gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: Leo K on May 23, 2008, 11:29:49 PM
-
Finally heard this yesterday in SACD stereo, on headphones (Grado SR80's)...
How beautifully recorded this M6 is! The structure and concept is consistantly executed and passionately played thoughout! The second hammerblow gave me chills!
I seriously feel this Gergiev is a contender against my current top M6's...Haitink's 2004 LSO broadcast and Sanderling's searing account (now out of print I think)...
Gergiev presents a convincing A/S order as well, the most convincing yet (although it's hard to explain why...perhaps it is just my excitement talking). I do wish Gergiev had recorded the S/A order...but thats easily solved thanks to modern technology (yet I tend to play the movement order the way the conducter recorded/concieved it).
--Todd
-
By the way...Barry and Dave Hurwitz's reviews cover what I love about this recording...rhythm well captured, great pacing overall, good balances, convincing structure and etc...
And the first movement is not as fast I thought it would be.
And...the LSO may just be my preferred orchestra for M6. Gonna relisten to the Levine LSO M6 tonight.
--Todd
-
"Come to the dark side of the force, Luke". ;)
I like how Gergiev rushes towards the first hammerstroke, but then approaches the second one with great trepidation. That shows some planning and intelligence (I think). I also think that his M6 has one of the best scherzos out there. As scherzos go, it's not just "there" - sitting around like an over-inflated minuet movement, taking up time and space. It actually has some tension and contrast (imagine that!).
Barry
-
Yes, Gergiev's treatment of the hammerstrokes are deeply moving to say the least. His treatment of the whole Finale blows me away, and the details, thanks to the LSO, reveal parts of the score I've never heard. The musical "line" thoughout the whole 28 minutes was 100% convincing to me...no sagging bottom here.
The scherzo really breaks the mood of the andante drastically, since Gergiev/LSO doesn't pull any punches...and there is a flow that helps to keep attention in every section...preventing the "waiting for the good parts" syndrome I sometimes get with performances.
The andante is Karajan-level stuff...no, it's miles better than Karajan thanks to the beauty of the brass :)
--Todd
-
Very well put.
I have only two constructive criticisms to make: a bit more woodwinds here and there could have been helpful. Second, I would have preferred that the final A-minor outburst at the very, VERY end of the symphony, be executed just a tad slower. Other than that, no complaints. I don't even find the first movement to be too fast, as some folks insist.
B.
-
Yes, I see your points there Barry...
The first movement tempo is just right...not more shocking than the Levi (which I haven't heard in awhile). I was also reminded of Lenny's DG M6...but Gergiev has more gusto and more thought out tempi choices if I remember correctly. Gergiev's is just as dark and alarming at every turn...if not more, yet the "heroic" character marches on...creating an excellant constrast to the dark elements (Sanderling is great at this as well...but the sound of his CD cannot match this new Gergiev account).
Love the snare in the first movement as well...nuanced playing and well recorded.
--Todd
-
I listened to the Gergiev/LSO Mahler 1, 2 & 3 broadcasts on BBC Radio 3 a few months ago and didn't like them at all. I am intrigued that you like Gergiev's Sxith so much.
-
I listened to the Gergiev/LSO Mahler 1, 2 & 3 broadcasts on BBC Radio 3 a few months ago and didn't like them at all. I am intrigued that you like Gergiev's Sxith so much.
I haven't heard those broadcasts, but I can confirm that his LSO M6 is mighty fine... :)
--Todd
-
I once heard a live M9th by Gergiev that was broadcast in May, 2008. It was a superb Mahler Ninth, fast, volatile but well balanced with biting brass and percussion all around.
John,
-
This is yet another illustration of the value of reading postings originally made weeks or months ago.
After reading Todd's and later Barry's comments about the Gergiev/LSO Live M6, I just had to hear it too.
Got it today, just finished listening to it, and I may have a new favorite M6.
The scherzo really kept moving--never stumbled, and had me waving my arms conducting the music.
Although I listened to it on my regular equipment (not SACD), the sound was remarkable.
I don't think the fact that it was a live recording prejudiced me to think it sounded more alive. It really did keep flowing with no shortcomings.
Thanks to all who advocated for this outstanding M6.
--John H
-
John,
On the contrary, I was not terribly impressed with the sound of the Gergiev M6th SACD. The main problem was lack of details that I usually expect to hear in modern digital recordings. Tthe whole performance sounded small scaled, somewhat microscopic.
John,
-
Good point, John,
I am continually reminded of how subjective our experiences can be.
Perhaps it sounded so good to me because I was outside, enjoying the fresh air on my patio. Perhaps even, I made allowances for "smaller" sound, because I had in mind that I was outside in ambient noise. Another factor could be that I was just in a good, relaxed mood. Yet another factor could be that I've spent a lot of time listening to M6 versions for the past week or so. Thus, maybe I was preconditioned to hear more than usual.
--John H
-
Obviously, I like Gergiev's M6 very much. However, I did feel that a fair amount of woodwind detail got covered over. But to compensate for that, the LSO brass and percussion did an outstanding job on this particular outing. I'm extremely impressed with their (French)horn section. At times, the miking is simply too close to the percussion. But hey, at least they play really well.
Barry
-
Good point, John,
I am continually reminded of how subjective our experiences can be.
Perhaps it sounded so good to me because I was outside, enjoying the fresh air on my patio. Perhaps even, I made allowances for "smaller" sound, because I had in mind that I was outside in ambient noise. Another factor could be that I was just in a good, relaxed mood. Yet another factor could be that I've spent a lot of time listening to M6 versions for the past week or so. Thus, maybe I was preconditioned to hear more than usual.
--John H
I had a similar experience! I was in a real great mood, and this disk just blew me away (the performance and the sound of the SACD layer)...I thought the balances were really good overall...and thought this recording to be atmospheric!
It is amazing how impressions can be so different!
--Todd
-
In this link http://www.avro.nl/web/avro_klassiek/luisterkamer/keuzeconcert/mahler.aspx
you can download M6 with Gergiev and Rotterdam orchestra from a concert in September 18/1994.
The scherzo is second, and then Andante. Timings
83.43
I.23.35
II.13.30
III.16.20
VI.30
I have the LSO M6 but not hear yet. My opinion later
-
The LSO one is definitely quicker in the inner two movements, which I like. Remember, the slow movement is NOT an adagio - regardless of where it gets placed.
Barry
-
At last I listen to Gergiev's M6.
He is praised to the sky for this recording-and M1. But i do not find this performance special.
I agree with John Kim: small scale and microscopic. Tempos are OK. The sound as for instrumental timbre OK. But the sound overall( space,dynamic range etc) not good at all. All the cd in LSO series suffer from dry sound and claustophobic perception.
The first movement is anything but wild or menacing. This is a valid view-somehow jolly.
In the Andante some times I thought that i was listening to Ravel. Not Alpine meadows and lakes in this performance.
For the great climaxes of the finale there are better, more convincing solutions.
And so I have a big question: Is Gergiev a natural Mahlerian? Or there is a necessity to do Mahler for fashion, because crowds want this.
I had also listened to a M9 broadcast. Pretty decent as M6 and 1. But revelation no.
Gergiev played M6 here, with Mariinsky, 4-5years ago. Also 6 months ago M1 and 4 with LSO. I did not attend these concerts but the critics were somehow lukewarm.
And I also have some doubts about Jansons. I have heard him live in M2 and M1. He was just to plain. No vision, no passion, no emotional involvement, no fin de siecle decadence.
So maybe it's something with the Russian school. Fedoseyev, whom I heard in M9, was pretty bad. I like Kodrashin's M1 very much-I grown up with this.
And so we will see how Gergiev's Mahler will continue.As for M6 performances I like and reccoment these are: Bernstein VPO, Haitink first RCOA, Inbal, Karajan, Chailly and for Gergiev's substitute Solti.
-
Is Gergiev a natural Mahlerian?
What is a natural Mahlerian? What does one look like? What does a natural do when they're not conducting Mahler? Seriously, why is it that when someone performs a composer in a manner that is not pleasing to us, we suddenly question whether they're a natural or not? If the sound of a recording is claustrophobic, or something sounds too small scaled or "microscopic", how is that that prevents the conductor from being a natural? What if the performances were recorded in the Concertgebouw, and recorded by someone other than James Mallinson (who I still claim isn't anywhere near being the best)? Why is it that we never question whether James Mallinson is a natural Mahlerian or not? Certainly, he's as much responsible for how a recording turns out as Gergiev himself is - especially in a "live" situation. Is the Barbican a natural Mahler concert hall (clearly not)? Is the LSO necessarily the most idiomatic sounding orchestra for Mahler out there (also, clearly not the case - although, I really enjoy the way they play)?
I also question this business about "small scale". The orchestration is the orchestration. The dynamics on the page are the dynamics. Turn your stereo way up loud; and suddenly, ANY performance sounds large scale enough. If the performances don't please you, fine - that's fair enough. But let's get away from this cliche' business of whether someone is a natural this or that. I still claim that if you dig deeper under the surface (and granted, there's a lot of surface there), you'll hear that there's more guiding intelligence behind Gergiev's Mahler - so far, that is - than you might suspect.
In the scherzo of M6, for example, listen to how sudden tempo shifts turn on a dime - as they should! Listen to how spooky and scary sound effects throughout the scherzo are, indeed, spooky and/or scary (imagine that!). In the finale, listen to how Gergiev rushes head-first towards the first hammer stroke - with complete blind optimism - yet approaches the second one with great trepidation (i.e. slow). Listen to how tiered and gradual Gergiev's winding down of the finale is, after the "false victory parade" tune (I'm quoting myself) gets sounded - the one that finally puts a cap on the last Allegro "charge" section (just before the spot where the third hammerstroke is sometimes reinstated). Listen to just how slow he takes the dirge for low brass near the end of the symphony, as well as the oily vibrato he gets from the LSO trombone players. All of this demonstrates a decent amount of intelligence behind all that bluster. That's to say nothing of the fact that Gergiev has given us one of the greatest and most animated portrayals of an eastern Europe village band ever (slow movement of M1). Maybe not the best, but certainly not bad.
Barry
-
What is a natural Mahlerian?
There is no need to have some hypernatural skills, to anticipate this question. I expect it. And the answer is not straight and clear, so maybe the other side have some points. And also looks( the "natural" term) like clise.It is. But everyone, maybe also you Barry, uses this clise: Hungarians for Bartok, Russian and Finns for Shostakovich and Sibelius etc. This is not an excuse for my point. I believe something from what i heard.
So I have to say that "natural" Mahlerian doesn't "look like" but sounds like. Not someone whom we like and baptised as such( say Bernstein, Haitink, Tenstedt, Abbado....),but someone who has his diferrent point of view and can move us to listen with new ears AND transport us to the world of Mahler.
So "natural" maybe is a bad, unhistoric,not politically correct term. We live in multiculture world after all. And is quite unjustice for all artists.
I take back the 'natural" term, and continue to feel that Gergiev's M6 is not top, not bad but we can go without this.
As for the recording: I agree with all the points of Barry. Maybe in another hall, maybe with another sound engineer, maybe in another performance........Of course, exactly this is the essential point of music making: transformation within every single performance. Even the listener listens with his very objective way.
And yes, I listen very-very loud, in realistic levels. I allways used to listen this way( I have a quite nice stereo and very kind and loveable neighbors).
And the recording is bad. The recording, the reproduction of the real event is smallscale and not Mahler's 6th symphony.( Can anyone believe this for M6?)
-
Fair enough. But just as a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, a conductor is sometimes just a conductor. In other words, we sometimes put expectations upon a conductor that rank right up with those we place on an NFL quarterback (here in the colonies, that is). By the way, I really enjoyed the BBC 3 broadcast of Gergiev's M8 from St. Paul's Cathedral (I'll definitely get the CD, when available), and greatly look forward to his quick tempi in the latter movements of M7. Just an FYI.
Barry
-
I felt pretty mixed about gergiev's LSO 6. My big complaint is his giving the tympanist far too much leeway, so it was moving towards giving the work a bit of a bashing.
I felt the same about his M1, whereas m7 seemed to me to suit the approach, tho he had toned it down a might anyway.
Ivor
-
I feel that Mallinson's microphone placement is picking up too much of the timpani in general. It might also be that Gergiev is allowing the LSO timpanist to overplay the dynamics printed for him. In Mahler, it's extremely important to make clear distinctions between mezzo-forte, forte, and fortissimo. A conductor has to insist upon that. But in the case of the 6th symphony, a bit of overzelous effort from the timpanist isn't such a bad thing, particularly in the finale.
One reason why I always find it a struggle to enjoy the Chicago Symphony in Mahler, is that their trumpets constantly make little or no distinction between various grades of forte either. David says that that is at least partly a function, or by-product, of the relatively shallow stage at Chicago's Orchestra Hall. That makes sense to me. I've always enjoyed their recordings from Medinah Temple more. But I think that also raises this question: why not reseat the trumpets off to the side, away from the trombones, and allow the CSO's poor, suffering horn section to be seated in the center of the back row? I would certainly try that.
Barry
-
[Pedant alert}
(No, it doesn't 'beg the question'; it 'raises the question', or equivalent. 'Begs the question', tho often used that way, actually has a specific, other meaning - assuming as true the thing you're setting out to prove. petitio principi)
[End of pedant alert]. [It's a quest thing.]
Ivor
-
[Pedant alert}
(No, it doesn't 'beg the question'; it 'raises the question', or equivalent. 'Begs the question', tho often used that way, actually has a specific, other meaning - assuming as true the thing you're setting out to prove. petitio principi)
[End of pedant alert]. [It's a quest thing.]
Ivor
OK, this just has to get my current-week Humor in Mahlerboard Posts vote.
"John Haueisen would appreciate."
-PT
-
OK, it "raises the question". I'll go back and "modify" my response :P