In a review of Stanford's symphonies on Naxos, he called Mendelssohn and Bruch "gutless wimps" whose music has a "near total lack of passion" and little emotional depth. Where does this horrid man get this garbage? Mendelssohn and Bruch, lacking passion or emotion? The overplayed and overexposed Bruch VC1 is, if nothing else in the world, a dictionary definition of passion - and to say of Mendelssohn - and - and - and - danger danger - overheating -
I'm going to stop talking now because if I do I will rant and be incoherent and it will be ugly. Suffice to say:
>:(
Actually let's find a larger one:
(http://msn.mess.be/data/media/52/Angry.jpg)
Or:
(http://blog.mediacatalyst.com/images/angry.jpg)
I do not bother to read Hurwitz, Teachout, etc. Just skip them instead of getting upset. It is not worth it. You can spend your time and emotion (!) better by listening to Bruch. ;D
hurwitz? ...don't think i have any recordings by him ;D
dj
Hurwitz pissed someone off? Is this unusual? ;D
David, that post is right on the mark. Maybe Hurwitz should try to do what the people he's criticizing do; might evoke a little more respect. -- Naaah, probably not. ::)
prolly not...chuckle
dj
I won't necessarily agree with him, but I do understand the point re: Mendelssohn, whose music, as charming and well-crafted as it can be, does come across as rather wimpy salon stuff, devoid of the deep passion and personal angst you might find from other Romantics. It's more pleasant than moving--which is not, in my mind, to denigrate it.
I think this is well put by Grazioso, but would add that I think some of his chamber music IS above that, particularly the op 81 quartet, one of the great romantic quartets.
Quote from: Grazioso on May 30, 2007, 03:19:33 AM
I won't necessarily agree with him, but I do understand the point re: Mendelssohn, whose music, as charming and well-crafted as it can be, does come across as rather wimpy salon stuff, devoid of the deep passion and personal angst you might find from other Romantics. It's more pleasant than moving--which is not, in my mind, to denigrate it.
Hurwitz is wrong about Mendelssohn but I think he was making the point that the composer had a wide influence that not only extended into the first years of the 20th century but sucked (or suckered) in composers such as Stanford.
The examples he cited were spot on.
However, although he implies fault, many of us enjoy these composers be they Reinecke or Stanford.
As for Bruch try his threes, 3rd Symphony and 3rd Violin Concerto.
The Hurwitzer is a very potent diuretic marketed by Merck-Frosst. For some people it also acts as a run-to-the-can laxative.
Quote from: brianrein on May 29, 2007, 10:09:14 AM
In a review of Stanford's symphonies on Naxos, he called Mendelssohn and Bruch "gutless wimps" whose music has a "near total lack of passion" and little emotional depth.
Welcome to the club ;D I used to get upset with Hurwitz too occasionally. For example, he savaged my favorite Kullervo, quite unfairly in my opinion. But I've since become used to him and expect the over-the-top negative review. I've even come to look forward to them. His rants can be very entertaining if you don't take it personally.
To be accurate, and fair to the critic, he said of the Stanford 4th and 7th Symphonies, "The problem with these symphonies is their near total lack of passion, an accusation often leveled at Victorian English music, and with some justification." In other words, those specific remarks you quote are aimed at the Stanford pieces, not Mendelssohn and Bruch. And nowhere does he say there is little emotional depth in their music (although you may think he implies it). And yes, I agree with him:
relative to Liszt, Schumann, Brahms and Wagner, Bruch and Mendelssohn are emotional wimps.
Hurwitz gave the recording a 9/9. Obviously he recommends it. He's just warning you not to expect anything like full-blooded Romantic passion. That's fair I think.
Sarge
Quote from: Grazioso on May 30, 2007, 03:19:33 AM
I won't necessarily agree with him, but I do understand the point re: Mendelssohn, whose music, as charming and well-crafted as it can be, does come across as rather wimpy salon stuff, devoid of the deep passion and personal angst you might find from other Romantics. It's more pleasant than moving--which is not, in my mind, to denigrate it.
What? Have you heard his fourth string symphony?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 30, 2007, 04:47:14 AM
Welcome to the club ;D I used to get upset with Hurwitz too occasionally. For example, he savaged my favorite Kullervo, quite unfairly in my opinion. But I've since become used to him and expect the over-the-top negative review. I've even come to look forward to them. His rants can be very entertaining if you don't take it personally.
Totally agree.
Is it a peculiarly English trait to denigrate Medelssohn, or is this a world-wide phenomenon?
Quote from: Guido on May 30, 2007, 05:51:32 AM
Totally agree.
Is it a peculiarly English trait to denigrate Medelssohn, or is this a world-wide phenomenon?
Well, Hurwitz is an American. I believe the British, more than any other nationality, including the Germans, generally like Mendelssohn and rate him highly. I base my opinion on not a single fact but only a fuzzy feeling from four decades of reading reviews.
Sarge
The Sarge is right. Brits love Mendelssohn, esp. his instrumental/orchestral works. I think the Germans love his choral works a bit more. Mediterranean people (French, Italian, Spanish) generally dismiss him.
Where is Saul when you need him...? 0:)
Do you need him? 0:)
Quote from: O Mensch on May 30, 2007, 06:33:53 AM
Where is Saul when you need him...? 0:)
Probably drawing magical circles around a picture of Hurwitz while uttering some kabbalistic curses upon DH's wicked soul. :D
Emotionless wimps, huh? I disagree totally. Mendelssohn is proof that music can be moving without being stormily Romantic.
Sounds like Hurwitz needs to listen to Abbado's readings of the symphonies on DG - passionless? hardly... quite the opposite.
I am not a Mendelssohn fan. He's probably the only "big-name" composer I don't really like. I like the Mid-Summer Night's Dream and the Violin Concerto. Don't particularly care for his chamber music such as the string quartets, Songs without Words, etc., but I do like the Octet. Probably don't like him much because he is just for the most part really really bland.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on May 30, 2007, 06:18:18 AM
Mediterranean people (French, Italian, Spanish) generally dismiss him.
You got my number there. :-\
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 30, 2007, 05:43:36 PM
Don't particularly care for his chamber music such as the string quartets, Songs without Words, etc., but I do like the Octet.
I don't particularly care for his string quartets either, but you should give his piano trios a shot. They seem to be a little more memorable.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 30, 2007, 06:00:48 PM
You got my number there. :-\
Well, I'm in there too (in a sense). But note I used the qualifyer "generally" ;)
If I had to count all the times the hurwitzer has pissed me off, I'd run out of numbers. However, he has also amused me -- especially with all his back tracking and side stepping around Joyce Hatto. He's good for a laugh with my breakfast, but I don't take his bad reviews as seriously as he would like them taken. I check out as many opinions as I can, and he's just one of many. He is fun when he really is insulting; it's hard not to laugh at him when he gets so righteously incensed. Classical music's very own hanging judge, hanging out there in the breeze he generates with all of his hot air.
He gets people to talking about him, that's for sure...
Quote from: donwyn on May 30, 2007, 09:09:30 PM
He gets people to talking about him, that's for sure...
Kind of like Paris Hilton...
Quote from: Bunny on May 30, 2007, 07:20:53 PM
...Classical music's very own hanging judge, hanging out there in the breeze he generates with all of his hot air.
LOL I love that image! ;D But I have better things to do than read reviews. Usually the music itself is far more interesting. ;)
Quote from: stingo on May 31, 2007, 03:25:41 AM
Kind of like Paris Hilton...
i think she's hot :D
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on May 31, 2007, 09:34:37 AM
i think she's hot :D
...and i think she should be spanked! i volunteer...hehehehhe >:D
dj
Quote from: brianrein on May 29, 2007, 10:09:14 AM
In a review of Stanford's symphonies on Naxos, he called Mendelssohn and Bruch "gutless wimps" whose music has a "near total lack of passion" and little emotional depth. Where does this horrid man get this garbage? Mendelssohn and Bruch, lacking passion or emotion? The overplayed and overexposed Bruch VC1 is, if nothing else in the world, a dictionary definition of passion - and to say of Mendelssohn - and - and - and - danger danger - overheating -
I'm going to stop talking now because if I do I will rant and be incoherent and it will be ugly. Suffice to say:
>:(
Actually let's find a larger one:
(http://msn.mess.be/data/media/52/Angry.jpg)
Or:
(http://blog.mediacatalyst.com/images/angry.jpg)
Dont pay attention to him.
He is a gutless Schmuck!
Well, the most interesting discussion here is about Mendelssohn, not Hurwitz.
I appreciate highly Mendelssohn's music. His character and background are evident in it; you cannot expect hom to write the music of a Schumann or a Chopin. But it would be enough to listen to his Paulus to notice that we are dealing with a great composer, and most of his chamber music is extraordinary.
I leave further comments on Mendelssohn for a thread on his music. He deserves a lot more than to be an appendix of a Hurwitz discussion.
I accept one criticizes a composer.
But almost every piece of music I know deserves a respectful listening.
Scornful comments as you can often read (including in this forum) are just proofs of ignorance.
Even people having listened to classical for decades are capable to write such things. Subjectivity has no limits.
Lately I read such scornful sentences toward Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Paganini, Schubert, Shostakovich, Haydn and now Bruch and Mendelssohn.
Preposterous!
Yeah, i even remember somebody scornfully belittling the music of Bach. What is the world coming to?
Relativism, unfortunately.
you must mean this article:
"Music such as this--well crafted, tuneful, and beautifully scored--probably deserves more attention than it gets. The problem with these symphonies is their near total lack of passion, an accusation often leveled at Victorian English music, and with some justification. But this isn't entirely fair; the "gutless wimp" school of Romantic music originated in Germany with Mendelssohn, and infected scads of later German composers, including Reinecke, Bruch, Rheinberger, and countless others. The problem for England was that for several decades until Elgar came along this style had no serious competition from anyone other than Arthur Sullivan working with W.S. Gilbert. Germany at least had Wagner, Liszt, and in terms of emotional depth, Brahms.
And so we come to these charming works, composed between 1888 and 1911 but sounding as if they could have been written in 1858. Neither taxes the listener, and neither outstays its welcome (though at 42 minutes the Fourth Symphony comes closer than the pithy and crisp Seventh).
This disc is the first in a projected Stanford series, and the performances are certainly every bit as fine as Handley's on Chandos; indeed, the Bournemouth Symphony is marginally the finer orchestra (Handley has Ulster), and the sonics are as fresh and pure as Stanford's scoring is lucid. I know the first paragraph of this review may sound harsh, but there's no point in gilding the lily. As long as you don't expect anything dramatic or strikingly original, there's plenty to enjoy here. [5/29/2007]
--David Hurwitz"
funny thing, he still gave it a 9 + 9.
The ratings are for performance and sound, not for composition (i.e. unless Hurwitz deals with serial music, which he clearly loathes).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 18, 2007, 07:17:25 AM
Yeah, i even remember somebody scornfully belittling the music of Bach. What is the world coming to?
Josh? He just wanted to provoke, in my opinion.
I go to amazon.com to check out the details of a performance of Brahms' 'Double' concerto that I'm listening to, and I come across this...
Quote from: David Hurwitzeveryone involved seems to have given a lot of thought and care putting across a very warm, personable interpretation of Brahms's greatest concerto.
Link (http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Double-Concerto-Mendelssohn-Violin/dp/B000000S9R/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1221422681&sr=1-4)
He didn't piss me off, but I'm more like ???. He may like the 'Double' concerto very much, but saying it's Brahms' greatest is taking it a bit too far, IMHO.
Brian,
You said, "David Hurwitz just PISSED ME OFF:
Well, that must be better than being PISSED ON.
Quote from: opus67 on September 14, 2008, 12:14:17 PM
He didn't piss me off, but I'm more like ???. He may like the 'Double' concerto very much, but saying it's Brahms' greatest is taking it a bit too far, IMHO.
He's entitled to his opinion, and you sure can't prove him wrong. Personally, I like both of them equally.
That is actually a strikingly interesting opinion, and reading it makes me want to look at (and listen to) the Double Concerto afresh.
At ant rate, Hurwitz generally amplifies my normal tendency to think more of a fellow listener's likes, than of his dislikes.
Wow, Hurwitz really is an idiot.
Quote from: Don on September 14, 2008, 03:43:55 PM
He's entitled to his opinion, and you sure can't prove him wrong. Personally, I like both of them equally.
Both of what?
Quote from: eyeresist on September 14, 2008, 07:21:01 PM
Wow, Hurwitz really is an idiot.
Both of what?
Well, it appears Don is gone forever. I think he was referring to the double and violin concerti.
But really, the Double Concerto is better than the other concertos. Just look at the title. Its
twice as good!
Quote from: Catison on September 15, 2008, 06:42:34 AM
But really, the Double Concerto is better than the other concertos. Just look at the title. Its twice as good!
(* chortle *)
His latest gem:
"The viola da gamba usually sounds to me like a dying cow"
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11877 (http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11877)
Quote from: erato on September 15, 2008, 11:18:39 AM
His latest gem:
"The viola da gamba usually sounds to me like a dying cow"
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11877 (http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11877)
Dude, that's hilarious ;D
But, but . . . I know gamba players.
I'm not telling them.
Quote from: erato on September 15, 2008, 11:18:39 AM
His latest gem:
"The viola da gamba usually sounds to me like a dying cow"
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11877 (http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11877)
I'm curious now. When the viola da gamba isn't sounding like a dying cow, what dying animal does it sound like?
Quote from: Catison on September 15, 2008, 12:42:02 PM
I'm curious now. When the viola da gamba isn't sounding like a dying cow, what dying animal does it sound like?
Why do you assume it's either dying, or an animal?
Hurwitz used to work in an abattoir.
So did Dvořák.
When was the last time Hurwitz saw a real open field with a real cow in it?
I've never seen Hurwitz and a cow in a room at the same time. :-\
Quote from: eyeresist on September 15, 2008, 07:14:35 PM
I've never seen Hurwitz and a cow in a room at the same time. :-\
I'm going to avoid making the obvious joke here. ;D
Sometimes I agree with Hurwitz, and he can be very perceptive about some composers, and sometimes I don't. He can be way off base in evaluating the quality of different orchestras and comparing them. How can any one dismiss the magnificent brass section of the Berlin Philharmonic as "weak"?. Unbelievable. This is like calling Arnold Schwarzenegger a puny weakling. He also called their percussion section the world's worst, and a "Joke". In all my years of listening to this supremely great orchestra, I could never detect anything wrong with the percussion section.
I also think that Max Bruch wrote some very fine music. He wouldn't win any prizes for originality, but so what? I have the Conlon/Cologne set of the three symphonies on EMI, and they are very attractive. They would make a welcome change at concerts from the same old Brahms symphonies, wonderful as those are. His oratorio "The Song of the Bell", a setting of the Schiller poem about the forging of a great church bell, which I have on a probably hard to find Thorofon CD , is also well-worth hearing.
Now he has really pissed me off!
A prominent HIP-advocate conducting a symphony of one of the great Romantics, and Hurwitz is pretty gentle with him (by his standards)!
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11887
What should you do to get an entertaining review these days!?
:D
We are only a single generation away from conductors who either knew him (Brahms) or were trained by those who did.
Huh?
Quote from: M forever on September 23, 2008, 10:15:30 PM
We are only a single generation away from conductors who either knew him (Brahms) or were trained by those who did.
Huh?
Translation. There are conductors active today whose teachers either knew Brahms or were trained by those who did.
Like who?
Besides, that statement by Hurwitz betrays his fundamental non-understanding of things like performance practice and style, both modern and historical, as well as the developments and changes that happen constantly, and most importantly how these changes happen, how tradition gets transmitted and how it changes. Which is OK, after all, he is just a hobby percussionist, and Americans are cut off from these traditions anyway and often don't understand them. But then he shouldn't write reviews in which he blahblahs about that. OTOH, he caters to the ignorant who just want to read some simplistic and "strong" opinions they can copy and which make them think they know a few things themselves.
Here I am in agreement with Hurwitz and not Mforever.
Hurwitz is absolutely right on target here in pointing out how silly HIP is in Brahms. How do we know that Brahms would not have been delighted to with performances of his music if he could hear say, Dohnanyi and Cleveland, Masur and the the Gewandhaus, or Levine and Vienna, etc, perform his symphonies? I haven't heard Gardiner's allegedly "authentic" Brahms symphonies, and they might very well be excellent, but if they are, it won't be because of the period instruments.
And Mforever, please stop dismissing those who are less enthusiastic about period instrument performances than you as ignorant of scholarship in performance practice and music history. This is extremely irritating.
Quote from: Superhorn on September 26, 2008, 06:36:11 AM
Here I am in agreement with Hurwitz and not Mforever.
Hurwitz is absolutely right on target here in pointing out how silly HIP is in Brahms. How do we know that Brahms would not have been delighted to with performances of his music if he could hear say, Dohnanyi and Cleveland, Masur and the the Gewandhaus, or Levine and Vienna, etc, perform his symphonies? I haven't heard Gardiner's allegedly "authentic" Brahms symphonies, and they might very well be excellent, but if they are, it won't be because of the period instruments.
And Mforever, please stop dismissing those who are less enthusiastic about period instrument performances than you as ignorant of scholarship in performance practice and music history. This is extremely irritating.
You know what's more irritating? Your formatting of everything you post. It discourages members from reading them.
Quote from: imperfection on September 26, 2008, 01:11:22 PM
You know what's more irritating? Your formatting of everything you post. It discourages members from reading them.
I don't know what Superhorn is up to with his format, but I'm starting to get used to it. Or maybe it's that I just finished a big drink and find everything okay.
I
it.
like
Maybe Superhorn posts with a defective typewriter.
BTW, Bulldon, since you asked (in another thread), there is also at least one post from me missing here in which I mentioned that Gardiner's recording is - finally - an interesting opportunity to hear the valveless natural horns Brahms wanted for his horn parts.
I'm not sure that Brahms actually wanted his orchestral music to be played on natural horns. By his day, valved horns were already the norm.
In 1846 Schumann wote his wonderful but terrifyingly difficult Konzertstuck for four horns and orchestra as a showpiece for valved horns. But to show you how sily some HIP advocates are, there was a concert at Carnegie hall back in the 90s of an orchestra where the horn section played the Konzertstuck, and not a period instrument group. The New York Times reviewer said that it would have been prefererable to hear an "authentic" performance on natural horns ! He didn't even realize that the piece is UNPLAYABLE on the natural instrument !
Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 05:52:30 AM
I'm not sure that Brahms actually wanted his orchestral music to be played on natural horns. By his day, valved horns were already the norm.
Of course you aren't sure because you don't know anything about that subject. Brahms stated that very explicitly. Even though valave horns had become the norm in his day? Yes, of course, because otherwise he wouldn't have had to say that.
Quote from: Superhorn on September 27, 2008, 05:52:30 AM
But to show you how sily some HIP advocates are, there was a concert at Carnegie hall back in the 90s of an orchestra where the horn section played the Konzertstuck, and not a period instrument group. The New York Times reviewer said that it would have been prefererable to hear an "authentic" performance on natural horns ! He didn't even realize that the piece is UNPLAYABLE on the natural instrument !
So because some idiot in the NY Times said that, that means that every single HIP performer on the planet is silly? I didn't know that the whole HIP movement was centered around the music critic of the NY Times.
Music is probably as passionate as the performer who performs it. A bad performer can probably make anything bland.
Hurwitz is harmless really, but I don't put any stock into anything he writes. He's just another critic in a vast sea filled critics.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 27, 2012, 07:20:29 AMa vast sea filled with critics.
Interesting image. Are their feet encased in blocks of cement?
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 27, 2012, 07:20:29 AM....but I don't put any stock into anything he writes.
Really? Not
anything? ;D
10/10 CHARLES KOECHLIN
Le Docteur Fabricius Op. 202; Vers la Voute étoilée
Suttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra
Heinz Holliger"If you love crazy late-Romantic orchestral music at its most extravagant and eccentric, then baby, your ship has come in! Heinz Holliger and the Stuttgart Radio Symphony Orchestra play the living daylights out of this irascible, improbable, and ultimately quite lovable curmudgeon of a piece...Gloriously rich and natural recorded sound puts the final touch on one of the most surprising and rewarding releases of this or any other year. Keep it coming, Hänssler and SWR!"--David Hurwitz
Sarge
Meh. A fluke at best.
:D
Quote from: Opus106 on January 27, 2012, 08:05:03 AM
Meh. A fluke at best.
:D
A fluke? I don't think so ;D To wit:
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 27, 2012, 07:36:26 AM
His string quartets are, in my opinion, right up there with Shostakovich and Bartok. Some of the best written in the 20th Century.
HEITOR VILLA-LOBOS
Complete String Quartets (17)
Cuarteto Latinoamericano"The series reaches its culmination in the large works composed around the time of the Second World War, Nos. 7-11, which really do constitute landmark 20th century contributions to the form on a par with those of Shostakovich and Bartók." --David Hurwitz
Sarge
Quote from: PaulSC on January 27, 2012, 07:33:52 AM
Interesting image. Are their feet encased in blocks of cement?
No, they're in encased in large of amounts of hardened money from record companies. :)
Okay, so me and Hurwitz likes some of the same things, so what? Sarge and I like some of the same things. Harry and I like some of the same things. It happens...
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 27, 2012, 08:20:44 AM
Okay, so me Hurwitz likes some of the same things, so what? Sarge and I like some of the same things. Harry and I like some of the same things. It happens...
So you admit you agree with Hurwitz
sometimes? And can we take it a step further and say that, perhaps, you shouldn't
entirely dismiss his criticism since, obviously, you and he are on the same page about two of your favorite composers? Why don't you take any stock in him? He agrees with you!
I happen to think he's a very good critic whose 10/10 reviews have never let me down and whose 2/9 reviews never fail to amuse me even when I disagree with him.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 27, 2012, 08:29:08 AM
So you admit you agree with Hurwitz sometimes? And can we take it a step further and say that, perhaps, you shouldn't entirely dismiss his criticism since, obviously, you and he are on the same page about two of your favorite composers? Why don't you take any stock in him? He agrees with you!
But a stopped clock is still right twice a day, but you would still throw it out anyway. ;D
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 27, 2012, 08:29:08 AM
I happen to think he's a very good critic whose 10/10 reviews have never let me down and whose 2/9 reviews never fail to amuse me even when I disagree with him.
Some of Hurwitz's 10/10 reviews have caused me to waste my time with mediocre music that he temporarily got really excited about for reasons I couldn't hear (Bruch's Swedish Dances, Braunfels' Berlioz Variations, Hausegger's Natursymphonie [though I know there are folks here who love Hausegger]). On the other hand, a really enormous number of Hurwitz's 10/10 reviews have led me to offbeat music I find completely and utterly stunning. It was Hurwitz, for instance, who put me on Pierne's ballet
Cydalise a few months ago, and Hurwitz who first tempted me into trying Atterberg.
I think Hurwitz is the very good critic, but he always has the strong bias against Karajan and Furtwängler. In his opinion, most of recording from Karajan and Furtwängler is mediocre, and with the recording he can't trash , he give it for Jed Distler :P
In other case, especially the not very well known work, i can trust Hurwitz
Quote from: trung224 on January 28, 2012, 05:37:06 AM
I think Hurwitz is the very good critic, but he always has the strong bias against Karajan and Furtwängler. In his opinion, most of recording from Karajan and Furtwängler is mediocre, and with the recording he can't trash , he give it for Jed Distler :P
In other case, especially the not very well known work, i can trust Hurwitz
This is what I don't like about Hurwitz. If he doesn't like these two conductors and has a bias against them, then he doesn't need to be reviewing them. I mean it's almost as if he'll review these discs and, instead of reviewing the music, he just uses them as a launching pad for his own tirades. I personally can't stand the guy regardless if we like some of the same music (are you reading this Sarge?).
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 28, 2012, 05:43:13 AM
If he doesn't like these two conductors and has a bias against them, then he doesn't need to be reviewing them. I mean it's almost as if he'll review these discs and, instead of reviewing the music, he just uses them as a launching pad for his own tirades.
Absolutely correct, and the same applies to most of his reviews about period instrument recordings.
Quote from: trung224 on January 28, 2012, 05:37:06 AM
I think Hurwitz is the very good critic, but he always has the strong bias against Karajan and Furtwängler. In his opinion, most of recording from Karajan and Furtwängler is mediocre, and with the recording he can't trash , he give it for Jed Distler :P
In other case, especially the not very well known work, i can trust Hurwitz
Yes, I actually credit Hurwitz with some knowledge and taste (it helps that his tastes centre on the same area of late romantic/early modern symphonism that I like), but he is subject to personal fads and ego spurts which make him write some pretty silly hyperbolic stuff, and it happens often enough that I just can't count him as a reliable critic.
Of course these reasons are the same reasons he is a "name", just as in the case of Lebrecht (but without the fraud charges!).