Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
It could be an issue with my playback equipment, as the low strings sound 'boomy' and not clear enough to me on the Jarvi recording. I do like Jarvi more than Zinman in middle movement Scherzo. But I like Zinman's one minute longer first movement, as well as his one minute longer finale. I like the finale to build up steam on its on, and not sound too pushed. All that busy chugging in the strings gets muddy if they're pushed too hard. And by going a bit slower, it makes Zinman  - and others who do this - sound as though he's really turning up the heat as we're approaching the big brass chorale and the coda. It gives the illusion of accelerating where the trombones do their unison descending scale. With 14 minute finales - such as with Jarvi - it just feels like, "oh, now we're here at the ending". 15 to 15:30 works best for me in the finale. I think the Adagietto was pretty much a tie.
22
I just listened to this on Idagio and for me it goes to the top of the list. If dynamic contrast is limited, to me it seems the other way around, that the quieter parts are normal and the loud parts seem restrained. But it's not egregious and I'm not sure I would have noticed, Barry, if you hadn't pointed it out. I am listening with good Grado headphones on a business-class laptop.

Järvi places the second violins on the right and low strings on the left. In the Zinman recordings, the seconds were also on the right but so were the low strings. In Zinman the seconds often seemed faint but in this recording, they're at parity. Mahler often exploits interplay between the two sections and the antiphonal placement pays dividends.

Example: In the second movement, just before number 19, the firsts and seconds play staggered high Fs, a passage that loses its effect if the violins are massed instead of separated. Then too, in that elaborate contrapuntal writing in the Finale, the antiphonally placed sections help clarify the lines.

One strong virtue of this recording is not only transparency through the whole orchestra but the coherence and strength of the woodwind choir, which is sadly rare and at least for me, a hallmark of a satisfying Mahler performance.

I did not notice particular mannerisms, Järvi following Mahler's instructions scrupulously, apart from one quibble: In the Scherzo, shortly before number 29, the obbligato horn plays a series of quarter notes ending in three descending notes that land on a C (notated; actual pitch F). At the beginning of this phrase, Mahler writes "nicht riten." and "nicht zurückhalten!" indicating that the phrase should be played firmly in tempo until those three descending notes, finally mark "rit." The horn player slows down a bar or so before he is supposed to. Quite a common contravention of the composer's explicit instructions, and in many performances, it's much more pronounced.

The hornist, Ivo Gass, is otherwise first class in every way. I can also praise the instances when a sustained note shifts between the obbligato horn and the orchestral section; in many performances, the loudness sometimes fades (though *somebody* is supposed to be playing fortissimo throughout the phrase). Here it's performed as Mahler instructs.

Overall, to my ears this is a really outstanding release and I'm looking forward to upcoming installments in the cycle.

Note: My score is the Dover, based on the 1904 C. F. Peters edition.
23
I have some age-related hearing complications and turning the volume way up would be inadvisable. In fact I just declined a free ticket to the Mäkelä/CSO M3 next month because the seat is in the front row where the harsh, grating sound in the loud parts is painfully unbearable.

For M3 my solution is to spin up the Kubelik/BRSO studio CD. Despite its age, the winds are stunningly present and the whole recording is like a conversation among human (and in M3, animal) voices. It puts many newer recordings to shame, but Nott/Bamberg is more than respectable in that regard.
24
'It is not a lack of character in the playing of the CPO musicians but a characteristic of the recording.'

--> Turning the volume up, way up helps bring the woodwinds forward more prominently.

Indeed, compared to the other recordings in their Mahler cycle the sound is somewhat lacking in warmth and is tad too 'hard'. But it has a great sense of 3D effects with a good depth and an enormous dynamic range.

John
25
Giving Bychkov a second listen, this is a very good recording. However, the upper woodwinds in particular are recessed and would benefit from being more prominent. It is not a lack of character in the playing of the CPO musicians but a characteristic of the recording.

I just listened to the Nott/Bamberg M3--a live recording and I believe the only live one in the set--and it is outstanding. Sharp execution and SQ with presence and impact.
26
John, I promise you I'll get around to listing to the Chung/RCOA M9, but not until later this month, I'm afraid. I'm tied up with several different things going on for another 10 days.
27
Hi Roland,

Plz check my message sent to you.

John
28
Roland,

Every time I expressed my enthusiasm about a new recording online early on, he always ended up posting a negative review of the same recording. Were they coincidences? I may be wrong about this, but I don't think so. He might have posted his review after reading my postings. I kid you not!^ I will give you just three incidents:

1. Chung/SPO/DG M9th (his review is available on classicstoday.com)
2. Bruckner 0th Symphony for which I expressed my deep affection numerous times online. But he called it 'the worst Bruckner symphony' (on YouTube video)
3. Bychkov/CPO/Pentatone M3rd (on YouTube video)

In the case of Chung's M9th, I am dead certain he purposefully did IT. The review is not only unfair objectively it may even be perceived as insulting to the Korean artists.

Agreed on your description of Bychkov's M3rd. He must have given lots of thoughts before he tackled conducting and recording the work and it shows in every movement, every note. This is a very thoughtful reading with deep affection for the score. In my words, Bychkov's approach is 'grand in scale, minute in details', and that's pretty much all that is needed in performing the symphony. Speaking of the orchestra, who could play Mahler better than CPO?

John
29
DH's dyspeptic review of the Bychkov M3 is basically a tantrum. I have a rule of thumb for online discourse: If you wouldn't say it to someone in person, maybe don't say it online either. Just imagine standing next to Maestro Bychkov, CPO musicians, or the recording team, and hurling the CD case to the floor while expressing disgust with their work. It's OK to express a strong opinion, but if you're infantile about it that says more about you than about whatever displeased you.

Listening again tonight, this time with the score, this is an outstanding recording. Bychkov maintains a narrative arc yet is attentive to Mahler's instructions and brings out a wealth of detail. It is not fussy or lacking in characterization. The recording is transparent and the CPO musicians play like gods. To my ears it's up there with the best.
30
I think the N. Jarvi Prokofiev 5 is good reading, but I also agree about that those Chandos recordings done with the SNSO. In England, they use the Paiste tam-tams, which I generally don't like at all. I agree that the Slatkin is excellent. I don't know Kitaenko one at all.

John, I agree with every comment you make, regarding the playback of the Bychkov M3. There's tons of detail and subtle nuances that can be heard. It's also NOT boring - it has forward propulsion in the right spots. For example, his build-up to the climax of the third movement is amazing (I'm not talking about the coda) - the climax that's between the two major soundings of the offstage posthorn (which is wonderfully done).
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk