Walter/Klemperer Mahler 8

[justininsf]

Both Klemperer and Walter were present for the premiere of the 8th Symphony, how come they never recorded it?  Did either perform it ever?

[barry guerrero]

It's a really great question. Both conductors thought very highly of the "Resurrection" symphony, that's obvious. But both men must have felt that the 8th wasn't for them. Why didn't Walter champion either symphonies 6 or 7 as well? And wouldn't the grimness of Klemperer's personality been almost ideal for the 6th?

There was a young man at the premiere of M8 in Munich who would later smuggle the score of M8 out of Europe and give the American premiere of it in 1916. That man was Leopold Stokowski.

http://www.library.upenn.edu/exhibits/rbm/stokowski/mahler.html

[AZContrabassoon]

If you read bios of either conductor it becomes obvious why neither bothered with it - they didn't like it and thought it wasn't very good.

Walter did do most of the symphonies, but didn't have an affinity for 6, 7, or 8. He was scheduled to record the 3rd, but death intervened - one of the great "what could have beens" in Mahler history. He despised any attempt to play the 10th in any form.

Klemperer loathed the 1st - it was "awful music". I have never found his Mahler particularly compelling. The famous EMI recording of the 2nd is greatly over-rated in my opinion. I wish he had never recorded the 7th - that recording is easily the worst ever made of that difficult score. DLVDE is ok, and like the 9th there are far better alternatives.

[barry guerrero]

 "He was scheduled to record the 3rd, but death intervened - one of the great "what could have beens" in Mahler history"

Purely a matter of speculation, but I have doubts that a Walter M3 would have been all THAT great. His M5 is a fast run-through. I would take Klemp's "DLvdE" over ANY of Walter's numerous recordings with one singular exception: if the N.Y. Phil. one had singers as strong as those on the Klemeperer.

But before we get into long winded Walter vs. Klemperer debates, I'll state my position on the whole Mahler affair once again: I do not believe in a previous 'golden era' of Mahler conducting that has managed to make its way onto tape. For me, THESE are the good-old days.

[AZContrabassoon]

For me, THESE are the good-old days.

In terms of recorded Mahler, I would agree with you totally. When I started collecting Mahler there were few options for symphony sets: Abravanel, Bernstein and a compilation of mosty awful recordings on Everest. Now we have glorious sets by Kubelik, Solti, Tennstedt, Bertini, Maazel, Bernstein (again and again), Chailly, Haitink, Abaddo, Thomas, Nott, and even Gergiev, Zinman, Kondrashin (most of it), Tabakov, and several others gave us fine recordings that are well worth hearing. I've always insisted that Mahler demands the latest, greatest state-of-the-art sound and most recordings done in the past 30 years give us more than adequate sound, something that Walter never had. If any Mahler symphony pushes the envelope of sound reproduction to the limits it's the 8th.
I would have to disagree a bit about the golden age of Mahler conducting. In the past there were some real personalities who seemed to draw something real special from those scores that eludes some younger conductors today. They knew that there was more to the music than being a "concerto for orchestra", which is how Mahler is far too often played. A certain conductor in LA epitomizes this. It's just one of the frustrating things about history that Mitropolous, Horenstein, and Scherchen never had digital sound. Or Stokowski's 8th. That could have been something incredible.

[ChrisH]

I've always wished we could have heard a Klemp 5th, it fit his personality to a T.

One thing I've never understood is when someone says, this conductor brought something special, or they dug deeper than. What does that even mean? Does it mean that you like that recording, and it touched you in a way that others don't? Does it mean that this is the 'correct' way of doing this work? Who is the judge of what is deep? Is it a reviewer? A marketing dept.?

When I listen to recording from 'the golden-age' I often feel like I hear the conductor more than the music. I want to hear Mahler, not Bernstein/Mahler or Karajan/Mahler. I want to hear Beethoven not Klemperer/Beethoven. If I pick the score up, then things get even more interesting and confusing.

I just go by what makes the hairs on my arms rise, or makes me smile.

[justininsf]

If you read bios of either conductor it becomes obvious why neither bothered with it - they didn't like it and thought it wasn't very good.

Walter did do most of the symphonies, but didn't have an affinity for 6, 7, or 8. He was scheduled to record the 3rd, but death intervened - one of the great "what could have beens" in Mahler history. He despised any attempt to play the 10th in any form.

Klemperer loathed the 1st - it was "awful music". I have never found his Mahler particularly compelling. The famous EMI recording of the 2nd is greatly over-rated in my opinion. I wish he had never recorded the 7th - that recording is easily the worst ever made of that difficult score. DLVDE is ok, and like the 9th there are far better alternatives.

Thanks AZ, I did not know that neither conductor liked the work, that is rather revealing.

I have been on a Mahler 8 kick lately, got the Stenz (thanks to Barry's recco - it does have a great ending) and the Nott is on it's way, this piece is so unique it is rather difficult to compare it to any other symphony (Mahler or otherwise).

[barry guerrero]

 "this piece is so unique it is rather difficult to compare it to any other symphony (Mahler or otherwise)."

True, but I think the problem is compounded by the fact that the entire middle period is usually explained in a way that's not at all helpful, and so the 8th always comes across as this monstrous anomaly that's just 'there'. It isn't an anomaly at all, and I'd be happy to explain why. It's a great work and everything that Mahler ever wrote lead up to it. In fact, it's the capstone for ALL of western music up to the year 1910.

[barry guerrero]

 "It's just one of the frustrating things about history that Mitropolous, Horenstein, and Scherchen never had digital sound. Or Stokowski's 8th. That could have been something incredible."

I can't argue against that. However, I do think that Mitropolous, Horenstein (yes, Horenstein too) and Scherchen were far more erratic and unpredictable than what is the norm today. I prefer that the differences not be quite so bizarre as they were then. However, I will agree on this much: when they were good, they were great.

[sbugala]

I don't know how well it will link, but I skimmed a Klemperer biography years ago for references to Mahler. This same book is on Google Books. It gives his thoughts on the Mahler he DIDN'T like. (I found it pretty easily because he uniquely called the Sixth "A Cosmos"

https://books.google.com/books?id=WVTSGoGfmuMC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=klemperer+mahler+cosmos&source=bl&ots=qlY24KsXFo&sig=9bFzYOe9M8roqMuwkAn2ei4LJco&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S2kCVYiWJsfggwT0vYSoCw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=klemperer%20mahler%20cosmos&f=false

[justininsf]

I don't know how well it will link, but I skimmed a Klemperer biography years ago for references to Mahler. This same book is on Google Books. It gives his thoughts on the Mahler he DIDN'T like. (I found it pretty easily because he uniquely called the Sixth "A Cosmos"

https://books.google.com/books?id=WVTSGoGfmuMC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=klemperer+mahler+cosmos&source=bl&ots=qlY24KsXFo&sig=9bFzYOe9M8roqMuwkAn2ei4LJco&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S2kCVYiWJsfggwT0vYSoCw&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=klemperer%20mahler%20cosmos&f=false

Thanks for the link, it says admired the 8th was but too old when he finally had an opportunity to perform it.