Lopez-Cobos/CSO/Telarc M9th CD - revisit

[John Kim]

In the past I often criticized Lopez-Cobos for emphasizing brass & percussion too much in the opening movt., as well as Telarc's overly bright sound which also lacks depth and some details. But over the years I have grown to like this recording for its beauty of playing and a clearcut interpretation by the conductor. I still think the first movt. suffers from the brass & percussion that blow almost every other instrument away. This isn't what Mahler might have pictured - Bernstein, Ozawa, and even Karajan have done better in this regard. But III. & IV. are terrific, as nearly ideal as I can imagine. I particularly like the fast tempo with which Lopez-Cobos starts off III. although he slows down later on in the choral passage. He also makes sure his players sustain the tension in IV. from start to finish, something that only Bertini and Levine could achieve.

I still cannot rate the sound on this CD as "the greatest ever" as some critics have claimed. It's overly bright, lacks depth, and a bit too distant to reveal all the details. But my colleagues kept saying I have to try it on a high-end equipment which I don't own.

Any opinion?

John,

[barry guerrero]

I wasn't crazy about some of the phrasing in the horns, which I remeber as being sort of "choppy" in the last movement - particularly around the climactic passage. I'm not wild about the principle horn player in Cincinnati, in general. What I did like, was the size of the bass drum rolls in the outer two movements. I'm sure that sort of thing impresses your audiophile friends. To me, it's sort of a run-of-the-mill slow performance of the 9th albeit with very good very playing. But for slow performances, I still prefer Giulini, Karajan, Zander, and Bertini (and not in any particular order). I'd like to hear Levine's Munich remake someday.

Sorry, but I really have to be "in the mood" to listen through slow performances of the 9th.

Barry

[sperlsco]

This will be a good one to revisit.  If I am making a list of my favorite M9's, I usually think to include this one (among many others), but really cannot remember a thing about it.  Hopefully, the radio rip of the Harding M9 will put me in the mood to do a mini-tour of M9's.  BTW, as you have stated before John, Americans like their classical music to emphasize brass and percussion -- after that who cares! 

Speaking of the sound on the Telarc/Lopez-Cobos/Mahler series, I always thought that the M3 had very BOOMY bass.  I have to turn down the subwoofer channel to get any enjoyment out of it.  Perhaps the M9 SQ suffers from this same thing.   

[John Kim]

Scott,

I have always found the sound of CSO recorded by Telarc lacking depth and details. The brass and percussion are recorded forwardly but the woodwinds may be sitting way in the back of the hall. This is especially true in the Lopez-Cobos's M9th CD. But it was recorded by a different engineer (can't recall his name) than Mike Bishop who later recorded the M3 and M10 by the same forces. To my ears Mike Bishop's job is much better, i.e., his sounds closer and deeper revealing more details. That said, I still believe that on a right stereo surround equipment, Lopez-Cobos's M9th will sound great, much better than I can ever imagine.

Anyway, this Maher Ninth CD has gone a long way to finally rank very highly on my list.

John,

[Leo K]

I recently bought this thanks to John's recommendation.

In light of John's comments regarding the sound of the production, I have to admit I thought the sound quite impressive, full of depth but perhaps the strings were too distant during the louder climaxes.  As John pointed out, the brass and percussion dominate the climaxes while the woodwinds get pushed into the background.  At the same time, the sound picture is resonant and atmospheric, and the lower brass, bass drum and timpani are quite exciting to behold in all their glory (though the woodwinds are actually heard clearly during the second climax in the first movement).  On my CD player (Sony SACD with Onkyo reciever with my bass setting at +4) and headphones (grado SR80's) the sound wasn't too bright, and the chords of brass and woodwind (with texture in the timbre) were "round" in sound so I could turn it up without fearing the sound would get too sharp...therefore I actually really enjoyed the sound picture overall, since the deep sound picture provides a dramatic "large" sound that fits well with the work.

The beautiful string playing, and straightforward tempos combined with plenty of passion makes this a powerful M9, so I understand why John still holds this M9 in high standing despite the sonics.  I look forward to more listens!


--Todd

[John Kim]

If you compare one of Telarc's more recent recordings from Cincinnati, e.g., Lopez-Cobos/CSO Rachmaninoff 2nd symphony with this M9th, you will see miles of improvement in their sound. The R2nd was also engineered by Mike Bishop so there is a fundamental difference. But more to the point, the R2nd has a better resolution, a better balance between instruments (the woodwinds and strings don't sound distant anymore), and a wide dynamic range as well. No doubt that the improvement is, to a large degree, attributed to DSD technique they began to adopt lately. This is indeed a gorgeous sounding recording, something that their M9th should have sounded like.

I once asked Telarc if they are willing to reformat it in SACD. But they replied that the sound won't improve at all because the original tapes were not encoded using the DSD technique.

John,

[barry guerrero]

It would be nice if Telarc would re-make the 9th with Ben Zander, because that was actually a very good performance. It just didn't have great sound. But I think that the Ben Zander cycle is now dead in the water. Too bad, because he did the 8th really well in Boston. I'd also be curious to hear him in the 7th. His cycle isn't fabulous, but it certainly isn't poor either.

[John Kim]

It would be nice if Telarc would re-make the 9th with Ben Zander, because that was actually a very good performance. It just didn't have great sound. But I think that the Ben Zander cycle is now dead in the water. Too bad, because he did the 8th really well in Boston. I'd also be curious to hear him in the 7th. His cycle isn't fabulous, but it certainly isn't poor either.

Barry,

I agree. His M9th was the best in the cycle so far, only marred by the sound. I too would like to hear his M7th as well as M2nd.

John,

[Leo K]

I haven't heard the Zander M9 yet (it's in my "listen soon" pile of M9's), but I've heard the well done lecture disk (this was a nice feature of his cycle).  I agree his Mahler is well worth it.  I think his M5 is really good.

--Todd