www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_f6fkrSfqg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_f6fkrSfqg)
My exposure to Hurwitz was slightly different than most where I first encountered his thoughts on YouTube, and then proceeded to read his reviews, and I understand his criticisms without being taken aback. For others, it is clear how he may have been snobbish.
He is clearly self-aware of how he can come off as a pretentious jerk in his written reviews, but shows his humbleness in how this isn't his career or destined profession. He pokes fun at himself, and sarcasm is one of his fortes.
I remember in his Raff video where he went off on a tangent of how the composer was on Wheel of Fortune to win a vacation to Thuringia. No idea why he did that, but it made me laugh and I gained more respect in that he never takes himself or his readers too seriously. Everyone has their own opinions, and it is sometimes healthy to satirize the music world for the benefit of the community.
I wonder how many of our fellow members have a similar Overflow Room?
Learn something new every day; I had no idea Wheel of Fortune was on in the late 1800s and would have made sure to have DVRd it. ;^)
Allowing some time off for essential bodily functions I reckon he must have used up 5 years of his life listening to the CDs on that wall alone
Besides my envy for his monstrous collection (and also for the real estate necessary to house it), I have to say that i found this video refreshing in its self-deprecating frankness.
Yes, sometimes he comes across as a jerk (and he knows it), often times I get the impression that he's wilfully superopinionated for shock value (the Elgar videos---) ...but he's always so interesting, and also personally quite delightful.
It's the classic case of someone coming across as more likeable in person than in print.
I dunno why, but I'm starting to warm to him more and more lately.
I understand his prejudices much better.
Like with many critics, and he is no different, reviews need a big BEWARE sign. He clearly is a maverick in the reviewer circles. He is often very critical about other critics particularly Gramophone. Nothing wrong with that, but his approach can be rarer abrupt and sometimes borders on rudeness.
He is the executive producer of Classics Today but he isn't the only reviewer from that organisation. Jed Distler is an acclaimed critic and his views on a recording can be at poles apart from David's.
Treat his YouTube videos as entertainment, nothing more nothing less. Just do not take David seriously. He is very knowable and well read, so are many others. There are no rights or wrongs on opinions.
QuoteThere are no rights or wrongs on opinions
I respectfully disagree. For example, if I express the opinion that a violinist on a certain recording plays well but it is demonstrated that his intonation is consistently off, then I have been proved wrong.
Quote from: Alan Howe on Monday 20 July 2020, 19:12
QuoteThere are no rights or wrongs on opinions
I respectfully disagree. For example, if I express the opinion that a violinist on a certain recording plays well but it is demonstrated that his intonation is consistently off, then I have been proved wrong.
If opinions are based on factual information then you have a point. Unfortunately, no review i can think of, contains just pure facts. A 'true' feeling for the work cannot be measured or calculated. Therefore, its open to subjective manner.
Well, it was Hurwitz's review of Davis' RCA Sibelius cycle which prompted my objection as he points out certain serious and demonstrable orchestral failings which I have never read any British critic comment upon - in fact on this side of the Atlantic that particular cycle has been lauded to the skies. If Hurwitz is right - and I think he is - then it's important to note that opinions may and often do contain both subjective and objective elements. The former may provoke genuine disagreement; the latter are verifiable and, as such, are either right or wrong. In this case, Hurwitz's observations call into question the positive opinions of certain British critics precisely because they have relied too much on subjectivity and forgotten that there are objective criteria that have to be taken into account as well.
At UC we've always insisted on opinions being backed up by reasons. This means that subjective views have to have some basis in objective fact, otherwise they're of no interest. Like him or hate him, Hurwitz does at least fufil these criteria.
He's mad as a hatter. I guess that's what's interesting about him. I like eccentrics.
His critiques are well grounded. On the whole he tells it as it is I think.
He needs to put his CD collection on to a hard drive for safety. I suggest a 5000 gb ;D
Speaking of Classicstoday, I've always had a high opinion of Robert Levine. He's always one of the first I go to for an opera review.
Hurwitz on Fritz Brun:
(1) Brun's spasmodic syntax must be as frustrating to the musician as to the listener. For penitential souls only.
(2) it's really a lost cause.
He's a controversialist - strong opinions, clearly expressed. That doesn't mean he's always right and we're free to disagree.
...but there is also a lot of arrogance. These guys think they have a lot of power - they can also be very partial and influenced. If they don't personally like a piece, they just find it bad - and this does not belong to the ethics of a critic.
But that's typical of so many of them, and they only have power if we, audiences & consumers, give it to them. With someone like Hurwitz, with whom I sometimes agree and sometimes don't, I'd always seek a second opinion....
Exactly. He's just one of many voices. I can see what his prejudices are, so I'm forewarned. And I'm not going to stop enjoying Haitink's Walton 1 just because he thinks one can't like that
and Previn's early recording. I mean, why can't we enjoy two very different conceptions of the same piece?
QuoteIf they don't personally like a piece, they just find it bad
Yes, and that's a common failing among critics who don't venture far beyond the standard repertoire - and it's particularly aggravating to those of us who have lived with unsung music in general - and certain unsung composers in particular - for many years.
I more or less stopped reading the crits when I realised that few of them (especially the ones I agreed with) were actually telling me anything interesting or useful. Norman Lebrecht I stopped reading absolutely after his scornful dismissal of Belshazzar's Feast!
To be honest, the final verdict is the thing I find least interesting; how they arrived at that verdict, on the other hand, is the relevant bit. My issue with much of Hurwitz's writing is that it is too much conclusion-oriented, and it's often unclear how and why he arrived at it - irrespective of whether I agree with him or not. However, credit where credit's due, he discusses a lot of unsung stuff, which is why I continue to support his site. And the videos, I think, show someone sincerely committed to music.
One of the most interesting book reviews I -ever read- was of a book whose title I can't even remember right now, but the book was, I believe, about criticism/reviewing and some of the qualities that made for a good, interesting book (film/art/music/...) review: besides the qualities you've already mentioned the author (and/or reviewer) added placing a work in context, for example. (One amateur reviewer I can think of (professional cartoonist, wrote quite good movie reviews in his blog) was/is very good at adding context...) And other ways in which a good review could add to our understanding of a work and of other things in ways that a simple context and information-free thumbs-up/thumbs-down did not.
The problem I have with Hurwitz: he claims to have listened to every single one of those bizillion cds in his apartment and the "overflow" room. When does he have time to do this? And with so many disks, how closely can he really listen? Sometimes I find his reviews good enough, but sometimes they're way wide of the mark - his recent dismissal of the new Korngold symphony with John Wilson on Chandos is incomprehensible. Still, he's no snob - he really likes music for band and wind ensemble, which is refreshing. And he does apparently attempt to evaluate a performance using the score. Imagine that. I do subscribe to his service, but honestly, I find Musicweb International to be much more relevant.
... if only someone were able to lift MusicWeb's site into this century though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J48MuXt3MCY
An amusing review of Beethoven's Fifth à la Currentzis. But this time Hurwitz is absolutely right! I could never unserstand the huge hype about this conductor. I felt already devastated after listening to his absolutely weird and irrespectful "Pathétique" (Tchaikovsky)...
Currentzis certainly is weird - but it's kind of refreshing I think. For so long classical listeners have complained about how everyone nowadays seems to sound the same. There really isn't much of a difference between Beethoven 5 among the recordings in the last 20 years or more. Then comes along someone who does some things that are odd, unusual, sometimes thrilling, sometimes stupid. And so critics crucify him for it! (Not all, I know.) In bygone eras conductors clearly put a personal stamp on things for better or worse: think Mengelberg, Stokowski, Toscanini, Mitropolous, Bernstein...
I've picked up three of the Currentzis recordings now: the Beethoven 5, Tchaikovsky 6 and Mahler 6. While I'm not going to declare any of them my personal favorite, I think all three are valid interpretations and at times, excellent. One thing they're not: boring. I wish I could see him live someday to know if he produces the real thing in the concert hall and it's not just a recording phenomenon. I just hope that he broadens his repertoire and records some neglected music from Russia. As for Hurwitz, his bashing of the Wilson recording of the Korngold symphony bothers me. He thought it was poor, I think it's the best recording to date.
QuoteAs for Hurwitz, his bashing of the Wilson recording of the Korngold symphony bothers me. He thought it was poor, I think it's the best recording to date.
Can you tell us in what way you disagree with DH over this recording?
I can see both points of view - so, for example, if one has been brought up on the existing recordings (going all the way back to Kempe), Wilson's will seem rather fast, even perhaps somewhat glib and underplayed. However, if one is coming fresh to the piece, Wilson may make all previous versions sound lumbering and slow. Speaking personally, I can see what Wilson is doing, i.e. clearing away the cobwebs and sticking closer to the score; neverthless, I hanker for something less lean and a little more lush...
I suspect the problem is that Hurwitz seems unable or unwilling to admit that an alternative 'reading' may indeed, be found more satisfying by some listeners than the one he favours. And, once he takes a dislike to a performance it becomes the worst possible performance of all time, with few if any positive features. I can only conclude that he believes it to be incumbent upon a music critic to assume one or other polarized position.
Personally, I rather like a variety of recordings...
A recording reviewer should introduce curious or uninformed music-lovers to new issues. None of its readers is interested in his personal tastes. Those who emphazize them over and over again may become star reviewers since they may write their ideas brilliantly, but often there is some personal frustration involved.
(My second Mario Pilati CD was once criticized by a US colleage of Hurwitz with a statement which at the very beginning reads as follows: "I do not like 'light' or 'pops' music of any nationality..."
From the start one had to count with a bad review. The disc contains brilliant suites inspired from Italian folksongs...)
Exactly, if you don't like a genre you shouldn't review something written in that genre (unless, of course, you have to).
I agree. But, maybe it's a case of contractual obligations, or even of 'putting food on the table'. Taking a dose of my own medicine, I'm sure music critics, even the intemperate ones like Hurwitz, have their good points. ;D
Hello, long time reader, first time commenter. David Hurwitz - whose videos I've become slightly addicted to watching - has paid a lovely, personal tribute to George Lloyd today. He focused on the glorious 5th Symphony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB8sFgWx_MU
Welcome to UC Craig.
George Lloyd was a modern neo-romantic. Not sure whether he's entirely suitable for discussion here. Just saying...
Hi Craig,
I'm really sorry, but I was reviewing the posts awaiting approval and inadvertently deleted your last message. If you would care to re-post it I'd be very grateful.
Many apologies
Alan Howe (Moderator)
Hi Alan, please don't worry. I blog myself and have done exactly the same. I was just saying that I enjoy watching David H's videos because he's witty - often laugh out loud funny - and says what he means. He's turned into a consummate entertainer. He can be very bracing (i.e. wrong) - as in his extremely negative views of lieder, lieder singing, Hugo Wolf and Wagner operas - but he often hits on truths. And he champions a fair few unsung composers, from Raff to Carlos Chavez. His tendency to give Naxos and BIS a largely free pass is interesting though, especially given his links to them.
Thanks! Fortunately I didn't make the same mistake twice!
Prompted by Mark's post on Hurwitz' review of Raff's Schöne Müllerin, I thought you might be interested to hear this discussion between DH and Ilya Takser (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGwYe9a8wj0&t=4170s), in which they discuss the state of music performance and criticism.
If DH is a champion of George Lloyd, I'll have to start being less disparaging about him (DH that is!). ;D
Thanks for the various links...