David Hurwitz

[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."

[Karl Henning]

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

Not especially embarrassing for Bach. For Hurwitz, though....

[Madiel]

Not especially embarrassing for Bach. For Hurwitz, though....

I've already seen multiple people agreeing that that's a Bach piece they don't like.

[Madiel]

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."

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.

[Mookalafalas]

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...

  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. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

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"):

Hearing 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):

I 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.)

[Karl Henning]

I'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.

[Madiel]

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"):
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.

[Madiel]

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. 

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. 

[Brian]

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"):

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.

[Madiel]

We 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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Explain 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.

[Karl Henning]

he series of videos is not precisely named, I agree.

So, an unforced error on Hurwitz's part, agreed.

[Madiel]

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.

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.

[Madiel]

So, an unforced error on Hurwitz's part, agreed.

Like your edited quote of my post.