Hurwitz's beef with Furtwangler

[Gabriel Parra]

Hurwitz seems to have a deep-seeded antipaty toward Furtwangler, more
so than would seem musically justified. He rarely misses the
opportunity to denigrate this conductor in seemingly unrelated reviews
of others' interpretations, and his vitriol verges on the psychotically
hateful. To wit, in a review of Alsop's Brahms 3rd:

"After all, some really great Brahmsians, including Toscanini and
Furtwängler, have really screwed up this symphony. The latter's
performances especially constitute some of the most hideously
embarrassing documents ever left by a theoretically great artist."

It is interesting that at first he seem to implicitly acknowledge
Furwangler as a "great Brahmsian" but then, he calls him a
"theoretically great artist." Quite apart from this contradiction, I've
rarely encountered a reviewer use language as charged as "hideously
embarrassing." It seems clear he has some sort of personal vendetta.

Does anyone know where it comes from? Is it because Hurwitz is Jewish?
I have an uncle who dismisses Furwangler out of hand as a Nazi despite
my attempts to present evidence to the contrary. As for Furtwangler's
Brahms 3, Ardoin was not a big fan, but many musicians, most notably
Menuhin, singled out precisely this symphony when talking about
Furtwangler's greatness as a conductor.

What gives?

[Gerard]

Post by Gabriel Parra
Hurwitz seems to have a deep-seeded antipaty toward Furtwangler, more
so than would seem musically justified. He rarely misses the
opportunity to denigrate this conductor in seemingly unrelated reviews
of others' interpretations, and his vitriol verges on the
"After all, some really great Brahmsians, including Toscanini and
Furtwängler, have really screwed up this symphony. The latter's
performances especially constitute some of the most hideously
embarrassing documents ever left by a theoretically great artist."
It is interesting that at first he seem to implicitly acknowledge
Furwangler as a "great Brahmsian" but then, he calls him a
"theoretically great artist." Quite apart from this contradiction,
I've rarely encountered a reviewer use language as charged as
"hideously embarrassing." It seems clear he has some sort of personal
vendetta.

If there is anybody with a sort of personal vendetta, isn't that you? Your
vendetta against HIP recordings is exemplary.
If Hurwitz wanted to denigrate Furtwängler at any opportunity, he could do so
daily.

[Ralph]

Post by Gabriel Parra
What gives?

Some people don't buy into the Furtwangler idolatry, and are not
intimidated from saying as much, by any fear from the Furtwangler
obsessive genuflection society.

Ralph

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Ralph
Some people don't buy into the Furtwangler idolatry, and are not
intimidated from saying as much, by any fear from the Furtwangler
obsessive genuflection society.

Besides, Hurwitz has heaped great praise on other Furtwängler recordings.
Perhaps he thinks that although Furtwängler was a great conductor, not
everything he touched turned to gold. Here's what Dave wrote in this
newsgroup several years ago:

"He was a great artist, unquestionably, but also an acquired taste, and I
believe one worth acquiring for his uniquely personal style, intensity and
insight into some of the core German repertoire. But by the same token,
there is no work that he conducted for which you cannot find an equally
fine performance (albeit different interpretively) in excellent modern
sound (with the exception of his own Second Symphony)."

The next day he wrote:

"You are operating from the basic assumption that because Furtwangler
didn't believe everything should sound the same every day, that everything
he did must be equally fine. While I agree with the first proposition, I
disagree with the second. In fact, Furtwangler's interpretations were
remarkably consistent in their broad particulars, and the "differences"
are almost always simple failings either of orchestral execution of
interpretive temperament. Sometimes he "got it right" and sometimes he
didn't. He was human like everyone else. I find it particularly strange to
have people defending performances taken from live sources that the great
man himself NEVER approved for commercial release. If he were alive today,
I feel confident that his opinions of many of these performances would be
far harsher than mine, and that his "fans" would be in for a very big
surprise. He, at least, had standards, as his best work so eloquently
demonstrates. The sad thing about his career is that he was so seldom in a
position to have his best work captured for posterity."

Matty

[Curtis Croulet]

I'm inclined to agree with the bits you quoted from Hurwitz. I have a lot
of Furtwaengler recordings, but I rarely find myself playing them when not
wearing my comparison/critical-listener hat. Difficult as it is for some to
accept, not everybody hears things the same way. One thing that does furrow
my brow is WF's worshippers hurling the epithet "Toscanini Cult!" whenever
someone posts a favorable comment about or confesses to liking something by
AT, yet they are blind to their own uncritical idolatry for WF. We see that
frequently in this forum, where everything Furtwaengler did is automatically
regarded as "the best" and beyond questioning or criticism, and, conversely,
a simple inquiry about a never-before-issued Toscanini item was greeted with
"Toscanini Cult!"

[rkhalona]

Post by Curtis Croulet
I'm inclined to agree with the bits you quoted from Hurwitz.

Hurwitz is human too; he can't be wrong all the time.

RK

[TareeDawg]

Post by rkhalona

Post by Curtis Croulet
I'm inclined to agree with the bits you quoted from Hurwitz.

Hurwitz is human too; he can't be wrong all the time.

But the fact is, imho, he is absolutely correct. I have never bought into
the WF cult, and neither have I in the Nini cult either. A WF cultist will
claim greatness about 95% of WF's recordings, whereas the truth is, WF
himself would have probably dissed most of it. And for good reason, because
nothing I have heard, has startled me into remotely anything other than a
reaction of "... so what?".

I have his Ring, but having endured nearly, or almost one CD of the damned
thing, I gave up in total disgust. I think I relieved the situation by
putting on some Philip Glass. Much better.

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by TareeDawg

Post by rkhalona

Post by Curtis Croulet
I'm inclined to agree with the bits you quoted from Hurwitz.

Hurwitz is human too; he can't be wrong all the time.

But the fact is, imho, he is absolutely correct. I have never bought into
the WF cult, and neither have I in the Nini cult either. A WF cultist will
claim greatness about 95% of WF's recordings, whereas the truth is, WF
himself would have probably dissed most of it. And for good reason, because
nothing I have heard, has startled me into remotely anything other than a
reaction of "... so what?".

I'm not in either extreme camp, either pro or anti, but certain things
I've heard by WF strike me as very good - his Beethoven 3 & 9 and
Schubert 9 for example. I have his Brahms set and the main problem I
have with them is the very poor sound quality. Makes it hard to listen
enough to make an informed judgment on the performance. I certainly
didn't find his Brahms 4 as revelatory as Kleiber's, though.

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by TareeDawg
But the fact is, imho, he is absolutely correct. I have never bought into
the WF cult, and neither have I in the Nini cult either. A WF cultist will
claim greatness about 95% of WF's recordings, whereas the truth is, WF
himself would have probably dissed most of it. And for good reason, because
nothing I have heard, has startled me into remotely anything other than a
reaction of "... so what?".
I have his Ring, but having endured nearly, or almost one CD of the damned
thing, I gave up in total disgust. I think I relieved the situation by
putting on some Philip Glass. Much better.

Of course you are left unimpressed by Furtwangler, in the same manner
that you intensely dislike Beethoven. Whether one likes or dislikes
Furtwangler, and for that matter Beethoven, is a matter strictly of
temperament. I happen to think that those who like Beethoven on his own
terms, like Furwangler, whereas those who see Beethoven as some
classicist who is best seen through the music of Haydn and Mozart, do
not like Furtwangler. Needeless to say, Furwangler will not make those
who dislike Beethoven outright all of the sudden like him. What you get
with Furtwangler is Beethoven at his most Beethovenian, so to speak.

What I don't understand is why you get the urge to repeatedly
demonstrate your well-documented dislike of Beethoven. I'm sure you are
exceedingly proud of your self-appointed role as naysayer and
iconoclast, and surely you derive a great deal of self-righteous
pleasure out of being able to say that you enjoy modern music, which in
your own eyes presumably encourages you to see yourself as tres
intellectuel. How perfectly goddamned delightful you are, to be sure.

[Gerard]

Post by Gabriel Parra
What you
get with Furtwangler is Beethoven at his most Beethovenian, so to
speak.

I don't see why this is the case with Furtwängler.
What you get with HIP recordings is more Beethoven at his most Beethovenian imo.

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by Gerard
What you get with HIP recordings is more Beethoven at his most Beethovenian imo.

Yes, this is what the HIP bunch like to pat themselves on the back
with. They, and they alone, have a hotline to the composer's *true*
intentions and style. How good, to have such pride...

[Gerard]

Post by Gabriel Parra

Post by Gerard
What you get with HIP recordings is more Beethoven at his most Beethovenian imo.

Yes, this is what the HIP bunch like to pat themselves on the back
with. They, and they alone, have a hotline to the composer's *true*
intentions and style. How good, to have such pride...

Well, it is exactly the same as what you've said about Furtwängler (and about
your own hotline to the composer's *true* intentions and style).

[TareeDawg]

Post by Gabriel Parra

Post by TareeDawg
But the fact is, imho, he is absolutely correct. I have never bought into
the WF cult, and neither have I in the Nini cult either. A WF cultist will
claim greatness about 95% of WF's recordings, whereas the truth is, WF
himself would have probably dissed most of it. And for good reason, because
nothing I have heard, has startled me into remotely anything other than a
reaction of "... so what?".
I have his Ring, but having endured nearly, or almost one CD of the damned
thing, I gave up in total disgust. I think I relieved the situation by
putting on some Philip Glass. Much better.

Of course you are left unimpressed by Furtwangler, in the same manner
that you intensely dislike Beethoven. Whether one likes or dislikes
Furtwangler, and for that matter Beethoven, is a matter strictly of
temperament. I happen to think that those who like Beethoven on his own
terms, like Furwangler, whereas those who see Beethoven as some
classicist who is best seen through the music of Haydn and Mozart, do
not like Furtwangler. Needeless to say, Furwangler will not make those
who dislike Beethoven outright all of the sudden like him. What you get
with Furtwangler is Beethoven at his most Beethovenian, so to speak.
What I don't understand is why you get the urge to repeatedly
demonstrate your well-documented dislike of Beethoven. I'm sure you are
exceedingly proud of your self-appointed role as naysayer and
iconoclast, and surely you derive a great deal of self-righteous
pleasure out of being able to say that you enjoy modern music, which in
your own eyes presumably encourages you to see yourself as tres
intellectuel. How perfectly goddamned delightful you are, to be sure.

You haven't even got your facts correct. I think the subject is Furtwangler,
unless I am mistaken. I haven't mentioned Beethoven in this thread until
now, and I see no reason to explain to you that (a) it is totally false that
I intensely dislike Beethoven (far from it, but I'd be foolish to say he was
my favourite composer), and (b) my tolerance for the 'same old - same old -
same old' is obviously different from yours.

I cannot understand how you, can listen to the same music, over, and over,
and over, and over again, and be considered remotely musical.

I cannot understand why you, CEASELESSLY, crap on about your intense hatred
of HIP.

Your statement, to quote from above, "being able to say that you enjoy
modern music, which in your own eyes presumably encourages you to see
yourself as tres intellectuel.", actually says more about your musical
development, than it could ever say about mine. Your development is clearly
zero. Static. Non searching.

What a pompous bore you are. Over and out.

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[D***@aol.com]

I'm inclined to agree with the bits you quoted from Hurwitz. �I have a lot
of Furtwaengler recordings, but I rarely find myself playing them when not
wearing my comparison/critical-listener hat. �Difficult as it is for some to
accept, not everybody hears things the same way. �One thing that does furrow
my brow is WF's worshippers hurling the epithet "Toscanini Cult!" whenever
someone posts a favorable comment about or confesses to liking something by
AT, yet they are blind to their own uncritical idolatry for WF. �We see that
frequently in this forum, where everything Furtwaengler did is automatically
regarded as "the best" and beyond questioning or criticism, and, conversely,
a simple inquiry about a never-before-issued Toscanini item was greeted with
"Toscanini Cult!"

Total agreement. Mortimer Frank addressed this issue excellently in
the chapter "Reconstructing Toscanini" in his book about Toscanini and
the NBC years. Despite his obvious inclination to favor Toscanini's
style, Frank was very thoughtful and balanced in his consideration of
the issue. Especially when he wrote that the development of vocal
Furtwangler-worship since the late 1960s, with its seemingly obligatory
Toscanini-bashing, was the equivalent of the vicious
Furtwangler-bashing of American (especially) writers from about 1945 to
1965 who worshipped Toscanini. As Frank writes, their shameful
distortions and lying excesses about Furtwangler's conducting might
have provoked the anti-Toscanini backlash thast came later and has to
some degree persisted until now. The tragedy is that the anger of those
who most love Furtwangler's conducting wasn't directed at the critics
who wrote those distortions. Instead it was toward Toscanini, who
didn't write the comments and never made an effort to conceal his
admiration for Furtwangler's conducting.

I often think that the point of the controversy is that they were
both very great conductors, overwhelmingly so, perhaps the greatest of
their time, but very different in numerous ways and like all performers
had strengths and weaknesses, including good and bad days as
interpreters. One can respond deeply to the work of one and not to the
work of the other. That's the way it is with any powerful personality.
Soprano X, musically bland, just sings her part. She doesn't arouse
discussion or interest. Maria Callas, an intense personality, does --
pro and con. As Curtis wrote, everyone perceives performances
differently. If Toscanini and Furtwangler are/were different in how
they conducted great music, and they could be, at least for me there's
a lot to be learned and felt about that music from both of them in
their different ways. They were both totally sincere musicians. If one
of them conducted a work to one's complete satisfaction, better than
one thinks the other did, that doesn't necessarily mean the other's
performance is "bad" or "wrong." The name-calling and sniping on both
sides is first-grade stuff. Those children scribes on both sides ought
to grow up. The lies from all of the true believers merely perpertuate
emotional preconceptions. They do neither of these great men any favors
and only serve to mislead people newly interested. They preserve
infantile prejudices. And in so doing, they harm the possibly profound
rewards for music itself to be found in what survives of what both
conductors did. For me, I love and learn from them both. Their
frequently different viewpoints give me much about the music itself.

Sorry for the tirade, and it's just personal opinion, but I couldn't
resist.

Don Tait

[rkhalona]

Post by D***@aol.com
Sorry for the tirade, and it's just personal opinion, but I couldn't
resist.
Don Tait

Hi Don, always glad to read your contributions, which I always find
informative.

Regarding conductors' appreciation for their colleagues (or lack
thereof), Erich Kleiber used to make the following witty remark:
"I like to attend other colleagues' concerts. If the concerts go well,
I am happy for them; if they don't, I am even happier."

RK

[Curtis Croulet]

Post by D***@aol.com
Sorry for the tirade, and it's just personal opinion, but I couldn't
resist.

Mine was a rant, too, and, I concede, the part about Toscanini was a
gratuitous offering, considering that nobody else brought it up. But it's
bugged me for a very long time. Circling back to Hurwitz, he's clearly not
part of the Furtwaengler Cult, and the mere fact that he hasn't bought into
it doesn't make him incompetent. He simply has a different opinion.
There's an animus toward Hurwitz in this forum that I never understood. I'd
rather read posts from him than from a couple of other regulars in this
forum.

[Clude]

Curtis Croulet 寫道：

Post by Curtis Croulet
There's an animus toward Hurwitz in this forum that I never understood. I'd
rather read posts from him than from a couple of other regulars in this
forum.

There's an animus toward TD in this forum that I never understood.
Though I'd rather read posts from a couple of other regulars in this
forum than from hiim.

[Curtis Croulet]

You mentioned Callas -- while I grant the dramatic intensity of her
portrayals, to me she sounds as though she has a mouth full of marbles! I'm
not sure whom from her era I would prefer. Tebaldi, her most famous
competitor, I find beautiful but bland. Maybe I'll have to learn to like
the "mouth full of marbles" sound more.

[Clude]

I often has this illusion that between the two camps(WF & AT,) it is
usually the latter that acknowledges more of the opposition side. Most
of my friends who adore WF, they can't tolerate a second of AT's
recordings. However, those who belong to the AT Cult, surprisingly,
possess as many WF recordings as one can imagine and regard some of
them very highly.

Clude

Curtis Croulet 寫道：

Post by Curtis Croulet
I'm inclined to agree with the bits you quoted from Hurwitz. I have a lot
of Furtwaengler recordings, but I rarely find myself playing them when not
wearing my comparison/critical-listener hat. Difficult as it is for some to
accept, not everybody hears things the same way. One thing that does furrow
my brow is WF's worshippers hurling the epithet "Toscanini Cult!" whenever
someone posts a favorable comment about or confesses to liking something by
AT, yet they are blind to their own uncritical idolatry for WF. We see that
frequently in this forum, where everything Furtwaengler did is automatically
regarded as "the best" and beyond questioning or criticism, and, conversely,
a simple inquiry about a never-before-issued Toscanini item was greeted with
"Toscanini Cult!"
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

[ansermetniac]

Post by Clude
I often has this illusion that between the two camps(WF & AT,) it is
usually the latter that acknowledges more of the opposition side. Most
of my friends who adore WF, they can't tolerate a second of AT's
recordings. However, those who belong to the AT Cult, surprisingly,
possess as many WF recordings as one can imagine and regard some of
them very highly.

I am from the AT/Ansermet school. I just heard the 1938 WF PIT 6
today. I find it a pretentious exercise for WF's ego. A wastful shame
of his talent of getting a orchestra to do what he wants and to sound
well

Abbedd

Post by Clude
Clude
Curtis Croulet ¼g¹D¡G

Post by Curtis Croulet
I'm inclined to agree with the bits you quoted from Hurwitz. I have a lot
of Furtwaengler recordings, but I rarely find myself playing them when not
wearing my comparison/critical-listener hat. Difficult as it is for some to
accept, not everybody hears things the same way. One thing that does furrow
my brow is WF's worshippers hurling the epithet "Toscanini Cult!" whenever
someone posts a favorable comment about or confesses to liking something by
AT, yet they are blind to their own uncritical idolatry for WF. We see that
frequently in this forum, where everything Furtwaengler did is automatically
regarded as "the best" and beyond questioning or criticism, and, conversely,
a simple inquiry about a never-before-issued Toscanini item was greeted with
"Toscanini Cult!"
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33¢X27'59"N, 117¢X05'53"W

[Matthew Silverstein]

I am from the AT/Ansermet school. I just heard the 1938 WF PIT 6 today. I
find it a pretentious exercise for WF's ego. A wastful shame of his
talent of getting a orchestra to do what he wants and to sound well.

Really? I think that's one of WF's great triumphs--an interpretation
totally different from anyone else's that works very well on its own terms.

Matty

[ansermetniac]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:19:13 GMT, Matthew Silverstein

Post by Matthew Silverstein

I am from the AT/Ansermet school. I just heard the 1938 WF PIT 6 today. I
find it a pretentious exercise for WF's ego. A wastful shame of his
talent of getting a orchestra to do what he wants and to sound well.

Really? I think that's one of WF's great triumphs--an interpretation
totally different from anyone else's that works very well on its own terms.
Matty

It has nothing to do with what PIT wrote.

Abbedd

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by ansermetniac
It has nothing to do with what PIT wrote.

Even if that were true (and it isn't), it would be a wonderful recording
all the same.

Matty

[ansermetniac]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 05:46:31 GMT, Matthew Silverstein

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by ansermetniac
It has nothing to do with what PIT wrote.

Even if that were true (and it isn't), it would be a wonderful recording
all the same.
Matty

That is not what Music is about

Abbedd

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by ansermetniac
That is not what Music is about

Oh, I didn't know. In that case, I'll throw my copy out right away.

Matty

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by ansermetniac
That is not what Music is about

And of course, you would know.

[Curtis Croulet]

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Really? I think that's one of WF's great triumphs--an interpretation
totally different from anyone else's that works very well on its own terms.

That strict constructionist, Gunther Schuller, had good things to say about
WF's Pathetique. Furtwaengler rides roughshod over Tchaikovsky's metronome
marks (the "broken metronome" excuse doesn't fly in this case), but he's
scarcely the only one. The Pathetique is loaded with hundreds of careful
markings that are routinely ignored by most conductors. One spot that
anyone can hear: just before the tempo change for the B theme in the first
movement there are two brass fanfares, the first marked f, the second ff.
Clearly Tchaikovsky expected the conductor to make an audible distinction
between the two fanfares. Few do, and Furtwaengler is in their number. I
like to hear some evidence that the conductor has cracked the cover of his
score.

[Curtis Croulet]

I meant to say, "Furtwaengler is *not* in their number" -- i.e. he ignores
the distinction in the dynamic markings of these two fanfares.

[Todd Schurk]

Post by Curtis Croulet

Post by Matthew Silverstein
Really? I think that's one of WF's great triumphs--an interpretation
totally different from anyone else's that works very well on its own terms.

That strict constructionist, Gunther Schuller, had good things to say about
WF's Pathetique. Furtwaengler rides roughshod over Tchaikovsky's metronome
marks (the "broken metronome" excuse doesn't fly in this case), but he's
scarcely the only one. The Pathetique is loaded with hundreds of careful
markings that are routinely ignored by most conductors. One spot that
anyone can hear: just before the tempo change for the B theme in the first
movement there are two brass fanfares, the first marked f, the second ff.
Clearly Tchaikovsky expected the conductor to make an audible distinction
between the two fanfares. Few do, and Furtwaengler is in their number. I
like to hear some evidence that the conductor has cracked the cover of his
score.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

Fritz Reiner in his Chicago/RCA recording is another who really brings
out the change of dynamic between the f & ff markings of those 1st
movement fanfares. I always liked his reading and the recording
overall. Todd S.

[Curtis Croulet]

Fritz Reiner in his Chicago/RCA recording is another who really > brings
out the change of dynamic between the f & ff markings of > those 1st
movement fanfares. I always liked his reading and the
recording overall. Todd S.

Yes, Reiner is very attentive to that particular point. I'd forgotten how
spectacularly fine his recording is, in most respects. For my taste, this
far surpasses Furtwaengler. However, even Reiner is not perfect. For
example, just before the reappearance of the B theme in the recap (one bar
after letter R in my Dover score), there's a heavy chord marked ffff(!).
Perhaps it's not possible to play it with the required force, since I've
never heard it done satisfactorily, but Reiner doesn't even try, producing
an ennervated mf.

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by ansermetniac
I am from the AT/Ansermet school.

Talk about a club that would never have you as its member. Again,
AT/Ansermet please save us from your followers...

[Rich S.]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:01:36 -0500, ansermetniac

Post by ansermetniac
I am from the AT/Ansermet school. I just heard the 1938 WF PIT 6
today. I find it a pretentious exercise for WF's ego. A wastful shame
of his talent of getting a orchestra to do what he wants and to sound
well
Abbedd

Absolutely - it was when I heard Bernstein's later recording of the
PIT 6 that I realized that WF's perfomance is overdriven. :))

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Clude
I often has this illusion that between the two camps(WF & AT,) it is
usually the latter that acknowledges more of the opposition side. Most
of my friends who adore WF, they can't tolerate a second of AT's
recordings. However, those who belong to the AT Cult, surprisingly,
possess as many WF recordings as one can imagine and regard some of
them very highly.

Almost exactly analogous to the situation of Non-HIP/HIP, isn't it? I've
never yet met someone who *only* likes HIP recordings, but there are
plenty who refuse to countenance them at all.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Clude
I often has this illusion that between the two camps(WF & AT,) it is
usually the latter that acknowledges more of the opposition side. Most
of my friends who adore WF, they can't tolerate a second of AT's
recordings. However, those who belong to the AT Cult, surprisingly,
possess as many WF recordings as one can imagine and regard some of
them very highly.

Almost exactly analogous to the situation of Non-HIP/HIP, isn't it? I've
never yet met someone who *only* likes HIP recordings, but there are
plenty who refuse to countenance them at all.

I am blessed in that I have no musical ability other than not being tone
deaf. Nor do I have any musical education. I guess that explains why I can
enjoy Furtwangler's drama (or melodrama, if you will) as well as Toscanini's
pure excitement, or Ancerl's clarity, or Ansermet's musicality. Poor me.

[ansermetniac]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:18:42 -0600, "Frank Berger"

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Clude
I often has this illusion that between the two camps(WF & AT,) it is
usually the latter that acknowledges more of the opposition side. Most
of my friends who adore WF, they can't tolerate a second of AT's
recordings. However, those who belong to the AT Cult, surprisingly,
possess as many WF recordings as one can imagine and regard some of
them very highly.

Almost exactly analogous to the situation of Non-HIP/HIP, isn't it? I've
never yet met someone who *only* likes HIP recordings, but there are
plenty who refuse to countenance them at all.

I am blessed in that I have no musical ability other than not being tone
deaf. Nor do I have any musical education. I guess that explains why I can
enjoy Furtwangler's drama (or melodrama, if you will) as well as Toscanini's
pure excitement, or Ancerl's clarity, or Ansermet's musicality. Poor me.

Irving Berlin had no Musical training and it helped him greatly

Abbedd

[Richard Loeb]

"Clude" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I often has this illusion that between the two camps(WF & AT,) it is
usually the latter that acknowledges more of the opposition side. Most
of my friends who adore WF, they can't tolerate a second of AT's
recordings. However, those who belong to the AT Cult, surprisingly,
possess as many WF recordings as one can imagine and regard some of
them very highly.

Clude

Curtis Croulet Œg¹D¡G

I don't belong to either cult but I have a huge number of recordings by both
conductors - I get the very best of both worlds!!!!! Richard

[p***@yahoo.com]

Post by Clude
I often has this illusion that between the two camps(WF & AT,) it is
usually the latter that acknowledges more of the opposition side. Most
of my friends who adore WF, they can't tolerate a second of AT's
recordings. However, those who belong to the AT Cult, surprisingly,
possess as many WF recordings as one can imagine and regard some of
them very highly.

I long ago gave up trying to convince others that their taste was wrong
and don't care what Hurwitz or anyone else has to say on the matter (I
know my taste and won't be pursuaded that there is anything wrong with
it), but I would have to say I fall fairly close to your above
description. I've loved Furtwangler for years. I know he had a pretty
narrow repertoire and don't consider myself a member of the WF cult (I
admit it's out there though) because there are loads of Furtwangler
performances I've heard that I admit aren't that good. I also generally
don't like his approach with Bruckner and R. Strauss. But if I were to
make a list of my 20 favorite orchestral pieces, Furtwangler would
probably be the top pick in at least half of them (and perhaps only
three of the eight or ten available performances of a piece like
Beethovens fifth or ninth are great, but they're SO great, that they
give me an emotional reaction that no other recordings of those same
works do). He just happened to excel at much of the music that I like
most. And I tend not to like Toscanini's approach in that same music;
especially the Beethoven symphonies. It's not for lack of effort. I
used to try out a lot of AT recordings, but eventually got tired of
spending my money on recordings that I reacted so negatively too. Some
people have said the problem is that studio he recorded in. I can't
stand the sound of those short, choppy notes. But I won't go so far as
to say I can't tolerate a second of AT's recordings. There are a few
exceptions (not Beethoven though).

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by Curtis Croulet
I'm inclined to agree with the bits you quoted from Hurwitz. I have a lot
of Furtwaengler recordings, but I rarely find myself playing them when not
wearing my comparison/critical-listener hat. Difficult as it is for some to
accept, not everybody hears things the same way. One thing that does furrow
my brow is WF's worshippers hurling the epithet "Toscanini Cult!" whenever
someone posts a favorable comment about or confesses to liking something by
AT, yet they are blind to their own uncritical idolatry for WF. We see that
frequently in this forum, where everything Furtwaengler did is automatically
regarded as "the best" and beyond questioning or criticism, and, conversely,
a simple inquiry about a never-before-issued Toscanini item was greeted with
"Toscanini Cult!"

I may very well be a part of the "Furtwangler Cult," if it so pleases
you to ascribe such membership to someone who readily admits to
thinking that Furtwangler could do no wrong, at least musically. For
me, Furtwangler's performances range from good (a handful) to supremely
great (the rest) across his entire range of repertoire. That said,
while I did once bash Toscanini on the basis of his idolaters (god
please save me from your followers kind of mentality), I have come
around to that indisputably great conductor on the basis purely of the
documented evidence that he was indeed, once, a truly great conductor
prior to 1945. As he aged and became less able to achieve precision and
expressivity at the same time, he tossed out the latter in favor of the
former, and unfortunately Toscanini in America is best known for his
NBC years, which were his worst. But when he was in full possession of
his faculties and undoubtedly awesome technique, his technical
abilities were at least equaled by his musicality. One of the very
greatest Eroica's I have ever heard (an awesomely difficult symphony to
perform well, let along achieve greatness with) was conducted by
Toscanini in 1939 (a performance I have on Naxos). It was astounding
for me to hear that he could be as flexible as Furtwangler but on his
own terms, and that one performance brought about a major reassesment
of Toscanini as a conductor for me.

[D***@aol.com]

On Jan 23, 10:37�am, "Gabriel Parra" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[Edited]

...I have come
around to that indisputably great conductor on the basis purely of the
documented evidence that he was indeed, once, a truly great conductor
prior to 1945. As he aged and became less able to achieve precision and
expressivity at the same time, he tossed out the latter in favor of the
former, and unfortunately Toscanini in America is best known for his
NBC years, which were his worst. But when he was in full possession of
his faculties and undoubtedly awesome technique, his technical
abilities were at least equaled by his musicality. One of the very
greatest Eroica's I have ever heard (an awesomely difficult symphony to
perform well, let along achieve greatness with) was conducted by
Toscanini in 1939 (a performance I have on Naxos). It was astounding
for me to hear that he could be as flexible as Furtwangler but on his
own terms, and that one performance brought about a major reassesment
of Toscanini as a conductor for me.

As someone who has learned much from Arturo Toscanini's performances
(everything I've been able to get), thanks for this. It's certainly
true that Toscanini was 80 years old in 1947 and that his last years,
until 1954, were those of a very old man. That's part of the sadness
about Toscanini -- we have so little documentation of his conducting
before he was 70. But I must say that I think there are performances
from even his last years that seem to have the greatness of what he did
earlier. I'd mention these and wonder what you think of them:

Brahms: Symphony no. 4 (NBC, 1948) (issued by EMI in their "Great
Conductors" series)
Cherubini: Requiem in C Minor (NBC, 1950)
Brahms: Tragic Overture (NBC, 1953)
Beethoven: Symphony no. 3 (NBC, 1953)
Mendelssohn: Symphonies 4 and 5 (NBC, 1954)
Debussy: La Mer (NBC, the 1950 recording but also the ca. 1953
broadcast)
Boito: Mefistofele: Prologue (NBC, 1954)
Brahms: symphonies et. al. (Philharmonia, 1952, issued by Testament)
Schumann: Symphony no. 3 (NBC, 1949)
The various Wagner excerpts (NBC, 1949 - 1952) (Especially the
Parsifal Prelude and Good Friday Spell)

This is not meant to be confrontational and I hope you won't
interpret it that way. I enjoy and always learn from discussions.

Don Tait

[rkhalona]

Post by Gabriel Parra
Hurwitz seems to have a deep-seeded antipaty toward Furtwangler, more
so than would seem musically justified. He rarely misses the
opportunity to denigrate this conductor in seemingly unrelated reviews
of others' interpretations, and his vitriol verges on the psychotically
"After all, some really great Brahmsians, including Toscanini and
Furtwängler, have really screwed up this symphony. The latter's
performances especially constitute some of the most hideously
embarrassing documents ever left by a theoretically great artist."
It is interesting that at first he seem to implicitly acknowledge
Furwangler as a "great Brahmsian" but then, he calls him a
"theoretically great artist." Quite apart from this contradiction, I've
rarely encountered a reviewer use language as charged as "hideously
embarrassing." It seems clear he has some sort of personal vendetta.
Does anyone know where it comes from? Is it because Hurwitz is Jewish?
I have an uncle who dismisses Furwangler out of hand as a Nazi despite
my attempts to present evidence to the contrary. As for Furtwangler's
Brahms 3, Ardoin was not a big fan, but many musicians, most notably
Menuhin, singled out precisely this symphony when talking about
Furtwangler's greatness as a conductor.
What gives?

Hurwitz has a beef in general with historical recordings, which he
regards as poor-sounding. It isn't just Furtie (I bet he hates the
weak Tam-Tam sound of Furtie's Pathetique). Personal antipathy can't
be ruled out, of course.

RK

[J.Martin]

Post by rkhalona

Post by rkhalona
Hurwitz has a beef in general with historical recordings, which he

regards as poor-sounding. It isn't just Furtie

Exactly. He's much more negative about Mengelberg and some others.
His argument is generally that there is little or no reason to listen
to poor-sounding historical recordings when there are always
better-recorded modern alternatives, even within a given style of
interpretation. (He'll generally do this while pointing to a supposedly
superior contemporary recording by some under-rated orchestra and
conductor.) I think he says this mostly to rattle the cages of those
who obsess about Furtwangler, Toscanini, et al., but there is at least
some truth to what he says.

Along about the time I realized that I own 9 or 10 different "historic"
Toscanini LvB 9s I started to realize that collecting all those
scratchy sounding performances had more to do with my own obsession
than with music. Five or six is really enough for anyone.

[rkhalona]

Post by J.Martin

Post by rkhalona

Post by rkhalona
Hurwitz has a beef in general with historical recordings, which he

regards as poor-sounding. It isn't just Furtie

Exactly. He's much more negative about Mengelberg and some others.
His argument is generally that there is little or no reason to listen
to poor-sounding historical recordings when there are always
better-recorded modern alternatives, even within a given style of
interpretation. (He'll generally do this while pointing to a supposedly
superior contemporary recording by some under-rated orchestra and
conductor.) I think he says this mostly to rattle the cages of those
who obsess about Furtwangler, Toscanini, et al., but there is at least
some truth to what he says.
Along about the time I realized that I own 9 or 10 different "historic"
Toscanini LvB 9s I started to realize that collecting all those
scratchy sounding performances had more to do with my own obsession
than with music. Five or six is really enough for anyone.

You had me nodding until I got to your last sentence.

RK
"Obsesi�n casi asnal para ser fuerte
nada m�s necesita la criatura
y en cualquier infeliz se me figura
que se rompen las garras de la suerte"
(Almafuerte)

[Simon Roberts]

In article <***@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, J.Martin
says...

Post by J.Martin

Post by rkhalona

Post by rkhalona
Hurwitz has a beef in general with historical recordings, which he

regards as poor-sounding. It isn't just Furtie

Exactly. He's much more negative about Mengelberg and some others.
His argument is generally that there is little or no reason to listen
to poor-sounding historical recordings when there are always
better-recorded modern alternatives, even within a given style of
interpretation. (He'll generally do this while pointing to a supposedly
superior contemporary recording by some under-rated orchestra and
conductor.) I think he says this mostly to rattle the cages of those
who obsess about Furtwangler, Toscanini, et al., but there is at least
some truth to what he says.

Yes, there is, but I think it's more about poking in the eye cultists and
worshippers of what he perceives to be sacred cows, especially if he thinks
there's more than a hint of "emperor's-new-clothes" syndrome. His "victims"
extend beyond Furtwangler to such other dead conductors as Barbirolli and
Horenstein (they seem to be at the top of his list), at least one dead singer
(Ferrier), and a few living musicians (e.g. Rattle and Thielemann). On the
other hand, there are conductors who seem to do no wrong in his eyes - how often
does he have less than the highest praise for Gunther Wand?

Simon

Post by J.Martin
Along about the time I realized that I own 9 or 10 different "historic"
Toscanini LvB 9s I started to realize that collecting all those
scratchy sounding performances had more to do with my own obsession
than with music. Five or six is really enough for anyone.

[m***@comcast.net]

Post by Simon Roberts
Yes, there is, but I think it's more about poking in the eye cultists and
worshippers of what he perceives to be sacred cows, especially if he thinks
there's more than a hint of "emperor's-new-clothes" syndrome. His "victims"
extend beyond Furtwangler to such other dead conductors as Barbirolli and
Horenstein (they seem to be at the top of his list), at least one dead singer
(Ferrier), and a few living musicians (e.g. Rattle and Thielemann). On the
other hand, there are conductors who seem to do no wrong in his eyes - how often
does he have less than the highest praise for Gunther Wand?

I was just today listening to Wand's Bruckner 5th (Cologne) and
wishing I'd played the Furtwangler instead.

Marc Perman

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Simon Roberts
On the
other hand, there are conductors who seem to do no wrong in his eyes - how often
does he have less than the highest praise for Gunther Wand?

And for any twentieth century composer, no matter how mediocre, of tonal
music.

[J.Martin]

Post by Simon Roberts
His "victims"
extend beyond Furtwangler to such other dead conductors as Barbirolli and
Horenstein (they seem to be at the top of his list), at least one dead singer
(Ferrier), and a few living musicians (e.g. Rattle and Thielemann).

Yes! He seems to especially have it in for Barbirolli, Horenstein, and
a few others most lionized in Britain. Very strange. In most ways,
one can view his excesses as attention-seeking tricks of the writer's
trade--ie, an extreme or contrary opinion is always going to generate
more response in readers than something more sedate. But his obsessive
carping on British critics, Horenstein, and Barbirolli comes off as
something more personal, neurotic, and strange.

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by J.Martin
Yes! He seems to especially have it in for Barbirolli, Horenstein, and
a few others most lionized in Britain. Very strange. In most ways,
one can view his excesses as attention-seeking tricks of the writer's
trade--ie, an extreme or contrary opinion is always going to generate
more response in readers than something more sedate. But his obsessive
carping on British critics, Horenstein, and Barbirolli comes off as
something more personal, neurotic, and strange.

It is a direct reaction to the obsessive jingoism of many a British
critic and, in particular, the Gramophone view of the world, that is,
that Beethoven was indeed English, and so were Bach and Schubert and
Mozart, not to mention Handel...

[Matthew Silverstein]

Yes! He seems to especially have it in for Barbirolli, Horenstein, and a
few others most lionized in Britain. Very strange. In most ways, one
can view his excesses as attention-seeking tricks of the writer's
trade--ie, an extreme or contrary opinion is always going to generate
more response in readers than something more sedate. But his obsessive
carping on British critics, Horenstein, and Barbirolli comes off as
something more personal, neurotic, and strange.

He has praised plenty of Barbirolli recordings, and I've even seen him say
a nice word about a Horenstein performance (although that is admittedly
quite rare). That said, I've never heard a Horenstein recording that
sounded better than merely decent to me.

Matty

[Andrew Clarke]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Yes! He seems to especially have it in for Barbirolli, Horenstein, and a
few others most lionized in Britain. Very strange. In most ways, one
can view his excesses as attention-seeking tricks of the writer's
trade--ie, an extreme or contrary opinion is always going to generate
more response in readers than something more sedate. But his obsessive
carping on British critics, Horenstein, and Barbirolli comes off as
something more personal, neurotic, and strange.

He has praised plenty of Barbirolli recordings, and I've even seen him say
a nice word about a Horenstein performance (although that is admittedly
quite rare). That said, I've never heard a Horenstein recording that
sounded better than merely decent to me.

Matty, its almost as if there are two Hurwitzes: the one very precisely
sticking to his task as a perceptive and focussed reviewer, and the
other borne away by his hobby-horses. He isn't the only Jewish American
reviewer on the internet to have this chip on the shoulder about the
UK, and I sometimes wonder if they aren't subconsciously doing what I
suppose we all do at some time -- project the things we don't like
about our own country onto another.

Another element I've noticed is his strong sympathy for German
orchestras, and here we might revisit his review of Rattle's Schubert
9th with the Berlin Phil. (which I have not heard). He seemed almost to
be saying that Rattle's appointment was an assault on German culture,
which the Berlin Phil. is supposed to uphold, echt deutsch. I wonder if
he doesn't sometimes feel that Germany is where his roots are, but that
the shadow of 1933-1945 means that he can't go home again?

My response to David Hurwitz is simple: at the first clipclop of a
hobbyhorse I stop reading, starting again when the echoes diminish.
Otherwise he's generally well worth reading.

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[TareeDawg]

Post by Andrew Clarke

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Yes! He seems to especially have it in for Barbirolli, Horenstein, and a
few others most lionized in Britain. Very strange. In most ways, one
can view his excesses as attention-seeking tricks of the writer's
trade--ie, an extreme or contrary opinion is always going to generate
more response in readers than something more sedate. But his obsessive
carping on British critics, Horenstein, and Barbirolli comes off as
something more personal, neurotic, and strange.

He has praised plenty of Barbirolli recordings, and I've even seen him say
a nice word about a Horenstein performance (although that is admittedly
quite rare). That said, I've never heard a Horenstein recording that
sounded better than merely decent to me.

Matty, its almost as if there are two Hurwitzes: the one very precisely
sticking to his task as a perceptive and focussed reviewer, and the
other borne away by his hobby-horses. He isn't the only Jewish American
reviewer on the internet to have this chip on the shoulder about the
UK, and I sometimes wonder if they aren't subconsciously doing what I
suppose we all do at some time -- project the things we don't like
about our own country onto another.
Another element I've noticed is his strong sympathy for German
orchestras, and here we might revisit his review of Rattle's Schubert
9th with the Berlin Phil. (which I have not heard). He seemed almost to
be saying that Rattle's appointment was an assault on German culture,
which the Berlin Phil. is supposed to uphold, echt deutsch. I wonder if
he doesn't sometimes feel that Germany is where his roots are, but that
the shadow of 1933-1945 means that he can't go home again?
My response to David Hurwitz is simple: at the first clipclop of a
hobbyhorse I stop reading, starting again when the echoes diminish.
Otherwise he's generally well worth reading.

After a while, with rmcr, and putting DH aside for a minute, one can also
tell the telltale clipclops of several other members here as well. Their
prejudices stick out like sore thumbs, and like the fools they are, think
they are transparent. And just as for DH (and I agree with what you say
about his general reviewing - it is good), I also just move on to the next
thread.

Unless confronted by the tiresome, and all too obvious, antagonists of
course.

In short, there are few reviewers like DH who covers, quite authoritatively,
a broader range of repertoire, including much accessible and some more
challenging 20th century repertoire. At least he isn't stuck between 1800
and 1840, and actually avoids a lot of the mush written during that period..

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by Andrew Clarke
Another element I've noticed is his strong sympathy for German
orchestras, and here we might revisit his review of Rattle's Schubert
9th with the Berlin Phil.

Really? He's usually complaining about how overrated the Berlin
Philharmonic is. But he does love the Dresden Staatskapelle (as do I).

Matty

[Ralph]

Andrew Clarke wrote:
He isn't the only Jewish American

Post by Andrew Clarke
reviewer on the internet to have this chip on the shoulder about the
UK, and I sometimes wonder if they aren't subconsciously doing what I
suppose we all do at some time -- project the things we don't like
about our own country onto another.

Jewish American reviewers have an appalling lack of Anglophilia. How
perceptive of you to smoke them out. I trust that you keep your pinkie
raised properly when drinking tea and reciting Victorian poetry. It
might help ward off some disagreeables, you know.

[TareeDawg]

Post by Andrew Clarke
He isn't the only Jewish American

Post by Andrew Clarke
reviewer on the internet to have this chip on the shoulder about the
UK, and I sometimes wonder if they aren't subconsciously doing what I
suppose we all do at some time -- project the things we don't like
about our own country onto another.

Jewish American reviewers have an appalling lack of Anglophilia. How
perceptive of you to smoke them out. I trust that you keep your pinkie
raised properly when drinking tea and reciting Victorian poetry. It might
help ward off some disagreeables, you know.

Why not just drop the word reviewers. The fact has always been noted as such
throughout my lifetime. But I don't, and will never have the need to ever
fret about it. Rather they would prefer to love the people that all but put
them all in gas ovens.

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Richard Loeb]

"Rather they would prefer to love the people that all but put
them all in gas ovens"

Man oh man, that statement is so incredibly ignorant that I'm surprised you
didn't hit the delete button when you reread it before posting - however it
did deserve the celebrated PLONK from me. Gahd, are you stupid! Richard

Post by TareeDawg

Post by Andrew Clarke
He isn't the only Jewish American

Post by Andrew Clarke
reviewer on the internet to have this chip on the shoulder about the
UK, and I sometimes wonder if they aren't subconsciously doing what I
suppose we all do at some time -- project the things we don't like
about our own country onto another.

Jewish American reviewers have an appalling lack of Anglophilia. How
perceptive of you to smoke them out. I trust that you keep your pinkie
raised properly when drinking tea and reciting Victorian poetry. It might
help ward off some disagreeables, you know.

Why not just drop the word reviewers. The fact has always been noted as
such throughout my lifetime. But I don't, and will never have the need to
ever fret about it. Rather they would prefer to love the people that all
but put them all in gas ovens.
Ray H
Taree, NSW

[TareeDawg]

Post by Richard Loeb
"Rather they would prefer to love the people that all but put
them all in gas ovens"
Man oh man, that statement is so incredibly ignorant that I'm surprised
you didn't hit the delete button when you reread it before posting -
however it did deserve the celebrated PLONK from me. Gahd, are you stupid!
Richard

It is always a great feeling to be plonked by an idiot. Must have touched a
sensitive nerve however.

I never need to reread any of my posts, because if the cap fits, then be
prepared to wear it.

Good riddance.

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by TareeDawg
Rather they would prefer to love the people that all but put
them all in gas ovens.
Ray H
Taree, NSW

As suspected and as evidenced by your posts that betray an utter lack
of sensitivity to matters of art and music--for instance, your
blindspot for Beethoven's 9th--you lack of even the most rudimentary of
human emotions, let alone human decency. Truly, the only difference
between you and a bucket of shit is the bucket.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by Gabriel Parra

Taree, NSWAs suspected and as evidenced by your posts that betray an utter lack

of sensitivity to matters of art and music--for instance, your
blindspot for Beethoven's 9th--you lack of even the most rudimentary of
human emotions, let alone human decency. Truly, the only difference
between you and a bucket of shit is the bucket.

Mr. Parra, is this post an example of the sort of wonderful humanity
Beethoven inspires in you? If so, that might explain Ray's distaste
for the deaf old man.

-david gable

[TareeDawg]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by Gabriel Parra

Taree, NSWAs suspected and as evidenced by your posts that betray an utter lack

of sensitivity to matters of art and music--for instance, your
blindspot for Beethoven's 9th--you lack of even the most rudimentary of
human emotions, let alone human decency. Truly, the only difference
between you and a bucket of shit is the bucket.

Mr. Parra, is this post an example of the sort of wonderful humanity
Beethoven inspires in you? If so, that might explain Ray's distaste
for the deaf old man.

I had hoped David, that after plonking me, (mercifully for me), the parra
man would cease.
But have no worries. It is just another example of his babblings.
And thanks for your intervention, but mr parra is of little consequence to
most here.

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by TareeDawg
I had hoped David, that after plonking me, (mercifully for me), the parra
man would cease.

It was not I who plonked you, but one Richard Loeb. Evidently, you
can't get even the most obvious of facts straight.

[TareeDawg]

Post by Gabriel Parra

Post by TareeDawg
I had hoped David, that after plonking me, (mercifully for me), the parra
man would cease.

It was not I who plonked you, but one Richard Loeb. Evidently, you
can't get even the most obvious of facts straight.

Your type of facts are totally irrelevant to me. As for Loeb, thank God for
that.

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by d***@aol.com
Mr. Parra, is this post an example of the sort of wonderful humanity
Beethoven inspires in you? If so, that might explain Ray's distaste
for the deaf old man.
-david gable

Beethoven did not suffer fools, and while he loved humanity, he
despised certain individual "humans." If you fail to appreciate that my
inconsequential insult was far less appalling and insulting than that
which occasioned it, then you have a seriously malfunctioning value
system.

[Andrew Clarke]

Post by Ralph
How
perceptive of you to smoke them out. I trust that you keep your pinkie
raised properly when drinking tea and reciting Victorian poetry. It
might help ward off some disagreeables, you know.

Mr Hurwitz admits to have visited the UK just once. The closest you
seem to have been to the place is reading P.G. Wodehouse.

ac
c

[Ralph]

Post by Andrew Clarke

Post by Ralph
How
perceptive of you to smoke them out. I trust that you keep your pinkie
raised properly when drinking tea and reciting Victorian poetry. It
might help ward off some disagreeables, you know.

Mr Hurwitz admits to have visited the UK just once. The closest you
seem to have been to the place is reading P.G. Wodehouse.
ac
c

Now now. You really should keep a stiff upper lip, when confronted with
your loony bigoted slur. But then again you must of been too embarrassed
to post it again above when quoting just my response, and mentioning
only Hurwitz this time. Do enjoy, your class privileges. I'll pass on
some Wodehouse to those American Jewish reviewers, we don't want that
rummy daft blighter Clarke, failing to be assuaged.


Ralph

.

[Alan Cooper]

Post by Andrew Clarke
My response to David Hurwitz is simple: at the first clipclop of a
hobbyhorse I stop reading, starting again when the echoes diminish.
Otherwise he's generally well worth reading.

My feelings exactly, which reminds me that I meant to point out a gaffe in one of his recent
reviews, regarding Marin Alsop's Naxos recording of Harris's 4th Symphony: "There's only one
other that enjoyed general circulation, Golschmann's on Vanguard." I guess Abravanel's EMI
recording, one of the label's first "quad" releases, wasn't in general circulation :-)

AC

[Gamish]

Post by Matthew Silverstein
I've never heard a Horenstein recording that
sounded better than merely decent to me.

Not all of Horenstein's recordings are on the same level so it depends
which ones you've heard. His best recordings are on the Chesky label
(Brahms 1, Dvorak 9, lots of J. Strauss, Rach. Piano Concertos etc).
which were all made under particularly happy circumstances. Excellent
performances and state of the art recordings make these particularly
worthwhile. Good luck!

Gamish

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Gamish

Post by Matthew Silverstein
I've never heard a Horenstein recording that
sounded better than merely decent to me.Not all of Horenstein's recordings are on the same level so it depends

which ones you've heard. His best recordings are on the Chesky label
(Brahms 1, Dvorak 9, lots of J. Strauss, Rach. Piano Concertos etc).
which were all made under particularly happy circumstances. Excellent
performances and state of the art recordings make these particularly
worthwhile. Good luck!
Gamish

In addition to those Readers Digest ones, Mahler 1/Lso at the very
least!

[Frank Berger]

Post by J.Martin

Post by rkhalona

Post by rkhalona
Hurwitz has a beef in general with historical recordings, which he

regards as poor-sounding. It isn't just Furtie

Exactly. He's much more negative about Mengelberg and some others.
His argument is generally that there is little or no reason to listen
to poor-sounding historical recordings when there are always
better-recorded modern alternatives, even within a given style of
interpretation. (He'll generally do this while pointing to a supposedly
superior contemporary recording by some under-rated orchestra and
conductor.) I think he says this mostly to rattle the cages of those
who obsess about Furtwangler, Toscanini, et al., but there is at least
some truth to what he says.
Along about the time I realized that I own 9 or 10 different "historic"
Toscanini LvB 9s I started to realize that collecting all those
scratchy sounding performances had more to do with my own obsession
than with music. Five or six is really enough for anyone.

What arrogance! You do not know what is "enough" for me.

[Curtis Croulet]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by J.Martin
Five or six is really enough for anyone.

What arrogance! You do not know what is "enough" for me.

Five or six aren't enough for me, either.

[J.Martin]

Post by Frank Berger
What arrogance! You do not know what is "enough" for me.

I know when I've *had* enough of you. Does that count?

[rkhalona]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by J.Martin
Along about the time I realized that I own 9 or 10 different "historic"
Toscanini LvB 9s I started to realize that collecting all those
scratchy sounding performances had more to do with my own obsession
than with music. Five or six is really enough for anyone.

What arrogance! You do not know what is "enough" for me.

RMCR Principle No. 1: Grab a recording you want while it's available.
You may never see it again.

RMCR Principle No. 2: You can never have too many recordings of a work
you love.

All other principles follow readily from these two.

RK

[J.Martin]

Post by rkhalona
RMCR Principle No. 1: Grab a recording you want while it's available.
You may never see it again.
RMCR Principle No. 2: You can never have too many recordings of a work
you love.
All other principles follow readily from these two.

Excellent! I'll inform my wife and creditors that my former standards
no longer apply.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Gabriel Parra
What gives?

What gives is that Furtwangler, who conducted great performances of
Beethoven, Bruckner and Schubert among others was out of sync with
Brahms for whatever reason;
and though he recorded a pretty good 1st didn't do so well with the
others. I have the M & A set but simply can't listen to 2 and 3, and
find the 4th no more than acceptable. Very, very few great performers
are great in all parts of the repertoire.

-John Thomas

[Richard Loeb]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by Gabriel Parra
What gives?

What gives is that Furtwangler, who conducted great performances of
Beethoven, Bruckner and Schubert among others was out of sync with
Brahms for whatever reason;
and though he recorded a pretty good 1st didn't do so well with the
others. I have the M & A set but simply can't listen to 2 and 3, and
find the 4th no more than acceptable. Very, very few great performers
are great in all parts of the repertoire.
-John Thomas

I'm surprised that Hurwitz is given any kind of credence - I have read too
many factual errors in his articles for me to have any meaningful regard for
him at all. He used to post here and he often posted messages as petty and
childish as others often do here. Richard

[TareeDawg]

Post by Richard Loeb

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by Gabriel Parra
What gives?

What gives is that Furtwangler, who conducted great performances of
Beethoven, Bruckner and Schubert among others was out of sync with
Brahms for whatever reason;
and though he recorded a pretty good 1st didn't do so well with the
others. I have the M & A set but simply can't listen to 2 and 3, and
find the 4th no more than acceptable. Very, very few great performers
are great in all parts of the repertoire.
-John Thomas

I'm surprised that Hurwitz is given any kind of credence - I have read too
many factual errors in his articles for me to have any meaningful regard
for him at all. He used to post here and he often posted messages as petty
and childish as others often do here. Richard

He was never petty and childish. Obstinate ... yes. Confident in what he had
to say ... yes. But he was never childish. And he enjoyed a bit of fun from
time to time. From what I gather, he stopped posting to the group, out of
the need to prevent being totally exasperated by the whole affair.

Ray H
Taree, NSW

[Richard Loeb]

-server.bigpond.net.au...

Post by TareeDawg

Post by Richard Loeb

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by Gabriel Parra
What gives?

What gives is that Furtwangler, who conducted great performances of
Beethoven, Bruckner and Schubert among others was out of sync with
Brahms for whatever reason;
and though he recorded a pretty good 1st didn't do so well with the
others. I have the M & A set but simply can't listen to 2 and 3, and
find the 4th no more than acceptable. Very, very few great performers
are great in all parts of the repertoire.
-John Thomas

I'm surprised that Hurwitz is given any kind of credence - I have read
too many factual errors in his articles for me to have any meaningful
regard for him at all. He used to post here and he often posted messages
as petty and childish as others often do here. Richard

He was never petty and childish. Obstinate ... yes. Confident in what he
had to say ... yes. But he was never childish. And he enjoyed a bit of fun
from time to time. From what I gather, he stopped posting to the group,
out of the need to prevent being totally exasperated by the whole affair.
Ray H
Taree, NSW

Then our opinions of what is petty and childish differ. (For me there is a
thin line between childishness and obstinancy). Our opinions also differ on
Furtwanglers conducting of Wagner - for me he was an absolutely superb
Wagner conductor - the fact that he gets his Rings to have such power and
strength in spite of poor sound and indifferent casting is proof enough. I
am not a Furtwangler "cultist" - not everything he did was effective but in
Wagner he got it right. Richard

"TareeDawg" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:mPbth.4779$***@news

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by a***@gmail.com
What gives is that Furtwangler, who conducted great performances of
Beethoven, Bruckner and Schubert among others was out of sync with
Brahms for whatever reason;
and though he recorded a pretty good 1st didn't do so well with the
others. I have the M & A set but simply can't listen to 2 and 3, and
find the 4th no more than acceptable. Very, very few great performers
are great in all parts of the repertoire.

I think you'll find that a lot of people disagree with that assessment.
While you may not look kindly upon his Brahms, there are many others,
including myself, who consider it unequaled in both quality and
interpretive uniqueness. Indeed, the M&A set of which you speak has
been singled out by many reviewers and lay listeners alike as the best
available set of Brahms symphonies (not to mention 2nd PiCo with
Fischer and ViCo with Menuhin) available.

As has been mentioned often on this thread, however, it is nowhere
written that there be universal agreement about these things. I fully
understand why there are many music lovers who are equipped with a fine
listening instrument who do not like and even despise Furtwangler's
approach. I am just not one of those.

[Phil Caron]

Post by Gabriel Parra

Post by a***@gmail.com
Very, very few great performers
are great in all parts of the repertoire.

A similar truth exists regarding listeners.

Post by Gabriel Parra
Indeed, the M&A set of which you speak has
been singled out by many reviewers and lay listeners alike as the best
available set of Brahms symphonies (not to mention 2nd PiCo with
Fischer (snip)

I've listened to that concerto recording numerous times, and still don't
hear anything special. There are many other versions featuring widely
differing interpretations that I enjoy more. That particular performance
seems a blind spot of mine, but every once in a great while I get it out and
relisten.

- Phil Caron

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by Phil Caron
I've listened to that concerto recording numerous times, and still don't
hear anything special. There are many other versions featuring widely
differing interpretations that I enjoy more. That particular performance
seems a blind spot of mine, but every once in a great while I get it out and
relisten.

I myself prefer Arrau and Giulini, almost entirely due to the pianist
in question, though. One of the great mythological unions of all time
has got to be an Arrau/Furtwangler pairing (or Schnabel/Furtwangler,
which, if I remember correctly, actually did take place more than once).

[Curtis Croulet]

Post by Gabriel Parra
I think you'll find that a lot of people disagree with that assessment.
While you may not look kindly upon his Brahms, there are many others,
including myself, who consider it unequaled in both quality and
interpretive uniqueness. Indeed, the M&A set of which you speak has
been singled out by many reviewers and lay listeners alike as the best
available set of Brahms symphonies (not to mention 2nd PiCo with
Fischer and ViCo with Menuhin) available.

As a famous American actor-turned-politician once said, "There you go
again!" This is the Furtwaengler Cult in full cry. I'd think your knees
would be sore after doing this all the time.

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by Curtis Croulet
As a famous American actor-turned-politician once said, "There you go
again!" This is the Furtwaengler Cult in full cry. I'd think your knees
would be sore after doing this all the time.

Your point being what exactly?

[Gerard]

Post by Gabriel Parra

Post by Curtis Croulet
As a famous American actor-turned-politician once said, "There you
go again!" This is the Furtwaengler Cult in full cry. I'd think
your knees would be sore after doing this all the time.

Your point being what exactly?

Blindness maybe.

[Gabriel Parra]

Post by Gerard

Post by Gabriel Parra
Your point being what exactly?

Blindness maybe.

I would have thought deafness.

[Curtis Croulet]

Post by Gabriel Parra
Your point being what exactly?

Gerard got it. You didn't.

[David Fox]

Post by Gabriel Parra
Hurwitz seems to have a deep-seeded antipaty toward Furtwangler, more
so than would seem musically justified. He rarely misses the
opportunity to denigrate this conductor in seemingly unrelated reviews
of others' interpretations, and his vitriol verges on the psychotically
"After all, some really great Brahmsians, including Toscanini and
Furtwängler, have really screwed up this symphony. The latter's
performances especially constitute some of the most hideously
embarrassing documents ever left by a theoretically great artist."
It is interesting that at first he seem to implicitly acknowledge
Furwangler as a "great Brahmsian" but then, he calls him a
"theoretically great artist." Quite apart from this contradiction, I've
rarely encountered a reviewer use language as charged as "hideously
embarrassing." It seems clear he has some sort of personal vendetta.
Does anyone know where it comes from? Is it because Hurwitz is Jewish?
I have an uncle who dismisses Furwangler out of hand as a Nazi despite
my attempts to present evidence to the contrary. As for Furtwangler's
Brahms 3, Ardoin was not a big fan, but many musicians, most notably
Menuhin, singled out precisely this symphony when talking about
Furtwangler's greatness as a conductor.
What gives?

Hurwitz attacks sacred cows and takes provocative stances to direct
attention to himself and his website. Witness some of his headlines.
(i.e. "Bye Bye Tower (Thank God!)"). Who's going to pay attention to
another review praising Furtwangler? Now if he's trashed on the other
hand...

This approach is as old as journalism itself.

DF

[d***@aol.com]

I gather there's a live Baiser de la fée with Furtwängler floating
around out there. Anybody heard it? Or was it the Symphony in Three
Movements?

-david gable

[Frank Berger]

<***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
I gather there's a live Baiser de la fée with Furtwängler floating
around out there. Anybody heard it? Or was it the Symphony in Three
Movements?

-david gable

Both, actually. Some have panned Furt's Stravinsky as boring or that Furt
couldn't handle Stravinsky's rhythms.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by d***@aol.com
I gather there's a live Baiser de la fée with Furtwängler floating
around out there. Anybody heard it? Or was it the Symphony in Three
Movements?
-david gable
Both, actually. Some have panned Furt's Stravinsky as boring or that Furt
couldn't handle Stravinsky's rhythms.

Although Furwangler made his American debut with Le Sacre; quite daring
not only to perform it given the suppositions, but to debut with it. I
didn't hear that it was chaos.

[Frank Berger]

Post by d***@aol.com
I gather there's a live Baiser de la fée with Furtwängler floating
around out there. Anybody heard it? Or was it the Symphony in Three
Movements?
-david gable
Both, actually. Some have panned Furt's Stravinsky as boring or that Furt
couldn't handle Stravinsky's rhythms.

Although Furwangler made his American debut with Le Sacre; quite daring
not only to perform it given the suppositions, but to debut with it. I
didn't hear that it was chaos.

Well, it wasn't 1913.

[a***@aol.com]

I gather there's a live Baiser de la f�e with Furtw�ngler floating
around out there. �Anybody heard it? �Or was it the Symphony in Three
Movements?
-david gable

Both are out there, 1953 and 1950 respectively. I don't think it is
great, personally. Interesting (as usual) but not great. Nor his
Ravel (in my opinion) or not when set against Manuel Rosenthal.

I would, however, liked to have heard his Firebird and Petrushka and
for that matter: Dukas Sorcerers Apprentice plus his Tallis Fantasia,
none of which are out there as far as I know.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

[Mr. Mike]

Post by Gabriel Parra
I've
rarely encountered a reviewer use language as charged as "hideously
embarrassing."

This kind of language seems very typical of classical music reviewers (not to
mention people in this newsgroup).

I recall someone (Harris Goldsmith?) reviewing a Brahms Requiem of Barenboim by
saying words to the effect: "There is a Brahms Requiem for every taste; this one
is for the tasteless."

See also many overviews in American Record Guide for nasty comments!