Thoughts on Maazel?

[Karafan]

I have many recordings of the Mahler symphonies, but Maazel only in No 4.  Believe it or not, I didn't know until I stumbled across it recently that he had recorded 1-10 with the VPO and that they are gathered together in a boxset (!).

They seem to get barely a mention in the critical press (or is that just in the UK?).

I would appreciate knowing the board's thoughts on the set as it is available quite reasonably. 

Does he throw new light on the works - and, if so, where?


I thank you, gentlemen!

K.

[John Kim]

I own and/or have heard only M2, M4-M7, M9 and M10 Adagio.

Here are my 1 cent's worth thoughts.

In general, Maazel doesn't have a keen sense of rhythms, lacks a cogent structure, and worst of all, drags things down with slow tempos. On the plus side, he has the VPO in sumptuous sound and they are gorgeously recorded. There are a couple of exceptions to this dismal array of letdowns:

M4 - a beautiful (but slow) rendition with aptly bucolic playing from the VPO
M6 - a very cool but dynamic reading with rich textures that is somewhat marred by the sudden, quick coda in IV.
M10 Adagio - again, beautifully done with rich Viennese strings. But I wish Maazel had recorded a complete version.

His remake with BRSO in 2000s (only availale on pirate labels) are much better in all of the departments. I haven't heard the latest NYPO ones yet.

John,

[barry guerrero]

That Maazel/VPO cycle is a strange one. It started out with M5 & M6, which were both - more or less - up to tempo. However, those two have the poorest sound quality in the cycle (which still, isn't really bad at all). But since then, the VPO has recorded better versions of both works, particularly the M6 with Boulez. Next came the M2 with Jesseye Norman.

That's a rather interesting performance, but it's certainly not competitive with the very best. From there, his cycle got slower and slower, as it was also receiving better sound quality at the same time. The M1, in particular, is a real non-starter. Later on, Sony recoupled the M6 with his M7. There's a big difference in sound quality between those two, but the 7th is a very slow performance (however, not as extreme as Klemperer). M4 is probably the most popular recording from the cycle. The M8 has some very good vocal work (especially tenor Richard Leech), but it's a very weird "interpretation". Basically, Maazel takes the entire 8th quite slowly, then rushes the concluding orchestral postlude at the end of Part II.

This cycle is a mixed bag and, more importantly, a real missed opportunity. It's the only complete symphony cycle with the VPO, and it could have been much, much better.

[Leo K]

There are some fantastic moments in the M3 as well...and the sound is good here too, but you gotta like slowness to really get into it.  I actually kind of like the M9...if I remember right that one was kind of strange too.  I'll have to give that one another spin.

I still haven't heard the M2 and M5 from this box, or the M1.  My favorite (so far) from this box is the M3, 4, 7, and 8.  Especially the M3!

All said and done, I've had a heard time gving up this box.  The original release box has a history of the VPO for the liners, and it's almost a book...and I really, REALLY, love the VPO in Mahler.  

As a Mahler fan I want it all!

--Todd

[John Kim]

The Maazel/VPO M9th is gorgeously played and recorded. That's about all we get here. Maazel's concept of this symphony had not deepened enough by this time; his tempos are very irregular with fast sections moving very fast, slow sections crawling, and individual passages are not well integrated together. So, the whole symphony, particularly I., sounds episodic and disjoined. Also, some of details such as tam tam at the climax of I. are not audible. Having said this, his later try with BRSO in the early 2000s is much better with nearly all of the issues solved. That's why I am anxious to hear the latest concert with NYPO.

John,

[oscar]

Maazel, in my view, is an absolutely over-rated conductor.  He has the technique, but, in most cases, he has nothing to say.

His readings are like an empty shell: nothing inside !!

And it is quite true in the case of Mahler.

[vvrinc]

For a very long time, I couldn't get Maazel's way with Mahler or, for that matter, anything else he recorded--except a Prokofiev ballet. I found his highly interventionist approach almost unbearably self-serving. (This from a person who adores Bernstein's Mahler). After listening to his recent live performances with the NYP, I had a big change of heart. I found his interpretations full of passion, impeccably played (the NYP is remarkable, and the finest orchestra in the world when they wish to play at their best), and infinitely preferable to the recent spate of bloodless, colorless recordings from Zinman, Jansons, Macal, and Fischer (yes, his 4th is quite good but the 2nd and 6th have to rank among the biggest bores in the catalog), and the like. Heavens, De Waart, Boulez, and Gielen are boiling cauldrons of emotion compared to this latter crowd! (I must politely disagree with some of the enthusiasm on these forums with the present state of Mahler interpretations but, for me, it's been a desert in search of water.)

In returning to the VPO/Maazel, I found that my objections were mostly to the atrocious sound (ear-splitting trumpets, in particular) that the set features. However, the interpretations have a lot to commend them: Perhaps the most angst-ridden 6th symphony in the catalog, a 3rd that swings between the widest interpretative extremes possible, a 5th that is terrifying and tormented, a 7th that is almost hallucinogenic, and a 9th that is sublime in the outer movements yet macabre in the internal ones. Also, the VPO is an extraordinary band.

Maazel has been a great whipping boy since he followed Szell in Cleveland. Somehow, we Americans couldn't deal with such a young snot (relative to Mr. Szell's age) following a legend. Also, that Maazel happened to be "American" didn't sit well with many in the music business. In truth, I find Maazel's Cleveland recordings to be warmer and kinder than Mr. Szell's icy perfectionism in most of the repertoire he left behind. Listening to Maazel's recordings in Cleveland reveals that the performances were also brilliantly and sensitively performed. A fact that few bothered to point out or ignore as the Maazel-bashing gathered steam in the press and local quarters. Although Szell's Mahler 6th has attracted a great deal of attention and won many plaudits--I don't get it, sorry--Maazel's VPO and NYP recordings of same reveal Mahler's bipolar spirit better. I am aware that Mr. Szell remains a holy cow for many still and I have enormous respect for his legacy, but I have difficulty in finding any of his recordings to be my "most preferred" interpretation of a given work. My favorite Szell remain the Strauss songs album with Elisabeth Schwarzkopf. (He couldn't get his way with that one as he did in, for instance, the giddy-up and galop Beethoven Piano Concertos with Fleisher and Gilels, or the "please find if Mr. Oistrakh is in the building" recording of the Brahms Violin Concerto.)

I don't like everything Mr. Maazel has done--the Sibelius cycle in Pittsburgh (unfocused and dull), Strauss with the Bavarians (boring)--but I do encourage those who have dismissed him outright to re-listen to his Mahler. I also wish that someone would remaster the Vienna cycle as the sound is simply unacceptable. For those who may not be familiar with the Maazel/Cleveland recording (Decca) of the complete Prokofiev "Romeo & Juliet": this one ranks among the very best sounding recordings ever made as well as being a great performance of the work. A pity Decca didn't record the Mahler/VPO cycle. Chailly's cycle benefits enormously from the sonically-superior recordings even though the interpretations (maybe the 3rd Symphony is an exception) sound superficial and under-experienced--the participation of the magnificent RCO, notwithstanding.

[John Kim]

"...and a 9th that is sublime in the outer movements yet macabre in the internal ones. Also, the VPO is an extraordinary band."

Sorry but I can't agree with this statement. Maazel's VPO M9th is, in my book, the most inconsistently directed and disjointed version. You only need to sample his live BRSO recording to see what I mean because in that recording most of the issues had been resolved. That is, he knew what had gone wrong with the VPO recording and corrected them in the new version.

I also don't agree the sound of Maazel/VPO/CBS is bad. I think the orchestra is, for most part, beautifully recorded. Think of the 4th, for example.

Just my 1 cent's worth of thought .

John,

[Roland Flessner]

I used to have the Maazel/VPO M5-7 and 9 and got rid of all of them. I found the performances mannered, with the conductor disregarding important tempo instructions. I can't recall if I thought the engineering in all was bad, but 6 and 7 were certainly problematic, with gratuitous spotlighting and a generally unnatural and inconsistent soundstage.

He seems to have moments of good behavior and bad. His Dvorak New World in Korea (NY Phil) was almost cartoonish.

On the other hand, I agree that his Prokofiev Romeo is outstanding in every way. I like at least some of the VPO Sibelius symphonies, and his Cleveland Daphnis et Chloe is very good.

His VPO Tchaikovsky Manfred is an intense, almost blistering performance. I have it on vinyl and I don't think it's ever been on CD, even though some of his other recordings have now turned up on Australian Eloquence.

[John Kim]

Having said all that I said, I LOVE Maazel's Brahms cycle with Cleveland Orch. I also like his first Sibelius cycle with VPO with exception of S3rd. Ditto the Shosy 5th with CVLO.

You see, every conductor does a few pieces very well however mediocre he may be in general.

John,

[John Kim]

My main problem with Maazel's Mahler is NOT that he doesn't have a technique to deliver a great Mahler symphony. It's rather that this person doesn't seem to on the same wave length as Mahler. The tempos and more importantly tempo relationships he applies are 'off beat' and make the music sound fragmentary rather than integrated. I feel that if Maazel did the opposite of what he had done, it would have made far better sense. Maybe that's how he does nowadays (let's have a high hope for his recent NYPO recordings).

John,

[vvrinc]

John,

Thank you for your posts and opinions. As always in my quarter, they are very much appreciated.

The 4th is not the problem (I own the Japanese-made CD of the 4th) as the intensely shrill trumpet sections I was referring to are, most definitely, in the brass-laden 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th symphonies. The sound is from the early days of digital when most CDs issued sounded horrible--except those that came from companies like Telarc or Reference Recordings who probably included "listening" as part of their job. In my listening--whether over speakers (B&W N802) driven by all- tube equipment, or over headphones (Sennheiser HD-800 driven by a tube amp)--the very loud high string and trumpet passages are almost unlistenable at a realistic dynamic level. And, my systems are on the "warm" side.

Your deduction that Maazel tried to correct his 9th's interpretation with the Bavarians because he felt the one with Vienna was lacking is puzzling to me. I find his "latest" (I believe) 9th, with the NYP, to be interpretatively very similar to the Vienna performance of 25-years ago. (I forgot to mention in my last post that I bought all the NYP performances on Flac files from HDTracks.) I don't deny that he has excesses. But why is it that "excessive" Bernstein performances (please, fill me in on which one isn't, and God bless him for them), don't attract the same critical vitriol? (Could it be (hum) because Bernstein performed bird impressions with the third-fingers of both hands for all his critics every chance he got--and we loved him for it--and Maazel didn't?)

Let me drop another "hot potato" Mahler on this august forum, Segerstam. What fascinating interpretations from this "Beard of Finland" composer-conductor.

[John Kim]

My main problem with Maazel's Mahler is NOT that he doesn't have a technique to deliver a great Mahler symphony. It's rather that this person doesn't seem to on the same wave length as Mahler. The tempos and more importantly tempo relationships he applies are 'off beat' and make the music sound fragmentary rather than integrated. I feel that if Maazel did the opposite of what he had done, it would have made far better sense. Maybe that's how he does nowadays (let's have a high hope for his recent NYPO recordings).

John,

Oh, let's not forget his wonderful Also Sprach Zarathustra with Philharmonia Orch. on EMI. It will always be my favorite Zarathustra.

Didn't he also do 'Rite of Spring' with CVLO for Telarc??

John,

[John Kim]

Your deduction that Maazel tried to correct his 9th's interpretation with the Bavarians because he felt the one with Vienna was lacking is puzzling to me. I find his "latest" (I believe) 9th, with the NYP, to be interpretatively very similar to the Vienna performance of 25-years ago. (I forgot to mention in my last post that I bought all the NYP performances on Flac files from HDTracks.) I don't deny that he has excesses. But why is it that "excessive" Bernstein performances (please, fill me in on which one isn't, and God bless him for them), don't attract the same critical vitriol? (Could it be (hum) because Bernstein performed bird impressions with the third-fingers of both hands for all his critics every chance he got--and we loved him for it--and Maazel didn't?)

Let me drop another "hot potato" Mahler on this august forum, Segerstam. What fascinating interpretations from this "Beard of Finland" composer-conductor.

I'll give one example:

At the peak of the climax in I. (the third one actually), Mahler instructs "Pesante' meaning to hold the tempo a bit at that spot. This is where the whole orchestra utters the Farewell motif in unison with fff. Here in the VPO recording he completely ignores the instruction and and dashes it though. In the later BRSO concert he doesn't and hence makes the climax much more meaningful.

I, who's been living listening to virtually every recording of M9th, say this loud and clear:

"Any conductor who ignores this instruction has little idea of what the M9th means."

Worse still, in Maazel VPO recording the tam tam is totally inaudible at the climax (but it's there in the BRSO concert). What was he thinking??

John,

[James Meckley]

Let me drop another "hot potato" Mahler on this august forum, Segerstam. What fascinating interpretations from this "Beard of Finland" composer-conductor.

I have the entire Segerstam set. The sound is fine and the playing is wonderful—Carsten Svanberg's trombone solo in the Third competes with Joe Alessi's (1987) for the best I've ever heard—but the interpretations are, to me, maddening. The fascinating interpretive touches (and there are many) are strung together by long stretches of utter flaccidity. I know some people love these performances, but to me, in general, they're just too darned slow. He seems unable to maintain focus and intensity at the tempos he's chosen. Bernstein (usually) could do it; Segerstam cannot. I really wish I could appreciate these but, after many tries over several years, I gave up and moved on.

James