David Hurwitz

[Number Six]

I thank Hurwitz for introducing me to Norrington. He hates the guy so much that I couldn't help but sample his work out of curiosity.

Turns out I like it. 

[Mookalafalas]

I thank Hurwitz for introducing me to Norrington. He hates the guy so much that I couldn't help but sample his work out of curiosity.

Turns out I like it. 

Ditto.
              I generally like Hurwitz, but this seems to be all the stuff he hates the most: Reduced orchestra size, clarity over grandeur, and, to a lesser extent, period instruments.

[Christo]

I enjoy listening to the great Hurwitzer and I can usually fully share his judgement. In fact, I know of only one example of a real difference of opinion: the great Hurwitzer has no feeling for Samuel Barber's lyrical fifteen-minute song for soprano and orchestra (or rather: chamber orchestra) that takes us back in memory to the scents and colours of Knoxville: Summer of 1915. Oompah music, for him, he hums some parody nonsense to prove his aversion.

I myself find this piece of pure lyricism incredibly beautiful and moving, provided it is not performed by one of the "screaming sopranos" that Harry so passionately detests, that is, without vibrato and other operatic tricks. Of the >20 that I have ever listened to, about 16 sopranos had to be dismissed. But there remains a handful of sopranos, starting in Barber's own time, who should also be able to soften the great Hurwitzer -- the piece is truly tear-jerkingly beautiful. Recommended, and for the rest: follow the great Hurwitzer. 

[Jo498]

"Erato" = Virgin/EMI? Regardless of if one dis/likes them one should Norrington give credit that he really was a pioneer in the 1980s with extending the "HIP" approach to Beethoven and later.

[foxandpeng]

I enjoy listening to the great Hurwitzer and I can usually fully share his judgement. In fact, I know of only one example of a real difference of opinion: the great Hurwitzer has no feeling for Samuel Barber's lyrical fifteen-minute song for soprano and orchestra (or rather: chamber orchestra) that takes us back in memory to the scents and colours of Knoxville: Summer of 1915. Oompah music, for him, he hums some parody nonsense to prove his aversion.

I myself find this piece of pure lyricism incredibly beautiful and moving, provided it is not performed by one of the "screaming sopranos" that Harry so passionately detests, that is, without vibrato and other operatic tricks. Of the >20 that I have ever listened to, about 16 sopranos had to be dismissed. But there remains a handful of sopranos, starting in Barber's own time, who should also be able to soften the great Hurwitzer -- the piece is truly tear-jerkingly beautiful. Recommended, and for the rest: follow the great Hurwitzer. 

I like opinionated people when those opinions spring out of knowledge, passion and commitment. I very occasionally listen to Mr H, and sometimes agree with him. What I like, is that even when I feel he has the wrong end of the stick, it makes me think.

[DavidW]

Perhaps this has been discussed before. I just saw some of a video Hurwitz did on the Erato Norrington boxed set. The whole video was just a vituperous trashing. Most of the comments below the video were wholly in agreement.

With Norrington, I think when he, Hogwood, Standage, Manze, Gardiner, etc. were new to the scene they were not only so different from what came before but those conductors leaned into the differences. It was surprisingly easy to hate what they were doing with the great composers of the Baroque and Classical eras. But, over time that performance style has mostly been accepted and integrated. To go back to them (as I've discovered) with modern ears it does not sound absurdly fast or dry anymore. But I can understand (but don't accept or condone) how Hurwitz wouldn't revisit those past recordings with fresh ears. I did though and those recordings are pretty darned good.

[Mookalafalas]

With Norrington, I think when he, Hogwood, Standage, Manze, Gardiner, etc. were new to the scene they were not only so different from what came before but those conductors leaned into the differences. It was surprisingly easy to hate what they were doing with the great composers of the Baroque and Classical eras. But, over time that performance style has mostly been accepted and integrated. To go back to them (as I've discovered) with modern ears it does not sound absurdly fast or dry anymore. But I can understand (but don't accept or condone) how Hurwitz wouldn't revisit those past recordings with fresh ears. I did though and those recordings are pretty darned good.

   Nice comment. Part of Hurwitz's schtick is that he has working familiarity with virtually every recording ever made. He goes through dozens of boxed sets and comments authoritatively on each disk--but there just aren't enough hours to have clear, much less fresh, impressions of so much music. Yet I've never seen him say "I don't remember this one," or "I haven't heard this."

[Daverz]

With Norrington, I think when he, Hogwood, Standage, Manze, Gardiner, etc. were new to the scene they were not only so different from what came before but those conductors leaned into the differences. It was surprisingly easy to hate what they were doing with the great composers of the Baroque and Classical eras. But, over time that performance style has mostly been accepted and integrated.

As much as I do enjoy many HIP groups, I do sometimes yearn for a silkier (or at least less whiny) and fuller string tone.  Or in music for keyboard and orchestra, for an instrument that can actually project some character beyond some tinkling noises struggling to be heard over the orchestra.

[Herman]

Nice comment. Part of Hurwitz's schtick is that he has working familiarity with virtually every recording ever made. He goes through dozens of boxed sets and comments authoritatively on each disk--but there just aren't enough hours to have clear, much less fresh, impressions of so much music. Yet I've never seen him say "I don't remember this one," or "I haven't heard this."

Much less: "I changed my mind about this recording / music."
It's all BS.

[Roasted Swan]

Nice comment. Part of Hurwitz's schtick is that he has working familiarity with virtually every recording ever made. He goes through dozens of boxed sets and comments authoritatively on each disk--but there just aren't enough hours to have clear, much less fresh, impressions of so much music. Yet I've never seen him say "I don't remember this one," or "I haven't heard this."

To the bolded - for me this is the key reason I find his videos frustrating.  Apart from anything else I find as I get older, I find it all but impossible to speak with the sweeping certainties of the average adolescent.  Yet this is precisely what Hurwitz manages to do - see his series of "Greatest ever...", "Best and worst....." and several others.  Now of course I understand that this absolutism is very appealing to a base that crave such unwavering conviction. 

Another thing to consider; Hurwitz started out as a 'traditional' critic and writer on music.  I've never read any of his books but by definition a survey/biography etc of a composer must be carefully researched and thoughtfully written, edited, proofed and the like.  This takes a lot of time and will be read by just a tiny audience.  Moving onto a written web-based review site still takes time to produce and again factual accuracy should be checked but perhaps less rigorously as online reviews can easily be updated/corrected post-publication.  His stream of conciousness youtube 'articles' (he rarely seems to edit/correct a slip of the tongue and positively makes a virtue out of "not being bothered" if he pronounces something wrong or somesuch). 

So the benefits for him are a larger audience, less need for rigorous accuracy (everything is couched in "its my opinion terms" and the format is much more forgiving and allows for his personality to be a major factor), and the ability to generate far more content (and by extension income) than his previous formats did.  Of course, another by-product is that it puts a face to the critique and makes the "personality" of the reviewer a significant part of the experience. I think it is fairly clear that Hurwitz enjoys the fame/notoriety this brings him albeit in the very niche eco-system of classical music reviewing.  Through the YouTube platform he has found a way to maximise his impact while also reducing the time and effort that goes into producing the product - what's not to love from his perspective....

[(poco) Sforzando]

To the bolded - for me this is the key reason I find his videos frustrating.  Apart from anything else I find as I get older, I find it all but impossible to speak with the sweeping certainties of the average adolescent.  Yet this is precisely what Hurwitz manages to do - see his series of "Greatest ever...", "Best and worst....." and several others.  Now of course I understand that this absolutism is very appealing to a base that crave such unwavering conviction. 

Another thing to consider; Hurwitz started out as a 'traditional' critic and writer on music.  I've never read any of his books but by definition a survey/biography etc of a composer must be carefully researched and thoughtfully written, edited, proofed and the like.  This takes a lot of time and will be read by just a tiny audience.  Moving onto a written web-based review site still takes time to produce and again factual accuracy should be checked but perhaps less rigorously as online reviews can easily be updated/corrected post-publication.  His stream of conciousness youtube 'articles' (he rarely seems to edit/correct a slip of the tongue and positively makes a virtue out of "not being bothered" if he pronounces something wrong or somesuch). 

So the benefits for him are a larger audience, less need for rigorous accuracy (everything is couched in "its my opinion terms" and the format is much more forgiving and allows for his personality to be a major factor), and the ability to generate far more content (and by extension income) than his previous formats did.  Of course, another by-product is that it puts a face to the critique and makes the "personality" of the reviewer a significant part of the experience. I think it is fairly clear that Hurwitz enjoys the fame/notoriety this brings him albeit in the very niche eco-system of classical music reviewing.  Through the YouTube platform he has found a way to maximise his impact while also reducing the time and effort that goes into producing the product - what's not to love from his perspective....

Very perspicacious comment and analysis of the "Hurwitz phenomenon." Yet when he takes the time and trouble to think things through (all that alliteration accidental), he can produce some stimulating analysis.

[Roasted Swan]

Very perspicacious comment and analysis of the "Hurwitz phenomenon." Yet when he takes the time and trouble to think things through (all that alliteration accidental), he can produce some stimulating analysis.

to the bolded - just so.... but the key word is WHEN!!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Giving credit where it's due, I thought these "chats" (i.e., Hurwitz talking to himself), though presented in his usual improvisational style, were both on point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdafZirOWRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFmqEImA-c&t=137s

[Daverz]

Giving credit where it's due, I thought these "chats" (i.e., Hurwitz talking to himself), though presented in his usual improvisational style, were both on point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdafZirOWRU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFmqEImA-c&t=137s

I skip any of his videos on anything political because I find his takes as shallow as they are opinionated.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Nice comment. Part of Hurwitz's schtick is that he has working familiarity with virtually every recording ever made. He goes through dozens of boxed sets and comments authoritatively on each disk--but there just aren't enough hours to have clear, much less fresh, impressions of so much music. Yet I've never seen him say "I don't remember this one," or "I haven't heard this."

I first encountered Hurwitz in (believe it or not) the letters section of Fanfare magazine, back in the 80s. At the time, he was a college student at (I think) Johns Hopkins, and would write in and give his opinions on recordings. I remember his list of Mahler recommendations, because in this letter he disclosed that he already owned something like 3000 LPs, which I thought was pretty impressive and obsessive for someone who was a mere undergraduate at the time. (I may be misremembering the number. But it was a lot.)

[Herman]

To the bolded - for me this is the key reason I find his videos frustrating.  Apart from anything else I find as I get older, I find it all but impossible to speak with the sweeping certainties of the average adolescent.  Yet this is precisely what Hurwitz manages to do - see his series of "Greatest ever...", "Best and worst....." and several others.  Now of course I understand that this absolutism is very appealing to a base that crave such unwavering conviction.

This entails the idea that it's a sign of weakness to change one's opinion. So... many DH videos consist of him reciting what's in a megabox booklet. Dozens of CDs he hasn't heard in decades, but he pretends to know exactly what they're like.

The other thing is the nr of views shows that hate reviews are popular. People like negativity. So you get more negative reviews

Thirdly DH appears to live in a time warp where HIP orchestras and fortepianos have just been introduced. Even though HIP started in the Sixties and was fully arrived in the Eighties, DH acts as if it's new fad that should be discouraged fiercely.

[Karl Henning]

I skip any of his videos on anything political because I find his takes as shallow as they are opinionated.

Not to belabor the point, but that's how I've found his musical dicta (sh. and op.)

[Daverz]

Not to belabor the point, but that's how I've found his musical dicta (sh. and op.)

Yes, but the stakes are much lower there.  I'm usually just watching for listening ideas.

[Brian]

many DH videos consist of him reciting what's in a megabox booklet. Dozens of CDs he hasn't heard in decades, but he pretends to know exactly what they're like.

Sometimes he indicates he has re-listened his way through a set, which he'd better, since he has basically abandoned the actual written website ClassicsToday. It's not uncommon for him to say something like "I liked this better than I remembered." (He is also getting more positive with age.)

The other thing is the nr of views shows that hate reviews are popular. People like negativity. So you get more negative reviews

As a working professional critic, this is very much a fact. I write about all these things I love dearly, and hope to inspire that love in others, and all that people read is the one negative review. I only do about one negative piece out of every 20 but that's what people remember, rather than the glowing "you need this"...

[Herman]

As a working professional critic, this is very much a fact. I write about all these things I love dearly, and hope to inspire that love in others, and all that people read is the one negative review. I only do about one negative piece out of every 20 but that's what people remember, rather than the glowing "you need this"...

I used to be a book critic for magazines. These were longish pieces (though inevitably they shrunk as the 21st century grew...) and the editor preferred positive enthusiastic pieces. Why would people read a 1800 word pan?
Also, people really remembered the pieces in which I was excited about a book or writer. Personally I later regretted some of my pans. (With the exception of Philip Roth's later short novels, man, I hated those...)