See what you think...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzGAfmn4s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzGAfmn4s)
Initially, when he said that the symphonies were twice as long as they should be, my heart sank but, actually, generally a very positive review both of the Tudor box itself and of Raff's music in general. OK, so reading out movement headings of the symphonies and orchestral suites doesn't constitute a review, but Hurwitz's attitude towards Raff's music and its place in musical history is not only positive it's informed and accurate. I was agreeably surprised by the end of it. His German, though, is atrocious!
Good for Mr Hurtwitz. He can speak some sense at times.
This strikes me as a pretty balanced and certainly not unenthusiastic review. Useful and informative for people coming new to Raff. On the whole, very fair. I am pleasantly surprised.
(But shocking German, as you say Mark!)
I hope he does the concertos, he hinted he might. Then there's the chamber, piano, choral and lieder to get to...
I don't really think he reviews the music, though - which is meant to be the point, after all.
I agree. He does make general remarks about Raff's music, and he praises his orchestration, etc. But just reading through the contents of the box set doesn't really cut it. Though it will likely whet the appetite of those interested in expanding their musical horizons.
He is so funny. I guess he has to make it entertaining, else no one would watch his other videos.
He goes into some considerable detail about Symphony No.1 but then speeds up through the rest with no real in-depth analysis. The last four season symphonies are basically dismissed in less than a minute.
Guess he didn't want folk getting bored by his appalling German pronunciations.
Watch it for the entertainment value. Not to be taken seriously. ;)
Except... his instincts are right when it comes to Raff's music and its qualities, and his appreciation of what's good about it shines through. So, even allowing for the manifold inadequacies of the video as a review, I welcome it.
I do too. It'll draw attention to these recordings, I'm sure. And we know the music better than he does anyway...
Quotehis instincts are right when it comes to Raff's music and its qualities, and his appreciation of what's good about it shines through
Spot on, Mark.
I almost stopped when he started with "Stiff as a board and too long" comment but I managed to watch the entire thing. Personally I'm at a stage where I don't need any critic's opinion on Raff. Raff is a wonderful flawed genius. I think the majority of members here enjoy his works. Hurwitz rarely goes into the description of any of the symphonies except the 1st eg. the structure [which he dismisses beforehand] thematic development, motif re-usage to bind the whole of the symphonies. On the other hand as many have said, he IS SPOT ON about certain qualities of Raff. I'll second the comment "Not to be taken seriously".
I'm still not ''sold'' on the concept of his video reviews. They make zero sense to me, that would make more sense if he was reviewing computer games or maybe films, all visual mediums, but music? nah, doesn't work. Anyway, that's just me.
Some of us might want to avoid the subject of David Hurwitz' critiques, but he's turned the table on us, it seems, by discussing the Stadlmair set of Raff symphonies recordings on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzGAfmn4s). His criticism of Raff's formal control might not find many supporters here, but the discussion as a whole is not unfriendly. As to historical details I modestly defer to Mark's judgment, of course.
I'm very happy with what Mr Hurtwitz had to say about Raff. I thought he was spot on with everything he said about the music(lets be honest but some of Raff's finales go on too long) I hope the review brings in new Raff fans to the fold.
This is why it's such a shame that Järvi's cycle was cut short - his recording of Lenore transformed the piece for me, and it would have been interesting to see what he'd do with/to the other symphonies.
A few years ago, I artificially sped up Stadlmair's recording of the First Symphony (by 10-20%, at the recommendation of a forum member who has since left), and it improved the thing no end *ducks for rotten tomatoes*.
I feel the opposite. People are going to hate me here but I'm not still entirely convinced by Jarvi's readings. I'm very much in the Stadlimar camp - I find them very convincing, in short the Tudor box set made me a lifelong fan.
I too deeply lament the curtailment of Jarvi's Raff recordings for Chandos. Such a shame. I was so looking forward to his take on No. 3 "Im Walde" in particular. I imagine they were halted because Chandos got cold feet on account of poor sales. Understandable, if so, but a pity.
Quote from: Kevin on Wednesday 24 June 2020, 11:06
I feel the opposite. People are going to hate me here but I'm not still entirely convinced by Jarvi's readings. I'm very much in the Stadlimar camp - I find them very convincing, in short the Tudor box set made me a lifelong fan.
My point was that even if you don't like his particular approach, having a very well-known conductor apply a different approach from most others could only benefit Raff's recorded legacy. At least we have a choice between two very different but equally competent takes on
Lenore.
Friends will note that I've merged the two threads on this topic!
QuoteAt least we have a choice between two very different but equally competent takes on Lenore.
Of course you are entirely correct.
QuoteI imagine they were halted because Chandos got cold feet on account of poor sales
I don't think that's the reason, I believe it was due to Järvi's unexpected departure from L'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande, when plans to record
Im Walde were well advanced. Whatever the cause, it was a great disappointment and of course I completely agree with Ilja's point about the value of having competing high quality interpretations. At least with
Lenore (or LEonorA, as Mr Hurwitz would have it), we have seven to choose from, three of which (Järvi, Stadlmair and Hermann) are worthy contenders. The other ten symphonies have between two and five alternatives each, although not all of the same quality, of course.
You know what I would want? for CPO to have another go at the symphonies. I'm salivating at the thought.
QuoteI artificially sped up Stadlmair's recording of the First Symphony (by 10-20%, at the recommendation of a forum member who has since left), and it improved the thing no end *ducks for rotten tomatoes*.
No tomatoes will be harmed in this reply, I've done the same exercise myself!
Interestingly, Raff himself recognised the Symphony's faults: overlong and carrying a political message outdated by German unification. In the early 1870s he planned to replace the last two movements with a new finale, but never did so. A great shame, as its first three movements are the strongest IMHO and, had he complemented them with a fourth one of comparable quality, the work would have been greatly strengthened.
I was disappointed Hurwitz dismissed the Seasons Symphonies, I don't think they deserved that.
I agree - although his finest symphonies are surely Nos.2-5, i.e. 2 x classical (Nos.2 and 4) and 2 x programmatic (Nos.3 and 5).
Quotefinest symphonies are surely Nos.2-5
Definitely. And whats more I'm 100% serious in saying they should be as well known as Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and Brahms Symphonies.
Absolutely correct. They'd certainly be on my Desert Island...