Boulez massacred by Hurwitz!!!
Dinora
td
> http://www.classicstoday.com/Classics/ConcertReview_ASPFiles/ViewConc...
Fortunately Mr. Hurwitz does NOT write for the NYT. The website
"ClassicsToday" is not a journal of record. It's simply a way for an
unemployed person who fancies himself to be a critic to earn a living.
Pierre Boulez can, I would imagine, safely ignore Mr. Hurwitz's
comments.
Frankly, I don't see how anyone can endure Mahler's Symphony No. 8. A
more inflated piece of overwritten stuff has rarely been inflicted
upon the public. Even Bruno Walter skipped that on his way to Symphony
No. 9.
But that's just my opinion. I understand that some people also enjoy
an entire meal of German dumplings. More power to them.
TD
ansermetniac
wrote:
>The website
>"ClassicsToday" is not a journal of record. It's simply a way for an
>unemployed person who fancies himself to be a critic to earn a living.
If you can say something so lucid that reeks with true
understanding,why does the other things you say sound like you farted
them out your tuchus after a meal of rotten knowckwurst
Abbedd
td
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 15:07:21 -0700 (PDT), td <tomdedea...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The website
> >"ClassicsToday" is not a journal of record. It's simply a way for an
> >unemployed person who fancies himself to be a critic to earn a living.
>
> If you can say something so lucid that reeks with true
> understanding,why does the other things you say sound like you farted
> them out your tuchus after a meal of rotten knowckwurst
Because you have limited comprehension of the obvious.
Moreover, you seem to lack a mirror.
TD
mark
On May 20, 5:44 pm, Dinora <dinora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fortunately Mr. Hurwitz does NOT write for the NYT. The website
> "ClassicsToday" is not a journal of record. It's simply a way for an
> unemployed person who fancies himself to be a critic to earn a living.
>
I would trust David Hurwitz's reviews before the calptrap the NYTs
offers. Bernard Holland? Tony Tomassini? You've got to be kidding. The
factual errors that get past the Times editors alone make the paper a
laughing stock of music criticism.
There's also the musicians they champion without fail, like Mr Domingo
who has never received anything but a stellar review from the NYT.
There's also the musicians they can't stand, like Lorin Maazel who
gets only begrudging appreciation from the Times. The Times even goes
as far as to temper any "rave" review of a Maazel performance with
their usual caveats of record - like, "at least he didn't pull the
music out of shape," or, "Mr Maazel - who is usually a self-indulgent
musician." It gets tiresome.
There's also the sense that a Times reviewer seldom stays for any
entire performance, or that they phone their review in based on what
received opinion would have one believe.
Case in point - read Tomassini's April 19 review of the recent
Siegfried at the Met in which he praises tenor Christian Franz. Then,
search the NYT archives and read Tomassini's review of Siegfried from
April 19, 2004 with tenor Jon Fredric West in the titles role. You
will read almost identical reviews, with Tomassini going on about the
work's length, how strenuous it is, and how while no one will confuse
the 5-year-apart tenors with Melchior, they did the Met proud.
Amazing. One wonders if he attended either performance.
No, Dave Hurwitz actually KNOWS something about music while the
knowledge and professionalism of the Times writers is laughable at
best.
mark
> http://www.classicstoday.com/Classics/ConcertReview_ASPFiles/ViewConc...
And rightfully so.
From Davids review, it seems that Boulez massacred Mahler. Hurwitz was
simply the messenger.
mark
>
> Frankly, I don't see how anyone can endure Mahler's Symphony No. 8. A
> more inflated piece of overwritten stuff has rarely been inflicted
> upon the public.
It's my least-favorite symphony on the Mahler canon. But then, Mahler
sits somewhere down in the third or fourth rung of my favorite
composers. He's not a composer I feel compelled to listen to anymore.
M forever
Dunno, since i wasn't there either, but I got an email earlier with
reviews from a friend who went to the entire cycle. She is very
critical and generally not a big fan of Mr Boulez' work, but she was
very enthusiastic about the concert.
Mr Hurwitz is generally a very unreliable messenger and someone in
whose writings it always comes through that he really resents a lot of
people who are highly successful musicians while he never made it
beyond hitting the tam-tam in amateur orchestras.
It must be very painful if someone thinks he knows so much more about
music making than the people who actually make it, and be confronted
with the reality. Mr Hurwitz' anger and frustration come through in
many of his reviews. I pity him.
A good critic should be able to review a performance in a balanced
fashion and put it into the context of the interpretive spectrum, not
go to a concert or listen to a piece of music and think he knows
exactly how it goes and then take out his frustration on those who
actually get to make the music but who don't agree with him.
M forever
Do you think anyone gives a shit what you think about Mahler?
But thanks for letting us know anyway.
Maybe you would like to share more fascinating insights into your
personality with us? What's your favorite food?
td
I think you mean that they do not agree with your own received ideas.
Fair enough.
TD
td
I second your feelings.
I haven't heard much Mahler since I heard the BPO, VPO and the RCOA
share the honours over two weeks in Amsterdam. The ONLY symphony I
refused to attend was, indeed, No. 8,
TD
Matthew Silverstein
> Dunno, since i wasn't there either, but I got an email earlier with
> reviews from a friend who went to the entire cycle. She is very critical
> and generally not a big fan of Mr Boulez' work, but she was very
> enthusiastic about the concert. Mr Hurwitz is generally a very
> unreliable messenger and someone in whose writings it always comes
> through that he really resents a lot of people who are highly successful
> musicians while he never made it beyond hitting the tam-tam in amateur
> orchestras. It must be very painful if someone thinks he knows so much
> more about music making than the people who actually make it, and be
> confronted with the reality. Mr Hurwitz' anger and frustration come
> through in many of his reviews. I pity him. A good critic should be able
> to review a performance in a balanced fashion and put it into the
> context of the interpretive spectrum, not go to a concert or listen to a
> piece of music and think he knows exactly how it goes and then take out
> his frustration on those who actually get to make the music but who
> don't agree with him.
Next time I teach my students about the fallacy argumentum ad hominem, I
think I'll give them this post as an example.
Matty
td
> On May 20, 7:32 pm, mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 2:44 pm, Dinora <dinora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.classicstoday.com/Classics/ConcertReview_ASPFiles/ViewConc...
>
> > And rightfully so.
>
> > From Davids review, it seems that Boulez massacred Mahler. Hurwitz was
> > simply the messenger.
>
> Dunno, since i wasn't there either, but I got an email earlier with
> reviews from a friend who went to the entire cycle. She is very
> critical and generally not a big fan of Mr Boulez' work, but she was
> very enthusiastic about the concert.
> Mr Hurwitz is generally a very unreliable messenger and someone in
> whose writings it always comes through that he really resents a lot of
> people who are highly successful musicians while he never made it
> beyond hitting the tam-tam in amateur orchestras.
> It must be very painful if someone thinks he knows so much more about
> music making than the people who actually make it, and be confronted
> with the reality. Mr Hurwitz' anger and frustration come through in
> many of his reviews. I pity him.
I don't pity him. But I don't respect his opinions.
TD
td
> On May 20, 7:35 pm, mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 3:07 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > Frankly, I don't see how anyone can endure Mahler's Symphony No. 8. A
> > > more inflated piece of overwritten stuff has rarely been inflicted
> > > upon the public.
>
> > It's my least-favorite symphony on the Mahler canon. But then, Mahler
> > sits somewhere down in the third or fourth rung of my favorite
> > composers. He's not a composer I feel compelled to listen to anymore.
>
> Do you think anyone gives a shit what you think about Mahler?
Actually, that is the very point of this forum, Michael.
> But thanks for letting us know anyway.
Can't have it both ways. Either you don't give a shit, or you are
grateful for knowing Mark's opinion.
Choose.
TD
mark
Mike writes:
> > Do you think anyone gives a shit what you think about Mahler?
>
Tom D sez:
> Actually, that is the very point of this forum, Michael.
>
You're not communicating properly with Michael.
The correct response is, "do you think that anyone gives a shit what
you think of Mark's opinion of Mahler?"
At least that response is consistent with the way that Michael elects
to participate in this forum...not that I'd necessarily call screaming
at others participation.
:)
Bob Lombard
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Just a quick comment, unrelated to Mahler but worth making: it is not
> the case that killfile meat gets to decide what is the point of this
> forum. That point was decided when the group was formed. And the group
> was formed, in part, to get rid of killfile meat (nothing as
> pestiferous as the two main ones and the recently added one, but still
> very bothersome).
>
> wk
The killfile has more than one purpose. This is fortunate, since hiding
killfiled posts from view is usually thwarted by quotes later in the
thread. I use the device to restrain myself from posting direct
responses. Users of Google Groups would do well to consider that
benefit, which seems sufficient in itself to warrant using a real
newsreader.
bl
number_six
I do not consider it a "gimmick" to play works in chronological order;
to toss off such a statement in the first sentence shows that Hurwitz
was looking for an "angle," not that the conductor was looking for a
gimmick.
Frank Berger
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Just a quick comment, unrelated to Mahler but worth making: it is not
> the case that killfile meat gets to decide what is the point of this
> forum. That point was decided when the group was formed. And the group
> was formed, in part, to get rid of killfile meat (nothing as
> pestiferous as the two main ones and the recently added one, but still
> very bothersome).
>
> wk
Huh?
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:IN1Rl.451075$rp7.3895@en-nntp-
02.dc1.easynews.com:
> The killfile has more than one purpose. This is fortunate, since hiding
> killfiled posts from view is usually thwarted by quotes later in the
> thread. I use the device to restrain myself from posting direct responses.
> Users of Google Groups would do well to consider that benefit, which seems
> sufficient in itself to warrant using a real newsreader.
I use Firefox as my browser, in part because of the add-ons. One of these is
called Greasemonkey, which allows you to add killfile "scripts," including
one which works with Google Groups. You can also kill entire threads!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Gerard
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Just a quick comment, unrelated to Mahler but worth making:
If it was worth making, it would have been worth archiving too.
Gerard
> Mr Hurwitz is generally a very unreliable messenger and someone in
> whose writings it always comes through that he really resents a lot of
> people who are highly successful musicians while he never made it
> beyond hitting the tam-tam in amateur orchestras.
> It must be very painful if someone thinks he knows so much more about
> music making than the people who actually make it, and be confronted
> with the reality. Mr Hurwitz' anger and frustration come through in
> many of his reviews. I pity him.
O, is this why your arrogance is so painless? You actually have made some music
and now you are the one who knows everything?
> A good critic should be able to review a performance in a balanced
> fashion and put it into the context of the interpretive spectrum, not
> go to a concert or listen to a piece of music and think he knows
> exactly how it goes and then take out his frustration on those who
> actually get to make the music but who don't agree with him.
Talking about frustration: what is yours?
You must have several, because you're full of hate.
The Historian
> Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed innews:IN1Rl.451075$rp7.3895@en-nntp-
> 02.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > The killfile has more than one purpose. This is fortunate, since hiding
> > killfiled posts from view is usually thwarted by quotes later in the
> > thread. I use the device to restrain myself from posting direct responses.
> > Users of Google Groups would do well to consider that benefit, which seems
> > sufficient in itself to warrant using a real newsreader.
>
> I use Firefox as my browser, in part because of the add-ons. One of these is
> called Greasemonkey, which allows you to add killfile "scripts," including
> one which works with Google Groups. You can also kill entire threads!
I need to find a tutorial for this. When I checked this morning,
nearly half the threads on RMCR on the first page of Google Groups
were Powell-droppings. What a mess to see first thing.....
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:e56909ca-0cb3-4bfd-9672-
306267...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On May 21, 12:46�ｿｽam, "Matthew�ｿｽB.�ｿｽTepper" <oy�ｿｽ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
>> following letters to be typed innews:IN1Rl.451075$rp7.3895@en-nntp-
>> 02.dc1.easynews.com:
>>
>> > The killfile has more than one purpose. This is fortunate, since hiding
>> > killfiled posts from view is usually thwarted by quotes later in the
>> > thread. I use the device to restrain myself from posting direct
>> > responses. Users of Google Groups would do well to consider that
>> > benefit, which seems sufficient in itself to warrant using a real
>> > newsreader.
>>
>> I use Firefox as my browser, in part because of the add-ons. �ｿｽOne of these
>> is called Greasemonkey, which allows you to add killfile "scripts,"
>> including one which works with Google Groups. �ｿｽYou can also kill entire
>> threads!
>
> I need to find a tutorial for this. When I checked this morning, nearly
> half the threads on RMCR on the first page of Google Groups were Powell-
> droppings. What a mess to see first thing.....
I'm afraid I have to rush off to work soon, but you might try Googling on
terms such as "Firefox," "Greasemonkey," and "killfile."
mark
Pierre Boulez is one of the sacred cows of this forum. Criticizing him
for anything is frowned upon.
Like all human beings, he has his strengths and his weaknesses.
Hurwitz points out a weakness. Having heard Boulez's Mahler on DG, I'm
not surprised that this 8th was a disaster. I would have been
surprised had it risen above mediocre.
Simon Roberts
mark says...
>
>
>On May 20, 5:44=A0pm, Dinora <dinora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Fortunately Mr. Hurwitz does NOT write for the NYT. The website
>> "ClassicsToday" is not a journal of record. It's simply a way for an
>> unemployed person who fancies himself to be a critic to earn a living.
>>
>
>I would trust David Hurwitz's reviews before the calptrap the NYTs
>offers. Bernard Holland? Tony Tomassini? You've got to be kidding. The
>factual errors that get past the Times editors alone make the paper a
>laughing stock of music criticism.
Quite so; whatever flaws Hurwitz may have, at least he's better than that lot.
Simon
Recovered Reviewer
news:gv47k...@drn.newsguy.com...
Speaking as one who often
finds your judgements laughable,
I find this judgement laughable.
--
John Wiser
Jicotea Used Books
Howells NY 10932 0136 USA
cee...@gmail.com
http://www.amazon.com/shops/ceeclef
J.Martin
>
> Do you think anyone gives a shit what you think about Mahler?
>
Another enlightening post from the gentleman who complains again and
again (and again) about the constant animosity and lack of musical
substance on this ng.
tomdeacon
> In article <fb054157-552f-4a6e-9986-658453ece...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
That lot!
LOL!
Ah, well. everyone's a critic here.
TD
mark
> X-No-Archive: yes> > In article <fb054157-552f-4a6e-9986-658453ece...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> that they don't say anything. But Hurwitz, in my experience, exhibits
> a lack of ability to grasp an interpretation as a whole, to "get" the
> music. His harping on details (obsession with timpani is an obvious
> one) obscures any insights he might have, or that perhaps he doesn't
> have. Do his reviews read like music reviews to you? To me, they're a
> mix between bad real estate advertising and bad restaurant reviewing,
> with a few vicious touches to add realism and a "brand" to the
> concoction.
>
> wk
No, I feel that Hurwitz gives SPECIFICS as to what was bad AND good
about a performance. His reviews are written to a specific audience of
knowledgeable classical music lovers, not to the general public. As
such, I appreciate that he takes the time to get specific about what
he likes and dislikes in a performance. It allows me to know where
he's coming from. Sometimes, what he criticizes in an approach to a
piece may be exactly how I prefer hearing it. Sure, he dwells on the
percussion in every review, but the guy was a percussionist, after
all.
Compare that to the typical NYT review which wastes a good 75% of the
review rehashing the history of the piece, or presenting a composer or
artist bio, or - in the case of opera - retelling the story contained
in the libretto. There's always mention of how the audience reacted,
as if that has anything to do with the way the music was actually
played. When is the last time you read an opera review in the NYT
where the reviewer bothered to mention how well the cast did or did
not deliver the language being sung? I'd say the answer is, "never,"
and I'd say the reason for that is, "because they haven't a clue as to
how it should be sung." Yet if one looks at reporting from "the paper
of record" in past years, such things were mentioned.
This is lazy and uninformed reportage, the kind of writing that is
stock-in-trade for those who can't discuss music at anything but a
surface level. And I appreciate Hurwitz taking such bad reportage to
task, often pointing out how badly things went IN SPITE OF what the
now-obligatory standing-O would have one believe, the same standing-Os
that apparently tell the critics from the Times that everything was
just wonderful.
mark
>
> What he reveals, in my opinion, is that he lacks ear. You can't
> replace ear if you don't have it. It is the first and most important
> requirement for a music critic. Tell me of one young artist that
> Hurwitz has identified _before_ that artist became well known.
First off - full disclosure on my part: I've sat down for coffee with
David and used to see him at MIDEM in Cannes. He does have an ear, and
if one gets to spend any time with him one on one, the musical
conversation is rewarding. Yes, he's opinionated, but doesn't that
come with the classical music territory around Year Two of active
listening?
That his "ear" isn't reflected in his reviewing style is also an
opinion. I read his reviews as spending some time on a few individual
trees to let me know why he is going on about the shape that the
forest is in.
And he can give the devil his due when necessary. Read his review at
CT.com about Pletnev's Shosty 15 (it's up now). He brutally takes the
conductor to task for his Tchaikovsky and Beethoven, then turns around
and says, "Now he turns in a very fine Shostakovich 15th."
I guess we want different things in a review.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
letters to be typed in
> His harping on details (obsession with timpani is an obvious one)
Well, it is his instrument. More to the point, hasn't it been pointed out
that he can't seem to review a Mahler performance or recording without saying
something about the tam-tam? As soon as I pulled up this review, the first
thing I did was to search for the word, and sure enough, it was there.
M forever
I don't think Boulez is a "holy cow" in this forum. At least I haven't
noticed that yet. He certainly isn't for me although he is a musician
whose abilities I respect.
That doesn't mean I enjoy all of his recordings either. His Mahler
recordings, however, all are done on an extremely high level, very
high above anything that could be "mediocre". That still doesn't mean
I personally enjoy all of these either. I have my "problems" with some
of them (e.g. 7,9).
But I can hear that there is a strong musical mind at work and Boulez'
ability to see the connecting structures and threads and inner life of
works of music as complex as Mahler's and present the musical
substance in as coherent a way as he does is outstanding. That is far
above "mediocre" and has nothing to do with a "disaster".
Boulez' approach to these works may not be the last word on Mahler, it
may not be the "best" - whatever that means - but it is a very
valuable approach which yields a lot of musically interesting results.
At least for those who can actually hear and process music in their
brains. Some can't and they only look for superficial musical
"thrills" and "excitement" no matter if the "exciting" performance
makes musical sense overall.
That's what I would call "mediocre".
Nothing wrong with "exciting", "dramatic", "thrilling", of course. I
like dramatic and expressive performances. But the kind of musical
coherence Boulez' presents in his interpretations is something not
many can do.
M forever
> On May 21, 12:31 pm, Whosis Kid <whosiskid2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What he reveals, in my opinion, is that he lacks ear. You can't
> > replace ear if you don't have it. It is the first and most important
> > requirement for a music critic. Tell me of one young artist that
> > Hurwitz has identified _before_ that artist became well known.
>
> First off - full disclosure on my part: I've sat down for coffee with
> David and used to see him at MIDEM in Cannes. He does have an ear
How would *you* know?
M forever
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> On May 21, 2:47 pm, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> that they don't say anything. But Hurwitz, in my experience, exhibits
> a lack of ability to grasp an interpretation as a whole, to "get" the
> music. His harping on details (obsession with timpani is an obvious
> one) obscures any insights he might have, or that perhaps he doesn't
> have. Do his reviews read like music reviews to you? To me, they're a
> mix between bad real estate advertising and bad restaurant reviewing,
> with a few vicious touches to add realism and a "brand" to the
> concoction.
>
> wk
I think that's pretty spot on. Hurwitz often doesn't "get" musical
context and he knows next to nothing about musical style and
performance styles. When he rants about how the BP doesn't play in a
traditional style anymore and therefore they shouldn't receive any
more subsidies from the German government or when he rants about HIP
without getting the contexts and connections, it is a little puzzling
at first, but then it strikes you that this is someone with a very
shallow musical understanding and not much of a real musical education
and experience who is however rhetorically fairly gifted and who is
pretty good at fooling some people into believing that his amateurish
insights into music and musical performance actually have any
substance. Which they don't. He knows a few things about this and that
but he doesn't see the contexts, and when he drops a few detail
"insights" into his reviews, it makes him look somewhat knowledgeable,
at least to those who don't know much about music making themselves.
But he is mostly a charlatan.
mark
> On May 21, 3:51 pm, mark <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > First off - full disclosure on my part: I've sat down for coffee with
> > David and used to see him at MIDEM in Cannes. He does have an ear
>
> How would *you* know?
Let's just say that having met the man and talked with him on a number
of occasions, I have a better chance of knowing than do you.
Look, we all get that you don't like me and my opinions, and that you
somehow feel duty bound to make negative comments about even the
blandest of statements that appear in my posts. You don't like the
fact that I get along with most everybody on this forum while you are
ignored and rebuffed by most.
What's your point? You add nothing positive to the conversation and
few buy what you're selling. You're just as bad as Hurwitz always
feeling the need to wax poetic about the percussion, only he's at the
least trying to make a point, whereas you're just engaging in some
self-centered form of public therapy.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you have a very transparent streak of
jealousy running down your back.
M forever
So why do you say it anyway? And how do you "know better"? You don't.
It might be true. Except that I don't see any need to be "jealous" of
someone like Hurwitz. "Jealous" of what? Of his limited musical
insights and history as a percussion player in amateur orchestras?
Funny that in your simple mind, you can't understand why I am so
critical of his poisonpenmanship and the only way you can explain that
is by suspecting "jealousy" - while at the same time, you can't see
that jealousy is obviously a strong element in his musical life. I am
not jealous of professional musicians. I used to be one myself and I
know it takes much more than people like you could even begin to
imagine. Hurwitz probably can imagine that because he hobbied around
in the field but never got anywhere near being a professional
musician. I respect the people who do that for a living at the same
time as I am also critical of their work.
I also respect good music journalists. I like to read about music and
musical performances. Good music journalism is very difficult, too.
But Hurwitz' scribblings aren't good music journalism.
Funny, too, that you object to me harshly criticizing Hurwitz'
scribblings but you apparently don't object to him "massacring" the
work of accomplished musicians. Why is that? Because he caters to half-
wits like you and he gives people like you the feeling that he really
knows what he is talking about and that you do, too.
You haven't answered my question though. How do you know and how can
you judge that he has "an ear"? You are obviously mightily impressed
by the man and his enormous abilities.
td
I tend to agree.
When he still posted here, his posts were interminably boring and
could easily have been reduced in size to 1/10th of the size and been
a lot more palatable, without reducing the content one whit.
Verbose. Boring. Pretentious. And basically the work of an amateur. He
doesn't really write very well.
TD
Gerard
Probably mark is right about your jealousy.
Once you was a "professional musician".
Now you're only someone shouting, insulting everyone who does not know as much
as you do, spouting your hatred the whole day long, in endless posts, repeating
the same things endlessly.
What a life.
You *must* be jealous of someone who has a good functioning website where a lot
of people like to read his reviews.
td
> You *must* be jealous of someone who has a good functioning website where a lot
> of people like to read his reviews.
A lot of people?
Really?
You think?
TD
Simon Roberts
Whosis Kid says...
>
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>On May 21, 2:47 pm, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>In article <fb054157-552f-4a6e-9986-658453ece...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> mark says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 20, 5:44=A0pm, Dinora <dinora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Fortunately Mr. Hurwitz does NOT write for the NYT. The website
>> >> "ClassicsToday" is not a journal of record. It's simply a way for an
>> >> unemployed person who fancies himself to be a critic to earn a living.
>>
>> >I would trust David Hurwitz's reviews before the calptrap the NYTs
>> >offers. Bernard Holland? Tony Tomassini? You've got to be kidding. The
>> >factual errors that get past the Times editors alone make the paper a
>> >laughing stock of music criticism.
>>
>>Quite so; whatever flaws Hurwitz may have, at least he's better than that lot.
>>
>> Simon
>
>Really? Granted, many NYT concert reviews of late have been so coy
>that they don't say anything. But Hurwitz, in my experience, exhibits
>a lack of ability to grasp an interpretation as a whole, to "get" the
>music. His harping on details (obsession with timpani is an obvious
>one) obscures any insights he might have, or that perhaps he doesn't
>have. Do his reviews read like music reviews to you? To me, they're a
>mix between bad real estate advertising and bad restaurant reviewing,
>with a few vicious touches to add realism and a "brand" to the
>concoction.
I didn't say his reviews were good, only that they're better than the stuff in
the NY Times.
Simon
Simon Roberts
>
>"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:gv47k...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article
>> <fb054157-552f-4a6e...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> mark says...
>>>
>>>
>>>On May 20, 5:44=A0pm, Dinora <dinora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately Mr. Hurwitz does NOT write for the NYT. The website
>>>> "ClassicsToday" is not a journal of record. It's simply a way for an
>>>> unemployed person who fancies himself to be a critic to earn a living.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I would trust David Hurwitz's reviews before the calptrap the NYTs
>>>offers. Bernard Holland? Tony Tomassini? You've got to be kidding. The
>>>factual errors that get past the Times editors alone make the paper a
>>>laughing stock of music criticism.
>>
>> Quite so; whatever flaws Hurwitz may have, at least he's better than that
>> lot.
>>
>
>Speaking as one who often
>finds your judgements laughable,
>I find this judgement laughable.
So what?
Simon
M forever
> In article <5148c9aa-8c99-4b97-bead-3e3cfdd75...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Better, or just different?
Simon Roberts
M forever says...
>
>On May 22, 11:00=A0am, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <5148c9aa-8c99-4b97-bead-3e3cfdd75...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> I didn't say his reviews were good, only that they're better than the stu=
>ff in
>> the NY Times.
>>
>> Simon
>
>Better, or just different?
Better - though if the NY Times were as good as it thinks it is, it wouldn't
hire him, either....
Simon
Norman M. Schwartz
>> I didn't say his reviews were good, only that they're better than
>> the stuff in the NY Times.
>>
>> Simon
>
> Better, or just different?
Different, different as they don't review the same "stuff".
M forever
In this case, he did review a concert which is what they usually do.