Classics Today's Rating System

[Brian]

I might have said this before, but Hurwitz misses the mark because he doesn't understand that the lack of vibrato in that recording is an artistic choice.  A conductor is not a reproducer of printed text as music, he is an interpreter, an artist.

But how does this match up with Norrington's own stated goals? I don't own the CD, but according to Hurwitz, RN is setting himself as a sort of arbiter of historical authenticity, arguing that his is the accurate way to conduct the music. RN uses, according to Hurwitz' quotes, his position as an artist to stake out a sort of authentical high ground. We have to be the judges of that ourselves (and Hurwitz uses interviews from the Sony/Bernstein box to very clearly undermines RN's claim to understand the slightest thing about Mahler). Either way, yes, it is an artistic choice. But it may not be a good one.

Now, Hurwitz is a big fan of the personal attack, often too much so. His attacks are, at least, grounded in the musical evidence, though; he rises above the level of politicians (and even Roger Ebert, who recently noted in a review, apropos of little, that Billy Crystal is gaining weight) - but it is hard, when I am faced with consistently poor results, to my ear, from artists I dislike, not to stoop to a similar level myself. (In conversation with my roommate: "Wow, [redacted]'s Beethoven Ninth really blows.") Hurwitz can't say something really blows. He shouldn't call people stupid or, except in the case of abundant evidence (Pletnev/Beethoven!), accuse them of deliberately destroying the intentions of the music at hand. But he should call 'em like he sees 'em, and if he thinks the Stuttgart guys would be better off without RN - bearing in mind he lavished their Beethoven and Holst discs with praise! - then, if he can say so in a respectful manner, he should do so.

On a totally unrelated note, another place I trust Hurwitz is when he issues scathing critiques of living composers, especially this one.

Finally, and this is strictly a personal observation, I am sick and tired of the politics of victimization as expressed in contemporary art music. Every group in our society has some legitimate sources of grievance or suffering, and the way that the performing arts industry seizes on them strikes me as exploitative and opportunistic. The worst recent case of this phenomenon was the flurry of atrocious 9/11 tributes, most notoriously John Adams' grotesque, award-winning piece On the Transmigration of Souls. I am not questioning Adamo's sincerity here, only his taste, and the culture that encourages the production of such pieces. I was just diagnosed with multiple sclerosis; my younger sister has a more severe case of the same disease and is effectively wheelchair-bound. I don't want to hear a cantata about it. I lived in the Bay Area during the 1980s, and in 1989 my best friend died of AIDS. He was a superb classical musician and scholar. I loved him and I miss him terribly. He didn't ask for a musical tribute, and he would not have chosen this one, however well-intentioned. So what's next, the Swine Flu Oratorio? The Restless Leg Syndrome Requiem?

[Franco]

But how does this match up with Norrington's own stated goals? I don't own the CD, but according to Hurwitz, RN is setting himself as a sort of arbiter of historical authenticity, arguing that his is the accurate way to conduct the music. RN uses, according to Hurwitz' quotes, his position as an artist to stake out a sort of authentical high ground. We have to be the judges of that ourselves (and Hurwitz uses interviews from the Sony/Bernstein box to very clearly undermines RN's claim to understand the slightest thing about Mahler). Either way, yes, it is an artistic choice. But it may not be a good one.

Now, Hurwitz is a big fan of the personal attack, often too much so. His attacks are, at least, grounded in the musical evidence, though; he rises above the level of politicians (and even Roger Ebert, who recently noted in a review, apropos of little, that Billy Crystal is gaining weight) - but it is hard, when I am faced with consistently poor results, to my ear, from artists I dislike, not to stoop to a similar level myself. (In conversation with my roommate: "Wow, [redacted]'s Beethoven Ninth really blows.") Hurwitz can't say something really blows. He shouldn't call people stupid or, except in the case of abundant evidence (Pletnev/Beethoven!), accuse them of deliberately destroying the intentions of the music at hand. But he should call 'em like he sees 'em, and if he thinks the Stuttgart guys would be better off without RN - bearing in mind he lavished their Beethoven and Holst discs with praise! - then, if he can say so in a respectful manner, he should do so.

On a totally unrelated note, another place I trust Hurwitz is when he issues scathing critiques of living composers, especially this one.

I was going to quote the very same passage you did.  I totally agree with you and him.  I don't find his reviews over-the-top and actually find them very helpful because of his frankness.

I have no use for reviews which couch the opinion in such even (or other)-handedness that there is no worthwhile opinion being rendered, in the fear of sounding (oh no) judgmental.

[Bulldog]

I don't have any complaints about ClassicToday's ratings or Hurwitz.  My complaint involves what I see as a very restrictive review website.  First, there are usually only two reviews per day at most.  The fact that the site calls the five listed "Today's New Reviews" is a lie.  Second, and worse, the number of reviewers can be counted on one hand; obviously, the site managers do not favor a diversity of review opinion.  It's Hurwitz most of the time, Distler for piano works and a couple of other infrequent reviewers.

MusicWeb International has dozens of reviewers - that's a big plus.  However, I do wish that their reviews were more hard-hitting; the polite nature employed can be tiresome.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I was going to quote the very same passage you did.  I totally agree with you and him. 

And I was going to quote the same passage! He raises a serious issue, which might be worth its own thread.

I don't have any complaints about ClassicToday's ratings or Hurwitz.  My complaint involves what I see as a very restrictive review website.  First, there are usually only two reviews per day at most. 

This is another sensible objection. ClassicsToday has ignored loads of important releases. Just one glaring example: they haven't reviewed Kitajenko's complete Prokofiev symphony cycle (which has been talked about much, here and elsewhere).

[MN Dave]

MusicWeb International has dozens of reviewers - that's a big plus. 

Only if they all know what they're talking about. 

[Spotswood]

The conevnient  thing about liking modern music is that there's rarely more than one recording of anything. The shopping is more or less done for you.

[greg]

The only "1" I've seen from the Hurwitzer was his trashing of Horenstein's so-called legendary live Mahler 7. Now there's a conductor he really can't stand. And in essence, I have to agree with him that it's a ridiculously overrated recording, though I'd probably give it a 4 or 5 rather than a 1.

As Sgt. Rock points out, his reviews of Rattle are more mixed and span a wide spectrum.

Lol, I gotta look this one up.

[DavidW]

But how does this match up with Norrington's own stated goals? I don't own the CD, but according to Hurwitz, RN is setting himself as a sort of arbiter of historical authenticity,

This is why Hurwitz's reviews are garbage.  Norrington:

The point of using old instruments is to make the music sound new.

This quote is appropriate because it describes Norrington's current attitude altogether.  It's well known that his lack of vibrato in romantic era music is not in the interest of being "authentic", it's to produce a new, modern sound.  Hurwitz' over-simplistic drivel about authenticity is shallow and beside the point.  And he knows that he can get away with it because the name Norrington is so strongly associated with HIP that most will swallow the vilification of Norrington and buy into his alternate opinion, which poses as being neutral when it's not.  In fact if anything that review shows Hurwitz setting himself up as arbiter of authenticity as he has already done so arrogantly with his "articles" linked on the main page.

[Brian]

The fact that the site calls the five listed "Today's New Reviews" is a lie.

Yes. I've sometimes thought about writing to complain, because too many days I will log on and find 0 new reviews, or just 1. Every once in a while a miracle will happen and there will be 3 new reviews. Hurwitz covers everything orchestral, Distler everything pianistic, Levine all operas, and Vernier assigns everything a 10/10, so I'm guessing he just reviews whatever he thought was really great and ignores the rest.

And ClassicsToday really does have spotty coverage of new releases: the critics' whim decides it.

I wonder how ClassicsToday is funded. Since MusicWeb is paid for by advertisers, and its advertisers are uniformly record companies, there tends to be a (perhaps imaginary) fear in reviewers' minds of biting the hand that feeds. I've had a couple experiences with this; once, Len Mullenger (the site's owner; or maybe it was Rob Barnett?) forwarded me an e-mail from the Johann Strauss Society explaining why the orchestra they had hired was so small, in response to my review of one of their CDs. Another occasion, we received word that a critic had disappeared with a stack of Hyperion CDs and the label was going to pull their advertising if all their new releases didn't get reviewed. I had to step in to write up the Osborne Rach preludes, and regrettably was perhaps not as critical as I might have been in another situation. Now, with record companies sending their congratulations on MusicWeb's 15th anniversary, to be posted on the site's homepage (link), the entanglements MW has with the record industry itself are pretty interesting.

Of course, they are much more objective, much better-written and rather more trustworthy than groups like Gramophone, which have for-profit financial incentives for publishing schlock. And, where Hurwitz' reviews are a pleasure to read for their entertainment value, MusicWeb's are great leisure reading for their casual eloquence, scholarship, and detailed discussion of the performances. MusicWeb reviews tend to be 8-10 times longer than ClassicsToday pieces.

This is why Hurwitz's reviews are garbage.  Norrington:

As interesting as the quote is, I've listened to Norrington's SWR Dvorak Ninth, Wagner preludes and Tchaikovsky, as well as his Holst and Beethoven. The Holst (with vibrato!) is terrific, the Beethoven (largely without) is excellent, but the rest of it suggests that Norrington's quest to "make the music sound new" has just made the music sound awful. As is often the case, I may differ with Hurwitz on the means, but I find myself agreeing with his taste if not his facts.

[The new erato]

My main objection to Hurwitz as a reviewer is that he occasionally sems to bear a personal grudge against people having other stated goals in their musicmaking than those advocated by him. A reviewer with a standpoint is fine, but Hurwitz's handling of those differences isn't good reviewing in my opinion. 

[eyeresist]

This is why Hurwitz's reviews are garbage.  Norrington:   This quote is appropriate because it describes Norrington's current attitude altogether.  It's well known that his lack of vibrato in romantic era music is not in the interest of being "authentic", it's to produce a new, modern sound.

Not sure how true this is. I know that Norrington argues that vibrato was used sparingly before the 20th century. Hurwitz takes issue with this, but the matter can only be debated, never proved. More to the point, Norrington has consistently said that he thinks "pure" tone is a beautiful sound, and can reveal things that constant vibrato covers. Critics who vehemently disagree try to argue as if it's a matter of fact, not taste, but they are wrong.
And this constant emphasis on the vibrato issue distracts from assessment of Norrington's conducting abilities in general.

[DavidW]

As interesting as the quote is, I've listened to Norrington's SWR Dvorak Ninth, Wagner preludes and Tchaikovsky, as well as his Holst and Beethoven. The Holst (with vibrato!) is terrific, the Beethoven (largely without) is excellent, but the rest of it suggests that Norrington's quest to "make the music sound new" has just made the music sound awful. As is often the case, I may differ with Hurwitz on the means, but I find myself agreeing with his taste if not his facts.

Now wait hold on, you've just gone full circle here.  Sharing the same taste doesn't really justify the false assertion that Hurwitz made nor his libel.  If all that matters is taste, and a sense of ethics and honesty is not important then we could simply follow amazon reviews.  Professional critics owe us more.  The kind of accusation that I'm making can't be simply brushed aside with "he has good taste."

If you have enough confidence in your own preferences to write reviews, why would you need his reviews anyway, even if you share the same taste?  I think that the way that Hurwitz uses Classics Today as a platform to push his agenda is inappropriate and shameful.  It also shows a lack of wisdom, for a wise reviewer would simply leave alone the areas that he has no passion for.  For example, taking another Hurwitz bias, there is no need to review negatively British performances if you have no appreciation or understanding of their performance style.  But there he goes slamming some of the greatest conductors of the 20th century with review after review after review.

[DavidW]

Not sure how true this is. I know that Norrington argues that vibrato was used sparingly before the 20th century. Hurwitz takes issue with this, but the matter can only be debated, never proved. More to the point, Norrington has consistently said that he thinks "pure" tone is a beautiful sound, and can reveal things that constant vibrato covers. Critics who vehemently disagree try to argue as if it's a matter of fact, not taste, but they are wrong.
And this constant emphasis on the vibrato issue distracts from assessment of Norrington's conducting abilities in general.

Well I'll agree with what you're saying about pure tone, the debate about it and how it has taken reviews off point about reviewing the overall conducting, but I just don't think that Norrington is on record as saying minimal vibrato for late romantic music.  I think it's simply what he perceives as aesthetically pleasing.  But I guess I've said that already.

[MN Dave]

It also shows a lack of wisdom, for a wise reviewer would simply leave alone the areas that he has no passion for.  For example, taking another Hurwitz bias, there is no need to review negatively British performances if you have no appreciation or understanding of their performance style.  But there he goes slamming some of the greatest conductors of the 20th century with review after review after review.

He's just making up for Gramophone. 

[DavidW]

He's just making up for Gramophone. 

hehehe

[eyeresist]

Well I'll agree with what you're saying about pure tone, the debate about it and how it has taken reviews off point about reviewing the overall conducting, but I just don't think that Norrington is on record as saying minimal vibrato for late romantic music.  I think it's simply what he perceives as aesthetically pleasing.  But I guess I've said that already.

A quote from Norrington:

One would suppose that, by the time of Brahms, the style of playing had changed a lot. What I will be introducing is that it hadn't changed nearly as much as we think. For instance, vibrato was not expected by Brahms any more than it was by Mozart or Bach. It's not that they thought it was purer; they just hadn't thought of vibrating. It's much more fundamental than a matter of taste; it's simply how they played, and therefore, how composers expected their music to sound. This is just as true for Tchaikovsky as it is for Beethoven, and particularity true for Mahler. He did not expect vibrato. His brother-in-law was the leader of the Vienna Philharmonic, and we have recordings from 1928 (some 15 years after Mahler's death) in which he still played without vibrato. He talked about it, as did others. To put it in context, and to start with the outer limit: the first recording of the Vienna Philharmonic (which I've heard) where there was vibrato is 1940. In fact, there are some as late as 1952 without vibrato. So, it's not like it happened in 1840 and therefore Brahms was this big, rich, Hollywood sound. It is 100 years later than we think.

From http://www.juilliard.edu/update/journal/810journal_story_0212.asp

[DavidW]

Oh... yeah... dang.

[eyeresist]

These rare little victories always remind me of Homer's victory ditty: "I am so smart! I am so smart ! S-M-A-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T...."

[Renfield]

I suspect some people don't care for his excessive sarcasm and condescending tone.

That.

My main objection to Hurwitz as a reviewer is that he occasionally sems to bear a personal grudge against people having other stated goals in their musicmaking than those advocated by him. A reviewer with a standpoint is fine, but Hurwitz's handling of those differences isn't good reviewing in my opinion.

And that.

I have no problem with Hurwitz's skill with turns of phrase - though it impresses me little, both within the context of his profession and in general. Others are as eloquent, but not as inclined to show off. But his way of selectively, vehemently condemning particular recordings without a seeming afterthought for what people might find to like in them, always looking at what they should dislike, is wrong.

Not because, as a method, it's been outlawed. In fact, it's quite useful, this sort of viciousness in criticism (see: E. Hanslick). Yet like Hanslick, Hurwitz never makes it explicit that this is his manner of approach, while reviewing within the context of other people who do not subscribe to the cult of Authority of the Reviewer-God, like Jed Distler; Hurwitz is a century too late, and proud of it. He is inconsistent, much like M pretending to be a force of nature, all the while he's still a human, and IMO not one of the most musically knowledgeable critics, either.

Finally, and crucially, I do not enjoy anyone eviscerating (cf. Brian's post) anything, because to me, this betrays a total lack of respect for its source. Is Hurwitz smarter than Gardiner? Is Gardiner smarter than Hurwitz? Does it matter? In my world, criticism has absolutely no relation to comparing the size of one's di- knowledge with that of others', but is rather an act of intelligent assessment, on paper.

For example,

"The finale, taken at a ridiculous tempo given the range of feeling that the music wants to express".

What the f[ornicate] does that mean, apart from 'I did not like his speed in the finale'? I do not want to have to take for granted that 'Hurwitz knows', when he does not put down on paper anything other than the critics' equivalent of booing or cheering for a record. Hanslick, in direct comparsion, not only backed up, but based his viciousness on the grounds of a consistent theory of aesthetic excellence, that stands on its own philosophical merits enough to be studied still. Hurwitz is just a cheap imitation, destroying the value of his informed views with the inconsistency with which he applies them; he is M, only he gets paid for being a music critic, and so I much prefer M.

And from a previous thread, that.

[eyeresist]

Renfield, I don't suppose you could recommend a layman's book on Hanslick?