David Hurwitz

[LKB]

Ando I'll be moving your post to the positive thread.  This one is just for people yelling at each other about whether he is a good critic or a good dalek.

Edit: post is now here

Well, he's certainly an utter failure as a Dalek, being neither comically menacing nor an acceptable salt or pepper shaker.

And while I'm no fan, I'll allow as he's occasionally a good critic.

[Irons]

He has every right to defend himself. I am puzzled though by his comments "Get me on the facts" and "happy for my mistakes corrected". For the most part Hurwitz, indeed other critics, are not dealing with facts but their own subjective impressions.

[Roasted Swan]

He has every right to defend himself. I am puzzled though by his comments "Get me on the facts" and "happy for my mistakes corrected". For the most part Hurwitz, indeed other critics, are not dealing with facts but their own subjective impressions.

You are correct in every point - but I think that Hurwitz is so certain of his opinions that for him they have become "facts" - but again he is not alone in this sense of self-significance.

[Mookalafalas]

He has every right to defend himself. I am puzzled though by his comments "Get me on the facts" and "happy for my mistakes corrected". For the most part Hurwitz, indeed other critics, are not dealing with facts but their own subjective impressions.

  Hurwitz' reviews are usually very heavy with data--release dates, labels, soloists, versions used, references to previous or competing versions, contemporaneous industry trends, etc. These could be riddled with errors, I don't have deep knowledge of these things, but he generally seems to know what he's talking about, and when I do know about the topic, what he says tends to be in line with my knowledge.

[KevinP]

I read it as he will accept criticism of anything he presents as factual, but not of anything he presents as subjective.

Which I have to support. He's a critic. Subjective judgements are the economy of his trade. You don't have to agree with his opinions, but getting so worked up about them isn't good either. Opinions can't be wrong themselves, but they can be informed by misinformation, and if so, should be addressed.

[DavidW]

I'm not going to watch that video, but I think it is funny that he would tell us how we are allowed to criticize him!  Ha!  No, we will do whatever we want, whether it's fair or not.  Don't like it.  Don't post videos.

I think posting a video like this is telling.  Hurwitz has, at worst, an antagonist relationship with his audience, at best, a complicated one.

[Karl Henning]

Subjective judgements are the economy of his trade. You don't have to agree with his opinions, but getting so worked up about them isn't good either. Opinions can't be wrong themselves ....

The solution, not surprisingly, is simple moderation: disagreement without getting worked up. That said, I don't buy his "my opinions aren't subject to criticism, don't you know who I am?" line. When you and I disagree about how great Stravinsky is, we're two blokes having civilized discourse. When a public critic who monetizes his opinions says "Boulez sucks Cassowary eggs," that becomes (or aspires to) a kind of dictum, and I don't see pushback as of itself off limits.

[DavidW]

I did end up watching it.  Hurwitz identified a person who wrote him a scathing letter.  YOU NEVER EVER EVER DO THAT.  YouTubers who respond to criticism will intentionally block out the name and ask their community not to go after whoever they are criticizing. There is a good reason for that.

He knows what he is doing.  He is trying to get his community to dogpile on the user, inciting harassment. I reported Hurwitz's video to YouTube.

Now, as for the content itself, the letter was nothing but scathing ad hominem attacks.  And Hurwitz's point is valid.  He is saying attack the content, not the person.  However, it hardly matters when he is clearly attacking the poster himself.  That is a sheer abuse of a platform.

[Karl Henning]

Now, as for the content itself, the letter was nothing but scathing ad hominem attacks.  And Hurwitz's point is valid ....

Thanks for the info. Of course, one does not condone ad hominem attacks. The method is itself a concession that you have no actual argument.

[ShineyMcShineShine]

Thanks for the info. Of course, one does not condone ad hominem attacks. The method is itself a concession that you have no actual argument.

Does Hurwitz have any actual arguments? He's a music critic after all, which boils down to peddling subjective opinions. It's ironic that he says his critics should trash him by attacking him on the facts, but he begins the video by saying "I truly believe, and I learned this the hard way in my career, if you dish it out you have to be able to take it. It works both ways, and I get that, I really do. I say some harsh things and if people want to say some harsh things back, more power to them." Then he tells us how much "I enjoy sharing some of the vitriol that comes my way in the comments section before it gets deleted forever" and the commenter gets banned. If Hurwitz actually believed what he says, he'd leave the critical comments for everyone to read.

[DavidW]

Does Hurwitz have any actual arguments?

I'm not a Hurwitz fan, but I will say yes. I remember back in the day, he used to write some essays (beyond reviewing the latest CD release) for Classics Today. In particular, I recall one that we discussed to death here on GMG. Hurwitz wrote a well-researched paper on the importance of vibrato in orchestral playing as a pushback on what he perceived as an objectively incorrect choice from some period-style conductors. And he was constructing an argument and not simply presenting an opinion.