Late Maazel is to Mahler as late Celibidache is to Bruckner. Okay, that may not be the most accurate comparison. Maazel, as far as I know, didn't take that "Zen approach" to Mahler's music. Anyway, they are both very intelligent conductors who move at sometimes glacial speeds. Like Celibidache, Maazel knows when he can be slow and otherwise paces movements quite masterfully. Maazel's cycle of the Mahler symphonies with the Philharmonia Orchestra was his last, and it was released in the early 2010s. Unfortunately it was overlooked and brushed to the side, but why wouldn't it be? It was Maazel's third complete Mahler cycle (or fourth? BRSO?) and it surfaced during the ongoing cycles by Markus Stenz, Jonathan Nott, David Zinman, among endeavors by other teams. What more could Maazel have left to say about Mahler? It turns out he had plenty to say, but one has to tolerate expansive speeds to appreciate it. This cycle is actually quite brilliant, and it deserves more attention.
Not only is this cycle well-conducted, it is also extremely well-played and -recorded. We have better sounding recordings today with the Fischers and Vänskä, but this is the kind of quality that is expected these days. Maazel's interpretations may not be exactly what Mahler wrote into the score — and they certainly go against the grain — but as we know there are many, many ways to interpret these massive, genius works. That, at least, was an intention of Mahler's.
Let's take a look at some timings here:
Symphony No. 1: 56:55
I. 16:28
II. 8:26
III. 11:18
IV. 20:43
Symphony No. 2: 1:31:27
I. 25:00
II. 11:28
III. 12:13
IV. 5:23
V. 37:23
Symphony No. 3: 1:46:07
I. 37:43
II. 11:32
III. 17:38
IV. 9:09
V. 4:15
VI. 25:50
Symphony No. 4: 1:00:56
I. 17:56
II. 9:52
III. 22:50
IV. 10:20
Symphony No. 5: 1:16:03
I. 14:06
II. 15:46
III. 18:36
IV. 11:16
V. 16:19
Symphony No. 6: 1:29:04
I. 25:56
Scherzo. 13:28
Andante. 16:46
IV. 32:54
Symphony No. 7: 1:27:38
I. 26:21
II. 16:07
III. 10:39
IV. 14:30
V. 20:01
Symphony No. 8: 1:37:47
I. 30:13
II. 1:07:34
Symphony No. 9: 1:35:50
I. 35:47
II. 15:52
III. 15:03
IV. 29:08
Some of these overall timings are radically slow, but if one examines the individual movement timings one can see that the culprits are usually the larger, outer movements — or sonata form movements. Maazel tends to take the more static movements (scherzos, etc.) at a more acceptable pace. For the sake of pure contrast, I put Maazel's timings alongside our resident "speed demon" Valery Gergiev, in his cycle with the London Symphony Orchestra. Some of the discoveries may surprise you. In fact, if you take away the Adagio of the Tenth from Gergiev's cycle and just leave the complete nine symphonies, Maazel's is nearly two hours longer! And it's the same exact music.
Let's do some brief analyses of each recording. I'm trying to make a case for Maazel's cycle because the main criticism is usually his slow pacing. Let's set the record straight. Pun intended.
Maazel's approach to the First Symphony is actually rather normal. In fact, his second movement is only a dozen or so seconds slower than Gergiev's, and nowhere near as rompfully slow as Alsop and Bernstein (DG). The only relatively slow movement here is the third movement at a slow-ish 11:18. There's definitely been slower on record. Manfred Honeck's first movement is a good minute longer than Maazel's; same with the finale.
The Second Symphony is a bit on the slow side overall, I'll admit. But it's not radical. The speeds of the first and last movements are still quicker than Bernstein's DG "reference" recording, and "Urlicht" is at a very normal 5:23. The Scherzo is definitely slow for my taste, and most people's tastes. It's about two minutes slower that what is normally considered "ideal pacing."
The Third Symphony is on the safe slower side. The first movement is the only real outlier here, but that's because Maazel takes it at an extremely deliberate pace. As we have learned from Boulez's amazing Vienna account from 2003, deliberate pacing of this first movement can bring out all of the exceptional details in the score. All of that detail is perfectly captured here. The central storm episode is not as urgent as others, but no orchestral detail is missed here with Maazel conducting. Just like in the Boulez we also get to hear the timpani solo! Exciting stuff. Everything else in this recording is pretty normal. The "Misterioso" is even at 9:09, on the quicker-ish side, though that may be on the part of the soloist. One would expect Maazel to take the Adagio finale at an extremely slow pace, but he doesn't. It's a medium-slow 25:50, around the same as Nott's, and almost three minutes quicker than Bernstein (DG).
This Fourth can be deceiving. Recordings of over an hour are few and far between but the culprit is usually the Ruhevoll. Here it isn't. The first movement is just shy of 18 minutes, which is actually a bit quicker than Chailly's Decca reading. The second movement is literally one second slower than Gergiev's! I think the reason this recording stretches to an hour is because the song-finale is over ten minutes... but so is Szell's reference account. In fact, Szell's is even slower.
Maazel's Mahler Fifth is undoubtedly a bit slower overall, but that's just a result of each movement being a touch slower than normal. Truly nothing extreme here. The Adagietto is even 11:16 on the safe slow side. Quicker than Karajan, and much more coherently phrased than Vänskä and Shipway, even though I do like those. The first two movements are some of the finest readings I've personally heard.
The Sixth is also just a bit slower overall, but nothing at all extreme here. Not much more needs to be said other than that this performance is incredible from start to finish. Perhaps more cowbells during the tutti moments of the Andante, but that's my only complaint.
This Seventh is a weird one, but when isn't it? There are a plethora of ways to interpret this bizarre, colorful music. It's definitely one of the slower accounts on record (but it's not nearly Klemperer (also Philharmonia)). It's pretty much around the same speed as Segerstam's, but less "intelligently" paced. What I mean is that with Segerstam timings can be deceiving. Here with Maazel you generally get what you see. That isn't necessarily a bad thing because the details shine through this nightly music at this speed, but the finale can be drudgingly slow for some. Maazel's approach is more regal than playful, sort of like Chailly's RCO recording. The Scherzo is paced ideally, I think. The first and last movements feature some phenomenal brass playing.
The Eighth is probably the slowest recording ever made of this symphony. Correct me if I'm wrong. Does it work? Arguably, yes. The engineering is amazing, and Maazel's "suns and planets revolving" approach is certainly effective. It reminds me of Nagano.
The Ninth is also one of the slowest ever recorded, but in my opinion it's also one of the best. If you can handle sitting through a recording that is nearly twenty minutes longer than average, it will be rewarding. The Philharmonia plays incredibly well, and it's sometimes astonishingly beautiful. Particularly in the finale. The inner movements are less slow too. The second is a very normal pace, and the third is deliberate instead of manic, similar again to Chailly's RCO recording.
My point with this obnoxiously long post is this: Lorin Maazel's Philharmonia cycle is worth revisiting, but only with an open mind. Just like we learned from Gergiev, taking a bit more of a radical approach can still work with this music. In this case it only takes patience.
Topic: Revisiting Lorin Maazel's Philharmonia cycle (Read 7210 times)