Vänskä/Minnesota M6

[Roland Flessner]

Last week I heard Osmo Vänskä conduct M6 with the Minnesota Orchestra. I was surprised that the sound was dull and murky; I was in the tenth row and have sat near there for several other concerts; on those occasions the sound was much clearer. The upper woodwinds were really buried in the texture, with many usually audible details lost.

Vänskä used S-A ordering. Tempo for the first movement was a touch slower than what we might call the consensus. I thought the performance felt generic and lacking in feel for Mahler's rhetoric early on, but that it did improve. Passages that should be pianissimo never seemed to go below mezzo forte, robbing the alpine heights episode of its ethereal beauty.

The hammer in the finale was a huge wooden mallet, our percussionist adding an air of theatricality as he raised it to strike. The instrument was impressively loud, but produced a sharp report at odds with Mahler's instructions ("short, dull, powerful, not metallic, like the stroke of an axe"). For the second instance, Mahler specifies cymbals and tamtam "only if the hammer is not sufficiently penetrating." Officially the extra percussion should have been omitted but Vänskä included them, as most conductors do. Toward the end, just before the (omitted) third hammerstroke, the tamtam is marked forte but was definitely played fortissimo. Nobody likes a loud gong more than I do, except of course Barry, but I like to assume Mahler knew what he was doing.

I have a number of Vänskä's BIS recordings, and to my ears they maintain a high standard of both artistry and engineering. I suspect that Mahler is relatively unfamiliar to both conductor and orchestra, and that both need more experience to obtain more idiomatic results, particularly with as large an orchestra as in M6.

[barry guerrero]

"Passages that should be pianissimo never seemed to go below mezzo forte, robbing the alpine heights episode of its ethereal beauty."

Are you talking about the cowbell episodes in the two outer movements, or the "Alpine" passage that's about 6 or 7 minutes into the Andante Moderato. If it's the latter, I'm more bugged by the usual lack of fortissimo in the horns. All 8 (or 9) horns play unison, beginning at a full forte and ascending on to fortissimo. For me, that passage is almost always underplayed. The cowbells are onstage at that moment and should sound quite 'clangy', in my opinion (they're offstage in the two outer movements). If the horns and cowbells play out, it puts the rather naive, almost 'childish' sounding solo trumpet into its correct dynamic perspective. It should sound very 'outdoors-y'. The Vienna Phil. usually does that particular passage really well.

"but I like to assume Mahler knew what he was doing"

Absolutely. Mahler wasn't the least bit afraid of writing fortissimo for the tam-tam; when it wanted it! You're right, that particular stroke should only sound forte. I may love tam-tam, but I'm more concerned about the quality of the sound than the actually quantity of it. 

Anyway, I very much enjoyed your report.

Barry

[Roland Flessner]

I'm referring to the cowbell section in the first movement as an example of playing that seemed always too loud and remained earthbound when it should suggest another dimension.

And thanks for you kind remarks!

[barry guerrero]

"I'm referring to the cowbell section in the first movement as an example of playing that seemed always too loud and remained earthbound when it should suggest another dimension"

Perhaps the tempo was also a tiny tad too fast. Your seat might have been a factor as well. You can't control the volume of the celeste. The horns play their Major-to-minor chord "thang" with mutes on, so they can only be so loud (with the mutes on, there should be a 'stinging' quality to their sound). Maybe the offstage cowbells were a bit too close. A bass clarinet can only play so loud as well. You're right, it all should sound quite soft. But I'm thinking that perhaps tempo and location of your seat, might have played into your impression. Maybe not.

If were you relatively close to the front, the strings might have sounded a bit too loud in general. Rarely does a conductor ever start reducing the number of strings in certain passages. Egos get involved, so rarely will a conductor say something like, "I want only outside violins to play in this passage up to bar such-and-such". That's why I generally like seats farther back or up in the balconies. The visceral impact gets blunted, but the balances are generally far better. Anyway, just my two cents. I don't like going to movies too far up front either  

Here's another thought: the upper strings should be playing their 'swirling' trills with mutes on as well (they mount on to the bridge). Perhaps Vaenska didn't insist on that, or asked them to remove them.

[Roland Flessner]

I really think it was a matter of the orchestra not playing softly enough. The cowbell episode in the first movement is just one example, but throughout the performance, the orchestra rarely seemed to get below mf. (BTW, the cowbells in 1. were barely audible.)

I've heard a variety of pieces from this area of the hall before, and only in this performance did the orchestra fail to descend to pp. Admittedly the orchestra is huge for M6, but I've heard Stanislav Skrowaczewski conduct a couple of his own pieces for very large orchestra, the sound being far less congested with a full dynamic range.


That said, and depending on the program, I may sit farther back on my next trip to the Twin Cities.