I gave it 4 starts at Amazon.com
different but not better than Rattle's CBSO M2 from the '80s, March 11, 2011
By
B. Guerrero "Mahler nutcase" - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Mahler: Symphony No. 2 in C minor 'Resurrection' (Audio CD)
You have to hand it to Simon Rattle: whenever he re-records something, it never sounds the same as his previous effort. Overall, I think that Rattle's earlier and much celebrated recording of the "Resurrection" symphony from Birmingham is actually better. For one thing, it boasts having the incomparable Janet Baker. Kozena and Royal are both decent, but don't really distinguish themselves either. Other differences await as well.
As much as I can tell, Rattle's Birmingham recording only had two minor flaws. The first of which was his repeated habit - "habit", in that he did it right after the first movement's climax as well - of dragging the tempo on the rapid ascending run in the low strings on their third entrance. This wasn't such a problem at the start of the symphony, but it had the strange effect of undermining what had just happened immediately after the first movement's climax (as previously mentioned). I'm happy to say that in spite of Rattle's often times start-and-stop quality to his phrasing, the first two movements are truly better this time around. Exaggerated, yes, but what is most impressive is his unveiling of the grinding dissonances in those chords leading into the first movement's recapitulation. When the cellos enter with their descending line (which runs somewhat counter to those dissonant chords), he makes a symphony out of each and every note leading into the full orchestra's tutti on the descending octave jump - doubled by bass drum - that marks the climax of the development section (and thus, announces the start of the recapitulation as well). It's as terrifying as it is thrilling! The other flaw was that the dubbed-in organ sounded rather artificial in his Birmingham outing (recorded before the new hall in Birmingham was constructed). I'm happy to report that the organ in Berlin's Philharmonie sounds as natural as it does powerful (especially true in the bass pipes). But from the third movement on, I'm afraid that I prefer Rattle's first recording.
In spite of capturing some of the macabre irony that's at the core of the scherzo, Rattle's Berlin recording just has too much of that stop-and-start quality that sometimes undermines his best work. Klemperer was always good with the scherzo, but listen to what a thrilling glimpse of heaven Paavo Jarvi (Virgin Classics) turns the climax of this movement into. Rattle falls just a bit short in comparison.
Vocal movement: Baker vs. Kozena? . . . Baker!
It's in the finale that I feel that Rattle's earlier effort truly trumps this one. Once again, the Berlin Phil. brass section comes up sounding a bit strained, taxed, and thin sounding while battling their way through the fifth movement's long march section (dead souls rising out of their coffins, etc.). The climax of that long march passage really misfires this time. I can't quite analyze why, but it doesn't help that the rapid gong strokes (tam-tam) don't register through the thick noise of blaring brass and alarmist triangles. It's a "close, but not quite".
It's also in the finale that some of the odd balances begin to register more clearly. Both sets of timpani often times dominate over the entire aural spectrum. And you know things aren't quite right when a suspended cymbal can drown out an entire brass section (this happens several times). The long choral passage is a tad too protracted for my liking, but there's also no denying that the Rundfunkchor Berlin do a nice job. That now leaves just the ending, which is always the main point of the entire symphony.
As previously in Birmingham - and, like Bernstein on each and every one of his outings - Rattle stretches each chord throughout the fortissimo choral passage at "aufverstehen" (rise!). In addition, we get a real solid "whap" on the Berlin Phil's big tam-tam on the last choral note. There's plenty of organ too, but the percussion polyphony at the end is problematic: we hear the high pitched tam-tam and the three deep bells (beautiful sounding bells!) quite clearly, but the low tam-tam suddenly comes close to being inaudible. This may seem like a petty and 'overly technical' point, but it undermines the very end of the symphony. You need to have the full choir of percussion because the only other thing that's happening is the sounding of the dominate and tonic chords in the brass (as well as sustained pedal from the organ and timpani).
All in all, this is still a very good representation of Mahler's monumental "Resurrection" symphony. I think we all wish that it could have been even better, and that may explain some of the exaggerated opinions in the other direction. Once again, Rattle is undermined by some strange balances in the Philharmonie, and a low brass section that can't quite pump-it-up in the thickest and most powerful passages. That's not the mention his sometimes exaggerated, stop-and-start phrasing that makes it sound as though he's trying to out-Bernstein Bernstein. But you have to hand Rattle this much credit: he believes and knows that a gratuitous speed-up is just as valid as a gratuitous ritard. in tempo. Many conductors only know how to slow down (Maazel comes to mind).
