Hurwitz - the back story

[Mark Thomas]

He's a controversialist - strong opinions, clearly expressed. That doesn't mean he's always right and we're free to disagree.

[adriano]

...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.

[Mark Thomas]

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....

[Alan Howe]

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?

If 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.

[matesic]

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!

[Ilja]

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.

[eschiss1]

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.

[MartinH]

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.

[Ilja]

... if only someone were able to lift MusicWeb's site into this century though.

[adriano]

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)...

[MartinH]

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.

[Alan Howe]

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.

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...

[semloh]

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.

[Alan Howe]

Personally, I rather like a variety of recordings...

[adriano]

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...)