Wanna Get High?

Reading David Hurwitz is like doing crack. You know it’s bad for you, yet you still read it. And it doesn’t matter what it takes to get it as long as you get it. Then, as you rot from the inside and shrivel up like a sack of shit on the floor of your mother’s basement all sweaty, emaciated and anemic, you cry while you piss yourself, begging God to alleviate your pain. But your silent screams go unheard and you try to commit suicide. At least that’s what the police say, but you know it was really just a pitiful plea for attention. And, and you don’t know who has been watching your three-year old girl for the last month and a half. Or is it two months? Who knows? You sold your watch for crack. It was only a Seiko, but, still, it helped to make sense of this cruel, cruel world.

The review is about a John Biggs disc, from 2004 (By the way ClassicsToday.com, it would be helpful to have, you know, dates of the recordings and reviews, you know, somewhere on your site. Thanks.). Here’s some info about Biggs.

And now... Here’s some crack for you! Because I know you need it.

What makes this music so interesting (to me anyway), aside from its innate charm and melodic appeal,

Before I give you your fix, may I remind you of ClassicsToday.com’s review philosophy? Good.

...the ultimate purpose of ClassicsToday.com is to enable you to find the music and recordings that suit your personal taste.

Let me start over. (emphases mine)

What makes this music so interesting (to me anyway), aside from its innate charm and melodic appeal, is the fact that such works were still being composed at a time when utter darkness reigned,

With as much disinterested sarcasm as I can muster: What, pray tell, could you possibly mean by the reigning darkness? I have no clue. I am a musical peon. Mr. Hurwitz, sir, please tell me. Pretty please with sugar-coated crack rocks on top.

What makes this music so interesting (to me anyway), aside from its innate charm and melodic appeal, is the fact that such works were still being composed at a time when utter darkness reigned, musically speaking, in a world ruled by the academic serialists...

He’s so proud of himself, even though he has absolutely no idea about what he’s talking. This is just... awesome, in a crack whore sort of way. You know exactly what I’m talking about. You need your fix so bad that you realize the easiest way to make the kind of money you need is to sell handjobs for five dollars a tug, which is just enough for one puny little rock. After it’s over, a pungent wave of shame makes you feel nauseous. So you just close your eyes and tell yourself it never really happened and things seem to be a little better. But, the next day, you do it all over again.

What gets me extra-super giddy is Hurwitz’s last clause.

What makes this music so interesting (to me anyway), aside from its innate charm and melodic appeal, is the fact that such works were still being composed at a time when utter darkness reigned, musically speaking, in a world ruled by the academic serialists who had almost exclusive access to major orchestras, grants, and subsidies.

The great thing about this is... well, let me just make a short list of those totally awesome tonal guys who also had great success, i.e. many performances by major orchestras, all kinds of awards like the Pulitzer Prize, and loads of money (relatively speaking, of course), around the same time, say 1940-80.

In no particular order: Malcolm Arnold, Leonard Bernstein, Marc Bliztstein, Aaron Copland, Samuel Barber, William Schuman, Alan Hovhaness, Gian Carlo Menotti, Benjamin Britten, Vincent Persichetti, Alberto Ginastera, Astor Piazzolla, William Perry, Arvo Part, Terry Riley, Philip Glass, William Bolcom, John Harbison, John Tavener, John Rutter, John Adams, Andrew Lloyd Weber, David Diamond, Manuel de Falla, Irving Fine, Dmitri Shostakovich, Carl Vine, Howard Hanson, Leo Sowerby, Walter Piston, Virgil Thompson, Norman Dello Joio, Darius Milhaud, continue ad infinitum.

I purposefully left off of this list those guys and gals who wrote in a more explicitly “atonal” way, like Goerge Crumb. So if you want to get picky, I could list many more who had little to do with serialism, but who were also successful.

I just wanted to show, rather superficially, how dear David, like Bernard Holland, just can’t abstain from hating music that he hates, in publicly accessible printed word form, with little or no substantiated proof in support of his claims. Not that his opinion is meaningless, it’s just that in a review about a recording of one guy’s tonal music (remember CT’s philosophy), why is it necessary to admonish serialism? It isn’t called for, because it simply doesn't have anything to do with John Biggs. It’s like me trying to sell you crack by slapping Tina in the face.

What’ll David "I'm a nefarious drug" Hurwitz say next?

I have no clue. But you want to know, don’t you?

Enjoy your fix and I’ll get you a fat nickel rock soon.
-