gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: barry guerrero on October 16, 2010, 03:00:40 AM
-
Interesting that the first movement is over 25 minutes, but that the finale clocks in at less than 22 minutes. That may very well be to my liking. No sound samples yet.
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Gustav-Mahler-Symphonie-Nr-10-Fassung-nach-Cooke/hnum/4560696
-
I definitely like those timings, especially the Finale. Nice cover too...here's hoping sound sample will be up somewhere soon.
--Todd
-
If the ad is correct, it is the Cooke version. Does anyone have an explanation?
-
If the ad is correct, it is the Cooke version. Does anyone have an explanation?
Surely a mistake, perhaps based on a presumption. David Zinman's own website, his blog, and SA-CD.net all confirm that it's the Carpenter version.
James
-
No, it's the Carpenter version. Zinman was interviewed on the subject. Not to worry.
-
The tempo description for the fourth movement caught my eye: "Allegro pesante". As if the piece isn't already hard to bring alive in certain moments, why add another piece to the puzzle. I think it's Carpenter's addition, as can't remember reading it anywhere else ...
-
Interesting that the first movement is over 25 minutes, but that the finale clocks in at less than 22 minutes. That may very well be to my liking. No sound samples yet.
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Gustav-Mahler-Symphonie-Nr-10-Fassung-nach-Cooke/hnum/4560696
I don’t have the Litton timings with me, but Zinman’s seem to be in line with them. You’d expect the two scherzos to be played more flexibly and deliberately (and longer overall) than a Cooke since there is so much more scoring. The finale should have a faster overall time than a Cooke because Carpenter has the opening part played more swiftly (IIRC I read this in a Mahler Archive article).
I am excited for this release, but will have to put aside my strong feeling that no one could possibly better Litton’s version.
-
I don’t have the Litton timings with me, but Zinman’s seem to be in line with them.
Zinman – 25:37, 13:24, 4:03, 13:42, 21:47
Litton – 26:13, 13:10, 4:13, 14:19, 20:50
James
-
I'm very happy at the thought of having another Carpenter edition recording in the M10 catalogue.
--Todd
-
A sincere question - what about the Carpenter version do proponents find convincing/compelling?
-
A sincere question - what about the Carpenter version do proponents find convincing/compelling?
From a general standpoint, I like that the orchestration is more substantial. Even if some of it is not particularly Mahlerian (especially certain parts of the second movement), I still feel that it is well done. Litton states in his liner notes that he made numerous changes to Carpenters' version, so I am never certain what is strictly Carpenter and what is Litton. I should also tell you that I think Litton is a fine Mahlerian and that the Dallas SO is an excellent Mahler orchestra.
I typed the following in a recent thread (which I am cutting and pasting):
Despite my love of the overall Carpenter/Litton (“C/L”) version, their second movement is very much over-orchestrated – although at least it is FULLY orchestrated. That would be my main complaint about the Cooke version – it is too bare – even though the entirety of his effort is monumental, worthwhile, and highly enjoyable. Mazzetti has some interesting ideas, but is not generally preferable to the above two. I have very little praise about Wheeler or Barshai in any of the final four movements (and have not re-listened to S-M yet).
Ironically, it seems that much of the critical complaining is about the second scherzo (fourth movement), which I think is fabulously done by either C/L or Cooke (especially Cooke II with the snare drums).
Barry, many of your recommendations are easy to imagine (hear in my head)– and I very enthusiastically agree with those. If I had time, money, and any ability, I would love to start with the C/L version and scale back or replace (i.e. with ideas from the other existing versions) some of the things that don’t work for me. For example, in the C/L finale I am perfectly thrilled with the last 6+ minutes through to the end. However, I would add back the Cooke II treatment of the music after the dissonant trumpet music dissipates. C/L goes directly to the strings from this point to the end, but Cooke starts out with some brass and winds first before shifting to the strings – which makes for more of a transitional development. So I like Cooke’s idea for this first spot but much prefer everything Litton does through the end: the very Mahlerian use of dynamic and tempi changes, the use of the bass drum in critical spots (and I think that there is a tam-tam underneath that final bass drum thump about 30 seconds before the end). C/L gives M10-5 the Mahlerian ending I would expect.
I also like the changes C/L make to the first movement as well as the efforts to make the M10-3 Purgatorio repeat into something special (i.e. not a literal repeat).
-
Russ,
I don't think that many of us would say that Carpenter is necessarily better. But I think that fans of the Carpenter version appreciate that it's a much more "completed" version. It's almost more like a fantasy. You might want to get acquainted with Alban Berg's "Three Pieces For Orch.", as Carpenter definitely aims in that direction in certain spots. "Wozzeck" is certainly another important "post Mahler" work to know.
Barry