MTT/SFSO/SFSO M2 & M4 - Two Big Thumps up!

[John Kim]

For the first time I had an opportunity to sample the entire recordings of two of the most popular works by Gustav Mahler. What a surprise! This M2nd has nearly everything - alert and dynamic playing, judicious tempo shifts (that will make the work sound less monotonic than than it really is), great sound, and pretty good singing (except for the mezzo). What I like most about MTT's conducting is the occasional tempo adjustments such as the slow-down near the end of III. or speed-ups during the final pages of Finale. We all know that MTT does this in all of his Mahler recordings, but they've never been employed as consistently and convincingly as here. Also, the playing of SFSO is top notch; they sound as if they were truly inspired. Why not? After all, the orchestra made one of the great recordings of M2nd with Blomstedt previously for Decca.

As for the M4th, this may well be the best recording of the piece ever made. MTT's phrasing and tempo (which is on the expansive side) are so fitting to the music that it sounds as if it came directly from the composer's heart. Even the sound is prefect, probably one of the best sounding Mahler recordings as well. The balance, dynamic range, ambiance, seem right on target.

Along with their M1st and M9th, these two installments represent MTT and his orchestra at their peak. Only if their M5 and M7 had been this good...

John,

[Jeff Wozniak]

I have the 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7, and while I wanted to like them, I just can't.  What ruins it for me is the extreme dynamics used in many recordings these days.  IMO if a recording has to be cranked up to hear the quiet parts and then turned back down for the loud ones then there is a problem.

[John Kim]

But the sound (as well as the inpretation) of this M4th is in a class by itself. IMO, its sonics rank with that of Salonen/LAPO/Sony M3 and Levi/ASO/Telarc M6.

John,

[barry guerrero]

M4: Again, we disagree. There's little urgency to the scherzo, much less anything that sounds truly frightening. The slow movement is verrrrrrrrrry slow. But worst of all, Claycomb sings her dotted eighth/sixteenth note figures as triplets - robbing those bars of childlike, innocent rusticity: "Wir geniessen die hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii-limishen freude" - those are dotted eighth/sixteenth note patterns; not triplets. I can't listen to that.

M2: Yes, the ending is very good, and I really like how MTT handles the climactic passage to the first movement (and how he doesn't wait long to re-enter with the ascending, fast runs in the lower strings; immediately after the climax). Also, Lorraine Hunt-Lieberson is terrfic. But the second movement just sits there like a turd - just as with his intermezzo movement in M3 - and I can't stand the bizarre,  sudden slowing of tempo in the scherzo, which happens for no explainable reason at all. Again, it's an awfully long performance that allows the tension or any sense of urgency to just sag throughout. That just doesn't work for me. Even though it's a much more predictable conducting job (and with poorer singers), I prefer the Blomstedt recording with the SFSO.

[sperlsco]

John:

I agree with your overall enthusiasm for these two performances.  Sonically, most of the MTT/SFSO releases are unsurpassed in terms of realistic "you are there" sound when in multi-channel SACD.  I don't see myself returning to the cycle's M3 and M6 very often, and the M5 and M7 don't really make my first tier of favorites, but the M2, M4, and M9 all are first rate.  I am a little bothered by one particular affectation by MTT's, though.  You specifically mention his ritardando near the end of M2-3, which sounds completely unnatural to me.  OTOH, it is SOOOOOO different, that I find myself anticipating it in other performances -- and being rather sadistically disappointed when it is not there.  I like the first and final movements of the M2 quite a bit though.  His finale features a phenomenal percussion crescendo before the march of the souls (and the march is great, too).  His second movement is too slow for my taste, but that is a problem for me in my Bernstein/DG reference performance. 

The M4 is on the slow side, so I was rather happy when the Macal was released as a faster SACD alternative.  However, the playing on the MTT is gorgeous and I rather like his conducting.  This may not be a first recommendation from me, but it is a recommended alternative.  As for Laura Claycomb's singing in M4, I really like her voice and singing in this movement.  Now, I do not want to argue with Barry's knowledge and ear for the music, but I just cannot hear what he is describing.  To my (untrained) ear, her singing sounds like it is in rhythm with the music.  I have listened to the relevant section and compared it to both Bernstein/Grist and Salonen/Hendricks (two of my favorites) and cannot hear any real difference -- excepting the Bernstein has a much faster tempo overall -- but I cannot discern any difference to the rhythm in the voices versus the music. 

[barry guerrero]

It's simple: tap the beat that the music is going. Then tap four sub-beats for each of those beats. The upper note on that vowel should be on the fourth sub-beat. Regardless of the tempo, that means that the upper note should come quite late within the beat; and - by necessity - it must be short in duration. In other words, the upper note should happen almost immediately before the next downbeat. In the case of Claycomb - and a few others - if you subdivide each beat  by tapping three sub-beats (triplets), you'll see that the timing and duration of the upper note more closely approximate a triplet rhythm. It gives that phrase a smoother, more sophistocated feel that also lacks in rusticity, or any kind of "yodeling" effect. At quicker tempos - which Mahler and Bruno Walter both took for this movement - the effect is almost like a grace note (I said "almost").

If we want to expand this into a more metaphyisical analysis, even though the boy - not mature women - is already dead, he shouldn't sound dead! He is reaping his earthly rewards in the afterlife, and is quite overjoyed about it - everything that he had been deprived of below on earth, is now fully abundant. The music should reflect that - it's all in the text. Sorry, but I'm just tired of dead sounding Mahler! (and that's bug-a-boo).

[sperlsco]

It's simple...

Thanks, I'll try that over the weekend.   

[chalkpie]

MTT M4.........YES! Amazing, especially the 3rd and 4th movements. Gorgeous sonics to boot. Easily 10/10 in my book

[barry guerrero]

Sure, if you don't mind the slow movement stretching out to 25 minutes, or don't care what it was that Mahler really intended with the vocal movement. Then I guess it's great.

[chalkpie]

Sure, if you don't mind the slow movement stretching out to 25 minutes, or don't care what it was that Mahler really intended with the vocal movement. Then I guess it's great.

I guess I don't, since I enjoyed the snot out of the ruhevoll. It was genuinely gorgeous and musical as hell to my ears - I couldn't care less how long it was and I didn't have my stopwatch on me. Claycomb does a fine job in the 4th, but not my favorite I'd say. Overall it is a beautifully performed version with many attributes.

I think you need to have it out sometime with MMT, Barry! You seem to have a beef with the guy every time he handles Mahler, which of course is fine as your entitled. But generally I'm not hearing these criticisms - maybe my ignorance is bliss? I am an Ives fanatic and I have always had an immense amount of respect for MTT in his knowledge of Ives, so I know there is major talent there lurking. MTT's Rite of Spring is also my favorite, not to mention his prodigious handling of Copland. I feel the same with his Mahler - it's not always great 100% of the time (who is honestly?) - but there are superb moments.

YMMV.

[barry guerrero]

I think it's simply a matter of comparisons. And by the way, I completely agree in regards to MTT and Stranvinsky, Ives and Copland. No arguments there. I'm not trying to ruin your listening experience. It's just that as "gorgeous" as MTT's slow movement may be at 25 minutes, there are plenty of equally gorgeous ones that range from 20 to 23 minutes. If you want to hear gorgeous strings - far more gorgeous than the ones you hear from the SFSO, in my opinion - try the recent Honeck/Pittsburgh M4. Unfortunately, Honeck takes the climax to the slow movement really slow, like Maazel. But beyound that, it's truly gorgeous string playing.

Also, to me, it's not a question of whether Claycomb is, "the best" or not. It's that the song isn't characterized from the standpoint of a young boy. Again, just listen to how she handles the dotted eighth/sixteenth note patterns on "himmlische". She sings them nearly as triplets. The mighty MTT - who's supposed to be so knowledgeable on Mahler - should have caught and corrected that. At least get the bloody rhythms correct.

Also, what about the scherzo? Don't you think it should be both nervous and scary (scarry?) sounding? I don't think it should just 'be there', taking up time. Try to hear how excellent the scherzo can be, sometime, from either Tennstedt, Norrington (yes, Norrington!) or Markus Stenz. You're left exhausted and frightened - or should be.

My problem with MTT isn't that he doesn't know his Mahler - obviously he does. It's that he over-interprets in some spots - intervening where he doesn't need to - and way under-realizes other spots. It's an unwillingness to allow what Mahler put on the page to speak for itself. If nothing else, just compare to Bernstein!

[chalkpie]

Fair enough - this is all makes sense. I am by no means questioning your knowledge and integrity - I have always enjoyed your insight on GM here and at Clamazon. But while listening to this M4 I scratch my head in disbelief that any Mahler fan couldn't at least LIKE it.

I thought maybe MTT slashed your tires or something so you were having it out with him 

ps - Count me in the fan club of the Rondo-Burlesque...it's brilliantly orchestrated and the dense counterpoint is quite welcome to these ears. It's not "Easy/Goosebump" Mahler, but challenging and thorny Mahler. I dig it.

[barry guerrero]

"it's brilliantly orchestrated and the dense counterpoint is quite welcome to these ears. It's not "Easy/Goosebump" Mahler, but challenging and thorny Mahler. I dig it."

It's certainly ALL of those things. But I just don't feel that it's up there with  Mahler's most inspired movements. I would love to have heard what Mahler would have done with the second movement (first scherzo) of the 10th, IF he had lived to revise and finish it. Oh well.