gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: John Kim on August 18, 2009, 06:44:02 AM
-
Well, this is really well played, sung, and recorded M8th.
I'd say in recent years I've never heard a M8 that is sung this well - the soloists are all uniformly excellent as are the choruses. SFSO plays the music with smooth but burnished intensity following all of MTT's often challenging instructions. As I suspected, MTT adopts a rather swift tempo in Part I. with a brazingly fast ending. The overall effect is exciting but it is peppered with occasional retardando, eg, "Veni, Ve~~~~Ni Creator ..." at the start of the recapitulation. This stretching of "Ve" is strange and weird because MTT restores the previous tempo immediately following this. Elsewhere, he also employs a few pauses, not all of which are at good spots; there is one near the end of Part II. where the music needs to move forward with a maximum momentum and an uninterrupted flow. He also does another ritardando towards the end of the choral part (where Schwarz accelerated on the contrary).
Part II is slow, as in Boulez and Nagano. But it's not as dragging and the final pages cap up power and catalysis as all good performance of M8th should. Yes, the final orchestral part is all drawn-out out with every detail well caught.
The recording quality raises a concern - although it captures lots of details and is very bright, to my ears the balance & dynamic range shift frequently, and it sounds somewhat claustrophobic without much ambiance. Listen to the very ending of Part I. Its power trails off quickly because there isn't much ambiance that is needed to sustain the tension in both space and time.
All in all, a very nice addition to MTT's Mahler cycle, but I'd prefer Schwarz/Seattle Symphony recording over this one. Although the singing is not on a par with MTT's, the Seattle recording has better tempos, flows more naturally, and is blessed with a conducting that shows much musicality that is sometimes lacking in the MTT's edition.
That's all. I'll need to listen again for a more accurate review.
John,
-
John,
For once, you and I see eye to eye. The playing and the singing are, for the most part, truly top rate. The sound is excellent during softer parts. But I agree that something sounds rather compressed at the ending of both parts (Part I's ending is awfully fast, too). Worse yet, there's very little organ at the ending of both parts.
This isn't a matter of interpretation, as Mahler very clearly calls for the organ to sound fortissimo, with the added words "volles werke" (the complete works). I just don't understand this type of intervention, as it just doesn't sound good to have 400 people shouting, "All things transitory are only a parable" without a fat cushion of organ sound to ride on.
Further more, MTT's insistance on putting a personal stamp on his recent Mahler performances reaches its zenith with this new 8th. He simply refuses to allows Mahler's incredibly "organic" process of Part II to speak for itself. Massive ritardandos and unsolicited breaks only promise that we're in for one heck of a big ending to his 8th. (one break is a full five seconds long!). Unfortunately, without the organ, that ending simply doesn't deliver the goods (tam-tam is audible, but not overwhelming). Too bad, because there's much else that's excellent to this performance.
So here's how I'd rate this:
Chorus work: A
Orch. execution: A
Solists: B+ (the women are better than the men)
sound quality: B+
Conducting: C-
Organ: F
Mandolin: A-
I wish I could say that this new MTT/SFSO M8 simply sweeps the board. Unfortunately, it just doesn't. While I guess I like it better than the recent Boulez M8, I certainly don't like it more than Gergiev, Schwarz, De Waart; Bertini; Bernstein 1969; Inbal; Tennstadt; Rattle (on the audio DVD disc) . . and the list goes on and on.
-
Ditto, Barry.
Listen everyone.
Just try singing, "Veni , Ve~~~~~~Ni, Creator".
(1111 1111 1 11)
You figure, don't you? :)
John,
-
Thanks for the great reviews.
The sound of organ was very clearly heard in the concert hall last year and sounded with perfect balance with other instruments/voices.
I'll be interesting to find out how the recording sounds on CD.
-
Thanks for the great reviews.
The sound of organ was very clearly heard in the concert hall last year and sounded with perfect balance with other instruments/voices.
I'll be interesting to find out how the recording sounds on CD.
Maybe the recording engineers took a page from the recent LSO M8 and placed much of the organ sound in the rear speakers? Is anyone listening in multi-channel?
John: Did you spend the extra money and order it from the SFSO site?
-
Well, that's kinda too bad about the sound quality. (Did you guys get early copies? It's not supposed to be released for another week.) Reports I've read from people who attended the concerts said that it was very LOUD and overpowering. Sounds like the engineers may have dampened it down somewhat. (Frankly, I've never cared for the sound quality of the SFS Mahler recordings--in 2-channel SACD mode, BTW--as I generally find them overbright and edgy.) I'll still reserve judgment until I get my own copy, though. A good friend of mine has a super megabuck multichannel system, and I might want to try it out there as well. (I heard the ending of the Gergiev M8 on his system and it was quite the experience!)
Russell
-
Make no mistake. The sound quality is, for most part, pretty impressive and as good as all the previous MTT/Mahler releases have been. It's just that at some spots the balance shifts and the dynamic range suddenly pops up. Like Barry said, the soft passages sound great but the loud parts don't always sound that good. BTW, my judgement is based on hearing the discs on 2 channel stereo regular CD player. I might give you a different story upon hearing in multi-channel SACD format.
That said, here is my overall rating:
8/8
John,
-
No, I don't have multi-channel playback capabilities, so we really should wait to get feedback from Scott and Russell. I just have a hunch that they did a separate "studio" take for the ending. It just sounds too clean and tidy, and the offstage trumpets sound a bit too close at the end of Part II (fine at the end of Part I).
As far as MTT's conducting goes, the worst offense happens after the tenor's first big solo in Part II. Just before the passage for soft violions, chamber organ (harmonium), and harps (later to be joined by the chorus), MTT puts in a pause that lasts a full five seconds. Then he takes this passage so slowly - and played so softly - that it's difficult to recognize that this is one of the major melodies of the entire symphony. Each harp "pluck" sounds like a symphony on to itself. Hey, are we listening to Gustav Mahler, or Anton Webern?
Barry
-
Thanks John and Barry for the early impressions. This sounds like my cup of tea, as I rather like MTT's Mahler and his cycle is getting near the top of my list with every listen to it. Glad the hear the recorded sound has detail at least...perhaps the SACD layer brings out the space more as on the other releases in the cycle.
I'm tempted to get the iTunes before the actual release, but the download is two expensive...so I shouldn't!
--Todd
-
Ok, Leo, I do hope you like it. I really don't wish any bad luck to the SFSO, even if everyone here is completely diluted over the alleged greatness of Michael Tilson Thomas. The Mahler 8th he gave here in 1998 (his first one) was terrific. It was a lot like the Bertini. By that, I mean that everything was perfectly straight forward, and the ending to Part II was tremendous. Then I saw him do it again in 2001, and it wasn't nearly so good. He started playing around with the work already - intervening where it wasn't necessary to intervene. I missed his third go-around, which was the one that was initially going to be recorded for posterity. Everyone said that that one wasn't particularly great, partly because of alleged deficiencies with the cast of soloists. Frankly, I'm glad that I missed this last and final go-around, because I probably would have been driven mad by these massive ritardandos (slow downs) and gratuitous, completely unsolicited pauses. But for gott-im-himmel sake, please just give me something that at least approaches fortissimo with the organ. What's with this trend of ignoring the dynamic markings for the organ anyhow?
-
Thanks for the thoughts Barry. I'm hoping we will hear a report of the SACD layer soon...hopefully, I pray even, that the organ will have more presence in 5.1 sound at least, and maybe the stereo SACD layer.
At least the singers are pretty good, based on your reports so far!
--Todd
-
I must admit MTT's M8th grows on me. Although I criticized MTT's occasional ritardando and pauses, there are very few of them and they do not diminish the overall excellence of this recording. As for the sonic quality, it has firm bass and all the climaxes surge with great power and presence. The playing is as perfect as one can imagine. Ditto the singing.
Along with M1, M2, M4 and M9, this is one of MTT's best recordings in the series.
So, I will upgrade it to 9/9.
-
I have the opposite feeling with repeated listening. Yes, the playing and the singing are top rate. But I simply can't forgive M2 & M8 recordings that are so deficient with the pipe organ. Furthermore, for me, MTT's excessive ritardandos and unsolicited breaks - remember, one of them is nearly five seconds long!! - simply get in the way of my enjoyment. I don't think that I'll even be keeping this one. Frankly, I even like the first Tennstedt M8 better than this one. It's also reasonably well sung, and there's tons of pipe organ (which I like!). Also, unlike his '80's remake on DVD, Tennstedt's conducting was much more straight forward on this earlier one. I wish we could have that option with MTT: 1998 vs. 2008
Barry
-
I'm going to ramble on here a bit. You know, I've said some fairly uncomplimentary things about the Nagano M8. But I would take that one over the MTT as well. Nagano's ending to Part I is outstanding, where as MTT's is an excessively fast, jumbled mess. Nagano has too little tension - lack of fire, really - during the two, loud orchestral passages near the start of Part II. But at least his Part II truly leads to something. And while I'm not crazy about the more "French" registration of his pipe organ (I'm getting into territory that's outside of my schtick), at least there's a fair amount of organ there. I also like the rather long and mushy sounding last note at the end of his performance. I don't like sharp cut-offs on the very last note. MTT holds the final chord a bit too short for my liking, and then finishes off with a very sharp cut-off on the last note. Nagano easily has as much tam-tam as MTT does also.
B.
-
Barry,
I certainly share your feeling about the MTT ;). It is the playing, singing, and some of the sound quality - strong bass - that I like in this recording. I'd still pick the Schwarz over the MTT but I think it is definitely worth listening.
Regards,
John,
-
Still can't wait to hear the MTT M8...but I've spent too much this month and will have to wait a bit to hear it...the organ sound is never an issue for me, so I'm not worried about that...I am happy to hear the recorded sound is quite good, especially the bass.
--Todd
-
"I am happy to hear the recorded sound is quite good, especially the bass"
I'm not trying to get on your case, Leo, but why wouldn't that thought extend to the organ, since the organ so obviously makes a very important contribution to the "bass" at very key moments? Why not just do what the score says to do?
-
I listened to this performance for the first time this morning and am left unimpressed. I agree with Barry's general opinion that MTT takes far too many liberties with the music, although I probably like and dislike different parts than him (and vice verse, I'm sure). In my mind most of MTT's interventionist touches detract from the flow of the music -- unlike his M9, where I felt that most of them worked brilliantly and added tension and release. His sprint to the finish of Part I simply sounds ridiculous. His ritards in the Poco Allegro ruin the flow. He takes the harp interlude following the first Dr. Marianus section so slowly, that the entire symphony sounds like it is coming to a stop! His long pause prior to the entrance of Mater Gloriosa similarly ruins the flow (it sounds like they had to wait for the soloist to walk in from backstage!). There are similar unnecessary touches in the Chorus Mysticus. I have other complaints as well. The end of Part II is severely lacking in organ, except for the lowest pedals -- everything above the lowest frequencies is missing, causing the finale to be underwhelming despite excellent bass drum, tam-tam, and cymbals at the end. The singing is all decent to good, but it is nothing special. I really don't find the singing any more satifsying than the recent Inbal/Tokyo MSO, but that one was better in every other way.
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood because my allergies have been acting up! I am most disappointed after my intitial listening session.
-
"I am happy to hear the recorded sound is quite good, especially the bass"
I'm not trying to get on your case, Leo, but why wouldn't that thought extend to the organ, since the organ so obviously makes a very important contribution to the "bass" at very key moments? Why not just do what the score says to do?
No problem Barry, yeah, I guess I contradicted myself there...I mean to say if I generally love the whole performance, an underwhelming organ is not a bother. As long as the bigger picture rings true. For instance, in MTT's DLvDE the tam tam is rather quiet in an important passage near the end of the finale, but this doesn't ruin my impression of this otherwise great performance. I can live with it because the rest is great.
Hoping I like the MTT M8...after reading the comments here it sounds like my cup of tea.
--Todd
-
I gave the stereo SACD layer a listening yesterday and was pretty impressed overall. Yes, MTT has his idiosyncrasies--mostly the periodic slow-downs to a near-crawl in spots and a speeding up in places where you are not expecting it (the finale of the first movement, and even a bit into the Chorus Mysticus). Yet there is much to like--the orchestral playing is great and the chorus sounds robust and full-bodied, a welcome relief from the thin and straight-toned ones used in so many European recordings. The female soloists are great as well (particularly Erin Wall) and it's nice to hear them sing their excruciatingly high notes at the end and actually hit the notes spot-on instead of getting just under the pitch, as so many do. I'm much less enthused about the men, though. James Morris is simply over the hill and was painful to listen to. And tenor Anthony Dean Griffey sounds like Marilyn Horne on a bad day. Not good! (In that respect, I find him only marginally better than Vinson Cole, whom I also thought sounded like Horne. ;-) ) The sound quality was much better than I was expecting, given that I haven't been that happy with the sound of the other SFS Mahler recordings. There was a very nice spread and great depth and it's largely free of the grating harshness and edginess that have marred previous releases for me. It doesn't sound that 'warm' overall, though. As for the organ, I would have loved for it to have that 'wham' moment at 'Alles vergängliche' at the end (it doesn't), but at least there's a deep and very solid underpinning through to the end. And speaking of the very end, I love how MTT 'punches' the final chord--it's how I've always wished to hear the symphony end, but it doesn't always happen that way.
Addendum: Listened to a bit of it in the car driving home from work. The opening of the second movement is just a bit too protracted and drawn out for my taste--it sounds too calculated. But there are a couple of distinctive touches at the end: between the ending of "Zieht uns hinan" and "Alles vergängliche" (where the organ should hit you with a bang), the women's voices in the chorus "bridge the gap", so to speak--I believe Colin Davis also did this in his recording. Very effective, I think. More controversially, in the orchestral postlude, after the restatement of the opening theme by the brass, the music comes to a complete stop for about a half-second before the tam-tam stroke ushers in the glorious final moments. Also very effective!
Russell
-
Hmm, doesn't sound like an M8 for the wish list. In a pre-Prom interview on Saturday David Zinman spoke of the Tonhalle recording of M8, which should be available soon. The Tonhalle wasn't big enough to cater for all the players and singers so the live performance was given in Lucerne. The recording was made back in Zurich, where several rows of seats had to be removed. I really think this will be a very special M8. I hope I'm right.
-
"between the ending of "Zieht uns hinan" and "Alles vergängliche" (where the organ should hit you with a bang), the women's voices in the chorus "bridge the gap", so to speak"
That's actually written in the score, clear as daylight. I guess nobody observed it until Robert Shaw came along. Eschenbach holds it for several seconds, just to make sure that you're hearing it correctly.
"in the orchestral postlude, after the restatement of the opening theme by the brass, the music comes to a complete stop for about a half-second before the tam-tam stroke ushers in the glorious final moments"
The same break is on the Chailly M8. But on the Chailly, you can hear the bass drum that doubles the tam-tam there. I think it sounds kind of dumb to just have the tam-tam alone there, but that's just me. It makes it sound sort of like a "Carmina Burana" moment. But what bothers me even more about that particular moment on the MTT/SFSO M8, is that it sounds as though the whole recording is protracting way to the background, or some such thing. There's just the tam-tam, and then there isn't enough of the organ chord to pick up the slack either. It's as though everybody suddenly went off stage. But then when we get to the very last bit - the part where the offstage trumpets do their ascending leap of a 12th - those offstage trumpets suddenly sound too close to everything else. I really think that they kind of screwed it all up. It just comes off sounding a tad underwhelming, just for the sake of clarity - or some such thing. I don't know - it's weird. Admirable, but not really loveable - for me, anyway.
-
"…between the ending of "Zieht uns hinan" and "Alles Vergängliche" (where the organ should hit you with a bang), the women's voices 'bridge the gap', so to speak." [Russell]
"That's actually written in the score, clear as daylight." [Barry]
* * *
This spot in M8 has concerned me for some time. Here's my take on it. In the score, as Barry says, the sopranos and altos in choir II are tied over into the final statement of "Alles Vergängliche" at Figure 213 (the big ƒƒ organ entrance). What ISN'T in the score at that spot is any indication at all of a pause or gap – absolutely none! I believe Mahler wrote the tie-over for some of the voices as a sort of built-in "cross-fade", intending to tighten up and smooth over the transition even more, another indication that he wanted no gap whatsoever.
Then, somehow, a big, dramatic luftpause began to appear at Figure 213. Many conductors who employ the unwritten and unintended pause drop the tied-over women's voices (sometimes even claiming it's a mistake in the score). Others (Shaw, Davis, Eschenbach, and now apparently Thomas) add the pause AND retain the tied-over voices, resulting in a musical absurdity that Mahler never intended. (A few conductors actually do it right. For example Maazel in his recent NY performances came very close indeed – at least on Thursday night.)
James Meckley
-
Thanks for the info, Barry and James. It's interesting how conductors interpret that section so differently.
As for that "Carmina Burana moment"--LOL! I think this particular passage in this recording is now ruined for me for life. :D
I didn't notice any of the sound-perspective issues you (Barry) mentioned, though I agree that the offstage brass at the end sounds way too close. Perhaps it's better in the multichannel mix? I'll have to listen this disc on my friend's system to find out. (Or I could just ask him--and he would be able to compare it with how it sounded live, as he was there.)
Russell
-
James,
Now I'm curious as to how Maazel gets this right. That'll be interesting because I don't know how you can make the tie-over obvious without some small pause there. I'm going to restudy that spot in the score tonight. I agree that too many people have made a huge meal of it, especially Eschenbach. But at least Eschenbach isn't afraid to follow Mahler's dynamic markings for the pipe organ. I'll bet anything that the ending to his Verizon Hall M8 performances were pretty much the end of the line.
-
You know folks, I don't want to give the impression that this is a "bad" Mahler 8. It isn't, as I still gave it four stars on my Amazon review. It's just that I know - based on the 1998 performance that I attended at Davies Hall - that M. Tilson Thomas easily had the potential to wipe-the-slate completely clean. He could have presented something that would have buried the overly touted Solti Mahler 8 once and for all. Instead, Solti remains strong at precisely what's so clearly deficient about MTT's new recording: an acknowledgement that the organ is central to the overall success of the work, and a willingness to allow Mahler's incredibly "organic" compositional process - especially in Part II - to speak for itself. MTT simply intervenes too often, and too weirdly; and one wonders whether he actually feels all his expressive interventions, or whether it's simply all calculated for the sake of putting a personal stamp on his work (?)
I think we've been given two clues to the possible answer to this question: every issue in the MTT cycle has a big photo of MTT on the cover, and almost no photos of Mahler inside. And during that slick promo video posted on U-Tube (as well as the SFSO's own website), Mr. Tilson-Thomas states that the goal of his Mahler cycle has been to "communicate". I'd like to ask MTT the following question: who isn't trying to communicate with their Mahler cycles, or any other music that they may be performing and/or recording? And why would a desire to "communicate" qualify his cycle as being somehow unique? I don't get it. At least you can sort of hear the organ on that promo video. Maybe they should have just issued a live, "on-off" DVD instead.
-
Barry,
By "doing it right" I mean to play it without any break at all. I see nothing in the score to suggest that a break was intended. I don't believe the tied-over female voices were intended to be heard as some kind of exposed bridge, but rather to be sensed subtly as a musical "cross-fade", further smoothing the texture at that point, much the way a digital tape edit is made with an electronic cross-fade, so as to be less obvious than it might be otherwise.
This, of course, is only my opinion. Leopold Stokowski, who attended the premiere of M8 in Munich with Mahler on the podium, and who gave the US premiere in Philadelphia, later conducted the work in NY (1950). A recording of that concert shows a very small break at Figure 213, with absolutely no "bridge" of female voices, for what that might be worth.
BTW, I agree with many of your points about the MTT Mahler cycle. For me, several of the recordings are ruined by brief but terribly intrusive agogic distortions of tempo or line which make absolutely no sense to me and which, in the end, seem simply perverse.
James
-
James,
As I said, you have me curious now. I don't remember precisely how it's notated, but I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, I'll stare at it sometime tonight.
Just to play devil's advocate, I'd hardly call Robert Shaw an eccentric or ego-centric conductor. He was the first, that I know of, to make the sopranos stand out there. I still find that effect most convincing on his underrated recording. Perhaps that's simply because he doesn't exaggerate the length of it; I don't know. If done tastefully, I certainly don't think that it hurts in anyway, as there's certainly a shift in the tonal center (less than a full key change) at that moment.
-
Well, this topic finally got me to register! ;)
James already argued my thoughts on this (Eschenbach's performance being the first where I noticed (quite shockingly so)). I only wanted to link to the full score (http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/7/7e/IMSLP17066-Mahler-Symphony8fs.pdf) of Mahler's 8. at IMSLP. The point in question is (as stated) just before rehersal number 213, which is (funnily enough) on page 212 of the pdf. Even better is to look a the vocal score (http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/c/c8/IMSLP32652-PMLP05693-Mahler-Sym8VSue.pdf), as it's easier comprehend what it is all about (page 204 of the pdf).
As one can see, the women in choir II. start with the final "Alles Vergängliche" outburst before all others piano with a molto cresc.!
Definitely no Luftpause there!
Zoltan
-
Yeah, you're right. I just stared at the Dover score now. But I can also see why Robert Shaw did what he did (and everyone else played "monkey see, monkey do", I guess).
The altos in Choir I are already at fortissimo on the third line (ascending) Bb. Interestingly, the sopranos in Choir I don't enter again until their forth space "C" at rehearsal 213 ("Alles vergaengliche"). The sopranos and altos in Choir II have the same third line Bb as the altos in Choir I (the "aaah" part of "hinan"), but they started piano, and have a "molto crescendo" marking that ties over to 213, where they suddenly shift up a step to the fourth space C (and thus, the Choir I sopranos join them at that point). You're correct in saying that there's no marking for a hold or pause, unless the source of the Dover score had simply left it out (which is the sort of thing that happens with scores ALL of the time).
Perhaps what Shaw was trying to do was make that crescendo sound more obvious. Although, the Choir II sopranos/altos would be battling against the Choir I sopranos, who are already singing fortissimo. Or, even more likely, is that Shaw was simply wanting to make it obvious that - while there isn't a key change at 213 (Alles Vergaengliche) - the tonal center pretty much goes up one step for everybody at that point. If that's truly the point, then I applaud putting in a slight hold on the Bb, because it makes the "Alles Vergaenglich" part - which is a big, fat Ab chord (so that the "C" is the third in the chord) - sound that much brighter against the previous, mostly Eb chord that ends the "hinan" part.
But more troubling to me, is how the "terraced" effect of the ending gets missed on so many recordings. Mahler makes it very clear that there's a separate harmonium part - separate from the main organ. At 213 - "alles vergaengliche" - it's the main organ there, marked fortissimo (a hugely spread Ab chord), and with the added words "volles werke". Do you hear anything even remotely like that on most recordings? You certainly don't with MTT (and at least Boulez does have a separate harmonium). Anyway, when you reach the final "hinan" in the chorus, there's a forte tam-tam smash there (forte; fortissimo isn't until later); the pipe organ enters at fortissimo, and the offstage brass enter at that point.
Well, several things are interesting about 218 and beyond. First off, the offstage trombones have three part harmony there. Do you ever actually hear that? Frankly, all of the offstage parts should get doubled, and - therefore - not get placed too close to the onstage brass. But here, Mahler writes one of his markings that actually leads to more problems than solutions: he makes the comment that the first trumpet part can be doubled ("mehrfach besetzt). So, what often times happens, is that you hear a lot of the first trumpet part, but little of the harmony underneath them (and the trumpets have three part harmony as well). If you do this right - as the score says to do - you should be hearing a lot of the organ chord, and lot of harmony from the offstage brass. Just before 219, which is where the two sets of timpani and suspended cymbals do their "thang", the onstage brass answer the block chords that the offstage brass are playing at that point.
Now, here's what's truly interesting: the pipe doesn't reappear until 220 (the harmonium has continued to play on), which is where the tam-tam has it's second forte stroke (not fortissimo), and Mahler suddenly marks "Pesante". This is the spot where both Chailly and MTT put in their break, and it's a really bad spot to do that UNLESS you really crank up the organ at that point - the organ joins the harmonium at 220. The strings also enter fortissimo there, not that you can actually hear them. Anyway, at 220 (the second tam-tam smash), the pipe organ plays a big, fat Ab chord (with an Eb in the bass), fortissimo, with Mahler again saying "volles werke". Folks, he frickin' wants some organ there!!! That second tam-tam smash is also doubled by a bass drum roll (marked mezzo forte), which you don't hear at all on the new MTT recording. Then - and here's the clincher - when we get to the third tam-tam smash (the first one that's doubled by the cymbals, and the offstage trumpets do their ascending leap of a 9th), the bass drum roll is supposed to be fortissmo. At that same spot, the timpani start their rolls at piano, and make a crescendo all the way to the very end.
When you look at the score, you'll see all these "terraced" layers that you simply don't hear on many, many recordings. For example: four measures from the end, the onstage trumpets and trombones enter the sustained, already saturated Eb chord with full harmonization. Then the offstage trumpets join them two measures later, which is two bars from the end. Absolutely nobody has a crescendo marking here, except for the timpani, as everyone should be playing fortissimo already. The very final note is marked triple forte for everyone, except the strings (they have fortissimo). When you look at this, it's no wonder that the MTT M8, and a host of others (he's not alone), sound rather underwhelming.
-
Interesting analysis, Barry – much food for thought there.
Just for the record, I wasn't using Dover as a reference, but rather the Universal Edition score.
James
-
Interesting thoughts Barry, and I agree that it is a de facto key change to A flat major at RN 213 (though, what happens next is beyond my grasp of amateur knowledge of harmony). Mahler even divides the choruses to make it chord with a nice full sound of it. And since the orchestra is silent at this crucial point, if not else, this alone should make it a priority for an audible organ, just as you said.
As for the terraced dynamics up to the end, that is indeed a very important aspect that gets easily overlooked (just when I think I get overwhelmed by the sheer joy of an Eb major with the Accende- and Veni-motifs it gets even louder!). I remember when I started looking at scores and reading more about how composers notate music, and how much work there is in thinking about and creating the music from the paper. Considering that it's easier to hear the highest and lowest pitched parts in the orchestra (and the piercing sound a trumpet has at ff), I do indeed wonder about the Mahler's "mehrfach besetzt" indication.
I'm not audio engineer, so could it be, that it's just impossible to contain such a wide dynamic Mahler's 8th requires?
P.S. The Dover score is a reprint of the 1976 Russian publication by 'Izdatel'stvo "Myzika"' (Moscow). Though I wonder on which edition they based their print, considering that there hasn't been any "critical edition" of the 8th yet, it should be Universal Edition.
-
Thanks for your thoughts as well, Zoltan. I'll chat more when I have a bit more time. This week is pretty hectic.
-
I've been comparing the MTT M8 with the new Zinman and find I love both equally...with the MTT sounding better sonically.
I have to say this MTT M8 sounds really impressive after each hearing. What impresses me most is the playing of the SFSO and the sonics. The playing sounds so esquisite and the sonics beautifully capture the acoustics of the hall.
The climaxs in both MTT and Zinman have a power rarely heard in M8 recordings...on second thought I'd have to include the Witt and Gergiev.
The recordings above have all made me love the M8 for the first time. I finally understand why so many love this work.