gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: Wunderhorn on February 17, 2007, 07:38:32 PM
-
It took BMG a long time to ship it to me, but now having received it for under $45 I'm very pleased. Chailly plays with the textures of sound as though Mahler was a precursor to Varese, a laughable idea but it still works somehow. The 8th and 10th (Cooke) I'm still mostly unfamiliar with. I'm sure the discovery of each will be to me, as a box of bonbons to a bored housewife. ;D
-
I just bought Chailly's M8 used the other day. I haven't heard it yet, but it's on my list!!
You got that set for a great price!
I'm problably going to get the Bertini set very soon.
-
Mahler as precursor to Varese is not in the slightest bit, "a laughable idea". One concept that a lot of people simply can not get in their minds, is that Mahler was absolutely dead serious about percussion. It's far more comfortable to think of Mahler as Brahms or Dvorak, but with more brass, and a bit of percussion sprinkled on top for good measure. That's hardly the case at all. If you study the scores, you'll see that Chailly is not exaggerating the presence of his percussion in relation to the dynamic markings in those scores. In the latest De La Grange book, there's a chapter that covers an eyewitness account of Mahler rehearsing his 6th symphony in Munich. He spent a great amount of time and energy working on percussion issues in those rehearsals. It's not a very long step from M6 to "Ameriques" or Arcana". In fact, M3/1 has almost as much percussion as M6/4.
-
I have the M2,M3,M6,M8,M9,M10 and like them all except for the M2. Get the SACD versions of the M3 & M9. They sound fabulous, much better than the regular CDs.
John,
-
I have the M2,M3,M6,M8,M9,M10 and like them all except for the M2. Get the SACD versions of the M3 & M9. They sound fabulous, much better than the regular CDs.
John,
Sound fabulous, much better than regular CDs? Maybe I misunderstood. This sort of statement is always confusing to me, since there should be no sound difference from the CD layer in SACD and regular.
-
Sound fabulous, much better than regular CDs? Maybe I misunderstood. This sort of statement is always confusing to me, since there should be no sound difference from the CD layer in SACD and regular.
[/quote]
There is difference, sometime huge difference. The reason is the regular CD track on SACD is remastered when they make SACD and as a result it sounds better than the regular CD itself. Thus I am told by experts.
John,
-
Sound fabulous, much better than regular CDs? Maybe I misunderstood. This sort of statement is always confusing to me, since there should be no sound difference from the CD layer in SACD and regular.
There is difference, sometime huge difference. The reason is the regular CD track on SACD is remastered when they make SACD and as a result it sounds better than the regular CD itself. Thus I am told by experts.
John,
[/quote]
I agree, if you are referring to SACDs like DG Karajan 1963 Beethoven, Mercury Living Presence, or RCA Living Stereo, where there is no new corresponding regular CD reissued along with these.
In the case of new recordings when a SACD Hybrid and a corresponding regular CD are issued simultaneously, the Hybrid's CD layer and the regular CD are generally the same sound. I've read nothing in professional or "expert" material to support your Chailly M3 and M9 SACD Hybrid CD layer claim. Please provide the documentation if you have it.
-
I don't need a document to support the claim because my ears simply tell me the CD layer of the hybrid SACD > regular CD of the same recording. But then I compared only for Chailly M3 & M9. I wouldn't know about other cases...
John,
-
I concure with John. I was skeptical at first, but John was the one who talked me into making the A/B comparisons. Sometimes the differences are quite drastic.
-
Sorry, fellas, unless you can show some "expert" proof about Decca and others diverting from their normal course of action, your claim for Chailly M3 and M9 is a no-go, as far as I am concerned. My comparison experience was with the two M3s. I heard no difference. Unless I see some "expert" documentation, this case is closed.
-
Yes; the case IS closed. Thank god. :)
-
It took BMG a long time to ship it to me, but now having received it for under $45 I'm very pleased. Chailly plays with the textures of sound as though Mahler was a precursor to Varese, a laughable idea but it still works somehow. The 8th and 10th (Cooke) I'm still mostly unfamiliar with. I'm sure the discovery of each will be to me, as a box of bonbons to a bored housewife. ;D
I'm interested on what you (and anyone else) thinks about the opening tempo in the first movement in the Sixth....to me, it doesn't work, but it's certainly an interesting take.
-
Here's a live performance of the M6 by Chailly (recently posted on the Mahler list):
Date and venue is unknown at this time.
Deutsches Sinfonieorchester Berlin conducted by Riccardo Chailly.
http://rapidshare.com/files/17193627/chaillymahler6.mp3.001
http://rapidshare.com/files/17193524/chaillymahler6.mp3.002
-
"I'm interested on what you (and anyone else) thinks about the opening tempo in the first movement in the Sixth....to me, it doesn't work, but it's certainly an interesting take".
I'm not bothered by the relatively slow tempo for the start of the symphony. In fact, I think it helps in making a strong contrast to the sweeping, lyrical second subject: the so-called Alma theme. What I am somewhat bothered by, is Chailly's refusal to speed up at the end of the first movement. However, Chailly may have Mahler on his side, as Mahler doesn't call for a big speed-up (I forget what he wrote, but I'll go look it up later). Since Chailly's scherzo is a bit on the slower, more lumbering side of the equation, it's probably a good thing that he didn't end the first movement with a super-fast tempo.
In summary, I would have liked just a slightly faster ending to the first movement, matched by a slightly faster tempo for the start of the scherzo. That would be more my ideal of how that transition should go. In fact, I've often toyed with the idea - just in my mind, that is - that the last note of the first movement should also be the first note of the scherzo. It would have to be a solo timpani note, obviously.
-
Now that I've owned the Chailly boxset for awhile an have gotten to know it, symphonies 2,6,7 are displeasing to me. 7th is far too slow, 6th has unusual percussion i. e. the Andante moderato. In the 2nd Chailly is making the music something it isn't. This is dissappointing, I might sell the set and generally stay away from Chailly. I don't even care for the way he slows down for drama in the opening of the Third. Sound is outstanding, Concertgebouw is outstanding, Chailly I can do without.
-
I can understand your dismissal of symphonies 2 and 7, as I feel that those are the two weakest in his cycle. But what is it about that percussion in the M6/3 that bothers you? If it's the cowbells, the'yre on-stage in the slow moment; as opposed to being offstage in the two outer movements. The cowbells second entrance in the andante movement is marked fortissimo. They need to be shaken vigorously in order cut through 8 or 9 unison horns - also playing fortissimo - along with the unison strings. Otherwise, you won't hear them at all. Beyond that, there's very little percussion in the slow movement, other than the timpani.
I remember your comment about Chailly's Mahler reminding you of Varese. Trust me, Chailly isn't exaggerating what Mahler wrote for the percussion. In some sense, if you don't like what you're hearing, in terms of the textures of the music, you're actually bucking against what Mahler wrote. Believe me, he took percussion very seriously. Your objections regarding tempi, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter. You may be happier with the Berini cycle, which is still my favorite complete one.
Barry
-
I simply disagree. In the Chailly's 3rd movement, you cannot even listen to the climax, as it sounds as though there is a bunch of moneys banging on hollow coconuts, it is repulsive; Also the strings are too thin to support the heavy sound of the precussion, in this recording. Cowbells are not supposed to sound like bongo drums Mr. Guerrero! I am quite aware that Mahler took percussion seriously. He took much heat from the critics because of it! I also dislike the finale, it needs more rythmic definition like Abbado's with Berlin, very strong rythms. After all, they define so much of the beauty of the work.
-
Wunderhorn,
Your welcome to disagree with me. But you're objectively wrong to say that Chailly's cowbells sound like bongos. Why? Because they're not bongos, they're cowbells - that's what cowbells sound like. If, what you're protesting, is that they sound too far forward too you; well, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's not one that I necessarily share. Assuming that you mean the passage leading up to the movement's climactic passage; well, it's mostly just the horns that are doing much of anything at that moment. For the most part, the harmony is simply ascending step wise. Once the harmony reaches a certain plateau (I don't remember what key - I'd have to look it up), the cowbells cut out; and that's pretty much where the strings take over. I don't really see where anything important in the strings is being covered over. If that were a genuine concern, Mahler would not have called for on-stage cowbells, played fortissimo. Look - I'm just being the messenger here! These are musical facts, based what's on the written page. If you think that they're too far forward sounding, fair enough. But please, don't make it a personal issue - I'm just a messenger of what's on the page.
Now, if you're connecting the dots, and assuming that because I'm defending the cowbell balances, I'm therefore presenting the entire performance as being the best - I'm not! Didn't I say that I actually prefer Gielen's M6 instead (well, I did somewhere)? I'm also sorry that you're not liking the Chailly cycle in general. I still like it more than the Gielen cycle - an issue that also has to do with cost, and the exclusion of Gielen's Mahler/Cooke 10th. I still endorse the Bertini cycle as being the best one overall. I also think that both of Bernstein's are very good; the Sony one being slightly better. Tennstedt shouldn't be entirely discounted either, although the sound quality isn't always the best.
There's one other issue that comes to mind. If you're possibly thinking that small, "tinkly" sounding cowbells represent authentic cowbell sound; well, it doesn't! If you go over to the Alps and the Austrian highlands, cows wear fairly large bells with a somewhat lower pitched sound. Because they're in groups of large numbers, you can hear that sound from miles away. The Vienna Phil. has very similar sounding cowbells. Anyway, I'm sure that that was the sound Chailly was after; although, the cowbells belong to the orchestra, not him. But he might be presenting them a bit too far forward; true. My belief is that the cowbell sound is supposed to be very, very disturbing at that point. I don't believe that it's meant to be pretty or pastoral at all - not even in the slightest. Now, that - I'll fully admit - is an opinion and not a fact.
"I also dislike the finale, it needs more rythmic definition like Abbado's with Berlin, very strong rythms".
Absolutely no argument with your reasoning there. Although, I would urge you to take a second listen to the last ten minutes of Chailly's finale. The final allegro "charge" is done superbly well, I feel - every bit as good as it is on the Abbado. Also, if you check out the very, very, VERY end of the symphony, I think you'll be impressed with Chailly's sense of rhythm there. He takes that final A-minor outburst very slow, and VERY rhythmic in the timpani. Before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, do yourself a favor, and just listen to those final ten minutes again. If you don't find something to like within those ten minutes, I'll eat my hat.
Barry
-
Wunderhorn,
Your welcome to disagree with me. But you're objectively wrong to say that Chailly's cowbells sound like bongos. Why? Because they're not bongos, they're cowbells - that's what cowbells sound like. If, what you're protesting, is that they sound too far forward too you;
I've heard several versions of the sixth, a non have sounded like that! It is a quite simple fact that people can like the way percussion sounds in one recording as opposed to another, ESPESIACLLY WHEN IT COMES TO MAHLER! That said, it is obvious that Chailly's cowbells, are not my thing, or I wouldn't have likened them to bongo drum, now would I? ???
-
"ESPESIACLLY WHEN IT COMES TO MAHLER!"
Why would Mahler be exclusively different in that regard, or any regard?
-
He used much percussion. When I hear a recording, I can sense differences not only in the mannerisms of the conductor, but in the actual sound of the instruments, from one recording to the next. It is hard to explain the different personalities of an instrument. They change even though both are bassoons or clarinet or whatever. This becomes quite noticeable when it is a timpani, tam-tam, cowbells, etc. etc. It might have something to do partially with the way it was recorded.
-
OK, but what you're saying would apply to all composers; not just Mahler. Look, instead of bantering back and forth - my fault as much or more than yours - just give the recording a rest, and then give it a second chance down the road. More than anything, I would urge you to listen to the last ten minutes of the finale. I say that because I feel that these final ten minutes are the prime focus of Chailly's entire performance. I think it all comes together then, and I think you'll find your sharp, incisive rhythms at the very end of the symphony. And if you find that it's all too little, too late; fair enough. But you already own the thing - give it that much of a chance.
Barry
-
But you already own the thing - give it that much of a chance.
You're right. I plan on paying much attention to it before I sell it. I don't want to regret making the wrong move.
-
That's the spirit. I'm not trying to talk you into loving the thing, and nor am I trying to be patronizing. But I do think that Chailly's M6 has some very good things going for it, and I think it's worth investigating what those things are. I've always said that Chailly's Mahler is very strong in the woodwinds and percussion. Strings and brass are somewhat less of a priority with him. It will always remain debateable the extent to which one section should be balanced against the other three. My belief is that all four sections of the orchestra should be very evenly balanced in Mahler. To that end, I actually think that the Jansons/Concertgebouw M6 is a tad better. But just for a bit of fun, listen carefully to Chailly's excellent woodwind detail, next time around. Personally, I don't really care for his scherzo very much (and he normally does scherzo movements really well), but that has more to do with tempi and tempo relationships.
And by the way, just compare the very ending of the symphony against Abbado's. I think you'll find Chailly more shocking and/ or disturbing - very slow and very rhythmic. I'm repeating myself.
-
"mooooooooo" . . . note the size of this guy's bell
(http://www.igotnewsforyou.com/images/swiss_cow.jpg)
-
Here's the ubiquitous 100 cm. Wuhan tam-tam; used also in the Concertgebouw. The mallet lieing below it is actually for tubular chimes. The gong mallet would be much larger. It's recorded spectacularly well on the Chailly M6, I feel.
(http://www.utaoni.com/projects/chronological-table/2006/jpg/mahler6.JPG)
-
But they don't need to be so narrowly shaped around the opening. Basic Acoustic's. We will never know the original cowbells Mahler used?
-
Here's the ubiquitous 100 cm. Wuhan tam-tam; used also in the Concertgebouw. The mallet lieing below it is actually for tubular chimes. The gong mallet would be much larger. It's recorded spectacularly well on the Chailly M6, I feel.
(http://www.utaoni.com/projects/chronological-table/2006/jpg/mahler6.JPG)
The more density and weight that can be added to the sound world of Mahler, the more Mahlerian.
-
Here's the type of three-sided gong mallet that the Concertgebouw uses, only theirs is bigger. It actually takes a pretty good size gong, struck by a good size mallet, to cut through a full fortissmo chord.
(http://www.americandrum.com/catalog/other/images/hgb4_001_a.jpg)
. . . hey, I'm just saying, enjoy it for what it's worth.
-
I listened to the M5. It is a very good M5 as in 'by the book', which always works well. But like you were saying. The strings and horns are lesser than the woodwind and percussion. With the Fifth Chailly must use thick strings at least sometimes, as the work demands it! All 1,3,4,5,8,9 are very good. I believe the crystal clear sound in the Chailly set has upset me a little. Some melodies are supposed to make general statements, but when you here it through Chailly, it becomes so clear that it is distracting from the absolute to be more independent.
-
Oh yeah, take that!
(http://www.banz.bamsymph.de/bamsymph/pics/6te-Mahler-Herz_2.gif)
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.burmajster/mahler6.jpg)
-
(http://re3.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/2028464315)
Do you see the similarity in the physiognomy of the cartoon and the Varese portrait?
-
"Some melodies are supposed to make general statements, but when you here it through Chailly, it becomes so clear that it is distracting from the absolute to be more independent".
Very good observation. What you have to ask yourself in a rather detached and objective way, is that a wrong thing? I think it's not - I think it's very deliberate on Mahler's part. However, I would certainly agree that it's not the only way to hear his music.
-
By the way, for the all scarry looks, Varese was supposed to have been a tremendously nice person. At least, that's what I've been told by several eye witness accounts.
Barry
-
I've been undecided on which box to get...Bertini or Chailly? Eventually I'll get both, so it problably doesn't matter which I get first. Right now I'm leaning towards the Bertini.
What is Bertini's M3 and M6 like overall?
-
Well, as with all of Bertini's Mahler performances - save the 8th, and possibly "DLvdE" - neither would be my number one first choice. Yet, they both comfortably fit into the characteristics of his entire cycle: very well played; very well recorded; straight forward, no nonsense conducting, etc. Bertini's M6 has very good cowbells that are probably less prominant than Chailly's. I don't remember the hammer strokes being overwhelming, but neither are they wimpy. It probably wouldn't become your top favorite, but neither will you be disappointed. In M3, that Killebrew lady will make you think of Harmon Killebrew (Minnesota Twins). She has a big and deep voice - she might be a true contralto. The third also has a very solid trombone solo. The beauty of Bertini's cycle is just the consistancy from start to finish, in terms of the three major elements I mentioned.
Barry
-
Thanks, thats helpful to think about as I consider my purchase. I've listened to some of the sound samples on Amazon, and really like the andante of the M2, the 3rd movment of the 4th, and various sections of the M8 and DLvdE. Based on these samples it sounds like Bertini really excells in the Wunderhorn symphonies. And I hear his M9th has a 'zen' like feel in general. I think I will get the Bertini first, as I already have a few of the single releases of Chailly's set. The main draw of the Chailly is his wonderful M10...which I first heard in 1989 and loved ever since...I just haven't bought it yet (used to check out the copy from the library over and over)!
-
I've been undecided on which box to get...Bertini or Chailly? Eventually I'll get both, so it problably doesn't matter which I get first. Right now I'm leaning towards the Bertini.
What is Bertini's M3 and M6 like overall?
Given Bertini's price and fine preformaces throughout, I would say Bertini is better. Bertini's set was the only music I owned for a period of three months once, and I listened to it every night. The Fifth is on of the best I've ever heard, very good opening to the seventh. Bertini you might be able to get for substantially less then Chailly if you looked around. I'd give you my Chailly set, I'm not much into boxset anymore besides the Bertini, because conductors often take Mahler to personally. I'm might get Zander's set, given that its lecture compact discs were thrown into the mix with no additional cost.