General Category > Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions

ARG gives a warm riview to Haitink/RCO/RCO M4 SACD

(1/3) > >>

John Kim:
ARG (American Record Guide) gave a warm, if not rave, review to this recording:

"But this new recording is far bolder, bigger, and more aggressive than his earlier recording in 1960s.

...

The one he presents here is the Fourth as precursor to Mahler's middle three symphonies, not simply a moment of respite before them. It's an interesting view, very entertaining and never dull."

Leo and Barry, would you agree with the expressions given by the ARG critic? I heard about this new M4th is that it is even mellower and gentler than Haitink's previous M4ths??

Anyway, if ARG's description is correct I will invest in this new recording.

Thanks.

John,

sbugala:
I wasn't asked, and I haven't yet read the review. However, If Gerald Fox is the reviewer, I tend to trust his reviews, especially in Mahler. 

John Kim:

--- Quote from: sbugala on January 16, 2008, 02:48:57 AM ---I wasn't asked, and I haven't yet read the review. However, If Gerald Fox is the reviewer, I tend to trust his reviews, especially in Mahler. 

--- End quote ---
No, the critic was Mr. Hecht.

John,

barry guerrero:
"Leo and Barry, would you agree with the expressions given by the ARG critic?"

Too much meaningless subjective blather for me. The biggest difference of all is simply that there's been a 40 year duration for technical upgrades to have happened. It's sounds bigger because the dynamic range of the recording is bigger. That, and the fact that the Concertgebouw is a somewhat different orchestra now than they were then. They still have excellent woodwinds, just as they did back then. But the brass and percussion are a tad "bigger" sounding now these days. They're more "modernized", in a sense. In both recordings, the tempi are a bit faster than average, I suppose. It's certainly quicker than his slightly droopy Berlin remake. To my mind, Elly Ameling is an even better soprano for the part than Christine Schaefer proves to be. Still, she's quite good when compared to most. It should also be remembered that Haitink made another good M4 recording with the Concertgebouw in the early 1980s, with Roberta Alexander.

On the whole, I feel that the Macal/Czech Phil. M4 is a slightly better contribution to the M4 discography. Generally speaking, the tempi are nearly as quick, and the Czech Phil. is every bit as idiomatic for Mahler as the Concertgebouw is; especially for these lighter symphonies. The biggest difference is that Macal's soprano (Kaune? - something like that) is really, REALLY good. Then again, the Concertgebouw has those fabulous sounding sleigh bells. But in the case of Haitink's latest M4 recording, be prepared to turn the volume up - it's a slightly low level recording. Once the volume is turned up, everything snaps right into focus.

Leo K:
John,

I agree with Barry regarding the wider dynamic range and stronger brass and percussion...this is probably what the AMG reviewer is percieving.  The sound is pristine and much better than the older RCO M4 with Ameling, which actually still sounds vivid in terms of sound quality.  The 1967 and new RCO/Haitink M4's are actually very similar in pace and concept, but like Barry says the later one has more presence in sound and atmosphere.  And I would add there are subtle interpretative details in the new M4 that improve and surpass the 1967 M4, such as moments where the pacing will highlight a small detail in the orchestration, perhaps one note on the horn with be held but without slowing down the argument of the musical line, yet there is the illusion of slowing down!  I like Ameling better as a soloist but Christine Schaefer is actually quite stunning too...bringing a Schubertian intimacy to the Finale.  I prefer the new RCO Haitink M4 over the Macal M4, but I wouldn't want to be without either.   The orchestra's in both recordings are vividly captured, bringing much life to the M4. 

--Todd

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page