Zinman ZTO M9m samples

[barry guerrero]

"albeit that the dynamic range is not compromised"

That part wasn't included in your post just a few spots up. However, I'm noting it now, and withdraw my "trees from the forest" criticism. Sorry about that.

[Russ Smiley]

Aside from balance, I don't detect material differences between this new Zinman performance and the Chailly version (to which the new recording, on first exposure, was most similar).  Maybe others will differ or prove me wrong?

My original comment was based upon the samples.  Now, I've received my copy of this CD from an Argentinian supplier (via ebay).  I've listened to it twice on my Zune on my latest business trip.  Subsequently, I've listened to Chailly, Bertini, Gilbert, etc.  As much as I wanted to like this performance (portions of the M1, M2, M3, M6, and M8 truly are magnificent), this M9 is a cadaver compared to the performances that have stuck with me.  That is the best description I can offer.  It is 'substance' barely draped over the skeleton.  If that was Zinman's intention, he suceeded magnificently.

Sometime around 1982 I was total overwhelmed by the Giulini M9, a performace that turned my opinion of Mahler from "if you are despondent, this guy will push you over the edge" to "he is the greatest composer bar none."

With M9, I have been 'persuaded' by Giulini, Bernstein (NYPO), Bertini, Lopez-Cobos, Mund, and Abbado/BPO.  Frankly, this performance leaves me perplexed.  Maybe after a few more listenings I may get the perspective, but as of tonight, I remain dismayed.

[John Kim]

Hey, Russ,

I am pretty much in the same boat as you are with regard to the Zinman.

I LOVE his M6th which I think is one of the best modern versions. I like the 3rd, 7th and 8th as well, albeit slight reservations.

As for the Ninth, I expected more from Zinman because his live performance with Aspen Festival Orch. blew me away.

It's not a bad performance or a recording per se. But with the Ninth Symphony, the competition is pretty stiff and we're all spoiled by Bernstein, Levine, Ozawa, Bertini, Giulini, and even Karajan.

Perhaps a better ensemble such as BPO or VPO might have delivered Zinman's vision more convincingly. But as it is, the TOZ simply doesn't seem to have the kind of virtuosity, lung power and the right timbre and colors for the piece.

Distant and somewhat cavernous, even the recording quality is sub par, compared to the earlier ones in the cycle.

Having said all these, repeated listening has revealed some strength in the music making.

So, I will keep this one on my shelve .

John

[Michael]

I got my Zinman M9 last Tuesday (the seventh) and meant to do a review but never got around to it.  I will at some point though.
The ending of the Rondo is a real sticking point for me.  The tempo is no different (perhaps a hair faster, but I really do not think so) at the end than in the beginning, which, judging by every other recording I have heard, is not the way it is supposed to be done.  The first movement is so vast that I need more time with it before I can report my thoughts.  I did think that the second movement lacked that final degree of harshness, just as did the Rondo.  Zinman's "gentler" sound pays off at times in the Finale, but I have issues there too.  The most noticeable, for me at least, is his sudden accellerando at 6:27 (during the C sharp minor violin solo).  The viola solo is nice and controled, but for some reason when the violin solo appears Zinman speeds up.  For me that is a passage of great emotion and thus it is not to be rushed through.  Playing the whole passage at a quicker tempo is one thing, but speeding up halfway through...no thanks.  It just rouins the mood.  If one wants to speed up the tempo, one should do so at the french horn solo just after that passage--it is a nice, natural transition from a quiet, minor theme to a louder, major one.  For an example of how well this can be achieved, Bernstein does this wonderfully in his Berlin recording.

Overall...I am a bit disappointed with this recording, as I had much higher expectations for it.  But I am glad I have heard it because, like probably many others, I would not have been happy until I had.  I look forward to hearing it on an SACD player if I can ever find one to listen on.

So, my "favorites" list remains pretty much unchanged: Rattle/BPO, Bernstein/BPO, and the Barbirolli/BPO is growing on me--I have always liked his first movement.  Runners up: Levine/PO, Giulini (especially for his first two movements), and the Bernstein/RCOA (even with that dischordant wrong note there in the Finale).

[barry guerrero]

I'm sorry, but I don't "get" all this fussing. To me, the bottom line is this: if you want a truly expansive Mahler 9th - one that's similar to Levine/Philly in the two outer movements - but with better, more up-to-date sound, then get this one. If that's not your bag, then don't bother. For me, as a recording, I find the Levine one almost un-listenable in comparison to the Zinman. The rest is just examining the trees too carefully.

[John Kim]

Zinman's "gentler" sound pays off at times in the Finale, but I have issues there too.  The most noticeable, for me at least, is his sudden accellerando at 6:27 (during the C sharp minor violin solo).  

So, my "favorites" list remains pretty much unchanged: Rattle/BPO, Bernstein/BPO, and the Barbirolli/BPO is growing on me--I have always liked his first movement.  Runners up: Levine/PO, Giulini (especially for his first two movements), and the Bernstein/RCOA (even with that dischordant wrong note there in the Finale).

Michael,

You really nailed it down.

Zinman's 'gentler' and 'relaxed' approach somehow doesn't work well for the symphony. The reason? Because M9th is a quite 'modern' piece that will shine with a sharp, alert approach. Well, if the playing was more focused and better, Zinman's way with the score might still have scored higher, but we're not talking about BPO or VPO here.

Barry mentioned similarity to Levine's celebrated Philadelphia recording. But other than the slow tempo, I don't see much similarity.

Of the two, I'd definitely go for the Levine.

That's me.

John,

[Leo K]

I'm sorry, but I don't "get" all this fussing. To me, the bottom line is this: if you want a truly expansive Mahler 9th - one that's similar to Levine/Philly in the two outer movements - but with better, more up-to-date sound, then get this one. If that's not your bag, then don't bother. For me, as a recording, I find the Levine one almost un-listenable in comparison to the Zinman. The rest is just examining the trees too carefully.

I'm with Barry on this one...I think this is one of the best expansive M9's on the market now (along with Nott's and Maazel's recent accounts), with amazing sonics.  The tone of Zinman's interpretation doesn't sound gentle to me, at all! AND the playing of his orchestra is among the best of the cycle, definitely as good as his M3 and M6.

--Todd

[barry guerrero]

Again, these are low level recordings, and I think that too many people simply play them back at too low of a level. Turn your knobs up!
This isn't under-played, too gentle, or any of that other nonsense. In fact, the climax in the last movement pretty much blows me right out of the room. The ONLY other one I know that's remotely like that is the "live" Karajan. The forest, gentlemen, the forest.

[John Kim]

Again, these are low level recordings, and I think that too many people simply play them back at too low of a level. Turn your knobs up!
This isn't under-played, too gentle, or any of that other nonsense. In fact, the climax in the last movement pretty much blows me right out of the room. The ONLY other one I know that's remotely like that is the "live" Karajan. The forest, gentlemen, the forest.

Again, let me make sure I am NOT looking at trees here.

When I speak of 'reading', 'interpretation, 'sound quality', they are all related to the whole performance, i.e., the forest, not the trees.

John,