Oskar Fried Mahler 2nd

[waderice]

I'd like to solicit more comments from members on what they think of the Oskar Fried Mahler 2nd - which is the FIRST recording of ANY Mahler Symphony, recorded acoustically in 1924.  I did do a search here at the Board for what people had to say, and did find a few comments, particularly from Barry and Ivor.  Rather than critiquing it from a sonic point of view, I'd like to see what members think of the performance itself.

Personally, I think it is a miracle that we have this recording at all - the next recording of the Mahler 2nd wasn't made until ten years later, electrically, by Eugene Ormandy and the Minneapolis Symphony.  Fried's reading is the closest to what we have of the work as far as Mahler's intentions of performing it, as Fried was the only one who performed the work other than Mahler during Mahler's lifetime (to the best of my knowledge) and he actually received performance guidance from Mahler himself.  Whether or not Fried's recording would meet Mahler's approval is a matter of conjecture.  Hopefully, what guidance Mahler gave to Fried carried over into the recording when made around fifteen years later.

[barry guerrero]

Seriously, what's there to think? Pretty much all that can be discerned are tempo relationships, and that's it! You can't hear balances, textures, etc. From what little I can tell about it, I guess it's OK. Maybe there are other pressings of it that sound reasonably good; I don't know.

[Amphissa]

Dreadful audio, and some truly terrible singing. About the only good thing I can say about it is that it serves as a historic document.
 

[waderice]

Yes, the singers are not as good if we had a Ferrier, Forrester, or Baker, but we have to remember that any performance of Mahler in 1924 did not attract participation by the premiere vocalists of that time, for Mahler's acceptance as a composer still had a very long way to go.  Consequently, experience in performing the Mahler idiom was absolutely minimal at that time, at least as far as singers were concerned, not to mention orchestral players.  And yes, by contemporary recording standards, any acoustical recording of any Mahler symphony is bound to sound deficient, which is why I asked for comment on the performance, not the sonics.  I read somewhere that when the recording was made, there were around fifty(?) or less performers total crowded in front of a huge recording horn.  You can hear various bass-range instruments substituting for others, such as tubas for string basses, as the recording apparatus was unable to pick them up.  For a conductor who likely seemed dedicated to performing the work as close as possible to reflect the composer's intentions under unbelievable conditions as these is short of miraculous.

[barry guerrero]

Yes, but you missed my point: one can't comment on the performance when they can't hear it.    I wasn't exaggerating!

[Damfino]

I read somewhere that when the recording was made, there were around fifty(?) or less performers total crowded in front of a huge recording horn.  You can hear various bass-range instruments substituting for others, such as tubas for string basses, as the recording apparatus was unable to pick them up.  For a conductor who likely seemed dedicated to performing the work as close as possible to reflect the composer's intentions under unbelievable conditions as these is short of miraculous.

I think that, considering the circumstances you describe, the recording is not really an indication of what M2 sounded like back in 1924. It simply shows how difficult it was to record a Mahler-sized orchestra acoustically. The recording is only a document of that rather strange event. I could see how some would find it an interesting curio.

[barry guerrero]

Exactly. And further more, we know from biographical information that Fried was rather slavish towards Mahler, for which he was not always rewarded. There's little doubt that Fried probably had his tempo relationships to a point where Mahler would be reasonably pleased with them. But the situation with Fried was somewhat similar to that of Natalie Bauer-Lechner. While Mahler wanted to be taken seriously, and be well understood, he also had a tendency to push away those who became TOO devoted to him. It made him uncomfortable on a personal level. Either that, or he simply got to a point where he would take his devotees for granted. Probably a little of both, as he was a highly moody and sometimes self-absorbed person. So yes, it's very admirable that Fried wanted to do this in 1924.

On a purely technological point, I'm not sure I would describe this as being miraculous. The situation really isn't analogous to seeing an old newsreel about the Wright Brothers flight, for example. Instead, it's as though you're watching a modern Boeing 787 (that's for John), but barely able to see it through all kinds of visual distortion, and having that 787 somewhat chopped up and altered in an effort to make it more film-able.

[Leo K]

This is one of my favorite M2's now. I love the phrasing in the first movement, I love the plucky sounds in the second movement (reminding me of Stravinsky) and the Urlicht is my favorite of all the recordings I own. Yes, I'm a big fan

--Todd

[waderice]

Todd,

It's now available in greatly improved sound, remastered by famous restoration engineer, Ward Marston:

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Gustav-Mahler-Issued-1903-1940/dp/B00EIPIL2M/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1423273176&sr=1-1

Ormandy's 1935 M2 is also part of the set, along with the 1938 Walter M9, restored by another famous restoration engineer, Mark Obert-Thorn.  The booklet is also an extremely valuable information resources for pre-war Mahler performances.

Wade

[Leo K]

Thanks Wade, I never knew about that set, it looks like my cup of tea!

[perotin]

Surely gonna try that set. Thanks for link!

If i'll find any available to buy