David Hurwitz

[AnotherSpin]

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.

Yes. Only, the mind compares almost automatically, by default. It's so conditioned. But, it's a solvable difficulty.

[Roasted Swan]

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...........

[Florestan]

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...........

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.

[Brian]

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.

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!

(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.

[Cato]

And 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

I recall thumbing through it: many hilariously wrong-headed reviews which are simultaneously hard to believe and appalling.

[DavidW]

I 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.

[DavidW]

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.

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.

[LKB]

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...........

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...

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

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.

[Spotted Horses]

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?

[Florestan]

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/

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)?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

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.

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?

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.

Well, exactly. That is precisely the difference between expertise and amateurship.

[Florestan]

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.

This.

[Brian]

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.

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.

[Karl Henning]

I'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.

[DavidW]

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?

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).

[Karl Henning]

Well 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 ....

[SimonNZ]

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.

This one?:

[Madiel]

Yep.