GUSTAV MAHLER
Symphony No. 9
Berlin Philharmonic
Simon Rattle
EMI- 5 01228 2(CD)
Reference Recording - Karajan II (DG); Ancerl (Supraphon); Chailly (Decca)
rating
There's a pernicious myth that music critics lie in wait for artists to trip up so that they have something to complain about. In reality, no serious critic likes to write a negative review. Speaking personally, I am delighted to promote excellence wherever possible, nowhere more so than when it comes from artists who I have had occasion to criticize harshly. At times, Simon Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic on disc do live up to their storied reputations, but more often than not they don't, and despite the fact that nothing I say is likely to change them, it's still important to explain exactly why this should be the case, particularly when, as here, music lovers are spoiled for choice in this music. While largely free from the gaucheries that disfigured Rattle's previous account of the Ninth with the Vienna Philharmonic (remember that horrible ritard at the end of the Rondo: Burleske?), this newcomer still doesn't compare well with the best alternatives, including Karajan's magnificent live second version, also with the Berlin Philharmonic.
Some of the problems stem from the orchestra, some from Rattle's conducting. Regarding the former, let me just point out the obvious fact that a group of great soloists does not necessarily make a great orchestra. Just compare the results here to the recent Amsterdam Concertgebouw recording under Chailly (Decca) in order to be struck by the difference between first- and second-rate Mahler playing. Specifically, the current Berlin Philharmonic sounds unbalanced, with fabulous strings whose commitment and intensity are seldom matched by the other sections. This matters hugely in Mahler, who often expects absolute equality of balance. Let me cite just two examples: compare the splendidly raucous entrance of the violins in the second movement to the comparatively tame woodwinds. The music's gawky crudeness inevitably gets compromised. Similarly, in the Rondo: Burleske, after the first cymbal crash Mahler juxtaposes lower strings with running figures in the flutes, oboes, and clarinets, all fortissimo. The woodwinds don't stand a chance. It's not that they play poorly--they don't--but if the strings are going to tear into their parts with such admirable ferocity, then the woodwinds simply must match them.
The same problem afflicts the brass. When the horns have the second movement's opening motive, with its four-note rising flourish, Mahler often asks that it be played as a diminuendo from fortissimo. Here, the dynamics sound flat, and never loud. The principal trumpet has a sweet tone, but he persistently fails to ride the climaxes in the first movement when Mahler asks him to. In that movement's big climax, when the trombones and tuba hammer out the opening "death" rhythm (as Berg called it), Mahler marks the parts triple forte, then fortissimo. Listen to Giulini and Chicago to hear what this can and should sound like, then compare the Berlin players at a tepid forte, then mezzo-forte. The percussion section, so often a sore point with this orchestra, is far too polite. There's no fortissimo tam-tam at the aforementioned climax or clearly pitched deep bells thereafter; the cymbals sound small and weak; the glockenspiel in the two inner movements is barely audible most of the time, and the timpani almost vanish in numerous places where they should make a noticeable contribution (try figure 19 in the second movement, the first appearance of the waltz).
As for Rattle, all I can say is that if you want to do something other than what the composer asks, you'd better be sure that yours is the better idea. There is lots of room to maneuver in this symphony. After all, Mahler never heard it, and heaven only knows what he might have changed if he had. But Rattle compartmentalizes the first movement excessively. The opening is very slow, very dreamy (too much so for my taste, but gorgeously played), while the climaxes tend to be rushed. Strangely, at the very end of the movement, which Mahler marks "again 'a tempo', but much slower than at the beginning", Rattle pushes forward mechanically, missing a big opportunity to score some expressive points. In the second movement's slow dance, around measure 241, he starts Mahler's indicated ritard about six measures early, an audible mistake when compared to the standard reading. I admire Rattle's decision not to turn the central section of the Rondo: Burleske into the usual adagio. Mahler only indicates "somewhat held back", but Rattle largely denies us even that "somewhat", and the results lack tenderness and atmosphere. The rest of the movement, at a swift basic tempo, sounds jocular rather than menacing or spiteful--just compare this to what Ancerl, at a slower speed, achieves in terms of sheer character.
Rattle's insensitivity to instrumental color even affects the finale, which is otherwise magnificently played by the strings. The opening paragraph builds beautifully to the first sonorous climax, and Rattle's pacing (about 26 minutes) aptly reflects the ability of the orchestra to sustain Mahler's long melodic lines. But why render that "ticking clock" harp figure in the soft interlude before the movement's climax virtually inaudible? Yes, it's marked pianissimo, but then so is everything else other than the principal melodic voice, and Mahler intends that it be heard (and it adds so much to the already thin textures when it has the necessary presence). Even the very end, where Rattle takes pains to delineate the music's various levels of pianissimo, doesn't quite work. The violas accent their final triplet figure too loudly, while the second violins and cellos begin their dying (Mahler's term) diminuendo well before the fermata in the last bar, denying us some of the satisfaction that comes from the movement's final, major-key resolution. There's a clearly planned order of events in the score: resolve the harmony, then fade away. With Rattle, it's almost the other way around.
The live sonics are clear, dry in the bass, and a bit tinny in the treble, but the audience is extremely well-behaved and never becomes a negative factor. Ultimately there's nothing actually shameful going on in this alternately underplayed and over-inflected performance, but it still gives the impression of an orchestra in which the talent is unequally distributed, and of a conductor whose interest in his own ideas too often overrides the actual demands of the work at hand. It's all very self-conscious, bereft of naturalness and flow. I also have to note that EMI already has released Rattle's complete Mahler cycle in a box, containing his previous (inferior) version of the Ninth. Permitting him to remake the symphony so soon suggests that there must have been a compelling reason--some major new insights or special qualities unique to this particular live event. If there were, they have not successfully transfered to disc.
--David Hurwitz
Topic: D.H. explains, in detail, why Rattle/BPO M9 gets just a 7/7 rating (Read 8251 times)