I could see how he is biased towards American orchestras but i don't see how he is biased towards orchestral music. He doesn't have a responsability to talk about every genre of music, if he mainly prefers orchestral music than good for him. Don't really understand what you are trying to say with 'biased towards orchestral music'
Where are we disagreeing? I said he is biased towards orchestral music, and you said he prefers orchestral music. We are saying the same thing.
they largely coincide but i think some recordings you would recommend to others because they are good reference and some might be your favourites but you can see how it wouldn't be a good first recording or something like that. Or maybe he has recommended so many recordings that he wants to share his best of the best. I also don't really see the point
Sorry English isn't my main language, i thought biased was preferred but in a bad way. Like you shouldn't be biased in that particular situation. But i think he has covered the majority of standard repertoire of opera, chamber music and so on.
Agree about the English press, disagree about American orchestras. I love Cleveland, Philly and New York
Cleveland have certainly been great, as much for their choice of conductors and repertoire, as anything else.
I don't see much of a problem with Hurwitz ruining classical music for the beginners, as long as he a) doesn't control all the CM information sources, and b) does not recommend crap recordings. Beginners who keep an interest would develop their own tastes over time. For example, in his relatively rare Baroque repertoire videos (and even in a couple Romantic repertoire videos) he recommends period instrument recordings. Many beginners who try out them might find they like the period instrument aesthetic.
Well, there's the deliberately provocative Classical Music's Top Ten Dirtiest Secrets...
Hurwitz has said he covers mostly orchestral recordings because that's what most of his audience cares about. Hurwitz has championed the chamber music of Haydn, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and Dvorak in some videos. He actually thinks Dvorak was a greater chamber music composer than Brahms, but that most of Dvorak's chamber music isn't played. He also said in one video that he has a Mendelssohn piano quartet as his ringtone.
I don't think that's true but he seems clearly most competent in orchestral music, roughly from Haydn to (not too avantgardist) modern music. Frankly, I wouldn't heed any advice of his beyond this field.
Hurwitz has written books on Haydn, Mendelssohn, and other composers, so he knows their chamber music, at least.
I agree that the Passion narrative is worthless, and Parsifal's story is ridiculous. I agree that music is entertainment.
That's not Hurwitz's perspective, exactly. He wants a modest amount of elitism in CM but not too much. It takes time and effort to appreciate CM, he points out. It's for a small proportion of the public that gravitates to it.
I do not think you would go wrong with his recommendations unless you regard them not as a starting point in exploration, but as revealed truth. His choices are often idiosyncratic, but (to my best knowledge) never execrable. The problem a beginner may have with his recommendations is that he tends to forgo well-established first-rate performers in favour of sometimes obscure records. I have an extensive collection, and I have benefitted from his videos in discovering more. Should you forgo the Karajan/BP cycle of LvB symphonies in favour of an obscure Czech recording (which he champions, inter alia, because he can publicly play it for copyright reasons)? Probably not. Provided you already have two or three well-established LvB cycles, and you wish to explore something different but good, should you listen to his recommendations? Of course.
