Author Topic: PBS - Rattle M9 selections? (Read 16043 times)

Leo K · « **Reply #15 on:** January 08, 2008, 01:45:29 PM »

John is right, the sonics got better as the performance progressed...the limited sonics kinda ruined the 1st movement for me, as the climaxes barely registered at all. The playing was really on fire from what I could hear! I still prefer the iTunes version, probably cause the sound is better, but this was a very stunning M9 all the same, and it's great to view Rattle and the BPO at work.

The iTunes version doesn't sound bad at all for not being full CD quality, but I'm looking forward to the CD, which I'm hoping will be an improvment in the sonics.

--Todd

Jot N. Tittle · « **Reply #16 on:** January 08, 2008, 08:21:50 PM »

Quote from: John Kim on January 08, 2008, 07:23:57 AM

. . . the sonics were somewhat limited in its dynamic range. Oddly, the sound improved as the movements proceed. . . .

I noticed the same thing. Then I discovered my hearing-aid battery had died. Really.

There was no way I would have missed this broadcast, having been shut out from the original performance--Carnegie Hall was sold out. Sir Simon is aging well, I think.

The ending seemed somewhat more "certain" than I am accustomed to. That is, there was a clear termination instead of the almost infinite fade. When listening to CDs, I usually have to look at the player to be sure it has concluded--even when using headphones.

. & '

barry guerrero · « **Reply #17 on:** January 09, 2008, 07:56:35 AM »

I don't know - I thought the BPO strings were fabulous in the fourth movement. But I think that the first three movements would have been more effective if the strings had played a half of a dynamic level softer - maybe even an entire dynamic level softer. It's easy to get seduced by those strings; especially since they whip their torsos all around. But I think that they often times overplayed their dynamic levels. Just listen to how much clearer and cleaner all the textures are when you hear M9 played by the Concertgebouw, or the Staatskapelle Berlin under Barenboim - where the strings aren't nearly so overbearing. The tuba player they have now is much better than the one they had for the last several decades. But I think that their low brass could stand to a bit stronger yet. I also think that those Alexander (French)horns that the use are rather small sounding as well. And their oboes still cover over the rest of the other woodwinds from time to time. I don't know - I thought that it was obviously a very fine performance on the surface. But it was also like hearing something encased in cement. There was sort of a museum quality about it - no surprsies of any kind. It was like watching Temirkanov/St. Petersburg Phil. do the "Symphonic Dances" (Rachmaninoff), or Tchaik. 5.

As for Rattle, I like what he says, and I like what he stands for. He's obviously very knowledgeable and very intelligent. But I still find him difficult to watch. If you're not going to beat time once in a while, why not just walk off and let the orchestra play the piece by themselves? For the most part, what he was doing had very little to do with what they were doing.

There was one spot where he managed to get the orchestra to make some truly ugly, really nasty sounds. That happened just before the third and last waltz section in the second movement. That part I truly enjoyed.

One last complaint: It's become fashionable now to do the Rondo-Burlesque at a slightly slower tempo than in previous decades; saving room for a big accellerando at the end. While I'm favor of the accellerando, I also think that a certain monotonous quality sets in before slower, trumpet lead "trio" section (it's not really a trio, but it acts like one). For me, the best Rondo-Burlesque is still the Bernstein/Concertgebouw one.

Barry

Ben · « **Reply #18 on:** January 09, 2008, 06:52:14 PM »

Unfortunately, I caught the TV performance about half way through the first movement, but saw the rest in its entirety. I thought overall the performance was pretty good, especially being live. I was not quite sure how it was going to go since I'm no Rattle admirer. Thank goodness it wasn't micromanaged to death like I thought it might be. I was a little worried at the beginning of the second movement when the violins first enter; that slow down was a little fussy and I thought we were really in for it then. But, that seemed to be the only huge mannerism I didn't like in the movement.

I agree with Barry on many points. I thought the R-B was a little too slow as well, though the final rush to the end was nice. It does lose some of its demonic character when its played too slowly. I also thought the 'trio' sections with the solo trumpet were too fast for my liking (though the trumpeter played them with ease). The fourth movement of course was gorgeous and the strings really sang out. I enjoyed the horn solos, but why everytime the camera was on him did they never show his face?? Hardly ever did we get a full shot of him. I got tired of watching his fingers. I thought the trumpets were a little too lean sounding for Mahler throughout the symphony.

As for Rattle's conducting, I don't really mind when conductors don't beat time for a bit. If they don't need to, that's fine. Carlos Kleiber very often didn't conduct the beats, and I think some of his recordings and performances have yet to be bettered. Though, I don't really like Rattle's conducting in general. He's much too spastic for my tastes; not fluid at all. So, I really didn't mind when he didn't conduct! I think he was conducting for the camera at times too. If you noticed, not many of the players were ever really looking at him.

Overally, I enjoyed the performance and was even more shocked at the New York audience. They were very well-behaved especially during the final minutes of the symphony and even afterward! I figured it was some sort of miracle in New York City!

Ben

Vatz Relham · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2008, 04:31:52 PM »

I also enjoyed the perfomance, but there was no wow factor at all for me, everything was there, good playing, no missed entrances, I'm not sure if it's me or as Barry mentioned the performance coming across as a museum piece. Has this music become like Tchaikovsky's 6th just another piece in the standard repetoir?

I remember listening to Bernstein BPO years ago, and being totally absorbed by it, and a few others since like Kubelik/audite, Bertini Cologne, even Barenboim's held my attention more.

Anyway, I always think as Mahler's music as something special and not just some nice sounding music for an evenings entertainment.

Vatz

Russell · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2008, 04:48:07 PM »

I happened to log on to this forum again this past Tuesday (after a long absence) and found this thread. I immediately checked my local PBS station and saw they were scheduled to broadcast this concert at 3:00 am (!) Wednesday (yesterday). I've just gotten a new HDTV as well as an HD cable box with a built-in DVR, so I set my DVR to record the concert, which I saw was being broadcast in HD. Not having used a DVR before, I was a little worried about whether it would work or not, but all turned out well when I watched it last night. I only had time to watch the first movement, but I was impressed. Great performance, great HD visuals, and the sound quality, though obviously compressed, was fine. When I have time, I'll see about transferring the audio to my Mac digitally to make a CD copy, if anyone's interested.

Russell

Leo K · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2008, 04:50:15 PM »

Russell, this is awesome!!! I'd be interested!!!

--Todd

John Kim · « **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2008, 07:02:03 PM »

Quote from: Russell on January 10, 2008, 04:48:07 PM

I happened to log on to this forum again this past Tuesday (after a long absence) and found this thread. I immediately checked my local PBS station and saw they were scheduled to broadcast this concert at 3:00 am (!) Wednesday (yesterday). I've just gotten a new HDTV as well as an HD cable box with a built-in DVR, so I set my DVR to record the concert, which I saw was being broadcast in HD. Not having used a DVR before, I was a little worried about whether it would work or not, but all turned out well when I watched it last night. I only had time to watch the first movement, but I was impressed. Great performance, great HD visuals, and the sound quality, though obviously compressed, was fine. When I have time, I'll see about transferring the audio to my Mac digitally to make a CD copy, if anyone's interested.

Russell

Hey, COUNT ME IN!!!

I also watched it on HDTV (they indeed broadcasted the concert in both analogue and digital), but was not terribly impressed with the sonic in the format either. The problem again, was in the first movement - constricted, and carvenous. I too taped the audio signal from the HDTV onto a cassette tape. But I'd be interested to hear your DVDR.

Best,

John,

Russell · « **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2008, 07:47:12 PM »

OK--before anyone gets too excited, I still have to figure out how to get the audio signal from my DVR into my Mac in digital form. (I know I can always tap the analog outputs and re-digitize it in my Mac--I have a program for this--but I want to keep the signal as 'pure' as possible.) My DVR has audio outputs for coax, optical, and IEEE-1394 (firewire), so there's hopefully an easy (and inexpensive) solution. Any help/ideas would be appreciated, but I think I can probably solve this on my own without too much trouble...

Russell

chris · « **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2008, 10:04:01 PM »

The audio has been posted on OperaShare already, if you want to save yourself the work. I'll check in a bit what the source is - I'm not sure if it's digital or not.

Quote from: Russell on January 10, 2008, 07:47:12 PM

OK--before anyone gets too excited, I still have to figure out how to get the audio signal from my DVR into my Mac in digital form. (I know I can always tap theanalog outputs and re-digitize it in my Mac--I have a program for this--but I want to keep the signal as 'pure' as possible.) My DVR has audio outputs for coax, optical, and IEEE-1394 (firewire), so there's hopefully an easy (and inexpensive) solution. Any help/ideas would be appreciated, but I think I can probably solve this on my own without too much trouble...

Russell

John Kim · « **Reply #25 on:** January 11, 2008, 07:57:05 AM »

Chris,

Let me know where I can get the audio file. Meanwhile, I listened to my tape again. I am convinced this is an excellent M9th, one that surpasses Rattle's three previous recordings (one with VPO, two with BPO). The sound is not perfect but otherwise has plenty of ambiance and depth.

John,

chris · « **Reply #26 on:** January 11, 2008, 02:56:49 PM »

The files on OperaShare are from an FM radio broadcast - I didn't sample it, but it will almost certainly have a "buzz" that Russell's won't.

Russell · « **Reply #27 on:** January 11, 2008, 08:58:22 PM »

Oh now the pressure's on!

Russell

chris · « **Reply #28 on:** January 12, 2008, 02:25:33 AM »

Quote from: Russell on January 11, 2008, 08:58:22 PM

Oh now the pressure's on!

Russell

No pressure, just don't screw up!

I've been thinking about how you can transfer it - the low fi way I'd do it is get a RCA to mini cord (RadioShack has them for a few dollars), audio out it on your DVR to your microphone jack on your computer and then use a recorder program to get it in .wav or high quality .mp3 format (I use http://www.opcode.co.uk/opd2d/default.asp). There's most likely a better way, but I don't know it.

Russell · « **Reply #29 on:** January 12, 2008, 05:27:34 PM »

Thanks, Chris. I'll do it that way if I can't find an all-digital solution. (I've transferred many analog cassettes and reel-to-reel tapes that way.) I'll be attending Macworld Expo here in SF next week, and I'll ask around there. I'm convinced there's got to be a relatively straightforward way to extract the audio files.

Russell

gustavmahlerboard.com

News: