gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: John Kim on January 25, 2008, 05:22:49 AM
-
http://www.hmv.co.jp/product/detail/2672227 :o
John,
-
Macal is a very thoughtful conductor - not always the most passionate (a word I dislike, anyway). It doesn't surprise me that he'd turn in a solid 9th (most everybody does). But you know what? . . . I'm sick of the 9th. I think the Bruckner 9th - sans conjectural finale - says the same thing in a tighter, more succinct fashion. If you think about it, in his scherzo movement, Bruckner combines the 3/4 time feel of Mahler's second movement, with the drive and sheer anger of Mahler's Rondo-Burlesque. I much prefer Bruckner's third movement to Mahler's fourth. Mahler is almost shockingly cold and literal at the end of his fourth movement. Bruckner is much more circumspect and resolute. I think there's a reason that Mahler continued composing after the 9th. I honestly wish he had finished the 10th instead.
I'll also say something else that's not terribly popular: I feel that Karajan is the only one who has truly just nailed the daylights out of the main climaxes to the two outer movements. He also gets enough of the inner movement stuff correct to make me think that he has turned in the best overall performance of anybody. I like the Bertini as well.
-
As much as I love B9th, I think the two symphonies are very different both musically and thematically. For one thing, there was to be a fourth movt. in the B9th which he never finished. Like I said, I like the sound world of M9th more than its content; nobody can listen to the symphony easily if he or she gets swamped in the emotional side of the piece. Happily, I am not that kind.
As for Karajan's recording - digital or analogue - he may have the right idea but the ensemble of BPO was simply not good enough, especially in I. Now that you mentioned the Bertini, just compare Bertini's orchestra with BPO in this recording. Also, in numerous places Karajan's rhythm touch gets loose, his tempos are not flexible enough, his timpani too weak.
John,
-
"Also, in numerous places Karajan's rhythmic touch gets loose, his tempos are not flexible enough, his timpani too weak".
As a purely musical argument, I have to agree with what you say. But I think that larger picture issues take precedent over lesser ones. There are so many M9's that get tons of detail correct, only to fall short where it truly matters. Karajan has always been a "big picture" conductor. His vast experience with Wagner and Bruckner helped him in that single regard. I just wish his live M9 sounded a bit better.
I don't think that my problem is that I hate the Mahler 9th. Obviously, I don't. But it's just that the 9th is the one Mahler symphony that I have to stow away for special occasions. It doesn't wear well with me on a daily basis - or weekly even. Some people feel that way about Mahler in general. But I can listen to most of his works pretty much any old day. But the 9th just isn't one of those. There's something almost too formal about it. Schoenberg pointed out that Mahler was nearly "speaking in the third person" (I'm paraphrasing) with the 9th symphony. By that, he meant that it was if another person were speaking through Mahler. Perhaps, in a strange way, it's simply too modern for me. I don't know.
The other problem - a purely musical one - is that the first movement is clearly much better than the rest of the symphony. That's another reason why I like the Karajan: the remaining three movements don't sound anticlimactic. He keeps the intensity up from start to finish. Bertini, on the other hand, dwells more in the quiet, zen-like passages. I like them both.
I really do prefer the 10th, and wish that Mahler had lived to finish it. To me, M10/1 works through very much the same type of crisis and mood that we encounter in the 9th symphony. But then Mahler comes much more back to life after the first movement - speaking more directly from himself, if you will. There are also more musical "types", and types of expression in the 10th symphony. That's not to mention pointing the way towards Stravinsky in the first scherzo, and sounding sympatico with Alban Berg in the second scherzo. For me, the 10th combines what's best about both the Mahler and Bruckner 9th symphonies. I do think it's the best of his five movement, arch form symphonies.
-
Barry,
Thanks for your thoughtful note.
To me, there is no WEAK movement in any of Mahler's symphonies. All are equally great; I can't tell M10 is superior than M9 or vice versa. What really makes me to listen to M9th more than M01th or any other symphony is purely a matter of personal taste. And it depends on my mood and a particular time and day as well. On one day my hands reach out M1, on another day another symphony, etc. The bottom line is, all of Mahler's outputs are equally great and important.
John,
-
No; you're wrong, wrong wrong; and I'm right, right right! Boo-hoo! - I insist! I demand! Mahler is all about me, me ME!!! I am the walrus; koo-koo-ku-choo! :(
. . . well, I was going to post something silly, but then I decided on this much more considered reply - heavily weighed on my part. Quite honestly, I love the Mahler 8th, but I would still put a cut near the beginning of Part II (the proposed cut material gets sounded verbatim later on, only with the chorus accompanying).
-
The M9 is possibly the most incredible piece of music I ever heard, and it's hard for me to tire of it. I still have problems with enjoying the third movement, but different performances teach me how to listen to it in new ways and a sense of discovery is always present...which keeps the process exciting and interesting. I agree with what Schoenberg said about the "third" person viewpoint...this seems largely true the more I listen.
Like John, I am very interested over the sound world in this work, and on top of that the motivic invention is as rigourous and exciting as Brahms. The more I listen the more I stay away from any biographical pondering behind the work (Mahler's daughter, or his marriage and etc), as the music is very much a world of it's own. The work is very much a conceptual work, almost cold and calculated...yet Mahler can't get away wtihout showing his heart on his sleeve again and again, and his mastery of orchestration smoothes the conceptual edges.
Barry, I shall return to the Karajan soon...you thoughts on this recording have inspired me to revist all the available versions.
-
If you listen to the Karajan carefully and compare it to a dozen other recordings made recently including Dohnanyi, Barenboim and even Rattle, you will immediately notice that the playing of BPO (at that time) is not really on the same high level as the other orchestras. Apart from Karajan's interpretation which I do not adore that much either for the reasons I already explained many times, the recording certainly sounds out of date; we're living in a period of superior M9ths.
OTOH, Bernstein's superb recording with RCO has nearly everything in the box. It particularly sounds glorious in the Japanese DG edition.
John,
-
I second John's high recommendation for the Japanese version of Lenny's RCO DG M9.
I am currently reviewing/revisting Karajan's two commercial M9's...will return later...
--Todd
-
I just finished listening to Karajan's two commercial M9's and I must say I enjoyed returning to his conception. His first M9 (a studio recording) is exquisite, although the first movement isn't quite up to task in comparison to his live M9. Still, there are fine details thoughout the course of the movement, such as the low bells after the climax. The highlight of the live M9 is the wide dynamic range and three earth shattering climaxes...truly exciting and devasting. The performance of II sits among the best ever recorded, as does his live version of II, in both accounts the tempos and dynamics are built towards a larger view, or seen as a large canvas. III is impressive in both recordings, due to the overall drive with most objective, eastern sounding "trio" section out there. The Adagio is vast and icey...even the climax is detached and non-judgemental. This "eastern" feeling is what I enjoy in his M9...the camara is objective here, the gods look down and weep but are not envolved (a line from Kurasawa's Ran). Karajan's M6 is similar in tone...another recording I go back to often, depite the limited sound.
As John mentioned, the sound is not as steller as the recent M9's coming out, but Karajan's conception should be in everyone's collection. HIs live commercial M9 is probably the best BPO M9 we have. I haven't yet heard the broadcast to come out of Salzberg in the early '80s...I have it but haven't reviewed it yet.
--Todd
-
Todd,
Karajan's live M9th is at its best, "INTENSELY and SMOOTHLY BEAUTIFUL". Unfortunately, he also smooths out many rough edges in the score. Further, his rhythms are not tight enough, an impression fortified by the playing of the Berlin instruments that are not always synchronized. Examples:
1st movt:
track 2, @ 55' the famous trumpet mistake!
@ 1'10'' the unison going shaky
track 3, @ 39'-50' where is the timpani?? way too weak...also several instruments are not moving together at the same pulse
track 4, @ 33' timpani is not synchronized with the rest of the orchestra (it is stricken too softly, enters a fraction of second late at one place)
etc.
Also, almost inaudible is the cymbal roll at the first and second climaxes. Very strange because it is so well projected in the studio recording. Did he change mind? The timpani which is always questionable, is unusually strong for the first and second stroke at the the return of the main theme (the third climax) but the third and fourth strokes are strangely mitigated, not to mention they are (once again) not synchronized well with the orchestra. The whole four timpani strokes, dam dam .... dam da, are lacking ominous presence and dynamic impact because the timpani is pounded "smoothly loudly". That is, it goes, da-a-m da-a-m... da-m da, instead of Dam Dam... Dam Da. OTOH, the tam tam stroke here is ridiculously loud. The whole point I am tryting to make is that Karajan's approach in the first movt. is intense and beautiful but his rhythmic attacks and phrasing are too smooth, contrary to what Mahler's score asks for, and his orchestra was not really tuning with the conductor. If you compare this recording to two other live concerts by this team made around the same year you will see what I mean.
The same thing can be said about I. & III. although in the Finale Karajan's approach finally pays off somewhat.
I'd rather listen to James Levine's equally beautiful and intense version on RCA that has all the sharp contrats and drama lacking in the Karajan.
John,
-
...one more thing.
Karajan also lacks flexibility in tempo. The start of I. is held at such a steady tempo that it doesn't quite capture the feeling of a dying man who is about to tell his life story. Karajan just feels too secured and stubborn here. After the first climax which ends in a timpani roll, he doesn't slow down the tempo either. Thus, during the zen-like passage that follows I don't feel much "zenness" and other wordliness in his phrasing. Fortunately, this was not the case in his earlier recording; his control of temp and tempo relations was better and it had more flexibility. Karajan's approach overall sounds so much more optimistic, less morbid in the live recording than in the studio one. I am not saying the studio version is without its faults (it too has a few ones), but it has a better architecture and the playing was better tuned with the sound world of this symphony.
John,
-
John,
This is where we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Although I do agree with many of your points regarding the details of Karajan's live M9, I still find it to be one of the very few that keeps a strong level of intensity up from start to finish. In my book, none of the four movements is a dud under his leadership. It's also among a small handful that manage to peg THE major climax in both of the outer movements. Personally, I don't feel that the tam-tam is too much at the climax in the first movement - Mahler writes fortissimo there. I do believe that the BPO's low brass could have been stronger at that point (historically, always a weak point with the BPO). That would have helped in keeping the gong from sticking out so much. But to counter that slight bit of underplaying, the horns really nail their low A-natural. To me, that's a very important detail. And hey; at that climax, I'll take a gong that's too loud over one that doesn't register a full fortissimo anyday! Sure, I would have liked a bit more of an accelerando at the end of the Rondo-Burlesque. But at least it's together, and it's still quite intense. I think it's a remarkable live performance, small mistakes and all. I just wish it sounded a tad better than it does.
I also can't go along with your preference for the Levine/Philadelphia one. While it does have "rougher edges" (more biting textures) - and is also better than Karajan in the details that you point out - it's simply waaaay too expansive of a reading for me. It's too much of a good thing for me - rather like hearing Celibidache in Bruckner. In fact, rather like the Giulini M9, there's a sort of heavy, Bruckner-like quality to the inner movements that I don't find appealing. It's also not that well recorded either (haven't heard the Japanese pressing). Mind you, I really do like "Philly" in Mahler. But I find both of Levine's Philadelphia Mahler recordings - M5 and M9 - to just be too much of a good thing. His M5 needs a bit less weight, and more forward drive. So do the inner movements of his M9 - in my book.
Perhaps the one M9 recording that we can both agree upon, is the pirate of Bernstein/Boston Symphony. I like his N.Y. M9 very much, but wish that the last movement were a minute or two slower. I very much like the last two movements on his Concertgebouw remake, but much less so the first two movements. The first two movements of his Concertgebouw M9 don't hold a candle to Karajan/BPO, or Chailly's Concertgebouw M9 either. But I think we both agree on the merits of Bernstein's 1979 Tangelwood performance.
-
I listened to a bit of Macal's live M9 with the Prague Symphony last night, and I really like the pace and detail in the first movement...should be interesting to hear what he changes or doesn't change in his new release.
I'm hoping he will concepualize his M9 like he did his M4...a little bit removed emotionally, but with details well heard with a flowing tempo...in other words, a kind of spiritual objectivity. Not to fast, but not bogged down either. His Prague M9 is quite good in this regard.
--Todd
-
Barry and Todd,
If you like Karajan's approach try one of the two live concerts that Karajan/BPO made around the same time as the DG recording. The playing is much better and the orchestra responded really well to Karajan's conception which is similar to what's in the DG recording. Someone who was at the concert called it (I can't recall which one it was) one of the greatest M9ths he ever heard. It's too bad that BPO was not particularly in top form when they were caught in this DG recording.
John,
-
I'm enjoying this thread very much; it's always very interesting when two quite separate entitites are put up against each other, almost playground style, and they then hammer it out. Mahler 9 v. Bruckner 9... Mahler 9 v. Mahler 10... There are other 9's out there too; anyone for Shostakovich 9? S9 v. S10? No contest, I think. [The Robert Simpson 9 is a fascinating work, if you don't know it.] I attended an excellent concert last Friday, B5 performed by the Suisse Romande, conducted by Janowski, at the Bridgewater in Manchester. Wonderful, mighty, an exploration of so many different sound worlds. Around half-way through I had the thought that there was no way that Mahler could ever have composed the Bruckner 5, and would never even have wanted to. B5 is an exercise in extended, delayed gratification, avenues explored, left behind, then revisited. No parade of emotional extremes here, no light/shade or life/death opposites. My [simple] point is this; we should be mindful of comparing these two great composers, in part based around the facts that they overlapped slightly in life, they both composed 'big' works, and they both did or did not compose 9 symphonies. I find them so utterly different in complexion and intention that I find it hard to talk about them together. Yes, of course, Bruckner does go for the emotional jugular at times, to stunnng effect, but the human psyche, love, death, and the sheer effort in being alive are what keeps me putting Mahler in the CD player. So, B9 v. M9 - a non-argument for me, I love them both, for different reasons.
-
Barry and Todd,
If you like Karajan's approach try one of the two live concerts that Karajan/BPO made around the same time as the DG recording. The playing is much better and the orchestra responded really well to Karajan's conception which is similar to what's in the DG recording. Someone who was at the concert called it (I can't recall which one it was) one of the greatest M9ths he ever heard. It's too bad that BPO was not particularly in top form when they were caught in this DG recording.
John,
I just finished listening to the Salzburg/August 1982 Karajan/BPO M9, and in every way (except the sonics) I find this a most extraordinary M9...I am so impressed I rate it as high as the Bernstein/BSO and RCO. I now understand better what John was talking about. The BPO IS more responsive here, and it makes a big difference.
First, I really like the almost perfect balance between objectivity and subjectivity that Karajan achieves...in this M9 more emotion is felt, and the second climax is perhaps even more powerful in this Salzburg concert. The sonics are of course limited, but you can still hear the M9 score is realized with more exquisite beauty and detail than his commercial releases. Yes, like John has said, the rhythm is more defined and the timpani are amazing (and arrive on cue), but so are the low brass and woodwinds. The woodwinds break through the texture memorably in sections of the second movement and the quieter sections of the Finale, in a way I haven't heard before, sounding more "flowery" or fragile when they appear, as if the players are really concentrating with each note. In any case the woodwinds weren't as buried as they sometimes are in the Finale. It's fascinating how the second movement starts with no irony, rather it sounds straight and naive...this is very effective for the building of this movement.
Second, I am a junkie for loud climaxes in the first movement, and this Salzburg concert (and his DG Gold M9) has louder climaxes than most other M9's. Ever since Barry has pointed out the low A natural in the horn during the third climax, I' am now always listening for it to show up...well it's still here in this Salzburg M9, and I think the low brass are better heard in the climaxes too, this also goes for the searing climax in the Adagio, which again is even more intense than the commercial releases, and is just as powerful as my other Bernstein favorites.
--Todd
-
Todd's description of this live recording is everything I could agree with. This is arguably the best Karajan Mahler Ninth and it's shame that DG chose to release the other one instead of this concert. Karajan's grasp of the architecture is nearly perfect but he achieves this structural unity by speeding up the outer movements:
I. 27'08"
II. 16'19"
III. 12'35"
IV. 24'48"
He still does not slow down during the first zen-like passage following the great first climax, but to my surprise he does so after the second climax. This tips the whole balance of the movt. toward the second half but thereby increases the gravity and solemnity of the music. The three climaxes are stronger and louder but the ensemble never goes shaky as it did in the DG recording. Very well done. More importantly, the playing of BPO is much improved this time with an ideal balance and crisp, rhythmic (Yes!) ensemble throughout.
I am sure DG owns an official recording of this concert. If only they decide to release the materials someday....
John,
-
. . . then again, it doesn't have fifty billion extra tracks like the "live" DG issue does. I like to zoom in those moments of poor ensemble and shakey structural integrity. Train wrecks are fun when you know they're coming.