gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: Leo K on July 18, 2008, 06:38:33 PM
-
Leo's current top ten Mahler 9th Symphony recordings:
1.David Zinman, Aspen Festival Orch, (1997 broadcast)...Yes this recording is THAT good.
2.Robert Olson, Colorado Mahlerfest Orch, CO Mahlerfest label (2005)
3.Simon Rattle, Berlin Philharmonic, (2008) EMI
4. Gary Bertini, Tokyo Metropoliton Symphony Orch, Fontec
5. Seji Ozawa, Saito Kanien Orch, Sony
6. Benard Haitink, European Concert Youth Orch, Phillips
7. Leonard Bernstein, Concertebouw Orch, Deustche Gramophone label (Japan pressing)
8. Leonard Bernstein, Boston Symphony Orch, Memories label (1979)
9. Jascha Horenstein, London Symphony Orch, Music and Arts
10. Daniel Barenboim, Staatskapelle Berlin, Warner
It appears from this list that I am currently in the mood for "rougher" but passionate M9's...in the live setting!
Soon I'll post other top ten Mahler recordings of the other symphonies....have to think on it!
What are your current favs?
--Todd
-
Todd,
I really like your top ten list.
I very much agree with the Zinman. It is currently the best all round M9th in my book. It has many outstanding features of the old masters, e.g., Klemperer and Horenstein, but it is the near perfect mixture of all these elements that Zinman somehow and miraculously demonstrated in this concert. Everything in this performance sounds so 'right' and convincing that once you heard it you will never want to hear the symphony in any other way. If only he an Tonhalle Orch. can reproduce it in updated sound in the upcoming RCA recording ::) :D
I'd also endorse the Bertini II. recorded live in Japan. Compared to his early EMI outing Bertini's interpretation had matured, so you can naturally expect this one would beat the EMI recording in every aspect. Not quite! I am afraid The playing of TMSO was not quite up to their challenge; I hear fatigue in the brass in the climactic passages in I. and the horns are constantly mistuned in II. Never mind as it is still a technically impressive and emotionally engaging performance that everyone must not pass up.
For a similar reason I'd pick Ozawa's BSO over the Saito Kinen Orch; I like Ozawa's ripe approach in the more recent recording but am not entirely happy with the playing.
Todd, I am a bit surprised you didn't pick Dohnanyi/CVLO/Decca, Macal/CPO/Exton, or Levine/Philly/RCA.
Best,
John,
-
John,
I am soo suprised I didn't think of the Macal! I really like the first movement in that one...and I have not yet heard the Dohnanyi!
At this time, I must really like the rougher played but still dedicated execution on most of the recordings on my list. These are recordings that keep me on the edge of my seat!
The Levine Philly is a great M9, and so is the Macal...the playing is phenominal is these performances...I highly recommend these for those who desire transcendant playing and well structured M9's.
--Todd
-
Oh and John, I like your thoughts on the Zinman...I strongly agree!
This recording of a broadcast reveal details of the score I never usually hear...the inner voices are well heard, especially in the second movment.
The first movement is unlike any rendition I have heard...the excitement is palpable...the first movement climaxes have never sounded so crushing and devasting, so dark...it really is amazing.
--Todd
-
interesting list. I look forward to Zinman making a commercial recording of M9 for RCA.
Barry
-
interesting list. I look forward to Zinman making a commercial recording of M9 for RCA.
Barry
I'll be really waiting for this...if Zinman can get the same results, and the sound has excellant SACD/CD sonics...this will be the M9 to rule them all!!
--Todd
-
This live Zinman M9th really took me by throat and wouldn't let it go. :-[ I mean, it's so musically convincing, technically assured but it is also emotionally high charged performance. Karajan's second recording was also a searing one but everything else didn't go as well as the Zinman.
The second climax in I. especially hits the listener like a Tsunami surging into an Oregon shore.
Please Mr. Zinman, repeat what you had done back in 1997 but make sure you get top quality playing and sound this time around. ;)
John,
-
An interesting list Leo. There are a few in there that I wan't aware of. How about Barbirolli/BPO and the Klemperer recordings also? Actually the Barbirolli is my current favourite.
-
I don't know, Sean. For me, Barbirolli's Berlin 9th is rather pretty sounding, but way too soft edged for the 9th symphony; the one Mahler symphony that comes closest to the expressionistic sound-world of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (especially Berg). In that regard, I think it's the weakest of the various BPO Mahler 9ths. I also don't care for the way it's proportioned. Granted, the playing is quite technically assured for those times.
Klemperer's Philharmonia M9 is pretty good; certainly much more rough edged and "expressionistic" sounding than the Barbirolli. However, I like the live one that he did with the Vienna Phil. even better. To my mind, it's still the best M9 that the VPO has made (not a symphony that they've had a whole lot of success with, in my opinion).
Barry
-
An interesting list Leo. There are a few in there that I wan't aware of. How about Barbirolli/BPO and the Klemperer recordings also? Actually the Barbirolli is my current favourite.
I agree with Barry on the Barbirolli/BPO M9th. I was let down by the Klemperer/PO/EMI M9th due to inadequate playing; just listen to various spots in I. and you'll see what I mean.
His VPO live concert is better in that regards and like Barry I too consider it a superb M9th.
John,
-
Interesting list indeed. There is only one performance there that might make my "top ten" list--Bernstein/Concertgebouw, and several that I regard as just plain horrible. Here, if anyone cares, is my top 12 list (couldn't limit it to just 10):
Ancerl (Supraphon--amazingly urgent and characterful, with the Czech Phil in top form)
Bernstein (Sony or DG--the "let it all hang out" choices)
Chailly (Decca--simply stunning playing by any definition, and an intensely lyrical interpretation)
Pesek (Virgin--a real sleeper--full of good ideas and surprisingly well played by the Liverpool orch.)
Solti/LSO (Decca--not being Solti fan, this is really special, sumptuous and kind of Straussian, but it works)
Karajan II (DG--one of his greatest recordings of anything)
Ozawa (Philips--perhaps the most perfectly played performance on disc; the live concert was one of the most astonishing things I have ever seen)
Masur (Teldec--really interesting conception--slightly underplayed first movement but unusually weighty finale)
Levine/Philly (RCA--Barry hates that slow finale but I think they sustain it well)
Bertini/Cologne (EMI--and speaking of slow finales)
Haitink/Concertgebouw (Philips--vintage Concertgebouw before they started sounding like everyone else)
Sanderling (Berlin Classics--much better than his draggy Erato recording, a nicely grim and determined Germanic reading)
The Ninth has been very lucky on disc, but then it also seems to be one of those pieces that somehow "plays itself," at least to the extent that the music is so affecting that it hardly fails to make a strong impression--unless the conductor is more interested in himself than in the music (Rattle), or is simply cloddish and incompetent (Horenstein). Sorry folks--I know that's shooting a sacred cow or two, but there it is. Chacun a son gout! ;)
Dave H
-
Dave,
Welcome to the Mahler Ninth club! :D
Your top 12 list is almost identical to mine except for the Karajan II., Sanderling, and Masur. We have already debated about the merits and demerits of the live Karajan recording so, I don't want to rehash my opinions here. Simply put, I can't live with his treatment of the opening movt. and to a lesser degree, of the middle two movts. Or, it might be the BPO who had an unlucky day. It is "intensely beautiful without much bite" and I don't think it fits well into Mahler's world.
Not that I dislike the Masur but again the first movt. bothers me, i.e., it's too fast without much depth. But I like II.-IV very much. I have a vague memory of not liking the Sanderling from Berlin mainly because of the playing and recording quality.
Having said all these, my top choices remain with (if I limit myself to commercial recordings):
Bernstein/RCO/DG
Levine/PO/RCA
Ozawa/BSO/Philips
Chailly/RCO/Decca
Macal/CPO/Exton
Best,
John,
-
Interesting list indeed. There is only one performance there that might make my "top ten" list--Bernstein/Concertgebouw, and several that I regard as just plain horrible. Here, if anyone cares, is my top 12 list (couldn't limit it to just 10):
Ancerl (Supraphon--amazingly urgent and characterful, with the Czech Phil in top form)
Bernstein (Sony or DG--the "let it all hang out" choices)
Chailly (Decca--simply stunning playing by any definition, and an intensely lyrical interpretation)
Pesek (Virgin--a real sleeper--full of good ideas and surprisingly well played by the Liverpool orch.)
Solti/LSO (Decca--not being Solti fan, this is really special, sumptuous and kind of Straussian, but it works)
Karajan II (DG--one of his greatest recordings of anything)
Ozawa (Philips--perhaps the most perfectly played performance on disc; the live concert was one of the most astonishing things I have ever seen)
Masur (Teldec--really interesting conception--slightly underplayed first movement but unusually weighty finale)
Levine/Philly (RCA--Barry hates that slow finale but I think they sustain it well)
Bertini/Cologne (EMI--and speaking of slow finales)
Haitink/Concertgebouw (Philips--vintage Concertgebouw before they started sounding like everyone else)
Sanderling (Berlin Classics--much better than his draggy Erato recording, a nicely grim and determined Germanic reading)
The Ninth has been very lucky on disc, but then it also seems to be one of those pieces that somehow "plays itself," at least to the extent that the music is so affecting that it hardly fails to make a strong impression--unless the conductor is more interested in himself than in the music (Rattle), or is simply cloddish and incompetent (Horenstein). Sorry folks--I know that's shooting a sacred cow or two, but there it is. Chacun a son gout! ;)
Dave H
Dave H, thank you for posting your list...I was wondering what your list would consist of. I have to agree on the Levine I, Bertini on EMI, the Karajan II on DG, and the Ancerl recordings...very moving and powerful. I have not heard the Pesek...thanks for the heads up on this! I ought to give the Chailly a relisten.
Some months ago I purchased the Solti LSO and the Ozawa BSO/Phillips (I've only heard selections)...so look forward to finally hearing these preformances.
--Todd
-
The ones I find inexhaustible in their riches one way or another and keep returning to over and over again:
Abbado/BPO on the Netherlands Radio "Mahler Feest" box set (I cannot imagine a more perfectly done 9th);
Abbado/BPO on DG;
Abbado/VPO on DG;
Boulez/CSO on DG;
Klemperer/NPO on Jpn Toshiba (a much better remastering job compared to the U.K. EMI reissue of the same, btw);
Maderna/BBC SO on BBC Legends;
Sinopoli/SKD on Profil/Haenssler;
Walter/Columbia SO on Sony.
To think of it, probably also in this order of preference. The Walter is quite dubious but I enjoy it as a counterbalance to other performances on this list -- kind of like letting it loose and having a bit of fun with it for a change.
I don't have time nor patience to keep returning to any of the others (there is too much great music around and too little time in a human life), although I have kept the Chailly and Bernstein/NYPO for comparisons and as a museum piece, respectively. What for different reasons I feel intrigued enough by to still want to spend time with:
Bertini with the Tokyo Metropolitan Orchestra players on Fontec (the combination is quite interesting);
Sanderling/Berlin SO on King (Jpn) (this seems like a very good transfer and I'm a fan -- he's always so sound in the execution and profound in his conception);
Ozawa/Saito Kinen on Philips (piqued by their excellent M2);
Klemperer/VPO live on Testament (a "must" for me but I want the whole box set so I've hesitated with the ridiculous collector's-item price);
and -- shame on me for not having heard it yet -- Barenboim/Berlin Staatskapelle on Warner even if I don't expect it to be revelatory in any special way, "just" good (for me there aren't too many good ones around of the 9th) (how do you like it, Todd?).
The one I'd want to get when and if he ever records it: Fabio Luisi with SKD.
PT
-
OK, I'm going to be THE cranky one: I don't care for Mahler's 9th enough to bother thinking of a Top 10 list (I prefer Bruckner's). That said, I can't imagine why the Chailly/Concertgebouw one wouldn't make it on to somebody's top 10 list - especially in the sacd/cd hybrid pressing.
Bernstein's live 1979 Tangelwood performance would certainly be near the top of my list.
-
>> Klemperer/NPO on Jpn Toshiba (a much better remastering job compared to the U.K. EMI reissue of the same, btw);
No matter how good the recording may sound, I just can't pass up the shaky playing by the Philharmonia Orch. I like Klemperer's approach very much and that's why I gave two thumbs up for his live Viennese recording, but No Jose here :-[
John,
-
I can relate to your reservations, John, but personally feel the merits especially of the conception far outweight what for me are ultimately but minor quibbles related to this performance. Everything seems so well elementally integrated into the structure of the work, always emerging from and merging into it, with marvellous clarity of line, very clean thematic relations, and wonderful expressive economy throughout. A little clumsily played at times, true, but that sort of sits fine within the slight ascetism marking the approach. Yet I certainly will want to get my hands on the VPO live taping, too.
Whereas I for my part never understood the compliments habitually paid to the Chailly Decca recording. Interpretatively I find it a bit juvenile still (rather irritating at times in fact with all the little stretchings affecting the relations between note values and the frequently weird rubato -- can't he just count straight and simple?) and never thought the sonics were anything to write home about (I only listen to in stereo however). I know numerous recordings, including M9s, that come in better sound.
-PT
-
I'm with John on this one. Much as I admire Klemperer, the playing is just too shaky on his Mahler Ninth. What is that weird squeak just before the climax of the finale? I am also suspicious of those who claim to admire a "conception" independently of its realization by the orchestra. Folks, the "conception" IS the realization. The conductor's job is to get the orchestra to realize his intentions. No one would argue that bad ensemble, stiff transitions, or stodgy tempos (Klemp's third movement!) belong to his "conception"--only that this is all he was able to do on the night (or during the sessions) owing to infirmity, caprice, or age. This is also the problem I have with Horenstein's performances. Conductors are just like any other musician--they have different levels of ability to "play" their instrument--the orchestra. And anyone with a long experience of orchestral playing (Barry can back me up here) will tell you that it's painfully audible when a conductor hasn't got the chops for the job at hand. Because most orchestras are so good at what they do, and so well trained, they are able to cover for a huge amount of sheer podium error--and even downright incompetence. In these cases, it's really impossible to say that the performance reflects the conductor's conception because he simply isn't able to realize it satisfactorily. What would Klemps' Ninth have sounded like if he had been able to keep the orchestral together better, if he had been younger, or more alert, etc. We don't know.
There is an aspect of music that many people enjoy--the opportunity to project their own selves into a performance, particularly a bad one, supplying through their own imagination what they feel ought to be there, or might have been there, but isn't. This is often true of historical recordings or performances featuring bad sound, where much of the musical texture, dynamics, and color is simply missing. If we know the music well, we supply the absent elements and give the performers the credit and of course the performance is "great"--because it necessarily reflects what we think we want to hear. This is perfectly legitimate as far as it goes--everyone can enjoy a performance as they wish. But I do think it's a mistake to talk about a "conception" as a thing apart from execution when the execution leaves a lot to be desired, because the bottom line is that we can't get inside the artist's head and say that what we hear is what he or she would have wanted--only that it's what they did and had to live with. For that reason, I do not believe that Klemp's Ninth is worthy of him, for all that is has some powerful moments, precisely because I do not hear a fully formed conception of the piece being superbly played by his instrument--the Philharmonia Orchestra.
Dave H
-
...the "conception" IS the realization.
We can use "gestalt" as well, the terminological point is not important here: the form/shape that Klemp's M9 emerges as distinct from other performances ("interpretatively" and not in terms of "technical" ensemble qualities like discipline).
No one would argue that bad ensemble, stiff transitions, or stodgy tempos (Klemp's third movement!) belong to his "conception."
Why not? Your "stiff" is my "emphatic"; your "stodgy" is my "deliberate." Isn't that all just about your conception of what he's doing?
...In these cases, it's really impossible to say that the performance reflects the conductor's conception because he simply isn't able to realize it satisfactorily.
Sure enough if you put it this way, but I certainly would not say the Klemp recording falls into this category. His personal trademarks are there in it for all to hear. You and I could tell it apart from any other, after the first five or so notes, any time, in any listening conditions, just because of what we know of this conductor based on his other, possible more fully realized interpretations. I don't think there is any need to project as much as you seem to think to recognize his particular script, so to speak (especially with the very decent recorded sound that lets you hear pretty well what's going on, surely better than what, for instance, Szell ever got committed on tape at around the same time).
we can't get inside the artist's head and say that what we hear is what he or she would have wanted
But then I'm curious, how do we tell that, for instance, a particular conductor only wants to exhibit his own ideas and not the composer's notions embedded in some particular work, as you for example have yourself observed in a number of instances in your reviews? (Assuming there is no indisputable deviation from the printed score.)
I think it's simply perfectly OK to reject a particular performance as personally significant by saying that well, it just isn't played well enough for me to enjoy it. I constantly encounter recordings like that. But it's a bit of a different issue than claiming incompetence or failure. Moreover I think the better the performance, the less we hear of the conductor's "conception" of it and the more in it the work itself or its author seems newly revealed. As in here, for me, all things considered.
With the rest of your post I'm of course in full agreement.
-PT
-
Moreover I think the better the performance, the less we hear of the conductor's "conception" of it and the more in it the work itself or its author seems newly revealed.
Ouch! I think that I could hang with your argument up until this particular point. This is like saying that you can only have one or the other; an either/or situation. For me, this is THE trap for so many fans of historical recordings. Great performances and great conceptualizations (interpretations - a word that I hate) need not be exclusive of each other at all, I feel.
Barry
-
The ones I find inexhaustible in their riches one way or another and keep returning to over and over again:
Abbado/BPO on the Netherlands Radio "Mahler Feest" box set (I cannot imagine a more perfectly done 9th);
Abbado/BPO on DG;
Abbado/VPO on DG;
Boulez/CSO on DG;
Klemperer/NPO on Jpn Toshiba (a much better remastering job compared to the U.K. EMI reissue of the same, btw);
Maderna/BBC SO on BBC Legends;
Sinopoli/SKD on Profil/Haenssler;
Walter/Columbia SO on Sony.
To think of it, probably also in this order of preference. The Walter is quite dubious but I enjoy it as a counterbalance to other performances on this list -- kind of like letting it loose and having a bit of fun with it for a change.
I don't have time nor patience to keep returning to any of the others (there is too much great music around and too little time in a human life), although I have kept the Chailly and Bernstein/NYPO for comparisons and as a museum piece, respectively. What for different reasons I feel intrigued enough by to still want to spend time with:
Bertini with the Tokyo Metropolitan Orchestra players on Fontec (the combination is quite interesting);
Sanderling/Berlin SO on King (Jpn) (this seems like a very good transfer and I'm a fan -- he's always so sound in the execution and profound in his conception);
Ozawa/Saito Kinen on Philips (piqued by their excellent M2);
Klemperer/VPO live on Testament (a "must" for me but I want the whole box set so I've hesitated with the ridiculous collector's-item price);
and -- shame on me for not having heard it yet -- Barenboim/Berlin Staatskapelle on Warner even if I don't expect it to be revelatory in any special way, "just" good (for me there aren't too many good ones around of the 9th) (how do you like it, Todd?).
The one I'd want to get when and if he ever records it: Fabio Luisi with SKD.
PT
PT,
You mentioned the Abbado VPO/DG M9...this one should probably should be on my list, since I really enjoy the sound of the VPO strings on this one...but the climaxes in I and IV are also executed with excitement and bite...a great M9 indeed.
You asked what I thought about the Barenboim...I like it because Barenboim doesn't appear to hold the work too sacred...the performance is very aggressive overall but with the woodwinds somewhat more prominent...strangely, the texture in this Barenboim M9 reminds me of the live Karajan M9 broadcast from Salzburg with the BPO (1982), where the winds are well heard, creating textures I don't usually hear in the score.
There are some problems with the recording/execution that John Kim and Dave Hurwitz are correct about, but the strengths outwiegh the weaknesses.
There is a live M9 broadcast from Barenboim/Staatskapelle (from April 2007) that is much better than the commercial release...more "exaggerated" and "edgy"...I was really impressed by it!
--Todd
-
We can use "gestalt" as well, the terminological point is not important here: the form/shape that Klemp's M9 emerges as distinct from other performances ("interpretatively" and not in terms of "technical" ensemble qualities like discipline).
I think youy are drawing a distinction here that is demonstrably false. The form/shape cannot be separated from the technical qualities of the ensemble realizing it, because it is their technical ability that permits its realization in the first place. Let me give you an example: Hermann Scherchen took fifteen minutes over the Adagietto of the Mahler 5th with the Philadelphia strings and nearly half that time in his official Vienna recording. Why? Because he explained that the Philly strings could sustain the slow tempo. So which performance reflects his "conception?" Obviously both do, but both are conditioned by technical apparatus at his disposal. The conception does not exist independently of the act of performance, however, well-planned or thought-out it might be. Similarly, if a conductor is working with players who are not at their best, or more to the point in Klemperer's case, he is incapable of getting them to give their best, then it's an open question as to how valid an example of his conception of the work has been presented and (in recordings) preserved. If he can't play the third movement up to tempo, then the form/shape of his performance may be unique, but not in a good way, and it may not be reflective of his view of the work.
Why not? Your "stiff" is my "emphatic"; your "stodgy" is my "deliberate." Isn't that all just about your conception of what he's doing?
No, it isn't. "Stiff" means something quite different from "emphatic," and "stodgy" suggests a very different quality than does "deliberate." Obviously people can disagree about these things to a certain degree, but ultimately reasonable people must share a basic understanding of what such descriptive terms mean to be able to communicate at all. And the issue is not what these things mean to you in an abstract sense. It is what they mean as a function of what the music demands for its most effective presentation as evidenced by the score, the performance tradition, and musicality of the performers, etc. This all adds up to some pretty definite parameters that can be used to describe a given performance contextually. I can acknowledge and enjoy Klemperer's deliberation while decrying his stodginess--one quality does not suggest the other. Nor is this a zero some game. I can accept that you enjoy this performance for its outstanding moments (and I keep it on hand because I would agree that it has some), while acknowledging its faults, whether or not we agree about how serious those are. But they are there, and many of them are facts, not opinions.
Sure enough if you put it this way, but I certainly would not say the Klemp recording falls into this category. His personal trademarks are there in it for all to hear. You and I could tell it apart from any other, after the first five or so notes, any time, in any listening conditions, just because of what we know of this conductor based on his other, possible more fully realized interpretations. I don't think there is any need to project as much as you seem to think to recognize his particular script, so to speak (especially with the very decent recorded sound that lets you hear pretty well what's going on, surely better than what, for instance, Szell ever got committed on tape at around the same time).
I think you are exaggerating quite a bit. "Five notes or so?" You must be a much better listener than I, particularly with respect to the opening of the Ninth Symphony! I can accept the notion that there was a distinctive "Klemperer/Philharmonia sound" (forward wind balances, etc), and I can accept that you want to hear that sound in this particular work. But that's a very different thing than suggesting that BECAUSE you hear that sound in this particular work, you are listening to a great performance of it. All you are hearing is a "characteristic" performance, and not even a very good one, at least compared to those works in which Klemperer is both characteristic and clearly getting the orchestra to play magnificently. Because, if you want to raise the issue of Klemperer's work in its larger context, we know for a fact that he was not a slob when it came to ensemble (far from it!), and that while his tempos were often deliberate he did not become stodgy until the very end of his life. From this evidence we can say pretty definitively that his Ninth is probably not entirely representative of his intentions. Your argument cuts both ways. I also think we need to beware of "the cult of mediocrity," the suggestion that technical insufficiency is somehow characterful or "honest," and that brilliance in this respect is suspect. As I said, this is not a zero sum game. All artists try to do their best, and as listeners we have every right to expect and demand the highest possible standards at all times.
But then I'm curious, how do we tell that, for instance, a particular conductor only wants to exhibit his own ideas and not the composer's notions embedded in some particular work, as you for example have yourself observed in a number of instances in your reviews? (Assuming there is no indisputable deviation from the printed score.)
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here. The question makes no sense to me.
I think it's simply perfectly OK to reject a particular performance as personally significant by saying that well, it just isn't played well enough for me to enjoy it. I constantly encounter recordings like that. But it's a bit of a different issue than claiming incompetence or failure. Moreover I think the better the performance, the less we hear of the conductor's "conception" of it and the more in it the work itself or its author seems newly revealed. As in here, for me, all things considered.
Why do you have a problem with the notions of incompetence or failure? If a plumber came to fix your toilet and he left it still running, even though you could flush it, you would call him a failure, or incompetent, wouldn't you? His failure need not be total or absolute. You might even demand that he come back and fix the problem, or refuse to pay his bill. How is music any different (other than that they can't come back and fix the problem)? Performers fail all the time, often in most abysmal ways. And I also think that he we recognized these failures for what they are and said as much we would have higher standards, and much humbler and more honest artists. Particularly in Europe, there is a tendency to treat artists with kid gloves. Let me share a little anecdote, if I may:
Back when I was running the Cannes Classical Awards in France, we gave Daniel Barenboim an award for his Beethoven cycle (which most agree was pretty terrific). It came out at the same time as Abbado's on DG, which was incredibly dull (in contrast to the much better live videos which are now being issued on CD too). This too was pretty much the consensus. In presenting Barenboim's award, I said to the room full of artsy folk how wonderful it was that he had revised the German Romantic tradition in Beethoven playing, "in contrast to a certain more widely publicized but audibly inferior cycle from that other Berlin orchestra on a certain yellow label." I thought I'd get a laugh, but people were aghast that I would dare criticize another artist. The expression on Barenboim's face was priceless, and one of my happiest memories of running the awards. Looking at the horrified crowd, I said "Relax people. It's OK. I do this for a living." Funny thing was, afterwards a bunch of people came up to me and said, in effect, "You know, you were right, Abbado is a bore, but no one dares to say so, and it was so unexpected." But what, then, does an award mean (I said) if not a recognition of excellence offered after a vetting process of some kind?
That said, I don't think Klemps' Ninth is incompetent, but it has some major problems and at this point in his career he did exhibit serious failings. We know, for example, that he slept through most of his recording of the Rhenish Symphony, woke up, and asked "how did it go," then authorized it for release. Everyone said it sucks, and it does--the major blot on an otherwise pretty fine Schumann cycle. Is that competent? And what's the harm in calling it for what it is? As for your last line above, again, I'm not sure that it really means anything beyond the obvious point that great performances have a certain naturalness and inevitability about them, period. Anyway, it's been very interesting discussing this with you, and thank you for sharing your views so eloquently!
Dave H
-
Dave, I can't agree with you more :D
Any performance whose technical quality - the execution - is below a norm, cannot claim that it has faithfully delivered conductor's conception or even the conception of the work itself well. That said, for most part I can catch Klemperer's concept in this recording. And because I like his conception I get even more frustrated than I should be :-\ I cannot say his live VPO concert was much better but at the very least the orchestra got most of improtant parts right and it has that "Viennese stamp" all over the place.
Thank God, I love this board.
Where else can I find such a place?? :D
Regards,
John,
-
Speaking of 'concept', try Klemperer's live Israel Phil. concert from early 70's. It is a very different than both the EMI and live VPO one and quite expansive throughout. But in terms of execution it is much worse than PO :-[. But Klemperer's approach is keenly consistent from beginning to end (unlike in the EMI recording) and it makes far more sense. Had it been played by VPO or PO on a lucky night, it might have become my dream M9th. Well, that's what I can say based on my memory (but it's been several years since I listened to it ???).
John,
-
Moreover I think the better the performance, the less we hear of the conductor's "conception" of it and the more in it the work itself or its author seems newly revealed.
Ouch! I think that I could hang with your argument up until this particular point. This is like saying that you can only have one or the other; an either/or situation. For me, this is THE trap for so many fans of historical recordings. Great performances and great conceptualizations (interpretations - a word that I hate) need not be exclusive of each other at all, I feel.
Barry
Sorry, Barry; I had three toddlers squirming on the floor in front of me, one of them going crazy, and only one mother around to assist...
What I simply meant is that the conductor of course needs to do some serious work before forming his idea of what he is to do with the particular piece, not just arbitrarily decide to show it in some special light or something like that; and that idea must always be in the service of the work itself, in the context of our own time, and not to highlight something about the conductor's own qualities, for instance. Whether the conductor succeeds in this or not is then for the listeners to decide, but if it's a job well done, we have an experience of the work that doesn't draw too much attention to those performing it, allowing its meaning to emerge relatively unhindered. It's tough to experience a piece of art if there is something very arbitrary-seeming about its presentation. This is a tricky thing since it often only becomes possible with utmost effort, yet that effort is not to be seen (heard), so to speak. That would then qualify as a good performance for me (though of them, there is in most cases of course not just one).
A simple point awkwardly put, in other words!
-PT
-
You asked what I thought about the Barenboim...I like it because Barenboim doesn't appear to hold the work too sacred...the performance is very aggressive overall but with the woodwinds somewhat more prominent...strangely, the texture in this Barenboim M9 reminds me of the live Karajan M9 broadcast from Salzburg with the BPO (1982), where the winds are well heard, creating textures I don't usually hear in the score.
There are some problems with the recording/execution that John Kim and Dave Hurwitz are correct about, but the strengths outwiegh the weaknesses.
There is a live M9 broadcast from Barenboim/Staatskapelle (from April 2007) that is much better than the commercial release...more "exaggerated" and "edgy"...I was really impressed by it!
--Todd
Thanks for sharing your views on this, Todd; I think I'll have to try and hear it attentively myself, too: I like M9 played with a certain aggressivity or edge to it, as you describe the Barenboim, especially if Dave H. gave him an award just to straighten up the order of things in that pluralistic city of music... ;D
-PT
-
We can use "gestalt" as well, the terminological point is not important here: the form/shape that Klemp's M9 emerges as distinct from other performances ("interpretatively" and not in terms of "technical" ensemble qualities like discipline).
I think youy are drawing a distinction here that is demonstrably false. The form/shape cannot be separated from the technical qualities of the ensemble realizing it, because it is their technical ability that permits its realization in the first place. Let me give you an example: Hermann Scherchen took fifteen minutes over the Adagietto of the Mahler 5th with the Philadelphia strings and nearly half that time in his official Vienna recording. Why? Because he explained that the Philly strings could sustain the slow tempo. So which performance reflects his "conception?" Obviously both do, but both are conditioned by technical apparatus at his disposal. The conception does not exist independently of the act of performance, however, well-planned or thought-out it might be. Similarly, if a conductor is working with players who are not at their best, or more to the point in Klemperer's case, he is incapable of getting them to give their best, then it's an open question as to how valid an example of his conception of the work has been presented and (in recordings) preserved. If he can't play the third movement up to tempo, then the form/shape of his performance may be unique, but not in a good way, and it may not be reflective of his view of the work.
Why not? Your "stiff" is my "emphatic"; your "stodgy" is my "deliberate." Isn't that all just about your conception of what he's doing?
No, it isn't. "Stiff" means something quite different from "emphatic," and "stodgy" suggests a very different quality than does "deliberate." Obviously people can disagree about these things to a certain degree, but ultimately reasonable people must share a basic understanding of what such descriptive terms mean to be able to communicate at all. And the issue is not what these things mean to you in an abstract sense. It is what they mean as a function of what the music demands for its most effective presentation as evidenced by the score, the performance tradition, and musicality of the performers, etc. This all adds up to some pretty definite parameters that can be used to describe a given performance contextually. I can acknowledge and enjoy Klemperer's deliberation while decrying his stodginess--one quality does not suggest the other. Nor is this a zero some game. I can accept that you enjoy this performance for its outstanding moments (and I keep it on hand because I would agree that it has some), while acknowledging its faults, whether or not we agree about how serious those are. But they are there, and many of them are facts, not opinions.
Sure enough if you put it this way, but I certainly would not say the Klemp recording falls into this category. His personal trademarks are there in it for all to hear. You and I could tell it apart from any other, after the first five or so notes, any time, in any listening conditions, just because of what we know of this conductor based on his other, possible more fully realized interpretations. I don't think there is any need to project as much as you seem to think to recognize his particular script, so to speak (especially with the very decent recorded sound that lets you hear pretty well what's going on, surely better than what, for instance, Szell ever got committed on tape at around the same time).
I think you are exaggerating quite a bit. "Five notes or so?" You must be a much better listener than I, particularly with respect to the opening of the Ninth Symphony! I can accept the notion that there was a distinctive "Klemperer/Philharmonia sound" (forward wind balances, etc), and I can accept that you want to hear that sound in this particular work. But that's a very different thing than suggesting that BECAUSE you hear that sound in this particular work, you are listening to a great performance of it. All you are hearing is a "characteristic" performance, and not even a very good one, at least compared to those works in which Klemperer is both characteristic and clearly getting the orchestra to play magnificently. Because, if you want to raise the issue of Klemperer's work in its larger context, we know for a fact that he was not a slob when it came to ensemble (far from it!), and that while his tempos were often deliberate he did not become stodgy until the very end of his life. From this evidence we can say pretty definitively that his Ninth is probably not entirely representative of his intentions. Your argument cuts both ways. I also think we need to beware of "the cult of mediocrity," the suggestion that technical insufficiency is somehow characterful or "honest," and that brilliance in this respect is suspect. As I said, this is not a zero sum game. All artists try to do their best, and as listeners we have every right to expect and demand the highest possible standards at all times.
But then I'm curious, how do we tell that, for instance, a particular conductor only wants to exhibit his own ideas and not the composer's notions embedded in some particular work, as you for example have yourself observed in a number of instances in your reviews? (Assuming there is no indisputable deviation from the printed score.)
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here. The question makes no sense to me.
I think it's simply perfectly OK to reject a particular performance as personally significant by saying that well, it just isn't played well enough for me to enjoy it. I constantly encounter recordings like that. But it's a bit of a different issue than claiming incompetence or failure. Moreover I think the better the performance, the less we hear of the conductor's "conception" of it and the more in it the work itself or its author seems newly revealed. As in here, for me, all things considered.
Why do you have a problem with the notions of incompetence or failure? If a plumber came to fix your toilet and he left it still running, even though you could flush it, you would call him a failure, or incompetent, wouldn't you? His failure need not be total or absolute. You might even demand that he come back and fix the problem, or refuse to pay his bill. How is music any different (other than that they can't come back and fix the problem)? Performers fail all the time, often in most abysmal ways. And I also think that he we recognized these failures for what they are and said as much we would have higher standards, and much humbler and more honest artists. Particularly in Europe, there is a tendency to treat artists with kid gloves. Let me share a little anecdote, if I may:
Back when I was running the Cannes Classical Awards in France, we gave Daniel Barenboim an award for his Beethoven cycle (which most agree was pretty terrific). It came out at the same time as Abbado's on DG, which was incredibly dull (in contrast to the much better live videos which are now being issued on CD too). This too was pretty much the consensus. In presenting Barenboim's award, I said to the room full of artsy folk how wonderful it was that he had revised the German Romantic tradition in Beethoven playing, "in contrast to a certain more widely publicized but audibly inferior cycle from that other Berlin orchestra on a certain yellow label." I thought I'd get a laugh, but people were aghast that I would dare criticize another artist. The expression on Barenboim's face was priceless, and one of my happiest memories of running the awards. Looking at the horrified crowd, I said "Relax people. It's OK. I do this for a living." Funny thing was, afterwards a bunch of people came up to me and said, in effect, "You know, you were right, Abbado is a bore, but no one dares to say so, and it was so unexpected." But what, then, does an award mean (I said) if not a recognition of excellence offered after a vetting process of some kind?
That said, I don't think Klemps' Ninth is incompetent, but it has some major problems and at this point in his career he did exhibit serious failings. We know, for example, that he slept through most of his recording of the Rhenish Symphony, woke up, and asked "how did it go," then authorized it for release. Everyone said it sucks, and it does--the major blot on an otherwise pretty fine Schumann cycle. Is that competent? And what's the harm in calling it for what it is? As for your last line above, again, I'm not sure that it really means anything beyond the obvious point that great performances have a certain naturalness and inevitability about them, period. Anyway, it's been very interesting discussing this with you, and thank you for sharing your views so eloquently!
Dave H
Dave,
I think this issue is being blown out of proportion. If we spent pages and pages discussing the quality of playing of, say, Walter's '38 M9 I'd feel more justified. Or the sound of -- let's take an example from your own personal picks -- most of what Ancerl recorded for Supraphon: they are quite metallic and hard-edged and not realistic enough in my view to convey what the conductor's idea of the sound in these cases was, exactly; for we also need to hear what the orchestra does, and how, even in rather small detail at times, to then get this "conception" right if I understand you correctly. On the whole, I don't think the Klemp recording fares that badly in these departments, or so badly that it would prevent us from hearing what Klemperer's contributions to the recorded-performance history of this piece are. Whether he could have done better is of course a very high possibility, given his age and multiple infirmities at the time already, but that's a question you can pose regarding everyone: is this recording a faithful reproduction or presentation of the "concept" this guy has of this work, or could it be different on another day, at another conjuncture/venue, with another orchestra, etc.? But what I think you shouldn't discount is, again, the possibility that some of the performance choices Klemperer made were conscious, not forced by circumstance. For instance the tempi: all of his tempi tended to get broader as time went by, and I don't think it was just because he couldn't make the band play faster. It was about how he changed his views of the work as well. Similarly, I don't know if this popular image of "the two Klemperers" is very useful or even reality-based that much (the Klemp of the live tapes and the Klemp of the EMI studio takes; often in fact the conductors are more careful to adequately rehearse and convey their vision of the work when in studio, as opposed to the more volatile situation on stage when the purpose is also to create an impression in an unrepeatable one-time aural event only, whether we like that vision or not). As your own anecdote illustrates, conductors change with time and according to their accruing knowledge and understanding but also opportunity (as in Scherchen's case who usually didn't get good enough players to work with him).
Anyhow, just to run through a few points hopefully very quickly this time:
1. "Gestalt": I think you're rushing a bit here. Music is performed as a sequence of events stretching up to a couple of hours, even, but we experience that temporal duration as a simultaneity, as a whole that transcends its component parts or those "events" (in its "gestalt" as in gestalt psychology or even the Rorschach test...). Sure, it takes a lot of skill to allow something like that to take place, especially today when we, as more and more critical listeners, have already become habituated to expecting extremely advanced musicianship that's encountered just about everywhere; but it takes other things too than mere ensemble skill and discipline to really allow the meaning of the work come through. I don't really know how else to put it. And for me at least the Klemp EMI recording isn't so damaged by anything as to prevent such a gestalt from emerging, despite his veeeeery lumpy Laendler movement (this -- the Scherzo -- must be what you mean, not the Rondo-Burleske, right, since the latter is overcooked by no more than about one minute and that by the Klemperer standard is basically nothing). But elsewhere there are enough many parts done excellently to leave me feel most satisfied by this performance. Take for instance the very opening notes, how well they are articulated in terms of note duration and the calibration of the attacks as well; nowhere else I think is this thoroughly Webernian sound image that de la Grange, too, has called attention to, conveyed as much to the character. That includes the vague string entry figurines that I don't think you hear as clearly delineated elswhere (though that's to an extent a matter of the recording quality as well). And despite Klemperer's own "conception" of the work (which emphasized that everything becomes meaningful through the lense of the final adagio only), I think this is one of the best M9 first movements that I've heard, if not the very best: for the simple reason that the crisis and final climax sections emerge so very logically from what goes before and what comes after; no one else I think has quite so managed to render these episodes in their context. In any case, this all very much bears a "Klemp" signature in it, and if you are right in that it's an exaggeration to say that five notes is enough to recognize it, five bars will then suffice; and what is this then if not a successfully enough conveyed conception typical of the conductor? His trademarks are all visible from early on (clarity, thematic differentiation but also and especially the relations between themes, purity of line, drawing up the detail as part of the context,...). Whether this is "the best" of all possible and imaginable Klemp M9s of course remains an open question but for the same reason also somewhat meaningless as an issue.
2. Stiff, stodgy: I meant that what for you appears as something like this may appear to me very differntly: what you perceive as stiff I may perceive as emphatic, etc. "Stiff" and "stodgy" are value attributions arising from an interpretation and are not objective, measurable properties...meaning the very same can be understood in other ways, too.
3. "Cult of mediocrity": I couldn't agree more. There is a good reason why I've become a fan of Abbado's... (Sophistication on an entirely new level.)
4. "But then I'm curious how do we tell that...": By this question I simply referred to your frequent condemnations of Simon Rattle's "conception" behind the works he performs, which you claim you can tell is usually self-serving or self-regarding.
5. "Incompetence" and "failure": I don't have any problems saying that this might not have been the best of all possible Klemp M9s, but what's the point with that, exactly? It's two different things to say, "It's not well enough played for me to enjoy it" and "The performance is a failure," for instance. Even if it wasn't very well played, it might have worked wonders in the mind of the listener (despite your and my own suspicions about it this actually happens), in which case it's not a failure. For me, this happens in Klemperer's Mahler, invariably, but also in his Bach (yes, despite what to our post period-revival-movement ears can at times sound like extreme sluggishness and plain heavy-footedness), Beethoven, and many the operatic works he recorded. On the failure side for me are his Schumann (miserable), even Brahms (compared to how flexibly and fluidly his symphonies are at best heard played today), Mendelssohn (stodgy!), you name it; but this on "the Klemperer scale": most other conductors have fared worse, most of the time. It's a bit like with Sviatoslav Richter: A minute into listening him play you forget the lousy sound of the recording and will not even notice the notes blown. The difference is probably about modes of listening: most of us as art appreciators don't listen very analytically (and aren't expected to, past a certain point; this is more like the job of the critics) but perceiving the work in a predominantly different way, receiving it in its broader outlines, as a singular content or an entity with a distinct shape and form having a certain basic quality to it ("gestalt"). For that to be so conveyed of course much skill is required from the performer(s), but it's not the same as searching for that misplaced accent of the timpani in the third-movement tutti or that false flute note towards the end of the finale (I call that "didactic listening" :)). What matters rather is how each of the notes is made into something constitutive of a larger meaning that then emerges as the unique and singular property of the work in question. Few can do that. An example: think of Szell. His recordings (if you can project long and hard enough to get past the usually compromised sound) always have very disciplined, highly competently played performances in almost all respect, but do they matter to us very much today? Not really. Just collector's items.
A final note: I thought those Barenboim Beethoven recordings were clearly good but quite conservative and not very significant in any aspect, and I forgot them almost as soon as they were back on the shelf. Whereas Abbado's Berlin recordings brought many new revelations and tons of sheer pleasure at hearing these work played in this particular way, and the fascination has stayed. By the way: those Euroart video performances that you are talking about are now issued as a special arrangement in an audio-only box set; see . Abbado preferred to have them as his final "conception" of these works (they were all taped live in Rome a little later except for the 9th of which the earlier Berlin version is retained). I'm curious to hear them but doubt they'll ever be imported to the U.S. (and I already know what you will say about the wisdom of such birthday tributes to one of the greats of our time ::)).
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31gHRUdi2KL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
I'm starting to babble, but the pleasure's been all mine.
-PT
-
Speaking of 'concept', try Klemperer's live Israel Phil. concert from early 70's.
Interesting; I didn't even know of the existence of something like this. Have to check it out.
PT
-
I think it's great that we've been able to discuss these sorts of issues without the usual result of things turning personal, and people calling each other names. I'm not sure that this type of conversation could have happened at any other classical music blog-site without the thread turning into complete chaos, full of vitriol.
Barry
-
I think it's great that we've been able to discuss these sorts of issues without the usual result of things turning personal, and people calling each other names. I'm not sure that this type of conversation could have happened at any other classical music blog-site without the thread turning into complete chaos, full of vitriol.
Barry
I agree...the conversations here have been very rewarding and educational...thanks gentleman!!!
--Todd
-
Speaking of 'concept' I can't say it's clearly extractable from the Klemperer/PO/EMI recording. It is as though Klemperer was on his way of finding one when he recorded this. Some hints of his concept are there but overall I don't get what he was really trying to say. No doubt that the inadequate playing contributed to such an impression. But the VPO concert was so much more consistent in both playing and conducting that I can say the performance was shaped into a conceptual thing.
As for the Abbado/VPO/DG M9th, its is rather a shapeless performance but what a magnificent ramshackle at that! If you shut your head off and listen to the recording as it is without any preconception or bias it will sound like a spectacular masterpiece. The sound and playing of VPO tremendously help here (I know Barry will disagree with me on this). I cannot recommend it as a first choice for M9th but it is certainly an interesting, valuable alternative that everyone should hear for a change.
I also agree that Barenboim's live broadcast was better than the Warner recording. It was faster and more dynamic but the playing was more unified and disciplined. It clearly shows Barenboim was still refining his interpretation of this great work.
John,
-
he sound and playing of VPO tremendously help here (I know Barry will disagree with me on this)
I don't think that the playing of the VPO is really the problem here, John. I think two other things instead. First, I feel that the sound is a bit heavy and muddy in the low strings and tuba. Second, I feel that this a performance that's good at bringing lots of small details to the fore, but isn't so great at the major climaxes in the two outer movements. In that sense, it's almost the antithesis of Karajan/BPO (live). I like that it DG put the adagio of the 10th symphony BEFORE the start of the 9th. But I also don't think that it's a particularly great performance of the M10 adagio either.
Believe me John, as with Abbado's VPO M3, I gave this recording lots of chances, simply because there IS so much small-scale ear candy in it. I even owned it twice (I paid waaaay too much money to get it again from a second hand shop in Ann Arbor, Mich.). But I just got frustrated with this performance in regards to the big picture - especially with the two major climaxes being so rushed, and sort of mis-firing. But it's certainly not terrible by any means.
Barry
-
Karajan/BPO/DG II - "beautifully intense, intensely smooth without much bite"
Abbado/VPO/DG - "great articulation and phenomenal sound from the orchestra"
These are how I would describe the two performances. The playing by BPO is at times untidy (particularly in I.) which robs some power of the score and Karajan doesn't always elicit multiple polyphonic lines vividly enough. This latter problem existed in his M5th recording. Also, Karajan's choice of tempo bothers me in I.: the zen-like passage following the first climax hardly slows down compared to what have happened before. His first recording, OTOH, had more flexibility in the tempo. Yes, in the Abbado the first climax in I. isn't all that great because he doesn't pile up enough power and cuts it off too early to be effective. That's clearly him doing, not the recording or playing. But then it must be his decision to do so and I'd rather respect it than blame it because the following two climaxes are awesome in their sonic scope (litsen to the roaring brass and screaming woodwinds). Overall Abbado stresses local effects rather than the flow, but as you indicated before Abbado was perhaps still under the shadow of Berg at the time of this recording.
John,
-
Speaking of Abbado's Mahler Ninth, by far the best all round version that keeps everything in a proper perspective is his 1995 Amsterdam Mahlerfest concert. It was better played - albeit one or two glitches in I. and II. - and better coordinated than the Karajan. With powerful percussion - the rolling cymbal and thundering timpani ! - and the Berlin strings beautifully stretched to their limits in the Finale, the concert was one of Abbado's glorious moments as a Mahler conductor.
John,
-
While there is never anything wrong with a "Top Ten" type thread, I did not expect the resulting discussion to become so rewarding to me as a reader. It's wonderful to see such a discussion without all of the personal junk -- Thanks all!
BTW, my top-10+ M9's are still:
Abbado/BPO/95' Mahlerfest
Ancerl/CPO/Supraphon
Bernstein/BSO/Memories (live, Tanglewood)
Bernstein/RCO/DGG
Chailly/RCO/Decca
Dohnanyi/Cleveland
Eschenbach/NDRSO (I "think" this was an NDR subscriber release, I only have a CD-R)
Inbal/Frankfurt
Inoue/NJP/Exton
Karajan/BPO (Live)
Levine/Philly
Maazel/BRSO/BRSO (DVD)
Ozawa/SKO
Segerstam/Danish NRSO
MTT/SFSO
de Waart/Netherlands PO
Scott
-
Scott,
Actually, your list minus the Karajan is the closest to mine :D.
It's interesting you included the Maazel, Segerstam, and de Waart.
Despite Maazel's radical conducting, I certainly enjoyed the playing of BRSO in the Maazel.
de Waart is pretty good too in modling the long lines in lyrical touches. Besides Lenny's old Sony recording, de Waart's may be the only other version in which the conductor is able to elicit bitter sadness and melancholy in the middle movts. I just wish the sound were better.
The Segerstam is rather heavy handed but aided by the bright, deep Chandos sound, it manages to hold its impact all the way down.
John,
-
Scott:
Your list reminds me once again how lucky the Ninth has been on disc. In paticularly, Segerstam and Inbal are both underrated performances likely to be overlooked, even by hard-core fans. I appreciate your reminding me of them once again!
Dave H
-
Scott:
Your list reminds me once again how lucky the Ninth has been on disc. In paticularly, Segerstam and Inbal are both underrated performances likely to be overlooked, even by hard-core fans. I appreciate your reminding me of them once again!
Dave H
M9 and DLvdE are the two symphonies in which I have the largest number of recordings that I consider first tier favorites. I probably have more recordings of either M1, M2, or M3, but fewer that I consider as first tier favorites (i.e. ones to which I immediately consider listening when in the mood for that particular symphony).
-
Scott:
Your list reminds me once again how lucky the Ninth has been on disc. In paticularly, Segerstam and Inbal are both underrated performances likely to be overlooked, even by hard-core fans. I appreciate your reminding me of them once again!
Dave H
It seems I have indeed overlooked these...I shall seek and find.
Scott I really like your list as well. Good to see the fantastic Inoue/NJP/Exton on there! Speaking of Exton, I think of the autumnal Neuman/CPO/Exton M9...a real beautifully played M9.
I also like you mentioned the MTT/SFSO M9...I still really like this performance.
--Todd
-
Leo,
If you don't end up purchasing the box of the entire Segerstam cycle (really among the best of the "slow" cycles), symphonies 7 & 9 got issued in a three disc set. While the tempi were consistently on the slow side for both symphonies - and I know that you don't mind slower performances - there's really plenty of ear candy (interesting details) to keep one from getting too bored. A person could do far worse.
Barry
-
Regarding the Segerstam M9th, sometimes I am bothered by the odd balance. For instance, in the second climax (that begins with a timpani solo) of I. the trumpets don't cut through well, whereas in the third they are very audible. Bertini/EMI also has the same problem as do many other versions. It might be a small quibble but a critical one at that because the instrument carries so much weight in the climactic passages. Likewise, horns can get buried easily in these places mitigating much of the emotional impact. I laud Lopez-Cobos on Telarc in this aspect for letting the brass get loose all the way.
M9th may be a lucky symphony on records, but few versions reach the very height it deserves.
John,
-
Now that I mentioned the Lopez-Cobos/CSO/Telarc, how do you folks like this recording? Dave, would you recommend this one?
I must confess that I have tried hard to like this recording over the years. I was particularly displeased with the overly bright, often harsh sound quality. But I think I finally found a right way to play the CD: a Denon CD recorder just does it :D. It now sounds truly spectacular with none of the digital glitches I was unhappy with. At a high volume on this machine it indeed sounds like the best sounding Mahler Ninth ever (as an ARG critic declared it). Needless to say, I have become to love the performance as well. It is modeled based on Walter's Columbia recording but Lopez-Cobos gives much freedom and reign to the brass and percussion sections, sometimes to the extent of making the music a concert for brass and percussion.
John,
-
Now that I mentioned the Lopez-Cobos/CSO/Telarc, how do you folks like this recording? Dave, would you recommend this one?
I must confess that I have tried hard to like this recording over the years. I was particularly displeased with the overly bright, often harsh sound quality. But I think I finally found a right way to play the CD: a Denon CD recorder just does it :D. It now sounds truly spectacular with none of the digital glitches I was unhappy with. At a high volume on this machine it indeed sounds like the best sounding Mahler Ninth ever (as an ARG critic declared it). Needless to say, I have become to love the performance as well. It is modeled based on Walter's Columbia recording but Lopez-Cobos gives much freedom and reign to the brass and percussion sections, sometimes to the extent of making the music a concert for brass and percussion.
John,
I haven't listened to this one in a long time, but don't remember it being proportioned like a Walter M9. Aren't the first and last movements evenly balanced at around 28', as opposed to a longish first movment, quick finale (28' v. 21') of the Walter? I keep wanting to pull the Lopez-Cobos recording out at home, since it was recorded with Dolby Surround information. Unfortunately, I never remember this recording on such occassions, since I always focus on my SACD collection.
-
John:
I like Lopez-Cobos--it's very well played, well recorded, and it pushes all the right buttons, but it's not in my top few simply because it lacks (for want of a better word) personality, particularly in the inner movements. It strikes me as the kind of performance that would have gotten much more attention if the competition hadn't already been so strong.
As for very few recordings getting to "the heights," I'm not sure what that means. I think quite a few actually reach the level beyond which you're simply dealing with personal preference regarding tiny points of detail, and that's pretty remarkable.
Dave H
-
Has anyone else listened to one of my current favorites:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/418SJG3SFPL._SS500_.jpg)
Just curious to hear people's reactions. It's surprisingly caring and warmly done, as everything touched upon by the baton of this unflappable arch-modernist who was a man of many loves.
There are a couple of good comments on the recording by Amazon.com readers at http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-No-9/dp/B000ENC6VE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1218019876&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-No-9/dp/B000ENC6VE/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1218019876&sr=8-1) for those interested.
-PT
-
Hi PT,
The Maderna is one of my current favorites along with Sinopoli's Dresden 9. Can't think of two more different performances. Maderna's is surprisingly warm, passionate, even wild with, I think, terrific playing from the BBCSO. Given Maderna's history, I was expecting a fairly detached and maybe a little colder vibe but it sure ain't that. I can see lots of folks here taking issue with some of Maderna's tempos especially in the last movement when he puts the brakes on for a few seconds. But certainly one of the most interesting and for me enjoyable Mahler 9's around. And considering the age and that this is a live performance, I quite like the sound quality--up front, good dynamics, full, rich sounding if a little coarse here and there. Personally, I'd take this 9th over that of Chailly, for example, and several others who might offer the most technically accurate of readings but frankly bore me to no end. With Mahler, especially the 9th, I should feel something. Maybe not a first choice if coming to this symphony for the first time but worth having in my opinion.
The Sinopoli is far broader and I believe one of the longest on record but as others have noted, it doesn't seem that way. Sinopoli is a hit and miss conductor for me but strikes gold here. I suspect that is partly due to the Staatskapelle Dresden were perfectly in sync with his vision. Sometimes you can hear a conductor trying to get his vision or whatever you want to call it (hey, I'm no musician) across but the orchestra is simply not up to it. You may not like this particular interpretation but like the Maderna you can't deny that the execution is pretty good.
Just my 2 cents
cheers
paul
-
Thanks for your thoughts Paul...very helpful.
--Todd
-
Paul,
I certainly share your enthusiasm for Sinopoli's Dresden M9 (and for the same reasons). Unfortunately, what worked rather well in the 9th symphony, makes the 4th symphony a difficult listen. I'm afraid I can't endorse his Dresden M4 without a warning sticker (I'll post separately about that). It's one of the most self-indulgent performances of anything I've ever heard. Too bad, because the playing is predictably gorgeous.
As for the Maderna M9, it certainly had its own brand of personality. I don't remember it so well, and listened to it only before passing it on to John Kim. But I really wasn't all that taken with it. Frankly, I really like the Chailly one. I like the unusual way he spins himself out of the second movement's, third and final waltz section; making for an interesting transition back into the final Laendler passage (Tempo I, in other words). That was memorable, along with the generally excellent playing of the Concertgebouw (terrific woodwinds!).
Barry
-
Hi PT,
The Maderna is one of my current favorites along with Sinopoli's Dresden 9. Can't think of two more different performances. Maderna's is surprisingly warm, passionate, even wild with, I think, terrific playing from the BBCSO. Given Maderna's history, I was expecting a fairly detached and maybe a little colder vibe but it sure ain't that. I can see lots of folks here taking issue with some of Maderna's tempos especially in the last movement when he puts the brakes on for a few seconds. But certainly one of the most interesting and for me enjoyable Mahler 9's around. And considering the age and that this is a live performance, I quite like the sound quality--up front, good dynamics, full, rich sounding if a little coarse here and there. Personally, I'd take this 9th over that of Chailly, for example, and several others who might offer the most technically accurate of readings but frankly bore me to no end. With Mahler, especially the 9th, I should feel something. Maybe not a first choice if coming to this symphony for the first time but worth having in my opinion.
The Sinopoli is far broader and I believe one of the longest on record but as others have noted, it doesn't seem that way. Sinopoli is a hit and miss conductor for me but strikes gold here. I suspect that is partly due to the Staatskapelle Dresden were perfectly in sync with his vision. Sometimes you can hear a conductor trying to get his vision or whatever you want to call it (hey, I'm no musician) across but the orchestra is simply not up to it. You may not like this particular interpretation but like the Maderna you can't deny that the execution is pretty good.
Just my 2 cents
cheers
paul
Paul,
The way I hear the Maderna recording very much parallels the way you put it here, as regards both the performance and the sound. I find it absorbing like very few, if any, others; it literally keeps me at the edge of my seat, listening attentively and nodding my head all the time (those liberties he takes with pauses, for instance, I find utterly undistracting; rather the opposite, after you've heard them once).
AND incidentally, the way I've been listening to this disc lately is precisely...in tandem with the Sinopoli, which I am quite impressed by as well. Funny you should be finding the same cohesion somewhere there, too. Another funny thing is, the difference between the two conductors (or at least the difference in expectations regarding them) that you bring up is sort of reversed in their renditions of this work: the at times ultraromantic Sinopoli comes across like a stubborn experimental investigation based on a relatively cool consideration of a clinical case, and the oft-ultrarational Maderna moves you down to your bone marrow. Such is the mystery of music!
And I agree not everything done by Sinopoli fits the description; some stuff he's done can appear pretty vague or alternatively forced and sometimes I've found him a bit too subjective-sounding for my tastes (in some of his DG Mahler series, for instance). His personal enthusiasm about the works he performed and his seriousness of purpose are never in doubt, however.
-PT
-
Interesting list indeed. There is only one performance there that might make my "top ten" list--Bernstein/Concertgebouw, and several that I regard as just plain horrible. Here, if anyone cares, is my top 12 list (couldn't limit it to just 10):
Ancerl (Supraphon--amazingly urgent and characterful, with the Czech Phil in top form)
Bernstein (Sony or DG--the "let it all hang out" choices)
Chailly (Decca--simply stunning playing by any definition, and an intensely lyrical interpretation)
Pesek (Virgin--a real sleeper--full of good ideas and surprisingly well played by the Liverpool orch.)
Solti/LSO (Decca--not being Solti fan, this is really special, sumptuous and kind of Straussian, but it works)
Karajan II (DG--one of his greatest recordings of anything)
Ozawa (Philips--perhaps the most perfectly played performance on disc; the live concert was one of the most astonishing things I have ever seen)
Masur (Teldec--really interesting conception--slightly underplayed first movement but unusually weighty finale)
Levine/Philly (RCA--Barry hates that slow finale but I think they sustain it well)
Bertini/Cologne (EMI--and speaking of slow finales)
Haitink/Concertgebouw (Philips--vintage Concertgebouw before they started sounding like everyone else)
Sanderling (Berlin Classics--much better than his draggy Erato recording, a nicely grim and determined Germanic reading)
The Ninth has been very lucky on disc, but then it also seems to be one of those pieces that somehow "plays itself," at least to the extent that the music is so affecting that it hardly fails to make a strong impression--unless the conductor is more interested in himself than in the music (Rattle), or is simply cloddish and incompetent (Horenstein). Sorry folks--I know that's shooting a sacred cow or two, but there it is. Chacun a son gout! ;)
Dave H
Dave, I just found a copy of the Pesek M9 at the used shop...I notice it's on your list here, so thanks for the recommendation...I'm really looking forward to hearing this!
--Todd
-
Oh, and John K, I noticed you mentioned the Solti/LSO/Decca M9 recently, I'm going to listen to that as well for the first time.
--Todd