why they are do addictive.
The political channels I watch tend to favor social democracy which is anti-crony-capitalist rather than anti-capitalist. As far as I know The Majority Report is also in this group more or less.
TYT gets to the nerves of some people, but I tolerate them and acknowledge their massive size and influence. They are
very important in the realm of US lefty media.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 18, 2020, 03:15:11 PM
His voice is irritating and I really can't stand how he spends so much time on enunciation of composers and then says "Ah, who really cares how it's pronounced."
I find his voice fun to listen to. In one video he pronounced Einojuhani Rautavaara quite well (maybe 88 % correctly) for an English-speaker. That's the kind of Finnish name that gets often butchered fiercely by people who are not native Finnish speakers.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 18, 2020, 03:15:11 PM
Anyway...back to Hurwitz. Goodness, this guy never shuts up. Watching him is the equivalent of walking into a room of screaming babies. His voice is irritating and I really can't stand how he spends so much time on enunciation of composers and then says "Ah, who really cares how it's pronounced." He wastes a lot of time beating around the bush instead of just getting on with it and saying what he wants. I read on some forum (maybe this one?) that someone actually met him and he was the nicest guy and that's all well fine and all, but his videos need either trimming down or he should start thinking about adding in some graphics, because as it stands right now, they're a slog to get through.
I still prefer the written reviews for much this reason. And indeed, the contents of many of the videos (about the best recording of a work, etc) essentially end up reflecting the written reviews anyway. Not least because it's a standard part of Classics Today to list what they consider the reference recordings. There's been a few times when that sort of information has enabled me to know what is in an 'Insider' review without subscribing (though I've considered subscribing lately to access everything, I can probably afford to do so).
It's one of the interesting things about the internet is that many people don't seem to realise the importance of editing, when the medium itself doesn't force them to edit. I don't know whether it's partly a factor of this COVID year in Hurwitz' case, where it really is just him sitting at home and talking. But he'd still be better off doing editing or retakes or just planning his script a lot more tightly.
And the whole "who cares how it's pronounced" shtick really needs to go. It's rude. It would actually be better to just get it wrong, and maybe admit that, than to say "who cares".
Quote from: Madiel on December 18, 2020, 04:44:36 PM
I still prefer the written reviews for much this reason. And indeed, the contents of many of the videos (about the best recording of a work, etc) essentially end up reflecting the written reviews anyway. Not least because it's a standard part of Classics Today to list what they consider the reference recordings. There's been a few times when that sort of information has enabled me to know what is in an 'Insider' review without subscribing (though I've considered subscribing lately to access everything, I can probably afford to do so).
It's one of the interesting things about the internet is that many people don't seem to realise the importance of editing, when the medium itself doesn't force them to edit. I don't know whether it's partly a factor of this COVID year in Hurwitz' case, where it really is just him sitting at home and talking. But he'd still be better off doing editing or retakes or just planning his script a lot more tightly.
And the whole "who cares how it's pronounced" shtick really needs to go. It's rude. It would actually be better to just get it wrong, and maybe admit that, than to say "who cares".
Some good points here. I especially like the idea of sticking to a script, which helps eliminate the dead weight. He posts so many of these videos that I think the idea of trimming them down or doing any sort of editing isn't important, especially when people are kissing his ass with comments like "Great video!" or "Keep them coming!" I mean it would nice to actually read one comment on one of his videos that complain about the actual content and the way it's presented, but, alas, I have yet to see one, but then again, it's not like I'm looking for those comments either or can be bothered to sift through the congratulatory bullshit in order to find one comment that actually criticizes his way of going about making these videos.
You could always write one...
Quote from: Madiel on December 18, 2020, 05:02:37 PM
You could always write one...
I'm afraid my comment won't be nice and I don't want to end up sounding like I'm insulting the man, which I've already done plenty of here. :P
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 18, 2020, 03:06:11 PM
Sure. As long as you stop posting garbage like this:
Since this probably won't happen, I think I'm allowed to call someone else out on their self-pity posts. But it's quite alright as 71 dB never actually reads responses --- he just keeps writing and writing and writing ad nauseam.
Can I just remind folks to be careful, try not to step on one another's toes please.
Knight
In the Haydn Symphony Crusade (no. 6), we don't just get "I really don't," but "I really, really don't." Beat that!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ytKqcODGE, 5:43.
"One of the bitchiest, most mean-spirited essays in musical history," sez Dave. What is he talking about? That 25-second video where he threw the complete works of Pierre Boulez in the air and called them "garbage"? Mais non! In fact, courtesy of an essay supplied by our good friend and esteemed colleague Brian Reinhart, Dave is talking about a man "who taught a whole generation of composers we all despise," that is - René Leibowitz, sez Dave, bitchily relishing his impeccable pronunciation of Leibowitz's French-German name. (Never mind that Boulez quarreled fiercely with Leibowitz, writing that "the academism of his (RL's) analysis and so on was unbearable to me." And never mind that this "whole generation of composers we all despise" has been championed and recorded by such non-entities as Charles Rosen, Robert Craft, Maurizio Pollini, Allan Gilbert, Claudio Abbado, David Robertson, usw.)
Leibowitz was totally wrong about Sibelius. But lots of composers are wrong about others ("Beethoven is ready for the madhouse," said Weber of the 4th symphony; "that giftless bastard Brahms," said Tchaikovsky, whose opinion was echoed by Britten decades later), and if ever a pot called a kettle black, it was Mr. Hurwitz on this occasion. It really was.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 21, 2020, 02:04:17 PM
"Beethoven is ready for the madhouse," said Weber of the 4th symphony;
It was actually the 7th and it was actually one of Schindler's countless fabrications.
Quote from: Wikipedia
The oft-repeated claim that Carl Maria von Weber considered the chromatic bass line in the coda of the first movement evidence that Beethoven was "ripe for the madhouse" seems to have been the invention of Beethoven's first biographer, Anton Schindler. His possessive adulation of Beethoven is well-known, and he was criticised by his contemporaries for his obsessive attacks on Weber. According to John Warrack, Weber's biographer, Schindler was characteristically evasive when defending Beethoven, and there is "no shred of concrete evidence" that Weber ever made the remark.[14]
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 11:31:41 AM
It was actually the 7th and it was actually one of Schindler's countless fabrications.
Ah yes. I was mixing up two Weber reactions. But he said this for sure about the 4th:
https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/weber-on-beethoven-s-fourth-symphony
"First a slow movement full of short disjointed unconnected ideas, at the rate of three or four notes per quarter of an hour; then a mysterious roll of the drum and passage of the violas, seasoned with the proper quantity of pauses and ritardandos; and to end all a furious finale, in which the only requisite is that there should be no ideas for the hearer to make out, but plenty of transitions from one key to another."
And this detail does not rebut my main point, i.e. that some judgments against composers are preposterously unjust. Why, some folks have been known to inveigh against Havergal Brian!
People have tastes.
People are horrified that other people have tastes.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 22, 2020, 12:32:20 PM
Ah yes. I was mixing up two Weber reactions. But he said this for sure about the 4th:
https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/weber-on-beethoven-s-fourth-symphony
"First a slow movement full of short disjointed unconnected ideas, at the rate of three or four notes per quarter of an hour; then a mysterious roll of the drum and passage of the violas, seasoned with the proper quantity of pauses and ritardandos; and to end all a furious finale, in which the only requisite is that there should be no ideas for the hearer to make out, but plenty of transitions from one key to another."
But, but, but, dear Mr. Sforz, this source is just as untrustful as Schindler:
In 1809, Carl Maria von Weber published a biting satire on Beethoven's Fourth Symphony. It was summarized by Sir George Grove in his 1896 book, "Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies." Let's not forget that this same Weber was supposed to have pronounced Beethoven "ripe for the madhouse" upon hearing the Seventh Symphony! Anyway, here's Sir George: Say what? Instead of a link to that original 1809 biting satire Weber supposedly
published (at the very least, we should have been told which journal, which issue and which page) we are offered a "summary" by Sir George Grove, and a reminder that Weber "was
supposedto have pronounced Beethoven "ripe for the madhouse" upon hearing the Seventh Symphony".
Sir George Grove is dead and burried; so is Weber; so is Schindler. Who is going to shed light upon this strange case, I wonder?
Quote from: Madiel on December 22, 2020, 12:38:37 PM
People have tastes.
People are horrified that other people have tastes.
The tragedy and downfall of GMG in a nutshell.
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 12:50:45 PM
Sir George Grove is dead and burried; so is Weber; so is Schindler. Who is going to shed light upon this strange case, I wonder?
Hurwitz?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 22, 2020, 12:57:14 PM
Hurwitz?
Hah! :D
Is he even remotely related to Emanuel Hurwitz, I wonder.
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 01:04:57 PM
Is he even remotely related to Emanuel Hurwitz, I wonder.
One can only hope.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 22, 2020, 01:16:01 PM
One can only hope.
I think you're being too harsh to him, Mr. Sforz. He's a human being, ergo he's deeply flawed --- but I can think of much worse ways of being deeply flawed than his.
Seriously now, what amuses me no end is people not caring for, or even despising, David Hurwitz yet who keep posting about he said or did.
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 01:22:08 PM
I think you're being too harsh to him, Mr. Sforz. He's a human being, ergo he's deeply flawed --- but I can think of much worse ways of being deeply flawed than his.
Seriously now, what amuses me no end is people not caring for, or even despising, David Hurwitz yet who keep posting about he said or did.
I don't despise him - not by a long shot - but he is "deeply flawed" to say the least. He definitely knows his recordings, he's very funny, and he says useful things about the music in a non-technical way. What I most dislike are his tolerance for some (in my view) mediocre 20th-century modern tonal composers, and his corresponding contempt for the high points of the atonal avant garde (Stockhausen, Boulez, Carter, among others). Real blind spots (or should I say deaf spots) there, as well as his blanket dismissal of the whole genre of the art song. That would be one thing if it were one of us casual listeners, quite another from a professional critic whose opinions are published and can be expected to carry greater weight.
Fair enough, Andre?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 22, 2020, 12:32:20 PM
Ah yes. I was mixing up two Weber reactions. But he said this for sure about the 4th:
"First a slow movement full of short disjointed unconnected ideas, at the rate of three or four notes per quarter of an hour; then a mysterious roll of the drum and passage of the violas, seasoned with the proper quantity of pauses and ritardandos; and to end all a furious finale, in which the only requisite is that there should be no ideas for the hearer to make out, but plenty of transitions from one key to another."
Really that quote sounds remarkably similar to Leibowitz on Sibelius! I guess a certain sort of bad review never changes.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 22, 2020, 02:17:58 PM
I don't despise him - not by a long shot -
I didn't imply
you do.
Quotehe is "deeply flawed" to say the least.
Welcome to the club!
QuoteHe definitely knows his recordings, he's very funny,
Yep!
Quotehe says useful things about the music in a non-technical way.
I wonder how many musical critics qualify...
QuoteWhat I most dislike are his tolerance for some (in my view) mediocre 20th-century modern tonal composers,
Such as...?
Quotehis corresponding contempt for the high points of the atonal avant garde (Stockhausen, Boulez, Carter, among others).
I couldn't care less about them myself but I don't hold them in any contempt --- they do nothing for me, yet more power to those who enjoy them!
Quotehis blanket dismissal of the whole genre of the art song.
Yes, in this respect he is guilty of an unqualified cultural crime. Unqualified, I tellya!Quote
Fair enough, Andrei?
Absolutely faiir, Larry!
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 02:30:19 PM
Such as...?
A lot of post-Mahlerian romantics. Back when I was in college, I wasted a lot of time seeing a new CT review of an obscure composer like Sigmund von Hausegger or Joly Braga Santos, checking the disc out of the college library, and discovering that the music was (to me) super boring. Not to say they ALL were. I found people like Dag Wiren that way whom I still enjoy. But Hurwitz definitely has a thing for big gloopy orchestral stuff.
Quote from: Brian on December 22, 2020, 02:57:50 PM
A lot of post-Mahlerian romantics. Back when I was in college, I wasted a lot of time seeing a new CT review of an obscure composer like Sigmund von Hausegger or Joly Braga Santos, checking the disc out of the college library, and discovering that the music was (to me) super boring.
Hah!
I listened to the first two Braga Santos symphonies upon enthusiastic GMG reviews--- only to discover they are precisely the doom&gloom stufff that I can't stand even when paid in gold!
Never heard a note of Hausegger but if it's anything like Braga Santos, then I'll pass!
Give me Mozart, Schubert and Chopin any time of the day or of the night, call me a philistine and thank you!
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 02:30:19 PM
I couldn't care less about them myself but I don't hold them in any contempt --- they do nothing for me, yet more power to those who enjoy them!
Where he crossed the line, imo, is in referring to Leibowitz as a man "who taught a whole generation of composers we all despise." And that's a direct quote. And coming from someone in a position of authority, whose opinions which some (judging by the comments) take at face value, that's a bad slip. It really is. He's purporting to speak for everybody, he dismisses this music out of hand, and I think his judgment on Leibowitz's remarks is colored by his contempt for the avant-garde generation. I quote the complete text of his video on the music of Boulez:
"Hello friends! This is Dave Hurwitz, executive editor of Classics Today, here to talk about the very best of Pierre Boulez the composer! Ah, who am I kidding? (throws CDs away) It's all garbage! There is no best of Pierre Boulez the composer. End of video! Keep on listening to anything else! Bye-bye!"
And of course the comments mostly applaud Dave for his great insights and perspicacity, with the occasional exception:
COMMENT: Respectfully disagree.
HURWITZ: Respectfully don't care.
COMMENT: Boulez, like Elliott Carter, took the Boulanger technical work to heart, and produced wonderful fastidious scores of great beauty. The Boulez complete works on DG is one of my keep for life boxes. I'm currently working through Per Norgard's work, and find wonderful things in this derived seemingly from non-musical ideas. I suppose the ravishing Xenakis is also out of bounds? How about the collected Ligeti split between two labels?
HURWITZ: Nothing is out of bounds, including criticizing any of the above for producing crap.
Pot-kettle-black, as I said above. Geez, you'd think we were talking about Braga Santos here. ;D Hurwitz is just making himself look bad.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 22, 2020, 03:47:05 PM
Where he crossed the line, imo, is in referring to Leibowitz as a man "who taught a whole generation of composers we all despise." And that's a direct quote. And coming from someone in a position of authority, whose opinions which some (judging by the comments) take at face value, that's a bad slip. It really is. He's purporting to speak for everybody, he dismisses this music out of hand, and I think his judgment on Leibowitz's remarks is colored by his contempt for the avant-garde generation. I quote the complete text of his video on the music of Boulez:
"Hello friends! This is Dave Hurwitz, executive editor of Classics Today, here to talk about the very best of Pierre Boulez the composer! Ah, who am I kidding? (throws CDs away) It's all garbage! There is no best of Pierre Boulez the composer. End of video! Keep on listening to anything else! Bye-bye!"
And of course the comments mostly applaud Dave for his great insights and perspicacity, with the occasional exception:
COMMENT: Respectfully disagree.
HURWITZ: Respectfully don't care.
COMMENT: Boulez, like Elliott Carter, took the Boulanger technical work to heart, and produced wonderful fastidious scores of great beauty. The Boulez complete works on DG is one of my keep for life boxes. I'm currently working through Per Norgard's work, and find wonderful things in this derived seemingly from non-musical ideas. I suppose the ravishing Xenakis is also out of bounds? How about the collected Ligeti split between two labels?
HURWITZ: Nothing is out of bounds, including criticizing any of the above for producing crap.
Pot-kettle-black, as I said above. Geez, you'd think we were talking about Braga Santos here. ;D Hurwitz is just making himself look bad.
Does it even matter? I mean, David Hurwitz trashing Boulez on YouTube! Unheard of! Crime! Assassin!
Oh, pulleeaaseee, Larry!
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 04:06:02 PM
Does it even matter? I mean, David Hurwitz trashing Boulez on YouTube! Unheard of! Crime! Assassin!
Oh, pulleeaaseee, Larry!
Of course it doesn't matter! But why else do we have an Internet?
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 01:22:08 PM
Seriously now, what amuses me no end is people not caring for, or even despising, David Hurwitz yet who keep posting about he said or did.
One of the bigger non-politically related head scratchers of this forum.
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 01:22:08 PMSeriously now, what amuses me no end is people not caring for, or even despising, David Hurwitz yet who keep posting about he said or did.
I only post about him because of what I think are outrageous opinions like those videos I posted on the Elgar thread. I mean
this Elgar video is just beyond baffling to me:
https://www.youtube.com/v/Ar3HqhHTsI0
To me, it's like saying Beethoven's best work is the
Leonore Overture or something along these lines. I mean he's free to believe and say what he wants, but by the same token, I think it's perfectly valid for anyone to criticize his opinion or, in this case, what I view as a lapse of judgment.
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 03:06:26 PM
Hah!
I listened to the first two Braga Santos symphonies upon enthusiastic GMG reviews--- only to discover they are precisely the doom&gloom stufff that I can't stand even when paid in gold!
Braga Santos' first two symphonies are anything but "doom&gloom". Clearly you listened to the last two (which are superb too, above all No. 5). ;)
When it comes to written reviews, those of Hurwitz (and everyone else on his site) are models of clarity and concision compared to what you find on Musicweb International.
People might complain about Hurwitz's opinions, but at least you know what the hell they are.
Quote from: Florestan on December 22, 2020, 03:06:26 PM
Never heard a note of Hausegger but if it's anything like Braga Santos, then I'll pass!
I am not sure I ever consciously listened to anything by either composer, but von Hausegger is supposed to be similar to Bruckner (he was a famous Bruckner conductor as well).
I think it is fairly easy why people love to discuss and hate Hurwitz. In my case, I often find his reviews entertaining and informative, as I share some of his enthusiasms (e.g. Haydn) or at least the general thrust that some music deserves more attention (e.g. some of Mendelssohn, shorter concert pieces with piano). One problem is that he often explicitly claims that as a professional reviewer he does and can fairly review music he does not particularly care about. And sometimes he does that.
But it seems that far more frequently he gleefully indulges in tearing up (or throwing into garbage) his bêtes noires, both certain artists (Horenstein, Rattle, Furtwängler) and composers (almost all non-tonal avantgarde after the first generation, not sure about his stance on Schönberg, Berg, Webern, but also late romantics like Reger and Pfitzner and probably more I forgot about), areas of musicological research (Bruckner symphony versions) or whole genres (Lieder, which he didn't throw into the garbage but claimed that any claim they could be serious classical music and not "basically the same" as pop songs was pretentious elitism).
Spicing up reviews occasionally with tantrums about how bad something is, is one thing, but the extent is unprofessional and often more annoying than amusing. To reject in a sophomoric way the items I just listened is in direct contradiction to the professional fairnesses he professes elsewhere. And by this he also exhibits the very same parochialism he makes fun of elsewhere.
This was more understandable 70 years ago when composers and critics like Leibowitz fought tooth and nail for the avantgarde music they loved (and keep in mind that some composers of interwar avantgarde had barely escaped physical annihilation (or not) which is hardly conducive to fair evaluation of opponents) and didn't shy from unfair attacks on popular favorites (and Sibelius was an ironical case because he had "dropped out" already in 1930). But Hurwitz does not have such excuses, he only does it for fun or spite.
Quote from: Jo498 on December 23, 2020, 12:31:53 AM
I am not sure I ever consciously listened to anything by either composer, but von Hausegger is supposed to be similar to Bruckner (he was a famous Bruckner conductor as well).
I think it is fairly easy why people love to discuss and hate Hurwitz. In my case, I often find his reviews entertaining and informative, as I share some of his enthusiasms (e.g. Haydn) or at least the general thrust that some music deserves more attention (e.g. some of Mendelssohn, shorter concert pieces with piano). One problem is that he often explicitly claims that as a professional reviewer he does and can fairly review music he does not particularly care about. And sometimes he does that.
But it seems that far more frequently he gleefully indulges in tearing up (or throwing into garbage) his bêtes noires, both certain artists (Horenstein, Rattle, Furtwängler) and composers (almost all non-tonal avantgarde after the first generation, not sure about his stance on Schönberg, Berg, Webern, but also late romantics like Reger and Pfitzner and probably more I forgot about), areas of musicological research (Bruckner symphony versions) or whole genres (Lieder, which he didn't throw into the garbage but claimed that any claim they could be serious classical music and not "basically the same" as pop songs was pretentious elitism).
Spicing up reviews occasionally with tantrums about how bad something is, is one thing, but the extent is unprofessional and often more annoying than amusing. To reject in a sophomoric way the items I just listened is in direct contradiction to the professional fairnesses he professes elsewhere. And by this he also exhibits the very same parochialism he makes fun of elsewhere.
This was more understandable 70 years ago when composers and critics like Leibowitz fought tooth and nail for the avantgarde music they loved (and keep in mind that some composers of interwar avantgarde had barely escaped physical annihilation (or not) which is hardly conducive to fair evaluation of opponents) and didn't shy from unfair attacks on popular favorites (and Sibelius was an ironical case because he had "dropped out" already in 1930). But Hurwitz does not have such excuses, he only does it for fun or spite.
This is a fair assessment.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 22, 2020, 06:15:12 PM
I only post about him because of what I think are outrageous opinions like those videos I posted on the Elgar thread. I mean this Elgar video is just beyond baffling to me:
https://www.youtube.com/v/Ar3HqhHTsI0
To me, it's like saying Beethoven's best work is the Leonore Overture or something along these lines. I mean he's free to believe and say what he wants, but by the same token, I think it's perfectly valid for anyone to criticize his opinion or, in this case, what I view as a lapse of judgment.
He regularly resorts to telling people he was being funny. It's one of his least impressive qualities.
Quote from: Madiel on December 23, 2020, 02:52:49 AM
He regularly resorts to telling people he was being funny. It's one of his least impressive qualities.
What I find less impressive quality is lack of critical thinking skills. Whenever something someone says doesn't make sense to you stop for a few seconds to think if it's because the other person was possibly joking about it. It's also good to remember Youtube video titles tend to be clickbaity / provocative because that's how you get more views! If someone is
known for regularly joking about things don't take everything that person says seriously.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 23, 2020, 03:47:16 AM
What I find less impressive quality is lack of critical thinking skills. Whenever something someone says doesn't make sense to you stop for a few seconds to think if it's because the other person was possibly joking about it. It's also good to remember Youtube video titles tend to be clickbaity / provocative because that's how you get more views! If someone is known for regularly joking about things don't take everything that person says seriously.
Disagree completely. He resorts to the "I was only joking" defence when he gets challenged on things when it's pretty clear he meant exactly what he said but knows it was provocative.
You want to talk about critical thinking skills? Critical thinking includes being aware of the long history of "I was only joking" and "why can't you take a joke?" as responses when a certain kind of little bullying misfires.
He's done it to me by the way. I can't even remember what the topic was, but his response to something was a nasty little remark, and then it became how I didn't have a sense of humour.
He wraps lots of little nasty remarks as "humour". But if your "humour" regularly consists of attacking other people, you're not actually being funny. You're employing a tactic to get away with being nasty.
A reviewer, of all people, should not be constantly claiming they didn't really mean it.
Quote from: Madiel on December 23, 2020, 11:03:57 AM
Disagree completely. He resorts to the "I was only joking" defence when he gets challenged on things when it's pretty clear he meant exactly what he said but knows it was provocative.
You want to talk about critical thinking skills? Critical thinking includes being aware of the long history of "I was only joking" and "why can't you take a joke?" as responses when a certain kind of little bullying misfires.
He's done it to me by the way. I can't even remember what the topic was, but his response to something was a nasty little remark, and then it became how I didn't have a sense of humour.
He wraps lots of little nasty remarks as "humour". But if your "humour" regularly consists of attacking other people, you're not actually being funny. You're employing a tactic to get away with being nasty.
A reviewer, of all people, should not be constantly claiming they didn't really mean it.
I have noted a strange mannerism. He says something half-jokingly - take it how you will, and in an instant his head drops and his face takes on a serious pose. He then isn't playing to the crowd but saying what he really thinks.
It was said back in the thread that he was professional reviewer. Don't know how true but told yesterday he worked in real estate?
Quote from: Irons on December 24, 2020, 01:31:34 AM
I have noted a strange mannerism. He says something half-jokingly - take it how you will, and in an instant his head drops and his face takes on a serious pose. He then isn't playing to the crowd but saying what he really thinks.
Hurwitz seems to be a VERY extrovert person. Being familiar with his mannerism is clearly beneficial in understanding what he means. Maybe that's why I enjoy watching his videos. For a dull introvert person like me that kind of colourful "show" of body language and facial expression is magic. :D
Quote from: Irons on December 24, 2020, 01:31:34 AMIt was said back in the thread that he was professional reviewer. Don't know how true but told yesterday he worked in real estate?
Real estate ?? ??? WHAAAT?!? Must be one of his jokes!
Quote from: 71 dB on December 24, 2020, 01:43:52 AM
For a dull introvert person like me that kind of colourful "show" of body language and facial expression is magic. :D
For many introverts, a person who is showy is a total turnoff.
Quote from: Madiel on December 24, 2020, 01:50:57 AM
For many introverts, a person who is showy is a total turnoff.
Yes, if it's about mutual communication, but I don't communicate anything to Hurwitz so his ability or lack thereof to understand me doesn't matter. Also introverts are fact-based so Hurwitz's SUBJECTIVE opinions about classical music don't matter and there is even the fact that he doesn't try to make the audience feel good. He states his opinion and if you disagree that's your own problem! Introverts are similar and speak to tell something, not to make other people feel good. So, the
subject matter makes it suitable for introverts. Maybe if he talked about climate change or calculus, I would get annoyed in 5 seconds. ;D
Hurwitz does not rub me up the wrong way, I don't find him as annoying as others. The enthusiasm he feels shines through which is more important then what he actually says in my book. He reckons Slatkin is better then Boult in Vaughan Williams maybe, maybe not. I take enough notice to purchase a Slatkin CD (minimal cost) to find out but would never take his word.
Quote from: Mirror Image on December 22, 2020, 06:15:12 PM
I only post about him because of what I think are outrageous opinions like those videos I posted on the Elgar thread. I mean this Elgar video is just beyond baffling to me:
https://www.youtube.com/v/Ar3HqhHTsI0
To me, it's like saying Beethoven's best work is the Leonore Overture or something along these lines. I mean he's free to believe and say what he wants, but by the same token, I think it's perfectly valid for anyone to criticize his opinion or, in this case, what I view as a lapse of judgment.
Yes I agree, John, and I have to conclude he was making an inept joke. Or maybe he was sincere. Who knows. I'm not a devout Elgarian, but there are some wonderful works - the Enigmas, In the South, the Cello Concerto, violin sonata, piano quintet - that lift him into the major composers in my book, and are far better than that March of the Moguls or whatever it is.
He doesn't always bother me. He really can be funny (that video on boxed sets of Carl Orff is a classic). Sometimes he has really good things to say about musical construction too, as when he analyzes phrase structures in Janacek's Sinfonietta or the Haydn C major op. 50 quartet. But his wholesale dismissal of what he calls "the avant-garde, academic, serial nightmare" is just a facile, thoughtless re-hashing of clichés long ago proposed by Henry Pleasants and Terry Teachout. It's not only short-sighted but wrong. Boulez and Stockhausen were anything but academic; Elliott Carter (whose Concerto for Orchestra and Third Quartet are for me two of the top 5-10 works of the 20th century) wasn't a serialist at all. And to dismiss Boulez, Norgard, Xenakis, Ligeti when he will then enthuse about a mediocrity like Don Gillis, whose Symphony 5 1/2 you can find on YouTube. (I thought the piece was a cringe-worthy 15 minutes without a single interesting idea. If you want an American neo-classic symphony with plenty of charm and imagination, try instead Meyer Kupferman's Little Symphony.)
Hurwitz is not important in himself, but his presence looms large on the Internet and he's got a large following. He has plenty of good things to say, but he ought to edit himself and plan his improvised chats for greater conciseness. And watch the blanket dismissals. Fine if you don't care for Boulez's music, many don't, but to call works like Rituel or Pli Selon Pli "garbage" is unprofessional in my opinion.
Quote from: Irons on December 24, 2020, 06:57:14 AM
Hurwitz does not rub me up the wrong way, I don't find him as annoying as others. The enthusiasm he feels shines through which is more important then what he actually says in my book. He reckons Slatkin is better then Boult in Vaughan Williams maybe, maybe not. I take enough notice to purchase a Slatkin CD (minimal cost) to find out but would never take his word.
I watched that video a few days ago. I haven't heard any VW with him conducting but am intrigued. I'll ask in the VW thread if anyone else here has heard those recordings.
PD
p.s. And yes, I do (like you) appreciate his enthusiasm and the delight that he takes in music.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 24, 2020, 07:50:21 AM
Yes I agree, John, and I have to conclude he was making an inept joke. Or maybe he was sincere. Who knows. I'm not a devout Elgarian, but there are some wonderful works - the Enigmas, In the South, the Cello Concerto, violin sonata, piano quintet - that lift him into the major composers in my book, and are far better than that March of the Moguls or whatever it is.
He doesn't always bother me. He really can be funny (that video on boxed sets of Carl Orff is a classic). Sometimes he has really good things to say about musical construction too, as when he analyzes phrase structures in Janacek's Sinfonietta or the Haydn C major op. 50 quartet. But his wholesale dismissal of what he calls "the avant-garde, academic, serial nightmare" is just a facile, thoughtless re-hashing of clichés long ago proposed by Henry Pleasants and Terry Teachout. It's not only short-sighted but wrong. Boulez and Stockhausen were anything but academic; Elliott Carter (whose Concerto for Orchestra and Third Quartet are for me two of the top 5-10 works of the 20th century) wasn't a serialist at all. And to dismiss Boulez, Norgard, Xenakis, Ligeti when he will then enthuse about a mediocrity like Don Gillis, whose Symphony 5 1/2 you can find on YouTube. (I thought the piece was a cringe-worthy 15 minutes without a single interesting idea. If you want an American neo-classic symphony with plenty of charm and imagination, try instead Meyer Kupferman's Little Symphony.)
Hurwitz is not important in himself, but his presence looms large on the Internet and he's got a large following. He has plenty of good things to say, but he ought to edit himself and plan his improvised chats for greater conciseness. And watch the blanket dismissals. Fine if you don't care for Boulez's music, many don't, but to call works like Rituel or Pli Selon Pli "garbage" is unprofessional in my opinion.
Some good points. I, too, find his reviews or videos dismissing avant-garde music as 'garbage' to be really uncalled for and shows zero insight into actually making an attempt to understand and enjoy this music. I also found it distasteful when he continuously referred to Strauss' tone poems as trash. I mean he does seem to like this music, but insulting your way through a review only confuses the reader/viewer. He also mentioned how there's no profundity in any of these tone poems, which is an ignorant statement as there are moments that reveal a depth of emotion that I guess he doesn't or can't allow himself to feel. Anyway, it's Christmas and I'm done talking about this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/v/PSXwzHIqzRA
So Hurwitz dislikes the Honeck Ninth. That's OK. What is not OK is the fit of that shirt. Seriously.
Well there is 27 pages here so this has probably mentioned... but my problem is when he personally attacks musicians. He accused period instrument performers of just being day job workers with no passion. You wouldn't believe the things that he has said about Norrington in particular.
The video on Dvorak's Fifth Symphony was unusually focused on the music and musical examples. If you're wondering why he spends 30 minutes choosing his top 5 recordings, it's because he spends the first 25 minutes analyzing the music (and pondering its influence on Brahms) before the obligatory list of Kubelik, Kertesz, Neumann (analog), Jansons, and another I forgot.
Quote from: Irons on December 24, 2020, 06:57:14 AM
Hurwitz does not rub me up the wrong way, I don't find him as annoying as others. The enthusiasm he feels shines through which is more important then what he actually says in my book. He reckons Slatkin is better then Boult in Vaughan Williams maybe, maybe not. I take enough notice to purchase a Slatkin CD (minimal cost) to find out but would never take his word.
+1
Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2021, 08:20:53 AM
The video on Dvorak's Fifth Symphony was unusually focused on the music and musical examples. If you're wondering why he spends 30 minutes choosing his top 5 recordings, it's because he spends the first 25 minutes analyzing the music (and pondering its influence on Brahms) before the obligatory list of Kubelik, Kertesz, Neumann (analog), Jansons, and another I forgot.
How much of the analysis is silly voices and lame jokes?
btw if you want a youtuber that is passionate about music, but also insightful and not particularly abrasive or odd... try David Bruce. He is a composer that has a channel with plenty of interesting videos.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/user/davidbrucedotnet (https://www.youtube.com/user/davidbrucedotnet)
Quote from: DavidW on February 06, 2021, 06:57:04 AM
Well there is 27 pages here so this has probably mentioned... but my problem is when he personally attacks musicians. He accused period instrument performers of just being day job workers with no passion. You wouldn't believe the things that he has said about Norrington in particular.
So what? More power to him! Especially in this age of ours when one is increasingly becoming afraid of saying "It's a fine day today!" just because someone somewhere might be in so bad a mood as to consider sunshine a personal offence.
Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2021, 09:34:47 AM
in this age of ours when one is increasingly becoming afraid of saying "It's a fine day today!" just because someone somewhere might be in so bad a mood as to consider sunshine a personal offence.
If this is how you perceive the world around you, you are living in a fantasy land! This is not at all an apt description of the state of rhetoric in 2021. Social media is always blowing up with ad hominem attacks and insane outrage over anything and everything.
Quote from: DavidW on February 06, 2021, 09:45:06 AM
insane outrage over anything and everything.
Which only proves my point --- and that's the last you'll ever hear from me on this very (non-Hurwitz related) topic.
Quote from: Todd on February 06, 2021, 06:48:25 AM
https://www.youtube.com/v/PSXwzHIqzRA
So Hurwitz dislikes the Honeck Ninth. That's OK. What is not OK is the fit of that shirt. Seriously.
I'll give you the fit, yet the necktie is impeccable
ton-sur-ton. Seriously.
I often keep thinking he can be too insolent at times. Nevertheless, he knows a lot of stuff and technique about what he's talking about, and I think his message is well directioned or transmited to his viewers. And dry, too, frequently responds barely what people ask him. But let's not forget how warm and enthusiastic he looks like. He shares our love for classical music, which must be handled by expert and sensitive performers in excellent recordings.
Note: I'm getting kind of tired of his Haydn Crusades, yet his educational style appeals a lot too.
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on February 06, 2021, 04:25:32 PM
I often keep thinking he can be too insolent at times. Nevertheless, he knows a lot of stuff and technique about what he's talking about, and I think his message is well directioned or transmited to his viewers. And dry, too, frequently responds barely what people ask him. But let's not forget how warm and enthusiastic he looks like. He shares our love for classical music, which must be handled by expert and sensitive performers in excellent recordings.
Note: I'm getting kind of tired of his Haydn Crusades, yet his educational style appeals a lot too.
I'm getting more tired by how much stock some people put into his reviews. He's no more knowledgeable than someone with a broad interest in this music who has been listening for 30+ years, which applies to many members here.
Quote from: Florestan on February 06, 2021, 09:34:47 AM
So what? More power to him! Especially in this age of ours when one is increasingly becoming afraid of saying "It's a fine day today!" just because someone somewhere might be in so bad a mood as to consider sunshine a personal offence.
Quote from: DavidW on February 06, 2021, 09:45:06 AM
If this is how you perceive the world around you, you are living in a fantasy land! This is not at all an apt description of the state of rhetoric in 2021. Social media is always blowing up with ad hominem attacks and insane outrage over anything and everything.
Weirdly, I agree with both statements above equally! You cannot say boo to a goose to someone's face for fear of insult and a keyboard warrior under the cloak of anonymity writes the most disgusting drivel. Strange world!
Quote from: Irons on February 07, 2021, 02:40:52 AM
Weirdly, I agree with both statements above equally! You cannot say boo to a goose to someone's face for fear of insult and a keyboard warrior under the cloak of anonymity writes the most disgusting drivel. Strange world!
Just to be straight, I don't have a problem with him expressing certain performance styles and musical genres are not for him. It is just when he takes it a step further and personally attacks musicians. That is the problem. Not saying that DH shouldn't speak critically about something he doesn't like, just that he doesn't have to disparage composers and performers while doing so. I don't consider that a stepping on egg shells thing, just common courtesy. DH would not be a good critic at all if he held back on negative opinions. But there is certainly a way in which they can be expressed, and saying all of Boulez's music is trash, Furtwangler's lvb 9 has no merit, Norrington is not an artist etc. etc. is just not it.
And I say that as someone who enjoys his reviews and his videos. Now if you look at say his Mahler vids you can see he does a much better job because he focuses on the music and clearly articulates the pros and cons specific performances have in detail. He doesn't say something is trash or great. He would say something like "well in this passage the brass section is expected to run on stage then run back and Bernstein decided to just hire two different groups of performers but so and so just kept them backstage and they failed to have the required presence in the next passage". And that kind of insightful criticism is fantastic.
I think that whenever any one tries to precisely articulate in detail what they like or not like and avoid sweeping generalities not only is it more helpful to the reader/audience but ad hominem attacks tend to simply go away because the critic was forced to think more analytically about what they were trying to convey. When DH forces himself into that more critical, thoughtful mode he is on fire. When he is just waving his hands and praising and putting down artists excitedly it is not only insulting, it is mostly a waste of time.
Gotta admit his piece on Grainger was hilarious, though there are few things I want less to acquire than a box of Grainger's complete music.
Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2021, 08:20:53 AM
The video on Dvorak's Fifth Symphony was unusually focused on the music and musical examples. If you're wondering why he spends 30 minutes choosing his top 5 recordings, it's because he spends the first 25 minutes analyzing the music (and pondering its influence on Brahms) before the obligatory list of Kubelik, Kertesz, Neumann (analog), Jansons, and another I forgot.
Brian, that video on the 5th was excellent and sets a standard I wish he'd achieve more often. (I myself have Kertesz and Belohlavek, whom Hurwitz doesn't mention, and that's good enough for me.) But too often he clowns around without saying much useful about the music. Take today's Massenet piece, for example. Massenet = fluff, for sure. Bruckner = Spam? Doesn't he get what Spam means? (Maybe Bruckner = a crown roast of pork.)
I've enjoyed watching several of his videos over the last couple of weeks and will continue to listen to them. I find them entertaining.
I'm a big fan of his videos and it's my favorite channel on YouTube. I don't have to agree with him to enjoy these discussions, (i.e., Roger Norrington is one of my top conductors). My feelings are not precious or hurt if he hates what I like.
Quote from: Leo K. on February 16, 2021, 01:15:43 PM
I'm a big fan of his videos and it's my favorite channel on YouTube. I don't have to agree with him to enjoy these discussions, (i.e., Roger Norrington is one of my top conductors). My feelings are not precious or hurt if he hates what I like.
Same here. A really big fan of his videos.
Quote from: Leo K. on February 16, 2021, 01:15:43 PM
I'm a big fan of his videos and it's my favorite channel on YouTube. I don't have to agree with him to enjoy these discussions, (i.e., Roger Norrington is one of my top conductors). My feelings are not precious or hurt if he hates what I like.
My favorite channel on YouTube is Samuel Andreyev's:
https://www.youtube.com/user/temporalfissure/featured (https://www.youtube.com/user/temporalfissure/featured)
The reason I love his channel so much is the way he breaks down pieces of music in his analysis videos. He doesn't talk down to his audience and he lays everything out in a clear, precise manner that is quite easy to follow.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 16, 2021, 05:53:13 PM
My favorite channel on YouTube is Samuel Andreyev's:
https://www.youtube.com/user/temporalfissure/featured (https://www.youtube.com/user/temporalfissure/featured)
The reason I love his channel so much is the way he breaks down pieces of music in his analysis videos. He doesn't talk down to his audience and he lays everything out in a clear, precise manner that is quite easy to follow.
Great recommendation, thank you for the heads up!!
Quote from: Leo K. on February 17, 2021, 10:10:39 AM
Great recommendation, thank you for the heads up!!
My pleasure, Leo. 8)
Quote from: Leo K. on February 16, 2021, 01:15:43 PM
I'm a big fan of his videos and it's my favorite channel on YouTube. I don't have to agree with him to enjoy these discussions, (i.e., Roger Norrington is one of my top conductors). My feelings are not precious or hurt if he hates what I like.
It appears that he says the Carmen Suites by Igor Markevitch is performed by an authentic Spanish orchestra. But I think it is performed by a French orchestra (Lamoureux). Am I mixed up?
Plus, why would it be considered authentic even if the orchestra were Spanish and even if the composer were Spanish.
I think Hurwitz got mixed up. Markevitch did record an LP with "Spanish favorites" with a Spanish radio orchestra but the Carnen and Arlesienne Suites are with the Lamoureux.
https://www.discogs.com/de/Orchester-Des-Spanischen-Rundfunks-Igor-Markevitch-Liebeszauber-Espa%C3%B1a-Catalonia-Danzas-Espa%C3%B1olas/release/5159840
https://www.discogs.com/de/Bizet-Igor-Markevitch-Lamoureux-Orchestra-Paris-Carmen-Suites-Nos-1-2-LArl%C3%A9sienne-Suites-Nos-1-2/release/6228101
Quote from: Jo498 on February 17, 2021, 11:48:32 PM
I think Hurwitz got mixed up. Markevitch did record an LP with "Spanish favorites" with a Spanish radio orchestra but the Carnen and Arlesienne Suites are with the Lamoureux.
https://www.discogs.com/de/Orchester-Des-Spanischen-Rundfunks-Igor-Markevitch-Liebeszauber-Espa%C3%B1a-Catalonia-Danzas-Espa%C3%B1olas/release/5159840
https://www.discogs.com/de/Bizet-Igor-Markevitch-Lamoureux-Orchestra-Paris-Carmen-Suites-Nos-1-2-LArl%C3%A9sienne-Suites-Nos-1-2/release/6228101
Yes, I think that is the case. Markevitch was the first music director of the Spanish National Radio and Television Orchestra when it was founded in 1965, but his tenure was very brief.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 16, 2021, 05:53:13 PM
My favorite channel on YouTube is Samuel Andreyev's:
https://www.youtube.com/user/temporalfissure/featured (https://www.youtube.com/user/temporalfissure/featured)
The reason I love his channel so much is the way he breaks down pieces of music in his analysis videos. He doesn't talk down to his audience and he lays everything out in a clear, precise manner that is quite easy to follow.
I want to look into these. They seem promising.
Sometimes he drives me nuts, as when he talks up some forgotten composer or other and then he plays a few clips that prove what a mediocrity that composer really is. (Honestly, Julius Röntgen anybody? Even worse, Don Gillis?) His snooty dismissal of the music of Pierre Boulez is all the more disheartening, as it's just another tiresome knee-jerk reaction against the avant-garde that will prevent even more people from discovering the music for themselves.
But his recent video on "Conductors Behaving Badly" is very worth hearing, and says a lot about the state of music performance today. (Theater people could do a parallel "Directors Behaving Badly.")
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 18, 2021, 08:58:27 AM
I want to look into these. They seem promising.
I think you'd enjoy them. Andreyev knows his stuff that's for sure.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 18, 2021, 09:05:03 AM
Sometimes he drives me nuts, as when he talks up some forgotten composer or other and then he plays a few clips that prove what a mediocrity that composer really is. (Honestly, Julius Röntgen anybody? Even worse, Don Gillis?) His snooty dismissal of the music of Pierre Boulez is all the more disheartening, as it's just another tiresome knee-jerk reaction against the avant-garde that will prevent even more people from discovering the music for themselves.
But his recent video on "Conductors Behaving Badly" is very worth hearing, and says a lot about the state of music performance today. (Theater people could do a parallel "Directors Behaving Badly.")
Anyone who dismisses the avant-garde just because they don't like it but uses their influence to get people
not to listen to this music, deserves to have their channel taken down. He is doing a disservice to classical music, IMHO. He's no better than those 70-80 yr. old people who go to a concert just to hear Beethoven or Mozart, but leave before Ligeti or Nono is performed.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 18, 2021, 09:05:03 AM
Sometimes he drives me nuts, as when he talks up some forgotten composer or other and then he plays a few clips that prove what a mediocrity that composer really is. (Honestly, Julius Röntgen anybody? Even worse, Don Gillis?) His snooty dismissal of the music of Pierre Boulez is all the more disheartening, as it's just another tiresome knee-jerk reaction against the avant-garde that will prevent even more people from discovering the music for themselves.
But his recent video on "Conductors Behaving Badly" is very worth hearing, and says a lot about the state of music performance today. (Theater people could do a parallel "Directors Behaving Badly.")
I like Röntgen and Gillis. Why do you need to counter him by being a snob?
Quote from: Daverz on February 18, 2021, 08:08:04 PM
I like Röntgen and Gillis. Why do you need to counter him by being a snob?
Why do
you feel a need to label
me? Like whatever you like, and I will do the same. I am simply a private citizen expressing my opinion on these composers. I am not a professional critic whom others look up to as an expert, trying to get a few yucks out of calling a highly respected composer "garbage" and tossing his work into the trash bin in a 30-second video, without bothering to make a reasoned case for his assertion.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 18, 2021, 09:17:58 PM
Why do you feel a need to label me? Like whatever you like, and I will do the same. I am simply a private citizen expressing my opinion on these composers. I am not a professional critic whom others look up to as an expert, trying to get a few yucks out of calling a highly respected composer "garbage" and tossing his work into the trash bin in a 30-second video, without bothering to make a reasoned case for his assertion.
Ah, yes:
https://www.youtube.com/v/h3VDGnxq8sk
Quite frankly, I don't see the reason for even making this video. It's one thing to dislike a composer, which we all do and will continue to do, but it's another matter when you do something childish as making a video of yourself 'throwing out the trash' like Hurwitz has demonstrated here. The reality of the matter is pretty simple: I dislike a lot of the fourth-rate/fifth-rate composers that he puts up on a pedestal like they're some kind of buried treasure, but I'm not going to use my status as a critic with whom many people are watching/reading to tell someone else that what they like is garbage. I agree with you that he has a following and I think he uses videos such as this one on Boulez as a way of forcing his opinions on people who may, otherwise, like the composer. One thing you don't want to do as a critic is alienate your readers/viewers by subjecting them to your own tirades. If you have something informative and that's well-reasoned as to why you dislike something, then there's nothing wrong with that, but, for me, this video on Boulez is a bridge too far. And no, I don't see the humor in at all. I like Boulez's music and I think anyone with an ear for these post-war avant-garde composers will too if they stop listening to people like Hurwitz and use their own ears.
Hurwitz's flippant dismissal of Boulez says more about Hurwitz than it does about Boulez. I suspect his attitude has little to do with the actual music.
Quote from: Daverz on February 18, 2021, 10:44:54 PM
Hurwitz's flippant dismissal of Boulez says more about Hurwitz than it does about Boulez. I suspect his attitude has little to do with the actual music.
The trick is to learn to take the opinions of other people in a realistic manner. Whatever opinions Hurwitz had, he would always disagree with some people. Personally I am not into Boulez at all so I happen to be on the same side with Hurwitz on this, but there are certainly things I disagree with Hurwitz. I don't take that too seriously. He has got his taste and he knows some stuff much better than I do so I might learn something from him.
That said, I haven't watched a single video of his this year. I got a new Mac mini recently and turns out Youtube recommends videos based on
cookies so my new browser doesn't know I watched Hurwitz on my old computer/browser and doesn't know to recommend them to me. So, I have been watching videos by a Finnish guy "Aleksi Himself" walking around Helsinki burping and collecting superchat money from foreigners. ;D
Hurwitz seems like a great entertainer. I think if there were more people like him on youtube, there'd be more interest in classical music, perhaps. I don't watch all his videos, but the ones he does about my favourite composers I find useful and enjoyable.
As much as I like Samuel Andreyev's videos and learn a lot of things from them even more than from Hurwitz, I often feel like taking a nap during them.
Quote from: Artem on February 19, 2021, 03:39:39 AM
Hurwitz seems like a great entertainer. I think if there were more people like him on youtube, there'd be more interest in classical music, perhaps. I don't watch all his videos, but the ones he does about my favourite composers I find useful and enjoyable.
As much as I like Samuel Andreyev's videos and learn a lot of things from them even more than from Hurwitz, I often feel like taking a nap during them.
Thanks for the mention of Samuel Andreyev, I have bookmarked one of his videos (Schoenberg Pierrot Lunaire) for later listening and as a way in to some of the others.
To complicate things Hurwitz has praised some of Boulez's compositions in his reviews. Maybe he likes to a troll a bit in his videos. $:)
Thanks for pointing out the Conductors Behaving Badly video - I had assumed it was about harassment claims, but really it turned out to be very interesting, smart, one of DH's best videos. Even if I maybe agreed with 85% of it, the occasional disagreement only made it more interesting to listen to, since he was actually discussing and not just yelling. Heck, even MI might like it.
I am always intrigued by sound samples of Röntgen, because they are so genial, cheery, and tuneful, and then I listen to the complete work and it is always devoid of any structure or drama. The only pieces of his that I totally recommend so far are the string trios, which are totally unpretentious little salon pieces of about 15 minutes each that you'd be happy to have played by friends in your salon, if you had one.
Quote from: DavidW on February 19, 2021, 03:50:30 AM
To complicate things Hurwitz has praised some of Boulez's compositions in his reviews. Maybe he likes to a troll a bit in his videos. $:)
Quarantine is boring after all, and trolling is fun!
Quote from: DavidW on February 19, 2021, 03:50:30 AM
To complicate things Hurwitz has praised some of Boulez's compositions in his reviews. Maybe he likes to a troll a bit in his videos. $:)
Maybe? :laugh:
Quote from: Artem on February 19, 2021, 03:39:39 AM
Hurwitz seems like a great entertainer. I think if there were more people like him on youtube, there'd be more interest in classical music, perhaps. I don't watch all his videos, but the ones he does about my favourite composers I find useful and enjoyable.
As much as I like Samuel Andreyev's videos and learn a lot of things from them even more than from Hurwitz, I often feel like taking a nap during them.
Truth be told, I get more out of Andreyev than I ever did out of Hurwitz. Honestly, I'm not looking to be 'entertained' but I want to come away from a video having learned something I didn't know before and this is
why I like Andreyev's videos. I never felt bored when watching Andreyev and I can hear the passion he has for this music in every video he posts. All I get from Hurwitz is that he dislikes this or loves that, but I dislike it when he goes off on a tangent about something that I have absolutely no desire in listening to and the Boulez video has completely turned me against him. There's just no sense in posting something like that and I don't care if he was trying to be funny or not. I don't find it amusing in the slightest.
Quote from: Mirror Image on February 18, 2021, 07:37:09 PM
Anyone who dismisses the avant-garde just because they don't like it but uses their influence to get people not to listen to this music, deserves to have their channel taken down. He is doing a disservice to classical music, IMHO. He's no better than those 70-80 yr. old people who go to a concert just to hear Beethoven or Mozart, but leave before Ligeti or Nono is performed.
True, it'd be more helpful to recommend some well selected avant-garde compilations that would give listeners an overview of the music. And as Ligeti and Nono were born a mere 90 odd years ago they'd be far too young for 70-80 year olds to have any interest in. ::)
Quote from: steve ridgway on February 19, 2021, 06:49:40 AM
True, it'd be more helpful to recommend some well selected avant-garde compilations that would give listeners an overview of the music. And as Ligeti and Nono were born a mere 90 odd years ago they'd be far too young for 70-80 year olds to have any interest in. ::)
I honestly doubt this troll is even capable of such a list. I certainly wouldn't take him seriously if did post something like that. I think these videos have actually done his site ClassicsToday a great disservice as we now get to see what a goon he truly is. I'll stick to MusicWeb for
real classical reviews, although Jens Laurson is writing for ClassicsToday now, so there is hope for that site yet.
It's funny, I almost disagree with everything Mr. Hurwitz says. I don't believe the HIP movement has destroyed the passed down tradition of orchestral playing. I don't believe that Roger Norrington is the evil of all evils. I don't believe you can truly objectively say a recording is great. The list can go on! But it sure is fun.
Regarding Boulez's music, any publicity is good publicity. I often listen to something a critic blasts and find I dearly love it, haha!
Quote from: Leo K. on February 19, 2021, 07:07:57 AM
It's funny, I almost disagree with everything Mr. Hurwitz says. I don't believe the HIP movement has destroyed the passed down tradition of orchestral playing. I don't believe that Roger Norrington is the evil of all evils. I don't believe you can truly objectively say a recording is great. The list can go on! But it sure is fun.
Regarding Boulez's music, any publicity is good publicity. I often listen to something a critic blasts and find I dearly love it, haha!
Again, I'm not looking to be entertained. I mean there's a time and place to be funny, but there's nothing funny about Hurwitz, tbh. I'm more interesting in
learning than being entertained, although there obviously is nothing wrong with being able to pull off both simultaneously, but Hurwitz fails on both points.
Mirror Image, by my count you have posted on this thread 23 times in the last 60 days. I question why you continue to contribute given that all 23 of the posts carry the same message ("I don't like his videos, I don't like his voice, I don't like his opinions, I don't like that other people watch him"). If you feel that way, maybe a more productive and healthy attitude - both for those of us who like to talk about the videos in this thread, and for your own time and energy! - would be to just ignore Hurwitz and ignore this discussion.
Of course, the purpose of this is not to censor you. But your opinion has already been made clear, many times, and surely you would be happier and healthier if you moved on to some other topic. Put it another way. I, like Dave, have a blind spot (perhaps unfortunate) when it comes to Boulez. Would you like me to find the Boulez thread and write 23 posts repeating that I don't like his compositions?
Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2021, 07:54:27 AM
Mirror Image, by my count you have posted on this thread 23 times in the last 60 days. I question why you continue to contribute given that all 23 of the posts carry the same message ("I don't like his videos, I don't like his voice, I don't like his opinions, I don't like that other people watch him"). If you feel that way, maybe a more productive and healthy attitude - both for those of us who like to talk about the videos in this thread, and for your own time and energy! - would be to just ignore Hurwitz and ignore this discussion.
Of course, the purpose of this is not to censor you. But your opinion has already been made clear, many times, and surely you would be happier and healthier if you moved on to some other topic. Put it another way. I, like Dave, have a blind spot (perhaps unfortunate) when it comes to Boulez. Would you like me to find the Boulez thread and write 23 posts repeating that I don't like his compositions?
Amen!
Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2021, 07:54:27 AMWould you like me to find the Boulez thread and write 23 posts repeating that I don't like his compositions?
Over my dead body! :D ;D ;)
Good day,
Brian!
Quote from: ritter on February 19, 2021, 08:39:33 AM
Over my dead body! :D ;D ;)
Good day, Brian!
Hello! Good point, maybe I should name a different composer. New example: Ludovico Einaudi ??? ??? ???
I just listened to his "Do it yourself guide to Renaissance Polyphony" video and enjoyed it. A subject I know absolutely nothing about, but I wanted to see the video to learn a little about this subject.
A great topic for someone with little experience or knowledge about this era of music that so many people overlook (probably even more than the avant-garde stuff).
I am happy to say that thanks to Hurwitz's videos I have gained some more favorite works and composers:
Sibelius - a real REVELATION
Carl Nielsen - WOW
Janacek's Sinfonia (where has this been all my life!)
Villa Lobos complete symphonies- OMG
Shostakovich - YES - a slow burn but now AMAZING
Prokofiev - SUBLIME
Quote from: Leo K. on February 19, 2021, 11:32:53 AM
Janacek's Sinfonia (where has this been all my life!)
Marvelous, infectious work. Isn't it? :)
Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2021, 07:54:27 AM
("I don't like his videos, I don't like his voice, I don't like his opinions, I don't like that other people watch him").
It's completely okay to not like someone's videos, voice or opinions, but to be bothered about other people liking those things is frankly quite stupid. :-\
Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2021, 07:54:27 AM
Mirror Image, by my count you have posted on this thread 23 times in the last 60 days. I question why you continue to contribute given that all 23 of the posts carry the same message ("I don't like his videos, I don't like his voice, I don't like his opinions, I don't like that other people watch him"). If you feel that way, maybe a more productive and healthy attitude - both for those of us who like to talk about the videos in this thread, and for your own time and energy! - would be to just ignore Hurwitz and ignore this discussion.
Of course, the purpose of this is not to censor you. But your opinion has already been made clear, many times, and surely you would be happier and healthier if you moved on to some other topic. Put it another way. I, like Dave, have a blind spot (perhaps unfortunate) when it comes to Boulez. Would you like me to find the Boulez thread and write 23 posts repeating that I don't like his compositions?
He also introduced us to Samuel Andreyev. That deserves some points.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 19, 2021, 12:05:06 PM
He also introduced us to Samuel Andreyev. That deserves some points.
Is this the same Samuel Andreyev who's had a couple of discs of chamber music recently released on Kairos?
Quote from: Leo K. on February 19, 2021, 11:32:53 AM
I am happy to say that thanks to Hurwitz's videos I have gained some more favorite works and composers:
Sibelius - a real REVELATION
Carl Nielsen - WOW
Janacek's Sinfonia (where has this been all my life!)
Villa Lobos complete symphonies- OMG
Shostakovich - YES - a slow burn but now AMAZING
Prokofiev - SUBLIME
Leo were you just not listening to 20th century before? I'm just asking because these are not exactly esoteric works.
Quote from: DavidW on February 19, 2021, 01:29:52 PM
Leo were you just not listening to 20th century before? I'm just asking because these are not exactly esoteric works.
I love 20th Century composers but I had a few blind spots, haha :) Also, I knew these were blindspots and I had better get into the conversation!
Quote from: Leo K. on February 19, 2021, 01:54:59 PM
Also, I knew these were blindspots and I had better get into the conversation!
Yeah or MI will come after you!
Quote from: not edward on February 19, 2021, 12:29:45 PM
Is this the same Samuel Andreyev who's had a couple of discs of chamber music recently released on Kairos?
Yes
https://www.youtube.com/v/WgvDbf3UZrM
Quote from: Brian on February 19, 2021, 07:54:27 AM
Mirror Image, by my count you have posted on this thread 23 times in the last 60 days. I question why you continue to contribute given that all 23 of the posts carry the same message ("I don't like his videos, I don't like his voice, I don't like his opinions, I don't like that other people watch him"). If you feel that way, maybe a more productive and healthy attitude - both for those of us who like to talk about the videos in this thread, and for your own time and energy! - would be to just ignore Hurwitz and ignore this discussion.
Of course, the purpose of this is not to censor you. But your opinion has already been made clear, many times, and surely you would be happier and healthier if you moved on to some other topic. Put it another way. I, like Dave, have a blind spot (perhaps unfortunate) when it comes to Boulez. Would you like me to find the Boulez thread and write 23 posts repeating that I don't like his compositions?
Point taken, but have you posted a 30 second video telling everyone that Boulez's music is trash? Anyway, if you want to go over to the Boulez thread and trash his music that's your prerogative, but bear in mind, that you don't have as much of an influence as he does. Hurwitz currently has 5.86K subscribers, so that's 5.86K people who might have seen his Boulez video. As you mentioned, my opinion on Hurwitz is well-established at this juncture, but can you honestly say that the Boulez video was in good taste?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 19, 2021, 12:05:06 PM
He also introduced us to Samuel Andreyev. That deserves some points.
Hah! The moment I get any kind of kudos from Brian would be a cold day in hell.
One thing I had not realized was just how many books that David Hurwitz has written.
I am considering maybe getting his book on Dvořák.
Alternatively, does anyone have any recommendations on a good book, comprehensive on Dvořák that is written hopefully in less technical music language, for the layman?
Quote from: OrchestralNut on May 15, 2021, 08:10:17 AM
One thing I had not realized was just how many books that David Hurwitz has written.
I am considering maybe getting his book on Dvořák.
Alternatively, does anyone have any recommendations on a good book, comprehensive on Dvořák that is written hopefully in less technical music language, for the layman?
I'd love to hear those too! :)
PD
Quote from: OrchestralNut on May 15, 2021, 08:10:17 AM
One thing I had not realized was just how many books that David Hurwitz has written.
I am considering maybe getting his book on Dvořák.
Alternatively, does anyone have any recommendations on a good book, comprehensive on Dvořák that is written hopefully in less technical music language, for the layman?
I own his book on Shostakovich and, honestly, the whole book just felt like a general overview and didn't go into depth. In other words, I didn't learn anything from it. I suspect his Dvořák is given similar treatment.
I generally like Hurwitz, but not his recent obsession with reviewing mega conductor-centric boxes. I find this stuff pretty pointless. I mean, what's the use in getting a 100CD box when you can find better recordings of 80% of the repertoire featured in it (as he himself admits)? My favorite videos of his - naturally - are the one where he spotlights lesser-known composers - but those seem to be becoming fewer and farther between these days.
Quote from: kyjo on May 19, 2021, 09:28:43 AM
I generally like Hurwitz, but not his recent obsession with reviewing mega conductor-centric boxes. I find this stuff pretty pointless. I mean, what's the use in getting a 100CD box when you can find better recordings of 80% of the repertoire featured in it (as he himself admits)? My favorite videos of his - naturally - are the one where he spotlights lesser-known composers - but those seem to be becoming fewer and farther between these days.
I really enjoyed the 90 minute review of the 120 CD Ormandy box. The preceding takedown of the Grammophone review was great, too.
By the way, there are some classic recordings of lesser known composers in that box.
90 minute long review?
I could watch the movie in the same amount of time...
Quote from: Madiel on May 19, 2021, 11:09:20 PM
90 minute long review?
I could watch the movie in the same amount of time...
No need to watch it. It's the kind of thing you listen to while doing housework.
Quote from: Daverz on May 20, 2021, 01:08:48 AM
No need to watch it. It's the kind of thing you listen to while doing housework.
That's what MUSIC is for! Or podcasts.
Quote from: Madiel on May 20, 2021, 03:50:09 AM
That's what MUSIC is for! Or podcasts.
I used to listen to comedy podcasts while doing house chores. While working from home due to covid lockdown I might listen to a Hurwitz while brushing teeth and so forth. Now, my day job leadership is behaving erratically, morale is low, apathy is high, and I listen to DH/podcasts on headphones at my desk while doing tasks that can appear productive to outsiders... :P
Quote from: Brian on May 20, 2021, 05:16:13 AM
I used to listen to comedy podcasts while doing house chores. While working from home due to covid lockdown I might listen to a Hurwitz while brushing teeth and so forth. Now, my day job leadership is behaving erratically, morale is low, apathy is high, and I listen to DH/podcasts on headphones at my desk while doing tasks that can appear productive to outsiders... :P
I've never tried podcasts while at work, listening to words is too distracting. I'm subscribed to... I think it's around 30. The episode queue is scary though I have a strategy to gradually curtail it (I tend to go back to the beginning of new discoveries, which in a couple of extreme cases added over 100 episodes to the queue).
I haven't done much in the way of comedy podcasts, but have you ever tried Wooden Overcoats? Or Everything Is Alive?
Quote from: kyjo on May 19, 2021, 09:28:43 AM
I generally like Hurwitz, but not his recent obsession with reviewing mega conductor-centric boxes. I find this stuff pretty pointless. I mean, what's the use in getting a 100CD box when you can find better recordings of 80% of the repertoire featured in it (as he himself admits)? My favorite videos of his - naturally - are the one where he spotlights lesser-known composers - but those seem to be becoming fewer and farther between these days.
My thoughts exactly. I miss the videos where he talks about non-mainstream repertoire. Some of his last videos have been quite funny, though.
Quote from: Symphonic Addict on May 20, 2021, 03:53:19 PM
My thoughts exactly. I miss the videos where he talks about non-mainstream repertoire. Some of his last videos have been quite funny, though.
Yeah, like the "Inappropriate Music" videos. The Ibert and Shostakovich examples had me in stitches! :laugh:
Quote from: Brian on May 20, 2021, 05:16:13 AM
I used to listen to comedy podcasts while doing house chores. While working from home due to covid lockdown I might listen to a Hurwitz while brushing teeth and so forth. Now, my day job leadership is behaving erratically, morale is low, apathy is high, and I listen to DH/podcasts on headphones at my desk while doing tasks that can appear productive to outsiders... :P
Oh, my!
I do like the idea of listening to comedy podcasts....whilst doing housework (and maybe gardening). The one or two times that I tried using an armband with a slit in it to hold an old iPod Touch, I found it to be quite awkward. I'll have to find an appropriate thread to ask what you guys like to use.
Listened to Hurwitz's youtube upload comparing versions Janacek's string quartets (which I was quite pleased to see that he also loves): most of the ones that he liked, I don't own (some of them have been on my wish list for a while). The only thing that surprised me, he mentioned briefly that he liked the ones by the Pavel Haas Quartet but then said that he was really going to be including them in his survey here as he was focusing on discs which had both quartets on them. :( I love them myself and enjoy the other works on the two CDs, so I think that it wasn't necessary for him to exclude them. Anyhoo...
PD
Ironing is the only household chore when I listen to music and then I play Spotify through my hi-fi. I choose a suitable album and just let it run. Baroque orchestral is my usual choice.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on May 26, 2021, 08:04:09 AM
Oh, my!
I do like the idea of listening to comedy podcasts....whilst doing housework (and maybe gardening). The one or two times that I tried using an armband with a slit in it to hold an old iPod Touch, I found it to be quite awkward. I'll have to find an appropriate thread to ask what you guys like to use.
Listened to Hurwitz's youtube upload comparing versions Janacek's string quartets (which I was quite pleased to see that he also loves): most of the ones that he liked, I don't own (some of them have been on my wish list for a while). The only thing that surprised me, he mentioned briefly that he liked the ones by the Pavel Haas Quartet but then said that he was really going to be including them in his survey here as he was focusing on discs which had both quartets on them. :( I love them myself and enjoy the other works on the two CDs, so I think that it wasn't necessary for him to exclude them. Anyhoo...
PD
PD: if you like the Janacek quartets try and hear this disc (perhaps Hurwitz mentioned it - I've no idea)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51K9hzVNwoL._SR600%2C315_PIWhiteStrip%2CBottomLeft%2C0%2C35_SCLZZZZZZZ_FMpng_BG255%2C255%2C255.jpg)
Not only were these the first recordings of a new critical edition of the quartets - with several terrifyingly hard passages reinstated on the "original" instruments, but also the filler is a brilliantly idiomatic transcription of movements from "On an Overgrown Path" for quartet. Its nearly as good as having a third quartet by Janacek!
Quote from: Roasted Swan on May 26, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
on the "original" instruments
i.e. viola d'amore where called for?
Quote from: Roasted Swan on May 26, 2021, 08:32:22 AM
PD: if you like the Janacek quartets try and hear this disc (perhaps Hurwitz mentioned it - I've no idea)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51K9hzVNwoL._SR600%2C315_PIWhiteStrip%2CBottomLeft%2C0%2C35_SCLZZZZZZZ_FMpng_BG255%2C255%2C255.jpg)
Not only were these the first recordings of a new critical edition of the quartets - with several terrifyingly hard passages reinstated on the "original" instruments, but also the filler is a brilliantly idiomatic transcription of movements from "On an Overgrown Path" for quartet. Its nearly as good as having a third quartet by Janacek!
No, he didn't mention them.
I have heard a recording with the Mandelring Quartet on Audite; it's from 2010. When is yours from? I must admit, that it didn't send me, but I was dying to hear it! Wonder if that's the same edition? I had thought at the time that this (the Mandelring recording) was the first time that someone had done a recording with the viola d'amore?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on May 26, 2021, 08:49:30 AM
No, he didn't mention them.
I have heard a recording with the Mandelring Quartet on Audite; it's from 2010. When is yours from? I must admit, that it didn't send me, but I was dying to hear it! Wonder if that's the same edition? I had thought at the time that this (the Mandelring recording) was the first time that someone had done a recording with the viola d'amore?
PD
Here is a quote from a review of this disc - it was recorded in 2014
As to the significance of the 'original' editions to my ear that is more of interest than necessity. Slightly frustratingly the liner alludes to the differences without actually specifying them. Apparently they are mainly in the 2nd Quartet "Intimate Letters" so it has been a case of following the standard score while listening to this version and spotting the differences - a less than perfect scenario! Using my all-too fallible ear it appears that nearly all of the changes are practical/performance related ones - this is not a case of major compositional reworkings. The leader of the Moravian Quartet who gave the work's premiere in 1928 - a month after the composer's death - was František Kudláček and he instigated many of the amendments that were incorporated into the published score. The two main ones transplant stratospheric viola writing into the more manageable violin register. The first such passage is in the 3rd movement - figures 1-3 in the 'standard' UE score [around the 1:00 minute mark - track 17] - the viola has the melody lead which passes to the second violin at figure 2. Not here; the viola keeps playing going up to a G sharp two and a half octaves above middle C. The other main passage is the very end of the work where the 'top' line again stays in the viola whereas 'normally' it has passed to first violin. The viola of the Quartetto Energie Nove, Ivan Vukčević, plays these challenging passages quite superbly - the tone of the instrument in this register more cutting than a 'sweeter' violin. Elsewhere the differences seem to be more use of pizzicato either to mark passages more clearly or to give a folksier character. Most telling is the very opening to the 4th movement which has a aptly stamping rumbustious character from all the players which the heavy pizzicati chords reinforce.In other words "original" refers to Janacek's "original" disposition of the musical lines, NOT the use of a viola d'amore
Quote from: Roasted Swan on May 26, 2021, 02:13:08 PM
Here is a quote from a review of this disc - it was recorded in 2014
As to the significance of the 'original' editions to my ear that is more of interest than necessity. Slightly frustratingly the liner alludes to the differences without actually specifying them. Apparently they are mainly in the 2nd Quartet "Intimate Letters" so it has been a case of following the standard score while listening to this version and spotting the differences - a less than perfect scenario! Using my all-too fallible ear it appears that nearly all of the changes are practical/performance related ones - this is not a case of major compositional reworkings. The leader of the Moravian Quartet who gave the work's premiere in 1928 - a month after the composer's death - was František Kudláček and he instigated many of the amendments that were incorporated into the published score. The two main ones transplant stratospheric viola writing into the more manageable violin register. The first such passage is in the 3rd movement - figures 1-3 in the 'standard' UE score [around the 1:00 minute mark - track 17] - the viola has the melody lead which passes to the second violin at figure 2. Not here; the viola keeps playing going up to a G sharp two and a half octaves above middle C. The other main passage is the very end of the work where the 'top' line again stays in the viola whereas 'normally' it has passed to first violin. The viola of the Quartetto Energie Nove, Ivan Vukčević, plays these challenging passages quite superbly - the tone of the instrument in this register more cutting than a 'sweeter' violin. Elsewhere the differences seem to be more use of pizzicato either to mark passages more clearly or to give a folksier character. Most telling is the very opening to the 4th movement which has a aptly stamping rumbustious character from all the players which the heavy pizzicati chords reinforce.
In other words "original" refers to Janacek's "original" disposition of the musical lines, NOT the use of a viola d'amore
Quite interesting...thank you for posting this. In order not to waylay the thread, I had posted a comment (re your comments, etc.) in the Janacek thread. I would love you to copy this over there so that everyone who is interested in Janacek can find it. :)
Best wishes,
PD
Quote from: Daverz on May 19, 2021, 10:37:40 AM
I really enjoyed the 90 minute review of the 120 CD Ormandy box. The preceding takedown of the Grammophone review was great, too.
By the way, there are some classic recordings of lesser known composers in that box.
I listened to the Ormandy box review - it just annoyed me a bit how he would often skim over the discs containing lesser-known repertoire by just saying generic statements like "it's very good", "it's very beautiful", etc. instead of actually describing the style, character, background etc. of the music in question. I guess he was just eager to get through the box!
On a more positive note, he featured Braga Santos'
Encruzilhada (Crossroads) in the most recent installment of "The World's Most Beautiful Melodies"!
https://youtu.be/D3KlttFhzh0
In a certain way my admiration for Hurwitz grows. He undoubtedly has a skill for speaking off the cuff at considerable length with litle or no editing and rarely taking breath. But in the last couple of weeks alone he has "reviewed" the best Mahler & Bruckner cycles AND The Ring. There are simply NOT enough hours in the day to have revisited and reconsidered opinions reached in all probability some time ago and then filtered through memory and the passage of time. Yet he will speak with seeming complete authority this version is great, that one is bad etc. I admire the confidence he has in himself to apparently remember with such certainty huge rafts of repertoire and their associated recordings. I can't say I violently disagree with his overall assessments - although I dislike his often disparaging dismissal of versions he does not like (I'd still back any of the conductors/orchestras he damns to be finer more considered musicians than he is) - but I can't regard them as anything except bar-room generalisations. But I still watch them - so who's the idiot there! (no answers required - I know its me)
Opinions might well be filtered through memory and the passage of time, but they are also readily filtered through written notes.
Mostly in the form of all of the reviews he has posted.
Besides, don't we all constantly post our opinions of recordings based on memory rather than relistening to them again? When I ask for people's recommendations for a work or their opinion on a particular recording, I don't expect everyone to go scurrying off to play it before answering, precisely because people don't have that much time.
So if we all do that, I don't see why it's a problem for Hurwitz to do the same. If we all can say what our favourites are, so can he.
Quote from: Madiel on August 04, 2021, 03:42:40 AM
Opinions might well be filtered through memory and the passage of time, but they are also readily filtered through written notes.
Mostly in the form of all of the reviews he has posted.
Besides, don't we all constantly post our opinions of recordings based on memory rather than relistening to them again? When I ask for people's recommendations for a work or their opinion on a particular recording, I don't expect everyone to go scurrying off to play it before answering, precisely because people don't have that much time.
So if we all do that, I don't see why it's a problem for Hurwitz to do the same. If we all can say what our favourites are, so can he.
Because Hurwitz is a critic who makes his money by providing his opinions. Also, direct comparison at the point of reviewing does provide different perspectives. Differences in recordings, tempi, style etc are thrown into a sharper contrast which isolated memory does not.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 04, 2021, 04:14:50 AM
Because Hurwitz is a critic who makes his money by providing his opinions.
There's an underlying assumption that this somehow changes the basic process, and I don't agree with that assumption. It doesn't miraculously grant him more than 24 hours in the day.
The skill in professional reviewing consists in making your opinions engaging - it's about whether you can write or speak in an interesting way. When it comes to the listening side, if anything the skill he'd have to develop is to become more efficient in his listening.
I actually find MusicWeb International reviews, where many reviewers spend 3/4 of the time revisiting their old favourite recordings for a comparison and then telling you about the comparison in detail, to be frequently really really boring to read.
EDIT: And that kind of comparison is frequently wrong-headed as well. That isn't how 'normal' listeners will actually listen to the music.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 04, 2021, 04:14:50 AM
Because Hurwitz is a critic who makes his money by providing his opinions.
That is relatively recent. I believe his day job is at a bank.
Quote from: Brian on August 04, 2021, 05:16:50 AM
That is relatively recent. I believe his day job is at a bank.
that I did not know!
Quote from: Madiel on August 04, 2021, 04:41:56 AM
There's an underlying assumption that this somehow changes the basic process, and I don't agree with that assumption. It doesn't miraculously grant him more than 24 hours in the day.
The skill in professional reviewing consists in making your opinions engaging - it's about whether you can write or speak in an interesting way. When it comes to the listening side, if anything the skill he'd have to develop is to become more efficient in his listening.
I actually find MusicWeb International reviews, where many reviewers spend 3/4 of the time revisiting their old favourite recordings for a comparison and then telling you about the comparison in detail, to be frequently really really boring to read.
EDIT: And that kind of comparison is frequently wrong-headed as well. That isn't how 'normal' listeners will actually listen to the music.
Horses for courses - personally I like comparative reviews but then I choose to own multiple versions of works so the comparison is useful
EDIT; Entertainly and with commendable self-deprecation Hurwitz has JUST released a video where he relates reviewing the same disc twice (in a re-release) without realising and giving vastly differing opinions. But that rather supports my view that relying on your own recall (or even notes!) of a performance from before is potentially flawed. To say at any given time "X is best" you have to have done comparisons at the same time in the same listening conditions (and preferably the same mood!!). Otherwise there are too many variables.
Quote from: Brian on August 04, 2021, 05:16:50 AM
That is relatively recent. I believe his day job is at a bank.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 04, 2021, 08:55:56 AM
that I did not know!
In one of his youtube postings, he talked about how he got into music, doing reviews, etc., and like Brian, I recall him saying something about that he couldn't make a decent living doing reviews and ended up working in finance of some sort.
PD
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 04, 2021, 09:16:05 AM
Horses for courses - personally I like comparative reviews but then I choose to own multiple versions of works so the comparison is useful
When I did MWI reviews my intention with comparisons was to help collectors understand whether they'd like a new recording (what it's similar to etc), not to slap down all of today's artists with remarks about how all the great old artists were better.
I wonder if Hurwitz does blind listening games like we used to do at GMG. We need to bring those back! Maybe a project for me when I have some free time.
The fact is, expecting someone to relisten to Mahler or Bruckner cycles before making a statement about which are the better or best cycles is ruling out anyone ever making such a post.
Do the maths. Work out how many weeks you're asking someone to devote to that one post or video. Plus consider how they're even going to remember clearly by the end of that process what was happening near the start of that process.
I'm working my way through every recording of Shostakovich op.87 at the moment, and that's quite hard enough - less than 3 hours and a lot fewer recordings than Mahler symphonies. And I doubt the process would be greatly sped up if I was doing nothing else, because my brain would just melt.
Quote from: Madiel on August 04, 2021, 02:35:43 PM
I'm working my way through every recording of Shostakovich op.87 at the moment, and that's quite hard enough - less than 3 hours and a lot fewer recordings than Mahler symphonies. And I doubt the process would be greatly sped up if I was doing nothing else, because my brain would just melt.
Yeah, I decided to do this for complete Dvorak symphonies I own - not even all of them! - and have put it on hiatus for a few months to prevent burnout. Even having nine works to choose from and bounce around. I simply have to trust that my values will remain consistent over these months of break time.
Quote from: Madiel on August 04, 2021, 02:35:43 PM
The fact is, expecting someone to relisten to Mahler or Bruckner cycles before making a statement about which are the better or best cycles is ruling out anyone ever making such a post.
I agree, but I also don't think it would be possible DH or for anyone to hold thirty different recordings in his head at once. Our aural memory is limited to a few seconds anyway. All one can really do is read back over detailed notes and observations made about each recording.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 04, 2021, 09:16:05 AM
EDIT; Entertainly and with commendable self-deprecation Hurwitz has JUST released a video where he relates reviewing the same disc twice (in a re-release) without realising and giving vastly differing opinions. But that rather supports my view that relying on your own recall (or even notes!) of a performance from before is potentially flawed. To say at any given time "X is best" you have to have done comparisons at the same time in the same listening conditions (and preferably the same mood!!). Otherwise there are too many variables.
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 04, 2021, 09:16:05 AM
Horses for courses - personally I like comparative reviews but then I choose to own multiple versions of works so the comparison is useful
EDIT; Entertainly and with commendable self-deprecation Hurwitz has JUST released a video where he relates reviewing the same disc twice (in a re-release) without realising and giving vastly differing opinions. But that rather supports my view that relying on your own recall (or even notes!) of a performance from before is potentially flawed. To say at any given time "X is best" you have to have done comparisons at the same time in the same listening conditions (and preferably the same mood!!). Otherwise there are too many variables.
It could also be a case of 1) as you suggested, ones mood could be different--the pandemic has certainly been effecting mine ::) and/or 2) ones tastes often changes over the course of ones life (and not just regarding music), and/or 3) ones knowledge about the music/the composer/the work, etc. might have changed/increased over time too. Just some thoughts. :)
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on August 05, 2021, 10:22:48 AM
It could also be a case of 1) as you suggested, ones mood could be different--the pandemic has certainly been effecting mine ::) and/or 2) ones tastes often changes over the course of ones life (and not just regarding music), and/or 3) ones knowledge about the music/the composer/the work, etc. might have changed/increased over time too. Just some thoughts. :)
PD
I find that all of those change my takes on music.
Quote from: DavidW on August 05, 2021, 11:16:56 AM
I find that all of those change my takes on music.
Indeed!
Anecdotally, I recall that maybe 15 years ago I noticed that one and the same recording (of some music like a Beethoven sonata or quartet I knew fairly well) seemed rather slow and rather fast within a few days or weeks, probably depending on time of the day or how relaxed/stressed I was (e.g. listening via headphone shortly before going to sleep already in the dark lying on the bed). This has made me quite wary of my own impressions.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 05, 2021, 11:57:55 PM
Anecdotally, I recall that maybe 15 years ago I noticed that one and the same recording (of some music like a Beethoven sonata or quartet I knew fairly well) seemed rather slow and rather fast within a few days or weeks, probably depending on time of the day or how relaxed/stressed I was (e.g. listening via headphone shortly before going to sleep already in the dark lying on the bed). This has made me quite wary of my own impressions.
It can also depend very much on what you were listening to beforehand, or doing beforehand. Human perception is far more attuned to changes in things rather than absolutes - when it comes to speed, we can tell "slower" or "faster" way better then we can measure what the speed is.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on August 05, 2021, 10:22:48 AM
It could also be a case of 1) as you suggested, ones mood could be different--the pandemic has certainly been effecting mine ::) and/or 2) ones tastes often changes over the course of ones life (and not just regarding music), and/or 3) ones knowledge about the music/the composer/the work, etc. might have changed/increased over time too. Just some thoughts. :)
PD
Exactly so!
Quote from: Jo498 on August 05, 2021, 11:57:55 PM
Anecdotally, I recall that maybe 15 years ago I noticed that one and the same recording (of some music like a Beethoven sonata or quartet I knew fairly well) seemed rather slow and rather fast within a few days or weeks, probably depending on time of the day or how relaxed/stressed I was (e.g. listening via headphone shortly before going to sleep already in the dark lying on the bed). This has made me quite wary of my own impressions.
I can "play" many whole pieces through in my mind, like a mental radio, after memorizing them. And late at night, they tend to play much more slowly, as I get tired and slower tempos become much more appealing in the same works which might have been more fun faster at lunchtime.
Quote from: Brian on August 06, 2021, 06:41:35 AM
I can "play" many whole pieces through in my mind, like a mental radio, after memorizing them. And late at night, they tend to play much more slowly, as I get tired and slower tempos become much more appealing in the same works which might have been more fun faster at lunchtime.
That's a cool talent! 8) Trust that you have now tossed out your iPod? ;)
PD
Quote from: Brian on August 06, 2021, 06:41:35 AM
I can "play" many whole pieces through in my mind, like a mental radio, after memorizing them. And late at night, they tend to play much more slowly, as I get tired
...and as you get asleep.
Allargando sognando... ;D
This man needs a blepharoplasty.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on August 06, 2021, 11:42:09 AM
That's a cool talent! 8) Trust that you have now tossed out your iPod? ;)
PD
Hah, no, it's a lot harder cognitively as I get older, I've been working on a few pieces like Nielsen 4 and the Paganini Rhapsody for over a year now. It takes many, many listens to get from "earworm" to complete piece. Just yesterday got very close on the Paganini but two of the 24 variations appeared twice to make 26, so gotta iron that out and make sure all the transitions are right. Most recent "acquisition" was Also sprach Zarathustra.
It does enable me to try out interpretive ideas, speeding up, slowing down, etc. Bruckner 7 track timings for me - about 16/19/8/11. I use my own mental cadenza for the first Tchaikovsky concerto, that kind of thing. Did once get to ask a professional composer about this and learned that it is not at all normal - growing up of course thought it was completely normal!
What's the equivalent of a photographic memory? A phonographic memory?
Quote from: Madiel on August 06, 2021, 07:15:13 PM
What's the equivalent of a photographic memory? A phonographic memory?
For a moment I missed the (h) there.
Quote from: Brian on August 06, 2021, 07:07:55 PM
Hah, no, it's a lot harder cognitively as I get older, I've been working on a few pieces like Nielsen 4 and the Paganini Rhapsody for over a year now. It takes many, many listens to get from "earworm" to complete piece. Just yesterday got very close on the Paganini but two of the 24 variations appeared twice to make 26, so gotta iron that out and make sure all the transitions are right. Most recent "acquisition" was Also sprach Zarathustra.
It does enable me to try out interpretive ideas, speeding up, slowing down, etc. Bruckner 7 track timings for me - about 16/19/8/11. I use my own mental cadenza for the first Tchaikovsky concerto, that kind of thing. Did once get to ask a professional composer about this and learned that it is not at all normal - growing up of course thought it was completely normal!
Have you ever tried acting before? If so, does it apply to lines or other things that you read?
But the bigger question: Can you remember your *wedding anniversary?
Obviously, this applies only if you are married...sorry, but I couldn't remember! :-[
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on August 07, 2021, 05:26:04 AM
Have you ever tried acting before? If so, does it apply to lines or other things that you read?
But the bigger question: Can you remember your *wedding anniversary?
Obviously, this applies only if you are married...sorry, but I couldn't remember! :-[
PD
Not nearly as good at words - in fact, if you told me to sing karaoke with 100% accuracy on penalty of death, I would only have maybe "Happy Birthday" and 2-3 Beatles songs to choose from!
I am the one out of the pair who remembers the anniversary in our relationship, yes ;D ;D
Heck of a putdown here: he calls Kirill Petrenko's Mahler 7 (https://www.classicstoday.com/review/petrenkos-munich-mahler-7th-boulez-without-the-warmth/) "Boulez without the warmth." Ouch!
Quote from: Brian on August 04, 2021, 01:51:00 PM
I wonder if Hurwitz does blind listening games like we used to do at GMG. We need to bring those back! Maybe a project for me when I have some free time.
It's my intent to start one for one of the Chopin Ballades, my preference is to do it for the F major but I'll leave it up to people to decide. I'll start the thread towards the end of September, so many discs I need to find and rip.
Quote from: vers la flamme on August 06, 2021, 12:54:36 PM
This man needs a blepharoplasty.
He has multiple sclerosis, though I'd usually associate ptosis with myasthenia gravis.
Quote from: hvbias on August 08, 2021, 07:14:40 AM
He has multiple sclerosis, though I'd usually associate ptosis with myasthenia gravis.
Ah, indeed. I suppose it's not unheard of for MS to cause neurogenic ptosis, though of course that is one of the textbook symptoms of myasthenia gravis. Poor bastard, MS is a hell of a disease to live with.
(You must be in the medical field; I am a lowly tech at an ophthalmology practice, studying to eventually become an optometrist. Ocular—and neurological—disease is fascinating to me.)
Quote from: hvbias on August 08, 2021, 07:14:40 AM
He has multiple sclerosis. . . .
Do you have evidence for this?
Quote from: Brian on August 08, 2021, 06:24:19 AM
Heck of a putdown here: he calls Kirill Petrenko's Mahler 7 (https://www.classicstoday.com/review/petrenkos-munich-mahler-7th-boulez-without-the-warmth/) "Boulez without the warmth." Ouch!
Like
Norman Lebrecht before him, he has succeeded in monetizing
being a prick, which, of itself, is no great distinction.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 08, 2021, 08:04:13 AM
Do you have evidence for this?
Many years ago (like, around the year 2000) he mentioned it in one of his Classics Today editorials. That's what I remember, anyway.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on August 08, 2021, 08:04:13 AM
Do you have evidence for this?
This review: https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-15258/
Quote from: Brian on August 08, 2021, 06:24:19 AM
Heck of a putdown here: he calls Kirill Petrenko's Mahler 7 (https://www.classicstoday.com/review/petrenkos-munich-mahler-7th-boulez-without-the-warmth/) "Boulez without the warmth." Ouch!
It got a very positive review from Dentley Hunt at Fanfare ("Santa Fe Listener" to those who remember his Amazon reviews. He is IMO Fanfare's worst writer.)
"Without a doubt this performance rises to the top tier of Mahler Sevenths on disc."
I was very impressed with Kirill Petrenko's Suk recordings on CPO.
Quote from: Brian on August 08, 2021, 09:12:12 AM
This review: https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-15258/
That would seem to be definitive.
Quote from: Daverz on August 08, 2021, 11:22:38 AM
It got a very positive review from Dentley Hunt at Fanfare ("Santa Fe Listener" to those who remember his Amazon reviews. He is IMO Fanfare's worst writer.)
"Without a doubt this performance rises to the top tier of Mahler Sevenths on disc."
I was very impressed with Kirill Petrenko's Suk recordings on CPO.
I never knew that the Santa Fe listener worked for Fanfare! And people complain about British reviewers...
Quote from: DavidW on August 08, 2021, 07:05:10 PM
I never knew that the Santa Fe listener worked for Fanfare! And people complain about British reviewers...
Wow, that's a surprise. I recall reading some of S F L 's reviews; gave the impression of being knowledgeable and opinionated, but our tastes seemed to differ considerably (the same could be said of Hurwitz).
I rarely bother to read Amazon reviews any more. Their database is so unbelievably FUBAR that any displayed reviews probably pertain to a completely different recording than the one (presumably) being examined.
Quote from: T. D. on August 08, 2021, 07:16:31 PM
Wow, that's a surprise. I recall reading some of S F L 's reviews; gave the impression of being knowledgeable and opinionated, but our tastes seemed to differ considerably (the same could be said of Hurwitz).
I rarely bother to read Amazon reviews any more. Their database is so unbelievably FUBAR that any displayed reviews probably pertain to a completely different recording than the one (presumably) being examined.
Some Amazon reviewers start by mentioning what disc they will be talking about, just to make sure readers won't be misled. Amazon's carelessness is legendary.
Quote from: vers la flamme on August 08, 2021, 07:22:19 AM
Ah, indeed. I suppose it's not unheard of for MS to cause neurogenic ptosis, though of course that is one of the textbook symptoms of myasthenia gravis. Poor bastard, MS is a hell of a disease to live with.
(You must be in the medical field; I am a lowly tech at an ophthalmology practice, studying to eventually become an optometrist. Ocular—and neurological—disease is fascinating to me.)
I'm an MD but not a neurologist. This was reaching way back to my M3/M4 days (what are the other things I remember- Marcus Gunn pupils, optic neuritis... you can tell me the last eye finding I'm forgetting :laugh: ), though I did admit a woman with an acute flare up as an M4 and that case was seared in my mind, completely agree with you on that, I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
I don't read ClassicsToday aside from occasionally Googling Jed Distler reviews, Hurwitz made a video on his channel where he was receiving IVIG and he said it's because of his MS.
Not singling you out, your posts have always come off as cordial, it's just one of the things I find annoying is when people poke fun of someone's medical issues.
Quote from: hvbias on August 09, 2021, 07:57:50 AM
Not singling you out, your posts have always come off as cordial, it's just one of the things I find annoying is when people poke fun of someone's medical issues.
Aye.
Quote from: hvbias on August 09, 2021, 07:57:50 AM
I'm an MD but not a neurologist. This was reaching way back to my M3/M4 days (what are the other things I remember- Marcus Gunn pupils, optic neuritis... you can tell me the last eye finding I'm forgetting :laugh: ), though I did admit a woman with an acute flare up as an M4 and that case was seared in my mind, completely agree with you on that, I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
I don't read ClassicsToday aside from occasionally Googling Jed Distler reviews, Hurwitz made a video on his channel where he was receiving IVIG and he said it's because of his MS.
Not singling you out, your posts have always come off as cordial, it's just one of the things I find annoying is when people poke fun of someone's medical issues.
I do apologize if my cheeky post caused any offense or annoyance; I assure you that despite my irreverent tone, it came from a place of concern. I mean, the poor guy can barely open his eyes, and from what I understand ptosis is an easy fix if myogenic/age related.
None of the MDs I work with care about music at all—it's cool to see a practicing doctor who's passionate about classical music.
P.S. Not sure what the last eye finding you're thinking of is with MS; nystagmus, with complaint of diplopia, perhaps?
Just watched the Hurwitzer's Music Chat: Really BAD Symphonists (1) Kurt Graunke and then listened to Graunke's Seventh Symphony, the first movement. And god help me, I liked it! Proving what?...that either I have really bad taste or that Hurwitz grossly exaggerates. Still too early to come to a conclusion. I need to listen to more of his music before deciding.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 28, 2021, 08:03:14 AM
Just watched the Hurwitzer's Music Chat: Really BAD Symphonists (1) Kurt Graunke and then listened to Graunke's Seventh Symphony, the first movement. And god help me, I liked it! Proving what?...that either I have really bad taste or that Hurwitz grossly exaggerates.
Proving you should love what you love, like what you like, and dismiss what you don't want to hear, but still explore what sounds interesting to you. This is why I have a stable of reviewers that I have gotten to know over the years so I can decipher what their superlatives and snubs exactly translate into for me. In the end, I am the only reviewer that matters for me, as I have been (and still will be) led astray in music and recordings from reviewers I trust.
At their least, reviewers will give us a starting point in order to make our own conclusions and start a conversation. Happily, it doesn't make any of us wrong.
VS
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 28, 2021, 08:03:14 AM
Just watched the Hurwitzer's Music Chat: Really BAD Symphonists (1) Kurt Graunke and then listened to Graunke's Seventh Symphony, the first movement. And god help me, I liked it! Proving what?...that either I have really bad taste or that Hurwitz grossly exaggerates. Still too early to come to a conclusion. I need to listen to more of his music before deciding.
Sarge
+1.
The clip of that 9th symphony posted in another thread made me listen with interest. And yet when you read the YT comments all there is is deference for Hurwitz' taste ::) and omniscience. Practically everybody write that they certainly
won't listen to Graunke... ???. Hurwitzism has become a cult.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 28, 2021, 08:03:14 AM
Just watched the Hurwitzer's Music Chat: Really BAD Symphonists (1) Kurt Graunke and then listened to Graunke's Seventh Symphony, the first movement. And god help me, I liked it! Proving what?...that either I have really bad taste or that Hurwitz grossly exaggerates. Still too early to come to a conclusion. I need to listen to more of his music before deciding.
Sarge
I mean the fact that he centered an entire video around someone being a 'bad' symphonist is reason enough to give them a listen. People seem to hang on his every word and take what he says as gospel, which Andre rightfully pointed out. I can imagine the next video will be him on a ledge somewhere holding a list of "the do's and don'ts of classical music listening" where a crowd of people are just looking at him with a glazed, empty look on their face and then he receives thunderous applause when he's done reading the list. ;D
Quote from: Daverz on August 08, 2021, 11:22:38 AM
It got a very positive review from Dentley Hunt at Fanfare ("Santa Fe Listener" to those who remember his Amazon reviews. He is IMO Fanfare's worst writer.)
"Without a doubt this performance rises to the top tier of Mahler Sevenths on disc."
I was very impressed with Kirill Petrenko's Suk recordings on CPO.
It's Huntley Dent.
Quote from: André on August 28, 2021, 09:58:14 AM
Hurwitzism has become a cult.
Around here anti-Hurwitzism is well on its way to the same status.
Quote from: Madiel on August 28, 2021, 11:06:36 PM
Around here anti-Hurwitzism is well on its way to the same status.
A cult needs a leader - "anti-Hurwitzism" is simply a shared opinion.
Lol. Right, so when people share an opinion with Hurwitz it's a "cult", though?
I feel an irregular verb coming on. You mindlessly agree with someone, I independently happen to share an opinion with another person...
Quote from: André on August 28, 2021, 09:58:14 AM
The clip of that 9th symphony posted in another thread made me listen with interest. And yet when you read the YT comments all there is is deference for Hurwitz' taste ::) and omniscience. Practically everybody write that they certainly won't listen to Graunke... ???. Hurwitzism has become a cult.
That is an artifact of the YouTube algorithm. It is really good at presenting to viewers only what aligns with their interests and opinions. And then his videos are so long if you're not a fanboy you're not going to watch them (I know I don't). What is sad is that most of those commenters will not support him by paying the small subscription fee at Classics Today.
Quote from: vers la flamme on August 09, 2021, 04:43:29 PM
I do apologize if my cheeky post caused any offense or annoyance; I assure you that despite my irreverent tone, it came from a place of concern. I mean, the poor guy can barely open his eyes, and from what I understand ptosis is an easy fix if myogenic/age related.
None of the MDs I work with care about music at all—it's cool to see a practicing doctor who's passionate about classical music.
P.S. Not sure what the last eye finding you're thinking of is with MS; nystagmus, with complaint of diplopia, perhaps?
Woops, sorry just seeing this now. I'm not sure what I was thinking of then, I thought it was something CN III/IV/VI or PPRF related.
I don't know any people that are into classical music, I know several people I worked with or currently working with that are big music fans, usually the music they grew up with; U2, Stones, Beatles, etc. I'm the youngest among my partners so this is all music of another era for me. One of my friends in another field was a huge Phish fan and planned his vacations around seeing as many shows as he could.
Quote from: DavidW on August 29, 2021, 06:18:52 AM
That is an artifact of the YouTube algorithm. It is really good at presenting to viewers only what aligns with their interests and opinions. And then his videos are so long if you're not a fanboy you're not going to watch them (I know I don't). What is sad is that most of those commenters will not support him by paying the small subscription fee at Classics Today.
I'm not a fanboy but I listen to them all the way through. One of my car's screaming natural flat-6 plus tire/road noise is too loud to listen to music in ;D I used to listen to Boston sports radio but you can really only take so much whining from entitled Boston fans despite 20 years of probably the greatest sports success in the entire world.
I might have posted this when his channel first started; for me the main benefit of his channel is learning about new recordings. Most online forums are filled with people discussing the same oldies over and over, it's like people got stuck with their record collection of the 70s and never moved on. GMG
is much better in that regard. I like Hurwitz's attitude that classical music didn't die off decades ago. I've never made a blind buy based off what he or most other people have said. I have streamed some of what was new to me and disagreed with him about as much as I've agreed with him, so the usual coin toss of opinion just like other critics or what individuals post.
I ignore the nonsense about things like him writing off Boulez in the most juvenile way, his grudge against certain conductors, distaste of pre-war recordings, etc.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 28, 2021, 08:03:14 AM
Just watched the Hurwitzer's Music Chat: Really BAD Symphonists (1) Kurt Graunke and then listened to Graunke's Seventh Symphony, the first movement. And god help me, I liked it! Proving what?...that either I have really bad taste or that Hurwitz grossly exaggerates. Still too early to come to a conclusion. I need to listen to more of his music before deciding.
Sarge
Measured, sober cultural reflection doesn't goose the internet traffic!
Quote from: Madiel on August 28, 2021, 11:06:36 PM
Around here anti-Hurwitzism is well on its way to the same status.
Sobriety is not a cult. You're welcome.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 30, 2021, 03:16:08 PM
Sobriety is not a cult. You're welcome.
Temperance movements and prohibition?
A fun video from Mr Hurwitz: Music Chat: Insane Audiophile Road Shows and Other Tales from the Crypt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yk4g0_t8jc)
Oh yay! This thread again. :) For the record, I am neither pro nor anti Hurwitz. I watch some of the videos to get ideas and be entertained. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. His book on Dvorak is a great resource for my studies, and I have discovered a lot of recordings I enjoy thanks to his commentary. His channel is just another resource that is available.
Quote from: Olias on August 22, 2022, 05:10:27 PM
Oh yay! This thread again. :) For the record, I am neither pro nor anti Hurwitz. I watch some of the videos to get ideas and be entertained. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. His book on Dvorak is a great resource for my studies, and I have discovered a lot of recordings I enjoy thanks to his commentary. His channel is just another resource that is available.
This is largely my view as well. I have his rather useful book about Shostakovich.
It'd be nicer for everyone if he was kept in this thread and there weren't any spillovers of his videos in other threads. Thank you.
Quote from: vandermolen on August 22, 2022, 10:13:51 PM
This is largely my view as well. I have his rather useful book about Shostakovich.
Riiiiiiight, I have that book too. I had forgotten that one was his as well. The entire series is rather good and my older eyes appreciate the larger font size. :)
Anyone who thinks their opinion of a musical performance is valuable to another person is a fool, Hurwitz included. Unless I know the person well, the most valuable information in any review is the fact that the recording exists.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 23, 2022, 05:05:49 PM
Anyone who thinks their opinion of a musical performance is valuable to another person is a fool, Hurwitz included. Unless I know the person well, the most valuable information in any review is the fact that the recording exists.
Over time I find there are certain reviewers who I have found whose 'taste' chimes relatively closely with mine so if they are enthused by a performance/recording or piece I might well check it out in a way I otherwise would not. If all you need is knowledge of a disc's existance visit company's "new releases" pages! This presupposes that everyone has the same level of prior knowledge. The value of Hurwitz is the way in which he can engage and enthuse his regular audience and introduce them to aspects of CM that otherwise they might not encounter. CM needs ALL the enthusiasm and support it can get and if that includes a liberal dose of Hurwitz's 'character' along the way I think it is a price worth paying.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 23, 2022, 05:05:49 PMAnyone who thinks their opinion of a musical performance is valuable to another person is a fool, Hurwitz included.
This is objectively incorrect. What works for you specifically is basically irrelevant for most other people, if not everyone. The existence of multiple classical review publications, some of which have been around for decades, obviously refutes your statement.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 23, 2022, 05:05:49 PM
Anyone who thinks their opinion of a musical performance is valuable to another person is a fool, Hurwitz included. Unless I know the person well, the most valuable information in any review is the fact that the recording exists.
What are you doing on the forum, then?
Because a very large percentage of this forum consists of people not just reporting the existence of recordings, but speaking about what they thought of them, including whether they thought it was better or worse than other recordings of the same music.
The fact that people don't describe their posts as "reviews" and don't put them in places where you might be charged money to read doesn't alter this. So why are you here?
I would note that it isn't hard to find examples in your own posts of your opinion of a musical performance.
I believe in the (theoretical/general) value of critics, but then again, this is because my salary depends on maintaining that belief. ;D ;D
The important thing is to build a long-time sense of trust and understanding of a critic and their point of view. The best critics are able to clue you in right away, or to describe a thing to you such that you'll know whether you'll like it regardless of whether they did. It's something that I try to keep in mind in my own work. "Too spicy" is like "too fast": not helpful to the reader at all, because everyone has different definitions of when food becomes too spicy or a tempo becomes too fast.
This is why I think Roger Ebert remains the ideal of the critic. He loved great film, sure. But he also gave high marks to horror movies if they scared him, and romantic comedies if they made him a little bit weepy. And you can read just one article of his and immediately understand both his frame of reference and whether or not you agree with it.
I have almost no use for critics I don't know familiarly (like other cities' newspapers' writers, or everyone on Yelp) but find it tremendously useful to follow certain knowledgeable, observant, insightful people over the longterm once I have gotten to learn how their views might differ from my own (like Ebert, Pete Wells, Dwight Garner, Helen Rosner, Wesley Morris, Soleil Ho, A.S. Hamrah, Alex Ross, and, yes, David Hurwitz).
Of course, as you can see from the length of that list, I am at the far end of the bell curve from Spotted Horses on this subject, as extreme in one direction as he is in the other. Criticism is a pretty hefty chunk of my reading diet, because in the hands of good critics it can teach you something even when you don't engage with the material being criticized, and when you do (as in, say, Marjorie Garber's essays on Shakespeare), it can teach you a lot. My life pretty much revolves around subject matter with established critical traditions (books, film, music, food).
Incidentally, I just did a search and found that we had this exact discussion in this same thread in 2016. Karl noted his problem with Hurwitz is that the guy is a "blunt instrument" - surely true. DH is at his most interesting when you get him off his pet topics (vibrato, Mahler) and onto something where he is forced to convert his deep knowledge into a new idea (like a recent video where he argued that music cannot express the emotion of hatred, only the thing being hated on).
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 23, 2022, 11:10:56 PM
Over time I find there are certain reviewers who I have found whose 'taste' chimes relatively closely with mine so if they are enthused by a performance/recording or piece I might well check it out in a way I otherwise would not. If all you need is knowledge of a disc's existance visit company's "new releases" pages! This presupposes that everyone has the same level of prior knowledge. The value of Hurwitz is the way in which he can engage and enthuse his regular audience and introduce them to aspects of CM that otherwise they might not encounter. CM needs ALL the enthusiasm and support it can get and if that includes a liberal dose of Hurwitz's 'character' along the way I think it is a price worth paying.
Happily concede the highlight.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 23, 2022, 05:05:49 PM
Anyone who thinks their opinion of a musical performance is valuable to another person is a fool, Hurwitz included. Unless I know the person well, the most valuable information in any review is the fact that the recording exists.
I both see your point, and that it does not preclude your finding some opinion valuable.
Quote from: Todd on August 24, 2022, 03:57:03 AM
This is objectively incorrect. What works for you specifically is basically irrelevant for most other people, if not everyone. The existence of multiple classical review publications, some of which have been around for decades, obviously refutes your statement.
My statement may be incorrect, but the fact that people have been selling reviews for decades does not prove that. Various vendors have been selling things of no value for decades, including snake oil, managed stock funds that perform worse than index funds, homeopathic medicines, tarot card readings, etc. Music reviews are entertainment, in my view.
Quote from: Madiel on August 24, 2022, 06:16:08 AM
What are you doing on the forum, then?
Because a very large percentage of this forum consists of people not just reporting the existence of recordings, but speaking about what they thought of them, including whether they thought it was better or worse than other recordings of the same music.
The fact that people don't describe their posts as "reviews" and don't put them in places where you might be charged money to read doesn't alter this. So why are you here?
I would note that it isn't hard to find examples in your own posts of your opinion of a musical performance.
I'm here to socialize and gossip about classical music, since I don't know anyone in real life that care about classical music at all.
My little reviews on the listening thread mainly serve to point out that the recording exists and that someone (me) thinks it is worth listening to, and perhaps give some useful objective-ish information (tempo is fast/slow, recording is dry/reverberant, presentation is flamboyant/understated, etc). I will normally mention whether I liked it, but that seems like an almost irrelevant detail. Basically it is the listening notes I keep in my little journal, modified slightly for an external audience.
I do read people's "reviews" here, but as I said, what I mainly get out of it is that the recording exists and someone found it worth listening to. Whether it is claimed to be bad, good, the worst, the best it not of interest. A claim that a recording is awful is probably just as likely as anything to spur me to purchase or listen. There are a few contributors here whose taste I respect highly whose positive mention I will take seriously. But people who seem compelled to announce that recording A is better than recording B do not make much of an impression.
Quote from: Brian on August 24, 2022, 06:57:27 AM
I believe in the (theoretical/general) value of critics, but then again, this is because my salary depends on maintaining that belief. ;D ;D
The important thing is to build a long-time sense of trust and understanding of a critic and their point of view. The best critics are able to clue you in right away, or to describe a thing to you such that you'll know whether you'll like it regardless of whether they did. It's something that I try to keep in mind in my own work. "Too spicy" is like "too fast": not helpful to the reader at all, because everyone has different definitions of when food becomes too spicy or a tempo becomes too fast.
This is why I think Roger Ebert remains the ideal of the critic. He loved great film, sure. But he also gave high marks to horror movies if they scared him, and romantic comedies if they made him a little bit weepy. And you can read just one article of his and immediately understand both his frame of reference and whether or not you agree with it.
I have almost no use for critics I don't know familiarly (like other cities' newspapers' writers, or everyone on Yelp) but find it tremendously useful to follow certain knowledgeable, observant, insightful people over the longterm once I have gotten to learn how their views might differ from my own (like Ebert, Pete Wells, Dwight Garner, Helen Rosner, Wesley Morris, Soleil Ho, A.S. Hamrah, Alex Ross, and, yes, David Hurwitz).
Of course, as you can see from the length of that list, I am at the far end of the bell curve from Spotted Horses on this subject, as extreme in one direction as he is in the other. Criticism is a pretty hefty chunk of my reading diet, because in the hands of good critics it can teach you something even when you don't engage with the material being criticized, and when you do (as in, say, Marjorie Garber's essays on Shakespeare), it can teach you a lot. My life pretty much revolves around subject matter with established critical traditions (books, film, music, food).
Incidentally, I just did a search and found that we had this exact discussion in this same thread in 2016. Karl noted his problem with Hurwitz is that the guy is a "blunt instrument" - surely true. DH is at his most interesting when you get him off his pet topics (vibrato, Mahler) and onto something where he is forced to convert his deep knowledge into a new idea (like a recent video where he argued that music cannot express the emotion of hatred, only the thing being hated on).
I beg pardon for seeming to contemn your profession as useless. Far from it. It is entertainment. Evidently there are people who like food so much they are not satisfied just to eat it, but want to read about it too. :) But, of course, you also bring attention to restaurants that you find worth the effort to patronize, and this is the main value I find in classical music reviews.
There are other professions that are far worse than useless. I have a cousin who was highly paid marketing professional, and for a long time her specialty was Kool-Aid. Her job was to convince people to drink a nutrient free, mildly toxic solution of chemicals instead of clean water. That's worse than useless. :)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 24, 2022, 09:24:42 AMMy statement may be incorrect, but the fact that people have been selling reviews for decades does not prove that.
It really kind of does. One needn't look too hard for online references to Gramophone or BBC Music or some other publication as evidence for the value that some people place on professional reviews in magazines or online. You may not place any value on professional reviews, which is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean anything. I also think of reviews mostly as a form of entertainment and typically pay close attention only if a review praises something as the greatest ever, or, more interestingly, the worst ever, or at least bad and eccentric. I do not think that my view on reviews has any objective meaning for anyone else.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 23, 2022, 11:10:56 PM
Over time I find there are certain reviewers who I have found whose 'taste' chimes relatively closely with mine so if they are enthused by a performance/recording or piece I might well check it out in a way I otherwise would not. If all you need is knowledge of a disc's existance visit company's "new releases" pages! This presupposes that everyone has the same level of prior knowledge. The value of Hurwitz is the way in which he can engage and enthuse his regular audience and introduce them to aspects of CM that otherwise they might not encounter. CM needs ALL the enthusiasm and support it can get and if that includes a liberal dose of Hurwitz's 'character' along the way I think it is a price worth paying.
Well, yes, I would concede that reviews are valuable to a novice, as they were to me when I was trying to decide whether to get Karajan or Solti's recording of Beethoven's 9th. (When I started collecting the new releases section was crowded with Karajan and Solti.)
And it is true that there are a few posters here whose taste I have come to recording very highly, and whose positive mention would be enough to send me scurrying to my favorite internet vendors. There is no rule so firm that it doesn't admit some exceptions.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 24, 2022, 10:32:08 AM
I beg pardon for seeming to contemn your profession as useless. Far from it. It is entertainment. Evidently there are people who like food so much they are not satisfied just to eat it, but want to read about it too. :) But, of course, you also bring attention to restaurants that you find worth the effort to patronize, and this is the main value I find in classical music reviews.
There are other professions that are far worse than useless. I have a cousin who was highly paid marketing professional, and for a long time her specialty was Kool-Aid. Her job was to convince people to drink a nutrient free, mildly toxic solution of chemicals instead of clean water. That's worse than useless. :)
The funny thing is that despite our apparent disagreement here, I think our philosophy about reviewing is pretty similar. Last month, I ran a review of a restaurant where I chose to keep my own view out of it and present both positive and negative facts. Fans of the restaurant told me they loved the positive review, and the ownership was thrilled with the description. People who hated the restaurant were
also thrilled with what they saw as a savage attack, and whenever one of them met me in person they detailed all their horror show-type experiences there.
That made me feel very good about the integrity of the description in the review, which proceeded mostly along your lines (i.e. objective description: the food is these things, it's extremely expensive, famous people are treated differently). Then a friend pointed out that this shows that people only take away the information they want to take away, and nothing else. Ah, well...
Quote from: Brian on August 24, 2022, 11:41:02 AM
The funny thing is that despite our apparent disagreement here, I think our philosophy about reviewing is pretty similar. Last month, I ran a review of a restaurant where I chose to keep my own view out of it and present both positive and negative facts. Fans of the restaurant told me they loved the positive review, and the ownership was thrilled with the description. People who hated the restaurant were also thrilled with what they saw as a savage attack, and whenever one of them met me in person they detailed all their horror show-type experiences there.
That made me feel very good about the integrity of the description in the review, which proceeded mostly along your lines (i.e. objective description: the food is these things, it's extremely expensive, famous people are treated differently). Then a friend pointed out that this shows that people only take away the information they want to take away, and nothing else. Ah, well...
A kind of Rorschach experience....
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 24, 2022, 10:27:22 AM
I'm here to socialize and gossip about classical music, since I don't know anyone in real life that care about classical music at all.
My little reviews on the listening thread mainly serve to point out that the recording exists and that someone (me) thinks it is worth listening to, and perhaps give some useful objective-ish information (tempo is fast/slow, recording is dry/reverberant, presentation is flamboyant/understated, etc). I will normally mention whether I liked it, but that seems like an almost irrelevant detail. Basically it is the listening notes I keep in my little journal, modified slightly for an external audience.
I do read people's "reviews" here, but as I said, what I mainly get out of it is that the recording exists and someone found it worth listening to. Whether it is claimed to be bad, good, the worst, the best it not of interest. A claim that a recording is awful is probably just as likely as anything to spur me to purchase or listen. There are a few contributors here whose taste I respect highly whose positive mention I will take seriously. But people who seem compelled to announce that recording A is better than recording B do not make much of an impression.
Right, you've said at least twice in this response that people's opinions on performances have value.
I'm honestly getting sick of people converting a dislike of Hurwitz and his style into some kind of universal rule that reviews and opinions have no value.
We get the same kind of thing said here when people disagree with a single specific review (by Hurwitz or anyone else): not just a statement that the writer disagrees with the review, but a declaration that all reviews are valueless.
It's hyperbole and it's nonsense. It flies in the face of how people CONSTANTLY share opinions, here or in other contexts like conversing with friends about TV shows or movies that might be worth watching. We all do it, and we do it because there simply isn't enough time to listen to/watch everything. We exchange information about what might be worth people's time and effort.
All I get out of declarations that reviews are of no value (and usually this means professional reviews, specifically) is that people either resent that someone might get money for expressing opinions, thinking that those opinions aren't any better or more knowledgeable than the person's own free ones, and/or some kind of insecurity about one's own different opinion that is covered by lashing out.
It's tiresome, and I wish people around here would stop doing it. By all means if people have specific and meaningful criticisms of reviews or reviewers let's hear them, but the opinion that opinions have no value needs to disappear into the logical black hole I just pointed out in half a dozen words.
Quote from: Madiel on August 24, 2022, 01:10:59 PM
I'm honestly getting sick of people converting a dislike of Hurwitz and his style into some kind of universal rule that reviews and opinions have no value.
To be fair, he may not have meant that at all, and I don't think he implied it. It could be like my attitude toward Marvel movies: they're all unpleasant to me, but the first Thor was especially so. ;D
There is a GMG tendency towards the attitude "a review that agrees with me is wise and smart, but a review that disagrees with me is dumb and bad." Mirror Image was a better example of that. But it is human nature. My opinion of the New York Times opinion section changes on a similar basis.
To the extent that it is human nature, I strive not to be human.
For one thing it is preferable to pay attention to a collective set of reviews rather than a single review. But that won't be possible if we spend our time shooting down reviewers. One of the main reasons we spend all this time talking about Hurwitz and ClassicsToday is that there is already a scarcity of people giving the same kind of attention to classical music, and almost certainly no-one else as ACCESSIBLE when they're doing it. Hurwitz gives away a lot of reviews at zero cost.
The only freely accessible alternative that comes close is MusicWeb International, and in my opinion the writing there is frequently bad. Not the opinions, the writing. I lack confidence in the opinions not because I disagree with them, but because I frequently can't discern what they are.
Also... it should be fairly obvious but around here it needs to be said: the purpose of reviews is not supposed to be to compare another opinion to your own, but to give you some information when you don't already have an opinion of your own. If I've already seen a movie, then sure it's interesting to find out what other people thought of it, but the true function of reviews was to help me pick which movie to go see in the first place.
Quote from: Madiel on August 24, 2022, 01:10:59 PM
Right, you've said at least twice in this response that people's opinions on performances have value.
I'm honestly getting sick of people converting a dislike of Hurwitz and his style into some kind of universal rule that reviews and opinions have no value.
We get the same kind of thing said here when people disagree with a single specific review (by Hurwitz or anyone else): not just a statement that the writer disagrees with the review, but a declaration that all reviews are valueless.
It's hyperbole and it's nonsense. It flies in the face of how people CONSTANTLY share opinions, here or in other contexts like conversing with friends about TV shows or movies that might be worth watching. We all do it, and we do it because there simply isn't enough time to listen to/watch everything. We exchange information about what might be worth people's time and effort.
All I get out of declarations that reviews are of no value (and usually this means professional reviews, specifically) is that people either resent that someone might get money for expressing opinions, thinking that those opinions aren't any better or more knowledgeable than the person's own free ones, and/or some kind of insecurity about one's own different opinion that is covered by lashing out.
It's tiresome, and I wish people around here would stop doing it. By all means if people have specific and meaningful criticisms of reviews or reviewers let's hear them, but the opinion that opinions have no value needs to disappear into the logical black hole I just pointed out in half a dozen words.
I have nothing against Hurwitz. I don't recall reading any of his reviews. I watched part of one of his videos in response to comments about him here and although I expected him to be a nasty character, based on what people say about him, I found him quirky and mildly amusing. Not amusing enough too seek out any more of his videos, though. My comments are only based on the experience that beyond very limited objective-ish information (do they take the repeats, do they use period instruments, is the tempo brisk or slow, etc) I find the contents of reviews subjective and of no use in predicting whether I will enjoy a recording. I recall there is someone here with a page reviewing hundreds of recordings of Holst' The Planets. I was was curious and found my favorite recording almost at the bottom in his list. Thank god I didn't consult that list before I got the recording.
And just because opinions of music are almost entirely subjective (assuming the performer can play the notes) doesn't mean it isn't fun to gossip about music.
To which my response is one I've already made: I don't place huge amounts of weight on a single review. I do place more weight on the collective consensus when I can get it. If 90% of reviews of something all go much the same way and make similar points then there's a decent chance my own responses would be in line with that 90%. Guaranteed? No. More likely than not? Yes.
And that is why I say drawing any conclusion from a particular anecdote about a particular instance where your view on a single recording was completely opposite from a single reviewer is going to get you exactly the wrong conclusion. We don't need fewer reviewers because each individual review doesn't hold much value. We need MORE reviewers precisely because each individual review doesn't hold much value.
It's only from having a wealth of reviews that you get a probability cloud that is far more useful than each individual data point. This is precisely why sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes have flourished.
And this also why checking out reviews after you already have your own opinion, and your own favourite recording, might be fun but is pretty much against the actual function of reviews.
As to the idea that reviews are almost entirely subjective: no, because if that were true reviews of everything would show the same bell curve distribution. They don't. Things get a high score on Metacritic because a lot more reviewers said it was great. Things get a low score because a lot more reviewers said it was terrible. The claim that it's all subjective is the claim that someone with a low score makes rather than engage with, and learn from, the reasons why the great majority of people thought their magnificent work of art sucked.
I feel like you guys are arguing over entirely different things, to the point where I can't imagine it's productive.
Quote from: Brian on August 25, 2022, 06:42:44 AM
I feel like you guys are arguing over entirely different things, to the point where I can't imagine it's productive.
Agreed.
Reviews aren't very interesting or helpful to me. I wouldn't argue that they are not useful to other people differently inclined.
I'll just say that the idea of using a consensus of reviews to pick a recording is antithetical to what I enjoy about listening to music. I often find it very rewarding to seek out recordings that are 'bad' by general consensus because they are something different, sometimes in a striking way.
Oh for crying out loud. It's not "to pick a recording". It's to provide a starting point amongst the morass of recordings.
If you want to start with whichever conductor's name starts with A and go down the list in alphabetical order all the way down to Z and listen to every single bloody recording until you're completely satisfied that you have found the one(s) you like the best, with zero input from anyone else beyond what you could get from scouring a database of releases, then go ahead.
But in most cases most people simply do not have the time. Time is a finite resource. So is money. People use reviews to get SOME kind of steer on where to spend their time and money. If you happen to live in some kind of pocket dimension where you don't have such constraints (and honestly, the way people behave on GMG sometimes raises this as a real possibility) then you're right: reviews are not useful for you. Congratulations.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 25, 2022, 06:51:01 AM
Agreed.
Reviews aren't very interesting or helpful to me. I wouldn't argue that they are not useful to other people differently inclined.
You did argue that. That's the whole problem. We are not having this argument because you said reviews weren't of value to you personally. We are having this argument precisely because you declared that a reviewer would be foolish to think their review was useful to another person. Not to "me, Spotted Horses". Another person. Generally.
If all that you meant was that a reviewer would be foolish to think that a review would be useful to YOU PERSONALLY, then I hate to break it to you, but a reviewer is not thinking about you personally when writing a review. So good news, we are safe from that particular kind of foolishness and the warning was wholly unnecessary.
Madiel, those two posts have a remarkable amount of bitterness and sarcasm and I really don't understand the need for that tone. (Feel safe telling you this because I like and enjoy your contributions and we get along.)
Quote from: Madiel on August 25, 2022, 07:43:36 AM
Oh for crying out loud. It's not "to pick a recording". It's to provide a starting point amongst the morass of recordings.
If you want to start with whichever conductor's name starts with A and go down the list in alphabetical order all the way down to Z and listen to every single bloody recording until you're completely satisfied that you have found the one(s) you like the best, with zero input from anyone else beyond what you could get from scouring a database of releases, then go ahead.
But in most cases most people simply do not have the time. Time is a finite resource. So is money. People use reviews to get SOME kind of steer on where to spend their time and money. If you happen to live in some kind of pocket dimension where you don't have such constraints (and honestly, the way people behave on GMG sometimes raises this as a real possibility) then you're right: reviews are not useful for you. Congratulations.
That's my point, I don't want to find the one (or ones) that I like best. I like experiencing the diversity. And I don't go through the alphabet (usually). I am guided by conductors and performers I have stumbled upon over the years that I am attracted to, although sometimes I pick things randomly. I think, "I wonder what Maazel would do with Debussy's Nocturnes, I wonder what Karajan would do with a Suppe overture, I wonder what Ansermet would do with a Haydn symphony, I wonder what Armin Jordan would do with Schumann symphonies. I wonder what Hogwood would do with Martinu, I wonder what Hewitt would do with Liszt." The reviews would tell me to stay away, and look at how much I would miss! This is why, lately, I've been attracted to the complete recordings of so-and-so. I get access to all the recordings that never got released because everyone knows they are terrible!
Perhaps statistical convergence of reviews distills out some information. Quite possibly, but it doesn't interest me, for the reasons above. Individual reviews, in my personal experience, have a similar information content to tarot card readings. Maybe you can accept that that is what I think. I have no trouble with the fact that you find reviews, individually or statically, worthwhile.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 25, 2022, 08:58:48 AMThis is why, lately, I've been attracted to the complete recordings of so-and-so. I get access to all the recordings that never got released because everyone knows they are terrible!
That reminds me, I made a note to listen to the Barbirolli/Halle recording of La Mer, but forgot all about it. :)
Quote from: Brian on August 25, 2022, 08:46:45 AM
Madiel, those two posts have a remarkable amount of bitterness and sarcasm and I really don't understand the need for that tone. (Feel safe telling you this because I like and enjoy your contributions and we get along.)
It is incredibly frustrating when someone says they would never make the silly argument that they in fact already made.
Because it demonstrates that the whole conversation was a total waste of time. But it comes without the actual admission that the silly argument was wrong. It just comes with the further silly claim that the person would never be so silly.
Working through other people's cognitive dissonance like that tends to make me feel that they should have done it themselves before typing.
It should be obvious that "another person" includes ME. I am a person who finds reviews useful, disproving in a single stroke the claim that reviews aren't useful to other people. And yet I'm dealing with someone who thinks that the issue is whether they personally find reviews useful. To the extent that we are talking about different things, I'm the one who is addressing what the other person originally said, and that other person is ignoring it. So yes, I find that super frustrating and always do.
My mistake was to argue not in the general abstract but to personalise to some extent. Instead of exploring whether he truly, genuinely finds reviews useless, I should have just straight out said how that isn't a basis for claiming that all people find reviews useless.
Mind you, other people including Todd tried that and didn't get far. It's clear that I was not the only person who understood that a general claim was being made, and responded to just how silly that claim was.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 25, 2022, 08:58:48 AM
That's my point, I don't want to find the one (or ones) that I like best. I like experiencing the diversity.
And yet, you supplied an anecdote about your favourite Planets recording and how someone else didn't rate it highly. Not about exploring all the other Planets recordings on the list.
Either you care about identifying preferred recordings or you don't, but I no longer care about working through your thought patterns on this topic.
Quote from: Todd on August 22, 2022, 11:01:52 AM
A fun video from Mr Hurwitz: Music Chat: Insane Audiophile Road Shows and Other Tales from the Crypt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yk4g0_t8jc)
That does sound like a fun idea for a video, and different from the usual review/survey. I will be giving it a shot! Especially if he pokes fun of some audiophiles or over the top record label stunts.
Quote from: DavidW on August 25, 2022, 04:31:15 PM
That does sound like a fun idea for a video, and different from the usual review/survey. I will be giving it a shot! Especially if he pokes fun of some audiophiles or over the top record label stunts.
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 24, 2022, 10:32:08 AM
Evidently there are people who like food so much they are not satisfied just to eat it, but want to read about it too. :)
I consider myself a food nerd, reading Jonathan Gold's writing is like being transported. It was an art in itself.
Quote from: Madiel on August 25, 2022, 02:49:21 PM
And yet, you supplied an anecdote about your favourite Planets recording and how someone else didn't rate it highly. Not about exploring all the other Planets recordings on the list.
Either you care about identifying preferred recordings or you don't, but I no longer care about working through your thought patterns on this topic.
The fact that some recordings lodge themselves in my memory more strongly than others doesn't mean that I "care about identifying preferred recordings."
I have no idea why you feel compelled to convince me that I secretly agree with you but refuse to admit it. There is no "cognitive dissonance" in my view of the subject. My personal experience is that individual reviews have no correlation with my reaction to a recording. I think of the reviews themselves as a form of entertainment that some people enjoy. Music reviews are produced for the same reason that other forms of entertainment are produced, because people are willing to pay for them. Perhaps a statical convergence of reviews has some significance, but I don't find myself too interested because at this point I enjoy hearing a variety of different performances, not the "best."
By now, Hurwitz must be chafing that he is not the center of attention, even on his own thread! :)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 26, 2022, 07:00:43 AM
The fact that some recordings lodge themselves in my memory more strongly than others doesn't mean that I "care about identifying preferred recordings."
I have no idea why you feel compelled to convince me that I secretly agree with you but refuse to admit it. There is no "cognitive dissonance" in my view of the subject. My personal experience is that individual reviews have no correlation with my reaction to a recording. I think of the reviews themselves as a form of entertainment that some people enjoy. Music reviews are produced for the same reason that other forms of entertainment are produced, because people are willing to pay for them. Perhaps a statical convergence of reviews has some significance, but I don't find myself too interested because at this point I enjoy hearing a variety of different performances, not the "best."
By now, Hurwitz must be chafing that he is not the center of attention, even on his own thread! :)
(* chortle *)
I don't always agree with Hurwitz and sometimes he can be a jerk and/or a smart-arse --- but what I love about him is that, in a world where many people are afraid of even saying "It's a fine day today!" for fear they could offend someone somewhere, he has the courage of expressing his convictions. Also, his passion for, and dedication to, "classical" music is infectious and commendable. YMMV.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 26, 2022, 07:00:43 AM
The fact that some recordings lodge themselves in my memory more strongly than others doesn't mean that I "care about identifying preferred recordings."
I have no idea why you feel compelled to convince me that I secretly agree with you but refuse to admit it. There is no "cognitive dissonance" in my view of the subject. My personal experience is that individual reviews have no correlation with my reaction to a recording. I think of the reviews themselves as a form of entertainment that some people enjoy. Music reviews are produced for the same reason that other forms of entertainment are produced, because people are willing to pay for them. Perhaps a statical convergence of reviews has some significance, but I don't find myself too interested because at this point I enjoy hearing a variety of different performances, not the "best."
By now, Hurwitz must be chafing that he is not the center of attention, even on his own thread! :)
Ditto. You have nicely worded my precise opinion. In 30 years I can't recall a single instance of buying an album because a reviewer liked it. Still, I might very well have enjoyed reading the review, maybe I even learned something from it. 🤔
🤠😎
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2022, 09:40:27 AMIn 30 years I can't recall a single instance of buying an album because a reviewer liked it.
Neither can I.
It's fascinating how some people think the only possible use of a review is to totally supplant one's own capacity to form an opinion.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2022, 09:40:27 AM
In 30 years I can't recall a single instance of buying an album because a reviewer liked it.
Quote from: Madiel on August 26, 2022, 01:12:32 PM
Neither can I.
Well, yesterday I got this:
(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiODQ2MzQwMi4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6OTAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE1MzA1NDA2OTh9)
only because the conductor is Romanian. :D
Then I read a glowing review of this:
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/VKwAAOSw-9lfJM6o/s-l400.jpg)
("the best thing Sutherland and Bonynge ever did together")
and got it too.
So, there it is: at least one instance of a GMGer getting a recording because a reviewer liked it. Your cases are dismissed, gents, sorry. ;D
I'm thrilled. Given I was never the one claiming reviews had no value to any person.
Though we'd apparently moved on from that to claiming that some people aren't even interested in their OWN opinions.
Goalposts move fast around here.
Quote from: Madiel on August 26, 2022, 01:37:03 PM
I was never the one claiming reviews had no value to any person.
I know. My personal anecdotic example is on your side. Heck, my own thinking is on your side. ;)
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2022, 01:42:40 PM
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!
Quote from: Madiel on August 26, 2022, 01:47:14 PM
Meanwhile we have a large chunk of the forum spontaneously reviewing Schumann piano works to help Harry out!
Love thy neighbor as thyself!
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.
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.
Quote from: Madiel on August 26, 2022, 02:29:19 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: DavidW on August 26, 2022, 03:15:00 PM
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
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.
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
Quote from: vers la flamme on August 27, 2022, 11:12:07 AM
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.)
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.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 29, 2022, 04:08:52 AMHe 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.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 29, 2022, 04:08:52 AMBut 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.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 29, 2022, 04:08:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 29, 2022, 04:08:52 AM
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.
Quote(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.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 29, 2022, 04:08:52 AM
He also sometimes stresses that classical music has "no depth", it's just fun like any other pastime [snip]
Quote from: Florestan on August 29, 2022, 07:08:10 AM
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.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 29, 2022, 08:23:30 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: Jo498 on August 29, 2022, 04:08:52 AMHe 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.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 29, 2022, 08:56:30 AM
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. :D
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. :)
Quote from: Florestan on August 29, 2022, 09:00:58 AM
I was considering starting a thread about that but you sort of killed it before birth. :D
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."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 29, 2022, 11:13:32 AM
We all agree, I suppose that there is overlap between "entertaining" and "just fun."
Indeed. "Just fun" is a subset of "entertaining".
I am entertained by music which is not fun at all, such as... well,
Rachmaninoff. Conversely, all fun music is entertaining to me, such as for instance
Rossini's
Il barbiere di Siviglia.
Quote from: Florestan on August 29, 2022, 11:33:49 AM
Indeed. "Just fun" is a subset of "entertaining".
I am entertained by music which is not fun at all, such as... well, Rachmaninoff. Conversely, all fun music is entertaining to me, such as for instance Rossini's Il barbiere di Siviglia.
Sure. I kind of missed it: did the phrase "just fun" come from the thread's namesake?
Quote from: absolutelybaching on August 29, 2022, 12:27:07 PM
I gave up listening to him when it turned out that instead of a favourite top-10, he had a favourite top-200+, which is kind of a new meaning for the word 'favourite'!
When you have tens of thousands of CDs, having a few hundred favorites makes sense. I can easily see that number growing to 1001.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 29, 2022, 08:23:30 AM
Yeah, I think that about Rakhmaninov's Op. 37 all the time.
You do realise that we listen to a heap of music as "Classical music" that the original composers intended for something else entirely, and you've just hit on one of the examples?
Bach never intended that you'd lounge around at home listening to his cantatas for enjoyment. But that's what people do now.
Quote from: Madiel on August 29, 2022, 12:50:33 PM
Bach never intended that you'd lounge around at home listening to his cantatas for enjoyment. But that's what people do now.
"Enjoyment" sounds derogatory in this context. Many people listen to Bach's cantatas in order to strengthen their spirit (not meant by me in a religious sense BTW).
Quote from: (: premont :) on August 29, 2022, 03:08:29 PM
"Enjoyment" sounds derogatory in this context. Many people listen to Bach's cantatas in order to strengthen their spirit (not meant by me in a religious sense BTW).
Well it wasn't meant to be derogatory, I'm simply pointing out that the original function of the music was not the same way that most Classical music listeners now use it.
I've been to one church service which used a cantata liturgically. Though even then, I suspect the music was being used by the church in question to sneak some religion into the music-listening experience, which is an order of priorities Bach would not be familiar with.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on August 30, 2022, 12:16:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Madiel on August 30, 2022, 03:49:36 AM
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
(https://cdn.imslp.org/naxoscache.php?pool=others&file=8.553001.gif)
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.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 30, 2022, 04:12:35 AM
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
(https://cdn.imslp.org/naxoscache.php?pool=others&file=8.553001.gif)
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.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 30, 2022, 04:12:35 AMI 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?
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.
Quote from: vers la flamme on August 27, 2022, 11:12:07 AM
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.
Quote from: Brian on August 30, 2022, 06:21:26 AMIn 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.
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?
Quote from: Roasted Swan on August 30, 2022, 04:12:35 AM
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.
Quote from: absolutelybaching on August 30, 2022, 07:03:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 30, 2022, 07:47:23 AM
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcYG_sPHGSI)
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjXRGExtWiY)
Gramophone on Gramophone (https://www.gramophone.co.uk/static-pages/advertise)
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?
Quote from: absolutelybaching on August 30, 2022, 07:03:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Todd on August 30, 2022, 09:14:35 AM
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjXRGExtWiY)
Gramophone on Gramophone (https://www.gramophone.co.uk/static-pages/advertise)
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.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 30, 2022, 07:52:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Herman on August 30, 2022, 07:02:11 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Jo498 on October 22, 2022, 03:53:12 AM
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. 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.
Two issues with concept albums= you either have to find repertoire that suits the concept, meaning repertoire that might not be that great* or gimmicks like the Schuch or Mustonen that alternate composer's works. I'll disagree on that Mustonen Shostakovich P&F/WTC album, I revisited it when the op. 87 thread saw a lot of activity, Mustonen is much better in op. 34, it's been longer since I have heard WTC but my memory is some pieces were almost a caricature. Assuming you like them, there is a simple fix to these kind of albums, open up MP3tag and correct the track numbers.
*Broadly speaking, I'm sure there are some fine concept albums. I agree with Madiel on lieder, these can be very good. Dawn Upshaw immediately comes to mind.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 06:52:42 PMPerhaps the best way to deal with Hurwitz is not to deal with him. Give this a shot.
Saw his YouTube channel a year ago. He's entertaining, I sometimes disagree, but so what. Most importantly he talks about things which we, the serious consumers, also have in mind. Personally I have nobody else IRL for talking about music and related themes and issues. And my clarinet teacher is more of a Jazz guy 😐
For discovering decent interpretations of music I don't know yet, for a good start, he's valuable.
The 2022 ALDAs are here. A most enjoyable video. If you don't want to watch, the winners are:
ALDAs 2022 (Avoid Like Death Awards)
The White Scarf of Irredeemable Chutzpah Recipients:
Sibelius: Symphonies (Mäkelä/Decca)
Sibelius: Symphony No 5 (Celibidache/MP)
The Scarlet Scarf of Shame Recipients:
Schubert: Symphonies Nos. 8 and 9 (Jacobs/Harmonia Mundi)
Schubert: Late String Quartets (Fitzwilliam Quartet/LINN)
The Taupe Scarf of Turpitude Recipients:
Martinu: Symphonies Nos. 5 & 6 (Norrington/SWR)
Mahler: Symphony No. 4 (Roth/Harmonia Mundi)
The Black Scarf of Lingering Stench Recipient:
Bruckner: Symphony No. 4 (Rattle/LSO)
Stravinsky: Early Ballets (Rattle/LSO)
I'll have to watch it at least partly to see what the Fitzwilliam Quartet have done.
Recently he seems to be walking around his house pulling CDs off the shelves for "Random Reviews," which has little to no interest for me.
Quote from: Brian on December 17, 2022, 11:21:04 AMI'll have to watch it at least partly to see what the Fitzwilliam Quartet have done.
Recently he seems to be walking around his house pulling CDs off the shelves for "Random Reviews," which has little to no interest for me.
Has the seeming of an increase in the self-indulgence quotient.
KEEP ON LISTENING AWARDS (KOLA 2022)
1. Florence Price: Symphonies Nos. 1 & 3. Philadelphia Orchestra, Yanick Nézet-Séguin (cond.) DG
2. Kapustin/Schnittke: Cello Concertos. Eckart Runge (cello), Berlin Radio Symphony Orchestra, Frank Strobel (cond.) Capriccio
3. Dvořák: Poetic Tone Pictures. Leif Ove Andsnes (piano) Sony Classical
4. Enescu: Piano Quartet No. 1, Piano Trio in A minor. Various Artists (Naxos)
5. Miroslav Kabelač: Mystery of Time, Hamlet Improvisation, Reflections, Metamorphoses II. Miroslav Sekera (piano), Prague Radio Symphony Orchestra, Marko Ivanovic (cond.) Supraphon
6. Hans Rosbaud Edition: French Music. Sudwestfunk-Orchester Baden-Baden (SWR Classic)
7. Igor Markevitch Edition (Australian Eloquence, 2 vols. Decca and DG)
8. Brasil Em Concerto. Various Composers (Naxos)
9. Mozart: Complete Piano Sonatas. Robert Levin (fortepiano) ECM
10. Thomas de Hartmann: Symphonie-Poème No. 4, Concierto Andaluz, Une fête en Ukraine, etc. Lviv National Philharmonic, Theodor Kuchar (cond.) Toccata Classics
Disc of the Year
Paul Wee (piano): Beethoven/Liszt: Symphony No. 3 "Eroica"; Mozart/Alkan: Piano Concerto No. 20 (BIS)
For me, Hurwitz is becoming increasingly irritating. Having run out of interesting content but unable to stop running off his mouth every day, he is now turning to "one work to save by every composer," "fabulous concert programs," "Dave's faves," "random reviews," "10 essential works for beginners" (the opera video omitted anything by Mozart, but why should anyone consider him of any importance), and the like.
I gave up commenting when it became obvious that any legitimate objections would just earn one the delete button. One of his "avoid like the plague" choices from last year was Klaus Makela's Sibelius cycle. Well, thought I to myself thought I, could it possibly be that bad. And so I picked it up, and it wasn't. Quite nice in fact. Which makes me wonder if Hurwitz has some kind of vendetta against Klaus Mäkelä that goes beyond purely musical values. He blames Klaus for being young and untested, while on the other hand he praises Berglund for being "young and fresh," and "as is so often the case, his first cycle remains the best." Then he also criticizes KM for paying too much attention to the strings, while with Berglund, "the quality of those tremolos, as this outstanding interpretation reveals, is critically important to sustaining the music's momentum and creating atmosphere."
Today we get another orgasmic encomium to Nikolai Kapustin. Seems to me that anyone who dismisses Pierre Boulez's entire output as "garbage" (and BTW that's hypocritical; you will find Hurwitz's 9/9 review of "Sur Incises" on Classics Today, as well as favorable comments on "Rituel") ought to be more circumspect about dismissing subscriber comments complaining that Kapustin is an amateurish amalgam of bad movie music and bad jazz. I was listening to Kapustin's Piano Concerto 5 on YT just now. 21 minutes and it felt interminable, just endless, empty amorphous get-ready-and-go-nowhere passagework without a single distinctive idea. And if you listen to Hurwitz's defensive video, attacking all who dare to disagree, you can see the game being played. Kiss his ass and he loves you; challenge him and you get the boot.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 06, 2023, 09:22:38 AMdismissing subscriber comments complaining that Kapustin is an amateurish amalgam of bad movie music and bad jazz.
Yeah, I tried the previous Kapustin disc and just couldn't get into it at all. The jazz here is, to my ears, some kind of cheesy "Soviet Jazz" that really puts me off. However, Marc-Andre Hamelin did think enough of the solo piano music to do a whole disc of it.
The random reviews series especially is egregious. Just wait until you have something to say! Or maybe go back to the website you're neglecting - he's only written two reviews (using printed words) in the last four months.
He did have a couple of good videos recently on timbre and a comparison between Haydn and Mahler, where he'd clearly organized his brain enough to be coherent, on-topic, and insightful for whole minutes at a time. But it's hard to scroll through and find those videos amidst all the random reviews. And there is a new series that I assume is a practical joke, discussing every recording made in 1953. I won't watch to find out.
It's easy enough to avoid Hurwitz. Just don't go to ClassicsToday or the YouTube Channel. ClassicsToday at least has Jed Distler writing some reviews still, and Hurwitz did wax enthusiastic about the new Morales disc on Hyperion, and shared the wonderful news that it is part of a projected twelve-disc set. Between that and the Trio Gaspard Haydn cycle, I now have two long-term recording projects to look forward to. The occasional good news and/or review outweighs the ~1 second per title scan time to determine whether to watch a video.
Since Kapustin seems to be getting more attention now, he could just be jumping on the bandwagon. I mean, no less than YES recorded a disc of the piano music, and Dupree's mixed recital debut was very fine, so younger, or at least not old, artists of no little merit see something in the music. I don't, but tastes vary.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 06, 2023, 09:22:38 AMI gave up commenting when it became obvious that any legitimate objections would just earn one the delete button.
I was banned from his comments a long time ago. >:D
QuoteOne of his "avoid like the plague" choices from last year was Klaus Makela's Sibelius cycle. Well, thought I to myself thought I, could it possibly be that bad. And so I picked it up, and it wasn't. Quite nice in fact. Which makes me wonder if Hurwitz has some kind of vendetta against Klaus Mäkelä that goes beyond purely musical values. He blames Klaus for being young and untested, while on the other hand he praises Berglund for being "young and fresh," and "as is so often the case, his first cycle remains the best." Then he also criticizes KM for paying too much attention to the strings, while with Berglund, "the quality of those tremolos, as this outstanding interpretation reveals, is critically important to sustaining the music's momentum and creating atmosphere."
For what it's worth, Fanfare's Richard Kaplan -- who has probably heard more Sibelius symphony recordings than any other critic -- echoed the "inexperienced" comments in his review of this set:
"Overall, Mäkelä does some attractive things in the Sibelius symphonies, but his cycle doesn't rank much above the middle of the pack. Mäkelä seems strongest in the best-known symphonies, Nos. 2 and 5. It will be worth seeing what he does with these pieces in a couple decades, but for now his inexperience shows. All praise is due, though, for the playing of the Oslo Philharmonic and for Decca's recording. A mixed bag, then."
Quote from: Daverz on February 06, 2023, 02:01:53 PMI was banned from his comments a long time ago. >:D
For what it's worth, Fanfare's Richard Kaplan -- who has probably heard more Sibelius symphony recordings than any other critic -- echoed the "inexperienced" comments in his review of this set:
"Overall, Mäkelä does some attractive things in the Sibelius symphonies, but his cycle doesn't rank much above the middle of the pack. Mäkelä seems strongest in the best-known symphonies, Nos. 2 and 5. It will be worth seeing what he does with these pieces in a couple decades, but for now his inexperience shows. All praise is due, though, for the playing of the Oslo Philharmonic and for Decca's recording. A mixed bag, then."
Mäkelä may not be at the level of Davis/BSO or Maazel/VPO or Lenny at his best, but how exactly does "inexperience show"? Can you point to the exact oboe solo, or tempo in a particular scherzo, to explain what you mean? All too often, criticism doesn't go beyond fuzzy language like this. And yes, of course it's easy to avoid Hurwitz, but he sometimes has good things to offer. (The Nelson Goerner "Iberia," for example, was terrific.) One thing I will give him: whenever I feel the need to lie down for a late-afternoon nap, I have only to start one of Hurwitz's longer reviews, and invariably I'm out like a light.
Ah, I see he's got a 41-minute Karajan session going on today. Zzzzzz.....
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 06, 2023, 02:23:04 PMMäkelä may not be at the level of Davis/BSO or Maazel/VPO or Lenny at his best, but how exactly does "inexperience show"? Can you point to the exact oboe solo, or tempo in a particular scherzo, to explain what you mean?
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but I'm quoting the last paragraph of a long review in Fanfare by Richard Kaplan.
Presumably inexperience = failing to shape the music in the way it requires often enough.
Though experienced hacks might do the same, so maybe it's just ageist terminology. Or maybe it's an implicit hope that he'll figure it out later, rather than getting it wrong his entire career...
I listened to some, but not all, of the Mäkelä. Two things stuck out to me as on the poorer side: tempos that seemed always about 5% too slow, and that the attention he lavished on string detail didn't seem to be equally applied to the winds and brass. On the positive end of the balance, the string sound really was gorgeous, and the conceptions, though slightly broad, were always sensible and flowing.
Oddly - maybe uniquely - I like the longer Hurwitz videos better than the shorter ones on average, because they tend to mean that he has discussion points to make, musical examples to give, and a prepared argument of some kind, vs. the 8-ish minute videos where he basically provides a written CD review, but in unedited form.
He's right about that Goerner Iberia. I played that at far too loud a volume recently and thoroughly, totally enjoyed.
I think the issue is not just the length of his videos but the frequency of them. He does seem to have got into a mode of releasing them so often that it's necessary to create topics that might not really warrant a video.
Quote from: Brian on February 06, 2023, 01:26:08 PMThe random reviews series especially is egregious. Just wait until you have something to say! Or maybe go back to the website you're neglecting - he's only written two reviews (using printed words) in the last four months.
He did have a couple of good videos recently on timbre and a comparison between Haydn and Mahler, where he'd clearly organized his brain enough to be coherent, on-topic, and insightful for whole minutes at a time. But it's hard to scroll through and find those videos amidst all the random reviews. And there is a new series that I assume is a practical joke, discussing every recording made in 1953. I won't watch to find out.
You was wise not to, foolishly I did. Hurwitz clutching a circa 1953 catalogue simply read out entries. Clearly he hadn't bothered to listen to the selected recordings in preparation, as he offered no critical analysis whatsoever. The oddest part of this charade though was he found the whole thing humorous, giggling like a schoolboy telling a dirty joke. I found it perplexing that he found it funny by simply naming a work and conductor from the period.
Quote from: Irons on February 07, 2023, 12:59:14 AMYou was wise not to, foolishly I did. Hurwitz clutching a circa 1953 catalogue simply read out entries. Clearly he hadn't bothered to listen to the selected recordings in preparation, as he offered no critical analysis whatsoever. The oddest part of this charade though was he found the whole thing humorous, giggling like a schoolboy telling a dirty joke. I found it perplexing that he found it funny by simply naming a work and conductor from the period.
I enjoyed these videos about the 1953 "building a record library" book by Howard Taubman. How the standard repertoire has and has not changed in the intervening 70 years is pretty interesting. Obviously Hurwitz just rubs you wrong.
Quote from: Daverz on February 07, 2023, 01:13:36 AMHow the standard repertoire has and has not changed in the intervening 70 years is pretty interesting.
There are ways of discussing this beyond reading out entries in a catalogue, surely.
I mean yes, there
is some interest in how views on composers change, such as the whole Bach revival in the 19th century. But he's not really doing that. And he's not even talking about 'repertoire' as much as what had managed to make it onto an LP. It's a bit basic.
I find some of his material quite interesting, but he's now churning out multiple videos a day and really the only way to do that is to not spend much time on preparation. He seems to be taking his cues from the kinds of websites that have all sorts of clickbait lists that are nothing more than lists. There was value in rating the best versions of repertoire that has a lot of versions, but it's hard to see the point of say, picking one work from a composer because that has no practical basis - you
don't have to pick one work from a composer out of the myriads available. You can listen to as many works as you want. It's a game for the sake of playing the game.
He also seems to be creating concert programs for people who apparently don't have the imagination to pick things to listen to, presumably because Spotify algorithms have taken away their ability to choose what's on in the background. This kind of stuff conveys a guy who feels the need to keep creating content, just to keep the clicks going. I'm just grateful it's fairly easy to search the channel and find the more useful videos in between the trivial stuff.
Today we are enlightened as to the one work to save by Prokofiev. Not Romeo, not Symphony 5 or 6, not Pf Concerto 3, but Pf Concerto 2. "He wrote so many pieces that are incredibly popular, and also some that are less popular." Now you know.
Quote from: Daverz on February 07, 2023, 01:13:36 AMI enjoyed these videos about the 1953 "building a record library" book by Howard Taubman. How the standard repertoire has and has not changed in the intervening 70 years is pretty interesting. Obviously Hurwitz just rubs you wrong.
If you will forgive a non Hurwitzian post, I do so dearly wish the labels of that era had embraced wider repertoire. I have been assembling many of the "great artist" legacy box sets - Szell, Munch, Casadesus, Rubinstein, etc etc - and one of the side effects of this is that I now have so, so, so many duplicate recordings of pieces like Kinderszenen, L'Arlesienne, Chopin waltzes, and the Egmont Overture.
Obviously every artist had a different focus and there are occasionally rarities to be found (like Walter conducting Barber, Kubelik and Hartmann, or Munch's amazing Piston/Martinu album). The Fricsay, Markevitch, and Boston Symphony Chamber Players boxes are particularly diverse.
But several of the box sets' booklets specifically explain that the artists had more diverse concert repertoires than the recordings represent. Makes me wonder what all we missed out on. Apparently Bruno Walter programmed all sorts of American contemporaries. Would Szell have recorded the rest of Walton if he could? Rubinstein done an all Szymanowski recital?
I have to give this Hurwitz guy credit. People watch his videos just so they can express destain for them. There are trillions of other videos on YouTube that you probably don't like. When I don't like videos from a YouTube channel, I just don't watch them!
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 07, 2023, 07:57:41 AMI have to give this Hurwitz guy credit. People watch his videos just so they can express destain for them. There are trillions of other videos on YouTube that you probably don't like. When I don't like videos from a YouTube channel, I just don't watch them!
Of course, some of us are old school, and just forbear to watch....
And some of us continue to watch for the sheer fun of it.
Quote from: Brian on February 07, 2023, 06:30:00 AMI do so dearly wish the labels of that era had embraced wider repertoire. I have been assembling many of the "great artist" legacy box sets - Szell, Munch, Casadesus, Rubinstein, etc etc - and one of the side effects of this is that I now have so, so, so many duplicate recordings of pieces like Kinderszenen, L'Arlesienne, Chopin waltzes, and the Egmont Overture.
Part of the particular appeal the
Mitropoulos box has for me.
Quote from: Karl Tirebiter Henning on February 07, 2023, 11:37:19 AMPart of the particular appeal the Mitropoulos box has for me.
I have always had a soft spot for the Mitropoulos Kinderszenen.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on February 07, 2023, 02:16:45 PMI have always had a soft spot for the Mitropoulos Kinderszenen.
I was probably too curt. I did mean, breadth of rep.
Quote from: Karl Tirebiter Henning on February 07, 2023, 02:26:42 PMI was probably too curt. I did mean, breadth of rep.
Just joking. But his Für Elise is beyond compare.
He posted a very negative review of Vaughan Williams's 7th and 9th symphonies (Brabbins/Hyperion). It is not released here yet. I've enjoyed all the rest of the series and I doubt it's as bad as he makes out but, we shall see.
Quote from: Madiel on February 06, 2023, 08:23:54 PMI think the issue is not just the length of his videos but the frequency of them. He does seem to have got into a mode of releasing them so often that it's necessary to create topics that might not really warrant a video.
As long as you click he's getting paid.
Quote from: Irons on February 07, 2023, 12:59:14 AMYou was wise not to, foolishly I did. Hurwitz clutching a circa 1953 catalogue simply read out entries. Clearly he hadn't bothered to listen to the selected recordings in preparation
This is the formula for many of DH's videos. Him reading out booklet contents and making brief comments based on nothing.
Quote from: Daverz on February 07, 2023, 01:13:36 AMI enjoyed these videos about the 1953 "building a record library" book by Howard Taubman. How the standard repertoire has and has not changed in the intervening 70 years is pretty interesting.
Yes, peeps still go to Beethoven concerts, and rightly so. But in reality the concert repertoire has changed, but DH doesn't seem to know. And he knows the people who are watching his vids don't know. Because they're watching DH instead of going to concerts.
That's the whole point. Same with Lebrecht: "classical music is dying! Don't go, watch me instead!"
Seventy years ago (1950) nobody was making a name performing Mahler or DSCH, to mention two obvious names.
Quote from: Herman on February 07, 2023, 11:24:49 PMAs long as you click he's getting paid.
To an extent yes, though YouTube is known to change its algorithm from time to time to prevent people from gaming the system. However, as he is genuinely creating content (no comment as to its quality), he probably succeeds.
I personally don't actually click that much. I would've very briefly looked at 1 or 2 of the "concert programs" and "choose one piece" for example, just to understand what they were... which led me to conclude I didn't need to click on the next 50 varieties of the same thing.
It's not all bad. I watched 45 minute talk of his on Bruckner 6 and enjoyed it a lot.
It helped I like Bruckner's 6th best, too.
Oh no, I'm certainly not saying it's all bad. The ones reviewing the best recordings of a work or set of works (and which ones to avoid) are genuinely useful, because that's pretty much what they are: reviews. I admit to often fast forwarding parts of them if I don't have patience for the asides, but the basic information in those videos is helpful in making decisions about purchases.
But that's my point: he has some categories of videos that have a long-term purpose. He has other categories that seem to serve little long-term purpose.
Creating YouTube content is free and available to all. Perhaps someone here could start his or her own YouTube channel to show everyone how it's done. Just click the camera icon in the upper right corner.
Quote from: Herman on February 07, 2023, 11:30:00 PMBut in reality the concert repertoire has changed, but DH doesn't seem to know.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Of course, I didn't watch the 1953 video. To my knowledge, DH's primary recurring complaints about concert repertoire are (a) no room for mini-concerto-like solo works of 15 minutes or so, except Rhapsody in Blue; (b) quiet endings doom pieces to be played less often; and (c) not enough of the obscure overwrought late romantic sludge he has a personal fondness for.
I'd also point out that the concert repertoires in the US and Europe are substantially different. We're about 15 years "behind" on adoption of works into the canon; Martinu is just gaining acceptance now, and Weinberg is still unknown, to cite two composers who are now in the Euro mainstream.
Quote from: Herman on February 07, 2023, 11:24:49 PMAs long as you click he's getting paid.
Whatever he's doing, he's succeeded in monetizing it.
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2023, 04:26:45 AMCreating YouTube content is free and available to all. Perhaps someone here could start his or her own YouTube channel to show everyone how it's done. Just click the camera icon in the upper right corner.
I took a stab at a booktube channel last summer. What I learned from it is that if you don't create at least some idea of a script and do some editing you can end up blathering, exactly like how people describe some of Hurwitz' less inspired videos.
If any of you make a channel, I for one would watch it. Especially if the videos are 5-10 minutes long. Hurwitz' videos are too long and meandering for me to bother.
Quote from: Herman on February 07, 2023, 11:30:00 PMYes, peeps still go to Beethoven concerts, and rightly so. But in reality the concert repertoire has changed, but DH doesn't seem to know. And he knows the people who are watching his vids don't know. Because they're watching DH instead of going to concerts.
That's the whole point. Same with Lebrecht: "classical music is dying! Don't go, watch me instead!"
Seventy years ago (1950) nobody was making a name performing Mahler or DSCH, to mention two obvious names.
Tangentially, I was interested to learn yesterday that
Mitropoulos' recording of the
Mahler First was the very first (in 1940 with
Minnesota)
Quote from: DavidW on February 08, 2023, 07:19:45 AMI took a stab at a booktube channel last summer. What I learned from it is that if you don't create at least some idea of a script and do some editing you can end up blathering, exactly like how people describe some of Hurwitz' less inspired videos.
If any of you make a channel, I for one would watch it. Especially if the videos are 5-10 minutes long. Hurwitz' videos are too long and meandering for me to bother.
This thread is probably all the Hurwitz-founded content I require ....
Quote from: DavidW on February 08, 2023, 07:19:45 AMI took a stab at a booktube channel last summer. What I learned from it is that if you don't create at least some idea of a script and do some editing you can end up blathering, exactly like how people describe some of Hurwitz' less inspired videos.
Some YouTubers do well with a free form approach, but the channels I return to most tend to be either professionally produced or extremely focused, not uncommonly on arcane (sub-) topics. I haven't searched too widely for classical music reviews, though I have had the famed YouTube algorithm push a couple Hurwitz knock-offs. Maybe target 3-4 minutes max for single disc releases, 10-20 minutes for boxes depending on size, and a max of 30 minutes for surveys.
Quote from: DavidW on February 08, 2023, 07:19:45 AMIf any of you make a channel, I for one would watch it. Especially if the videos are 5-10 minutes long. Hurwitz' videos are too long and meandering for me to bother.
And yet, almost everything involving talking on youtube lasts way too long. Forty minutes seems to be the bare minimum.
Podcast are by definition crazy long and very slow, too.
Maybe you're supposed to be braindead, or watching tv at the same time.
Quote from: Herman on February 08, 2023, 10:03:00 AMAnd yet, almost everything involving talking on youtube lasts way too long. Forty minutes seems to be the bare minimum.
This reflects the content preferences of one viewer only.
Quote from: Herman on February 08, 2023, 10:03:00 AMAnd yet, almost everything involving talking on youtube lasts way too long. Forty minutes seems to be the bare minimum.
Podcast are by definition crazy long and very slow, too.
Maybe you're supposed to be braindead, or watching tv at the same time.
I listen to podcasts, and Hurwitz videos, while cleaning. Especially good when scrubbing the bathroom. Although there is a little bit of a Zoom-induced irrational fear that maybe Hurwitz can see me cleaning the toilet ;D
Quote from: Brian on February 08, 2023, 10:07:12 AMI listen to podcasts, and Hurwitz videos, while cleaning. Especially good when scrubbing the bathroom. Although there is a little bit of a Zoom-induced irrational fear that maybe Hurwitz can see me cleaning the toilet ;D
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Brian on February 08, 2023, 10:07:12 AMI listen to podcasts, and Hurwitz videos, while cleaning. Especially good when scrubbing the bathroom. Although there is a little bit of a Zoom-induced irrational fear that maybe Hurwitz can see me cleaning the toilet ;D
He can, he can. (No pun intended.) Try him for late-afternoon naps. I've yet to find anyone so effective.
Quote from: ultralinear on February 08, 2023, 11:38:58 AMI am inclined to agree with this.
Just the other day I needed some guidance on how to fit <some component or other> into <something or other> and in the absence of anything useful on the manufacturer's laughingly-described "support" webpages, I turned to YouTube, where the choice of assistance seemed to be between:
1. 45-second wordless stop-motion animations with a pounding music track; or
2. 45-minute rambles from some hands-in-pockets backwoods genius strolling around his "shop" and spending the first 10 minutes greeting all his "fans" - who I will do him the courtesy of supposing are not entirely imaginary - except to add that I am not and never likely to be one.
Intelligent succinct informational videos? Fergeddaboudit.
You're making me grateful for videos like this:
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2023, 04:26:45 AMCreating YouTube content is free and available to all. Perhaps someone here could start his or her own YouTube channel to show everyone how it's done. Just click the camera icon in the upper right corner.
I see your ability to be a jerk about people using a forum to have conversations about things is not confined to any one topic.
I took the Eloquence survey, and ClassicsToday and David Hurwitz show up three times. Looks like Mr Hurwitz's opinion is considered important by someone.
Overall, I like Hurwitz. When he's good, he's good; when he's not, whatever. He strikes me less as a professional critic (though he is) and more of a guy at the end of the bar in a pub I might walk into, a guy who seems like a windbag at first but actually turns out to be kind of interesting at times.
I only watch the topics I'm particularly interested in. Consequently, I haven't watched anything by him in quite a while. He's been running on fumes but will likely hit on some new series sooner or later. Now he seems to be throwing topics at the wall to see what sticks.
My observations on Hurwitz:
Overall an engaging presenter and staggeringly erudite when it comes to the volume of music he knows. Can there be anyone alive with more knowledge of classical music recordings? He is particularly useful in exploring more obscure composers. His blind spots are often bizarre (eg he finds the St Matthew Passion boring, thinks Sullivan is the greatest English composer and completely misses the whole point about lieder) but we all have similar aesthetic shortcomings.
I feel his channel would be improved if he allowed more discussion rather than deleting anything which riles him.
Quote from: Ockeghem on March 13, 2023, 02:55:03 AMMy observations on Hurwitz:
Overall an engaging presenter and staggeringly erudite when it comes to the volume of music he knows. Can there be anyone alive with more knowledge of classical music recordings? He is particularly useful in exploring more obscure composers. His blind spots are often bizarre (eg he finds the St Matthew Passion boring, thinks Sullivan is the greatest English composer and completely misses the whole point about lieder) but we all have similar aesthetic shortcomings.
I feel his channel would be improved if he allowed more discussion rather than deleting anything which riles him.
Welcome to GMG! :)
Quote from: Ockeghem on March 13, 2023, 02:55:03 AMCan there be anyone alive with more knowledge of classical music recordings?
There are a few posters here that probably have. I'm still often surprised by some of the very deep and broad discussions that happen here. Welcome! I hope you enjoy chatting with us.
Quote from: Ockeghem on March 13, 2023, 02:55:03 AMOverall an engaging presenter and staggeringly erudite when it comes to the volume of music he knows. Can there be anyone alive with more knowledge of classical music recordings? He is particularly useful in exploring more obscure composers. His blind spots are often bizarre (eg he finds the St Matthew Passion boring, thinks Sullivan is the greatest English composer and completely misses the whole point about lieder) but we all have similar aesthetic shortcomings.
I feel his channel would be improved if he allowed more discussion rather than deleting anything which riles him.
I tend to agree with this assessment. I'd been a long time reader of ClassicsToday (particularly when it was all free) after reading
Beethoven or Bust many years ago. I was therefore used to Hurwitz's preferences (generally fast, intense performances of his favorite romantic, post-romantic, and modernist era works, American orchestras, etc.) and antipathies (slow performances, poor-sounding historical performances, the British music press, Rattle and Norrington, some parts of the historically informed performance world, etc.). However, I mostly love his videos, even when I disagree with his takes (I tend to like Rattle's recordings a lot, for example, and I'm also partial to slow, intense performances a la Celibidache), because I love his irreverence, which doesn't seem to be to everyone's taste on the forum here. He's
funny, and thus personable. I also usually like his topics, for being addicted to making playlists, I can't have enough "Fabulous Concert Programs," say, or some of the one-offs like "16 Symphonies after Franck" (or whatever it was called) since he often juxtaposes pieces I'd never link, whicih in turn helps me discover new work.
Quote from: KevinP on March 11, 2023, 01:59:58 PMNow he seems to be throwing topics at the wall to see what sticks.
Not really a growth strategy, is it?
Quote from: DavidW on March 13, 2023, 06:32:48 AMThere are a few posters here that probably have. I'm still often surprised by some of the very deep and broad discussions that happen here. Welcome! I hope you enjoy chatting with us.
I was going to say: there may be rather a population of them (I'm not nominating myself) only perhaps they don't elect to post on YouTube.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 13, 2023, 09:31:00 AMI was going to say: there may be rather a population of them (I'm not nominating myself) only perhaps they don't elect to post on YouTube.
Do you remember that poster on CMG that had some crazy # like 20 or 40k cds? I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few posters here that have 10k+ cds. One or two might even have that many just in Bach.
Quote from: Ockeghem on March 13, 2023, 02:55:03 AMMy observations on Hurwitz:
Overall an engaging presenter and staggeringly erudite when it comes to the volume of music he knows. Can there be anyone alive with more knowledge of classical music recordings? He is particularly useful in exploring more obscure composers. His blind spots are often bizarre (eg he finds the St Matthew Passion boring, thinks Sullivan is the greatest English composer and completely misses the whole point about lieder) but we all have similar aesthetic shortcomings.
I don't mind the blind spots in principle but he cannot at the same time claim that with his "reviewer hat" on he can review anything fairly and neutrally and then celebrate his blind spots often by insulting people who disagree (from the Horenstein fans to the Bruckner alternative versions to friends of Lieder or Christians who believe in the crucifixion story).
I have met more knowledgeable people on the internet than Hurwitz. While few to none have his breadth, they'll know more about certain topics (e.g Bach or Italian opera or Wagner or whatever). Nevertheless, I think his commentaries are sometimes impeded by his blind spots.
My opinion about Mr. Hurwitz: I started to watch his videos maybe 1 and half year ago. I like his style and I think he is funny. He obviously has musical knowledge and I appreciate that. Some of his advice opened new horizons on my musical view. I like his music theory videos it helps me a lot, because I am not musician.
I think the biggest problem with his channel: less would be more. I started to watch all of his videos from te beginning but after a while I gave up. I don't have problem with 40+ min Hurwitz videos but not every day.
I already had 1500+ CD collection when I started to watch his videos and at the beginning I bought CDs based on his proposal. But after 2-3 big disappointments, I became more critical with his proposals.
I usually agree with his opinion about bad performances. I sometime agree with his opinion about period instrument people but not always. I think he is obsessed with this vibrato-thing.
I don't think he really listens to every CD. When he discuss about big boxes, I think he listened to those recordings years ago and, if ever. Or he picks some recordings from that boxes and listens to those again but clearly not all.
Opinion aboud sound quality is highly a matter of taste. He is unreliable for me in this topic also. Sometime I agree with him but sometime I don't.
Quote from: Roberto on April 08, 2023, 12:39:35 PMMy opinion about Mr. Hurwitz: I started to watch his videos maybe 1 and half year ago. I like his style and I think he is funny. He obviously has musical knowledge and I appreciate that. Some of his advice opened new horizons on my musical view. I like his music theory videos it helps me a lot, because I am not musician.
I think the biggest problem with his channel: less would be more. I started to watch all of his videos from te beginning but after a while I gave up. I don't have problem with 40+ min Hurwitz videos but not every day.
I already had 1500+ CD collection when I started to watch his videos and at the beginning I bought CDs based on his proposal. But after 2-3 big disappointments, I became more critical with his proposals.
I usually agree with his opinion about bad performances. I sometime agree with his opinion about period instrument people but not always. I think he is obsessed with this vibrato-thing.
I don't think he really listens to every CD. When he discuss about big boxes, I think he listened to those recordings years ago and, if ever. Or he picks some recordings from that boxes and listens to those again but clearly not all.
Opinion aboud sound quality is highly a matter of taste. He is unreliable for me in this topic also. Sometime I agree with him but sometime I don't.
This seems very wise to me and I agree that 'less is more' with his videos.
Quote from: Roberto on April 08, 2023, 12:39:35 PMMy opinion about Mr. Hurwitz: I started to watch his videos maybe 1 and half year ago. I like his style and I think he is funny. He obviously has musical knowledge and I appreciate that. Some of his advice opened new horizons on my musical view. I like his music theory videos it helps me a lot, because I am not musician.
I think the biggest problem with his channel: less would be more. I started to watch all of his videos from te beginning but after a while I gave up. I don't have problem with 40+ min Hurwitz videos but not every day.
I already had 1500+ CD collection when I started to watch his videos and at the beginning I bought CDs based on his proposal. But after 2-3 big disappointments, I became more critical with his proposals.
I usually agree with his opinion about bad performances. I sometime agree with his opinion about period instrument people but not always. I think he is obsessed with this vibrato-thing.
I don't think he really listens to every CD. When he discuss about big boxes, I think he listened to those recordings years ago and, if ever. Or he picks some recordings from that boxes and listens to those again but clearly not all.
Opinion aboud sound quality is highly a matter of taste. He is unreliable for me in this topic also. Sometime I agree with him but sometime I don't.
Agreed—just the sheer amount of time it would take to even make that many extremely lengthy videos wouldn't leave behind much time for actual listening. I suspect that many of the opinions he is laying out in his videos are based on distant memories of the recordings in question.
All in all Hurwitz obviously has big impact on classical music community. People talk about him, and even here, he gathered more comments than Tchaikovsky for example (Hurwitz topic: 828; Tchaikovsky topic: 550). So he did something very well. :)
Quote from: Roberto on April 08, 2023, 12:39:35 PMMy opinion about Mr. Hurwitz: I started to watch his videos maybe 1 and half year ago. I like his style and I think he is funny. He obviously has musical knowledge and I appreciate that. Some of his advice opened new horizons on my musical view. I like his music theory videos it helps me a lot, because I am not musician.
I think the biggest problem with his channel: less would be more. I started to watch all of his videos from te beginning but after a while I gave up. I don't have problem with 40+ min Hurwitz videos but not every day.
I already had 1500+ CD collection when I started to watch his videos and at the beginning I bought CDs based on his proposal. But after 2-3 big disappointments, I became more critical with his proposals.
I usually agree with his opinion about bad performances. I sometime agree with his opinion about period instrument people but not always. I think he is obsessed with this vibrato-thing.
I don't think he really listens to every CD. When he discuss about big boxes, I think he listened to those recordings years ago and, if ever. Or he picks some recordings from that boxes and listens to those again but clearly not all.
Opinion aboud sound quality is highly a matter of taste. He is unreliable for me in this topic also. Sometime I agree with him but sometime I don't.
Yes, I agree with pretty much all of this. I watch him fairly frequently because I often enjoy his sense of humor, and it's interesting to compare his opinion with mine on recordings I've heard, but clearly there's WAY too much on his channel to even think about watching it all. He's definitely got his prejudices, which is all part of being a critic and which have been discussed here at length, but with that in mind I'll often drop by his channel when I have a few minutes to kill. He has definitely turned me on to some good recordings, I have to admit.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on May 26, 2021, 08:32:22 AMPD: if you like the Janacek quartets try and hear this disc (perhaps Hurwitz mentioned it - I've no idea)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51K9hzVNwoL._SR600%2C315_PIWhiteStrip%2CBottomLeft%2C0%2C35_SCLZZZZZZZ_FMpng_BG255%2C255%2C255.jpg)
Not only were these the first recordings of a new critical edition of the quartets - with several terrifyingly hard passages reinstated on the "original" instruments, but also the filler is a brilliantly idiomatic transcription of movements from "On an Overgrown Path" for quartet. Its nearly as good as having a third quartet by Janacek!
I seem to recall that Janacek originally wrote the second quartet with viola d'amore instead of viola. I wonder if this is a factor in the revision.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on June 22, 2023, 06:54:33 AMI seem to recall that Janacek originally wrote the second quartet with viola d'amore instead of viola. I wonder if this is a factor in the revision.
I've listened to the recording with the Manderling Quartet, but wasn't keen on it.
Can't remember whether or not I tried to hunt down this CD with the Energie Nove. Will try some YTing and searches in library system--particularly as I love "On an Overgrown Path".
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on June 22, 2023, 08:26:23 AMI've listened to the recording with the Manderling Quartet, but wasn't keen on it.
Can't remember whether or not I tried to hunt down this CD with the Energie Nove. Will try some YTing and searches in library system--particularly as I love "On an Overgrown Path".
PD
At least according to the Wikipedia page, Janacek abandoned the idea of using Viola d'Amore instead of Viola because he was unsatisfied with the sound of the instrument in the quartet setting. The change wasn't a concession inconvenience of using an unconventional instrument. So I'm not super keen on hearing his revisions reversed, although I would be curious to hear the transcription of "On an Overgrown Path," which I have been enjoying in Kupiec's recording.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on June 22, 2023, 08:33:26 AMAt least according to the Wikipedia page, Janacek abandoned the idea of using Viola d'Amore instead of Viola because he was unsatisfied with the sound of the instrument in the quartet setting. The change wasn't a concession inconvenience of using an unconventional instrument. So I'm not super keen on hearing his revisions reversed, although I would be curious to hear the transcription of "On an Overgrown Path," which I have been enjoying in Kupiec's recording.
I remember watching this video (Audite) regarding the recording with the Manderling. You might find it to be of interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psRcu5_FGnw
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on June 22, 2023, 09:47:16 AMI remember watching this video (Audite) regarding the recording with the Manderling. You might find it to be of interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psRcu5_FGnw
PD
Interesting. Watching now.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on June 22, 2023, 08:33:26 AMAt least according to the Wikipedia page, Janacek abandoned the idea of using Viola d'Amore instead of Viola because he was unsatisfied with the sound of the instrument in the quartet setting. The change wasn't a concession inconvenience of using an unconventional instrument. So I'm not super keen on hearing his revisions reversed, although I would be curious to hear the transcription of "On an Overgrown Path," which I have been enjoying in Kupiec's recording.
I'm no Janacek expert - but doesn't the viola d'amore appear in some of his operatic and orchestral scores too? To quote an online review of the Energie Nove performance;
"The leader of the Moravian Quartet who gave the work's premiere in 1928 - a month after the composer's death - was František Kudláček and he instigated many of the amendments that were incorporated into the published score. The two main ones transplant stratospheric viola writing into the more manageable violin register. The first such passage is in the 3rd movement - figures 1-3 in the 'standard' UE score [around the 1:00 minute mark - track 17] - the viola has the melody lead which passes to the second violin at figure 2. Not here; the viola keeps playing going up to a G sharp two and a half octaves above middle C. The other main passage is the very end of the work where the 'top' line again stays in the viola whereas 'normally' it has passed to first violin. The viola of the Quartetto Energie Nove, Ivan Vukčević, plays these challenging passages quite superbly - the tone of the instrument in this register more cutting than a 'sweeter' violin. Elsewhere the differences seem to be more use of pizzicato either to mark passages more clearly or to give a folksier character. Most telling is the very opening to the 4th movement which has a aptly stamping rumbustious character from all the players which the heavy pizzicati chords reinforce.
One other observation from following the standard score while listening to this original version is that there seems to be extra editing of the work. There are a lot of dynamics and graduations of dynamics marked in the standard score not present in the current performance. But elsewhere the players clearly diligently do play very specific markings both in terms of tempo and dynamic so I can only assume that the ones they apparently miss out are not there in the original. So characteristic of Janáček's sound-world are extended passages marked sul poniticello [the glassy overtone-laden sound achieved by bowing literally 'on the bridge'] as well as the manic arpeggiated musical cells and these are played with an ideal sense of manic intensity."So it seems that this performance in fact
reinstates Janacek's intentions which the first performers (after his death) changed for practical/performance reasons. I liked the version of "Overgrown Path" for quartet very much. Not instead of the original but just as a new way of hearing/appreciating this wonderful music.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on June 22, 2023, 11:14:12 AMI'm no Janacek expert - but doesn't the viola d'amore appear in some of his operatic and orchestral scores too? To quote an online review of the Energie Nove performance;
"The leader of the Moravian Quartet who gave the work's premiere in 1928 - a month after the composer's death - was František Kudláček and he instigated many of the amendments that were incorporated into the published score. The two main ones transplant stratospheric viola writing into the more manageable violin register. The first such passage is in the 3rd movement - figures 1-3 in the 'standard' UE score [around the 1:00 minute mark - track 17] - the viola has the melody lead which passes to the second violin at figure 2. Not here; the viola keeps playing going up to a G sharp two and a half octaves above middle C. The other main passage is the very end of the work where the 'top' line again stays in the viola whereas 'normally' it has passed to first violin. The viola of the Quartetto Energie Nove, Ivan Vukčević, plays these challenging passages quite superbly - the tone of the instrument in this register more cutting than a 'sweeter' violin. Elsewhere the differences seem to be more use of pizzicato either to mark passages more clearly or to give a folksier character. Most telling is the very opening to the 4th movement which has a aptly stamping rumbustious character from all the players which the heavy pizzicati chords reinforce.
One other observation from following the standard score while listening to this original version is that there seems to be extra editing of the work. There are a lot of dynamics and graduations of dynamics marked in the standard score not present in the current performance. But elsewhere the players clearly diligently do play very specific markings both in terms of tempo and dynamic so I can only assume that the ones they apparently miss out are not there in the original. So characteristic of Janáček's sound-world are extended passages marked sul poniticello [the glassy overtone-laden sound achieved by bowing literally 'on the bridge'] as well as the manic arpeggiated musical cells and these are played with an ideal sense of manic intensity."
So it seems that this performance in fact reinstates Janacek's intentions which the first performers (after his death) changed for practical/performance reasons. I liked the version of "Overgrown Path" for quartet very much. Not instead of the original but just as a new way of hearing/appreciating this wonderful music.
That whole great big long quote appears to be about replacing a viola with a violin, not about replacing a viola d'amore with a viola.
Nor are changes to an orchestral score of any real relevance to changes in a quartet setting. The whole POINT of quartet writing is that the instruments have the same timbre. That's why string quartet writing is considered so challenging.
Quote from: Madiel on June 22, 2023, 05:57:07 PMThat whole great big long quote appears to be about replacing a viola with a violin, not about replacing a viola d'amore with a viola.
Nor are changes to an orchestral score of any real relevance to changes in a quartet setting. The whole POINT of quartet writing is that the instruments have the same timbre. That's why string quartet writing is considered so challenging.
I think the short history is:
1) Janacek writes the quartet intending Viola d'Amore
2) Janacek decides Viola d'Amore doesn't blend well with the ensemble, authorizes substitution of viola.
3) When the quartet is posthumously debuted, players judge the part assigned to viola problematic because it exceeds the range of the viola, the quartet is revised to give some passages to violin.
4) The revisions are reversed and people are trying to play in on viola, despite the difficulty.
I'm not sure there is a definitive version, because Janacek may well have agreed that the quartet should be revised to reflect the range of the viola. In any case, I'm curious to hear the recording being discussed (which is available on streaming services in short supply on physical media).
Question: Are other ensembles adopting the new corrected version of the quartet?
Quote from: Roberto on April 08, 2023, 12:39:35 PMMy opinion about Mr. Hurwitz: I started to watch his videos maybe 1 and half year ago. I like his style and I think he is funny. He obviously has musical knowledge and I appreciate that. Some of his advice opened new horizons on my musical view. I like his music theory videos it helps me a lot, because I am not musician.
I think the biggest problem with his channel: less would be more. I started to watch all of his videos from te beginning but after a while I gave up. I don't have problem with 40+ min Hurwitz videos but not every day.
I already had 1500+ CD collection when I started to watch his videos and at the beginning I bought CDs based on his proposal. But after 2-3 big disappointments, I became more critical with his proposals.
I usually agree with his opinion about bad performances. I sometime agree with his opinion about period instrument people but not always. I think he is obsessed with this vibrato-thing.
I don't think he really listens to every CD. When he discuss about big boxes, I think he listened to those recordings years ago and, if ever. Or he picks some recordings from that boxes and listens to those again but clearly not all.
Opinion aboud sound quality is highly a matter of taste. He is unreliable for me in this topic also. Sometime I agree with him but sometime I don't.
Reading or watching Hurwitz is interesting, imo. Although I rarely do. His views are so often opinionated or dictated by hidden agendas. So what? One does not necessarily have to agree. And to seek external support for one's own opinion from Hurwitz or anyone else is plain silly.
I very much doubt Hurwitz has hidden agendas. He's quite forthcoming about them.
It's the people who don't admit the existence of agendas that you have to worry about, not the people who present their opinions in several videos a week.
Quote from: Madiel on June 22, 2023, 05:57:07 PMThat whole great big long quote appears to be about replacing a viola with a violin, not about replacing a viola d'amore with a viola.
Nor are changes to an orchestral score of any real relevance to changes in a quartet setting. The whole POINT of quartet writing is that the instruments have the same timbre. That's why string quartet writing is considered so challenging.
You are quite right about the first point - but I don't think the 2nd quartet was conceived with a viola d'amore so the either/or is not relevant here. Again, I have no knowledge about how involved Janacek was able to be in the preparation for the 1st performance before his death. My feeling - simply based on the consistently unique sound-world he creates across all musical genres - is that he would have wanted it played as he wrote it. By the end of his life he knew what he wanted and how to get it - the problem was others either didn't believe him or couldn't perform what he wanted!
I'm not sure I agree with your statement that all the instruments in a quartet have the same timbre. A neat online defintion of timbre is " the quality of a sound made by a particular voice or musical instrument..distinct from pitch, intensity, and loudness". This is evident in a quartet where a violin playing a specific note at a given dynamic is identifiably different from the same note played by the viola or cello.
However there should be a certain equality of tone and dynamic range - as I understand it the main issue with using the viola d'amore is that it simply could not match the other usual instruments so there is an ongoing issue with instrumental balance. As you say - not an issue in a larger orchestral score where the viola d'amore might just be adding a specific instrumental colour to a key passage.
For me the 'challenge' of quartet writing for composers is to find musical solutions which even in works of substantial scale and complexity only require effectively 4 notes vertically at any given point. For performers add huge challenges of balance, ensemble, intonation before you even get to interpretation. But that's why players like playing quartets - high risk high reward....
Quote from: Madiel on June 22, 2023, 11:35:40 PMI very much doubt Hurwitz has hidden agendas. He's quite forthcoming about them.
It's the people who don't admit the existence of agendas that you have to worry about, not the people who present their opinions in several videos a week.
I am not worried by Hurwitz or by any one else. All people are conditioned in their own way and there is nothing to do (or worry) about.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on June 23, 2023, 12:00:04 AMMy feeling - simply based on the consistently unique sound-world he creates across all musical genres - is that he would have wanted it played as he wrote it.
The common problem with this notion is determining at what point you say "he wrote it". Rather than "he was writing it". Of course, once you're up to changes that you know happened after the composer had died, it's rather easier to be certain that the composer was not consulted on the changes and didn't express the view that it was a fantastic idea.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on June 23, 2023, 02:08:57 AMI am not worried by Hurwitz or by any one else. All people are conditioned in their own way and there is nothing to do (or worry) about.
Then don't talk about hidden agendas. That implies a need to reveal.
QuoteI think the biggest problem with his channel: less would be more.
Insufficient QC on the content. Truth is, that was a problem of his even before he decided to carpet-bomb YouTube.
Quote from: Madiel on June 23, 2023, 06:12:12 AMThe common problem with this notion is determining at what point you say "he wrote it". Rather than "he was writing it". Of course, once you're up to changes that you know happened after the composer had died, it's rather easier to be certain that the composer was not consulted on the changes and didn't express the view that it was a fantastic idea.
To the bolded text - sorry if I'm being thick but I don't actually understand the point you are making. As I have said to both my previous posts - I am no Janacek expert so I have no idea to what degree he was consulted or not. But I do know of so many instances where composers who challenged the performing convention of their time had works modified to conform with those conventions because their demands were deemed at best unreasonable (technically) or at worst plain "wrong". The general trend seems to be to go back to the original intentions once technical standards permit allied to a greater understanding/appreciation of the original musical goal.
At the end of the day the debate does risk becoming a discussion of how many musical angels are dancing on the end of a pin - I'm glad this great music is still generating debate and inspiring performances from the best artists.
The point I'm making is that people frequently make the mistake of assuming that a composer's first ideas are also their last ideas and that composers don't revise. Or people are wildly inconsistent in their thinking about this. We've already thrashed out on this forum how people reinstate Beethoven's Grosse Fugue while not reinstating the several other movements that he cut out of pieces.
Sibelius is an example of a composer who repeatedly revised pieces after their first public performance. I'm sure there are others.
the mere fact there is a specific thread with 840 posts and counting suggests how much influence Hurwitz now has. As it happens, I more often agree than disagree with him but like everyone, he has his own prejudices and on occasion does spout nonsense. But he can be really funny, esp. in the area of so-called HIP performances where I find him a rather useful corrective.
Quote from: lunar22 on June 27, 2023, 12:24:37 AMthe mere fact there is a specific thread with 840 posts and counting suggests how much influence Hurwitz now has.
By that logic Havergal Brian is the most popular composer that ever lived! :laugh:
I have a feeling that most of the posters here are not paying for Classics Today nor are watching most of his youtube content.
Quote from: DavidW on June 27, 2023, 08:27:11 AMBy that logic Havergal Brian is the most popular composer that ever lived! :laugh:
Indeed. ;D
QuoteI have a feeling that most of the posters here are not paying for Classics Today nor are watching most of his youtube content.
My thoughts exactly.
Quote from: DavidW on June 27, 2023, 08:27:11 AMBy that logic Havergal Brian is the most popular composer that ever lived! :laugh:
I have a feeling that most of the posters here are not paying for Classics Today nor are watching most of his youtube content.
well I certainly wouldn't pay for Classics Today, though I have watched around a dozen of his YouTube videos (out of many hundreds). You'll need to explain the Havergal Brain ref. -- the dedicated thread on him only runs to 7 pages :blank: .
Quote from: lunar22 on June 27, 2023, 09:17:04 AMwell I certainly wouldn't pay for Classics Today, though I have watched around a dozen of his YouTube videos (out of many hundreds). You'll need to explain the Havergal Brain ref. -- the dedicated thread on him only runs to 7 pages :blank: .
413 pages, actually.
https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1453.0.html (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1453.0.html)
obviously there must be more than one thread then and I looked at the wrong one....
Quote from: DavidW on June 27, 2023, 08:27:11 AMBy that logic Havergal Brian is the most popular composer that ever lived! :laugh:
I have a feeling that most of the posters here are not paying for Classics Today nor are watching most of his youtube content.
I subscribed to/paid for ClassicsToday for two years (at Sergeant Rock's recommendation), but since Hurwitz "pivoted to video," there is so much less writing on the website that it is no longer worthwhile. Plus, I'm mostly "over" buying CDs except certain out-of-print rarities and the big "complete" megabox sets, which Hurwitz always reviews on video should I desire his opinion. (Actually I find his videos very helpful to assess the physical product on offer: how the box is constructed, whether the book will be worth reading, the layouts of the CD wallets, etc.)
Quote from: Brian on June 27, 2023, 10:28:11 AM(Actually I find his videos very helpful to assess the physical product on offer: how the box is constructed, whether the book will be worth reading, the layouts of the CD wallets, etc.)
That's certainly more useful than probably anything he's written which I've read.
I am by no means an unalloyed fan, I'm really not, but his video today on the experience of playing percussion in Mahler 1 was quite nice, useful, it really was, and without his all-too-frequent bloviation. He even whistles well, better than he sings. (The list of things he does that piss me off could run to many paragraphs, so I'll stop with that.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on June 27, 2023, 12:45:11 PMI am by no means an unalloyed fan, I'm really not, but his video today on the experience of playing percussion in Mahler 1 was quite nice, useful, it really was, and without his all-too-frequent bloviation. He even whistles well, better than he sings. (The list of things he does that piss me off could run to many paragraphs, so I'll stop with that.)
I'm impressed that he did a video with which you are this pleased!
I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me a BETTER source of reviews.
Quote from: Karl Henning on June 27, 2023, 01:41:09 PMI'm impressed that he did a video with which you are this pleased!
Including a good bit of impersonation ;D
Quote from: Madiel on June 27, 2023, 04:56:58 PMI'm still waiting for anyone to tell me a BETTER source of reviews.
Besides this board I don't know of any.
Quote from: Madiel on June 27, 2023, 04:56:58 PMI'm still waiting for anyone to tell me a BETTER source of reviews.
The Guardian, the New York Times, the New Yorker. For comprehensiveness MusicWeb. Brian, Todd and others do a great job of writing up reviews here as well. And don't forget Jens Laurson's blog (when he is not busy writing for Classics Today or posting here).
Quote from: Karl Henning on June 27, 2023, 01:41:09 PMI'm impressed that he did a video with which you are this pleased!
He sometimes does quite well, when he's not fighting imaginary enemies and tilting at windmills. His analysis of the Bruckner 6th also stands out. As do quite a few others. He can also be very funny (check out the video on Carl Orff). And no one who loathes the artistry of Arthur Schoonderwoord can be all bad. But he's far from the "ultimate" seer he pretends to be. And some of his enthusiasms (Nikolai Kasputin - are you kidding me?) are as dubious as some of the composers he abominates (Pierre Boulez "garbage" - are you kidding me?)
Quote from: DavidW on June 27, 2023, 05:17:20 PMThe Guardian, the New York Times, the New Yorker. For comprehensiveness MusicWeb. Brian, Todd and others do a great job of writing up reviews here as well. And don't forget Jens Laurson's blog (when he is not busy writing for Classics Today or posting here).
MusicWeb is good
if you devote a few memory cells to remembering which reviewers have which fields of expertise and which you agree with. There are some who are totally unreliable but others where I see their name and understand the perspective and knowledge they are writing from.
Quote from: DavidW on June 27, 2023, 05:17:20 PMThe Guardian, the New York Times, the New Yorker. For comprehensiveness MusicWeb. Brian, Todd and others do a great job of writing up reviews here as well. And don't forget Jens Laurson's blog (when he is not busy writing for Classics Today or posting here).
The Guardian is... okay. MusicWeb is terrible. The others are subscription and I couldn't even tell you how much reviewing they do.
Actually I've remembered an alternative I've been meaning to try more: the BBC record review.
Quote from: Brian on June 27, 2023, 06:57:29 PMMusicWeb is good if you devote a few memory cells to remembering which reviewers have which fields of expertise and which you agree with. There are some who are totally unreliable but others where I see their name and understand the perspective and knowledge they are writing from.
The same is true of Classics Today. If you want to read a review of a PI baroque era recording, it is Jed Distler. Dave Hurwitz's take on any of those might as well be noise because he can't get over his extreme bias.
I'll irritate everyone by saying it again, I typically find a review is of no value to me (except to make me aware that a recording exists). A brief exchange here with someone I know about a recording can be quite interesting and valuable.
David Hurwitz regularly recommends period instrument recordings. As he himself frequently points out due to the canard that he never likes period instrument recordings.
I don't know off the top of my head if that goes as far as the baroque. It most definitely goes as far as Haydn.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on June 28, 2023, 06:12:52 AMA brief exchange here with someone I know about a recording can be quite interesting and valuable.
Why don't you consider that to be a review?
Quote from: Madiel on June 28, 2023, 06:15:44 AMWhy don't you consider that to be a review?
Because it is a conversation.
Reminds me of the conversations between Florestan, Eusebius and Master Raro, which mystified people into believing they were actually reviews. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 28, 2023, 06:25:05 AMReminds me of the conversations between Florestan, Eusebius and Master Raro, which mystified people into believing they were actually reviews. ;D
Well look, if you can't find anyone else to have a satisfying conversation with, it's at least worth trying a conversation with yourself to see if it is up to the required standard.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 07, 2023, 01:14:38 PMDH made a video about J.S.Bach - Johannes Passion & Matteus Passion - Herreweghe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQh19_Fmw90)
That is odd. I thought that Hurwitz didn't even listen to baroque era music since Jed Distler covers that era on Classics Today. And are you saying that DH praised Herreweghe!?! A conductor he mostly hates!? Wow!
Quote from: DavidW on October 08, 2023, 09:07:06 AMThat is odd. I thought that Hurwitz didn't even listen to baroque era music since Jed Distler covers that era on Classics Today. And are you saying that DH praised Herreweghe!?! A conductor he mostly hates!? Wow!
Why don't you watch the video yourself? It's not long.
Quote from: DavidW on October 08, 2023, 09:07:06 AMA conductor he mostly hates!?
Evidence please. Given that I can very quickly find at least 2 other examples of him recommending Herreweghe as a top choice in repertoire.
There is plenty of mention of Baroque music on his channel.
Quote from: Madiel on October 08, 2023, 10:49:40 PMEvidence please.
Look up any (written) review of Beethoven symphonies conducted by Herreweghe as a starter. You can also just search Classics Today.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 08, 2023, 12:08:58 PMWhy don't you watch the video yourself? It's not long.
lol no, I'm not giving him a higher watch count.
Quote from: DavidW on October 09, 2023, 06:16:58 AMlol no, I'm not giving him a higher watch count.
Oh yes, your watching or not watching one of his videos is going to make a big difference and have a huge impact on his watch count. ;D
With all due respect, your position is not quite fair: somebody mentions a David Hurwitz video, you express disbelief about its content, but when invited to see for yourself you demur under a rather slight pretext. Do you hate him so much?
Quote from: Florestan on October 09, 2023, 06:27:59 AMWith all due respect, your position is not quite fair: somebody mentions a David Hurwitz video, you express disbelief about its content, but when invited to see for yourself you demur under a rather slight pretext. Do you hate him so much?
Well you just read that wrong. I believe Poju. I was just shocked that Hurwitz would promote a recording from a conductor that he has spent so long bashing. I don't need to watch the video, Poju never lies.
Quote from: DavidW on October 09, 2023, 06:14:12 AMLook up any (written) review of Beethoven symphonies conducted by Herreweghe as a starter. You can also just search Classics Today.
Me asking for evidence is not an invitation to make me Google. I already did a search as I told you, and found 2 more times he recommended Herreweghe in Purcell and Monteverdi. Not liking his performances of one composer is not evidence of hating Herreweghe all the time, it's merely evidence of hating his Beethoven.
Which isn't even Baroque repertoire. About the strongest proposition so far might be he thinks Herreweghe should stick to Baroque.
EDIT: Turns out he thinks Herreweghe is good in Stravinsky too.
SECOND EDIT: And if YOU bothered searching Classics Today you would find his existing rave reviews of Herreweghe's Bach.
On Classics Today most of the reviews of Herreweghe's recordings are negative, and the ones that are positive are mostly by Distler or Carr and not Hurwitz. There is your summary. Move on. You lost this one.
Quote from: DavidW on October 09, 2023, 06:31:56 AMWell you just read that wrong. I believe Poju. I was just shocked that Hurwitz would promote a recording from a conductor that he has spent so long bashing. I don't need to watch the video, Poju never lies.
Ah, okay, my bad then, I apologize.
Quote from: DavidW on October 09, 2023, 06:38:37 AMOn Classics Today most of the reviews of Herreweghe's recordings are negative, and the ones that are positive are mostly by Distler or Carr and not Hurwitz. There is your summary. Move on. You lost this one.
It doesn't take very long to actually search the reviews in question and find out that your memory is faulty. This is simply false. I'm not going to move on, I'm going to type out a list if you don't go and actually look.
Edit: as you'll see below, I most definitely did not lose this one.
There are only the following reviews of the conductor Hurwitz has supposedly spent "so long bashing". You'd think there'd be more, but no. I'll just put the artistic score. This includes reviews by "Classics Today" where it isn't totally clear whether Hurwitz was the reviewer.
1. Bach St Matthew Passion Herreweghe's 1st recording: insider review so score not visible but it's his reference recording (consistent with the new video)
2. Brahms Symphony no.4: 6/10
3. Monteverdi Vespers: insider review but it's his reference recording (again consistent with one of his videos)
4. Beethoven symphonies 4 & 7: 5/10
5. Mahler symphony 4: 3/10
6. Stravinsky: 9/10
7. Bruckner symphony 5: 7/10
8. Bach St Matthew Passion Herreweghe's 2nd recording: 10/10
9. Beethoven symphonies 1&3: 5/10
10. Bach Cantatas 29, 119, 120: 10/10
11. Bruckner symphony 4: 6/10
12. Schubert/Mendlessohn ("Classics Today" review): 9/10
13. Lassus motets ("Classics Today" review): 8/10
14. Schumann concertos ("Classics Today" review): 9/10
15. Rameau: 8/10
And that's the complete list. 12 reviews definitely attributable to him, half of which are 8/10 of better. Plus 3 more that might or might not be his that are all positive.
Understood? Even if I set the bar at 8/10 we get at least half of reviews meeting that mark.
It's time to end the bullshit caricatures.
He remains a dullard.
Much better reviewers and sites out there.
Oh
@DavidW you're needed here after the move.
Quote from: Scion7 on October 09, 2023, 11:05:28 AMHe remains a dullard.
Much better reviewers and sites out there.
Thank you for that playground-level assessment.
Okay, might as well throw my hat in the ring.
The way that Hurwitz replies to Youtube commenters who disagree with him is often disrespectful. It makes me resent how the search results are full of his videos when I'm just searching for a piece to listen to.
It's really amazing that this man has the online following he has. We live in a time when streaming services and video sites have made it easier than ever to listen for yourself and form your own opinions.
Quote from: Madiel on October 09, 2023, 06:33:02 AMSECOND EDIT: And if YOU bothered searching Classics Today you would find his existing rave reviews of Herreweghe's Bach.
That is nearly all David Vernier reviews, but I concede the point that DH is not as overwhelmingly negative as I vaguely recalled.
Quote from: DavidW on October 09, 2023, 06:39:08 PMThat is nearly all David Vernier reviews, but I concede the point that DH is not as overwhelmingly negative as I vaguely recalled.
...I'm tempted to go back and explicitly count how many of the reviews are by Vernier, but it's less than half of the total.
So no, it is not nearly all David Vernier reviews. There are 35 reviews in total and only 20 left that I haven't already mentioned. Why persist with these kind of statements that can be objectively disproved?
You also claimed that most of the reviews of Herreweghe, by anyone, were negative. This is false. Search for Herreweghe reviews on the site. It's not rocket science, and yet somehow you still can't be bothered to check.
Quote from: Baxcalibur on October 09, 2023, 04:00:13 PMThe way that Hurwitz replies to Youtube commenters who disagree with him is often disrespectful.
It's really amazing that this man has the online following he has.
DH is a provocateur and should be interpreted as such. He makes it very clear the opinions he expresses are his own subjective opinions and he acknowledges other people may have differing opinions. He also gives explanations/justifications for his opinions. He seems to be willing to change his mind if need be. He does a lot to educate people new to classical music for example making videos about the key works to get into composer X etc.
I find DH an interesting and entertaining person to listen to for his vast knowledge of classical music and different recordings and for his colourful language/funny mannerisms. I don't take him too seriously and I understand how some things he says are expressed tongue on the cheek. In my opinion it is childish and thin-skinned to be offended by him. I don't always agree with him, but I know I can learn from him. I have to say watching his videos somehow takes my mind completely off the problems in the World. That is a huge plus for me! :)
DH's online following is based on several things in my opinion. He is provocative and he makes tons of informative videos (several every day). His videos are also harmless from the point of Youtube algorithms (no controversial politics and sensitive topics) and he has the connections to have permission to use sound clips from recordings. So, his channel isn't shadow-banned. There are no reasons why he shouldn't have a large following.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 10, 2023, 05:14:24 AMDH is a provocateur and should be interpreted as such. He makes it very clear the opinions he expresses are his own subjective opinions and he acknowledges other people may have differing opinions. He also gives explanations/justifications for his opinions. He seems to be willing to change his mind if need be. He does a lot to educate people new to classical music for example making videos about the key works to get into composer X etc.
I find DH an interesting and entertaining person to listen to for his vast knowledge of classical music and different recordings and for his colourful language/funny mannerisms. I don't take him too seriously and I understand how some things he says are expressed tongue on the cheek. In my opinion it is childish and thin-skinned to be offended by him. I don't always agree with him, but I know I can learn from him. I have to say watching his videos somehow takes my mind completely off the problems in the World. That is a huge plus for me! :)
DH's online following is based on several things in my opinion. He is provocative and he makes tons of informative videos (several every day). His videos are also harmless from the point of Youtube algorithms (no controversial politics and sensitive topics) and he has the connections to have permission to use sound clips from recordings. So, his channel isn't shadow-banned. There are no reasons why he shouldn't have a large following.
Excellent post.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 10, 2023, 05:14:24 AMIn my opinion it is childish and thin-skinned to be offended by him.
Of course. Just a point of clarification on my side, it is no question of being
offended by any
opinion he expresses. I express opinions all the time, and my opinion of Hurwitz is that he is largely an ass in whose opinions I take no interest.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 10, 2023, 05:14:24 AMDH's online following is based on several things in my opinion. He is provocative and he makes tons of informative videos (several every day). His videos are also harmless from the point of Youtube algorithms (no controversial politics and sensitive topics) and he has the connections to have permission to use sound clips from recordings. So, his channel isn't shadow-banned. There are no reasons why he shouldn't have a large following.
Add to that a lack of rivals as far as I can see. There are certainly elements of his style that I could do without, but... who else is actually supplying this market? I've found a few other channels discussing pieces of classical music (mostly the same old warhorses, but I did find one guy discussing Beethoven's "Moonlight" sonata in a way that was genuinely interesting and informative, so I'll go back to him), but in terms of archives of reviews and recommending recordings there really doesn't seem to be much that isn't behind a paywall (eg Gramophone magazine, Fanfare). The nearest equivalent is the BBC Record Review / Building a Library which to some extent is available, but there are significant restrictions for anyone outside the UK.
So yes, one reason for Hurwitz' popularity and prominence when you go searching for this sort of information is a lack of other people supplying it.
Quote from: Karl Henning on October 10, 2023, 05:30:04 AMOf course. Just a point of clarification on my side, it is no question of being offended by any opinion he expresses. I express opinions all the time, and my opinion of Hurwitz is that he is largely an ass in whose opinions I take no interest.
Honest and straightforward. Not unlike DH himself, actually. :D
Quote from: Florestan on October 10, 2023, 05:58:36 AMHonest and straightforward. Not unlike DH himself, actually. :D
I appreciate that you equably allow both DH his opinion and me, mine. 😉
Quote from: Karl Henning on October 10, 2023, 05:30:04 AMOf course. Just a point of clarification on my side, it is no question of being offended by any opinion he expresses. I express opinions all the time, and my opinion of Hurwitz is that he is largely an ass in whose opinions I take no interest.
I've said before, I rarely agree with Hurwitz. Although I listen to him extremely seldom because I don't have the patience for long videos. I'd prefer it if he had a Twitter feed. Anyway, although I don't agree, I'm usually interested in what he has to say.
I do appreciate his enthusiasm for many of the works that he discusses. Hopefully, he's helping encourage newer classical listeners to check out more works and explore more composers and their music.
And, yes, short of subscribing to classical music magazines, and even with that, it can be rather daunting to figure out where/how to start dipping ones toe in (or which pool to wade around in).
PD
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 10, 2023, 07:40:50 AMI've said before, I rarely agree with Hurwitz. Although I listen to him extremely seldom because I don't have the patience for long videos. I'd prefer it if he had a Twitter feed. Anyway, although I don't agree, I'm usually interested in what he has to say.
Yes I used to read his reviews because they were the opposite. Concisely written, not half an hour of endless blather.
Quote from: DavidW on October 10, 2023, 10:37:16 AMYes I used to read his reviews because they were the opposite. Concisely written, not half an hour of endless blather.
As an aside, I did appreciate that he had adopted two kittens (which he introduced one of them to viewers)--I think back in March? I decided to watch one of his videos (forget which one now) and ran across that info. If nothing else, he gets a "like" for me for doing that. :)
PD
Quote from: DavidW on October 10, 2023, 10:37:16 AMYes I used to read his reviews because they were the opposite. Concisely written, not half an hour of endless blather.
Like a mediocre preacher on Sunday morning: he'll take up half an hour, even if what he actually has to say could be adequately expressed in ten minutes.
YouTube does have facilities to skip within videos, people. I use them liberally.
Whenever I feel a need for an afternoon nap, I start one of his more verbose videos and turn off the lights. Works every time.
Quote from: Baxcalibur on October 09, 2023, 04:00:13 PMOkay, might as well throw my hat in the ring.
The way that Hurwitz replies to Youtube commenters who disagree with him is often disrespectful. It makes me resent how the search results are full of his videos when I'm just searching for a piece to listen to.
It's really amazing that this man has the online following he has. We live in a time when streaming services and video sites have made it easier than ever to listen for yourself and form your own opinions.
Hurwitz at his nastiest:
Comment: I quite enjoy Solti's Zauberflote remake; and several reviews I've read say that it's better than his first Zauberflote. I haven't heard the first, so I can't say whether I agree or not.
Hurwitz: Then you shouldn't comment about what you haven't heard. It's not better (but to be fair, they're both quite good). In any case, I left out discussion of opera because those recordings are more about singers than the conductor.
Leaving aside the dubiousness of H's last comment, his attack on the poster was totally uncalled for - since the poster quite specifically said he was
not commenting on a recording he hadn't heard. Of course, if I called Hurwitz out on this publically, my post would be deleted. He loves deleting posts. I've had some of my most innocuous comments deleted, which is why I won't comment there any longer. But if you kiss Dave's fat ass, he loves you.
Quote from: Karl Henning on October 10, 2023, 05:30:04 AMMy opinion of Hurwitz is that he is largely an ass in whose opinions I take no interest.
Would you Karl say he comes out as an ass in this video? Furthermore, do you disagree and in what way with what he says in this video?
Quote from: Karl Henning on October 10, 2023, 05:30:04 AMOf course. Just a point of clarification on my side, it is no question of being offended by any opinion he expresses. I express opinions all the time, and my opinion of Hurwitz is that he is largely an ass in whose opinions I take no interest.
There are almost 8 billion people on this planet in whose opinions you take no interest. What sets Hurwitz apart? Is it that too many other people take interest in his unworthy opinions? :)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 14, 2023, 07:55:43 AMThere are almost 8 billion people on this planet in whose opinions you take no interest. What sets Hurwitz apart? Is it that too many other people take interest in his unworthy opinions? :)
Most of those 8 billion people do not express their opinions via a Youtube channel making them viewable to anyone with an internet connection.
Quote from: 71 dB on October 14, 2023, 08:24:04 AMMost of those 8 billion people do not express their opinions via a Youtube channel making them viewable to anyone with an internet connection.
Ok, only 51 million YouTube channels that I take no interest in.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 14, 2023, 08:26:22 AMOk, only 51 million YouTube channels that I take no interest in.
I bet you'd be interested in thousands of those channels if you had time to watch them (and get hooked).
Quote from: 71 dB on October 14, 2023, 08:30:13 AMI bet you'd be interested in thousands of those channels if you had time to watch them (and get hooked).
I have become familiar with a few. I can recommend Handyman Hal and Kids Crew. Also a few dedicated to robot vacuum cleaners, in case you'd like to see a video with two dozen (at least) robot vacuum cleaners competing to clean up confetti from a woman's bedroom floor. I don't find myself railing against any of them. :)
Quote from: 71 dB on October 14, 2023, 07:48:13 AMWould you Karl say he comes out as an ass in this video? Furthermore, do you disagree and in what way with what he says in this video?
I appreciate the question. I beg to be excused from the exercise.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 14, 2023, 07:55:43 AMThere are almost 8 billion people on this planet in whose opinions you take no interest. What sets Hurwitz apart? Is it that too many other people take interest in his unworthy opinions? :)
Anyone who finds value in his opinions is at liberty.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 14, 2023, 08:43:21 AMI have become familiar with a few. I can recommend Handyman Hal and Kids Crew. Also a few dedicated to robot vacuum cleaners, in case you'd like to see a video with two dozen (at least) robot vacuum cleaners competing to clean up confetti from a woman's bedroom floor. I don't find myself railing against any of them. :)
Thanks but I have found enought to keep me busy. For tonight I have at least these:
David Bennett Piano: Bohemian Rhapsody in 9 different scales - 14:01
Daiki Yoshikawa: I Learned How To Make Finnish Salmon Soup and Cinnamon Rolls - 13:13
The Proper People: Exploring an Abandoned Mall Frozen in Time - 28:59
Dar The Traveler: Duolingo Nordic Countries Languages Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland - 52:03
In an hour I assume this will be published (prediction):
Jules Reacts: The X Files 3x21 Avatar Reaction | First Time Watching - ~25 min
EDIT: Yes, it happened as I predicted! (24:53)
I feel like people produce and publish interesting Youtube videos faster than I am able to watch.
A much more impressive YouTube commentator on classical music:
https://www.youtube.com/c/ClassicalNerd
Just turn to his video on Elliott Carter for a start.
These guys are a lot of fun too, and totally unpretentious:
https://www.youtube.com/@twosetviolin
None of this Hurwitzian "look at me show off how many compact discs I've bought."
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 14, 2023, 12:25:14 PMA much more impressive YouTube commentator on classical music:
https://www.youtube.com/c/ClassicalNerd
Just turn to his video on Elliott Carter for a start.
These guys are a lot of fun too, and totally unpretentious:
https://www.youtube.com/@twosetviolin
None of this Hurwitzian "look at me show off how many compact discs I've bought."
I was with you until that last line. Partly because it's stupid to criticise a professional reviewer for having lots of discs, and partly because it's especially stupid to do so here in GMG where there are people who would own more copies of a work than Hurwitz does.
Also, while I appreciate the other channels, it is very quickly obvious that they are not reviewing recordings.. He is a reviewer, not a "commentator on classical music". These are not replacements.
Both of these make me think you don't actually understand what Hurwitz is doing. But especially the comment about how many CDs he has.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 14, 2023, 12:25:14 PMA much more impressive YouTube commentator on classical music:
https://www.youtube.com/c/ClassicalNerd
Just turn to his video on Elliott Carter for a start.
These guys are a lot of fun too, and totally unpretentious:
https://www.youtube.com/@twosetviolin
None of this Hurwitzian "look at me show off how many compact discs I've bought."
Will have to check out your links. I'm trying to remember one by someone who was a professional musician (and is employed in a classical orchestra).
I did just watch one video that D.H. did on Penderecki (also *Gerhard and Tippett which I'll probably watch those segments at some time). I did appreciate
most of his comments and musical samples that he gave. He has some other ones on Penderecki (whom he had met and attended concerts with him conducting). I hadn't realized that Cannes also had classical music awards and what position he had there too. It was interesting for me to learn more about Penderecki and how his style changed over time.
*Don't know his music at all and I probably should also explore more Tippett. I like some of the works that I've heard by Tippett, but was turned off by others of his.
PD
Quote from: Madiel on October 14, 2023, 12:49:51 PMI was with you until that last line. Partly because it's stupid to criticise a professional reviewer for having lots of discs, and partly because it's especially stupid to do so here in GMG where there are people who would own more copies of a work than Hurwitz does.
Also, while I appreciate the other channels, it is very quickly obvious that they are not reviewing recordings.. He is a reviewer, not a "commentator on classical music". These are not replacements.
Both of these make me think you don't actually understand what Hurwitz is doing. But especially the comment about how many CDs he has.
Thank you for telling me how stupid I am. Twice. I was unaware. But I think I understand what Hurwitz is doing quite well, and it goes beyond reviewing recordings. If I had time or energy or interest, I would go into more detail, but it emphatically includes being a "commentator on classical music" in addition to being a record reviewer. And the endless need to acquire more stuff, so much that he scarcely knows all he has, and to show off to his fawning audience how much stuff he has, is part of a culture where conspicuous consumption is threatening to overwhelm musical values.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 14, 2023, 01:41:34 PMAnd the endless need to acquire more stuff, so much that he scarcely knows all he has, and to show off to his fawning audience how much stuff he has, is part of a culture where conspicuous consumption is threatening to overwhelm musical values.
Well again, I see enough of that on GMG. And I would argue that the
only people who might have a reasonable need for having so many copies of the same music are professional reviewers.
By the way I said that certain actions were stupid, not you personally.
Quote from: Madiel on October 14, 2023, 05:32:59 PMWell again, I see enough of that on GMG.
Indeed, it's one of the GMG trademarks. And it's not even a bad thing in itself. If one deeply loves a piece of music or a composer, it's not uncommon, nor unnatural, to own multiple versions of the same work.
QuoteAnd I would argue that the only people who might have a reasonable need for having so many copies of the same music are professional reviewers.
Plus, there is a high probability that Hurwitz, as a professional reviewer of high profile, received many of those copies for free.
Quote from: Madiel on October 14, 2023, 12:49:51 PMin GMG where there are people who would own more copies of a work than Hurwitz does.
;D
Quote from: Florestan on October 15, 2023, 12:14:33 AMPlus, there is a high probability that Hurwitz, as a professional reviewer of high profile, received many of those copies for free.
Yes. I half-thought of adding that point but didn't, thanks for mentioning it.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 14, 2023, 08:26:22 AMOk, only 51 million YouTube channels that I take no interest in.
Sometimes I'm shocked by how incredibly deep and wide YT content is. There are millions of uploads every day. Last night when I was looking up reviews for a movie I just watched I accidentally stumbled upon a corner that I've never seen before.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 14, 2023, 12:25:14 PMA much more impressive YouTube commentator on classical music:
https://www.youtube.com/c/ClassicalNerd
Thanks for the suggestion! I watched the 80 minutes Elgar video. :D
Quote from: DavidW on October 15, 2023, 02:04:07 PMBut the difference is that Steve is highly unlikely to pan a book without considering what the author's motivations were.
I don't really get how there's an equivalent when reviewing music performances, not compositions.
EDIT: And if this has anything to do with HIP, I will start showing you all of the places where this is as inaccurate as your memory of Herreweghe reviews.
I think that, if each and every GMG member vowed not to make one single purchase anymore until they will have listened to all recordings they own and have not listened to yet, the sales of classical music recordings would plummet catastrophically and not rise again for a few long years. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2023, 12:28:55 AMI think that, if each and every GMG member vowed not to make one single purchase anymore until they will have listened to all recordings they own and have not listened to yet, the sales of classical music recordings would plummet catastrophically and not rise again for a few long years. ;D
This is quite possible.
Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2023, 12:28:55 AMI think that, if each and every GMG member vowed not to make one single purchase anymore until they will have listened to all recordings they own and have not listened to yet, the sales of classical music recordings would plummet catastrophically and not rise again for a few long years. ;D
lol so not true. I don't even buy a recording unless I streamed it several times and know that I love it. The days of collecting and hoarding recordings should be well and done for most of us.
The book review discussion has been moved to the diner. Link here (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,32642.0.html)
Quote from: Florestan on October 16, 2023, 12:28:55 AMI think that, if each and every GMG member vowed not to make one single purchase anymore until they will have listened to all recordings they own and have not listened to yet, the sales of classical music recordings would plummet catastrophically and not rise again for a few long years. ;D
I have actually listened to almost everything I bought for myself. I do have a stash of things I haven't gotten to yet, which were given to me by my sister in law when she moved to streaming only and got rid of her CD collection. But it's stuff that I probably wouldn't have bought myself.
Quote from: MishaK on October 18, 2023, 10:52:04 AMI have actually listened to almost everything I bought for myself. I do have a stash of things I haven't gotten to yet, which were given to me by my sister in law when she moved to streaming only and got rid of her CD collection. But it's stuff that I probably wouldn't have bought myself.
Congrats! Well done!
What kind of music did your sister give you?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 18, 2023, 11:51:46 AMWhat kind of music did your sister give you?
Sister-in-law! Some Philipp Glass that I don't much care for, some Mahler that I already had, complete box sets of Argerich and Rachmaninov, random odds and ends. I gave a bunch away to friends that was duplicative of what I had already.
Quote from: Florestan on October 15, 2023, 12:14:33 AMPlus, there is a high probability that Hurwitz, as a professional reviewer of high profile, received many of those copies for free.
Either that, or as a (cough) "professional critic," he gets to write off any CD purchases he makes as business expenses, to feed his endlessly gluttonous need to acquire more and more recordings. Unlike we peons who must fund all our own purchases. Perhaps someone should "ask Dave" about this; I wouldn't expect an answer.
Quote from: DavidW on October 16, 2023, 06:33:31 AMlol so not true. I don't even buy a recording unless I streamed it several times and know that I love it. The days of collecting and hoarding recordings should be well and done for most of us.
exactly. I occasionally still buy something on spec in a shop if it's on sale or something but normally I first listen to music and only after its being unusually good will buy a CD. My biggest problem these days is finding anything new I want to buy so money goes more on things like buying software to help me write my own music.
Oftentimes at stores which carry used CDs or LPs, you can sample them and get a sense of whether or not you might enjoy them. I've found this to be very helpful. That and am oftentimes able to sample new or older recordings online on places like youtube or on various record labels' websites, etc.
PD
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 20, 2023, 08:39:37 AMEither that, or as a (cough) "professional critic," he gets to write off any CD purchases he makes as business expenses, to feed his endlessly gluttonous need to acquire more and more recordings. Unlike we peons who must fund all our own purchases. Perhaps someone should "ask Dave" about this; I wouldn't expect an answer.
Wait, now you're trying to deny that he's actually a professional who's been doing this for years as his job? Long before he was on YouTube? Despite this thread not only being full of references to the Classics Today site, but how he was a review writer for Amazon?
Honestly, now you're just being a jerk for the sake of it. There's a line between legitimate criticism of Hurwitz and open hatred, and you're crossing it. You don't have to like a thing about how he goes about his work (and I can give you my personal list of several things I don't like about it), but trying to create alternative facts about his career is another matter entirely.
Perhaps you'd like to edit his Wikipedia page to remove all the details of his published writings and suggest he's a (cough) "blogger".
Professional critics get given things that other people have to pay for as discretionary personal spending. Theatre tickets. Restaurant meals. Professional writers get paid for writing. That's what professional means. Maybe if you'd got your first book on classical music published over 30 years ago, people would be giving you stuff too.
This thread is temporarily locked.
Let us all kindly remember that we come together to discuss our shared interests, not to get angry over our differences. We have enough of that in our real life.
We have decided to unlock the thread.
I personally think that critics should seek out every recording. How can you speak with authority about what a great recording is of a symphony or a sonata if you haven't listened to everything you could get your hands on?
So I'm more than fine with Hurwitz and other critics having enormous collections.
Quote from: DavidW on October 21, 2023, 09:44:16 AMI personally think that critics should seek out every recording. How can you speak with authority about what a great recording is of a symphony or a sonata if you haven't listened to everything you could get your hands on?
So I'm more than fine with Hurwitz and other critics having enormous collections.
Recognising greatness does not necessarily imply comparison. Not to mention that comparison can be distracting and misleading.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 21, 2023, 11:15:47 AMRecognising greatness does not necessarily imply comparison. Not to mention that comparison can be distracting and misleading.
This is an interesting philosophical point and based on my own experiences I mostly agree, part disagree. When I started out writing reviews of CDs, I leaned much more on comparison than later. Eventually experience (and perhaps age) provided a better ability to describe performers' intentions without resorting to constant comparison. Now that I have moved to food writing the same learning curve has taken place. These days my work has much less of statements like "this restaurant is good but that one is better," and more willingness to accept each place on its own terms.
Where I partly disagree but partly agree is on whether comparisons are "misleading." This depends on the language chosen...I am often surprised by what performances some GMGers consider to be more exciting or more passionate than others! But other things can be spoken of more clearly - faster, slower, technique issues, etc.
In Hurwitz' case he says that some of his collecting, for example multiple reissues of the same classic recording, is to write about remastering specifically which is a different kind of comparison. (One I am bad at!)
Quote from: Brian on October 21, 2023, 11:44:33 AMThis is an interesting philosophical point and based on my own experiences I mostly agree, part disagree. When I started out writing reviews of CDs, I leaned much more on comparison than later. Eventually experience (and perhaps age) provided a better ability to describe performers' intentions without resorting to constant comparison. Now that I have moved to food writing the same learning curve has taken place. These days my work has much less of statements like "this restaurant is good but that one is better," and more willingness to accept each place on its own terms.
Where I partly disagree but partly agree is on whether comparisons are "misleading." This depends on the language chosen...I am often surprised by what performances some GMGers consider to be more exciting or more passionate than others! But other things can be spoken of more clearly - faster, slower, technique issues, etc.
In Hurwitz' case he says that some of his collecting, for example multiple reissues of the same classic recording, is to write about remastering specifically which is a different kind of comparison. (One I am bad at!)
How often do your food reviews get published? And how big of an area is your territory so to speak?
I suspect that I would have a hard time not gaining weight! Do you go out with a bunch of friends and share your courses?
PD
p.s. Your Aho traversal was quite interesting to read; alas, I can't borrow most of the recordings from my local library network. :(
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 12:43:33 PMIt is absolutely hilarious to me that a thread of this size exists for a "critic."
I think it is only because he manages to strike a nerve with so many. One thing the internet has taught me is that negativity and drama drive discourse because anger is addictive. People will follow stories they otherwise wouldn't even care about if they can be made to feel angry over it.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 12:43:33 PMIt is absolutely hilarious to me that a thread of this size exists for a "critic."
Lose. The. Quote. Marks. Or would you like me to put your job title in quotes all the time? I'll say it again: he's been doing this for over 30 years. Suggesting this is not his profession is insulting.
But otherwise yes, it is hilarious. Not least because people keep telling me that there are alternatives, and yet Hurwitz is basically the only classical music critic that everyone keeps talking about. I can think of only one poster on GMG who regularly attaches or discusses reviews from other sources.
EDIT: The second hilarious thing, of course, is that you just added to the size of the thread. As did I.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 02:46:42 PMI put my job in quote marks everyday, and I find the job of critic hilarious, so, no, I won't remove the quotes. Steiner, a critic, says it best - critics are parasites, and I've yet to read a critic who has added a single thing to anything I've read or listened to - hence, why I don't pay them any mind. I have my own ears and my own eyes.
Funny how Steiner managed to not get quote marks. I sense a double standard.
People, including you, seem to treat Hurwitz different since he moved to YouTube, which is a fairly late development in his career. To be honest I don't think it suits him very well, he's lost the kind of editorial discipline you need to have in print.
Nevertheless, a review by a reviewer on video is still a review.
And reviewers and critics might well be "parasitic" in a sense, but don't confuse that with a lack of skill. A hell of a lot people could not write a review to a decent standard. And that includes lots of people here on this forum. Again, I think Hurwitz did a lot better in print with the quality control involved in editing things.
As for you getting no value from reviews, well, I get no value from beauty salons but I don't cast doubt upon the legitimacy of their existence. To the extent that I have a reason to talk about beauty salons, I don't go around using quote marks, or actioning them in speech, to suggest that either such businesses don't really exist or that a particular beauty salon that's been there for as long as anyone can remember is not legitimate.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 02:46:42 PMSteiner, a critic, says it best - critics are parasites, and I've yet to read a critic who has added a single thing to anything I've read or listened to
If Steiner "says it best" then this critic has "added a single thing"...no?
Haven't the lines blurred since Saint-Beuve's time? Most serious novelists now - for quite a while now, actually - also contribute reviews to literary magazines and put out collections of their criticism. And its almost as common for artists in the other arts.
I've actually never seen or read anything by this Hurwitz guy, but I could name dozens and dozens of critics I would call artists at their craft.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 04:14:14 PMThat was done just for you.
I find myself "skeptical" about some of your "claims" as to your "decisions" as to when and when not to use "quote marks", both here on the "forum" and in other "contexts".
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 04:14:14 PMSteiner also says that if he didn't say it, someone else would
Well, that is true of pretty well everything. In the similar words of one of my favourite bands:
QuoteYou're not the first to think that everything has been thought before.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 04:22:25 PMAlthough, in my actual life I try not to use quotation marks at all that are not direct.
Well, this is the exact opposite of your previous assertion that you put your own job title in quote marks everyday (sic). I believe you now more than I did before, frankly.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 12:43:33 PMIt is absolutely hilarious to me that a thread of this size exists for a "critic."
It seems to be getting funnier by the hour.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 04:14:14 PMSteiner also says that if he didn't say it, someone else would - hence, the secondary, parasitic nature of his work. Steiner also wasn't just a critic, professor is the job title he would say with the most pride.
The lines are indeed blurred, and my job will eventually try to also make me complicit in this incestuous affair, but I fight that fight until the bitter end. Nor should anyone, I feel, pay any attention at all to their "insights," but we seemingly live in such a culture.
Perhaps you and I are talking about two distinct groups of critics.
I'm thinking of critics who have rescued artists from obscurity or eventual oblivion and have demanded the public pay attention. Or who have persuaded an indifferent public to look deeper at something they think superficially shallow, and provide a glimpse of the riches within. I could go on.
Is this "parasitic"? More than you realise would be missing without this work.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 12:43:33 PMIt is absolutely hilarious to me that a thread of this size exists for a "critic."
"Saint-Beuve said in his bitter jealously, in his devouring jealously of Balzac and Stendhal, 'they will never build statutes to critics'. He was probably wrong, we live now in a parasitic culture, where the critical, the commentary far exceeds the work, endless people ... this drives me to distraction, buy biographies of great writers, artist and never read a word of the writer they are reading about."
(George Steiner)
This topic seems like a good place for this item:
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/17/1206024022/even-beethoven-got-bad-reviews-john-malkovich-reads-them-aloud-as-the-music-crit (https://www.npr.org/2023/10/17/1206024022/even-beethoven-got-bad-reviews-john-malkovich-reads-them-aloud-as-the-music-crit)
Quote
...The Music Critic pairs great classical music with eye-wateringly snarky reviews from the time the music was written — rendered in John Malkovich's singular voice.
For example, pianist Hyung-ki Joo (who, together with Igudesman, performs as the comedy duo Igudesman & Joo) tears through some Chopin: his Grande Valse Brillante, Op. 18.
As the critic, Malkovich opines: "Mr. Frederic Chopin has, by some means or the other which we cannot divine, obtained an enormous reputation too often refused to composers who possess several times his genius. Mr. Chopin is by no means a composer of the ordinary; he is worse."...
Somewhere in my archives I have a copy of selected reviews by
Eduard Hanslick. The cover shows a cartoon (probably from a Viennese newspaper of his day) of him wafting incense before a statue of
Brahms. 8)
Quote from: Cato on October 21, 2023, 04:47:32 PMThis topic seems like a good place for this item:
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/17/1206024022/even-beethoven-got-bad-reviews-john-malkovich-reads-them-aloud-as-the-music-crit (https://www.npr.org/2023/10/17/1206024022/even-beethoven-got-bad-reviews-john-malkovich-reads-them-aloud-as-the-music-crit)
Somewhere in my archives I have a copy of selected reviews by Eduard Hanslick. The cover shows a cartoon (probably from a Viennese newspaper of his day) of him wafting incense before a statue of Brahms. 8)
I hadn't explicitly thought of Hurwitz as a
parasite before, but I'm seeing it as perhaps apt.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on October 21, 2023, 12:20:11 PMHow often do your food reviews get published? And how big of an area is your territory so to speak?
I suspect that I would have a hard time not gaining weight! Do you go out with a bunch of friends and share your courses?
PD
p.s. Your Aho traversal was quite interesting to read; alas, I can't borrow most of the recordings from my local library network. :(
Hello! First of all - happy to hear you read the Aho posts but I do hope they are available via interlibrary loan? Do you have access through the library to something like Naxos Music Library? It wouldn't surprise me if some of the items have concert performances on YouTube as well.
And I am a full time food writer in Dallas. Our territory is Dallas and the suburbs - next month one of my articles is about Fort Worth but that is a special circumstance. (They have a new fancy chef's tasting menu restaurant for $150 per person - all vegan!) I publish an article online about every other work day - could be a review, could be recommending one single dish, could be an interview or news or a list or something silly.
And yeah, I gained about 10 pounds the first year but have luckily lost half that back. ;D We mostly eat vegetarian at home, lots of salads and grain bowls, and then for reviews I'll go out with a table of 2-4 guests so we can all share little bits of everything.
One thing that is relevant to the discussion here is in addition to the meals that are specifically for work (and therefore charged to the magazine credit card), I can consider writing about meals I paid for myself. I could probably write those off on taxes as a business expense, but I'm just not smart enough and lose a lot of the receipts too ;D
Quote from: Karl Henning on October 21, 2023, 05:14:10 PMI hadn't explicitly thought of Hurwitz as a parasite before, but I'm seeing it as perhaps apt.
I hadn't explicitly thought of you in certain ways before, but remarks like these are influencing me.
It's been pointed out to me that GMG members are supposed to accord each other a certain basic level of respect. To which my response was essentially: why is it that a certain basic level of respect isn't expected when talking about someone who is NOT a GMG member? Why should you, as a member, expect to be respected when you make remarks like this?
This thread appears to be largely treated by some people as a place to say things about one individual that they would never dare say about any individual here. Remarks that would cause an uproar in the Purchases Today thread or the one on box sets are seen as fair game.
I do tend to respect you, actually, but every now and then say you something pretty horrible that I think you expect people to find mildly amusing, just because of who it is you're being horrible about.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 06:16:41 PMI should say, as a point of clarity, that Steiner use of the term parasite is wholly positive, not negative.
And to clarify, I didn't have an issue with your original quotation (though you were assuredly being negative about critics).
Quote from: Madiel on October 21, 2023, 06:11:35 PMwhy is it that a certain basic level of respect isn't expected when talking about someone who is NOT a GMG member?
I don't want to litigate other matters ongoing here, but Dave Hurwitz is a public figure. Yes, he lurks on GMG. But he's a public figure; he chose this profession and knows he will excite public comment of all kinds. (I think I can assume this safely, since I've chosen the same path.)
I should hope it's common sense why we do not have some kind of rule about respecting public figures - a group that encompasses all manner of wonderful people but also Charles Dutoit, Placido Domingo, Boris Johnson, etc. etc. We already have rules about abusive and violent language, so it's unclear what additional protection would be necessary for famous people who don't post here.
In any case, the criticisms against DH in this thread are a pretty constant, unvaried drumbeat and, to me at least, they have rarely if ever risen to the level of being either abusive or interesting.
Quote from: Cato on October 21, 2023, 04:47:32 PMSomewhere in my archives I have a copy of selected reviews by Eduard Hanslick. The cover shows a cartoon (probably from a Viennese newspaper of his day) of him wafting incense before a statue of Brahms. 8)
And some fun quotes from Hanslick:
QuoteThe Prelude to Tristan and Isolde reminds me of the old Italian painting of a martyr whose intestines are slowly unwound from his body on a reel.
QuoteTchaikovsky's Violin Concerto gives us for the first time the hideous notion that there can be music that stinks to the ear.
Quote from: Brian on October 21, 2023, 06:57:20 PMI don't want to litigate other matters ongoing here, but Dave Hurwitz is a public figure. Yes, he lurks on GMG. But he's a public figure; he chose this profession and knows he will excite public comment of all kinds. (I think I can assume this safely, since I've chosen the same path.)
I should hope it's common sense why we do not have some kind of rule about respecting public figures - a group that encompasses all manner of wonderful people but also Charles Dutoit, Placido Domingo, Boris Johnson, etc. etc. We already have rules about abusive and violent language, so it's unclear what additional protection would be necessary for famous people who don't post here.
In any case, the criticisms against DH in this thread are a pretty constant, unvaried drumbeat and, to me at least, they have rarely if ever risen to the level of being either abusive or interesting.
Well, when we have single threads dedicated to those other public figures, we can discuss those comparisons.
I'm not for a moment suggesting Hurwitz is above criticism of his work. But questioning whether he is actually a professional or just a gluttonous music collector is not valid criticism (plus we can't have it both ways, is he a public figure or just like the rest of us?), it's the kind of remark that frankly in a lot of contexts could really get you into trouble.** It's the equivalent of someone suggesting that the reason you can be spotted in restaurants all the time has nothing to do with you reviewing them.
**There seems to be a mistaken belief that because you, the moderators, don't impose any rules, then there aren't any rules. That is not true.
There might be an associated mistaken belief that the internet is a part of the USA.
Quote from: Madiel on October 21, 2023, 07:33:16 PM**There seems to be a mistaken belief that because you, the moderators, don't impose any rules, then there aren't any rules. That is not true.
Let me assure you that the forum does have rules, but they are not your creation. You may read them here (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5.0.html).
This forum is not your personal playground.
Quote from: DavidW on October 21, 2023, 09:44:16 AMI personally think that critics should seek out every recording. How can you speak with authority about what a great recording is of a symphony or a sonata if you haven't listened to everything you could get your hands on?
So I'm more than fine with Hurwitz and other critics having enormous collections.
Up to a point, yes. But with all the versions of everything out there - a new Ring Cycle every week, new Beethoven symphonies every 10 minutes - how can you possibly keep up? Eventually you have to base your assessments on standards of performance that you have internalized over all your years of experience - phrasing, tempo, balance, perhaps your knowledge of the score, as well as sound quality in a recording. And we may have to rely on reviews as well, filtered through our experience with a given reviewer's tastes and limitations.
As for Mr. Hurwitz, despite having been maligned on this thread by someone who could have made his points without the personal animus, of course I grant he is a professional critic. And often a very good one. Today's talk on the unpopularity of Bruckner was a case in point, and numerous times I've bought CDs based on his recommendations.
But on his YouTube channel, Hurwitz has by now become as much a narcissistic Internet personality (I think the word these days is "influencer") as a legitimate critic. While at first he maintained his dignity and rarely spoke more than 5-10 minutes at a time always keeping to the musical subject, he has become a caricature of himself, offering endless self-indulgent videos - Tinnitus classics, the great god Cancrizans, a list of Haydn for "beginners" that includes two demanding sacred works and a huge oratorio (just who are these beginners in his mind), 10 Essential Symphonic Seascapes for these same beginners (I kid you not), and so forth. While previously he gave us well-prepared discussions of individual works, of late he has been treating us to the endless fascination of watching him unpack his ginormous collection and store it on two-deep on what looks like miles of custom-built shelves, muttering things like "endless quantities of Tchaikovsky . . . oh god it's never going to end . . . . I bought like 7 of this CD, so I'd have extras . . . . well maybe there'll be 6 more videos on Tchaikovsky" and the like.
And you can't disagree with him on any topic; his geniality extends only to those who worship his every word, and if you question any of his assertions you're bound to get a prickly riposte or to find your comment deleted. I've known this from personal experience, and I'm not the only one. He's got a bug up his ass about pronunciation, claiming it doesn't matter (though his pronunciation of languages he knows like French and German is usually spot-on). But when someone wrote that the name Boulez should be pronounced Bou-lay and I responded that the final Z in Boulez was correct just like the final Z in Berlioz, my comment was deleted. Why? Isn't accuracy in these matters a sign of professionalism too?
I don't "hate" Hurwitz. He is harmless, sometimes a provocateur (30 seconds to tell us all of Boulez's music is garbage, etc.), but on the whole his presence is beneficial. And that's as far as I want to go.
(What has Placido Domingo done to put him in the same sentence as Boris Johnson?)
Quote from: Karl Henning on October 21, 2023, 05:14:10 PMI hadn't explicitly thought of Hurwitz as a parasite before, but I'm seeing it as perhaps apt.
Well, he's certainly looks like a tick on a hound's ear.
Here's another guy doing "Best Recordings of X" videos:
Not sure why there are not more channels doing this. Maybe the algorithm doesn't want me to know about them.
Quote from: DavidW on October 21, 2023, 07:47:39 PMLet me assure you that the forum does have rules, but they are not your creation. You may read them here (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5.0.html).
This forum is not your personal playground.
What on earth made you think I was talking about my personal rules? Let me spell it out for you: there are laws. GMG is not a law onto itself, and the rules that GMG sets up are not the sum total of rules that apply to what people publish on here.
Quote from: Daverz on October 21, 2023, 09:13:43 PMHere's another guy doing "Best Recordings of X" videos:
Not sure why there are not more channels doing this. Maybe the algorithm doesn't want me to know about them.
Thanks for this. It looks as if he's only started quite recently.
Quote from: DavidW on October 21, 2023, 02:00:51 PMI think it is only because he manages to strike a nerve with so many.
That's what puzzles me no end: why do so many take that much offense with what he says and does? In the grand scheme of things, what he says and does is completely and absolutely inconsequential: the wars in Ukraine and Gaza will not stop or escalate, the migration crisis in Europe will not be solved or aggravated and the earth will not stop revolving around the sun because Hurwitz, say, praises Munch and trashes Norrington. And if one is personally upset by that, ignoring DH is as easy as ignoring the other side of the moon. And yet, many people seem to be compulsively in the need to attack and denigrate him at every opportunity; it's as if Hurwitz's statements and actions greatly impacted their lives in the most negative ways and made them bitterly resentful of him --- this is something which one can see not only here but on Talk Classical as well, where hatred of DH is even more palpable than here. This strikes me as utterly bizzare.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 21, 2023, 02:46:42 PMcritics are parasites, and I've yet to read a critic who has added a single thing to anything I've read or listened to - hence, why I don't pay them any mind. I have my own ears and my own eyes.
So do I, of course. But I have also a theory: that people who have devoted their whole life to a thorough and comprehensive study of music might --- just might, mind you --- be in a better position than me, a mere layman with no musical education, to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of a sonata or a symphony and elaborate at length upon them. That in the end I might still find that work attractive or uninteresting despite what critics say is irrelevant. The legitimacy and usefulness of musical, or literary or any other kind of criticism is beyond question for me. YMMV, of course.
Quote from: Florestan on October 22, 2023, 12:43:44 AMSo do I, of course. But I have also a theory: that people who have devoted their whole life to a thorough and comprehensive study of music might --- just might, mind you --- be in a better position than me, a mere layman with no musical education, to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of a sonata or a symphony and elaborate at length upon them. That in the end I might still find that work attractive or uninteresting despite what critics say is irrelevant. The legitimacy and usefulness of musical, or literary or any other kind of criticism is beyond question for me. YMMV, of course.
There's a great cartoon of someone demanding to fly a plane because they don't think the pilots have any greater ability than they do. As a commentary on the general trend to resent experts.
Of course, when it comes to one's own listening pleasure I agree with you that it's ultimately subjective and personal. But there are plenty of times with music, film etc that I've found reviewers very helpful in pointing out things, either before my own experience or reading again afterwards where they make explicit something that was at the back of my mind. Making those kinds of observations is a skill, and like any skill it can get honed with practice (as well as there being variation in natural ability).
I've said already that in my opinion, a heck of a lot of people couldn't write a good review, and that includes people on this forum who express their opinion on music they're listening to in ways that simply aren't very helpful. But it's fine because they're just posting on a forum. The problem is when that leads to the belief that professionals aren't doing anything different.
Quote from: Brian on October 21, 2023, 11:44:33 AMThis is an interesting philosophical point and based on my own experiences I mostly agree, part disagree. When I started out writing reviews of CDs, I leaned much more on comparison than later. Eventually experience (and perhaps age) provided a better ability to describe performers' intentions without resorting to constant comparison. Now that I have moved to food writing the same learning curve has taken place. These days my work has much less of statements like "this restaurant is good but that one is better," and more willingness to accept each place on its own terms.
Where I partly disagree but partly agree is on whether comparisons are "misleading." This depends on the language chosen...I am often surprised by what performances some GMGers consider to be more exciting or more passionate than others! But other things can be spoken of more clearly - faster, slower, technique issues, etc.
In Hurwitz' case he says that some of his collecting, for example multiple reissues of the same classic recording, is to write about remastering specifically which is a different kind of comparison. (One I am bad at!)
Philosophy deals with abstract concepts. It seems to me that it does not require contemplation to see clearly, our troubles and sorrows arise from the habit of comparison. As long as we compare, we feel lack, as long as we feel lack, we are doomed, freedom can be forgotten. As soon as we cease compare ourselves to others or compare objects in our knowing to other objects, we are content, we are fine, everything is as it is — i.e. perfect.
There is a story about the tea master of medieval Japan, Sen no Rikyū. A powerful warlord received news that beautiful flowers were blooming in the area where Rikyū's tea house was located, creating magnificent colourful fields. Warlord wished to visit the tea house and admire the flowers, while Rikyū treated him to tea. When he arrived at the site, he was stunned to see that all the flowers had been cut and removed. Shocked, the warlord entered the tea house and saw that there was a single flower in a simple, hand-carved bamboo vase. This flower was perfect. In its impermanence, it embodied the beauty of all flowers. It was beyond comparison.
Many moons ago there was a reality show in Romania in which they asked people in the streets all kind of questions related to culture. For instance, who wrote the Illiad. Of all those who obviously had no clue whatsoever, not a single one answered I don't know. All of them gave the most fantastic and absurd answers in full confidence, as if knowing exactly what they were talking about. ;D
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 22, 2023, 01:39:51 AMI don't think that anything will ever be posted here that I will disagree with more.
Feel free to disagree as much as you want.
I can't help noticing, though, that such a strong dismissal of secondary literature comes from someone who used tons of it in order to be able to make a career out of it.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 22, 2023, 01:37:41 AMPhilosophy deals with abstract concepts. It seems to me that it does not require contemplation to see clearly, our troubles and sorrows arise from the habit of comparison. As long as we compare, we feel lack, as long as we feel lack, we are doomed, freedom can be forgotten. As soon as we cease compare ourselves to others or compare objects in our knowing to other objects, we are content, we are fine, everything is as it is — i.e. perfect.
There is a story about the tea master of medieval Japan, Sen no Rikyū. A powerful warlord received news that beautiful flowers were blooming in the area where Rikyū's tea house was located, creating magnificent colourful fields. Warlord wished to visit the tea house and admire the flowers, while Rikyū treated him to tea. When he arrived at the site, he was stunned to see that all the flowers had been cut and removed. Shocked, the warlord entered the tea house and saw that there was a single flower in a simple, hand-carved bamboo vase. This flower was perfect. In its impermanence, it embodied the beauty of all flowers. It was beyond comparison.
I can't quite decide whether this is an argument against buying many recordings of the same music, or an argument in support of buying each recording entirely divorced from considerations of how it compares to other recordings already in one's possession.
To put it another way, whether that one flower was perfect did not really depend on whether all the other flowers were gone. If it was beyond comparison, there was no actual need to remove all of the potential comparators.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 22, 2023, 01:52:54 AMThat is why my dismissal is so strong. I come from the place they all come from, and I am utterly repulsed.
Then the next logical step would be to never ever contribute one single line, let alone a whole article or, perish the thought, a whole book to this repulsive stuff --- but if I'm not mistaken, your field is of a publish-or-perish nature, so that would entail a drastic change of career. Do you contemplate such a move?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 22, 2023, 01:37:41 AMour troubles and sorrows arise from the habit of comparison
There are lots of troubles and sorrows in the world which have got nothing to do with any comparison whatsoever. Parents losing their children, for instance, either from disease or from a Russian / Hamas / Israeli missile.
Quote from: Madiel on October 22, 2023, 01:59:50 AMI can't quite decide whether this is an argument against buying many recordings of the same music, or an argument in support of buying each recording entirely divorced from considerations of how it compares to other recordings already in one's possession.
To put it another way, whether that one flower was perfect did not really depend on whether all the other flowers were gone. If it was beyond comparison, there was no actual need to remove all of the potential comparators.
When there's no other, there's nothing to compare it to.
Yesterday and today I'm listening to WTC performed by Rübsam. Now Rübsam is one flower for me. I don't dance around and bang the tambourine of the mind in order to invoke the ghosts of Gould, Turek or any others for the purpose of comparison. Soon I'll be listening to WTC performed by Pienaar (he's in the queue) or some other. And each time it will be a single flower.
I don't see the connection to buying or not buying other versions. Besides, I haven't bought anything in a long time. Qobuz is perfectly adequate for my needs.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 22, 2023, 02:16:38 AMcitational justice
I am not at all familiar with this concept. Could you please elaborate?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 22, 2023, 02:20:47 AMWhen there's no other, there's nothing to compare it to.
Yesterday and today I'm listening to WTC performed by Rübsam. Now Rübsam is one flower for me. I don't dance around and bang the tambourine of the mind in order to invoke the ghosts of Gould, Turek or any others for the purpose of comparison. Soon I'll be listening to WTC performed by Pienaar (he's in the queue) or some other. And each time it will be a single flower.
I don't see the connection to buying or not buying other versions. Besides, I haven't bought anything in a long time. Qobuz is perfectly adequate for my needs.
Well, I typically buy one recording of a work and, having made my decision, pretty much forget about all the others. So I'm not that interested in you saying that you won't have the ghosts of Gould and Tureck around while you're listening to Rübsam. What's more interesting to me is your apparent belief that you won't have the ghosts of Rübsam in your head while you're listening to Pienaar. Despite you asserting that Rübsam is one flower for you, you've just told me you plan to look at another flower shortly afterwards. So no, you haven't cut all the other flowers down. There
is another. You've just told me so.
Quote from: Florestan on October 22, 2023, 02:19:31 AMThere are lots of troubles and sorrows in the world which have got nothing to do with any comparison whatsoever. Parents losing their children, for instance, either from disease or from a Russian / Hamas / Israeli missile.
It all comes down to a sense of lack. Putin attacked Ukraine because he lacked something, whatever it was. Hamas militants lack something. Etc. People don't know who they really are, so they attack each other, trying to find integrity with taking bites out of each other.
Quote from: Madiel on October 22, 2023, 02:26:15 AMWell, I typically buy one recording of a work and, having made my decision, pretty much forget about all the others. So I'm not that interested in you saying that you won't have the ghosts of Gould and Tureck around while you're listening to Rübsam. What's more interesting to me is your apparent belief that you won't have the ghosts of Rübsam in your head while you're listening to Pienaar. Despite you asserting that Rübsam is one flower for you, you've just told me you plan to look at another flower shortly afterwards. So no, you haven't cut all the other flowers down. There is another. You've just told me so.
Each time one flower. Now it is Rübsam, in the next now it will be Pienaar. Or Gould. When people listen to Rübsam and compare his version with someone's else, they do not listen properly, imo. That's why I call it misleading distraction.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 22, 2023, 02:28:18 AMIt all comes down to a sense of lack. Putin attacked Ukraine because he lacked something, whatever it was. Hamas militants lack something. Etc. People don't know who they really are, so they attack each other, trying to find integrity with taking bites out of each other.
You did not get my point. The sorrow of an Ukrainian mother lamenting her child killed in a Russian raid does not stem from her making any comparisons. It stems from, well, the death of her child. Look, you may deny as much and as forcefully as you wish that there is any objective reality outside of, and different from, one's mind --- this denial will not preclude the very same reality to hit you hard.
Quote from: Florestan on October 22, 2023, 02:34:08 AMYou did not get my point. The sorrow of an Ukrainian mother lamenting her child killed in a Russian raid does not stem from her making any comparisons. It stems from, well, the death of her child. Look, you may deny as much and as forcefully as you wish that there is any objective reality outside of, and different from, one's mind --- this denial will not preclude the very same reality to hit you hard.
It all comes down to a sense of lack. Why you think I am denying the things? They are, in my knowing.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 22, 2023, 02:33:05 AMEach time one flower. Now it is Rübsam, in the next now it will be Pienaar. Or Gould. When people listen to Rübsam and compare his version with someone's else, they do not listen properly, imo. That's why I call it misleading distraction.
Well it depends just what you mean by "compare". The fact is, there's a whole range of comparisons, from sitting there and nitpicking over each phrase all the way through to remembering that I liked this one and I didn't like that one.
The latter is obviously beneficial. It is not a misleading distraction to remember which experiences I enjoyed and will want to repeat, to the extent that any experience is repeatable. It's an efficiency that will increase how often my life is enjoyable.
This is also the point of reviews. I've known someone to see a movie and then complain about how bad it was, and I had no sympathy because if they'd bothered they'd have known that the great, great majority of people were saying it was a bad movie. A judgement that can only be made by remembering what a good movie looks like.
Quote from: Madiel on October 22, 2023, 02:39:14 AMWell it depends just what you mean by "compare". The fact is, there's a whole range of comparisons, from sitting there and nitpicking over each phrase all the way through to remembering that I liked this one and I didn't like that one.
The latter is obviously beneficial. It is not a misleading distraction to remember which experiences I enjoyed and will want to repeat, to the extent that any experience is repeatable. It's an efficiency that will increase how often my life is enjoyable.
This is also the point of reviews. I've known someone to see a movie and then complain about how bad it was, and I had no sympathy because if they'd bothered they'd have known that the great, great majority of people were saying it was a bad movie. A judgement that can only be made by remembering what a good movie looks like.
I've been making comparisons my whole life. Part of that was because I couldn't afford to buy all the interesting versions of WTC or any other piece, and so I had to decide which of all the versions was "the best". Now I don't have to choose anything, many dozens of different versions are available to me. When I listen to one of them, I savour that moment, and everything present.
There is something else. I listened to Rübsam's WTC a while back, and I just didn't ring the bell for me. Maybe I was comparing, maybe something else, I just can't remember. A couple of days ago, for some reason I can't remember now (not important) started listening to him again. And I couldn't stop. Amazing! It turns out I managed to avoid comparing Rübsam to Rübsam? ;)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 22, 2023, 02:50:46 AMThere is something else. I listened to Rübsam's WTC a while back, and I just didn't ring the bell for me. Maybe I was comparing, maybe something else, I just can't remember. A couple of days ago, for some reason I can't remember now (not important) started listening to him again. And I couldn't stop. Amazing! It turns out I managed to avoid comparing Rübsam to Rübsam? ;)
I already addressed this.
If there's one thing that really frustrates me about the internet, it's how often people show that they don't understand how probability works.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 22, 2023, 02:33:05 AMEach time one flower. Now it is Rübsam, in the next now it will be Pienaar. Or Gould.
I'm with you on this one. Listening to the same work in multiple versions entails comparison only if you intend to make comparisons. Otherwise, you just relax and hear the music in the here and now.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 22, 2023, 02:58:20 AMSadly, most of the days is payewalled, but if you want it, I can likely supply it.
This article does a fair job, but not the best: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/05/16/aspirational-metrics-a-guide-for-working-towards-citational-justice/
In short, as was obvious from the get, citations are not neutral or objective - they are political with no clear connection to knowledge or quality. In fact, citations tend to be incestuous and most citations aren't even read by the person citing them, amongst many other problems.
Citational justice aims to turn all of this upon its head mainly by being utterly transparent as to how their citations came to be, highlighting the intentional nature and selectivity of citations.
Thanks. I'll report back after reading.
Quote from: Florestan on October 22, 2023, 02:55:17 AMI'm with you on this one. Listening to the same work in multiple versions entails comparison only if you intend to make comparisons. Otherwise, you just relax and hear the music in the here and now.
Yes. Only, the mind compares almost automatically, by default. It's so conditioned. But, it's a solvable difficulty.
Once I was invited to do some blind listening comparisons of a work I know very well (allegedly). One blind version of quite a few offered I felt did not compare at all well with my very favourite version which I also know very well. Of course it turned out that the "poor comparison" was indeed my favourite version which I had not recognised. I still shudder with embarassment...........
Quote from: Roasted Swan on October 22, 2023, 03:35:28 AMOnce I was invited to do some blind listening comparisons of a work I know very well (allegedly). One blind version of quite a few offered I felt did not compare at all well with my very favourite version which I also know very well. Of course it turned out that the "poor comparison" was indeed my favourite version which I had not recognised. I still shudder with embarassment...........
You're not alone. IIRC, another prominent member (who has not been very active as of late) voted out his favorite recording of a work in a blind listening test here on GMG.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on October 22, 2023, 02:33:05 AMEach time one flower. Now it is Rübsam, in the next now it will be Pienaar. Or Gould. When people listen to Rübsam and compare his version with someone's else, they do not listen properly, imo. That's why I call it misleading distraction.
This implies a distinction between collectors and others, of course. I think most or all collectors would agree with you. (e.g. Todd keeping and relistening to his "4th tier" Beethoven.) But as a matter of pragmatism, you have to be prepared if someone says, "I heard Bach on the radio, I want to buy one CD set, I don't want 10, one is fine." Because to help them properly you will need to compare!
Quote from: SimonNZ on October 21, 2023, 08:51:18 PM(What has Placido Domingo done to put him in the same sentence as Boris Johnson?)
He's a "casting couch" guy, pressuring sopranos and mezzos for various favors and acts and promising to help their careers if they do. I think a few years ago he put out a statement vaguely apologizing for his past misjudgment, and at that time it came out that some opera companies had quietly banned him for his predatory lurking backstage.
Quote from: DavidW on October 21, 2023, 07:30:23 PMAnd some fun quotes from Hanslick:
Many thanks for those!
The musical encyclopedist
Nicolas Slonimsky put together
A Lexicon of Musical Invective in 1969. If you register for a "free account," you can read it here: he found some incredibly addled reviews!
It is available here:
https://archive.org/details/lexiconofmusical00nico/page/2/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/lexiconofmusical00nico/page/2/mode/2up)
I recall thumbing through it: many hilariously wrong-headed reviews which are simultaneously hard to believe and appalling.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on October 21, 2023, 08:28:37 PMI responded that the final Z in Boulez was correct just like the final Z in Berlioz,
I've been mispronouncing Boulez my entire adult life!
I get your point, no critic should be expected to exhaustively listen to all releases. It is too many. And Brian has a great point that reviews shouldn't be framed always by comparison.
Quote from: Florestan on October 22, 2023, 12:43:44 AMSo do I, of course. But I have also a theory: that people who have devoted their whole life to a thorough and comprehensive study of music might --- just might, mind you --- be in a better position than me, a mere layman with no musical education, to judge the merits, or lack thereof, of a sonata or a symphony and elaborate at length upon them. That in the end I might still find that work attractive or uninteresting despite what critics say is irrelevant. The legitimacy and usefulness of musical, or literary or any other kind of criticism is beyond question for me. YMMV, of course.
I don't think that it is a question of expertise. What a professional reviewer should bring to the table is an ability to articulate with clarity and insight the artistic merits of what they are reviewing and how it fits into the broader culture.
If you look at a book review in the Times or the New Yorker, whether you agree with the review or not you walk away with a better understanding of the work. If you look at an average Good Reads review all you get is a narrative of what they personally liked or disliked with no attempt at analysis or thought beyond their own nose.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on October 22, 2023, 03:35:28 AMOnce I was invited to do some blind listening comparisons of a work I know very well (allegedly). One blind version of quite a few offered I felt did not compare at all well with my very favourite version which I also know very well. Of course it turned out that the "poor comparison" was indeed my favourite version which I had not recognised. I still shudder with embarassment...........
I've never had the " blind listening " experience so l can't be 100% certain, but l honestly can't imagine that ever happening with a favorite recording.
It may be that l've always listened differently than most, with full focus on the recording to the exclusion of all else.
( My parents never had to wonder where l was, or what l was getting up to as an adolescent. If l wasn't at school or rehearsal, l was either reading by our fireplace or in my bedroom, memorizing my newly-purchased LP. )
I once identified a favorite recording from one note...
Quote from: DavidW on October 22, 2023, 06:54:27 AMI've been mispronouncing Boulez my entire adult life!
I get your point, no critic should be expected to exhaustively listen to all releases. It is too many. And Brian has a great point that reviews shouldn't be framed always by comparison.
I assure you I am correct on this. I've heard him interviewed numerous times. But don't feel bad; Hurwitz always mispronounces Lutosławski (that l with a slash is the Polish w sound; the name should sound like Lutoswavskee). However if I were to point that out I'd be deleted. And as for the other guy you pointed to, I like his manner but his German is even worse. He pronounces Böhm as Bame.
That Hurwicz, who publishes his perhaps idiosyncratic opinions about music on a web site and on YouTube, has garnered 50 pages of irate diatribes and has driven our members to excoriate each other baffles me. There may be high-level criticism which is true scholarship, but reviewing music recordings is, as far as I can see, entertainment. Not once in my life have a decided to purchase or not purchase a recording based on Hurwicz' review. A a result, after brief exposure and deciding that his tastes don't conform with mine, I have just ignored him. Is that so hard to achieve?
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on October 22, 2023, 02:58:20 AMThis article does a fair job, but not the best: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/05/16/aspirational-metrics-a-guide-for-working-towards-citational-justice/ (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2022/05/16/aspirational-metrics-a-guide-for-working-towards-citational-justice/)
After reading that article and the associated Maastricht University Citational Guidelines, I confess I'm quite puzzled. Here's why.
From your posts I inferred you were "repulsed" by criticism in general, denying the legitimacy and usefulness of secondary literature per se, irrespective of its authorship. It seems to me that your problem is with WHAT is written, not with WHO writes it.
From the materials you provided, I inferred something rather different. The proponents of "citational justice" do not deny the legitimacy and usefulness of criticism; they are not "repulsed" by secondary literature per se, but by what they perceive as an unfair predominance of a certain kind of criticism, namely that whose authors are male/white/heterosexual --- an imbalance which they seek to redress by promoting and prioritizing another kind of criticism, namely that whose authors are female/non-white/non-heterosexual. It seems to me that their problem is not with WHAT is written, but with WHO writes it.
And this gets me back to the confusion I mentioned initially. What is your position, actually? That ALL criticism is equally illegitimate and useless, no matter who writes it (so that, say, Eduard Said and Harold Bloom are both "repulsive")? Or that the legitimacy and usefulness of criticism is dependent on who writes it (so that Harold Bloom is "repulsive" while Eduard Said is not)?
Quote from: Spotted Horses on October 22, 2023, 07:10:49 AMThat Hurwicz, who publishes his perhaps idiosyncratic opinions about music on a web site and on YouTube, has garnered 50 pages of irate diatribes and has driven our members to excoriate each other baffles me.
I'm with you. The degree of rage and loathing which Mr. H stirs up is a mystery to me.
As far as I'm concerned, he's like every other critic: sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. That's about all.
Quote from: DavidW on October 22, 2023, 07:02:31 AMI don't think that it is a question of expertise. What a professional reviewer should bring to the table is an ability to articulate with clarity and insight the artistic merits of what they are reviewing and how it fits into the broader culture.
Agreed. Now, how can they do that if they have no expertise (a) in the respective art form specifically, (b) in the broader culture generally, and (c) in writing reviews?
QuoteIf you look at a book review in the Times or the New Yorker, whether you agree with the review or not you walk away with a better understanding of the work. If you look at an average Good Reads review all you get is a narrative of what they personally liked or disliked with no attempt at analysis or thought beyond their own nose.
Well, exactly. That is precisely the difference between expertise and amateurship.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 22, 2023, 07:57:43 AMAs far as I'm concerned, he's like every other critic: sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. That's about all.
This.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 22, 2023, 07:57:43 AMI'm with you. The degree of rage and loathing which Mr. H stirs up is a mystery to me.
As far as I'm concerned, he's like every other critic: sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. That's about all.
At least the most recent few pages of this thread have been more varied and interesting than usual. Many of them are simply people repeating "I like him" and "I don't like him" over and over again as if we are conducting an opinion poll.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 22, 2023, 07:57:43 AMI'm with you. The degree of rage and loathing which Mr. H stirs up is a mystery to me.
No kidding: he just ain't worf it.
Quote from: Florestan on October 22, 2023, 08:02:00 AMAgreed. Now, how can they do that if they have no expertise (a) in the respective art form specifically, (b) in the broader culture generally, and (c) in writing reviews?
Well no I mean you can have the required knowledge but not be a good communicator or even have anything insightful to say. I'm saying that it doesn't suffice to have that knowledge. I'm not saying that it isn't necessary (which is how you read my post).
Quote from: DavidW on October 22, 2023, 11:58:46 AMWell no I mean you can have the required knowledge but not be a good communicator or even have anything insightful to say.
I'd surmise, Hurwitz having done so many videos at this point, that even a Hurwitz fan would find that there are videos he's done which fail to justify their time span. It's bad enough when a
composer does that ....
Quote from: Madiel on October 22, 2023, 01:29:21 AMThere's a great cartoon of someone demanding to fly a plane because they don't think the pilots have any greater ability than they do. As a commentary on the general trend to resent experts.
This one?:
(https://i.redd.it/8q0mkqu80j471.jpg)
Yep.
The interesting discussion on buying vs. streaming has been moved to a new topic (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,32657.0.html).
I like his "industry" commentary best but can only be thankful that we have his contributions. He seems to be having a ball doing it. There are certainly no shortage of classical music cranks but who wants to watch
them? And is there a serious YouTube alternative?
"What I
can tell you is the way NOT to increase the market for classical music is to diminish the value of what you are trying to sell to point where you can't even give it away anymore." ;D
yulp.
Quote from: ando on December 01, 2023, 09:45:49 AMI like his "industry" commentary best but can only be thankful that we have his contributions. He seems to be having a ball doing it. There are certainly no shortage of classical music cranks but who wants to watch them? And is there a serious YouTube alternative?
"What I can tell you is the way NOT to increase the market for classical music is to diminish the value of what you are trying to sell to point where you can't even give it away anymore." ;D
yulp.
I remember a story which a friend shared with me. As I recall, she was a *lawyer-in-training at the time working at a law firm (*so to speak). She told me that she had to save up a week's salary in order to buy a Wagner opera at the time.
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on December 01, 2023, 11:29:31 AMI remember a story which a friend shared with me. As I recall, she was a *lawyer-in-training at the time working at a law firm (*so to speak). She told me that she had to save up a week's salary in order to buy a Wagner opera at the time.
PD
I wager your friend enjoyed the music all the more then if she merely pressed a button and heard the opera at little cost.
I haven't changed my mind from the comment I made when this all began. He's brilliant, when he agrees with me.
DH made a video about CPE Bach's Symphonies Wq. 182 on Glossa. I listened to it on Spotify and yes, it is good. Compared to the Naxos I have the sound is darker (less mid-range).
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on December 01, 2023, 11:29:31 AMI remember a story which a friend shared with me. As I recall, she was a *lawyer-in-training at the time working at a law firm (*so to speak). She told me that she had to save up a week's salary in order to buy a Wagner opera at the time.
PD
As people probably know we have conscription in Finland for obvious reasons. Thanks to it Finland can put up more troops than France and Germany combined! I did my military service about 30 years ago. We were paid small daily allowance. Since I didn't smoke, I didn't need to buy cigarettes like many others did and I saved the daily allowances. Every month I was able to save about 180 mk (30 euros) which was enough to buy one normal priced CD album (120 mk) and one CD single (50 mk). I did spend the money on CDs when I was on vacation (weekend breaks) from the army. This was a few years before I discovered classical music. The music I bought was electronic dance music, releases such as
Autechre's
Anti EP and
The Prodigy's
Music for the Jilted Generation.
Quote from: ando on December 01, 2023, 09:45:49 AM"What I can tell you is the way NOT to increase the market for classical music is to diminish the value of what you are trying to sell to point where you can't even give it away anymore." ;D
I hadn't listened to any of those videos before but that was great. I feel so sorry for all those poor owners of
The Non-Essential Toscanini :'( .
When Hurwitz first started coming up a couple of years ago, I couldn't imagine who'd listen to him. However, I've recently become a fan. I like his enthusiasm, and he is making me want to play certain music that I wouldn't otherwise have. That's the main reason I come to this site, too. I've only watched a couple hours of his stuff, and I fast-forward a lot. But scrolling for the "good stuff" is what I do at GMG, too, so maybe not so different. However, while browsing this site, I can listen to music, which I can't with with DH. That's unfortunate.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 04, 2023, 05:25:47 AMHowever, while browsing this site, I can listen to music, which I can't with with DH. That's unfortunate.
You can always subscribe to Classics Today and read his reviews!
I had forgotten about this interview with Hurwitz about his own development. Good one.
By now I've seen enough of Hurwitz to have developed a guarded respect for him. He is certainly passionate about music, and is fairly consistent in explaining the reasons for his positive or negative responses to various recordings.
It seems to me that his one big weakness is a tendency to make blanket statements about this or that composer, which are not always accurate. ( l imagine everyone here has probably done this or something similar at some point, but l think it safe to say that none of us here are making videos critiquing various recordings, or presenting ourselves on YouTube as reference authorities in the field. )
When he's right, he's quite the valuable resource. But one should have alternate sources of critical expertise available for the times when he is wrong.
Quote from: LKB on December 10, 2023, 08:14:40 AMIt seems to me that his one big weakness is a tendency to make blanket statements about this or that composer, which are not always accurate. ( l imagine everyone here has probably done this or something similar at some point, but l think it safe to say that none of us here are making videos critiquing various recordings, or presenting ourselves on YouTube as reference authorities in the field. )
Exactly. It's a weakness which pairs abysmally well with the blowhard's "This is my opinion, and it's important because it's
mine."
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 10, 2023, 08:31:49 AMExactly. It's a weakness which pairs abysmally well with the blowhard's "This is my opinion, and it's important because it's mine."
But don't we all feel that way? We would be jerks to blurt them out too much here, but he's on his own website. If he was a lecturing educator, it would be innappropriate, but he, positions himself as an un-filtered, old-school, keeper-of-the-faith who spontaneously blurts out his opinions. He's a weird combination of jester and old-testament prophet on a jeremiad. And for all that, he's not rigidly close-minded towards what he dislikes. He will often modify or even change his positions.
The main reason he says that his opinions are his is to stop people arguing with him in the comments in fruitless ways. Yes, it's his list, his opinion.
It's not a message board.
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 10, 2023, 08:31:49 AMExactly. It's a weakness which pairs abysmally well with the blowhard's "This is my opinion, and it's important because it's mine."
I don't think DH actually claims his opinions are
important to anyone else than himself. He is talented in expressing his opinions and he does it in a loud, colourful and extroverted manner, which is entertaining or annoying depending on the personality of the listener. He actually knows what he is talking about most of the time. Sometimes I disagree with him*, but that doesn't mean HE is wrong. I don't know that much (remember, I am the idiot who thinks Dittersdorf's music is any good!) and sometimes my taste just is different. I think DH believes his opinions can be educational and helpful to those who don't know everything. Some of the stuff he says is clearly to be taken ironically or as joking. He talks openly about having been wrong about something in the past. He is clearly ready to change his mind.
I believe you like/appreciate DH more than you are willing to admit to yourself Karl. If you genuinely thought what you say, you wouldn't be writing on this thread as much as you do, would you? You are processing your internal struggles and trying to get your feelings straight. That's okay. We all have internal struggles. I have done it countless of times myself for sure. ;)
* I disagreed with him about Taneyev. He doesn't care about Taneyev while I do. I commented to his video on Youtube:
"Does music need to scream the name of its creator? I think the only downside of not having a distinctive own style is that the music is easily overlooked/ignored as in the case of Taneyev." He replied:
"In short, yes. Music does need to scream the need of its creator. That's why no one especially cares about Taneyev. A pity, but it's true. A distinctive voice is one of the hallmarks of greatness."
Quote from: 71 dB on December 11, 2023, 01:50:12 AMI disagreed with him about Taneyev. He doesn't care about Taneyev while I do. I commented to his video on Youtube:
"Does music need to scream the name of its creator? I think the only downside of not having a distinctive own style is that the music is easily overlooked/ignored as in the case of Taneyev."
He replied:
"In short, yes. Music does need to scream the need of its creator. That's why no one especially cares about Taneyev. A pity, but it's true. A distinctive voice is one of the hallmarks of greatness."
He uses sophistry here. First, he says "music" without any qualifications. Then he moves the goalpost to "greatness". And he's being hypocritical in the process with that "A pity". Besides, in short, no, it's not true. There are professional musicians out there who care enough about Taneyev to record his complete chamber music, his complete symphonies and his complete songs.
Imo, it's not that much in his videos, but in his replies to the comments people make on them, that Hurwitz more often than not comes out as an insufferable prick.
Btw, count me as an idiot too, I like Dittersdorf's music as well. :D
Quote from: Florestan on December 11, 2023, 02:57:08 AMHe uses sophistry here. First, he says "music" without any qualifications. Then he moves the goalpost to "greatness". And he's being hypocritical in the process with that "A pity". Besides, in short, no, it's not true. There are professional musicians out there who care enough about Taneyev to record his complete chamber music, his complete symphonies and his complete songs.
You don't need to tell me he is wrong here.
Quote from: Florestan on December 11, 2023, 02:57:08 AMImo, it's not that much in his videos, but in his replies to the comments people make on them, that Hurwitz more often than not comes out as an insufferable prick.
Maybe it is a good idea to not comment on his videos and just watch them then?
Quote from: Florestan on December 11, 2023, 02:57:08 AMBtw, count me as an idiot too, I like Dittersdorf's music as well. :D
Cool, very cool! :D
Quote from: 71 dB on December 11, 2023, 03:04:53 AMMaybe it is a good idea to not comment on his videos and just watch them then?
Indeed. Once you know that he invariably scoffs at any comment which disagrees with him, why commenting again?
I'm beginning to think that we should have two Hurwitz threads. The constant debate sours the thread for those that just want to talk about his latest content.
Quote from: DavidW on December 11, 2023, 04:54:26 AMI'm beginning to think that we should have two Hurwitz threads. The constant debate sours the thread for those that just want to talk about his latest content.
You, sir, deserve a blue ribbon for unadulterated optimism ;D
Quote from: DavidW on December 11, 2023, 04:54:26 AMI'm beginning to think that we should have two Hurwitz threads. The constant debate sours the thread for those that just want to talk about his latest content.
The thread was not set up to discuss content. It was set up to be nasty about Hurwitz. It's no surprise people have followed through on that.
Quote from: Florestan on December 11, 2023, 03:40:52 AMIndeed. Once you know that he invariably scoffs at any comment which disagrees with him, why commenting again?
One of the things which make him so admirable.
😎
Quote from: Madiel on December 11, 2023, 05:14:28 AMThe thread was not set up to discuss content. It was set up to be nasty about Hurwitz. It's no surprise people have followed through on that.
Yes you're right. The new thread should be about Hurwitz content and the original can carry on with the nastiness!
Quote from: DavidW on December 11, 2023, 06:38:18 AMThe new thread should be about Hurwitz content and the original can carry on with the nastiness!
The dichotomy I suggested above goes exactly in this direction. I don't share at all the unqualified, nasty dismissal of his videos but neither do I fail to notice that he shows his own nastiness in the way he treats dissenting opinions.
Quote from: Florestan on December 11, 2023, 08:02:45 AMThe dichotomy I suggested above goes exactly in this direction. I don't share at all the unqualified, nasty dismissal of his videos but neither do I fail to notice that he shows his own nastiness in the way he treats dissenting opinions.
And perhaps we now see a suggestion that there should be no dissent in this thread. Call this half- or one-third-kidding.
Dude's uploaded like 8 videos in the last 36 hours. Doesn't he know you can save 'em all up, schedule 1 a day, and take a nice long vacation?? ;D
Quote from: Brian on December 11, 2023, 10:05:35 AMDude's uploaded like 8 videos in the last 36 hours. Doesn't he know you can save 'em all up, schedule 1 a day, and take a nice long vacation?? ;D
Is he doing ones like favorite CDs released in 2023?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on December 11, 2023, 10:10:58 AMIs he doing ones like favorite CDs released in 2023?
PD
I think he saves that for right around Christmas/New Year's.
The last two days...
Review - new Dvorak piano trios set
Review - DG Kubelik big box
Random Reviews of Richard Strauss
Rant about Vanska's second Sibelius cycle
Bach's Most Embarrassing Work
Haydn Symphony Crusade, No. 52
Quote from: Brian on December 11, 2023, 10:05:35 AMDude's uploaded like 8 videos in the last 36 hours. Doesn't he know you can save 'em all up, schedule 1 a day, and take a nice long vacation?? ;D
Alot of youtubers do that so they can take Christmas off!
Quote from: DavidW on December 11, 2023, 10:55:57 AMAlot of youtubers do that so they can Christmas off!
This is officially the first I've seen
Christmas verbed! Just noting, not criticizing.
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 11, 2023, 11:04:32 AMThis is officially the first I've seen Christmas verbed! Just noting, not criticizing.
Unrelated, but I recently got an email saying "What is your address? We have a gifting for you" and it made me want to scream. We're not giving gifts anymore...we're gifting giftings.
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 11, 2023, 11:04:32 AMThis is officially the first I've seen Christmas verbed! Just noting, not criticizing.
oops take Christmas off! I better revise that post before it ends up on Cato's thread! :o
Quote from: DavidW on December 11, 2023, 11:30:24 AMoops take Christmas off! I better revise that post before it ends up on Cato's thread! :o
(* chortle *)
Quote from: Brian on December 11, 2023, 10:12:46 AMI think he saves that for right around Christmas/New Year's.
The last two days...
Review - new Dvorak piano trios set
Review - DG Kubelik big box
Random Reviews of Richard Strauss
Rant about Vanska's second Sibelius cycle
Bach's Most Embarrassing Work
Haydn Symphony Crusade, No. 52
Oh, my! That's quite a lot! I'll have to check out the Kubelik big box set review. :)
PD
p.s. Bach's most embarrassing work...hmm. I'll have to ponder that one. ;)
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 11, 2023, 08:11:36 AMAnd perhaps we now see a suggestion that there should be no dissent in this thread. Call this half- or one-third-kidding.
The dissent consists of finding Hurwitz' videos useful. I started dissenting a long time ago.
Quote from: Brian on December 11, 2023, 11:17:10 AMUnrelated, but I recently got an email saying "What is your address? We have a gifting for you" and it made me want to scream. We're not giving gifts anymore...we're gifting giftings.
My favorite Britishism that has stuck with me is saying "we'll be holidaying in ___."
Quote from: Brian on December 11, 2023, 10:12:46 AMBach's Most Embarrassing Work
Haven't seen this yet but if it is the Coffee Cantata I will be sad.
Quote from: Atriod on December 11, 2023, 06:08:34 PMHaven't seen this yet but if it is the Coffee Cantata I will be sad.
Your tissues are safe.
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 11, 2023, 11:04:32 AMThis is officially the first I've seen Christmas verbed! Just noting, not criticizing.
To Christmas is human, to Santa Claus is divine.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on December 11, 2023, 12:02:17 PMOh, my! That's quite a lot! I'll have to check out the Kubelik big box set review. :)
PD
p.s. Bach's most embarrassing work...hmm. I'll have to ponder that one. ;)
Views = money.
Quote from: Atriod on December 11, 2023, 06:08:34 PMHaven't seen this yet but if it is the Coffee Cantata I will be sad.
Hurwitz actually likes Bach, he wouldn't do that even for views. Out of curiosity I watched the video, and it was a work that I personally dislike enough that I forgot that Bach even wrote it! I don't think it is bad, but it is certainly is his weakest. And no it is not something slightly esoteric like the Anna Magdalena notebooks or the reconstructed St. Mark Passion.
Now, he also did a Mahler one and I could not imagine myself being agreeable on that one. Mahler didn't write many works, and I don't know of a single dud including his early piano quartet.
Quote from: DavidW on December 11, 2023, 06:38:18 AMYes you're right. The new thread should be about Hurwitz content and the original can carry on with the nastiness!
It is impossible to separate the critic from the personality.
Quote from: Atriod on December 11, 2023, 06:08:34 PMHaven't seen this yet but if it is the Coffee Cantata I will be sad.
It was BWV1065. Hurwitz just thinks making four harpsichords play simultanuously sounds like two skeletons copulating on tin roof. :D
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2023, 05:02:05 PMIt was BWV1065. Hurwitz just thinks making four harpsichords play simultanuously sounds like two skeletons copulating on tin roof. :D
Not four skeletons?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 12, 2023, 05:11:20 PMNot four skeletons?
Four harpsichords would actually make for eight skeletons. Ask Thomas Beecham. :D
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2023, 05:02:05 PMHurwitz just thinks making four harpsichords play simultanuously sounds like two skeletons copulating on tin roof. :D
That can't be right as then two harpsichords would sound like one skeleton copulating on a tin roof. Two skeletons per harpsichord as
@Florestan said seems more sensible ;) .
The Mahler embarrassing work involves a sleight of hand. I have mixed feelings about the Sibelius choice. The Dvorak choice... well I don't remember it enough to have an opinion, which could be a clue in itself...
Well, the analysis of the mechanics of bony intercourse might just be one of the best things to emerge from this thread.
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 12:13:16 AMWell, the analysis of the mechanics of bony intercourse might just be one of the best things to emerge from this thread.
It is very humerus indeed... :P
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 12, 2023, 05:11:20 PMNot four skeletons?
Don't ask me. Ask Hurwitz. I don't have harpsichord allergy. I don't think about skeletons when I listen to J.S.Bach.
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 12:13:16 AMWell, the analysis of the mechanics of bony intercourse might just be one of the best things to emerge from this thread.
The harpsichord accompanying half a skeleton was received by the applause of a single hand ;D .
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2023, 05:02:05 PMIt was BWV1065. Hurwitz just thinks making four harpsichords play simultanuously sounds like two skeletons copulating on tin roof. :D
Actually, that made me laugh. I'm glad I just heard the punchline and didn't have to listen to a whole "Hello Friends!....yada yada" to get there.
Actually, Dave just did me a solid. I saw his rave review of Abbado's LSO box. It was odd, because he's generally rather dismissive of Abaddo.
I like Abaddo, and bought his DG symphonies box right when it came out. Everything is beautifully played, and yet I have to admit I never got very excited about it, and it's been collecting dust for several years.
Curious after hearing DH rave about the LSO box, I tracked down a digital copy. And he's right. It's marvellous. I'me only about 5 disks in, but they really are corkers.
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 12:13:16 AMWell, the analysis of the mechanics of bony intercourse might just be one of the best things to emerge from this thread.
Eight harpsichords would be required indeed, plus a large tin roof and a thunderstorm.
One place I completely disagreed with Hurwitz was his dismissal of Marriner, and especially of Marriner's Haydn. I love the (relatively) new box. I just saw though, that he has completely flip-flopped, and enthusiastically endorses the Marriner Haydn box. (This happened a year ago. I'm behind the times; this is all new to me.) He talks about "the time is right to re-evaluate Marriner's Haydn" rather than "I was completely wrong."
Still, he got there in the end.
Quote from: Papy Oli on December 13, 2023, 12:24:32 AMIt is very humerus indeed... :P
Now, hear the Word of the Lord...
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 13, 2023, 04:10:40 AMOne place I completely disagreed with Hurwitz was his dismissal of Marriner, and especially of Marriner's Haydn. I love the (relatively) new box. I just saw though, that he has completely flip-flopped, and enthusiastically endorses the Marriner Haydn box. (This happened a year ago. I'm behind the times; this is all new to me.) He talks about "the time is right to re-evaluate Marriner's Haydn" rather than "I was completely wrong."
Still, he got there in the end.
Good old passive voice. Not "I might have been wrong..." but "mistakes were made..." ;D
Saying he was wrong wouldn't be correct anyway. We're talking about opinions. He would say he's changed his mind (and he has indeed said that occasionally).
All of this is with the caveat that I'd like to see where he originally dismissed Marriner's Haydn. Given the past history of incorrect assertions about past Hurwitz reviews.
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 05:31:39 AMGiven the past history of incorrect assertions about past Hurwitz reviews.
Mistakes were made characterizing Hurwitz' treatment of Herreweghe. ;)
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 05:31:39 AMSaying he was wrong wouldn't be correct anyway. We're talking about opinions. He would say he's changed his mind (and he has indeed said that occasionally).
All of this is with the caveat that I'd like to see where he originally dismissed Marriner's Haydn. Given the past history of incorrect assertions about past Hurwitz reviews.
See his review of St. Martins in the Fields box, at 11:14. "I personally find Marriner's Haydn to be dull and flat footed."
Quote from: 71 dB on December 12, 2023, 05:02:05 PMIt was BWV1065. Hurwitz just thinks making four harpsichords play simultanuously sounds like two skeletons copulating on tin roof. :D
Not especially embarrassing for
Bach. For Hurwitz, though....
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 13, 2023, 05:50:04 AMNot especially embarrassing for Bach. For Hurwitz, though....
I've already seen multiple people agreeing that that's a Bach piece they don't like.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 13, 2023, 05:45:48 AMSee his review of St. Martins in the Fields box, at 11:14. "I personally find Marriner's Haydn to be dull and flat footed."
Specifically the symphonies. Very specifically. After saying enthusiastic things about other Haydn discs in the box. Maybe if you listened for a minute before and 30 seconds after...
But yes, with that caveat, he was saying different things a couple of years later.
But he wasn't saying them in passive voice. You've lifted one sentence from right near the end of the later video which is not representative of the rest of the video.
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 05:59:34 AMSpecifically the symphonies. Very specifically. After saying enthusiastic things about other Haydn discs in the box. Maybe if you listened for a minute before and 30 seconds after...
Well, the Marriner Haydn box I was referring to, which Hurwitz says himself he has changed his mind about and now considers good, is all symphonies. To my knowledge, Marriner hasn't made boxes of his string quartets, piano sonatas, etc., although I could be wrong. Hurwitz really likes the St. Martins in the Fields box, in general. The only thing I specifically recall him disparaging were Marriner's Haydn symphonies.
I went back and listened to "30 seconds after". He adds that the Marriner's versions "lack character and personality" although "well played", which doesn't sound like praise to me. He then does suggest Michael Haydn's horn concertos, etc. are interesting, but that's a different composer.
It is perfectly fine for Hurwitz or anyone else to change their minds. This comment on Marriner's Haydn on CT.com is entirely reasonable, and makes me want to buy the discs (especially if they're on the level of Marriner's superb "Magic Flute"):
QuoteHearing these vibrant, shapely performances after a pause of a few decades, and a whole intervening slew of scruffy, scrappy, diminutive period instrument performances, came as something of revelation. They sound so much grander, richer, bolder, and musically satisfying than I remember them being.
What is not so fine is to pose as the "Ultimate Classical Music Guide" and then trash the entire output of a composer like Pierre Boulez in a 30-second hatchet job: "It's all garbage."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3VDGnxq8sk
And especially not fine when one turns to ClassicsToday.com and we see the same David Hurwitz giving 9/9 to the recording of Boulez's "Sur Incises," or writing (and not acknowledging in the above talk):
QuoteI have to confess that there are works by Boulez that I have enjoyed from time to time: Rituel, for example, and some of the Structures, and perhaps Répons, I had my Le Marteau sans maître period, which lasted a few minutes longer than the work itself, but the music has not held up well on repetition and now sounds terribly dated. It's the kind of stuff that may deserve mention now and again in music history textbooks as an artistic dead end that for some reason got lots of attention in its day, sort of like the operas of Spontini.
Here he crosses the line from legitimate re-consideration of an opinion to intellectual dishonesty.
(And btw, if you don't know any of Spontini, I encourage you to hear the exciting "Agnes von Hohenstaufen," which desperately needs a great modern recording.)
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 05:55:31 AMI've already seen multiple people agreeing that that's a Bach piece they don't like.
We both observe a distinction between
it's unpopular and
it's embarrassing, I'm sure.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 13, 2023, 06:19:44 AMIt is perfectly fine for Hurwitz or anyone else to change their minds. This comment on Marriner's Haydn on CT.com is entirely reasonable, and makes me want to buy the discs (especially if they're on the level of Marriner's superb "Magic Flute"):
What is not so fine is to pose as the "Ultimate Classical Music Guide" and then trash the entire output of a composer like Pierre Boulez in a 30-second hatchet job: "It's all garbage."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3VDGnxq8sk
And especially not fine when one turns to ClassicsToday.com and we see the same David Hurwitz giving 9/9 to the recording of Boulez's "Sur Incises," or writing (and not acknowledging in the above talk):
Here he crosses the line from legitimate re-consideration of an opinion to intellectual dishonesty.
(And btw, if you don't know any of Spontini, I encourage you to hear the exciting "Agnes von Hohenstaufen," which desperately needs a great modern recording.)
Explain what's intellectually dishonest about saying that on repeated listening it doesn't hold up. I don't see how that's inconsistent with giving a high score at one point. Unless I have the order of events wrong.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 13, 2023, 06:15:04 AMWell, the Marriner Haydn box I was referring to, which Hurwitz says himself he has changed his mind about and now considers good, is all symphonies. To my knowledge, Marriner hasn't made boxes of his string quartets, piano sonatas, etc., although I could be wrong. Hurwitz really likes the St. Martins in the Fields box, in general. The only thing I specifically recall him disparaging were Marriner's Haydn symphonies.
I went back and listened to "30 seconds after". He adds that the Marriner's versions "lack character and personality" although "well played", which doesn't sound like praise to me. He then does suggest Michael Haydn's horn concertos, etc. are interesting, but that's a different composer.
Right. Now listen a minute before.
It's a minor point, but it's genuinely frustrating how often this thread has involved sweeping generalisations about Hurwitz' opinions, often accusing HIM of having made a sweeping generalisation that he did not in fact make. And yes, that's a general statement on my part. But when the primary material is right there for everyone to look at, I wish people would demonstrate that they actually looked at it.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 13, 2023, 06:19:44 AMIt is perfectly fine for Hurwitz or anyone else to change their minds. This comment on Marriner's Haydn on CT.com is entirely reasonable, and makes me want to buy the discs (especially if they're on the level of Marriner's superb "Magic Flute"):
I will second his thoughts - they're elegant, stylish, comfortable, witty where appropriate, and free of the various mannerisms that annoy me in many Haydn recordings (too much harpsichord, dull or frantic minuets, dust-dry slow movements, etc.). The lovely paintings on each CD sleeve are a bonus. One small problem with my set was that the recording of 6/7/8 has a low-level mechanical humming noise throughout. It's OK if you keep the volume low or are in a listening environment with ambient noise, but when you want to focus on the music, it is frankly a dealbreaker.
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 13, 2023, 06:21:20 AMWe both observe a distinction between it's unpopular and it's embarrassing, I'm sure.
The series of videos is not precisely named, I agree.
Fits in perfectly around here.
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 06:23:35 AMExplain what's intellectually dishonest about saying that on repeated listening it doesn't hold up.
The intellectual dishonesty is to say "it's all garbage" in the 30-second video without acknowledging the more nuanced opinion given in the online reviews.
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 06:30:38 AMhe series of videos is not precisely named, I agree.
So, an unforced error on Hurwitz's part, agreed.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 13, 2023, 06:33:57 AMThe intellectual dishonesty is to say "it's all garbage" in the 30-second video without acknowledging the more nuanced opinion given in the online reviews.
The positive review you refer to was written in 2000. The change to saying Boulez is crap is later than that. To me, intellectual dishonesty would be removing the evidence that in the distant past he didn't think Boulez was crap (isn't THAT the acknowledgment you want?), but there are plenty of reviews on the site taking his subsequent view that Boulez is crap. It doesn't represent contemporary nuance, it represents a different opinion in the distant past.
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 13, 2023, 06:35:33 AMSo, an unforced error on Hurwitz's part, agreed.
Like your edited quote of my post.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 13, 2023, 06:19:44 AMif you don't know any of Spontini, I encourage you to hear the exciting "Agnes von Hohenstaufen," which desperately needs a great modern recording.)
Actually, far from being dead ends Spontini's operas influenced Meyerbeer, Berlioz and Wagner.
This thread truly never changes... People who've decided "Dave good" or "Dave bad" repeat their positions as if they will ever convince each other (or as if we forgot where everyone stands)... At least this time I learned about Spontini and got some possible tips on where to start listening to Boulez?
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 06:40:37 AMThe positive review you refer to was written in 2000. The change to saying Boulez is crap is later than that. To me, intellectual dishonesty would be removing the evidence that in the distant past he didn't think Boulez was crap (isn't THAT the acknowledgment you want?), but there are plenty of reviews on the site taking his subsequent view that Boulez is crap. It doesn't represent contemporary nuance, it represents a different opinion in the distant past.
The review includes a clip from 2000, but the Complete Works set was not released until 2013. A nuanced online review from Hurwitz could have stated that his opinion has evolved, albeit in a negative direction. Of course I could make reference in the comments to Hurwitz's prior opinions, but what's the chance any such comment wouldn't be deleted?
I will grant that in the talk on "Three Composers We Could Live Without," Hurwitz admits to enjoying Rituel - a piece I always refer to as "Boulez for People who Don't Like Boulez." Good for you, Dave. But the gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
(The argument that Boulez's work now sounds "terribly dated" is not very strong either. Do we listen to music with an ear towards when it was written, or whether it is good music or not? The later works of Bach were doubtless "terribly dated" in the 1740s.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 13, 2023, 06:33:57 AMThe intellectual dishonesty is to say "it's all garbage" in the 30-second video without acknowledging the more nuanced opinion given in the online reviews.
Hurwitz wouldn't know nuance if it handed him a mic on the stage.
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 07:09:24 AMThis thread truly never changes... People who've decided "Dave good" or "Dave bad" repeat their positions as if they will ever convince each other (or as if we forgot where everyone stands)... At least this time I learned about Spontini and got some possible tips on where to start listening to Boulez?
Ahem. I have quite clearly stated things about Hurwitz' videos that I don't like.
But thank you for continuing the spirit of sweeping basic generalisation that this thread is so committed to.
I'll be unsubscribing next time I'm on a computer rather than phone. I've honestly had enough.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 13, 2023, 07:12:26 AMRituel - a piece I always refer to as "Boulez for People who Don't Like Boulez."
This is one of the twelve best things I've read on this thread.
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 07:09:24 AMThis thread truly never changes... People who've decided "Dave good" or "Dave bad" repeat their positions as if they will ever convince each other (or as if we forgot where everyone stands)... At least this time I learned about Spontini and got some possible tips on where to start listening to Boulez?
I would never say "Dave good" or "Dave bad" as an absolute opinion. When he is on point, he can be extremely insightful. The talk from two weeks ago on "Music Chat: Two Kinds of 'Authenticity'--Which Is More Valid?," for example, was superb, and makes highly convincing points about the shortcomings of the HIP movement. I remember also an excellent talk on the Bruckner 6th Symphony. And numerous others. On the other hand, the talk on "How and why Development Sections Work" seemed to me inadequate, talking about happy themes and sad themes and saying nothing (for instance) about the important matters of tonality within the development section or the re-transition back to the recapitulation.
And his record reviews are often on point too. I just got the 2CD set of French Symphonic Poems, which he raved about and I would agree.
My main problem with Hurwitz, as always, has been his defensiveness towards dissenting opinions. You can't really have a discussion with him, since you never know if he'll get snippy or just delete your comment. I've had both happen to me, and as a result I won't participate on his site any longer.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on December 13, 2023, 07:17:22 AMFor Boulez, I usually suggest this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OFOfOhJU7YA&pp=ygUVQm91bGV6IHBpYW5vIHNvbmF0YSAz, and I suggest it because I find it fascinating to watch someone work through the piece (his 3rd Piano Sonata).
Very nice. I forget which piano sonata it was, but I was tactically surprised by how well I liked it.
Quote from: Florestan on December 13, 2023, 06:46:43 AMActually, far from being dead ends Spontini's operas influenced Meyerbeer, Berlioz and Wagner.
It's almost as if the reviewer made his workday easier by uncritically adopting a vulgar prejudice. We're all ignorant of swaths of the literature, but few of us wear that ignorance as a kind of badge.
Quote from: Florestan on December 13, 2023, 06:46:43 AMActually, far from being dead ends Spontini's operas influenced Meyerbeer, Berlioz and Wagner.
I've listened to classical music for close to thirty years. It is frankly humbling to discover a composer of some significance that I never heard of. Maybe it is time to dust off some books on classical music!
Sorry, yes, my division into good/bad camps erased a good bit of nuance and more intelligent/studious consideration of the man and his work. That was a mistake. Perhaps a more fair way of phrasing it is that this thread sees a lot of talking points restated and repeated.
I will check out that "authenticity" video! I like it much more when he takes a few hours to think about things to say, vs. "random reviews" of CDs pulled off his shelf. In fact, what I like is when his videos evince the kind of planning and articulation required of a piece of writing.
Here is where I will hypocritically revisit one of my own talking points...I do wish the guy got back to writing. He has obviously decided this is easier or more fun. His last new printed review at CT appears to be this album released in 2021 (https://www.classicstoday.com/review/dvoraks-adventurous-fourth-quartet-gets-solo-billing/). I let my subscription lapse because the premium content was mostly reissue boxes and previously free reviews being reposted behind the paywall.
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 08:02:07 AMHere is where I will hypocritically revisit one of my own talking points...I do wish the guy got back to writing. He has obviously decided this is easier or more fun.
It is more challenging but worthwhile to write a review. Really focus your thoughts and think hard about what you are trying to articulate as you revise and revise... another thing to turn on a camera blather on for an hour and then edit out the bad parts. But that other thing probably has more ad revenue behind it and receives more attention.
Quote from: DavidW on December 13, 2023, 08:05:58 AMIt is more challenging but worthwhile to write a review. Really focus your thoughts and think hard about what you are trying to articulate as you revise and revise... another thing to turn on a camera blather on for an hour and then edit out the bad parts. But that other thing probably has more ad revenue behind it and receives more attention.
You're hitting me where it hurts ;D writing long considered studied reviews of restaurants is my day job...but the reviews that go viral are TikTok video producers who make 60 second clips inside the restaurant where they say something like "this chicken is amaaaaazing" and that's it...maybe I'm in the wrong business too :( :(
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 07:16:53 AMAhem. I have quite clearly stated things about Hurwitz' videos that I don't like.
But thank you for continuing the spirit of sweeping basic generalisation that this thread is so committed to.
I'll be unsubscribing next time I'm on a computer rather than phone. I've honestly had enough.
Please don't. I've appreciated your contributions on this forum...and I'm sure that I'm not alone here.
All the best,
PD
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 08:08:52 AMYou're hitting me where it hurts ;D writing long considered studied reviews of restaurants is my day job...but the reviews that go viral are TikTok video producers who make 60 second clips inside the restaurant where they say something like "this chicken is amaaaaazing" and that's it...maybe I'm in the wrong business too :( :(
Well I suppose you could supplement your written review with a Tik Tok video (unless your paper doesn't allow that)!
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on December 13, 2023, 08:13:53 AMPlease don't. I've appreciated your contributions on this forum...and I'm sure that I'm not alone here.
All the best,
PD
I think he means unsubscribing from alerts about new posts in this thread.
Quote from: LKB on December 13, 2023, 04:10:51 AMNow, hear the Word of the Lord...
keeping us on the straight and
marrow...
say what ? we moved on from bones and skeletons ?? :blank: :P
(PS: had to google the song it came from. Another positive from that thread 8) )
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on December 13, 2023, 08:13:53 AMPlease don't. I've appreciated your contributions on this forum...and I'm sure that I'm not alone here.
All the best,
PD
I'm absolutely sure
@Madiel meant unsubscribing from this specific thread, not from GMG altogether.
Quote from: Papy Oli on December 13, 2023, 08:39:47 AMkeeping us on the straight and marrow...
say what ? we moved on from bones and skeletons ?? :blank: :P
It was getting a little long in the tooth. There wasn't much meat left on the bone. ;D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 13, 2023, 07:31:08 AMI would never say "Dave good" or "Dave bad" as an absolute opinion. When he is on point, he can be extremely insightful. The talk from two weeks ago on "Music Chat: Two Kinds of 'Authenticity'--Which Is More Valid?," for example, was superb, and makes highly convincing points about the shortcomings of the HIP movement. I remember also an excellent talk on the Bruckner 6th Symphony. And numerous others. On the other hand, the talk on "How and why Development Sections Work" seemed to me inadequate, talking about happy themes and sad themes and saying nothing (for instance) about the important matters of tonality within the development section or the re-transition back to the recapitulation.
And his record reviews are often on point too. I just got the 2CD set of French Symphonic Poems, which he raved about and I would agree.
I don't call it "surprising," absolutely, but it's very good to read this. I suppose that Hurwitz, like John Rutter, is good when he's at his best, but 'tis pity that he is at his best so very seldom.
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 06:30:15 AMI will second his thoughts - they're elegant, stylish, comfortable, witty where appropriate, and free of the various mannerisms that annoy me in many Haydn recordings (too much harpsichord, dull or frantic minuets, dust-dry slow movements, etc.). The lovely paintings on each CD sleeve are a bonus. One small problem with my set was that the recording of 6/7/8 has a low-level mechanical humming noise throughout. It's OK if you keep the volume low or are in a listening environment with ambient noise, but when you want to focus on the music, it is frankly a dealbreaker.
Hmmmm. Yes, the artwork alone sells the set. I shall listen for that noise morning, noon, and night when my copy arrives. Though you'd expect the engineer to take care of such a matter, there is a way to rip the tracks and edit out low-level noise that I've found successful on some occasions. I'll let you know if I can do it.
Quote from: DavidW on December 13, 2023, 08:58:51 AMIt was getting a little long in the tooth. There wasn't much meat left on the bone. ;D
True, it had become ossified.
Quote from: DavidW on December 12, 2023, 06:46:01 AMHurwitz actually likes Bach, he wouldn't do that even for views. Out of curiosity I watched the video, and it was a work that I personally dislike enough that I forgot that Bach even wrote it! I don't think it is bad, but it is certainly is his weakest. And no it is not something slightly esoteric like the Anna Magdalena notebooks or the reconstructed St. Mark Passion.
Now, he also did a Mahler one and I could not imagine myself being agreeable on that one. Mahler didn't write many works, and I don't know of a single dud including his early piano quartet.
I was just joking, I'd never heard of the work until I bought the Suzuki Secular box. I was excited about the thought of Bach being a fellow joe'er tamping pucks and pulling shots but doing a search on what it was about made a lot more sense :laugh:
I don't think it's a great piece of music but that is mostly because of the goofy tenor part. I don't listen to any of the secular cantatas as much as the sacred ones from my four favorite cycles. They just aren't as captivating to listen to for me. That Suzuki Secular box was a reminder why I shouldn't break my rule of stream first buy later no matter who the musician.
QuoteHurwitz actually likes Bach, he wouldn't do that even for views
I think it's a much worse piece of music than BWV1065 which is a masterpiece on form.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 13, 2023, 04:10:40 AMOne place I completely disagreed with Hurwitz was his dismissal of Marriner, and especially of Marriner's Haydn. I love the (relatively) new box. I just saw though, that he has completely flip-flopped, and enthusiastically endorses the Marriner Haydn box. (This happened a year ago. I'm behind the times; this is all new to me.) He talks about "the time is right to re-evaluate Marriner's Haydn" rather than "I was completely wrong."
Still, he got there in the end.
I have to say I can't think of any Marriner releases I consider essential other than one. Marriner, Alfred Brendel, Hogwood all of them grouped in my mind as these musicians that make fine unoffensive music.
That essential Marriner release being Rossini's String Sonatas, up there with my favorite pointless background music to listen to while working.
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 07:09:24 AMThis thread truly never changes... People who've decided "Dave good" or "Dave bad" repeat their positions as if they will ever convince each other (or as if we forgot where everyone stands)... At least this time I learned about Spontini and got some possible tips on where to start listening to Boulez?
My natural progression was from Schoenberg to Boulez (only discovering other less famous composers like Leibowitz and Dallapiccola later on) and I loved Schoenberg's piano music so Boulez's Piano Sonatas were a logical progression.
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 08:37:08 AMI think he means unsubscribing from alerts about new posts in this thread.
I doubt that he will. He cannot leave an argument alone, even when there isn't one, and it isn't directed anywhere in his direction. When I first joined GMG I posted how much I loved box sets, and how much better I considered it to buy a large group of CDs for 1-2 dollars a piece than to pay $15 a piece for them. He appeared out of nowhere and interpreted the statement as a personal attack agains
him. I was flabbergasted. I went to another thread and posted, and he followed me there and continued attacking me. I apologized to him profusely, just to end the onslaught. In the post above, I was not attacking Hurwitz, although I did say he should have owned up a little more to how much his view has changed. He himself says how his opinion of Marriner's "proto-hip" Haydn symphonies have changed from negative to positive as a result of what he considers the excesses of the "full-on-hip" movement.
Part of the reason I posted it in the first-place was to try to nuance the thread's "Good Dave/Bad Dave" dichotomy by pointing out an "evolving Dave." Really, my main complaint against Hurwitz is he now has me trying to simultaneously listen to about 6 mega-box sets which his rave reviews have gotten me excited about. >:(
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 13, 2023, 04:20:20 PMI doubt that he will. He cannot leave an argument alone, even when there isn't one, and it isn't directed anywhere in his direction. When I first joined GMG I posted how much I loved box sets, and how much better I considered it to buy a large group of CDs for 1-2 dollars a piece than to pay $15 a piece for them. He appeared out of nowhere and interpreted the statement as a personal attach agains him. I was flabbergasted. I went to another thread and posted, and he followed me there and continued attacking me. I apologized to him profusely, just to end the onslaught. In the post above, I was not attacking Hurwitz, although I did say he should have owned up a little more to how much his view has changed. He himself says how his opinion of Marriner's "proto-hip" Haydn symphonies have changed from negative to positive as a result of what he considers the excesses of the "full-on-hip" movement.
Part of the reason I posted it in the first-place was to try to nuance the thread's "Good Dave/Bad Dave" dichotomy by pointing out an "evolving Dave." Really, my main complaint against Hurwitz is he now has me trying to simultaneously listen to about 6 mega-box sets which his rave reviews have gotten me excited about. >:(
(* chortle *)
In the last couple of hours Hurwitz has uploaded a fairly lauditory review of Decca's new Janet Baker set:
https://youtu.be/3wWCF1-pAlA?si=icsZ5S_jh2kxhQ8J
Dame Janet has been a favorite of mine since l heard her Kindertotenlieder on EMI back in the '70's. Hurwitz has nothing but good things to say about her, just as he should.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 13, 2023, 04:20:20 PMI doubt that he will. He cannot leave an argument alone, even when there isn't one, and it isn't directed anywhere in his direction. When I first joined GMG I posted how much I loved box sets, and how much better I considered it to buy a large group of CDs for 1-2 dollars a piece than to pay $15 a piece for them. He appeared out of nowhere and interpreted the statement as a personal attack agains him. I was flabbergasted.
ROFL.
Read the first page and a bit of the Boxset blather thread. Not just you. Everyone. Revisionist history at its finest.
It's the first page, I'm contributing to the first page just like you are rather than coming to respond to you, and then you say I made excellent points.
The other thread you're talking about... you basically seem shocked that anyone would have read what you said and responded to it? And as we're picking over something from 9 years ago, I can see I was not the only person who responded to you. Glad I was so memorable. But I do find it fascinating how often people seem to think that the role of a message board is for them to be able to post things, without anyone else actually doing the same. It's a message board, not a blog. You said a certain thing I disagreed with. I said so. I explained why I disagreed. This apparently is an "onslaught" just because I didn't change my mind.
Not that I remember any of this. I had to go back and look to find out what you were talking about. But see, I'm a great believer in primary sources.
Oh, and I have indeed unsubscribed from this thread. But I decided to glance at it for first time in a couple of days, and I find that it's now not just a thread for dissing Hurwitz, it's a thread for dissing me. I feel vaguely honoured. It'll pass.
ADDITIONAL EDIT: If you want to read the "onslaught", it's on this page: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,23076.40.html You will see that I, the person committing the "onslaught", actually say a lot less than the person I am supposedly onslaughting.
Again, I remembered none of this until now.
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 07:09:24 AMThis thread truly never changes... People who've decided "Dave good" or "Dave bad" repeat their positions as if they will ever convince each other (or as if we forgot where everyone stands)... At least this time I learned about Spontini and got some possible tips on where to start listening to Boulez?
At least we can all agree David Hurwitz is a controversial person. :D
Quote from: 71 dB on December 15, 2023, 06:13:42 AMAt least we can all agree David Hurwitz is a controversial person. :D
I'm sure in his own mind he's not. ;D
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 15, 2023, 07:50:09 AMI'm sure in his own mind he's not. ;D
You are mistaken my friend. He enjoys his status as the King of controversiality!
Quote from: 71 dB on December 15, 2023, 08:48:36 AMYou are mistaken my friend. He enjoys his status as the King of controversiality!
But he has an infallible belief in his own infallibility.
Today's talk, taking 15 minutes to humiliate some poor guy who attacked him via email, is entitled: "Music Chat: I Am A Pompous A-Hole, Evidently."
To which my friend wrote me to say, "He's being too hard on himself."
No, this is not a response to this thread: :D
Quote from: Madiel on December 13, 2023, 07:16:53 AMAhem. I have quite clearly stated things about Hurwitz' videos that I don't like.
But thank you for continuing the spirit of sweeping basic generalisation that this thread is so committed to.
I'll be unsubscribing next time I'm on a computer rather than phone. I've honestly had enough.
That would be a shame.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 15, 2023, 08:48:36 AMYou are mistaken my friend. He enjoys his status as the King of controversiality!
Mister Click-Bait!
I don't want to fight or argue with anyone, but I'm curious about how he's controversial.
For GMG folk, he's certainly polarizing, but from the (admittedly few) videos of his I've seen, he's mostly conservative in his tastes. In general, he reveres the canonical composers and conductors, and has reservations about the HIP movement and modernism (i.e. Boulez, serialism), but so does a wide swathe of classical fans. When I disagree with his opinions, I still know where he's coming from.
Of course, he states his opinions as though they are incontrovertible (sometimes he calls them "facts"), but the opinions themselves seem pretty standard. By that I mean he doesn't claim that Beethoven has always been overrated or all contemporary pianists are bad, or extreme positions like that which would strike me as "controversial" Karl, and many others I think, consider him an obnoxious jerk. I can see that too. It's an excellent reason not to like him, but that's not controversial. Either he rubs you the wrong way, or you find his weird, outspoken, crusty flakiness rather refreshing.
What I like about him is that he's never a complete fanboy. For example, he likes Karajan, but rips into his Bach and pre-classical music like crazy. In fact, he says it's so slow and stodgy that "it made the HIP movement necessary." Similarly, he raves about the new Klemperer box, but then criticises a surprising number of the disks--especially the later ones--and usually gives specific reasons. He complains about the HIP movement, but then raves about Bruggen's Haydn interpretations. And he really does know a hell of a lot, about the music, trends, and the history of the labels. I learn a lot, but then have to skip forward when it's just old man ramblings and ravings.
Anyway, I hope someone can respond...coolly.
To me that is a perfect summary!
Some of my favorite recordings I've discovered via Hurwitz:
François-Xavier Roth/Les Siècles. Hurwitz's videos on him are rants, I had to hear them out of sheer curiosity. I find the 20th century music fascinating, not from a genuine HIP sense (i.e., we can hear Stravinsky conduct his works and they sound nothing like this) but more like some entertaining avant-garde performance art. The next time we revisit France I would love to try and see them live. After hearing them play Symphonie Fantastique a few times it's now one of my favorite performances.
Mahler Symphony 7 Alexandre Bloch/Orchestre National de Lille.
Inbal's Mahler Exton recordings. Hurwitz usually only mentioned them in passing. I've owned his Denon cycle and they are solid performances, but with so many Mahler recordings I really only want to listen to the best given how much time you have to dedicate to them. The TMSO cycle is now my all time favorite cycle from a single conductor/orchestra (though some that are only average like Symphony 7). And the recordings with Czech Phil are just as good just with a hair less commitment than the TMSO. The performances are most reminiscent of Bernstein's most romantic interpretations.
Takashi Asahina. Another conductor that Hurwitz mentioned in passing in I think a Celibidache video, I think he drew the comparison with Asahina and called Asahina over rated. So this caused me to explore some of his recordings and he has recorded some of the very best Bruckner performances I've heard. The Beethoven cycle on Fontec is old school German ala Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin and now up there with my favorite cycles maybe even eclipsing Jochum's DG. YMMV as for modern tempi/full orchestra the only cycle I listen to often/like is Leibowitz.
Daniele Gatti Tchaikovsky 4-6, wow they give Mravinsky a run for the money in terms of sheer intensity and in much better recording quality as far as realism goes.
Gatti does great work.
Gatti and the New Philharmonia is the only time I heard a major orchestra live. And yeah I love his Tchaikovsky (wasn't the concert though).
Remembered another - Ashkenazy conducting the Asrael Symphony. This led me to checking out Ashkenazy's 2000s recordings as a conductor and they are very different from his Decca recordings. The new ones have so much warmth, about the polar opposite of most of his Decca interpretations (not a criticism, I like plenty of them).
Quote from: Atriod on December 16, 2023, 03:17:38 PMSome of my favorite recordings I've discovered via Hurwitz:
François-Xavier Roth/Les Siècles. Hurwitz's videos on him are rants, I had to hear them out of sheer curiosity. I find the 20th century music fascinating, not from a genuine HIP sense (i.e., we can hear Stravinsky conduct his works and they sound nothing like this) but more like some entertaining avant-garde performance art. The next time we revisit France I would love to try and see them live. After hearing them play Symphonie Fantastique a few times it's now one of my favorite performances.
Mahler Symphony 7 Alexandre Bloch/Orchestre National de Lille.
Inbal's Mahler Exton recordings. Hurwitz usually only mentioned them in passing. I've owned his Denon cycle and they are solid performances, but with so many Mahler recordings I really only want to listen to the best given how much time you have to dedicate to them. The TMSO cycle is now my all time favorite cycle from a single conductor/orchestra (though some that are only average like Symphony 7). And the recordings with Czech Phil are just as good just with a hair less commitment than the TMSO. The performances are most reminiscent of Bernstein's most romantic interpretations.
Takashi Asahina. Another conductor that Hurwitz mentioned in passing in I think a Celibidache video, I think he drew the comparison with Asahina and called Asahina over rated. So this caused me to explore some of his recordings and he has recorded some of the very best Bruckner performances I've heard. The Beethoven cycle on Fontec is old school German ala Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin and now up there with my favorite cycles maybe even eclipsing Jochum's DG. YMMV as for modern tempi/full orchestra the only cycle I listen to often/like is Leibowitz.
Daniele Gatti Tchaikovsky 4-6, wow they give Mravinsky a run for the money in terms of sheer intensity and in much better recording quality as far as realism goes.
You seem to like Hurwitz as a negative compass--his disses become your faves. I agree with most of his opinions, but still find him tiresome to listen to. If you don't agree with him much, doesn't he drive you nuts?
Quote from: Atriod on December 16, 2023, 03:17:38 PMFrançois-Xavier Roth/Les Siècles. Hurwitz's videos on him are rants, I had to hear them out of sheer curiosity.
Quoted without comment:
QuoteThe main novelty, both here and in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, is the use of period instruments, and the best thing I can say about the performances is that you'd never know it. These are just smashing performances of both works, fresh, lively, transparent, and full of character. The climax of Apprentice, in particular, marking the reappearance of the sorcerer at the height of the orchestral chaos, is just tremendous.
- Hurwitz's 9/9 review of a Dukas CD by FX Roth/Siècles
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 16, 2023, 09:30:07 PMYou seem to like Hurwitz as a negative compass--his disses become your faves. I agree with most of his opinions, but still find him tiresome to listen to. If you don't agree with him much, doesn't he drive you nuts?
From my list there was only one thing I disagreed with Hurwitz on (Asahina). I find his videos on FXR a bit hyperbolic but his opinion is sound, the only François-Xavier Roth recording I've bought so far is Symphonie Fantastique. There are many more recordings I've discovered through him but I was just naming ones that I could remember.
Quote from: Atriod on December 22, 2023, 07:26:13 AMFrom my list there was only one thing I disagreed with Hurwitz on (Asahina). I find his videos on FXR a bit hyperbolic but his opinion is sound, the only François-Xavier Roth recording I've bought so far is Symphonie Fantastique. There are many more recordings I've discovered through him but I was just naming ones that I could remember.
I liked this recording:
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-VpvYExOMOT0%2FXN4EfLrhXcI%2FAAAAAAAARUo%2FebewLyQ7yTIMXp8TkG2n4fb5NXzNjl1NACLcBGAs%2Fs1600%2Fcover.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=80c9a31893aa0898b65038304504b82e6a9c293a66ff55de0ff032771a5f1a69&ipo=images)
More of a curiosity to hear this version of the first, then something definitive. But the playing is passionate, and the sounds of the instruments are strangely different in some key ways... the Viennese horns and trumpets sound quite a bit different.
Quote from: Atriod on December 22, 2023, 07:26:13 AMFrom my list there was only one thing I disagreed with Hurwitz on (Asahina). I find his videos on FXR a bit hyperbolic but his opinion is sound, the only François-Xavier Roth recording I've bought so far is Symphonie Fantastique. There are many more recordings I've discovered through him but I was just naming ones that I could remember.
Oh, sorry. When you wrote "François-Xavier Roth/Les Siècles. Hurwitz's videos on him are rants, I had to hear them out of sheer curiosity" I assumed it was a negative rant.
For my part, I really liked his long video praising Neeme Jarvi's Chandos recordings. I was able to snag a big batch of those, and I see where he was coming from. Nice, solid, clear interpretations without any undue flash and bang. I'm learning a lot of new repertoire.
I'm not sure what it is about his delivery that makes him (Hurwitz) so persuasive (to me, anyway). Perhaps it's the sheer quantity of concrete details and examples he mentions for each recording.
I'm listening to Jarvi at home, Ormandy on my commutes, and Blomstedt in my office, all basically as a result of his videos ::)
I loved his video on the Cleveland Qtt. I may be listening to those soon, too.
Quote from: Brian on December 13, 2023, 07:09:24 AMsome possible tips on where to start listening to Boulez?
@Brian this is veering OT, and I shall cross-post. My suggestions for three pieces to start with
Boulez in chronological order:
Le Marteau sans maître. It's not everyone's money, and in fact it fell out of and back into my own favor. I fell for it readily the first time I heard it, so maybe you will, too. And now that my own pendulum has re-swung, it's a firm fave again.
Rituel in memoriam Bruno Maderna. Atypical of the composer, as heretofore noted. Mightily strong piece.
Sur Incises. I don't know how the true
Boulez fans feel about various times when the composer fiddled with various scores, and I guess that my writing that indicates that my own fandom is somewhat at arm's length, but I find this an unalloyed success.
So many thanks! I will take the Boulez recommendations from you and earlier in these pages, and make them a new year's resolution for early January.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on December 13, 2023, 09:14:49 AMHmmmm. Yes, the artwork alone sells the set. I shall listen for that noise morning, noon, and night when my copy arrives. Though you'd expect the engineer to take care of such a matter, there is a way to rip the tracks and edit out low-level noise that I've found successful on some occasions. I'll let you know if I can do it.
Well Brian, I got the set and at best I can hear a faint hum in 6-7-8, but nothing I find very obvious. Can you give me a passage where it is seriously obtrusive? I will upload a track for you from my copy to see if you are hearing the same thing on mine. But I'll have to do it as a Facebook message, or a link to Dropbox due to file size.
Hey if you guys like Hurwitz, I found another youtuber doing the same thing that DH does! He is a professional musician and respectful and nuanced so you might not like him :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I had not heard his #1 in this one, and was surprised that Solti didn't make his list. But it seems fun and I'm going to check out his other videos. I like to support the smaller youtubers.
Quote from: DavidW on January 02, 2024, 08:18:33 AMHe is a professional musician and respectful and nuanced so you might not like him :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
(* chortle *)
Quote from: DavidW on January 02, 2024, 08:18:33 AMI had not heard his #1 in this one, and was surprised that Solti didn't make his list. But it seems fun and I'm going to check out his other videos. I like to support the smaller youtubers.
Thanks, I've subscribed right away.
Quote from: DavidW on January 02, 2024, 08:18:33 AMHey if you guys like Hurwitz, I found another youtuber doing the same thing that DH does! He is a professional musician and respectful and nuanced so you might not like him :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I had not heard his #1 in this one, and was surprised that Solti didn't make his list. But it seems fun and I'm going to check out his other videos. I like to support the smaller youtubers.
Just finished watching. Straightforward, yet engaging. No bullshit. I like his work. I also got a charge out of his including both
Barbirolli and
Mitropoulos.
Quote from: DavidW on January 02, 2024, 08:18:33 AMHey if you guys like Hurwitz, I found another youtuber doing the same thing that DH does! He is a professional musician and respectful and nuanced so you might not like him :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I had not heard his #1 in this one, and was surprised that Solti didn't make his list. But it seems fun and I'm going to check out his other videos. I like to support the smaller youtubers.
His channel looks interesting, will investigate. Thanks for making us aware of it.
I've seen this guy. Seems to be serious about presenting options sans ego, which automatically makes him more attractive than Hurwitz. 8)
One thing I've learned is that they are not rankings, they are all his favorites and the last one isn't the best but the historical option.
Quote from: DavidW on January 03, 2024, 08:58:37 AMOne thing I've learned is that they are not rankings, they are all his favorites and the last one isn't the best but the historical option.
A critic who understands that rankings are rubbish.
Which orchestra(s)/ensembles, etc. does he play with?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on January 03, 2024, 12:01:02 PMWhich orchestra(s)/ensembles, etc. does he play with?
PD
Appears to be a singer, I think.
Quote from: Karl Henning on January 03, 2024, 12:39:19 PMAppears to be a singer, I think.
Thanks! I found this info: https://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Zilkha-Gil.htm
There was also a link to apparently his official website but the link wasn't Https.
PD
Here he is performing bwv 82:
The good stuff starts about 5:30 minutes in.
Oh and totally unfair but here is Hans Hotter for comparison if you are unfamiliar with my favorite Bach cantata:
Quote from: DavidW on January 03, 2024, 02:47:30 PMOh and totally unfair but here is Hans Hotter for comparison if you are unfamiliar with my favorite Bach cantata:
I'll have to watch his, but augh! I love (and own) Hans Hotter's recording of it...along with some others. And that's a tough act to follow! ;) :)
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on January 03, 2024, 02:50:09 PMI'll have to watch his, but augh! I love (and own) Hans Hotter's recording of it...along with some others. And that's a tough act to follow! ;) :)
PD
Yeah my impression is that Zilkha is not up to Hotter and Lieberson but I've heard other soloists on recording not as good as Zilkha, and if I was there I think I would be instant standing ovation.
Quote from: DavidW on January 03, 2024, 02:55:38 PMYeah my impression is that Zilkha is not up to Hotter and Lieberson but I've heard other soloists on recording not as good as Zilkha, and if I was there I think I would be instant standing ovation.
I was just going to ask you about how you liked Lieberson! Truly! :)
I'll have to listen to it...probably post-meal.
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on January 03, 2024, 02:57:51 PMI was just going to ask you about how you liked Lieberson! Truly! :)
I'll have to listen to it...probably post-meal.
PD
Yes her recording of bwv 82 is my favorite Bach recording of all time and on my top 10 favorite recordings overall!!
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on January 03, 2024, 02:50:09 PMI'll have to watch his, but augh! I love (and own) Hans Hotter's recording of it...along with some others. And that's a tough act to follow! ;) :)
PD
The
Chailly/Berlin RSO Siegfried Jerusalem recording of
Schoenberg's Gurrelieder has
Hans Hotter as Der Sprecher for the penultimate section (
Des Sommerwindes Wilde Jagd).
I believe he was approaching 80 years of age at the time: his performance is simply gorgeous, and he sings the final notes with no problem to thrilling effect!
Quote from: Cato on January 03, 2024, 03:37:29 PMThe Chailly/Berlin RSO Siegfried Jerusalem recording of Schoenberg's Gurrelieder has Hans Hotter as Der Sprecher for the penultimate section (Des Sommerwindes Wilde Jagd).
I believe he was approaching 80 years of age at the time: his performance is simply gorgeous, and he sings the final notes with no problem to thrilling effect!
I'll have to see if I can find a way to listen to it. Thank for the rec.
PD
Kind of the flagship, perhaps, of Gil's channel is this best symphony recordings overview:
My notes:
1. He introduces himself at the start.
2. He discusses a fair number of symphonies, so the full show runs just under four hours.
3. The show is broken conveniently into chapters, so the viewer enjoys complete freedom.
To a point which
@Daverz raised over in Smetana's Dům, he likes
Jos van Immerseel in the
LvB Op. 67
Quote from: Karl Henning on January 04, 2024, 09:25:45 AMTo a point which @Daverz raised over in Smetana's Dům, he likes Jos van Immerseel in the LvB Op. 67
He also likes Petrenko in the DSCH 10, and has repeatedly recommended Karajan's digital recordings in Mahler, Bruckner and Shostakovich. And also he recommended Rattle's recent M9. So yeah he definitely listens to newer recordings as well as the older ones.
I still haven't seen many Hurwitz videos, but listened to part of a couple where he champions Neeme Jaarvi and Leonard Slatkin. In a nutshell, he argues they are great conductors, but because they are more interested in off-the-beaten-path composers rather than the core ones, they aren't held in the high esteem they deserve.
Curious, I downloaded a bunch of their disks and have been listening to some. All I can say is "thank you David Hurwitz." I'm hearing a lot of new stuff, and am having a wonderfully high hit-rate--so far, anyway.
For example, I've got a lot of copies of Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings in various compilations, but assumed he was a one-hit wonder, more or less. I read Alex Ross's "The Rest is Noise," and mainly recall his mentioning Barber's various struggles, and eventual slide into alcoholism. Playing this, now, and it's extraordinary, and gorgeous:
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/W/MEDIAX_792452-T1/images/I/81qSlNpYXmL._SX425_.jpg)
fantastic playing and sound, too.
His raves also got me to go back to the Ormandy mono box. I'd played some of the early disks, and thought they were good, but not good enough to listen to when there are so many newer, stereo, hi-fi versions of the material. I've gone back, and am loving that box. I'm only up to disk 36 (early 1950s), but its a box that only gets better and better.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on January 10, 2024, 03:00:45 AMNeeme Jaarvi and Leonard Slatkin ....
Slatkin (now 79) is great, indeed. If you can beg borrow or steal
Barbara Nissman's Documentary on
Alberto Ginastera,
Slatkin is one of the interviewees.
Järvi has his lapses, but when he's at the top of his game, he ranks with the best.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on January 10, 2024, 03:00:45 AMI still haven't seen many Hurwitz videos, but listened to part of a couple where he champions Neeme Jaarvi and Leonard Slatkin.
For whatever reason, I never collected many of Slatkin's RCA recordings. I've been listening to individual discs as they have started to show up on Qobuz and bought Slatkin's Elgar and Tchaikovsky ballet boxes on Hurwitz's recommendation. These are almost uniformly fantastic recordings. They are mastered at a low level, so you do have to crank up the volume 10 dB or so.
Alsop has recorded all of Barber's orchestral works, and it is fine series imho.
Quote from: DavidW on January 03, 2024, 02:47:30 PMOh and totally unfair but here is Hans Hotter for comparison if you are unfamiliar with my favorite Bach cantata:
Consider me unfamiliar :D Years of listening to Karl Richter wading through molasses had me sworn off older style performances. This is music I'm always regularly listening to
(https://i.imgur.com/Rn5lPKY.jpg)
(larger size (https://i.imgur.com/Rn5lPKY.jpg)) edit: forgot about
Ton Koopman that is not pictured!
And Gil Zilkha is Brahmsianhorn on Talk Classical where his posts are a bit more in depth than the videos.
Quote from: Karl Henning on January 10, 2024, 10:22:19 AMSlatkin (now 79) is great, indeed. If you can beg borrow or steal Barbara Nissman's Documentary on Alberto Ginastera, Slatkin is one of the interviewees. Järvi has his lapses, but when he's at the top of his game, he ranks with the best.
I'm afraid I know nothing about either one (director or artist). I'll try to keep an eye out, but am doubtful I'll run across it. Even so, thanks for the head's up.
{found 9 min 35 sec "preview" on Youtube}
Quote from: Daverz on January 10, 2024, 10:49:01 AMFor whatever reason, I never collected many of Slatkin's RCA recordings. I've been listening to individual discs as they have started to show up on Qobuz and bought Slatkin's Elgar and Tchaikovsky ballet boxes on Hurwitz's recommendation. These are almost uniformly fantastic recordings. They are mastered at a low level, so you do have to crank up the volume 10 dB or so.
I just nabbed a bunch of his stuff on NAXOS. Very unfairly, I had always discounted NAXOS as a bargain-basement label. I can't believe the sound quality of these recordings. And flawless playing by the Detroit Symphony. I turnd up my nose at these disks (with an American Flag on them! Oh, come on...), but WOW. Here's an example (I'm playing it now with my morning coffee).
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/718RiJSOcDL._SX425_.jpg)
Quote from: Mookalafalas on January 10, 2024, 02:32:22 PMI'm afraid I know nothing about either one (director or artist). I'll try to keep an eye out, but am doubtful I'll run across it. Even so, thanks for the head's up.
{found 9 min 35 sec "preview" on Youtube}
Nissman is a pianist. You may enjoy her recording of
Ginastera's pf concerti.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on January 10, 2024, 02:38:00 PMI just nabbed a bunch of his stuff on NAXOS. Very unfairly, I had always discounted NAXOS as a bargain-basement label. I can't believe the sound quality of these recordings. And flawless playing by the Detroit Symphony. I turnd up my nose at these disks (with an American Flag on them! Oh, come on...), but WOW. Here's an example (I'm playing it now with my morning coffee).
That Naxos cycle of the Rachmaninov symphonies is one of the best ever!
I am definitely saving up for a Slatkin RCA big box set. It should be nice and juicy and full of unusual repertoire.
Quote from: Atriod on January 10, 2024, 02:17:49 PMConsider me unfamiliar :D Years of listening to Karl Richter wading through molasses had me sworn off older style performances. This is music I'm always regularly listening to
(https://i.imgur.com/Rn5lPKY.jpg)
(larger size (https://i.imgur.com/Rn5lPKY.jpg)) edit: forgot about Ton Koopman that is not pictured!
And Gil Zilkha is Brahmsianhorn on Talk Classical where his posts are a bit more in depth than the videos.
I have a number of those Gardiner ones and enjoy them. :) Think that the only Bach recording that I have with Harnoncourt is one of his masses?
PD
Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2024, 05:37:55 AMThat Naxos cycle of the Rachmaninov symphonies is one of the best ever!
I am definitely saving up for a Slatkin RCA big box set. It should be nice and juicy and full of unusual repertoire.
I just saw another Hurwitz video where he lists Bernard Schwarz Naxos box as one of his "all time" favorites, and a must have. THAT was unexpected. I think Schwarz probably outdoes even Slatkin in covering a lot of "off the beaten path" repertoire.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on January 11, 2024, 06:43:17 AMI just saw another Hurwitz video where he lists Bernard Schwarz Naxos box as one of his "all time" favorites, and a must have. THAT was unexpected. I think Schwarz probably outdoes even Slatkin in covering a lot of "off the beaten path" repertoire.
(https://i.ndcd.net/2/Item/500/421800.jpg)
Quote from: Daverz on January 11, 2024, 07:05:22 AM(https://i.ndcd.net/2/Item/500/421800.jpg)
Yep, that's the one ;D
And I think Schwarz has literally 100 more disks that aren't in that box...
Quote from: Daverz on January 11, 2024, 07:05:22 AM(https://i.ndcd.net/2/Item/500/421800.jpg)
OTTOMH, symphonies and divers orchestral works of
Wm Schuman, and symphonies of
Hovhaness.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on January 11, 2024, 06:10:12 AMI have a number of those Gardiner ones and enjoy them. :) Think that the only Bach recording that I have with Harnoncourt is one of his masses?
PD
Harnoncourt recorded the cantatas with Leonhardt, which I believe is in that big teldec set. And in the other big set in the picture is the Rilling set. I think they're both considered proto-HIP as they stand out from traditional performances but are not in the same sound space as the modern sets (Suzuki, Koopman, Gardiner etc)
Both Harnoncourt and Leonhardt have a great affinity for Bach. In particular, Leonhardt's solo keyboard recordings are phenomenal.
Quote from: Karl Henning on January 11, 2024, 07:46:31 AMOTTOMH, symphonies and divers orchestral works of Wm Schuman, and smphonies of Hovhaness.
It predated Naxos, but my first impression of
Schwarz was unfavorable: a recording with Seattle chamber players of the
Brandenburgs. At this remove in time, I think I recall that my sense was "competent but little more," and that of course I wanted better in those concerti.
Quote from: DavidW on January 11, 2024, 07:56:57 AMHarnoncourt recorded the cantatas with Leonhardt, which I believe is in that big teldec set. And in the other big set in the picture is the Rilling set. I think they're both considered proto-HIP as they stand out from traditional performances but are not in the same sound space as the modern sets (Suzuki, Koopman, Gardiner etc)
Both Harnoncourt and Leonhardt have a great affinity for Bach. In particular, Leonhardt's solo keyboard recordings are phenomenal.
I'll check some of those out. By the way, I goofed! The mass that I was thinking of was with Herreweghe--the Matthew one. I do have the complete set with Richter (love so many of those singers in those recordings; it's been a while though since I have listened to them. Still have a soft spot for them though. :) I've also heard some of the Suzuki recordings (over the radio) but never felt like I HAD to go out and purchase any of them--perhaps my mood at the time? Been quite some time since I have revisited his cantatas; I should rectify that soon.
Oh! Another favorite recording of mine of "Ich habe genug" is with Gérard Souzay. ;D Have you ever heard that one David?
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on January 11, 2024, 09:08:01 AMOh! Another favorite recording of mine of "Ich habe genug" is with Gérard Souzay. ;D Have you ever heard that one David?
PD
Oh no, I'll have to check it out!
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on January 11, 2024, 06:10:12 AMI have a number of those Gardiner ones and enjoy them. :) Think that the only Bach recording that I have with Harnoncourt is one of his masses?
PD
Gardiner's Archiv recordings were the first ones that made me fall in love with the music. The live SDG cycle performances are for the most part highly enjoyable as well, a bit too brisk in some cantatas for my taste. My favorites are Suzuki for his spirituality and Herreweghe for an infectious warmth and tenderness.
Quote from: DavidW on January 11, 2024, 07:56:57 AMHarnoncourt recorded the cantatas with Leonhardt, which I believe is in that big teldec set. And in the other big set in the picture is the Rilling set. I think they're both considered proto-HIP as they stand out from traditional performances but are not in the same sound space as the modern sets (Suzuki, Koopman, Gardiner etc)
Both Harnoncourt and Leonhardt have a great affinity for Bach. In particular, Leonhardt's solo keyboard recordings are phenomenal.
Harnoncourt/Leonhardt is fully HIP. It is also the only cycle to use boy sopranos. Hurwitz loves the Rilling cycle but it's a bit academic and dry.
Quote from: Karl Henning on January 11, 2024, 08:21:38 AMIt predated Naxos, but my first impression of Schwarz was unfavorable: a recording with Seattle chamber players of the Brandenburgs. At this remove in time, I think I recall that my sense was "competent but little more," and that of course I wanted better in those concerti.
I know he does a lot of David Diamond, William Schuman, David Piston, etc., in the American repertoire. He was on my radar back when I listened to the Mercury Living Presence boxes, because he was basically the only guy out there covering those gouys, and I wanted to hear more. I never got any though, because I'm sort of allergic to paying full price for single disks, even Naxos-priced. However, I'm definitely going to get that 30 disk box. Like immediately.
About your evaluation, that is what I'd imagine, i.e. that he does a fine job and has a pretty good orchestra, but that's all. I think Hurwitz suggested that he is somewhat better than that, but he didn't claim (as he did with Slatkin in St. Louis) that he had fantastic orchestra.
Edit: looked at the contents of the Schwarz box, and it has more "standard" material than I had hoped--including the Brandenbergs... :-(
Quote from: Mookalafalas on January 11, 2024, 02:53:56 PMdit: looked at the contents of the Schwarz box, and it has more "standard" material than I had hoped--including the Brandenbergs... :-(
a 30-disc
Schwarz box of off-the-beaten-path rep, esp.
Diamond,
Piston,
Schuman ...
that would be choice!
Quote from: Karl Henning on January 11, 2024, 05:37:46 PMa 30-disc Schwarz box of off-the-beaten-path rep, esp. Diamond, Piston, Schuman ... that would be choice!
It seems to be striving to cut a broad cross-section across his repertoire. For example, it has 1 Bach Brandenburg suite.
Here is a sample:
CD 8 :
Brahms: Piano Quartet No. 1 in G minor, Op. 25
Schubert: Symphony No. 3 in D major, D200
CD 9 :
Carter, E: The Minotaur
Fine, I G: Notturno for Strings
Barber: Serenade for String Orchestra, Op. 1
Carter, E: Elegy
Carter, E: Canon for 3 - In memoriam Igor Stravinsky
CD 10 :
Diamond: Rounds for String Orchestra
Albert, S: Flower of the Mountain
Perle: Serenade No. 3 for Piano and Chamber Orchestra
Perle: Piano Concertino
Dlugoszewski: Space is a Diamond
Whittenberg: Polyphony
Wolpe: Solo Piece for Trumpet
CD 11 :
Herbert, V: Suite for Cello & Orchestra, Op. 3
Herbert, V: 3 Compositions for String Orchestra
Herbert, V: Serenade, Op. 12
Jones, Samuel: Tuba Concerto
CD 12 :
Panufnik, A: Symphony No. 10
Panufnik, A: Autumn Music
Panufnik, A: Heroic Overture
Panufnik, A: Symphony No. 3 'Sinfonia sacra'
CD 13 :
Schreker: Kammersymphonie
Hindemith: Kammermusik No. 1 Op. 24 No. 1 für 12 Solo-Instrumente
Busoni: Concertino for Clarinet and Small Orchestra, Op. 48
Honegger: Concerto da camera for Flute, Cor Anglais & String Orchestra
CD 14 :
Strauss, R: Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, Op. 60
CD 15 :
Bernstein: Symphony No. 3 'Kaddish'
Taylor, J D: Peter Ibbetson, Op. 20 (Highlights)
I'm looking at the guy's discography, and its insane. Over a hundred disks on Naxos, but then tons on Delos. I'm sampling, and it's very solid, and generally really good sound. And stuff I wouldn't have expected. How about Haydn and Hummel trumpet concertos---with Schwarz as soloist?! (He's got nice tone, but his chops aren't quite top tier, IMO.) He has a lot of war horses, and then living American women composers I've never heard of. I'm listening to his LvB Pastorale right now--and it's no slouch. I think he's my new hero ;D
Delos was apparently quite active in the 90s (the tail end of the CD boom) and Schwarz their main conductor.
Quote from: Jo498 on January 12, 2024, 01:28:47 AMDelos was apparently quite active in the 90s (the tail end of the CD boom) and Schwarz their main conductor.
According to one of his web-sites, he has recorded 350 disks!
I started reading his autobiography. I hadn't realized he'd been lead trumpet in New York, under Boulez, Bernstein, and Lensdorf--while still very young.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on January 12, 2024, 05:29:46 AMAccording to one of his web-sites, he has recorded 350 disks!
I started reading his autobiography. I hadn't realized he'd been lead trumpet in New York, under Boulez, Bernstein, and Lensdorf--while still very young.
Quite interesting!
And, wow! Yes, that's a lot of recordings!
PD
Quote from: Mookalafalas on December 16, 2023, 09:30:07 PMIf you don't agree with him much, doesn't he drive you nuts?
No. Why would you allow
anyone to drive you nuts? I find him spot on (and entertaining) most of the time, in any event; especially his latest rant:
"There's no demand for Bruchner. I guarantee you. There isn't. And everyone's doing it anyway..." :laugh:
He obviously hasn't visited this site. ;D
Quote from: ando on January 19, 2024, 01:03:16 PMNo. Why would you allow anyone to drive you nuts? I find him spot on (and entertaining) most of the time,
I agree, for the most part. Actually, I just watched him do an attack video where he really went after Jordi Savall's romantic repertoire, and said, in so many words, "He has no place doing this material," and said it was god-awful. That's the first time I've completely disagreed with him.
David Hurwitz has very strong opinions, but he doesn't expect/demand other people share them. All he wants people to do is to "keep listening." One thing people overlook I think is that disagreements aren't always bad. I can respect an opinion different from my own opinion if I know the opinion comes from a place of knowledge and understanding. In the case of David Hurwitz they tend to be that way. He is not running his mouth on things he doesn't know anything about. He has listened to classical music much much more than I have and he knows about it much much more than I do. That's why it is wise for me to listen to what he has to say and possibly learn something new. In the end of the day I don't have to agree with him about everything, because these opinions are so subjective in nature. His life and journey into exploring classical music has been completely different from my life and journey. It would be strange if he had 100 % same opinion with me.
This sounds like I was a David Hurwitz apologist, but this is really about tolerating opinions of other people based on how informed they are rather than how similar they are to yours.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on January 10, 2024, 02:38:00 PMVery unfairly, I had always discounted NAXOS as a bargain-basement label.
In the beginning, say for the first 5 years up to early 90s, Naxos was kind of a bargain-basement label, but it developed fast into a quality label with bargain-basement label pricing made possible by the business success (large average amount of copies sold of releases). However, the amount of copies sold has shrunk since and Naxos isn't anymore priced as a bargain-basement label, unfortunately. The price advantage has been lost, but on the other hand the overall quality is quite high.
Quote from: 71 dB on January 20, 2024, 02:51:26 AMIn the beginning, say for the first 5 years up to early 90s, Naxos was kind of a bargain-basement label, but it developed fast into a quality label with bargain-basement label pricing made possible by the business success (large average amount of copies sold of releases). However, the amount of copies sold has shrunk since and Naxos isn't anymore priced as a bargain-basement label, unfortunately. The price advantage has been lost, but on the other hand the overall quality is quite high.
Yes, they recently bought another whole label. I didn't see that coming.
Anyway, back to Hurwitz. I think this is a perfect example of why he is valuable. This is a nice, reasonable review of the Berglund box, with good points and good info. It's in Dave's typical "rough and ready" style, but I can't imagine anyone finding anything objectionable here. {well, I supposed GMG folk will readily prove me wrong ::) }
https://youtu.be/wbr32waHrS8?si=4Zi1d5fW9OwDy5nU
Quote from: Mookalafalas on March 28, 2024, 02:50:49 AMIt's in Dave's typical "rough and ready" style,
More like youtube style, his written content is far more polished for obvious reasons. VLOGs are expected to be more spontaneous or at least feel that way.
Quote from: Mookalafalas on March 28, 2024, 02:50:49 AMYes, they recently bought another whole label. I didn't see that coming.
Not the first time! Naxos also owns Ondine, Capriccio, Oehms Classics, and a couple others. :)
I'm definitely going to listen to DH's Berglund review today while cleaning the bathroom.
Quote from: Brian on March 28, 2024, 06:16:35 AMNot the first time! Naxos also owns Ondine, Capriccio, Oehms Classics, and a couple others. :)
I'm definitely going to listen to DH's Berglund review today while cleaning the bathroom.
Clever idea! Getting two things done at once!
Quote from: Brian on March 28, 2024, 06:16:35 AMI'm definitely going to listen to DH's Berglund review today while cleaning the bathroom.
Nothing else matches a Hurwitz review quite like cleaning the toilet! ;)
Quote from: Mookalafalas on March 28, 2024, 02:50:49 AMwell, I supposed GMG folk will readily prove me wrong.
No no, I'm rough and ready enough to allow Hurwitz the possibility of being occasionally unobjectionable. We're not barbarians, here.
Quote from: DavidW on March 28, 2024, 07:12:03 AMNothing else matches a Hurwitz review quite like cleaning the toilet! ;)
Wholistic
(* chortle *)
Quote from: DavidW on March 28, 2024, 07:12:03 AMNothing else matches a Hurwitz review quite like cleaning the toilet! ;)
Garbage in, garbage out, you might say.
But I have also found nothing is so good for a nap than listening to a Hurwitz review. Whenever I feel a need for an afternoon snooze, I put on one of his longer ones and I'm out like a light five minutes in.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 28, 2024, 07:13:01 AMNo no, I'm rough and ready enough to allow Hurwitz the possibility of being occasionally unobjectionable. We're not barbarians, here.
To put it another way, using one of my favorite couplets:
Accidents happen. >:D
Quote from: 71 dB on January 20, 2024, 02:08:42 AMDavid Hurwitz has very strong opinions, but he doesn't expect/demand other people share them. All he wants people to do is to "keep listening."
Unfoprtunately I disagree. His opinions are often expressed with intimidating vehemence of ridicule. Keep in mind that many people approach classical music with feeling of insecurity.
Quote from: Herman on March 28, 2024, 10:43:57 AMUnfoprtunately I disagree. His opinions are often expressed with intimidating vehemence of ridicule. Keep in mind that many people approach classical music with feeling of insecurity.
Herman is exactly right. Hurwitz's biggest flaw is his intolerance of disagreement. There are no true "discussions" on his forum because one can never tell how many dissenting comments have been deleted. At times he'll devote an entire video to ridiculing someone who disagrees with him.
A more secure person would welcome opposing viewpoints, but disagree with Dave and you're on the outs. Example: he was reviewing Levit's recent Mendelssohn disc inspired by the October 7 attacks, but Hurwitz has decided that politics has nothing to do with music (which is of course nonsense), and that if anyone were to make a political point in the comments, they would be banned from his site. He's attacked me a number of times, which is why I no longer participate on his forum.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 28, 2024, 12:51:30 PMHerman is exactly right. Hurwitz's biggest flaw is his intolerance of disagreement. There are no true "discussions" on his forum because one can never tell how many dissenting comments have been deleted. At times he'll devote an entire video to ridiculing someone who disagrees with him.
A more secure person would welcome opposing viewpoints, but disagree with Dave and you're on the outs. Example: he was reviewing Levit's recent Mendelssohn disc inspired by the October 7 attacks, but Hurwitz has decided that politics has nothing to do with music (which is of course nonsense), and that if anyone were to make a political point in the comments, they would be banned from his site. He's attacked me a number of times, which is why I no longer participate on his forum.
Dave "Snowflake" Hurwitz.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 28, 2024, 12:51:30 PMHerman is exactly right. Hurwitz's biggest flaw is his intolerance of disagreement. There are no true "discussions" on his forum because one can never tell how many dissenting comments have been deleted. At times he'll devote an entire video to ridiculing someone who disagrees with him.
A more secure person would welcome opposing viewpoints, but disagree with Dave and you're on the outs. Example: he was reviewing Levit's recent Mendelssohn disc inspired by the October 7 attacks, but Hurwitz has decided that politics has nothing to do with music (which is of course nonsense), and that if anyone were to make a political point in the comments, they would be banned from his site. He's attacked me a number of times, which is why I no longer participate on his forum.
I agree that Hurwitz is intolerant of dissent in his comment section (he banned me years ago), but this is a stupid example. There would be no benefit to anyone in allowing political comments on Israel/Palestine under a music CD review. It would just turn into a cesspool very quickly.
Quote from: Daverz on March 28, 2024, 02:22:57 PMI agree that Hurwitz is intolerant of dissent in his comment section (he banned me years ago), but this is a stupid example. There would be no benefit to anyone in allowing political comments on Israel/Palestine under a music CD review. It would just turn into a cesspool very quickly.
It was what came to mind as an example of his intolerance of dissent. No reason to throw people off the forum just for bringing it up, and apparently Levit's reason for producing the disc was the war.
And that was a really good nap . . . .
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 28, 2024, 12:51:30 PMHerman is exactly right. Hurwitz's biggest flaw is his intolerance of disagreement. There are no true "discussions" on his forum because one can never tell how many dissenting comments have been deleted. At times he'll devote an entire video to ridiculing someone who disagrees with him.
A more secure person would welcome opposing viewpoints, but disagree with Dave and you're on the outs. Example: he was reviewing Levit's recent Mendelssohn disc inspired by the October 7 attacks, but Hurwitz has decided that politics has nothing to do with music (which is of course nonsense), and that if anyone were to make a political point in the comments, they would be banned from his site. He's attacked me a number of times, which is why I no longer participate on his forum.
I wasn't even aware of these things, the deletions and bans. I don't read the comment section to his videos much, since they tend to consist of the usual adulatory and / or emotional tributes that are usual on youtube. I guess he wants it this way. This guy is even sicker than I thought.
what I meant with vehemence etc is the tone of his videos; the screaming anger at musicians who do not do it his way. This is why I rarely watch his stuff.
Quote from: Herman on March 28, 2024, 06:14:14 PMI wasn't even aware of these things, the deletions and bans. I don't read the comment section to his videos much, since they tend to consist of the usual adulatory and / or emotional tributes that are usual on youtube. I guess he wants it this way. This guy is even sicker than I thought.
what I meant with vehemence etc is the tone of his videos; the screaming anger at musicians who do not do it his way. This is why I rarely watch his stuff.
Agreed. There was a scathing review of Klaus Mäkelä's Sibelius cycle, but when one listens to the recordings one finds that Mäkelä's versions hardly have the faults Hurwitz ascribes to them. My main problem is Mäkelä is the difficulty in finding those Finnish diacritics to spell his last name. Recently there was a video on 10 underperformed symphonic works (several of which BTW I have encountered in live performance myself). But because conductors supposedly do not perform some of the music Hurwitz wants them to, these conductors are "lazy," only programming the tried and true. Of course much of the point about live performance is moot anyway, since most of us get most of our music from recordings and a concert attended by maybe a few thousand people in a city most of us can't get to hardly matters at all. But that doesn't prevent Hurwitz from waxing apoplectic about these "lazy" conductors.
Quote from: Herman on March 28, 2024, 10:43:57 AMUnfortunately I disagree.
There is nothing unfortunate about it. I don't care if you disagree. You shouldn't care either. Nothing in your or my life hinges on this. I have learned to care about only things that matter: The size of my electricity bill etc.
I have zero reasons to defend David Hurwitz. I have let people here know what I think about him, but certainly won't debate it. IT DOESN'T MATTER!!
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 28, 2024, 08:36:53 PMAgreed. There was a scathing review of Klaus Mäkelä's Sibelius cycle, but when one listens to the recordings one finds that Mäkelä's versions hardly have the faults Hurwitz ascribes to them. My main problem is Mäkelä is the difficulty in finding those Finnish diacritics to spell his last name.
Mäkelä - like this? I haven't listened to KM's Sibelius recordings (yet) but from the online responses it's pretty clear to me that a conductor so young, slim and apparently liked by the orchestras he's working with, breeds huge resentment in boomers, who generally like their conductors old, barely able to reach the podium on foot or, even better, dead already and to be found in 100 CD boxsets as big as a baby's coffin.
A lot has changed since the 60s and 70s. Back then orchestras used to consist entirely of late middle-aged men (except of course for the harp and maybe one flute) and conductors were no spring chickens either. Maturity bred musical vision. Nowadays the best orchestras (look at Berlin PO) are stocked with young, sometimes very young musicians. At least half of them are female, not out of some equal opportunity thing, but because more girls persist and succeed in their musical education. Orchestral playing is largely a physical activity and you don't get any better over 55.
Quote from: Karl Henning on December 23, 2023, 12:07:34 PM@Brian this is veering OT, and I shall cross-post. My suggestions for three pieces to start with Boulez in chronological order:
Le Marteau sans maître. It's not everyone's money, and in fact it fell out of and back into my own favor. I fell for it readily the first time I heard it, so maybe you will, too. And now that my own pendulum has re-swung, it's a firm fave again.
Rituel in memoriam Bruno Maderna. Atypical of the composer, as heretofore noted. Mightily strong piece.
Sur Incises. I don't know how the true Boulez fans feel about various times when the composer fiddled with various scores, and I guess that my writing that indicates that my own fandom is somewhat at arm's length, but I find this an unalloyed success.
Apologies to all for digging back over three months, but it seems I haven't looked at this thread in all that time, and returning to it
do want to say to
@Brian, if he's still interested in Boulez recommendations:
Pli Selon Pli. I love other Boulez scores very much, including the ones Karl mentioned and plenty more, but nothing matches this one for me. It's a personal thing for me - as a (probably very odd teenager) I used to repeat-listen to B's recording with Halina Lukomska, spinning my vinyl copy late at night and in the dark. Its form is unique and spellbinding. We start with
Don, and one of the great openings - a shockingly abrupt chord from everyone, followed by an exquisite, mystical and very melodic statement of the first line of the Mallarme poem being set. And then - there's no other word for it, but it's the word I always reach for in talking about this piece - the music retreats into a non-verbal state of nascence. We are taken into a primal word of resonances and drone, punctuated by clattering outbursts of xylophone, screams from a solo cello etc etc.... We are led on a long, slow procession through these various musical events, as if in a dark night of the soul. The process is repeated in reverse in the last section of the piece,
Tombeau, so that the music ends with emergence into vocal clarity (just for the last word) and a final, slashing chord. In between those delicately scored Improvisations which are among Boulez's most beautiful things. #
OK, I couldn't really go without making that recommendation - sorry for the interruption, do carry on....
Quote from: Luke on March 29, 2024, 06:35:52 AMApologies to all for digging back over three months, but it seems I haven't looked at this thread in all that time, and returning to it do want to say to @Brian, if he's still interested in Boulez recommendations:
Pli Selon Pli. I love other Boulez scores very much, including the ones Karl mentioned and plenty more, but nothing matches this one for me. It's a personal thing for me - as a (probably very odd teenager) I used to repeat-listen to B's recording with Halina Lukomska, spinning my vinyl copy late at night and in the dark. Its form is unique and spellbinding. We start with Don, and one of the great openings - a shockingly abrupt chord from everyone, followed by an exquisite, mystical and very melodic statement of the first line of the Mallarme poem being set. And then - there's no other word for it, but it's the word I always reach for in talking about this piece - the music retreats into a non-verbal state of nascence. We are taken into a primal word of resonances and drone, punctuated by clattering outbursts of xylophone, screams from a solo cello etc etc.... We are led on a long, slow procession through these various musical events, as if in a dark night of the soul. The process is repeated in reverse in the last section of the piece, Tombeau, so that the music ends with emergence into vocal clarity (just for the last word) and a final, slashing chord. In between those delicately scored Improvisations which are among Boulez's most beautiful things. #
OK, I couldn't really go without making that recommendation - sorry for the interruption, do carry on....
I'm glad you brought this up. I consider "Pli" to be Boulez's masterpiece, above the others Karl mentioned save for perhaps "Marteau." And while I've heard all the other Bz pieces mentioned here live, I've never heard "Pli" performed, and Bz never brought it to New York. The first recording with Lukomska is the most violent, and in my opinion the best of his three. To return this to Hurwitz, he constantly denigrates the avant-garde and lists Boulez as one of three composers we can live without. (But if you read his written reviews on Classics Today, you'll find he gives "Sur Incises" a 9/9, and has some praise for "Rituel." Hypocrisy? I wouldn't dream of saying such a thing.)
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 29, 2024, 06:45:28 AMThe first recording with Lukomska is the most violent, and in my opinion the best of his three.
I'm glad you say that. I certainly prefer it, but I've always suspected I just imprinted on it early. It certainly has the violence you mention, which makes these events stand out from that fascinating background of long held, amorphous harmonies all the more colourfully. I've just been looking through the score again. It really is the most extraordinary thing - mind boggling to look at, let alone to imagine mastering.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 29, 2024, 06:45:28 AM...he... lists Boulez as one of three composers we can live without.
He's not speaking for me, because I certainly couldn't, and not just for
Pli (e.g. I have a sudden urge to listen to
Le soleil des eaux again, with its gorgeous, sun-baked opening movement.) Dare I say that I think Hurwitz is responding to the idea of Boulez rather than to the beauty of much of his actual music?
Quote from: Luke on March 29, 2024, 06:52:50 AMI'm glad you say that. I certainly prefer it, but I've always suspected I just imprinted on it early. It certainly has the violence you mention, which makes these events stand out from that fascinating background of long held, amorphous harmonies all the more colourfully. I've just been looking through the score again. It really is the most extraordinary thing - mind boggling to look at, let alone to imagine mastering.
I don't have a complete 1-volume score of Pli. I have Don and two of the Improvisations, but not Tombeau which I consider the high point of the work (especially the soprano's entrance at the end, with the accompanying horn.) I have many other Boulez scores, including a Marteau which he signed for me the one time I met him at Carnegie Weill Recital Hall following a lovely performance of that work. Elliott Carter, whom I've spoken to a few times, was also in attendance.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 29, 2024, 07:00:54 AMI don't have a complete 1-volume score of Pli. I have Don and two of the Improvisations, but not Tombeau which I consider the high point of the work (especially the soprano's entrance at the end, with the accompanying horn.) I have many other Boulez scores, including a Marteau which he signed for me the one time I met him at Carnegie Weill Recital Hall following a lovely performance of that work. Elliott Carter, whom I've spoken to a few times, was also in attendance.
*swooning with jealousy*
(I don't have a printed copy of Don at all, I'm looking at a scan; as physical objects i have a couple of
Improvisations, Le marteau sans maitre and
Le soleil des eaux.
Hurwitz in 2000 about Sur Incises:
QuoteFinally there's Sur Incises, a magnificent piece "about" the myriad ways the sound of three pianos can be extended by adding three harps and three percussionists (playing mallets and other tuned instruments) to the basic ensemble. Stravinsky's Les Noces is certainly in the background here, and even more to the point, Bartók's Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion. Indeed, after the calm opening, some real Bartókian fireworks give the music genuine passion and expressive urgency. Difficult? Yes, but rewarding too. The performances, under the direction of the composer, presumably give him everything that he wants. I can imagine more warmth at certain moments from the cellos, and maybe an even more savage attack on Sur Incises, but there's no point in complaining about the air when there's nothing else to breathe. Enjoyable, even wonderful, but not for everyone.
He's singing a different tune now, but he's not honest enough to admit to his previous advocacy.
The digression has been moved, please continue that discussion over there (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,32977.0.html) and keep this thread for DH.
Whilst people post about the estimable Mr Hurwitz, it is worth contextualizing his popularity. His channel has ~37K subscribers, and scrolling through videos, most have under 10K views while popular ones go up to the 20K+ range. In other words, pretty much no one watches him and his opinion does not reach far and wide, or even really close and narrow.
Theoria Apophasis meanwhile, has ~307K subscribers, and his videos receive a higher average number of views. Something to ponder. Or not.
But no one is as good for a nap as Hurwitz. Let's see: Are Conductors Necessary? see you all when I wake up.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 29, 2024, 06:45:28 AMI'm glad you brought this up. I consider "Pli" to be Boulez's masterpiece, above the others Karl mentioned save for perhaps "Marteau." And while I've heard all the other Bz pieces mentioned here live, I've never heard "Pli" performed, and Bz never brought it to New York. The first recording with Lukomska is the most violent, and in my opinion the best of his three. To return this to Hurwitz, he constantly denigrates the avant-garde and lists Boulez as one of three composers we can live without. (But if you read his written reviews on Classics Today, you'll find he gives "Sur Incises" a 9/9, and has some praise for "Rituel." Hypocrisy? I wouldn't dream of saying such a thing.)
Agree on Pli Selon Pli, I always wondered why that was a piece that Barenboim didn't record for his Boulez tribute.
indeed, in most cases Hurwitz' videos have a hard time achieving 5000 views. Many people who are into classical music don't even know what the internet IS, and aren't they lucky? That's why DH launches these negative reviews, such as Worst Triangle Concerto Ever, or Do German Composers Ever Have Fun? because they attract viewers, as does Best Beethoven 5.
It's all marketing.
Quote from: Herman on March 29, 2024, 06:54:26 PMindeed, in most cases Hurwitz' videos have a hard time achieving 5000 views. Many people who are into classical music don't even know what the internet IS, and aren't they lucky? That's why DH launches these negative reviews, such as Worst Triangle Concerto Ever, or Do German Composers Ever Have Fun? because they attract viewers, as does Best Beethoven 5.
It's all marketing.
A graduate from the Norman Lebrecht School of Clickbait.
Quote from: Todd on March 29, 2024, 12:42:17 PMWhilst people post about the estimable Mr Hurwitz, it is worth contextualizing his popularity. His channel has ~37K subscribers, and scrolling through videos, most have under 10K views while popular ones go up to the 20K+ range. In other words, pretty much no one watches him and his opinion does not reach far and wide, or even really close and narrow.
Theoria Apophasis meanwhile, has ~307K subscribers, and his videos receive a higher average number of views. Something to ponder. Or not.
Considering how unpopular classical music collecting is not just because classical music is unpopular, but collecting recordings in the era of streaming is also unpopular, DH's sub numbers are an impressive achievement. It doesn't make any sense to compare to a youtuber in a much more popular subject.
Back to pronunciation, but please don't delete this, because it relates to Hurwitz.
The other day I was watching his video on Gould's Goldbergs, and he said this was "one of the most flawed recordings ever made." I was intrigued by this statement, and hoped he would point out those flaws. But he didn't.
Today I was watching his new video about Alfred Brendel. He said Brendel was one of the "most flawed" pianists of the 20th century. Again, he didn't point out any flaws. Then I realized: he was saying "flogged" (meaning promoted or marketed). Which I think is more of a British expression than an American one.
Which leads me to another peeve about Hurwitz. Often, he will say that a certain performer has "faded" based on odd personal criteria. He once said about his bete noire Simon Rattle something like, "Does anyone sit around the dinner table nowadays discussing Simon Rattle recordings?"
I dunno about anyone else, but in my daily life, I don't discuss anyone's classical recordings around the dinner table. If Hurwitz wants to make the point that some performer has faded, he should get into the numbers relating to recording sales, reissues, remasterings, media attention, and so on. But I've never seen him do that.
All those things is just Mean Girls gossip, like Brendel was massively "flogged" by Philips (was he, I mean, in the way Neville Marriner was, back in the day?) or Simon Rattle has "faded". Same with "no one is listening to Bruckner !" There just isn't a way to measure these things, but it's meant to make naive visitors to DH's channel feel bad about discussing Rattle around the dinner table, as we so often do...
I briefly checked the "Whatever happened to Alfred Brendel" video, but it's impossible to watch for longer than a couple of minutes.
It's like watching a bad Trump impression. Everything is repeated over and over again: "he recorded the Beethoven concertos four times. Four times!! Four! (holding four fingers up) I mean count them: four!
The gestures.
The straw men arguments. The setup is Brendel was the nr 1 exponent in Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, and no one mentions him now. What happened?
The setup is disengenuous. Brendel was not the nr 1 exponent in this repertoire. Almost all other top pianists played this repertoire. It was the repertoire you played if you were part of the piano elite. Unless you were a Chopin / Schumann kind of guy. You could be both, a Beethoven and Chopin guy, like Pollini did.
I hear Hurwitz using words like "desperation" drove Brendel to recording Beethoven again; "general insanity", "arrogant fool". The rhetorics are very Trumpy. Obviously Simon Rattle is again mentioned as a "flavour of the month" marketing trick...
What happened to Brendel is he retired, wisely. He's 93 years old and I believe he mentors young musicians.
There are people who listen to his records, and there are people who have moved on to younger, newer perfomers. That's how the market works.
Quote from: Herman on March 30, 2024, 10:55:30 AMAll those things is just Mean Girls gossip, like Brendel was massively "flogged" by Philips (was he, I mean, in the way Neville Marriner was, back in the day?) or Simon Rattle has "faded". Same with "no one is listening to Bruckner !" There just isn't a way to measure these things, but it's meant to make naive visitors to DH's channel feel bad about discussing Rattle around the dinner table, as we so often do...
The thing is, there
are ways to measure these things, however imperfect. Does Bruckner sell concert tickets? Does Bruckner sell recordings? How often does Bruckner get performed, and by whom, and which symphonies get performed most often? These are all concrete data points that one could use in an argument. But I've never heard Hurwitz make this kind of data-based argument.
Years ago (like around 2000), I read an article by Hurwitz where he said something like: "Talk to any marketing people at the major labels, and they'll tell you 'Bruckner doesn't sell'." Oh really, Dave? Then why do record labels keep putting out Bruckner recordings? Explain that, please.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 30, 2024, 10:18:06 AMBack to pronunciation, but please don't delete this, because it relates to Hurwitz.
... how are we pronouncing that, btw? I'm going with Her-witch...
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 30, 2024, 10:18:06 AMThen I realized: he was saying "flogged" (meaning promoted or marketed). Which I think is more of a British expression than an American one.
It means sold (especially sold cheaply/casually) in Britain. If you're trying to flog something you're trying to sell it, which may incidentally involve marketing.
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 11:45:12 AM... how are we pronouncing that, btw? I'm going with Her-witch...
My money's on HER-wits (ts pronounced as in tsar, the equivalent of German z).
Sure, I know - I was jesting!
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 12:00:21 PMSure, I know - I was jesting!
I realized it only after posting. :D
Well, that's on me - bad joke!
Quote from: Luke on March 30, 2024, 12:11:26 PMWell, that's on me - bad joke!
Not bad, just British. >:D
That's just not cricket, old bean!
Quote from: Florestan on March 30, 2024, 11:55:19 AMMy money's on HER-wits (ts pronounced as in tsar, the equivalent of German z).
He invariably introduces himself with his full name at the start of each video, in case you didn't recognize him.
Quote from: Luke on March 29, 2024, 07:10:03 AM*swooning with jealousy*
(I don't have a printed copy of Don at all, I'm looking at a scan; as physical objects i have a couple of Improvisations, Le marteau sans maitre and Le soleil des eaux.
The score of Tombeau is only $120 in USD.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on March 30, 2024, 01:02:19 PMThe score of Tombeau is only $120 in USD.
...and worth every penny! :)
Just chipping in to say that I too regard
Pli selon pli as
Boulez's absolute masterpiece. A work of rarefied, intense beauty, and one that never ceases to amaze me.
Oh well in that case, put me down for 5
Quote from: DavidW on March 30, 2024, 08:42:05 AMIt doesn't make any sense to compare to a youtuber in a much more popular subject.
The YouTuber I cited is not popular. David Hurwitz is less popular than an unpopular YouTuber. That's the point.
Maybe it's time for a Hurwitz Derangement Syndrome thread. The bitchfest is getting as tiresome as a bad Hurwitz video.
Quote from: Daverz on March 30, 2024, 03:09:24 PMMaybe it's time for a Hurwitz Derangement Syndrome thread. The bitchfest is getting as tiresome as a bad Hurwitz video.
To counter the bitchfest, I will point out that I've gotten some good recommendations from Hurwitz. Also, occasionally he writes something interesting or makes a worthwhile point.
btw I've moved the second digression to the first digression's thread in the diner.
Quote from: Daverz on March 30, 2024, 03:09:24 PMMaybe it's time for a Hurwitz Derangement Syndrome thread. The bitchfest is getting as tiresome as a bad Hurwitz video.
Well I mean this is it! It started that way and has always been that way. I think really we need a "Hurwitz fan club" for people to just discuss his reviews without the old argument coming up.
Quote from: DavidW on March 30, 2024, 05:00:51 PMWell I mean this is it! It started that way and has always been that way. I think really we need a "Hurwitz fan club" for people to just discuss his reviews without the old argument coming up.
I'm not crazy about joining a "Hurwitz fan club," but I think it's the only way to make this thread viable.
Could it be as simple as re-titling this thread?
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 30, 2024, 03:31:39 PMTo counter the bitchfest, I will point out that I've gotten some good recommendations from Hurwitz. Also, occasionally he writes something interesting or makes a worthwhile point.
Unquestionably so. Perhaps to counter all the bitchfest, I should make a list of all kinds of things from Hurwitz I admire. (I just don't want him to get a swelled head.)
Quote from: DavidW on March 30, 2024, 04:59:07 PMbtw I've moved the second digression to the first digression's thread in the diner.
And where will you move the third digression>
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on March 30, 2024, 03:31:39 PMTo counter the bitchfest, I will point out that I've gotten some good recommendations from Hurwitz. Also, occasionally he writes something interesting or makes a worthwhile point.
Time for my favorite couplet again:
Accidents happen.
Quote from: Karl Henning on March 30, 2024, 05:11:19 PMCould it be as simple as re-titling this thread?
The Cult of Hurwitz! :P ;D ;D
Okay thread started here (https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,32984.0.html)
Lest you think David Hurwitz's attitude towards Mäkelä isn't informed by some degree of personal vindictiveness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh3lWkEsFH8
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on April 03, 2024, 07:37:49 AMLest you think David Hurwitz's attitude towards Mäkelä isn't informed by some degree of personal vindictiveness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh3lWkEsFH8
At a single stroke any claims of objectivity or considered critical thought go out of the window with this prime example of ugly bitching - can it be called anything else? I have no idea if Makela will be great or a failure but at least give the guy a chance! The appointment is - in part at least - made with the co-operation of the players who are no fools and won't tolerate a nobody on the rostrum. Yes a nice recording contract helps of course but players won't tolerate mediocrity.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on April 03, 2024, 12:34:31 PMAt a single stroke any claims of objectivity or considered critical thought go out of the window with this prime example of ugly bitching - can it be called anything else? I have no idea if Makela will be great or a failure but at least give the guy a chance! The appointment is - in part at least - made with the co-operation of the players who are no fools and won't tolerate a nobody on the rostrum. Yes a nice recording contract helps of course but players won't tolerate mediocrity.
No, indeed. That he has won the admiration of the band counts for a very great deal.