gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: John Kim on July 09, 2008, 03:04:08 AM
-
I'd say it's M6 Scherzo. I have never heard a fully satisfactory performance of it, except that Rattle/CBSO/EMI comes pretty close. The recent Gergiev/LSO is very good too. But I still have to find an ideal - what I think is ideal - realization of the movt. Conductors simply don't have a good idea how this the most peculiar of all Mahler's scherzos should go, and are too eager to get it over with producing boringly monotonous music here. There are contrasts to be employed in this movt. I mean, contrasts in tempo, mood and balance. Haitink/RCO/Philips M6 from 1960's had a pretty good scherzo too because Haitink skillfully changed these things between different sections. I think M7 Scherzo movt. is also subject to similar traps, albeit to a lesser degree.
A close second would be M3:IV. The melody being somewhat elusive, the background orchestra sparingly supportive, its success absolutely depends on the singer and conductor. Again, I have never come across an ideal realization. But I can happily live with Levine/Horne/CSO/RCA.
Some might say M7:V is the most notoriously difficult to bring off, but IMO there are many fine recordings out there.
Which ones are your picks?
John,
-
That's a good question. Initially I'd probably say M7, Mov. V, because it's the toughest one to "sell."
But I've been thinking that M8 Movement I would be most difficult. There's so much going on. You have to generate a huge climax at the end of the movement, but it's NOT that end of the piece. I'm a poor judge, since I can only barely read an orchestral score...
-
I agree that the scherzo from M6 is one of the toughest Mahler movements to conduct, as well as to make convincing for the audience. It's actually quite difficult to deal with all the meter changes (there are many) throughout the various trio sections, as well all the sudden shifts in tempo that Mahler calls for (again, there are many). I would also include the second and third movements of M5 in a short list of "hard to conduct" movements - the second one in particular.
its success (M3/IV) absolutely depends on the singer and conductor.
I don't totally agree with that. I would say that success in M3/IV is as much dependent on how together the unison low strings are at the beginning and end of the movement (that's harder than you might suspect), in addition to just how well the brass can handle all of Mahler's soft, high (in pitch), and sustained writing for them throughout the movement, as it is on the conductor and singer. One bad night from the solo trombone or horns can completely ruin it. The conductor can only cue them - he can't play the parts for them. That's why there are still nights when Mahler defeats everyone involved (although, that happens far less seldom these days). The harp part is very important too in M3/IV.
You might not care for Petra Lang, but I feel that the vocal and orchestral parts are extremely well integrated in M3/IV on the Chailly recording. Zinman struck me as being pretty good here as well.
-
Not exactly the same thing, but I've found myself most often most dissatisfied with how M6/I and M7/III are handled, so kind of the same neighborhood as with you guys but not quite the same spot. Or actually I'd say that it's usually the opening movement that's most difficult to pull off, as far as my interpretive preferences go. Some like Karajan, Muti, and Rattle have really rubbed my ears the wrong way with these and I've never been able to listen to the music the same way again. Kind of like negative habituation.
PT
-
I think we need to draw a distinction between what movements you find least satsifactory in performance, and question, which asks which movement is the most difficult. There's a big difference between what may or may not satisfy you, and the absolute difficulty of playing a particular piece of music. I don't think there's much question about which Mahler symphony is the most difficult to play on the whole--it's the Fifth. Barry notes the difficulties in the second movement and scherzo, and I would also add the finale. One reason might be found in the statistic that this is Mahler's longest symphony in terms of bar-length, but one of the shorter ones in absolute playing time. That means lots of bars, lots of notes, mostly in quick tempos.
Furthermore, the relentlessly contrapuntal textures make the piece difficult to balance, and particularly exhausting for the strings (and also the brass, though not for the same reason). Just think of how much busy passage-work there is from the second movement on! In this symphony the string writing comes close to Nielsen's extremely difficult ensemble work in the Fourth and Fifth Symphonies, but it goes on for double or triple the length of those works. And let's not forget the crucial solos for trumpet in the first movement, and horn in the third. Then there are the interpretive issues--the tempos of the scherzo and (most famously) the Adagietto, and the relationships between the interlinked first and second, and fourth and fifth movements. It's a nest of problems.
As to the scherzo of the Sixth, it's not really that difficult (the tempo is moderate in the trios, which have most of the changes of meter), and it presents no difficulties that can't be resolved pretty easily in rehearsal. Rhythm is almost never a problem in Mahler; he's a much more foursquare composer than, say, Strauss. There's nothing in his music on the level of complexity of, say, Till Eulenspiegel. Mahler's problems are ones of endurance, ensemble balance, sensitivity to dynamics and color, and the fact that his parts are always so clear and exposed that mistakes show up as if spotlit.
Dave H
-
Dave,
A very nice point you made here.
What I meant in my question was strictly from an audience's perspective. That is, which movt. sounds the least convincing unless the conductor and the orchestra really pull it off? It may not necessarily be technically the most difficult movt. to play. I certainly don't feel M5th II. or V. belongs in this category, although I agree that M5th may be the most difficult to perform. To me it's still M6 Scherzo that sounds endlessly repetitious and boring in most conductors' hands. M3 IV. comes second - it's hard to grasp the meaning by listening to what's going on in the score only; I have to stretch my mind and hear "between the lines" filling up the gaps. Levine's Chicago recording helps me do this because he lets the strings create truly otherworldly sound in their high notes. Pauses he takes are also apt in the same regard. Marilyn Horne also goes deep into her voice adding gravity and profundity. Very nicely done. But I am not really happy with most of recordings in this movt.
John,
-
Yep, I was going to say exactly the same as you John. M6 Scherzo.
The problem is you only fully realize how difficult it is to perform the movement in its full glory until you hear an outstanding reading of it, such as Rattle's.
My other candidate is M7 scherzo, and I've only recently really discovered the movement's potential also in the hands of Rattle. Not in his official version, but in a 1999 concert with the BPO. Nothing comes even close to this performance, I'd dare to say in all movements.
I can upload it somewhere if there are some people interested.
Regards,
Cris.
-
Chris,
As I said, M7: III. is similarly subject to the traps. For example, the trio sections sound as if nothing in most recordings; maybe the conductors are just content with the spooky atmosphere of the music overall thinking that there doesn't need to be anything beyond that. You indicated Rattle's live BPO concert and I will second it. Two other versions worth mentioning in this regard are Adrian Leaper/Fran Canaria Orch./Arte Nova and Ozawa/BSO/Philips. At the very least, these conductors make the trio sections distinguish from the rest by playing them in a markedly slow tempo and imparting a rustic, romantic feel to them. Quite nice.
John,
-
Yes, the trios are problematic in most M7 III recordings, but I think I find the most troublesome issue the rhythmic accentuation of the movement. I like it VERY exaggerated and irregular. Rattle delivers that and not only using the percussion, but the whole orchestra to that effect.
Also the phantasmagoric nature of the movement and the bizarreness of the waltz episodes are extremely well emphasized.
-
Chris,
You are quite right about M7: III. If the conductor doesn't differentiate enough all the elements you mentioned, it can sound strangely monotonic. Basically, the movt. is a nonstop ride from beginning to end and the only places to slow down and take a deep breath in are the trios. Hence, to me any performance that doesn't (or can't?) relax in the trios is a letdown.
John,
-
Chris,
You are quite right about M7: III. If the conductor doesn't differentiate enough all the elements you mentioned, it can sound strangely monotonic. Basically, the movt. is a nonstop ride from beginning to end and the only places to slow down and take a deep breath in are the trios. Hence, to me any performance that doesn't (or can't?) relax in the trios is a letdown.
John,
This is most odd. Have you taken a moment to look at what Mahler wrote? In the scherzo of the Seventh there is no indication to slow down or "relax" for the trio sections at all. Indeed, the only tempo adjustments Mahler requires in the trio are those sudden interjections "piu mosso"--that is, to speed up--and an occasional "nicht eilen" ("don't rush"). If anything, the trio section should sound just as quirky and edgy as the more smoothly flowing waltz sections, but either way Mahler clearly wants the entire movement played in a single basic tempo, subject only to that natural elasticity indicated by these small inflections for expressive purposes. The contrasts are built into the different thematic material, the scoring, the dynamics. and above all the rhythm (triplet movement in eighth notes for the waltz vs. simple quarters for the trio). This allows for plenty of the necessary variety.
Dave H
-
Obviously, you're absolutely correct, David, in terms of what's printed in the score. However, there's been a recent tendency to take the scherzo proper, really, REALLY fast - disregarding Mahler's indication not to take this movement too quickly. That forces the conductor to take the so-called trio sections slower. Personally, I feel that this movement pretty much takes care of itself. But that said, I do like it when the conductor speeds up a tad for that crazy sounding, merry-go-round tune played by the low brass, located towards the end of the movement. For me, this is where Mahler turns the tables, and begins injecting more levity and ironic humor into the symphony. The solo snap pizzicattos from the low strings - the true climax of the movement, I suppose - need to be nice and strong as well.
Barry
-
Hi Barry. I'm not sure what "recent tendency" you're talking about. If you look at timings for this movement they haven't been notably faster than the last generation of recordings (say, Solti, Abbado/Chicago, etc). As for the low brass tune at the end, as you well know, that IS the theme of the trio, and its appearance there tells us quite plainly that Mahler did not necessarily expect that the scherzo proper and trio need to be played at different speeds. As I said before, I'm sure that a bit of tempo flexibility is called for here, as in all Mahler, and I agree with you that a little extra lift at this point characterizes the music better--and you low brass players are all animals anyway! ;D
But seriously, my point once again is that beyond all the subjectivity of what individual listeners like and do not like, there is the reality of what Mahler wrote, and I merely want to describe what that is because I think it puts the more subjective discussion on a firmer foundation. In particular, I don't think it's fair to blame the performers or a particular intepretation for one's personal dislikes if said performer happens to be doing very well exactly what the composer wanted. At that point the listener should at least take a moment to ask him or herself if their understanding of the piece and the composer's intentions may be the problem, and not the music or the way it's being played.
Dave H
-
...beyond all the subjectivity of what individual listeners like and do not like, there is the reality of what Mahler wrote.... [T]he listener should at least take a moment to ask him or herself if their understanding of the piece and the composer's intentions may be the problem, and not the music or the way it's being played.
Points always well taken, of course, but then again we have the example and the even words of Mahler himself that seem to be modifying this idea of the sanctity of the text and the essentiality of the composer's own self-understanding of what it is that he/she is doing in the piece (his/her "intention"). For instance when himself conducting works by many untouchables of the canon such as Beethoven and Schumann, he famously had absolutely no scruples at all in altering the composers' own performance markings, and not only that, but also the notes themselves, the way he thought best (to make the score better reflect the composer's "intentions," to be sure). Second, he also explicitly allowed that those to come after him might "do whatever they please" with his scores for performance purposes (I think it may have been in connection of his Eight but am not certain right now).
I doubt any time period can claim to have the last word in understanding a great work of art. For this reason evolution in our understanding of both the performance practice and the works and the composers themselves remain so vital. For instance, look how differently we perform Mozart today, compared to, say, the way Szell & co. used to do it fifty years ago. It's another world now and the arts for today's world look different as well (and even more so, sound); there is no one around today who hears Szell the way his contemporaries did, and claiming anything different is just the same old self-deception that historicism and its "authenticity" illusions try to create. Or just plain old nostalgia for the "nobility" of things past.
The real miracle of the great works of art is that our understandings of them keep changing with the time but not necessarily their truths (which have nothing directly to do with the composers' or artists' intentions per se).
Just my 2 cents!
PT
-
I don't believe I said anything about the sanctity of the printed text. My point is much more basic than that--simply that discussion of performance necessarily begins with an acknowledgment of WHAT the text says (and not whether one should invariably follow it to the letter or not--a silly and pointless argument since no one does it and all performance entails a measure of individual interpretation). It doesn't make any sense to criticize a performance on the basis of failure to understand the music, or praise a performance for unusual originality and insight, without first noting the relationship of the alleged good or bad bits to what the composer actually asks the players to do. At least then everyone is on the same page and comparisons between differing interpretations are easier to make (and describe).
Dave H
-
...discussion of performance necessarily begins with an acknowledgment of WHAT the text says (and not whether one should invariably follow it to the letter or not--a silly and pointless argument since no one does it and all performance entails a measure of individual interpretation).
True, but my point was only that our understanding of what that text says obviously changes with time, through advancement of both musical and music-historical knowledge and increase in performance skills and techniques, as we get a better understanding of what those notes and markings mean, both as such and in relation to one another: what the composer actually wanted to write down, what he/she meant to say with that, and how all that could be enacted for us today. Even the more objective-seeming things like tempo markings and expressive indications start looking like something else with the advancement of time (with changes in the conditions in which the work is received, incl. performance skills but also things like changing cultural meanings and advancing societal development). I'm not thinking of mere errors such as those probably involved the famous case of Beethoven's metronome markings (faulty equipment?) but also, say, what Monteverdi and Stockhausen would have imagined it to mean when instructing their orchestras play "with utmost speed," or what "lamentoso" temperament implied to Vivaldi as opposed to Tchaikovsky, or how differently "con tutta la forza" probably sounded inside the heads of Haydn and Shostakovich. Clearly two entirely different worlds here. Mahler interpretation is not any more immune to such changes, either; look how much our conception of how his works should be played has changed since just yesterday when Bernstein was still the norm. (Or Mozart performance since Szell who practically owned the field as late as during your own formative years [I presume].) In other words the point was not about historicism but about hermeneutics.
PT
-
That was one of the longest truisms I have ever seen! :)
-
Gotta agree with you on this one. :P
It's all just in preparation for my final thesis that Claudio Abbado has been the one to bring Mahler performance to the 21st century (follow our notices).
PT
-
Well, in keeping with the 21st century obsession with all things dietetic, he's certainly the greatest proponent of "Mahler Lite." But I think the prize will go to the person who discovers how to play "green" Mahler in a more environmentally responsible manner. Abbado's ongoing insistence on performing Mahler in Lucerne will doubtless increase the melt rate of nearby Alpine glaciers, causing lowland devastation.
Dave H
-
Not so far off the environmental track, there have rumblings about limiting the amount of decibels that symphony orchestras pump out in concert (particularly in Europe). That strikes me as absurd when you consider just how loud any electrified rock concert can sound. Even a jazz combo in a small room can crank out the decibels like nobody's business. I guess any such action would signal the end of the "Mahler boom". Trust me, it'll never happen (and if so, I'm outta here!).
Barry
-
[Abbado] is certainly the greatest proponent of "Mahler Lite." But I think the prize will go to the person who discovers how to play "green" Mahler in a more environmentally responsible manner. Abbado's ongoing insistence on performing Mahler in Lucerne will doubtless increase the melt rate of nearby Alpine glaciers, causing lowland devastation.
I don't know where this buzzword comes from if not your own pages. Where you are right is that his sure ain't your meat-and-potatoes variant of a Mahler interpretation, to stick with the dietetic theme. But I think the confusion here stems from what Alpsman, too, refers to in another thread: Abbado's exquisite ear for detail and articulation. What it results in is a most impressive ability to bring off what another buzzword condenses as the very special amalgam of refinement and strength temperamentally marking his work. It also lays a main emphasis on clarity, though always within a natural lyrical sensibility distinguishing him from, say, a Boulez or a Klemperer.
On the "green" issue I actually would think that a very noninstitutionalized form of an enterprise like the LFO would rather have a remarkably small carbon footprint compared to your usual top-heavy, large-scale subscription venture. It lacks most of the administrative apparatus standard to all orchestral institutions, should be basically paperless leaving all forests alone (they probably just send emails telling everyone to meet in front of Carnegie Hall staff entrance on October such-and-such next year), and in general acts rather like one of the kind of civil society organizations whose merits have traditionally been well understood in the U.S. Moreove I'm pretty sure a significant number of the players involved will travel to Lucerne by train, as common in Europe. :)
-PT
-
[Abbado] is certainly the greatest proponent of "Mahler Lite." But I think the prize will go to the person who discovers how to play "green" Mahler in a more environmentally responsible manner. Abbado's ongoing insistence on performing Mahler in Lucerne will doubtless increase the melt rate of nearby Alpine glaciers, causing lowland devastation.
I don't know where this buzzword comes from if not your own pages. Where you are right is that his sure ain't your meat-and-potatoes variant of a Mahler interpretation, to stick with the dietetic theme. But I think the confusion here stems from what Alpsman, too, refers to in another thread: Abbado's exquisite ear for detail and articulation. What it results in is a most impressive ability to bring off what another buzzword condenses as the very special amalgam of refinement and strength temperamentally marking his work. It also lays a main emphasis on clarity, though always within a natural lyrical sensibility distinguishing him from, say, a Boulez or a Klemperer.
On the "green" issue I actually would think that a very noninstitutionalized form of an enterprise like the LFO would rather have a remarkably small carbon footprint compared to your usual top-heavy, large-scale subscription venture. It lacks most of the administrative apparatus standard to all orchestral institutions, should be basically paperless leaving all forests alone (they probably just send emails telling everyone to meet in front of Carnegie Hall staff entrance on October such-and-such next year), and in general acts rather like one of the kind of civil society organizations whose merits have traditionally been well understood in the U.S. Moreove I'm pretty sure a significant number of the players involved will travel to Lucerne by train, as common in Europe. :)
-PT
Well, understand what you are saying, but I can point to just about any Abbado Mahler recording, particularly the recent ones, and show you chapter and verse that practically no one is less clear, more careless with respect to details of orchestral color, dynamic range, and quite a few other basic musical elements. I agree that he can be "exquisitely detailed" with respect to whatever he happens to be paying attention to at the time--it's just that quite often it has little to do with what the music is supposed to be doing. I vividly recall a disasterous series of Mahler performances live with the BPO here in New York. The Fifth featured the trumpet cracking his opening solo, and it was all downhill from there; ensemble was dreadful, the entire performance underplayed and emotionally tepid. In the Ninth, he spend the entire concert conducting the viola section, and sure enough, never has the viola part been so well played. It's just that everyone else sucked, especially the winds and horns, who sounded bored to death. I don't think there's another conductor out there as talented, and at the same time as sparing in his use of it. Have you heard his new period-instrument Mozart? Dreadful! But, as always, to each his own!
Dave H
-
Well, understand what you are saying, but I can point to just about any Abbado Mahler recording, particularly the recent ones, and show you chapter and verse that practically no one is less clear, more careless with respect to details of orchestral color, dynamic range, and quite a few other basic musical elements. I agree that he can be "exquisitely detailed" with respect to whatever he happens to be paying attention to at the time--it's just that quite often it has little to do with what the music is supposed to be doing. I vividly recall a disasterous series of Mahler performances live with the BPO here in New York. The Fifth featured the trumpet cracking his opening solo, and it was all downhill from there; ensemble was dreadful, the entire performance underplayed and emotionally tepid. In the Ninth, he spend the entire concert conducting the viola section, and sure enough, never has the viola part been so well played. It's just that everyone else sucked, especially the winds and horns, who sounded bored to death. I don't think there's another conductor out there as talented, and at the same time as sparing in his use of it. Have you heard his new period-instrument Mozart? Dreadful! But, as always, to each his own!
Dave H
It could be an extreme case of "to each his own," but I think it's more likely that you listen from preconceived notions as I cannot imagine any other realistic explanation for the kind of mischaracterizations you make here (and have systematically made elsewhere). (Or that you simply have a faulty sound system.:)) While I cannot know what passages you have in mind, I bet what you are really talking about is how you think these bars should be rightly characterized for it to be "true" Mahler. Then again I'm sure you already know that any self-respecting conductor would spend good time researching the sources before going public with his engagement with them -- and as anyone knows Abbado is on the more meticulous side in this respect, especially when it comes to the composers more important to him personally such as Mahler. Still, you cannot accept that Abbado would present you with a Mahler whose physiognomy you cannot recognize as the same you yourself encountered in the days of your own revelatory experiences with this composer. Instead, I have a feeling you go around picking "evidence" to support your rejection of his approach and entrench the order of things you've already established for yourself. That's fine, everyone is doing it, but the average Joe would rather say something like "Personally I like/I don't like though I may not understand this thoroughly enough yet" and not go use his maximum leverage to prevent every possibility for others to discover and appreciate what for whatever reason one cannot find as meaningful for one's own self. So that would be my gripe with your position (and that of a few others) as a rather influential but in my opinion also in this respect irresponsible public critic. You would like to steer everyone up along the path that you found for your own self some, what, thirty-forty years ago, and just about everything radically departing from it and not on your map is measured as a deviation from, not a possible advancement over and beyond, those landmarks that provided your parameters long ago.
So this may be putting it a bit harshly (and certainly more drastically than I really mean it), but I don't intend to be unfriendly. The point is, what you claim is false or erroneous I might well find (and may in fact rather be) considered and englightening, and to preclude in principle the possibility for allowing the latter, I think, would be a bit narrow-minded and presumptuous if not downright arrogant and agenda-ridden. Of course, there is always much room left for disputation still, based on somewhat harder facts relying on musicological research, say, or even arguments of historical and philosophical nature, but I think you don't really make broad use of those; you tend to only tangentially refer to the existence of such reasons in order to back up anecdotal reports or your use of attributes reflecting mostly subjective perception of disparate events, not much else. Naturally, you might counter that neither do I operate that way; but that's the nice comfort I have as nothing but an anonymous opinionated individual on the net who's not immediately taken by his word by anyone around. ;D
Incidentally, I was in that M5 concert as well, and as I've mentioned in another thread, it was one of the most memorable concert experiences I've had, despite the opening fanfare fumbled by the trumpetist (that can happen in a concert situation as you know). Similarly, those new Mozart recordings by Abbado and the Orchestra Mozart reprsent exactly what the music industry needs (to turn your own invective around): freshly considered, invigoratingly conducted, vividly played, alert and alive from beginnig to the end, full of personality and character, uplifting and drawing all attention the music itself that opens up anew and stays ringing on in the mind and the heart -- everything a critic is looking for in a recording but laments has been nowhere to be found for decades now. More stuff like these and there is no need for classical music to worry about its diminishing audiences. It's the real thing we always keep searching for. If I'd have to put it in a nutshell, I'd advise you to listen with ears a bit more open and eyes that are blind so you can't know when it's "European" or "Deutsche Grammophon" or "establishment" or "Claudio Abbado" or "Berlin Phil" or "avantgarde" related; that might prove revelatory! 8)
Hope you don't find all this as rude as I do myself; I went to school in New York and you know what that can do to your mental makeup. :) To leave the subject on a more polite note I'll leave the last word to you.
-PT
-
I can see that my view of Abbado disturbs you, but I don't take your reaction personally at all. I used to have a tremendous amount of respect for Abbado, and I still listen to each new recording with the highest expectations. No one wants an artist to fail, particularly one with so much talent. But since he left the LSO for Berlin it's been all down hill (his very sad illness notwithstanding). This is not a matter of opinion--it's a fact. He has become a chronic, compulsive micro-manager, fussing about and highlighting this or that odd detail, often at the expense of what the composer clearly intended. It's predictable, and boring. It also has nothing to do with the old saw "your boring is my contemplative," or "your fussy hunt for inner voices is my revelation of fascinating detail." It's a question of poor musicianship, plain and simple.
The conductor who gave us such brilliant recordings as his DG Alexander Nevsky, or his amazing series of Verdi and Rossini operas at La Scala, seems to be gone for good. Whether you happen to like him or not is beside the point--we all have the right to enjoy whatever we wish. But given the time and opportunity I could sit down with the scores and a few select comparisons and show you just how musically deficient most of Abbado's recent recordings actually are. And it just so happens that his decline as an artist coincided with his recordings of Mahler. After a promising start with his Chicago recordings of the Second and Fifth, he started to lose his grip precipitously. It's a terrible shame. But it's not my place to try to convince you of my view or try to tell you what should please you, and I'm not going to try.
Dave H
-
I'm going to take the middle ground here. Unfortunately, the two live performances of Mahler symphonies that I saw Abbado do in London with the LSO, were both really lacking in excitement and/or fire (M1 and M3). Then again, as I mentioned previously, Hanna Schwartz could probably bring any great performance to a halt. I had to listen to her schlag her way through the 5 "Ruckert" Lieder as well. That was painful! I also think it takes some effort to overcome the (then) dry and indifferent acoustics of Royal Festival Hall. Anyway, . . .
I don't feel that Abbado's Berlin remakes of Mahler have been particularly terrible at all. Neither do I think that they're the very best available either. I do respect the fact that Abbado has rethought his approach to some of the symphonies. For example, he clearly has tightened up the inner movements of his latest M6 (stronger hammerstrokes too), and has greatly shortened up the latter three movements in his more recent performances of M3. It is true that he now coaxes a far lighter sound in Mahler - perhaps too much so. But the BPO - to my ears, anyway - have always sounded more like a great chamber orchestra on steroids, than a true philharmonic orchestra. His Berlin M7 is pretty much identical to his earlier Chicago effort - which was a very good effort - except that he had DG record the deep bells (tiefe glocken) and cowbells far more closely in Berlin. It's a tad gimmicky, but at least you can really hear them.
His remake of M4 had good first and third movements, but the scherzo wasn't the slightest bit scary or creepy, while Renee Fleming all but ruined the fourth movement (she sounds fine on the Berg songs - go figure!). But then again, Abbado's earlier Vienna M4 wasn't so hot either. In the 9th symphony, I like it that Abbado has shortened up the first and third movements (Rondo-Burlesque), while also giving a bit more slack to the last movement. In terms of how it's proportioned, I do think it's an improvement over his earlier Vienna one.
No, what's disappointing to me about Abbado doesn't have so much to do with questions of musicianship. What I find disappointing can be observed on that DVD that's a documentary about the 2000 Mahlerfest in Amsterdam (I forget what it's called). In that documentary, both Abbado and Haitink take the view that Mahler is a very tragic figure. As you guys know, I've been pretty critical of Haitink's later efforts in Mahler (I like his earliest recordings best). I think that both Abbado and Haitink have a somewhat negative approach to Mahler in general. In contrast to those two, Chailly spoke of Mahler as being a healthy individual - who happened to have his fair share of tragic events in his life - who was able to keep working through the worst of times, and usually strived to project a positive message out to the world (something to that effect). I see Chailly as being a Mahler optimist, while Abbado and Haitink are fundamentally Mahlerian pessimists (I don't want to make too much of this point, because it's VERY subjective). Why does this matter at all?
Well, I think it's no coincidence that both Haitink and Abbado don't particularly like the 8th symphony, and have recorded two of the duller versions out there (the Haitink is at least pretty sounding, with some solid vocal contributions to fall back upon). For me, the Abbado M8 may be the absolute low point of his entire career (his "Kindertotenlieder" on Sony was pretty darn dull too). It's not terrible, but it's just incredibly dull and flatfooted. In a way, that's worse than being "terrible", because Abbado was given the greatest resources available: the BPO, and a "dream team" cast.
I could go on and on. But to summarize, I just take something of a middle ground between you two.
Barry
-
Barry:
I am entirely with you on this. I never said Abbado was utterly without merit, disgusting, stinky-poo. Just that he wasn't that great and that his more recent work is inferior to his earlier work. I also agree with your (implied) suggestion that there's no need to go to extremes. Indeed, the entire thrust of my ongoing discussion here and in the other threads was simply that we should recognize flaws for what they are, particularly when they are basic musical facts and not just differences of opinion. The musical world, like every other kind of entertainment, is often blinded by the "fan" mentality. This is fine when the artist is performing his own unique material, but when everyone does the same stuff and multiple comparisons are possible, then to ignore these comparisons or always find in favor of "your guy (or gal)" is pretty delusional. And in Abbado's case, we have the ability to compare him not just to other artists, but to himself, early and late. We've talked about this before, and you've mentioned that the chronic fussiness that has since become such a tedious mannerism in his work was manifesting itself much earlier in rehearsals you attended with the LSO.
Anyway, I completely agree with your assessment of both Abbado and Haitink, and would only add further that, curiously, if Abbado regards Mahler as so tragic, then why don't his recent performances seem to reflect it? As you say, they have't been uniformly bad (the Berlin Ninth is pretty good, but unfortunately not all that well recorded), but most have been underplayed to a greater or lesser degree by almost any standard, and to me it's just silly to buy into the Lucerne Festival PR and claim that its pick-up orchestra compares favorably with the best established ensembles. The same is true of his new period instrument Mozart orchestra, very anemic sounding (and badly recorded) comparied to today's norm, even for period instruments. As I said, I don't root for anyone to fail, but I'm not a partisam of any particular artist either, and with so much choice out there I like to take each disc and it comes and listen to it on its own merits. Abbado's work is not uniformly bad; it's mixed, but mediocrity is disappointing from an artist of his reputation and indisputable ability.
Dave H
-
curiously, if Abbado regards Mahler as so tragic, then why don't his recent performances seem to reflect it?
Yes, that is curious, isn't it? Good point.
to me it's just silly to buy into the Lucerne Festival PR and claim that its pick-up orchestra compares favorably with the best established ensembles.
Isn't the LFO pretty much the same as the BPO, only with some "all-stars" sitting in? To me, they sound very similar to the BPO. I can't claim to be fully informed on this point.
The same is true of his new period instrument Mozart orchestra, very anemic sounding (and badly recorded) comparied to today's norm, even for period instruments.
It's a bit funny that the two of you have such opposite reactions to Abbado's new Mozart. Personally, I just don't care enough about Mozart symphonies to bother finding out how I would feel about them. This is case where it's just more amusing to read about it.
There's been a lot of discussion about how Abbado should have recorded Mahler's "DLvdE" somewhere along the way. Personally, I'm kind of glad that he didn't. We have the Boulez, and that one - while having a few good merits (Urmana ain't one of them) - almost totally lacks in color as it is. I don't think that we need another one like it (and Boulez's tenor was even worse!).
I also find it curious that Abbado never recorded Schumann, and rarely performed Haydn. I consider both of those composers to be important precursors to Mahler. He also did lots of Tchaikovsky, but never recorded "Manfred" either - one of Mahler's specialties. I'm not saying that Abbado's Mahler suffered because of not addressing these composers first. But I do feel that Abbado had to "labor" a bit with Mahler - you could see that in his conducting. It always seemed sort of a strain for him to control (mico-manage?) Mahler's biggest, most fully scored moments. As I said on another recent post, he just sounds more spontaneous and comfortable with Bruckner, than with Mahler. Perhaps that's why Abbado wanted to "lighten things up" in his more recent Mahler performances and recordings. And as you say, Dave, they're certainly not terrible. Neither would I call any of them, "the best!".
I've got to run.
Barry
-
Then again I'm sure you already know that any self-respecting conductor would spend good time researching the sources before going public with his engagement with them -- and as anyone knows Abbado is on the more meticulous side in this respect, especially when it comes to the composers more important to him personally such as Mahler.
Yes Timo, Abbado has always carried a reputation for doing his homework ahead of time. But I think that David is saying that that is often times part of the problem: that Abbado is very good at the particular moments he chooses to focus upon, but sometimes at the expense of the overall picture. If that's true, he's certainly not alone in having that fault - he's in good company (Rattle certainly comes to mind). I feel that in executing or realizing orchestral music, conductors frequently walk a tightrope between overplaying something, or underplaying it. While perhaps Bernstein might have been someone who came close to overplaying many moments, Abbado nearly always errs on the side of underplaying something. That's not always a tragic thing because, as I mentioned, one has to nearly always walk this tightrope. But after just listening to Gergiev's fiery, exhilarating M7, I'm in the mood to err on the side of overdoing things. Although I didn't hear this disputed M5 concert in N.Y., I must say that neither of Abbado's DG recordings of M5 really knock me out (I have a preference for his earlier Chicago one).
but the average Joe would rather say something like "Personally I like/I don't like though I may not understand this thoroughly enough yet" and not go use his maximum leverage to prevent every possibility for others to discover and appreciate what for whatever reason one cannot find as meaningful for one's own self.
Yeah, OK; fair enough, Timo. But for better or for worse, David HAS to state such decisive opinions because it's his job to do so as a critic. You may not like the approach or angle that he takes, and that's your right- or anyone else's right - to express that dislike. But one of the things that has always bothered BOTH David and myself, is the sort of wishy-washy, noncommittal, "try to read between the lines", kind of reviews that one frequently sees in Gramophone, for example. How is that helping anybody? I believe that it was partly frustration from such a nonprofessional state of affairs that propelled David to go into this business to begin with. When I say "nonprofessional", I don't mean to imply that David always knows better than English critics, or some such thing. What I'm saying by "nonprofessional", is simply their unwillingness to come right to the point, and tell a lessor informed reader whether or not they should buy such-and-such recording. That's the service that a good critic should provide, for better or for worse.
You would like to steer everyone up along the path that you found for your own self some, what, thirty-forty years ago, and just about everything radically departing from it and not on your map is measured as a deviation from, not a possible advancement over and beyond, those landmarks that provided your parameters long ago.
Yes, but what other path would there be, other than also studying what the composer actually wrote? Say what you will about David's path - and I personally try to follow him up the same path, because I'm a schooled musician myself - he at least writes from a position of knowing what it is that the composer actually wrote. I find it strange that so many other "classical music lovers" dismiss the idea that a critic should be fully schooled about what the composer wrote. It's almost as though people are saying that you can't trust a critic with that knowledge. If you're praising Abbado for doing his homework ahead of time, why would your praise not also be extended to a critic who does his homework as well? Hello! - why the disconnect? Believe me, I'm not saying that all Mahler performances need to be evaluated from a Leonard Bernstein based position. I don't believe that David is saying that either. Far from it, in fact, because at least David approaches Mahler - and pretty much every other composer that he writes about - from a very strong basis of comparison. Timo, do you yourself fully know the Mahler recordings of Gary Bertini, Eliahu Inbal, Michael Gielen, Vaclav Neumann, etc.? David does, and so do I - for the most part. All four of the conductors that I just mentioned have received more than their fair share of praise from David - perhaps more than I would ever extend to them (I love Bertini's Mahler though). It might surprise you to know that David might - depending on which way the wind is blowing, I suppose - recommend Gielen's Mahler over Bernstein's to somebody. Certainly you wouldn't consider Gielen to be somebody who's regressive, sentimental, or backwards looking, would you? (and personally, I like Gielen far less than David does. That's just me.). It just happens that David doesn't include Abbado in that company, and I'm not sure that I would either. Frankly, I need more time to fully absorb his latest efforts in Mahler. Regardless, though, there's no way that I'm going to view them as radical departures, or huge improvements. I also have a difficult time lending a lot of praise to ANY conductor who has a rather low opinion of Mahler's 8th symphony. On that topic, I very much take Mahler at his own word. Behind the noise and bluster, I happen to think it's an outstanding piece of music. The more I get to know, the more I feel that way.
I also take some exception to your implying that Claudio Abbado somehow represents an advancement on something that didn't exist 30 or 40 years ago. First off, Abbado WAS around 30 and 40 years ago. I believe that Abbado received his fair share of encouragement from Leonard Bernstein, no less. So, where is the radical departure? I just don't see it that way. One of the things that is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, is this recent movement to make Mahler little more than Brahms with extra brass and more percussion. I really, REALLY hate that concept, because it's based on a narrow Austro-German view of things. When I say "Austro-German", I do not mean that in a social or political context. Instead, I mean that from a purely musical point of reference. Influences upon Mahler were as much Czech (Smetana and late Dvorak), French (Berlioz), and Italian (opera composers), as they were German speaking. At the same time, I do not in the slightest bit downplay the influence of Beethoven and Wagner upon Mahler either (and to a lessor extent, Schumann and Von Weber). And while Abbado has certainly done his fair share of Beethoven and Brahms (who I feel has very little in common with Mahler), I find it curious that he has done so little Haydn, Schumann, and Wagner. Those folks just don't seem to be part of his schtick (and granted, nobody can get around to doing justice to everybody). In that sense, I don't consider Abbado to be all that better prepared to approach Mahler than anybody else. All of them study the scores and - when time permits - drafts, manuscripts, first editions, etc.
Naturally, you might counter that neither do I operate that way; but that's the nice comfort I have as nothing but an anonymous opinionated individual on the net who's not immediately taken by his word by anyone around.
Oh, come now - you can't play both sides of the sword like that. You're better than that, and you know it. Also, what you're saying is true for ALL OF US, to some extent or another. I don't agree with every single little point that David makes either. But I at least know where he's coming from, and the solid work that he put in, prior to reaching his opinions. I know first-hand the kind of money he has spent in accumulating scores from all over the world. He reads them, too. I have to respect that. Nobody will ever accuse him of not voicing those opinions strongly though.
Unfortunately, Timo, this is really just a case where you happen to really like Claudio Abbado, and David just doesn't cut him that much slack. Personally, I try to avoid fan-dom of any classical music performers, especially conductors (little more than a medium, and a necessary evil). To me, the composer is always far more important. If I had to choose just one conductor for Mahler - something that I would never want to be forced to do - it would definitely be Gary Bertini. Then again, I'm very intrigued by David Zinman's Mahler recordings, so far (I wish the 4th had a better soprano though). To me, he's the new Kubelik.
Barry
-
Barry,
Thanks for the thoughtful and well-intended responses; a nice and fresh contrast, I'd say.
I'm going to be away for a couple of days but once back I'll address all these points, if you don't mind. Here just this: unlike Dave would rather have it (and you tend to feel as well), the issue is not at all about some disappointed "fans" "reacting" to the negative feedback their idols get; it's a broader one about classical music critics and their role, but I'll get to that once back.
Btw, Abbado has a better track record on Haydn, Schumann, and Wagner than most. He was one of the first to follow Britten in performing the "Faustszenen" and has recorded all of Schumann's works for the cello (with Gutman) and the piano (with Perahia, Brendel, and Pollini) (can we blame anyone for omitting the symphonies, huh?!); there is also the Schumann masses and other choral and liturgical works; and he's got IIRC three Haydn symphony discs out on DG plus the trumpet cto; and has performed Wagner much more than recorded, Tristan, Parsifal, songs, don't remember the others (he does have at least three discs plus Lohengrin out on DG - that makes a minimum of six full CDs...). So that's not oddly little at all. (And remember he's recorded ALL of the Tchaik symphonies, twice + over, plus all those concertos; and even Bernstein thought "Manfred" is just way too nuts to worry about -- so let me say now in turn: Hello?!?)
But Abbado, too, is besides the point so let's leave him, too, for later again. For Dave H (and U.S. critics more generally who really seem to lack all understanding of what he is doing -- very much unlike what you find in the Euro press btw, where music critics [as opposed to CD reviewers] look at him very differently) I think it's a bit more personal on this point (yeah, here I think we are justified in saying this). Reading those weird utterances (anyone who's heard the new Mozart recordings for instance can immediately tell Dave clearly hasn't listened to them; the vitriole he heaps is just too bizarre -- you might want to try check this yourself: it's the very same band, the very same soloists, and the very same playing style and spirit that was praised here on GMB a couple of weeks ago when someone posted a link to their Brandenburgs with Reinhold Friedrich on the trumpet...) it seems this particualr conductor just provides him with an icon to attack, something certain people seem to need to project all their frustrations and personal anger at.
Anyhow, back to you in a couple of days on the more substantive side of things if you don't mind. I just don't like it when people try to make a issue of substance into a personal gripe -- it's such an easy avoidance strategy.
-PT
-
OK, well, I really don't want to get myself further involved in a U.S. critic vs. Euro critic type of conversation. Neither do I wish to continue debating the relative worthiness of Claudio Abbado - it just doesn't mean that much to me. It might also interest you to know that David has very strong relations with several very prominent European critics, both in France and Germany. But I'll let David explain that for himself.
It may very well be that if I listened to this set of Mozart symphonies that TRULY seem to be the core issue here, I might actually take your side of the argument. But as I said before, I just don't care enough about Mozart symphonies in general, to really worry about it. My interest is with composers, not artists (for artists, I much prefer jazz). You guys will have to duke this out on your own. HOWEVER . . .
I really feel that if this is going to be taken to the level of grilling the so-called professional critic because you feel that there's some crusade-like need to do so, the two of you should take the dispute OFF THE AIR. We really designed this website to avoid just those kinds of confrontations, to be honest. They serve little or no good.
Barry
-
Barry:
I have no intention of getting into a "US vs. European" critics debate. It wouldn't be a rational discussion. I am all too familiar with the syndrome I see here: "He attacked my favorite artist's work, therefore I now have license to attack him personally and professionally." This doesn't bother me at all--as a "public" figure I understand that this is going to happen. It's perfectly fair. I would only hope that some consideration would be given to keeping the tone of discourse relatively civil out of consideration for others here. This I do take seroiusly, because back in the day I had a whale of a time fighting like crazy in rec.music.classical.recordings, but it got tired pretty quickly and I like to think I grew out of it, at least for the most part ;). I would greatly prefer to keep the subject focused on music, and not have a discussion about having a discussion about music. Accordingly, this will be my last word on the matter, and if it ever comes to the point where the group feels that my participation isn't a positive thing, then I will simply not participate. It's not as if I don't have a forum for my views! I just thought it would be fun for a change to talk informally with other avid music lovers.
Dave H
-
Dave H,
I value your participation and hope you stay...I value your opinion, since you bring much listening experience and knowledge which I've found to be largely accurate, and if I disagree I still have much food for thought!
--Todd
-
OK, well, I really don't want to get myself further involved in a U.S. critic vs. Euro critic type of conversation.
That's not what I started, Barry, so why aim the comment to me? See above in this thread for DH's input.
Neither do I wish to continue debating the relative worthiness of Claudio Abbado - it just doesn't mean that much to me.
Sure, neither do I; to a large extent the debate is of secondary interest and in the main useful as an illustration only. Let me just reiterate that what I see as being at issue here is not some particular conductor but the interesting dilemma in which, due to reasons involving demography, certain social insulation, and occupational fatigue (which you pointed to in another thread), many critics have made themselves part of the problem they believe to have correctly diagnosed (diminishing size of classical music audiences), and not the solution as they seem to think. I think it's an interesting problem and potentially worth talking about, but if people so prefer the discussion can certainly be had elsewhere as well. Abbado in this context is just a case in point, illustrating to me how DH, for instance, can be looked at as symptomatic of everything that's wrong with the reviewing industry today (to turn around one of his own catch phrases aimed at the former :)).
But there is another level on which conductors actually are an interesting subject to talk about (as evident from the quazillions of pages devoted to the topic on these pages btw). "Classical" or composed music is interesting in the sense that, while pop/jazz/rock music is all about the performers/artists, it is in itself all about the work, not the artist, but at the same time the performer/artist remains vital to the critical reception of that work. Pretty much everything in "classical" music remains open to interpretation, down to the minutest details in the score (there is no absolute way of documenting the idea of the composer as it emerged in his mind, and Western notation is relative in its basic nature and besides that also rather inaccurate and full of qualitative, not quantitative, indices as a system of annotation). So the work is at the center, but getting it "understood" is a conscious, creativce act that relies on interpretation all the way from the note values and tempi markings to the various structural and orchestral balances, speeds, choice of instruments (strings? bows? percussion type?) and voices, everything. And of all the performer-interpreters (while there are of course many of them -- soloists, concert artists, chamber and orchestral musicians too), at least for me most of the vital functions are condensed and gathered under the role of the conductor. So I think we are right in debating which conductor is able to bring a composer through to the listener, which not. There are several good examples of both.
So the point about Abbado illustrates the dilemma I wanted to talk about quite well, in my view.
It may very well be that if I listened to this set of Mozart symphonies that TRULY seem to be the core issue here...
No; the core issue is what I just said it is (at least to me). This too was brought up just as something symptomatic of the "crisis of criticism" that I think we see today.
My interest is with composers, not artists (for artists, I much prefer jazz).
Probably the same is true about all of us; why else would we frequent a Mahler board? While we like to discuss recordings, it's always through the spectre of the composer and the composed work itself, I believe. In jazz, all there is to talk about is the one-time document that's unrepeatable (in the sense of being un-redoable) and accessible only through its singular appearance (the tape of that particular performance) thanks to the predominance of the performer and the performance situation.
I really feel that if this is going to be taken to the level of grilling the so-called professional critic because you feel that there's some crusade-like need to do so,
Come on, Barry; if there is a crusade I don't think I'm the one waging it. As I said there is a broader and in my view more important background interest in the topics broached, and DH's opinions I addressed only as an illustration. Just like he is doing with other posters' opinions. Besides, I don't think your professional critic needs any support from the flanks; he seems perfectly confident about his personal abilities to put "Europeans" in their place where need be, even if it be in the cultural capital of the musically most intelligent nation of that continent :).
...the two of you should take the dispute OFF THE AIR.
That's fine of course if so desired. You are right in that it's gotten to a territory that seems a bit flammable, I guess.
Last but not the least: Greetings to all from the aestival Northeast Atlantic seaboard! The sun was so bright I thought of Mahler but once every day ("Nun will die Sonn so hell ausgehn...").
(http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/3543004.jpg)
Just kidding. To be honest, it was like this instead:
(http://bp1.blogger.com/__hVqs8nSydQ/SDwTI8LQogI/AAAAAAAACsI/8QMqDPiu_-U/s400/SwedishBikiniTeam.jpg)
The Swedish Bikini Team came calling one afternoon when we got the music going.
-PT
-
...the syndrome I see here: "He attacked my favorite artist's work, therefore I now have license to attack him personally and professionally."
I'm not going to bite. Instead pls see my reply to Barry in which -- for the third or fourth time -- I'm trying to spell out clearly what I wanted to talk about.
Besides, Abbado is not my "favorite artist." :D
And even if he were, we all know that what record critics talk about matters very little in the world outside of the small circle of the collector types (and even they tend to be quite critical and independent-thinking in this era of free information flow). Although it can bring some passing fame on the "Joyce Hattos" of the music world. In the bigger scheme the role has become more of an entertainer, less of an enlightener, I'd say.
But 'nuff said already.
-PT
-
I'd rather get back to that Swedish bikini team. Some of the female Swedish soccer (football everywhere else - lets please both sides of the Atlantic) fans are pretty amazing too. 8)
-
Wow, the bikini team is the new Valkyries for next Bayreuth? Who audition them? Katarina and Cristian(Thielemann)? :D
-
I'd rather get back to that Swedish bikini team. Some of the female Swedish soccer (football everywhere else - lets please both sides of the Atlantic) fans are pretty amazing too. 8)
Myself I'm a fan of the Polish women's national handball team, big time.
-PT
-
Wow, the bikini team is the new Valkyries for next Bayreuth? Who audition them? Katarina and Cristian(Thielemann)? :D
I always thought there was something special in our local opera company's Wagner productions.
But this being the Nordic countries even the Valkyries are on vacation right now even if already on their seventh week.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/190471801_4b51661971.jpg?v=0)
-PT