gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: John Kim on October 16, 2008, 10:59:36 PM
-
This performance starts with a bang, but ends with a whimper. The Mahler Third is admittedly a schizophrenic work, starting with perhaps his most colorful orchestral phantasmagoria (lots of winds, brass, and percussion) and ending with a sublime Adagio in the grand German tradition (meaning heavy on strings). Valery Gergiev and the LSO are great when the music is fast, loud, percussive, glittery, and band-like, and much less successful when it's not. So the first movement is terrific--excellent work from the horns and solo trombone, no stinting on the vulgarity in the "Southern Storm" episode just before the recapitulation, and a take-no-prisoners coda that's as skillfully shaped as it is exciting. "At last!" you might think, "Gergiev has finally gotten himself completely together for a whole symphony." Well, you would be wrong.
The second movement continues the fine impression made by the first: lovely oboe solo and nicely contrasted tempos between sections. The scherzo also features some very characterful winds, but the posthorn episodes are too slow and droopy, the solo is balanced very distantly, and the coda is rushed beyond the capability of the trombones and tam-tam to articulate cleanly. Anna Larsson sings adequately in the fourth movement (she's making a career of this symphony, appearing also in Abbado's recent video), but Gergiev's tempo sounds rushed, the "nature sounds" are uninterestingly matter-of-fact, and the whole thing is both surprisingly rough and deficient in the mysterious atmosphere Mahler requires.
Matters improve once again for the "Bim Bam" fifth movement, with the boys' choir singing lustily and making an unforgettably vivid impression. The sinister central episode also comes off well, but the finale is a real letdown. It's not so much that it's quickly paced, relatively speaking (about 20 minutes); the problem is that tension isn't well distributed, and the strings cannot sustain the necessary intensity even at this unchallenging speed. Consider the big climax bringing back the material from the first movement: it's both rushed and underpowered. Note how the strings seem to recede into the background against the brass and timpani, while even those instruments seem anxious to back off Mahler's extreme dynamics. The soft brass chorale that follows lacks the necessary serene legato phrasing, and the closing pages are simply played too quickly and too crudely (Mahler asks for "noble, full tone"--you can't call those screaming trumpets "noble"!).
Gergiev is not the most reflective of artists, and this symphony really shows up his inability to deliver the goods in music that requires a healthy measure of sensitivity and architectural control. The sonics, which favor the winds and percussion over the strings, might have something to do with it, but as with so many Gergiev performances you come away feeling that he simply hasn't lived with the music long enough to play all of it equally well. Some of it interests him more than the rest. That said, the good bits are pretty spectacular, and collectors may well want to hear this release for one of the better first movements in recent memory. For that reason, it earns a qualified recommendation.
--David Hurwitz
-
I listened to most of this last night, and I really like it. I would probably give it an 8 or 9 for performance, but certainly think that a 7 rating is fair in lieu of the stiff competition these days. I certainly don't like it any more than Chailly; Zinman; Boulez/VPO; Haitink I; Bernstein I, etc. - not to mention the dvd that just came out with Abbado/LFO - but I like it just the same. I think that the generally quick tempi work well with the LSO's lean and mean style, not to mention the dry acoustics of The Barbican. I mean, heaven forbid that Mahler should actually sound exciting, and that these symphonies shouldn't sit around on your stereo all day long either. The piece isn't "Parsifal", and I don't think that it sound even remotely like Parsifal.
I particularly like the fast tempi in the two vocal movements, which is where this symphony so often times just dies in inferior performances; especially the fourth movement, which I think is often times performed too slow by a third. Beyond that, the music just sounds like it so badly wants to move forward at "Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit! Will tief, tiefe Ewigkeit". Why shouldn't the tempo reflect that sentiment ? I also like how Gergiev handles tempi throughout the long brass chorale in the sixth movement.
At the spot where the trombones take over the chorale melody at a full forte - a couple of minutes into the long chorale - Gergiev really pushes forward. That in itself isn't unusual. But what is novel, is that he keeps on pushing forward in the four measures (or so) leading up to the symphony's final cymbal crash (accompanied by rolls in the timpani and bass drum). This takes the emphasis off of the pious sounding quarter-notes in the horns, and focuses our attention on to the ascending half-notes in the trumpets. This way, when you finally reach the cymbal crash, there's actually a slight broadening of tempo instead of the music moving forward again. In other words, you've more or less "reached" your destination when you get to the cymbal crash. This "interpretation" (I hate that word) would have worked even better if Gergiev had done more of a rallentando (slow down) in the final few bars of the entire symphony. There needs to be more effect of the "wheel of life" turning slower and slower near the end.
Let me say that I also just love the LSO brass section. They're a little bright sounding, but their horns are just magnificent. Unlike Chicago, the horns don't play second fiddle to trumpets and trombones that so often times over-play their dynamic markings either. Chicago just comes off as a bit cold, stiff, and mechanical to me - which is why they're so good in Shostakovich - and so I'll take this brass section over Chicago's any day. The low strings, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter (just to be fair).
The LSO also have sort of strange sounding woodwinds; and that strangeness is really a plus in Mahler 3, where the woodwinds are so often times imitating weird bird calls, and need to just cut through very thick brass and string textures (not to mention a huge battery of percussion). Believe me, they succeed in cutting here. That's a plus.
-
Barry,
Thanks.
Can you give us timings for each movt.?
John,
-
Here's a copy & paste from a previous posting that I did:
battle of the M3 titans!
Abbado Gergiev
I 34:06 32:22
II 8:20 9:41 - I'm thinkin' that Abbado's 8:20 is probably 9:20
III 16:25 17:20
IV 9:19 8:35
V 4:24 3:50
VI 23:41 20:22
By the way, the middle development passage of the scherzo (3rd movement) - the part eventually leads to the final reprise of the posthorn solo - is excellent here. Then again, Abbado does that passage pretty well too (while Haitink is as flat as a pancake).
-
I just played Mvts II - VI in the store today, and I still really like it. The whole piece just flows so well. It just needs to slow down a bit more on the final three chords of the symphony. Honestly, I'm so tired of some conductors trying to turn Mahler's fast movements into Brahms, and his slow movements into Bruckner. I can see where a performance like this might be kind of a turn-off or shock in the concert hall, but I think it works quite well on record. Fritz Reiner said that he would perform works a bit faster for recordings.
-
Barry:
I really think you are overstating your case. It's possible to be quick without being as crude and insensitive as Gergiev is in the fourth movement and finale. You know I tend to prefer quick tempos too, but he's conducing bar by bar here rather than giving any thought to shape and phrasing. And the LSO strings really let the game down--I agree the brass are largely very good, but that's not what the quieter moments require (except for the chorale at the end). Those horns in the fourth movement really are not special (there's a positively vile moment just before the "recap" section that's terribly out of tune, or so it sounds). I don't see how you can compare this to the other recordings that you list, either as playing or conducting.
Dave H
-
I think that I was very clear that I still like those other ones better, just for the very reasons that you state. That doesn't mean that there isn't room for me to like another performance that comes along. As you well know, I like this particular work very much, and this one is different enough that I intend to keep it. In spite of any sloppy playing or crudeness, I would take it over Haitink/CSO ANYDAY. That one just sounds dead loooong before leaving the station. For anyone who truly loves this work, I don't think that hearing Gergiev/LSO is going to do them any harm. Naturally, it wouldn't be my first recommendation. And, so far - at the risk of being at odds with your general opinion, David - I happen to like Gergiev's cycle very much. I think that there IS some guiding intelligence behind his work. Just go back and listen to Solti, if you want to revisit truly "brain dead" interpretations of Mahler. I don't care how well the Solti/CSO Mahler recordings were played, or about the glorious reputation of the CSO in the '70s. But neither do I feel that the LSO is perfect for everything either. I would never, for example, think of collecting Haitink's Beethoven with the LSO, regardless of how good of a job he may have done. They simply have the wrong sound for Beethoven. But for Mahler, I will occasionally tolerate the bright and slightly crude sound, as long as it's also genuinely exciting. So, as I stated above, heaven forbid that Mahler should actually sound exciting from time to time.
-
Barry,
Thanks.
I rather like Gergiev's timings. I'd give him a chance to convince me about the 20 min or so timing for the Finale. The only other fast VI that is convincing was Neumann's first recording. I also like it that III isn't neither too fast nor too slow; I think 17 min. is a good duration.
I went to Silver Platter in my area but they didn't carry it yet. But they had Abbado's DVD of M3rd :-[
John,
-
Well, just so that I don't steer you the wrong way, I do think that the dvd of Abbado/LFO doing M3 is the better item to purchase. The picture is very good; Abbado's conducting is quite decent; the playing and singing is mostly great, and the sound quality is very good. I got particularly good results playing it back in Dolby 5.1. Given that Gergiev's M3 is almost as expensive as the Medici Arts dvd, get the dvd.
One thing that we haven't discussed about Gergiev's M3 is the sound quality. For me, sound quality has been one of the downsides of Gergiev's cycle, so far. The Barbican is a very dry hall, and the LSO play with a mean and lean sort of sound that would surely benefit from a more flattering acoustic. Microphone placement seems to consistently catch too much of the timpani, while the bass drum is rather dry and thuddy sounding. However, the woodwinds do cut through much more than they have in previous releases in this series. In my opinion, there hasn't been one truly great orchestral recording made in London since the closing of Kingsway Hall. Then again, I've yet to hear the Jurowski/LPO "Manfred" that some people rave about.
-
Barry,
Thanks for your steering.
I'll eventually get both but my preference now is the Gergiev. The only Gergiev/Mahler recording I have is the M6th and I like its recording sound very much. It sounds pretty natural and well balanced albeit it is somewhat distant. But at a high volume the sound becomes fuller, giving a real sense of live concert.
How is the sound quality of the Third compared to the Sixth?
John,
-
Wellll, I think they're similar in sound. If Gergiev's M6 doesn't bother you, sound wise, then the 3rd probably won't either. But to truly answer the question objectively, I would need to go back and do some A/B comparisons. I'll try to do that, but I'm always short on spare time when I can still blast a stereo.
-
Thanks Barry and Dave for your impressions...I'm definitely sold on trying both the Abbado and Gergiev M3...I've been largely into Bruckner lately, so this will be a nice change of pace.
--Todd
-
"So, as I stated above, heaven forbid that Mahler should actually sound exciting from time to time."
Barry: Who could possibly disagree with that? We are in total agreement that there's too much dull, careful, slow Mahler out there, and if you like Gergiev more than I do, that's fine. I also agree he's got more to say in this music than Solti usually did, but again, just because someone else is worse in this regard doesn't make him wonderful. I still recommend the recording (with reservations) BECAUSE of the fast and exciting bits, which are terrific. I don't care whether or not you agree with me about this--not at all--I just think there's much more to the symphony than the elements you are choosing to emphasize, and I think you're discounting the real weakness of those other elements in Gergiev's performance. So I'm stressing this point merely to round out the discussion, not because I feel defensive or because I expect you to share my opinion. Ultimately, there's no reason why we can't have both--this isn't a zero-sum game, after all, and that's what the best performances give us.
Dave H
-
OK, but what I'm saying is that there are - for me - elements in Gergiev's that help to compensate for the deficiencies that you've so accurately observed. For example . . .
Mvt III - Yes, the posthorn solos are a bit slow and distant. But they're nowhere as distant as they are on Ben Zander's M3, where you can barely hear it at all. Yes, I would prefer that the posthorn be a bit closer, and a bit faster. BUT, I think that the fast section in the middle - which is sort of a development section of the opening material - is done terrifically. That's a section that's very important to me, and I think that Gergiev/LSO do a good job of working the naughty forest animals into a genuine panic (just before the reprise of the posthorn). The fast coda didn't bother me that much either. Granted, those stupid Paiste gongs speak too slowly to be effective at such a quick tempo. But that's to be expected because it appears that the London orchestras have to intention of replacing them with sensible Wuhans.
Mvt. IV - Yes, this lacking a bit in atmosphere. But I'm convinced that's greatly because of the excessively dry acoustics and close microphone placement (from recording live). Given those factors, I think that the faster than normal timing makes a lot of sense. It's nice to hear those opening, oscillating whole-step notes in the basses - right at the very beginning of the movement (and elsewhere) - just for once, not move along at a snail's pace. Ms. Larsson doesn't sound her very best here, but it's also nice - for once - to hear the music move forward when you get those final stanza's about how "Lust" (joy) triumphs over "tiefe vey". To my ears, those swelling strings and horns sound like they really want to move forward.
Mvt V. - You've got to admit, this is pretty darn good "bim-bam" movement. I like how the kids really, REALLY shout "Liebe nur Gott" towards the end. I also like how Gergiev finishes off by letting the horns play the "Texaco" theme loudly, for once (You can trust your car to the man who wears the star . . ).
Mvt. VI - I'm not nearly bothered by what happens in this movement as much as you are, David. I like Gergiev's pacing of it very much. Again, there's sort of a development section - about 2/3rds the way in, maybe - where the music sounds like it just wants to move forward. It starts out with pizzicatto notes in the basses that accompany the upper strings. Then the notes get swirling faster in the upper strings, and their dynamics swell back and forth as well. Welllll, Gergiev let's that music move forward, but then slows down again where the brass and timpani enter, and the trumpets are sort of screaming on top. I thought that this particular moment was done very well. And as I stated above, I very much like how Gergiev handled the long brass chorale. Honestly, I could see how many people could be kind of repulsed by it, because it's quite different.
As I said, just before the symphony's final cymbal crash, Gergiev continues to increase the tempo, so that the focus is shifted on to the ascending half-notes in the trumpets, and less on the middle register quarter-notes in the horns. I think it helps lend to the feeling of really building up to something. I like the idea of actually broadening the tempo - instead of pushing forward - when we reach the final cymbal crash (accompanied by rolls in the timpani and bass drum). Truthfully, I think that Gergiev could have done this particular climax a bit better (it could always be better!), but he has the right idea - to my mind, that is.
As for the ending passage, with the timpani going back and forth on the tonic and dominant notes, I agree that it's a bit fast, and that the timpani are just a tad too loud. But hey, I'll take that over the opposite problems any day (too slow, or the timpani are too mushy sounding). And as I also stated, a bit more of a rallentando (he does slow down a bit) in the final few bars would have been helpful to his more "secular" (less pious sounding) interpretation of the finale. And yes, the trumpets are a tad bright sounding, but that really didn't bother me that much. At least they're not "screachy" in quality, like they are at the end of the Abbado/VPO M3.
So yes, this is not the most subtle or most atmospheric (in the softer parts) Mahler 3 ever to have come along. But given the dry acoustics and close microphone placement, not to mention that the LSO has never had the sweetest sounding upper strings among the world's big-name orchestras, I think that Gergiev's, "let's keep things scooting along" view of the work is quite appropriate. I like some of his ideas, even if they could be realized better in the future by someone else (or that some of them have been previously). I've heard worse, and I would take it over Haitink/CSO, MTT/SFSO, or any number of other performances that make Mahler's 3rd sound overly mature for its years, so to speak. It's nice to occassionally hear a performance that sort of reflects a lot of the nutty stuff that Mahler himself wrote about the piece ("one might think that they were in a tavern or pig sty", etc.).
I've got to run; I'm late.
-
Barry:
Again, I agree with much of what you are saying. For example, Gergiev is better than Zander as regards the posthorn, but then, as I also said previously, better than the worst does not make him the best. And that is my point: in writing a review I have to answer the question "How does this performance stack up against the best, the ideal, and the composer's clear intentions." You, on the other hand, are asking yourself "Do I like it, and why?" Different questions lead to different answers even given the same set of facts. I find little in Gergiev that I can't hear better done elsewhere aside from the moments that I note in the review. And there are performances that provide all of his thrills AND deliver the goods elsewhere too. I can't give his significant defects a pass, speaking professionally, just because there are other moments that I think are great. This doesn't meant that there's anything wrong with your liking the performance better than I did--I'll probably keep it too, if only for the first movement (and the middle section of the scherzo, which as you point out really is excellently done), but I have to try to judge the performance as a whole, and not merely in terms of the bits that I really like.
Dave H
-
An amzon.com reviewer gives an enthusiastic rating - I am sold and will rush to get this one:
"So far along, Gergiev is right in the process of giving us a full Mahler symphonies cycle. So far, these musicians/label have released the first, sixth, and seventh symphonies - each derived in live sessions mixed from several concerts at London's Barbican home for the band. I have auditioned each one so far in multichannel super audio. My choices so far in this series are the first and the seventh. I was fully prepared to welcome and embrace the whole series if the results persuaded me, but alas, I do not so far find the sixth symphony to be completely persuasive, vivid and successful as it no doubt is when taken solely on its own Toscanini-like terms. To my ears, this sixth is strong, but so devoted to relentless forward drive that I feel the contrasting lyrical dimensions of the sixth are compromised. Toscanini supposedly said of Bruno Walter, Oh Walter, when he hits something nice he melts and goes all to pieces. Gergiev can relax, certainly. Though nobody would ever accuse him of doing a Bruno Walter when it comes to melting, floating textures or lyricisms. So far in Gergiev and Mahler readings I miss the incredibly deft genius touches of, say, a Jascha Horenstein who could somehow mystically combine high lush sweetness with heart-aching, bone chilling Late Romantic Weltschmerz.
So we come to this third symphony. Again it is mixed from live concerts in the Barbican, from just about a year ago in 2007. The sound is accurate and vivid, with kudos going to veteran James Malinson and his technical team. I again am listening in multichannel. Let's go movement by movement.
The first movement is impressive. The opening fanfare does not quite scare the daylights out of me, as the famous Horenstein Third fanfare somehow still does every time I play it. (Good thing I lucked out by getting Horenstein to the fav shelf way back, when still available, as I think now he is out of print. Worth the effort to go hunting, I still think. I also sometimes still wish Wyn Morris had recorded the third symphony.) Yes, Gergiev is typically forward moving through the whole first movement. He does allow pauses and plenty of space to breathe at times. His drive does not to me compromise getting at some potentially raw, chilling sense of the deep, mysterious, fearsome shadows that the Nature God Pan casts in the deep heart of the mountains and forests, even at noonday.
The second movement is well nigh musically priceless. Gergiev gets his band to float and dance, charm and reminisce, and hard forward rhythmic or overall tempo drive never for even a fleeting mini-second intrudes or glosses over or rushes too hurriedly. This movement genuinely captures a chamber music lightness and intimacy that has not exactly been plentiful in the Gergiev Mahler series discs to date. The brief episodes which prefigure the posthorn to come are supple and tender and emphasize the third's through line of evolving continuity to an extent that other conductors do not always convey.
Hearing all these wonderful touches in the second movement, I began to really get my hopes up for this third. I thought that maybe Gergiev was going to end up being Horenstein's interpretive equal after all, albeit in his own typical way, even taking account of the forward drive that strikes me as a sort of hat tip to Arturo Toscanini.
My first audition of this reading was on portable player with ear phones. That time, in red book CD stereo, I could hardly hear the beautiful posthorn solos of the third movement - if at all. Touches of the solo phrases still dimly remained in passing, but listening on the portable with earphones, the counterpoint and accompaniments to the solo - which eventually garland and ground its wistfulness - giving the whole episodes a structural impact in addition to the expressive touches - were too loud, too prominent, imagining the solo my only recourse. Uncomfortably so. This reminded me of the aural distance problem of the solo as captured in Benjamin Zander's otherwise authoritative Telarc super audio recording of the third symphony. Count dim this hearing of the posthorn solo, a troubling failure, then. In fairness I knew I needed to listen again on the home rig, in multichannel, to see if the dimness and distance of the posthorn solo stayed consistent.
In the home rig round, the surround sound did a much improved job of allowing the all-important posthorn solo to be present, coming through. Gergiev starts off the scherzo-like third movement with the intimate touches with which he so endearingly played the second movement. Even when the tempo speeds up and woodwinds squeak garishly or brass bray, he can return to the mood and color of the earlier music. So Gergiev and band layer mountain meadows posy charms with folk tales and fireside hearthside country warmth. Although now aurally present, the posthorn solo hovers just on the ghostly ethereal brinks of disappearing, and to tell the truth, I still hear this as a passing minor musical flaw. Distancing and dimming the solo player may well have served in the live concert, given the real physical acoustics of the hall. Yet I do not hear that it all quite works in recorded home listening. In portable red book stereo listening, the posthorn solo may as well not exist at all, and this detracts from what Gergiev and band are no doubt trying to offer us. By the end of the movement, with the remainder of the orchestra joining in, the Nature God Pan and minions are reappearing, though the uncanny chill is markedly diminished. It is as easy to feel that maybe we have imagined it all in a Grimm Brothers fairy tale reverie, instead of a frightening live encounter with some raw and deified animal nature that would just as soon eat us as look at us unmoved, impassive, impervious to our humanity. The brash, toothsomely grinned coda however might remind us otherwise, of Pan in the first movement.
In the Nietzsche text movement that follows, alto Anna Larsson is lovely and steady. She is supposed to be singing of deep mysteries, glimpsed and felt and heard right at the stroke of musical midnight, after all. Now Ms. L does not quite eclipse sung memories of, say, Jesseye Norman, or Dame Janet Baker - but she is herself very nicely, and her singing renders comparisons more odious than not. Woods, brass, and strings nicely inflect and counterpoint her solo song - again with a transparent chamber music intimacy that is closer to string quartet or string sextet than to symphony. Tief ist ihr Weh. Lust, tiefer noch aus Herzeleidt.
Next comes the brighter bim-bamm sonics of the Lustig Wunderhorn song movement, livened up with that enchanting - even arch - combination of boys choir, women, and the alto soloist doing another musical scene all together. It is inevitably part and parcel of the composer's controversial musical genius that he can draw upon folk poetry texts set to folkish music as a way of giving us a homespun interlude after the deep longing and pain of Nietzsche's midnight, invisibly opening the doors to God.
So the final movement follows right upon the Wunderhorn song. Gergiev and band start it off with much of the same delicacy and chamber transparency that they have shown in the second and third and fourth movements, especially. A seemingly facile, ineffable flow of folksy and intimate string band textures somehow adds to the listener's imperceptibly accumulating grasp of the third - all of one piece, not a disconnected parade of externally-derived program music. The last movement proceeds with a masterly growth, evolving magically into the reaches of the large orchestra entire. Woodwind and brass entries do not at first perturb the music's intimate touch, though wrenching enharmonic string and brass perorations soon reveal to us how profoundly all personal tragedies are suffered and survived by being human tragedies. First the strings then the rest of this large orchestra, more and more come to embody what human love embodies and reveals of God - just pretty much as Mahler told others who talked with him in letters and conversations about what made this new third symphony tick.
By the end of the symphony, I count this Gergiev release as among his most successful overall, as well as being a clear high point in his ongoing Mahler cycle. Indeed, to my ears, Gergiev could well have used the same genius to further improve his worthwhile reading of the first symphony, both in regards to the nature picture painting and in regards to the multiple meanings and functions of the folk roots.
I still prize Horenstein. I'm adding Gergiev to the fav shelf. "
-
Oy vey!
Dave H
-
Yeah, I agree. That's a tad much, even for me. The only big difference between David and myself - other than the fact that I'm enthused about this release, and I guess David isn't that much - is that while David gave it a 7/8 rating, I'd give it an 8/7. I like the performance, but am not that crazy about the dry acoustics or Mallinson's recording techniques. So, in spite of whatever back-and-forth stuff David and I have had over Gergiev's M3, we're not that far apart in terms of how we'd actually rate the thing.
You know, I keep forgetting that I once gave a 10/10 rating to the Andrew Litton/Dallas M3 (Delos), and that I still think that it's pretty darn good by any standard (I really like the true contralto employed). I happen to think that the Simon Rattle one is one his best studio efforts with Mahler as well. Then there's the very forthright Ozawa/BSO one; with an excellent vocal contribution from Jessye Norman, not to mention just an outrageous amplitude level from the BSO trombones at the climax of the slow moment's long brass chorale. They just nail the daylights out of their two-part harmony there, starting from the final cymbal crash. That's another performance that doesn't exactly dawdle from beginning to end either. Maybe David's right - maybe I do need to dry up. Seriously, there are a lot of sections and ideas that I like in Gergiev's M3. We're just truly spoiled for choices these days, is all. It was a very different story just 20 or 25 years ago.
Barry
-
Amazing, isn't it? Litton and Ozawa are both terrific (Rattle less so in my book), but who ever talks about them now? I think both are clearly better than Gergiev. And if you like quick, here's also Neumann on Supraphon (a performance I love despite the weird brass harmony in the first movement), and Salonen, with the bass drum doubling timpani at the end. It all just goes to show how difficult it is not to overpraise a new performance simply because it's the most recent one you may have heard.
Dave H
-
Sorry for my spoiling :'(, but the sonics of the Litton M3rd really let me down. It's not only a low level recording but lacks details (even at higher volume) and sounds pretty opaque. Interpretively Litton has a few good points but overall I'd much prefer the Ozawa or even Nagano.
John,
-
I have an excellent solution for low-level recordings: turn up the volume. It's only a problem when there's still no impact (more a function of mike placement than level). I agree that Litton presents a more homogenized sound than some, but I don't find it opaque at all--merely naturally balanced in a large acoustic space.
Now, let's not forget Rogner--a real "sleeper" of a performance, also on the swift side.
Dave H
-
For whatever reason, the snare drum player is great on the Rogner (1st movement). I think it's one of Todd's (Leo) favorite ones too.
Also Dave, I've been yelling at John to turn up the volume on low level recordings for years now ;D
One more thing: If you want to talk Czech Phil. in M3, a bunch of us think that the Kobaysahi one is fabulous. The CPO is absolutely on fire for that particular performance. Unfortunately, you can also hear Kobayashi grunting and moaning along. He's totally into it!
Barry
-
Yes, I do love the Rogner M3, especially the first three movements...very colorful performance here with much detail to enjoy...the Finale let me down, but it isn't a disaster by any means.
Also, I second the Kobayashi/CPO M3 on Exton...with excellant brass all around. :)
--Todd
-
Sorry Dave & Barry, but even if I crank up the volume the Litton M3rd still has the same issue - it sounds murky and somewhat oddly balanced :-[ You know, the balance cannot be fixed by the volume.
John,
-
I've always found Kobayashi to be rather bland. I think the orchestra is carrying him. Same with Macal. If you want CHARACTER at a swift tempo, try Kondrashin!
Dave H
-
I have the totally opposite reaction. The Czech Phil. play Mahler 3 with far more intensity under Kobayashi than they normally do. The horns blaze away, and the strings really dig in. Regardless of who's carrying who, he clearly knows the work. The sound isn't that great, but the intensity of the performance really comes through. I agree that Neumann's M3 has a lot of character. The Supraphon sound is really good too. On top of that, Christa Ludgwig is the far better mezzo. But Kobayashi's last movement is far better, in my opinion. The horns are trombones are much stronger at the climactic passage of the long brass chorale, for example (Czech Phil. trumpets are always good though). Also, how could somebody with Neumann's keen sense of balance - combined with a discerning ear for good tonal quality - think that it was somehow correct that the trumpets be playing in parallel perfect fourths in the "southern storm" development passage of the first movement? That's character, all right! I also find him a tad "poopy" in the choral "bim-bam" movement. I think that the best movements on Neumann's celebrated recording of Mahler 3 are the second, third, and fourth ones. On the other hand, I agree that Macal's M3 borders on being fairly bland. So far, the best recordings in Macal's Mahler cycle are M4 and M7. Both of those are very good.
Barry
-
Barry,
Wait!
"The sound isn't that great"
?? :-[
I think whether it's in regular CD or SACD layer the Kobayashi/CPO/Exton M3rd is one of the best sounding Mahler recordings ever. I think you're thinking about his M2nd.
John,
-
It is from a live performance, and I'm comparing it to both Neumann and Macal - both of which have excellent sound quality. I'll go back and give this a re-listen.
Barry
-
I finally received my copy.
I like Gergiev's first movt. very much. It is strong, heady but full of wonderful effects, especially from the woodwinds and bright, edgy brass. I like II & III as well; I didn't think the brass solo in III. was too distant and the ending was terrific albeit it was a bit too fast. I can see why DH didn't appreciate the fast tempos in IV and VI but they aren't bad at all. Actually, the tempo in VI is steady until the last 5 min. or so where he speeds up all the way to the end. The sound is just fine, the playing fantastic. This is a M3rd I will return to again when I am in the right mood, when I become bored by slow versions, e.g., Bernstein II. MTT II, Abbado I, etc.
John,
-
I just really like Gergiev's pacing. In fact, in some respects, I think his first movement is the weakest. I really like his last movement. It's not so much that he's fast until the very end of the symphony. Instead, if you really pay attention, you'll observe that he pushes forward to the symphony's last cymbal crash. At that spot, he's suddenly a bit more broad in tempo, rather than pushing ahead even more. As I said before, if had done just a bit more of a ritardando in the final few bars of the symphony, that would have been really sweet - the effect that he was striving for really would have come off.
Really, it's such a more positive; more forthright; more energetic, and less pious or devout way of looking at the symphony.
-
I really like his last movement. It's not so much that he's fast until the very end of the symphony. Instead, if you really pay attention, you'll observe that he pushes forward to the symphony's last cymbal crash. At that spot, he's suddenly a bit more broad in tempo, rather than pushing ahead even more. As I said before, if had done just a bit more of a ritardando in the final few bars of the symphony, that would have been really sweet - the effect that he was striving for really would have come off.
Really, it's such a more positive; more forthright; more energetic, and less pious or devout way of looking at the symphony.
I know which spot you're referring to. I like that touch too. I also like several pauses he put to make the music sound profound; there are indeed places, especially in the finale, that could benefit from such a treatment and Gergiev did it well.
In a way, Gergive's M3rd resembles Kubelik's old recording on DG and Audite (but in better sound) and this was exactly what I have been looking for lately.
John,
-
Although I like this new M3rd quite a lot, I must take an issue with the sound quality. Compared to Gergiev's first recording in this cycle, M6th, it's sonics are rather two dimensional lacking depth and warmth. Also, the dynamic range seems to be somewhat compressed in climactic passages, especially near the end of Finale. That it is closed-up sound may have to do with these drawbacks. But I have listend to it only in regular CD layer, so I don't know how it would sound in the SACD format.
John,
-
I am listening to the stereo SACD track of the first movt and must confess that I like the sound much better this time :D
The sonics improve mainly thanks to the increased dynamic range whic opens up both ends of the frequency spectrum, stronger bass, and warmer acoustics, although overall it still sounds a bit too close. But it is a major improvement when switched from the CD layer to the SACD layer.
John,
-
Actually, the sound on the SACD layer is really excellent. It has lots of details that I didn't hear in the CD layer. More importantly, it now puts everything in three dimensional perspective adding depth and warmth. The lower ends in the bass, e.g., bass drum, timpani, are terrific, as are those tiny tremolos in the strings. I just wish the sound were not that close.
John,
-
HMV Japan have indicated that Gergiev's M2, coupled with the Adagio from M10 will be released on 20th January 2009.
-
I bought the Gergiev M3 today..thanks all for the reviews here...I can't wait to listen for myself very soon (I've been listening to Abbado's new M3 first).
I've been looking for a M3 with good flow in the middle movements and Finale...I hope this satisfies...the new Abbado flows just right.
--Todd
P.S. Where is everybody?
-
The Gergiev M3 sounds better with each listen...a very raw sounding performance...very refreshing,with much more impact than the Rogner, which this recording reminds me of because of the quick "raw" flow though each movement. Gergiev's Finale is breathtaking... :)
--Todd
-
Todd,
I am glad you've been impressed with the Gergiev M3.
Try listening on SACD layer as it will generate a deeper, wider sound stage with a lot more warmth and details. It sounds significantly better than the CD layer.
I like the performance and playing of LSO. It has become one of my favorite versions.
Cheers.
John,