[Brahmsianhorn]

since we can all see your fact-less attack on the man is inspired by a simple personal animus about a 1942 recording.

I have said over and over that my opinion of him predated that. And I have zero personal animus. I thought he made a fool of himself, and I used his quotes to demonstrate that, since you were demanding "evidence."

You are obsessed with painting me as someone with a personal axe to grind. You're like an attorney trying to discredit a witness. Why? What's your personal stake in this?

 

[wkasimer]

Right, you're not driving the train but you keep boarding it.

And shoveling the coal into the engine....

 

[Guest002]

I have said over and over that my opinion of him predated that. And I have zero personal animus. I thought he made a fool of himself, and I used his quotes to demonstrate that, since you were demanding "evidence."

Well, I shall quote a word that starts with 'c' and ends in 'rap'.

You have NOT said "over and over" that my opinion of him predated the Furtwängler 1942 review. You mention it for the very first time in post #415.

And Hurwitz, as quoted by you, clearly said 'the facts are I can hear X, and you claiming you can hear Y, given the recorded evidence, is false'. And that's it. But from that, you've created this nonsense of he only judges recordings on what he can factually hear, and on the precision of the orchestra, despite around 400 of his videos since being quite explicit on the fact that those are not things he judges other recordings by

You are obsessed with painting me as someone with a personal axe to grind. You're like an attorney trying to discredit a witness. Why? What's your personal stake in this?

I have zero personal stake in this except the tiny, trivial matter of... integrity.

Claim X, back X up. It's really as simple as that.

I agreed with you regarding Hurwitz's personal skills (or lack thereof). I disagree that he lacks musical critical skills. What about that is so hard to grasp, and why do you keep questioning my personal motivation on the matter? Talk about personal 'attacks'!

I call you to account for your sweeping generalisation about someone's musico-critical skills, and you repeatedly fail to respond with facts, but quote at exhaustive length from a correspondence about a 1942 recording review you disliked. What is complicated about that?

For the record: I was born in Kent, England. I migrated to Sydney, Australia. I moved back to England in 2017. I had never heard of Hurwitz until this thread started and I have no financial or other relationship with him whatsoever. I haven't visited the USA since I landed in New York in 2004 and drove to Los Angeles a month later.

 

[Merl]

Is it safe to come in yet? I, personally, have no axe to grind with Hurwitz. He's a larger than life character who's been around the music industry and classical music for a long time. He can be stubborn, rude, biased, arrogant, opinionated and make some silly generalisations yet he can also be highly entertaining, funny, perceptive, passionate and highly knowledgeable about music. He's a wealth of information on music he loves and has a gigantic music collection that he knows well. Whether you love or hate him, he's promoting CM (and his website) and introducing people to a lot of relatively unknown composers so there's a lot of positives to counter the negatives. I wouldnt question his musical knowledge as he's probably forgotten more than i'll ever know about CM and would leave me for dead talking about music theory (he has a couple of Masters degrees) and the history of CM (hes written many books on most of the major composers and is recognised as an authority on Haydn - his hero). Sometimes i wholeheartedly agree with him on recordings (Furty's 9th, the Panocha's Dvorak SQs) and sometimes not (Lindsays late recordings, Norrington) but tbf to him, if he doesnt like something at least he explains why. If he doesnt its because he hasnt heard it. He has bias but I know what he likes and dislikes now so i factor that into what he says. At the end of the day he's promotong his site and himself and i applaud him for that in the current situation. We can all be opinionated pr#cks at times and we all disagree (and often do on here). Hes no different in that respect.

 

[Guest002]

Is it safe to come in yet?

Yes, of course. It is a debate, not a fight to the death with leg-knives attached.

I, personally, have no axe to grind with Hurwitz. He's a larger than life character who's been around the music industry and classical music for a long time.

I interrupt only to mention I'd never heard of him and I had no idea he had a long career as a music critic, until he started mentioning things like hob-nobbing with assorted composers at assorted musical industry events in some of his videos.

He can be stubborn, rude, biased, arrogant, opinionated and make some silly generalisations yet he can also be highly entertaining, funny, perceptive, passionate and highly knowledgeable about music. He's a wealth of information on music he loves and has a gigantic music collection that he knows well. Whether you love or hate him, he's promoting CM (and his website) and introducing people to a lot of relatively unknown composers so there's a lot of positives to counter the negatives. I wouldnt question his musical knowledge as he's probably forgotten more than i'll ever know about CM and would leave me for dead talking about music theory (he has a couple of Masters degrees) and the history of CM (hes written many books on most of the major composers and is recognised as an authority on Haydn - his hero). Sometimes i wholeheartedly agree with him on recordings (Furty's 9th, the Panocha's Dvorak SQs) and sometimes not (Lindsays late recordings, Norrington) but tbf to him, if he doesnt like something at least he explains why. If he doesnt its because he hasnt heard it. He has bias but I know what he likes and dislikes now so i factor that into what he says. At the end of the day he's promotong his site and himself and i applaud him for that in the current situation. We can all be opinionated pr#cks at times and we all disagree (and often do on here). Hes no different in that respect.

And to that I raise my metaphorical hat and say 'Amen' (I'm not sure what raising a hat has to do with that, but anyway... I like your summation!)

 

[Knorf]

I wouldnt question his musical knowledge as he's probably forgotten more than i'll ever know about CM and would leave me for dead talking about music theory (he has a couple of Masters degrees) and the history of CM.

This is misleading. His graduate degrees are in Modern European History. In terms of music, and especially music scholarship, he is an amateur and not in any way a noted scholar in music, certainly not in music theory. And even in historical musicology, his qualifications and output are that of a lay person, an enthusiast at best. He has received vanishingly few citations for his meagre publications on orchestral vibrato and in general is not a noted professional authority in music at all. His other publications are of a non-scholarly nature.

I do and will question his musical knowledge.

 

[Guest002]

This is misleading. His graduate degrees are in Modern European History. In terms of music, and especially music scholarship, he is an amateur and not in any way a noted scholar in music, certainly not in music theory. And even in historical musicology, his qualifications and output are that of a lay person, an enthusiast at best. He has received vanishingly few citations for his meagre publications on orchestral vibrato and in general is not a noted professional authority in music at all. His other publications are of a non-scholarly nature.

I do and will question his musical knowledge.

Well, this is at least factual, so thank you for that!

I kind of knew he was an amateur (his constant references to a local community orchestra kind of gave that away).

I will readily acknowledge he's not cited in academic papers. I'm just not sure it makes a difference to what he's doing. He's not claiming to pronounce form on-high, from a rigid, academically-sound background. His sign-off is 'keep on listening' which, if it isn't an invitation to people to make their own minds up, I don't know what is.

I have no problem with you questioning his musical knowledge (which is at least a blessed relief from dismissing it).

Personally, I would prefer a lay-person laying out a pathway through the morass of classical music than an academic telling me, for example, how stupid I am for not appreciating X or Y. And I think that's what he does: lays out some path that people can explore at their own leisure and pleasure. I don't hold him to a higher standard than that -and judging only by the content of the Current Listening thread, he's actually quite good at getting people to listening to varied repertoire.

 

[Brahmsianhorn]

Are we being graded?

 

[Knorf]

I have no problem with you questioning his musical knowledge (which is at least a blessed relief from dismissing it).

Indeed, this is only fair. Two of the people whose musical insights I trust very highly are not professional musicians at all; in fact the owner of one of the best pair of ears for music I know is not only not a musician, he didn't go to college! (He made a career in photography and videography.)

And I think that's what he does: lays out some path that people can explore at their own leisure and pleasure.

But here's the rub: that's not all he does, is it? He's at least as well known for his unrestrained vitriol and calumnies, and a number of posters in this thread myself included have laid out examples where he's caused real damage, including to the career of a very good colleague of mine.

If how you describe him above was indeed a clear, generally accurate summation of his activities, I'd have zero beef with him, whether I agreed with his opinion or not. But it just isn't.

...judging only by the content of the Current Listening thread, he's actually quite good at getting people to listening to varied repertoire.

That's fair, to a point, until you notice how often he also goes out of his way to attack and lead people away from repertoire he neither likes nor understands.

Are we being graded?

Just you. You have an A-.

 

[Guest002]

That's fair, to a point, until you notice how often he also goes out of his way to attack and lead people away from repertoire he neither likes nor understands.

I'm not commenting about the issue about damage to a career, only because I know *zero* about the facts.

I will only say that I've not been aware of him ever guiding me away from particular repertoire. Indeed, his semi-latest video is about someone he seems to hate, but also has a sneaking regard for.

Anyway: I don't expect a critic to guide me to stuff he loathes. I sort of take him at face value, watch a dozen videos, and get a sense of his personal likes and dislikes and know he's not going to stray outside of those guidelines too often.

For example, I know he's never going to like anything conducted by Simon Rattle! He's made that clear enough. Would I therefore look to him for guidance in Rattle's recorded repertoire? Nope.

I take him for what he can give: had I heard of Erwin Schulhoff before his video of about a week ago? No. Shamefully no. My fault, not blaming anyone else. I suppose I could have heard of him. But I didn't. So did Hurwitz open some windows with that video? Definitely, yes. Julius Röntgen, ditto.

I'd forgive him a hell of a lot for those two on their own.

I get there may be personal issues in the sense that he undermined a friend of yours. I simply can't comment, and I don't know enough to comment even if I knew any of the facts. I respect your position on the matter, is the best I can come up with.

I really don't think he's someone I'd ever be friends with, is my point. I definitely get the sense that he's "difficult".

For what he's producing and the audience he's aiming it at... I just don't think that matters.

 

[Guest002]

Are we being graded?

Well if we are, you get an E- for facts.
A D- for social awareness
And a C for pertinence.

But that's just me and I'm sure others will grade you more leniently because you are you and I am I.

 

[Knorf]

I get there may be personal issues in the sense that he undermined a friend of yours. I simply can't comment, and I don't know enough to comment even if I knew any of the facts. I respect your position on the matter, is the best I can come up with.

This is more than fair.

I'd like to add for clarification that I had problems with Hurwitz's often ignorant and excessively polemical style before he trashed my friend's recording and heaped calumnies on his quality as a conductor. My issues with Hurwitz mispresenting himself on occasion, as more of a historical musicology scholar than he has any right to claim, predate that incident as well.

But if he led you to music that you now are excited about, all I can say is, I'm glad for that.

 

[Merl]

This is misleading. His graduate degrees are in Modern European History. In terms of music, and especially music scholarship, he is an amateur and not in any way a noted scholar in music, certainly not in music theory. And even in historical musicology, his qualifications and output are that of a lay person, an enthusiast at best. He has received vanishingly few citations for his meagre publications on orchestral vibrato and in general is not a noted professional authority in music at all. His other publications are of a non-scholarly nature.

I do and will question his musical knowledge.

I didn't write that. A big boy did it and ran away.

 

[Brahmsianhorn]

I don’t know any other current or recent music critics who conduct themselves the way Hurwitz does. Who intimidate and demean. Who relish going over the top in trashing musicians. Who insult people as “cultists” for simply appreciating Wagner or Bruckner.

With regard to the argument Hurwitz and I had on Furtwängler’s 1942 B9, it was in the comments section of his general video on the Beethoven 9th. It was shortly thereafter that he made the video specifically titled “Why Furtwängler’s 1942 Nazi 9th really sucks.”

I don’t think that was an accident. IMO Hurwitz has psychological problems. He takes glee in tearing people down and the feeling of power he gets from being able to do so.

 

[Guest002]

I don't know any other current or recent music critics who conduct themselves the way Hurwitz does. Who intimidate and demean. Who relish going over the top in trashing musicians. Who insult people as "cultists" for simply appreciating Wagner or Bruckner.

With regard to the argument Hurwitz and I had on Furtwängler's 1942 B9, it was in the comments section of his general video on the Beethoven 9th. It was shortly thereafter that he made the video specifically titled "Why Furtwängler's 1942 Nazi 9th really sucks."

I don't think that was an accident. IMO Hurwitz has psychological problems. He takes glee in tearing people down and the feeling of power he gets from being able to do so.

Of course you think he has psychological problems! He thinks *you* have psychological problems!

Do you not get that you and he have a difference of opinion?

Good lord. You have abused me, personally, quite as much as you accuse Hurwitz of. And you don't give a fig.

Your opinion of Hurwitz is demonstrably of no worth.

Come back with evidence!

 

[Brahmsianhorn]

Come back with evidence!

I quoted him directly. He stated the following directly to me simply because I appreciate a recording that he does not:

"Just admit that you're a cultist and enjoy your rituals of worship."

He said in the same exchange that his opinion on this recording equates to fact and that my differing opinion equates to fantasy.

Only a person of low intelligence would discuss art this way. That is my opinion of the man, and I am entitled to it.

 

[Guest002]

I quoted him directly. He stated the following directly to me simply because I appreciate a recording that he does not:

"Just admit that you're a cultist and enjoy your rituals of worship."

He said in the same exchange that his opinion on this recording equates to fact and that my differing opinion equates to fantasy.

You made two claims. First, that "he attack people who disagree by painting them with broad strokes". The long quotes you've provided are definitely evidence of that (in a specific context), but that wasn't really anything that needed evidence because I think the general consensus here is that he is a prickly person that can be quite rude to people, even if they're agreeing with him!

But second, you claimed "He understands music on a very simplistic level" [#378], he "understands music on a very nuts and bolts level." [#381] and " I can't even give him credit for understanding music" [#385]. Those are claims about his general level of musicality. You've not provided any evidence for that, only that in a specific context, he was rude to you and judged a recording by what, according to you, are 'wrong criteria'.

Only a person of low intelligence would discuss art this way.

Wow. See: you have now made a general assessment of his overall intelligence level. That's even more sweeping a judgment than commenting on his musicality! And you make it on the basis that he was rude to you about a Furtwangler recording. I assume you can't see how disproportionate that is, but I think others will.

That is my opinion of the man, and I am entitled to it.

You are absolutely entitled to any opinion about anything at all. It is entirely valid to have opinions. The more interesting question, however, is not whether you have opinions, but whether they are worth anything or helpful to anyone else -and the answer to that question depends entirely on the soundness of the basis on which you hold those opinions.

Your opinion of Hurwitz, it is now abundantly clear, is based on no actual assessment of his 500+ videos and their musical appreciation content but on a fit of personal pique because he dared to rudely contradict you about a particular 1942 recording.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion about him. It's just that it has no merit.

 

[Merl]

If you think Hurwitz is a poor reviewer then try reading some of the Allmusic reviews of classical releases. Some contain bizarre comments that don't correlate with the recordings they're reviewing. Not all their reviewers are bad, btw, but they have deleted and rewritten their reviews possibly to correspond with the positive / negative views of other music sites. However, when I read reviews of recordings I tend to look at as many different reviews as possible as the amount of bias out there can be overbearing. With Hurwitz you know that recordings by Rattle, Norrington, The Lindsays, modern British SQs, most British conductors, etc are going to get panned. However, if they score anything more than 7 then you should probably check them out! On the flip side all recordings by many American orchestras, Ormandy, Szell, Czech SQs, etc are going to be lauded to the sky. I just accept it and check them against other sites to get some balance. They're just critics. I can't get that wound up about them. We have a site full of critics here.

 

[Brahmsianhorn]

Your opinion of Hurwitz, it is now abundantly clear, is based on no actual assessment of his 500+ videos and their musical appreciation content but on a fit of personal pique because he dared to rudely contradict you about a particular 1942 recording.

You have no basis for making this statement. I have refuted it many times. Yet you keep making it. Why are you so desperate to discredit my opinion of Hurwitz?

This quote from me in that exchange on the Furtwangler 9th conclusively proves that my opinion on Hurwitz was formed well before the exchange, and it is not based on some "fit of personal pique" as you are so desperate to assert:

"I just finished pointing out how my opinion on this performance is based on the music, and how the same aspects about it that I admire are likewise widely admired, and you resort to the same simplistic Hurwitzian nonsense that all opinions contrary to yours are based on something imaginary whereas yours are based on fact. You wrote the same trite nonsense about the great Horenstein Mahler 8th - that everyone who admires it, including the patrons wildly applauding at the end, are ignorantly imagining that it is worthy while you the great Hurwitz are armed with "facts" proving it is not. You are not armed with facts. You are armed with simplicity. You reduce music to its most base level and refuse to even acknowledge that there are more complex reasons than mere clarity and precision that elicit music appreciation. The important point is that people reading your reviews understand the inherently limited standard of music appreciation from which you operate. And stop pretending that Furtwangler himself would agree with you. You know very well that his priority was on the spirit of the music and not simpleminded clarity."

 

[Guest002]

You have no basis for making this statement. I have refuted it many times. Yet you keep making it. Why are you so desperate to discredit my opinion of Hurwitz?

You constantly resort to belittling and questioning of motives, don't you? It's not a terribly attractive trait.

But for the record, I'm not desperate and my only motive in having this debate with you is to understand why you have such a low opinion of Hurwitz and whether that low opinion indicates a level of musical sophistication on your part to which I (and others) would do well to pay attention.

I mean, you started this all by mentioning in your critique of him that "He does not understand very well the conductor's art of creating and setting up tension. I don't think he understands very well how the emotional effects of the music reach the listener". Those are some deep-sounding observations. If true, they pretty much rule out spending any more time on watching any of his videos, no? I mean, if he doesn't understand a conductor's creative process, or cannot understand the emotional impact of music... well, he sounds pretty dumb.

So those were big statements on your part, and don't you think they might be worth investigating to see if you're right and Hurwitz really lacks general music insight and understanding? I did.

So: the interest level is set. Are you right about his musical insights and understanding? And if you are, what actual evidence is there to support that opinion?

And that's it. That was my motivation. Is Brahmsianhorn full of musical wisdom and insight that makes paying attention to what he says worthwhile? Am I wasting my time watching Hurwitz videos? Simple questions, no profound or mysterious motivation required or present.

And so I weigh his 500+ videos (which I think I've probably watched about 350 of) on the one hand; and you and your expressed views of him on the other.

I have to tell you that you have not been… persuasive. You sound like an angry man. You sound angry because your view of a particular recording was rejected. I put it no stronger than that.

This quote from me in that exchange on the Furtwangler 9th conclusively proves that my opinion on Hurwitz was formed well before the exchange, and it is not based on some "fit of personal pique" as you are so desperate to assert:

"I just finished pointing out how my opinion on this performance is based on the music, and how the same aspects about it that I admire are likewise widely admired, and you resort to the same simplistic Hurwitzian nonsense that all opinions contrary to yours are based on something imaginary whereas yours are based on fact. You wrote the same trite nonsense about the great Horenstein Mahler 8th - that everyone who admires it, including the patrons wildly applauding at the end, are ignorantly imagining that it is worthy while you the great Hurwitz are armed with "facts" proving it is not. You are not armed with facts. You are armed with simplicity. You reduce music to its most base level and refuse to even acknowledge that there are more complex reasons than mere clarity and precision that elicit music appreciation. The important point is that people reading your reviews understand the inherently limited standard of music appreciation from which you operate. And stop pretending that Furtwangler himself would agree with you. You know very well that his priority was on the spirit of the music and not simpleminded clarity."

So you're pîssed because he slagged off two recordings you thought wonderful, and that's supposed to change my opinion …how, exactly?

You simply don't get to go around calling people musical sophomores or someone of low intelligence because they disagree with your opinions. Do you not get that? Certainly not without being challenged on the evidence backing up your "opinion" anyway (and I put the word "opinion" in quotes because, frankly, at this point, it looks more like mere bigotry on your part: an obstinate and unreasonable attachment to an opinion).

Feel free to have the last word. I'm done with you.