D.H. gives 9/9 rating for Zinman/Tonhalle M6 SACD

[cilea]

http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12060

[John Kim]

I am a little surprised that Dave gave such a generous rating; I would have thought 8/9 or 7/9. Hey, but it's me, NOT Barry 

"In sum, this is a very fine Sixth, and you can always enjoy it with the scherzo second if you feel so inclined."

I doubt it. With the Scherzo in such a slow tempo which is clearly structured so as to follow the Andante and the Andante in a flowing tempo, I suspect changing the order of the A-S in this recording won't work well. I mean, you can reprogram it but it won't be as effective as the A-S order. I tried it and didn't like it. It's best to leave the order the way Zinman intended.

Anyway, thank you very much Dave for your thoughtful review  .

John,

[Dave H]

John:

I couldn't disagree more. Zinman's scherzo is not "clearly structured" to come third just because the tempo is slow. It just happens to work that way, but the fact that it works well that way doesn't mean it won't work the other way. I respect your personal feelings about how it sounds to you, but merely asserting that it is "clearly structured" one way doesn't make it so. It really depends on how the contrasts play out. I think a slowish scherzo works very well after the first movement for the same reason it works well after the Andante. It makes a nice, strong contrast to the ending of the preceding movement either way, which is the musical point, but a lot depends on the handling of rhythm. I guess you could say that I prefer the scherzo slower rather than faster anyway (it is, after all, a parody of a minuet).

Dave H

[John Kim]

Dave,

So, did you actually try the S-A order in Zinman's recording?

I did and for "some" reasons I can hardly explain it didn't work for me.

But it worked in the cases of some other recordings that have the A-S order, e.g., Rattle, Gergiev.

Perhaps these conductors didn't try hard enough to make sense with the A-S order, and that's why Zinman's M6th makes the best point of the A-S order?

John,

[Dave H]

I listened to it forwards, backwards, sideways, upside down, and (as Shostakovich memorably said) under water. If you can't explain your reasoning other than how it "feels," that's perfectly legitimate and I respect it. We all feel these things differently. But that is not "clearly structured," which was my only point. I can't speculate on how "hard" any conductor "tries." I assume they all try their best.

Dave H

[John Kim]

Dave,

I got your point.

But I still think Zinman, being aware of his conscious effort to put the Scherzo third, clearly tried to adjust/modify/change (or whatever) things around such that playing the Scherzo after Andante makes as much sense as possible. One such aspect is tempo; as we both know, he slows it down towards this end. Other aspects should include subtle changes in the colors, dynamics, etc. And he succeeded in this better than any other conductor I have heard (you agreed on this in your review). So, perhaps as a result of this (which, of course, I didn't try to be aware of intentionally while I was listening), reprogramming the two movts in the S-A order somehow didn't work.

That's my point.

Of course, anyone can play Zinman's recording in any order he or she prefers and may feel it right or appropriate about the order chosen. But I bet more than any other recordings that have A-S order, this will be the one that will make listeners hesitate to switch the order of the middle movements.

John,

[barry guerrero]

I, for one, am happy that David recognizes the merits of Zinman's M6, and that he  likes it much more than Zinman's 5th. This is a piece that Zinman has lived with for a very long time, and I think it shows. As Dave points out , there's a great deal of clarity to it - along with a true guiding intelligence behind the wheel - yet there's no lack of visceral impact. If nothing else convinces one of the many positive merits of this particular recording (the cowbells are fabulous in the slow movement!), the final allegro "charge" section in the finale should do the job. I've never heard it done better, and the same is true of the gradual "melt-down" after the false victory parade passage. Even the final A-minor outburst of the symphony's rhythmic "fate" motif is done nice and slow, just like on the Chailly recording. For once, I can buy into the andante/scherzo game plan, and that's truly saying something (I greatly prefer S/A).

Barry

[Leo K]

I listened to it again two nights ago (S/A order), and Dave's and Barry's point are right on...the more I listen, the more it nails the key points in the score I always listen for...in the first movement, listen to how the lower strings find the balance between force and mechanical march, sounding full of determination with a touch of obsession. The overall sound favors the lower orchestra, but the details in the higher end are not lost...in terms of mood this is a great sound picture for the M6.  The shadow of the march is suggested even more predominately thoughout the work (accept the andante perhaps) by this kind of "lower" sound as well.  And I actually think the scherzo works fine in second place here.   

I wish there was a special vinyl release, not just for the sound, but I love the painting used for the cover and it would look real fine in the LP format.

--Todd

[Russ Smiley]

After just a couple disrupted listenings (on headphone, car, & computer speakers), here are some details that might be of interest.  Sound stage is wide, transparent, but rich.  Winds and brass, to which I am more attentive, performed admirably start to finish.  At the start the low strings have the 'scrubbing' of the Bernstein VPO but the tempo is more deliberate.  The cowbells are shaken, dense, and very distant (a large herd far off to the left?) with a a wide tonal range: the high tones are reminiscent of Bertini's, but the aggregate sound is 'organic'.  Flute entry in middle of Andante (51?) is well done.  Scherzo is slow, but attention keeping, not perfunctory.  It ends with some momentum, not lethargy.  Movement IV is not limited to relentless loud and louder dynamics.  Thankfully, the hammer blows bear no semblance to those on the Baltimore recording.  Though there is no tam-tam augmentation on the second hammer, it was from my perspective the summit of the movement.  What followed was the staggering to an ultimate demise: the final crash is less startling than some others; the pizzicato is truly piano.

I've had 26 version of M6: the keepers in my collection are Bernstein, Boulez, Farberman, Jansons/RCO, and Mackerras, not all for the same reason. This will join those.

[Leo K]

After just a couple disrupted listenings (on headphone, car, & computer speakers), here are some details that might be of interest.  Sound stage is wide, transparent, but rich.  Winds and brass, to which I am more attentive, performed admirably start to finish.  At the start the low strings have the 'scrubbing' of the Bernstein VPO but the tempo is more deliberate.  The cowbells are shaken, dense, and very distant (a large herd far off to the left?) with a a wide tonal range: the high tones are reminiscent of Bertini's, but the aggregate sound is 'organic'.  Flute entry in middle of Andante (51?) is well done.  Scherzo is slow, but attention keeping, not perfunctory.  It ends with some momentum, not lethargy.  Movement IV is not limited to relentless loud and louder dynamics.  Thankfully, the hammer blows bear no semblance to those on the Baltimore recording.  Though there is no tam-tam augmentation on the second hammer, it was from my perspective the summit of the movement.  What followed was the staggering to an ultimate demise: the final crash is less startling than some others; the pizzicato is truly piano.

I've had 26 version of M6: the keepers in my collection are Bernstein, Boulez, Farberman, Jansons/RCO, and Mackerras, not all for the same reason. This will join those.

Great review Russ...thanks!  I agree that the second hammer sounds like the summit of the Finale, it is really the breathtaking moment of the whole work, and like Hurwitz said it makes sense musically...the context surrounding the second hammer has prepared us for the impact.  I feel this is a profound reading of the M6.  Gets better with more listens.

--Todd

[John Kim]

This M6th definitely sounds better at a higher volume.

I have not listened to it on SACD format, so that may improve the sound further.

But I am still puzzled that RCA put the first movt. on a separate disc. Normally, I'd put the first three on the first disc so that people can listen through them in either order S-A or A-S but w/o interruption after the opening movt. I think regardless of the order the middlle movts should be heard right after the first w/o a pause. It's annoying and frustrating I have to switch the disc immediately after the first 

I'd rather burn the first 3 movts. myself on a CDR and try it 

John,

[john haueisen]

Darn these discussions like this, on the mahler board.
It's going to bankrupt me--the comments and differing "takes" just make a person want the hear it for himself.
Good points, All, but DARN!--it's getting expensive!
--John H

[sperlsco]

the final crash is less startling than some others;

It is interesting that our reactions are different here.  I've practically jumped out of my seat every time I've listened to the ending.  The orchestra is just dead quiet in the moment prior to the crash, whereas in many recordings you can hear the orchestra moving in anticipation of the their coming action (i.e. they tip you off). 

[Russ Smiley]

"...in many recordings you can hear the orchestra moving in anticipation of the their coming action (i.e. they tip you off)"

Agreed: that's one of my gripes about the Mackerras performance.