David Hurwitz

[Madiel]

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.

[lunar22]

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.

[DavidW]

the 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!

I have a feeling that most of the posters here are not paying for Classics Today nor are watching most of his youtube content.

[Florestan]

By that logic Havergal Brian is the most popular composer that ever lived!

Indeed. 

I 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.

[lunar22]

By that logic Havergal Brian is the most popular composer that ever lived!

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  .

[Florestan]

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  .

413 pages, actually.


https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,1453.0.html

[lunar22]

obviously there must be more than one thread then and I looked at the wrong one....

[Brian]

By that logic Havergal Brian is the most popular composer that ever lived!

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.)

[Karl Henning]

(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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.)

[Karl Henning]

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.)

I'm impressed that he did a video with which you are this pleased!

[Madiel]

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me a BETTER source of reviews.

[Brian]

I'm impressed that he did a video with which you are this pleased!

Including a good bit of impersonation 

I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me a BETTER source of reviews.

Besides this board I don't know of any.

[DavidW]

I'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).

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'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?)

[Brian]

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).

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.

[Madiel]

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).

The Guardian is... okay. MusicWeb is terrible. The others are subscription and I couldn't even tell you how much reviewing they do.

[Madiel]

Actually I've remembered an alternative I've been meaning to try more: the BBC record review.

[DavidW]

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.

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.

[Spotted Horses]

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.