gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: barry guerrero on December 21, 2013, 04:46:58 AM
-
Come to Papa! OK, the earlier recordings in the cycle that didn't get the Emil Berliner treatment - whatever the heck that is! - now have received the E.B. treatment and indeed sound better. The problem child of the cycle - for me, that is - "Das Lied von der Erde", now sounds far better than in the original issue. Urmana doesn't sound so up close, and I can hear more small detail in the orchestration. The gong sounds pretty good during the funereal, orchestral interlude (I could hardly hear it in the original). The recording doesn't sound quite so dark, cloudy and 'clotted' now. The ending of the "Resurrection" symphony still doesn't have enough organ, but the alternating salvos between the two gongs and the three 'tiefe glocken' at the end of the symphony just sound great. Life is great! I love you all - run out and get yourself a Boulez Mahler box.
OK, I've regathered my senses. More to the point, I really like the layout of this box set. Of course, it helps that Boulez is able to get most of the symphony performances on to one disc (only M3 and M8 take up two discs). Everything is here: "DLvdE", "DKW", "DKL", the three shorter song cycles - everything. Even that dumb "Totenfeier" is here.
-
Note that Boulez has withdrawn from his scheduled CSO appearances in February, for health reasons. This morning, WFMT mentioned the withdrawal along with what sounded like an obituary, as though they expected he would never conduct here again.
-
Hopefully it's nothing more serious than a seasonal flu. Funny, because I've been thinking about Boulez a bit lately, and I've even been trying to learn (listen, not play) some of his works. I've also been reading some of the back-and-forth debating over the merits of Boulez as both a composer and a conductor. There's no denying that he's greatly a product of the late '40s and '50s. And, there seems to be no denying that he's had a hold on serious art music in France since that time. But I also feel that for all the complaining about how stiff and indifferent he looks as a conductor, there's an underlying generosity of spirit that seems to come through it all. I also find that he makes modern, 'bleep-blop' music sound more logical and inevitable than just about anybody else out there. He knows how to organize sound, whether tonal or atonal. I like the man.
While Boulez's approach to Mahler certainly isn't the only way to go, I like that he treats Mahler as a modern composer who just happened to be a tonal one as well. There's sort of a 'big picture' goal that he always keeps in mind.
I only have one complaint of Boulez as a musical intellect, and that's that he won't, or can't, extend that generosity of spirit to Shostakovich. Then again, there are plenty of Brucknerian 'spiritualists' who can't or won't embrace Mahler into their musical, intellectual or spiritual spheres either (just as there are more than a few Mahlerians who look down on Bruckner).
More thoughts on Boulez and Mahler. Boulez has described Mahler's music as both "epic and narrative" in quality. I like it that Boulez doesn't overlay his own narrative upon Mahler's narrative (Tilson-Thomas!). He tries to stay neutral - maybe too much so. But that also allows what Mahler wrote to speak for itself (which it can and does do). If we're going to approach Mahler by focusing or over-focusing upon conductors, I rather like Gary Bertini, who, IMHO, combines the clarity and precision of Boulez with the more innate, 'let's live for the moment' approach of a Bernstein. It seems to me that several young up-and-coming Mahlerians, such as Markus Stenz or Jonathan Nott, are trying to follow that type of path. I guess that's just inevitable.
Everyone - including that imbecile Norman Lebrecht - keeps predicting nothing but 'doom and gloom' for symphony orchestras, as well as the total end of the Mahler boom. But guess what? - that ain't happening. If dour, old Leipzig can turn into a Mahler town, any place can.
-
In general, I find that performances and recordings from late in Boulez' career seem bland and fail to take flight. I used to have a reel-to-reel tape of a broadcast concert from the early '70s with Boulez leading the Cleveland Orchestra in a fire-breathing "Miraculous Mandarin" (complete). By comparison, his NY Phil and CSO recordings are a pale shadow.
On the other hand, several years ago here in Chicago Boulez conducted a "Bluebeard's Castle" that was superb in every way.
Whenever his career ends, and I hope that is not soon, it will be a loss to the music world.
-
This box is good news Barry, thanks for the review! I don't have the song cycles as conducted by Boulez (except DLvdE) so this may be a good investment at somepoint. By the way, I love Boulez's DLvdE, so that's another reason for me.
--Todd
-
If you love Boulez's "DLvdE", it definitely sounds better in the box. I listened to the M3 the other night, and it sounded wonderful. And if you don't care about the organ, the end of M2 is amazing.
-
If you love Boulez's "DLvdE", it definitely sounds better in the box. I listened to the M3 the other night, and it sounded wonderful. And if you don't care about the organ, the end of M2 is amazing.
I may have to investigate this box - I have the M3 on SACD but recall Dave Hurwitz claiming the CD sounded better... I used to have the M4-M7 also but let them go for some reason. Never heard the DLvdE. I agree the M2 is a very good (often swift) performance with a superb ending (especially the attack on the last chord).
-
I have the original release for Das Lied and I've always liked it, same for M6 and 9. I find the end of his M2 to be a disaster, regardless of how great the VPO sounds in this recording! (Climax? What climax?), I may look into this box as a way to fill out the set and bonus is the Das Lied sounds better.
I also can't understand loving Bruckner but not Mahler, or vice-versa, or Shostakovich. But there you go. ???
-
I just listened again to the Boulez M3 tonight at The Musical Offering (haven't bought the box yet), and it just sounds fabulous. Like Horenstein, Boulez sort of conducts the third all in one tempo (I'm exaggerating, but you know what I mean). But gosh, what playing!!
I also like the little brass 'lick' that Boulez adds towards the end of the "bim-bam" movement. He has the brass double the children's chorus for a few brass with the, "you can trust your car to the man who wears the star" theme (old Texaco commercial). I've never heard it on any other recording.
-
That brass lick isn't actually Boulez's addition. I believe it's Mahler's first edition of the score that Boulez used in the recording (the score is downloadable from IMSLP, for your reference). But Boulez seems to be the only one using the first edition because you can't hear this detail in any other recording, as Barry has pointed out.
-
Interesting. Do you know of any other significant differences? I generally have a good ear for catching minor differences in versions, editions, etc.
And speaking of first versions, I wish that somebody would record the COMPLETE first version of Mahler's 6th symphony. I remember when Telarc first issued the Ben. Zander M6, they put on a sticker advertising it to be the first recording of the 'original version'. It aint. Zander simply reverted to first version for the few bars surrounding the third hammer-stroke (instead of simply reinserting the hammer into the revised version). I 'called out' Telarc on this issue, and they soon left off the sticker.
I believe that F. Charles Adler might have recorded the first version, but it's been decades since I've heard it.
Is "Umbernistitani" a reference to Bernstein in some way? Just askin'.
-
Besides the brass lick I don't think there are other significant textural differences in the two versions of M3 (at least I don't hear anything else different between the Boulez recording and others).
I don't know about the first version of M6 (except, of course, the 3rd hammer blow), could you please elaborate as to what is different between the first version and the later versions? I am aware that Bernstein inserted the 3rd hammer blow 10 bars before where it ought to be (that is, at the climactic return to the A minor tonality on figure 164) in his DG M6; could this be a different version that he used, or he just felt that it was musically more sensible to put it there? (I do.)
And speaking of Bernstein, I didn't think of Bernstein when I "coined" the word "Umbernisitani" when I was young (I didn't know about Bernstein then)--indeed, the word hasn't any meaning; rather, it's my personal signature that I use as an alias mostly everywhere on the web. :P
-
I don't know about the first version of M6 (except, of course, the 3rd hammer blow), could you please elaborate as to what is different between the first version and the later versions? I am aware that Bernstein inserted the 3rd hammer blow 10 bars before where it ought to be (that is, at the climactic return to the A minor tonality on figure 164) in his DG M6; could this be a different version that he used, or he just felt that it was musically more sensible to put it there? (I do.)
umbernisitani,
The differences between the two published versions of Mahler 6 are quite significant. To quote Henry-Louis de La Grange:
"Mahler's avowed aim was to clarify with Retuschen the 'essence of the work.' This he did in more than one way, not only by lightening the instrumentation, but also by clarifying the voice-leading, crossing out some doublings, making the rhythm more precise and the musical substance more immediately apprehensible." (de La Grange, Volume 3, p. 810)
La Grange then goes on to detail many specific changes—the orchestra lost its tambourine and slapstick among other things. Fortunately, the scores to both versions are readily available for reference: the Eulenberg and Dover study scores both reflect the original published version, while the current Critical Edition (C.F. Peters, 2009, ed. Kubik) represents the official "final version," at least for now.
As to Bernstein's eccentric placement of the third hammer blow, it is—so far as I know—unique to his DG recording. Clearly it was Bernstein's idea, not Mahler's. Musically, of course, Bernstein's placement is in line with the first two blows, but I think Mahler wanted No. 3 to come as a shock, just after it seemed fate had been cheated.
James
-
Thank you James. I was going to point out that the majority of people running around with a score of M6 are unwittingly looking at the first version, since most of them would own - as you have made clear - the Dover Edition (which comes with M5) or the Eulenberg. There's quite a bit more percussion in the first version, and the brass parts are even a bit beefier in places.
The passage I would like to hear in its first version form is the one I like to refer to as, 'the false victory parade'. It's the brief passage located immediately before the one that builds up to the forte tam-tam smash which then, in turn, leads on to the third hammer stroke. In the first version, the horns in this passage - who play a very banal 'victory' tune, like a marching band - are doubled by the trombones. The victory tune is accompanied by one set timpani playing the all crucial 'fate' rhythm. I have always felt that this passage is completely screwed up in the revised version. This passage is the culmination of everything that all of that back-and-forth charging, retreating and charging again. I would like to hear it with the horns doubled by the trombones (horns fortissimo, trombones forte) - maybe even make them stand - and with a lot more percussion.
-
I believe that F. Charles Adler might have recorded the first version, but it's been decades since I've heard it.
Unfortunately, the Adler recording of M6 is not the first version; it's the final version in whatever Critical Edition existed at the time. It's a bit of a mess as a performance—Adler's M3 is much stronger.
I'm pretty sure the first published version of M6 has never been recorded.
James
-
Unfortunately, the Adler recording of M6 is not the first version; it's the final version in whatever Critical Edition existed at the time. It's a bit of a mess as a performance—Adler's M3 is much stronger.
James
To me, the final movement of Adler's M3 is the best I've ever heard - though slow and the playing is a tad rocky at times, it has the most heartfelt playing I've ever heard of this music. I have yet to hear his M6, and it's no longer available from Amazon. :'(
Wade
-
I picked up the Boulez box recently. My only disappointment is that Henry-Louis de La Grange's notes were not reproduced. I may keep my individual discs (Syms. 1, 6, 7, and 9) simply because of the fine notes. Thanks for the heads up on the quality, Barry. Overall, I liked his cycle. Despite his rep of being a sort of anti-Bernstein, most of the symphonies have plenty of power and sweep. My main problem is the M6's hammerblows. He almost seems embarrassed by them. Bring them on!
-
Yeah, you're right about that. Your point about De La Grange's notes is a real good one too. Sorry about that.
You know, I kind of like having at least one M6 recording where the hammer strokes don't knock you out of the room. I sort of figure that we ALL know what strong hammer strokes sound like these days. At least Boulez employs the optional cymbals and tam-tam on the second stroke (bass drum doubling isn't optional). It has always sort of bugged me that Chailly passes on the cymbal and tam-tam doubling of the second stroke. I'm not sure, but I think he might even take out the bass drum.
On his last go-around, Abbado did the opposite: he added tam-tam on the first stroke, as well as the second. I thought that was kind of weird as well. Most of the time it's just better to do what the score tells you to do.