Hurwitz on 19thC neglected symphony cycles

[Alan Howe]

Worth listening to - even when he's off-base:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-SKkcfv7ZA

[Mark Thomas]

Not too far off base in most of these thumbnail sketches of the various unsung symphonic cycles, though. I knew, but had never listened to any, of the Eggert symphonies and I must say that his quirky very early romantic works are most enjoyable. Hurwitz' categorisation of Draeseke as a master of comedic music would never have occurred to me but maybe it's no news to the Draeseke experts amongst us (Alan?).

[Alan Howe]

I think Hurwitz is quite wrong about Draeseke. For the most part he's a (very) serious composer - and the 'Comica' (Symphony No.4) is in reality about much more than mere comedy, as I wrote eighteen years years ago:
https://www.draeseke.org/essays/sym4howe.htm

It's hard to know how much of Draeseke's output Hurwitz really knows, of course. And it would help if he actually knew how to pronounce his name - an all-too common failing among Americans, I am afraid, who are largely ignorant of languages other than their own version of English (something confirmed by another US contributor to YouTube with whom I exchange messages). Another danger that he faces is pretending to be expert in everything about which he opines in his videos - which must now run into the thousands. He's certainly no more than a superficial commentator on Draeseke, but then I had the privilege of prolonged contact with dear Alan Krueck who really did know what he was taking about. I can't pretend that I have anything original to say about the composer as I owe my insights to Dr Krueck who, after all, wrote the definitive study of the symphonies.

As I say in my essay, comedy is a serious business...

[Ilja]

I think Hurwitz must consume a huge amount of music, but probably only superficially in many cases. After all, there are only so many minutes in a day. This is a wider and increasing problem of music criticism, in my view: as serious critics become a rarer breed, and as the release calendar continues to diversify (despite everything) it is unavoidable that those critics get to devote less and less time to wider variety of recordings.

[Alan Howe]

The problem - if problem it be - is that Hurwitz has virtually cornered the market on YouTube classical music criticism and the views of one critic, however knowledgeable, are inevitably going to be personal. It would greatly improve the situation if he built a team of presenters - or if other commentators were to offer him some online competition...

[terry martyn]

Better Hurwitz solus than no-one at all of his calibre.

He's just made me re-hear Gouvy's First and Second Symphonies: dancing treats to the ear.

[Alan Howe]

I agree - as long as his views are supplemented by those of other commentators.

Oh, and by the way, I find it much more helpful to read musical criticism than to listen to it. I prefer a permanent printed/online record which is easier to access than a video presentation. It is, of course, much more time-consuming to compose a written review than it is to waffle on in front of the camera. In particular, I am heartily sick of phrases such 'it really is' following an expression of opinion, as if emphasis will do instead of argumentation.

Hurwitz is a gifted critic and I take note of what he says, but there are others whom I rate more highly, e.g. Ralph Moore, whose comparative opera reviews archived at MusicWeb are a model of their kind - insightful, thorough and, above all, fair. He is also worth reading on Bruckner.

Lastly, it's worth seeking out Hurwitz's disgracefully dismissive review of Chris Fifield's recording of Cliffe's 1st Symphony at his website. I'll leave it to members to find it and read it for themselves...