Originally posted by Bryn
View Post
Dave Hurwitz reviews - love 'em or hate 'em
Collapse
X
-
-
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostHis diatribe concerning the history of vibrato would get an F- in any serious academic assessment.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostAs we've said here before, if it were peer reviewed for a serious academic publication it would be rejected. He has decided in advance what he wants the conclusion to be, and gets there by a combination of cherry-picking, misinterpretation and sheer invention. That isn't how research is done, which he either isn't aware of or doesn't care about.
I've read this article, which clearly was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. Music & Letters isn't exactly chopped iiver as a journal.
Whatever one may think of his video reviews, this particular article is very well argued, IMVHO. Everyone is free to disagree with him, of course, with evidence separately compiled.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by bluestateprommer View PostDo you mean this Hurwitz article, from Music and Letters in 2012?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by gradus View PostIts a matter of taste, but surely not third-rate. To take an example, his argument against vibrato-less playing. From memory he maintains that conductors eg Walter, Klemperer, Walter, Furtwangler, Toscanini, who were contemporaries of revered victorian/edwardian composers and were thus well informed about historic orchestral playing styles did not follow the approach of those who oppose vibrato and claim authenticity? Seems a reasonable point.
And his school orchestra rendition of Elgar 1, supposedly to reflect the 1908 premiere, yet only 6 years later, the composer made his first recording, oozing with string vibrato. If only he could just be honest and say “I don’t like vibrato”, he would deserve greater respect.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostI’m no fan of Mr Hurwitz, but he isn’t always wrong. It’s Mr Norrington who likes to rewrite music history to suit his personal agenda. For this there’s much evidence. His claim that the Vienna Philharmonic didn’t use vibrato until after WW2, for example. (They did, as recordings demonstrate.)
And his school orchestra rendition of Elgar 1, supposedly to reflect the 1908 premiere, yet only 6 years later, the composer made his first recording, oozing with string vibrato. If only he could just be honest and say “I don’t like vibrato”, he would deserve greater respect.
* Bear in mind that, prior to the voice, his principal instrument was the violin.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostIt’s Mr Norrington who likes to rewrite music history to suit his personal agenda.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostWe've been here before and I continue to maintain that both the recording technology availability at the time and the greater projection offered by the use of vibrato make any perceived deployment of vibrato in that early acoustic recording invalid as evidence, one way or the other. As to Norrington's point about the Wiener Phi, the famous Walter Mahler 9 supports his contention. Despite Norrington's deployment of hyperbole, on the matter of string vibrato*, his own recording of the same symphony employed some string vibrato, but with care and subtlety. If your ears don't hear it, try your eye with the Prom broadcast.
* Bear in mind that, prior to the voice, his principal instrument was the violin.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostI just can’t see how string players would have adjusted years of learnt technique in response to the relatively new phenomenon of recording sessions. Apart from anything else how many of them would have heard the recordings when made? Gram players were expensive and so were the discs. It’s much more likely that vibrato varied from orchestra to orchestra and from piece to piece. I also can’t see how the cruder recording techniques in those days would have enhanced the vibrato sounds. It might have introduced wow but that sounds very different. Is there any documented written evidence that string players modified their vibrato playing in response to recording ? It’s more likely that they were asked to play at a consistent mf rather than piano or forte . Even if they didn’t that’s how it would emerge…
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostAnd critics would surely have remarked upon such a change at the time. This would not appear to be so.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostIt’s much more likely that vibrato varied from orchestra to orchestra and from piece to piece.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RichardB View PostIndeed. So why not have a little bit of that diversity in these times of more standardised orchestral practice? If Roger Norrington is, as Bryn points out, employing some exaggeration in his arguments, he's putting these ideas in the service of actual performances and recordings, whereas Hurwitz is sitting on the sidelines using terms like "lunatic fringe" which really have no place in intelligent discourse.
Vibrato also varies from note to note . I wonder if a vibrato fan has very tried it on the opening notes of the Berg violin concerto? Might need a bit of retuning.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostI’ve noticed that’s what’s happening these days - it’s quite common to hear restrained or no vibrato from large symphony orchestras these days in certain works . I’m not a violinist but presumably constant vibrato is quite tiring on the fingers and finger pads? Or do players just not notice it ?
Vibrato also varies from note to note . I wonder if a vibrato fan has very tried it on the opening notes of the Berg violin concerto? Might need a bit of retuning.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Lordgeous View PostIsn't there a similar discussion to be had regarding the female voice? Is anyone here a lover of wide, uncontrolled vibrato? I know it puts many of my 'non-classical' friends off.
Comment
-
Comment