And just to throw in a wrench, here's my four-star review from Amazon, which I feel is every bit as valid as the other two:
Gorgeous sound, but why the big hurry?
By Amazon Customer on June 12, 2015
Format: Audio CD
I also don't quite agree with the rave reviews. But in contrast to the other review posted here so far, I find the sound quality to be pretty spectacular (and I'm also listening in just two-channel stereo). In fact, I think Channel Classics' fine sound quality is this particular release's calling card. What I'm bothered by is Ivan Fischer's consistently fast tempi. Timings are as such: I - 25:30; II - 15:07; III - 12:00; IV - 22:48
There have been at least two other single disc Mahler 9 recordings that also take the first three movements at a relatively fast clip, but then take the final movement north of 25 minutes. Those are much more to my liking, and those two recordings are Alan Gilbert/Royal Stockholm Phil. (BIS), and Kurt Masur/N.Y. Phil. (Teldec, reissued on a Warner Classics 'twofer' with the first symphony).
I know some folks with disagree with this, but I feel that the Alan Gilbert recording is grittier - more dirt under the fingernails. By that, I mean to say bigger dynamic contrasts; bigger climaxes; more 'gutsy' string playing, and a much stronger solo horn throughout. Granted, the Gilbert recording is also a tad less transparent. But more to the point, Mahler 9 shouldn't sound like a pleasant run-through. We're not only on the far side of Mahler 8, we're on the other side of "Das Lied von der Erde" too. There needs to be more of a sense of repose - a more zen like quality to the softer, more contemplative moments (especially in the two outer movements). Under Fischer's hands, the soft ending to the first movement sounds a bit literal and insensitive. The woodwind playing there just isn't soft enough or 'controlled enough. I'm also bothered by Fischer's lickity-split tempo for the first waltz section in the second movement.
I've always thought that the most effective way to handle the second movement is to take each of the three waltz sections at progressively faster tempi (that, and not let the 'third subject' drag too much). Hence, the first one shouldn't start out too fast. Fischer takes the first waltz at just a blazing tempo, leaving little room for surprise down the road. I do have to say that Fischer handles the climax of the second movement quite well, and the same can be said for the powerful climax to the first movement. But then everything else surrounding these climaxes sounds hurried.
For many, the last movement is the crux of the argument, and Fischer really does pretty well with this movement. But then again, both Gilbert and Masur do a better job of making us feel that we've suddenly stepped into a whole 'nother realm - as though the first three movements had only been preludes to what we're going experience in the last movement. These two final movements - Gilbert and Masur - could almost be attached to a Karajan or Bernstein performance. In contrast to that, Fischer seems to be telling us that Bruno Walter had been right all along.
And indeed, there are two schools of thought as to how the last movement should go, as well as whether or not the ninth symphony as a whole should move faster. I simply don't agree with that viewpoint. Why not save those quicker tempos for the earlier symphonies, as well as for the last two movements of Mahler 7 (I predict that Fischer's faster, lighter aesthetic will work far better on Mahler 7).
This is not bad by any stretch of the imagination. But in a very crowded discography, I think one would do better to consider more established recordings from the recent and/or distant past - even in regards to single disc versions.
