David Hurwitz

[Irons]

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. 

Views = money.

[DavidW]

Haven'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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes 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.

[71 dB]

Haven'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. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

It was BWV1065. Hurwitz just thinks making four harpsichords play simultanuously sounds like two skeletons copulating on tin roof. 

Not four skeletons?

[Florestan]

Not four skeletons?

Four harpsichords would actually make for eight skeletons. Ask Thomas Beecham. 

[steve ridgway]

Hurwitz just thinks making four harpsichords play simultanuously sounds like two skeletons copulating on tin roof. 

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 .

[Madiel]

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...

[Madiel]

Well, the analysis of the mechanics of bony intercourse might just be one of the best things to emerge from this thread.

[Papy Oli]

Well, 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...

[71 dB]

Not 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.

[steve ridgway]

Well, 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 .

[Mookalafalas]

It was BWV1065. Hurwitz just thinks making four harpsichords play simultanuously sounds like two skeletons copulating on tin roof. 

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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well, 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.

[Mookalafalas]

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.

[LKB]

It is very humerus indeed...

Now, hear the Word of the Lord...

[DavidW]

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.

Good old passive voice.  Not "I might have been wrong..." but "mistakes were made..."

[Madiel]

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.

[DavidW]

Given the past history of incorrect assertions about past Hurwitz reviews.

Mistakes were made characterizing Hurwitz' treatment of Herreweghe.

[Mookalafalas]

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.

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."