David Hurwitz

[Florestan]

1, 2, or 3 people can be right. 2500 people are always wrong.

Truth is individual always.

Iow, if John Doe claimed two plus two equals four, it would be true, whereas if 2500 John Does claimed the same, it would be false.

Nonsense on stilts.

[Florestan]

If Makela's performance at Carnegie Hall last night of the Rach 2 with the Concertgebouw is any indication, there's no lack of musical cojones as Hurwitz complains. It was if anything somewhat over the top, but always colorful and dynamic, and the adagio showed he has a highly musical sense of how to shape a long line. 2500 people at Carnegie stamping ahd cheering can't be all wrong.

Wish I was there.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Wish I was there.

Hop on a plane. Tonight with the Concertgebouw he does Verklaerte Nacht and Mahler 1. Actually that was the program I would have preferred (since I've got Rach 2 under another conductor in another series), but I screwed up my dates. No matter.

[Florestan]

Hop on a plane.

I would if I could --- not for the program but for the pleasure of meeting you in flesh and blood and spending all night in discussing matters of music and life (including politics). I'm sure we could make them several nights, actually. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

I would if I could --- not for the program but for the pleasure of meeting you in flesh and blood and spending all night in discussing matters of music and life (including politics). I'm sure we could make them several nights, actually. 

Any time!

[Mookalafalas]

Perhaps this has been discussed before. I just saw some of a video Hurwitz did on the Erato Norrington boxed set. The whole video was just a vituperous trashing. Most of the comments below the video were wholly in agreement.
   By chance, I have access to the Norrington box. I'm sampling it now. I really like it a lot. It seems to mostly be "reduced" forces approach to standard works. The delivery is clear, forceful, no-nonsense. I strongly suspect that if Hurwitz were put into a Blind A/B analysis of the these recordings, he'd praise them. I've only seen a small smattering of his reviews, but this is the first where my opinion really swings around to Karl's. It was mean spirited, petty, and (I strongly suspect) ill-informed.

[Number Six]

I thank Hurwitz for introducing me to Norrington. He hates the guy so much that I couldn't help but sample his work out of curiosity.

Turns out I like it. 

[Mookalafalas]

I thank Hurwitz for introducing me to Norrington. He hates the guy so much that I couldn't help but sample his work out of curiosity.

Turns out I like it. 

Ditto.
              I generally like Hurwitz, but this seems to be all the stuff he hates the most: Reduced orchestra size, clarity over grandeur, and, to a lesser extent, period instruments.

[Christo]

I enjoy listening to the great Hurwitzer and I can usually fully share his judgement. In fact, I know of only one example of a real difference of opinion: the great Hurwitzer has no feeling for Samuel Barber's lyrical fifteen-minute song for soprano and orchestra (or rather: chamber orchestra) that takes us back in memory to the scents and colours of Knoxville: Summer of 1915. Oompah music, for him, he hums some parody nonsense to prove his aversion.

I myself find this piece of pure lyricism incredibly beautiful and moving, provided it is not performed by one of the "screaming sopranos" that Harry so passionately detests, that is, without vibrato and other operatic tricks. Of the >20 that I have ever listened to, about 16 sopranos had to be dismissed. But there remains a handful of sopranos, starting in Barber's own time, who should also be able to soften the great Hurwitzer -- the piece is truly tear-jerkingly beautiful. Recommended, and for the rest: follow the great Hurwitzer. 

[Jo498]

"Erato" = Virgin/EMI? Regardless of if one dis/likes them one should Norrington give credit that he really was a pioneer in the 1980s with extending the "HIP" approach to Beethoven and later.

[foxandpeng]

I enjoy listening to the great Hurwitzer and I can usually fully share his judgement. In fact, I know of only one example of a real difference of opinion: the great Hurwitzer has no feeling for Samuel Barber's lyrical fifteen-minute song for soprano and orchestra (or rather: chamber orchestra) that takes us back in memory to the scents and colours of Knoxville: Summer of 1915. Oompah music, for him, he hums some parody nonsense to prove his aversion.

I myself find this piece of pure lyricism incredibly beautiful and moving, provided it is not performed by one of the "screaming sopranos" that Harry so passionately detests, that is, without vibrato and other operatic tricks. Of the >20 that I have ever listened to, about 16 sopranos had to be dismissed. But there remains a handful of sopranos, starting in Barber's own time, who should also be able to soften the great Hurwitzer -- the piece is truly tear-jerkingly beautiful. Recommended, and for the rest: follow the great Hurwitzer. 

I like opinionated people when those opinions spring out of knowledge, passion and commitment. I very occasionally listen to Mr H, and sometimes agree with him. What I like, is that even when I feel he has the wrong end of the stick, it makes me think.

[DavidW]

Perhaps this has been discussed before. I just saw some of a video Hurwitz did on the Erato Norrington boxed set. The whole video was just a vituperous trashing. Most of the comments below the video were wholly in agreement.

With Norrington, I think when he, Hogwood, Standage, Manze, Gardiner, etc. were new to the scene they were not only so different from what came before but those conductors leaned into the differences. It was surprisingly easy to hate what they were doing with the great composers of the Baroque and Classical eras. But, over time that performance style has mostly been accepted and integrated. To go back to them (as I've discovered) with modern ears it does not sound absurdly fast or dry anymore. But I can understand (but don't accept or condone) how Hurwitz wouldn't revisit those past recordings with fresh ears. I did though and those recordings are pretty darned good.

[Mookalafalas]

With Norrington, I think when he, Hogwood, Standage, Manze, Gardiner, etc. were new to the scene they were not only so different from what came before but those conductors leaned into the differences. It was surprisingly easy to hate what they were doing with the great composers of the Baroque and Classical eras. But, over time that performance style has mostly been accepted and integrated. To go back to them (as I've discovered) with modern ears it does not sound absurdly fast or dry anymore. But I can understand (but don't accept or condone) how Hurwitz wouldn't revisit those past recordings with fresh ears. I did though and those recordings are pretty darned good.

   Nice comment. Part of Hurwitz's schtick is that he has working familiarity with virtually every recording ever made. He goes through dozens of boxed sets and comments authoritatively on each disk--but there just aren't enough hours to have clear, much less fresh, impressions of so much music. Yet I've never seen him say "I don't remember this one," or "I haven't heard this."

[Daverz]

With Norrington, I think when he, Hogwood, Standage, Manze, Gardiner, etc. were new to the scene they were not only so different from what came before but those conductors leaned into the differences. It was surprisingly easy to hate what they were doing with the great composers of the Baroque and Classical eras. But, over time that performance style has mostly been accepted and integrated.

As much as I do enjoy many HIP groups, I do sometimes yearn for a silkier (or at least less whiny) and fuller string tone.  Or in music for keyboard and orchestra, for an instrument that can actually project some character beyond some tinkling noises struggling to be heard over the orchestra.

[Herman]

Nice comment. Part of Hurwitz's schtick is that he has working familiarity with virtually every recording ever made. He goes through dozens of boxed sets and comments authoritatively on each disk--but there just aren't enough hours to have clear, much less fresh, impressions of so much music. Yet I've never seen him say "I don't remember this one," or "I haven't heard this."

Much less: "I changed my mind about this recording / music."
It's all BS.

[Roasted Swan]

Nice comment. Part of Hurwitz's schtick is that he has working familiarity with virtually every recording ever made. He goes through dozens of boxed sets and comments authoritatively on each disk--but there just aren't enough hours to have clear, much less fresh, impressions of so much music. Yet I've never seen him say "I don't remember this one," or "I haven't heard this."

To the bolded - for me this is the key reason I find his videos frustrating.  Apart from anything else I find as I get older, I find it all but impossible to speak with the sweeping certainties of the average adolescent.  Yet this is precisely what Hurwitz manages to do - see his series of "Greatest ever...", "Best and worst....." and several others.  Now of course I understand that this absolutism is very appealing to a base that crave such unwavering conviction. 

Another thing to consider; Hurwitz started out as a 'traditional' critic and writer on music.  I've never read any of his books but by definition a survey/biography etc of a composer must be carefully researched and thoughtfully written, edited, proofed and the like.  This takes a lot of time and will be read by just a tiny audience.  Moving onto a written web-based review site still takes time to produce and again factual accuracy should be checked but perhaps less rigorously as online reviews can easily be updated/corrected post-publication.  His stream of conciousness youtube 'articles' (he rarely seems to edit/correct a slip of the tongue and positively makes a virtue out of "not being bothered" if he pronounces something wrong or somesuch). 

So the benefits for him are a larger audience, less need for rigorous accuracy (everything is couched in "its my opinion terms" and the format is much more forgiving and allows for his personality to be a major factor), and the ability to generate far more content (and by extension income) than his previous formats did.  Of course, another by-product is that it puts a face to the critique and makes the "personality" of the reviewer a significant part of the experience. I think it is fairly clear that Hurwitz enjoys the fame/notoriety this brings him albeit in the very niche eco-system of classical music reviewing.  Through the YouTube platform he has found a way to maximise his impact while also reducing the time and effort that goes into producing the product - what's not to love from his perspective....

[(poco) Sforzando]

To the bolded - for me this is the key reason I find his videos frustrating.  Apart from anything else I find as I get older, I find it all but impossible to speak with the sweeping certainties of the average adolescent.  Yet this is precisely what Hurwitz manages to do - see his series of "Greatest ever...", "Best and worst....." and several others.  Now of course I understand that this absolutism is very appealing to a base that crave such unwavering conviction. 

Another thing to consider; Hurwitz started out as a 'traditional' critic and writer on music.  I've never read any of his books but by definition a survey/biography etc of a composer must be carefully researched and thoughtfully written, edited, proofed and the like.  This takes a lot of time and will be read by just a tiny audience.  Moving onto a written web-based review site still takes time to produce and again factual accuracy should be checked but perhaps less rigorously as online reviews can easily be updated/corrected post-publication.  His stream of conciousness youtube 'articles' (he rarely seems to edit/correct a slip of the tongue and positively makes a virtue out of "not being bothered" if he pronounces something wrong or somesuch). 

So the benefits for him are a larger audience, less need for rigorous accuracy (everything is couched in "its my opinion terms" and the format is much more forgiving and allows for his personality to be a major factor), and the ability to generate far more content (and by extension income) than his previous formats did.  Of course, another by-product is that it puts a face to the critique and makes the "personality" of the reviewer a significant part of the experience. I think it is fairly clear that Hurwitz enjoys the fame/notoriety this brings him albeit in the very niche eco-system of classical music reviewing.  Through the YouTube platform he has found a way to maximise his impact while also reducing the time and effort that goes into producing the product - what's not to love from his perspective....

Very perspicacious comment and analysis of the "Hurwitz phenomenon." Yet when he takes the time and trouble to think things through (all that alliteration accidental), he can produce some stimulating analysis.

[Roasted Swan]

Very perspicacious comment and analysis of the "Hurwitz phenomenon." Yet when he takes the time and trouble to think things through (all that alliteration accidental), he can produce some stimulating analysis.

to the bolded - just so.... but the key word is WHEN!!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Giving credit where it's due, I thought these "chats" (i.e., Hurwitz talking to himself), though presented in his usual improvisational style, were both on point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdafZirOWRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFmqEImA-c&t=137s

[Daverz]

Giving credit where it's due, I thought these "chats" (i.e., Hurwitz talking to himself), though presented in his usual improvisational style, were both on point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdafZirOWRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFmqEImA-c&t=137s

I skip any of his videos on anything political because I find his takes as shallow as they are opinionated.