Skimming through this thread is so depressing. David Hurwitz is a deliberately controversial music critic with an astonishing knowledge of the classical repertoire and back catalogue. His judgments are usually nuanced and what comes across strongly on his YouTube channel – far more so than in his spiky written reviews – is his beguiling enthusiasm for little-known composers and recordings. He's a polemicist who sets out, from time to time, to annoy people, and he can annoy me: his contempt for Gramophone's 'snooty reviewers' is a case is point, though if he were attacking the wretched dumbing-down of that magazine I'd agree with him. His anti-British sentiments don't seem to run very deep, judging by his love of Vaughan Williams, Holst, much of Elgar; he champions some of the Havergal Brian symphonies and went into rhapsodies over the box of Sir Charles Groves conducting British music. He has written what seems to me, at least, to be an extremely perceptive guide to the orchestral music of Shostakovich grounded in musical analysis. He provides, free of charge, about an hour a day of very lively reviews and musical discussion that I find as addictive as Radio 3 decades ago, before it became the horrible product we know today (and Radio 3, even in its golden era, could also be annoying). So Dave doesn't rate Horenstein as a conductor? Fine: don't listen to his YouTube channel. Or, like me, you could just agree to disagree.
-
-
Rather strange first ever post to sign up and slag off the members of this forum who have a dim of view of Hurwitz.Comment
-
I don’t think he’s “slagging anyone off” - merely trying to be tolerant of different points of view. Surely that’s a good thing?Originally posted by Barbirollians View PostComment
-
Not at all strange. Many people read what forumites have written without feeling they want to register as members. When a topic crops up which they feel strongly about it spurs them on to join and comment.This seemed a well-reasoned and balanced post from a new member. Differences of opinion are allowed here, interaction between members should be respectful.Originally posted by Barbirollians View PostIt isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
David Hurwitz is the Boris Johnson of record reviewing - clowning around with a gramophone rather than with Great Britain.
Just regard it as entertainment (binning Haitink’s RVW 5th! after it had been the top choice on Record Review - though not mine).
He cannot do us any harm, unlike that preposterous ex-PM.Comment
-
-
Harsh words indeed!Originally posted by Keraulophone View Post
His reviews (I mean the written ones, I'm not going to subject myself to watching him talk) are useful to me in that if he really unleashes his disdain on something I know I'm probably going to like it.Comment
-
I haven't read Mr Hurwitz, not even heard of him before reading this thread, so I don't criticise him personally. But from what I've read it suggests a trend I've noticed for some years: saying something that will outrage people is way of being noticed and maybe getting you your next job. It's a reflection on our scandal and argument-loving society.
I feel for hard-working musicians whose honest careers may be damaged by such behaviour.Comment
-
I take a view similar to that expressed by contributor Barrett. However, I am also in sympathy with what you say in your second paragraph. While Keraulophone may be right in asserting that Hurwitz cannot do us here any harm, he can undermine the developing careers of the fine musicians he piles his ordure upon. May I suggest that those here with responsibilities as adjudicators in music-associated PhD awards peruse Hurwitz's screed of 'research' regarding the historical deployment of string vibrato to see how many howlers they encounter?Originally posted by smittims View PostComment
-
I think that anyone with any sort of responsibilities should by now have come to recognise that the internet gives an equal platform to a) various kinds of ungenerous, as well as encouraging, comment and b) extremely dodgy research as well as some very sound research. One must learn to pick one's way between it all.Originally posted by Bryn View PostIt isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
Indeed but what I was encouraging was that those here with particular experience in supervising and/or adjudicating research might like to subject the item to their evaluation.Originally posted by french frank View PostComment
-
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
I've said this previously upthread, but this text does not meet academic standards at PhD level either as research or as argumentation. The use of the phrase "lunatic fringe" in the very first sentence isn't acceptable. At the end of the first paragraph we read "Proponents of this theory would have us believe that prior to World War II, vibrato in orchestral string sections was a scarce commodity, and then all of a sudden, the same players, conductors, and composers who lived in vibrato-less bliss decided to apply the technique with a trowel." If anyone actually had made such a claim, they should be quoted on it. Straw man arguments have no place in academic discourse. No source is given for the supposed quote from Roger Norrington in the third paragraph. If you're going to engage with the opinions of someone else you need to give the reader the opportunity to read those opinions in context. The implication that an orchestra's characteristic "sound" is principally the work of its conductor is questionable - the Czech and Vienna Philharmonics spring immediately to mind as counterexamples.Originally posted by Bryn View Post
That's the first page, which shows every sign of heading towards some kind of personalised hate campaign against Roger Norrington, rather than a thoroughly researched and well argued position on its ostensible subject. In the footnote to page 5 he says the following:
"I freely confess not to have surveyed all of the extent academic work on this subject; I am not in a position to do so, and in any case the inspiration for this essay is not the desire to do battle with the many fine scholars who understand how properly to use and present historical evidence to their audiences of colleagues and early music experts"
- in other words "I can't be bothered to do the work that a professional academic would see as necessary", so why should anyone who's interested in knowing the facts, hearing the arguments and making their own mind up be bothered reading the rest? (I did once, by the way, but I'm not inclined to do so again.)Comment
-
It took me a while to get past Hurwitz’ Noo Yawk accent, but I find I often agree with him.
He is entirely right about the british musical establishment’s insularity and the fact that Rattle was ‘made’ by EMI.
He is also right that Haitink was often (on record) underwhelming.
I share his enthusiasm for Walter, Klemperer (mine is less qualified than his, though) and Chailly, and his scepticism about the likes of Nelsons.
I didn’t agree at all with him on what constitutes ‘essential Wagner operas’, though. But then, by his own admission, he is not really an ‘opera guy’.
I do find his enthusiasm for Slatkin odd - as far as I’m aware, he is more or less completely alone in this.Comment
Comment