DH gives a moderate 7/9 for Zinman/TOZ/RCA M9th SACD

[John Kim]

GUSTAV MAHLER
Symphony No. 9
Tonhalle-Orchester Zurich

David Zinman

RCA- 72690-2(SACD)
Reference Recording - Karajan II (DG); Chailly (Decca); Levine (RCA)

    rating 7/9

    David Zinman's conception of the Ninth is interesting, and had it been better realized could have been really distinctive. The outer movements are very slow, and the work culminates in a magnificent, 28-minute-long finale that has all of the passion and emotional intensity that anyone could desire. Getting there, though, is the issue. The first movement's leisurely tempos aren't supported by a corresponding intensity, especially at the big "collapse" two-thirds of the way through. Perhaps Zinman didn't want to upstage the finale; but if so, he needn't have worried. The playing otherwise is both precise and admirably detailed.

    The two middle movements, though, are disappointing: swift and light, the Rondo:Burleske totally lacks the necessary vehemence. A first scherzo whose initial Ländler isn't nearly clunky enough, with a singularly un-demented waltz, doesn't help either. Once again, the playing is never less than good, and you get the impression that Zinman simply isn't driving the players hard enough to characterize the music. Sonically this is quite good: natural and well-balanced in all formats. If you want to hear a similar interpretation, better played (if not so well recorded) and with all of the intensity this version lacks, go for Levine/Philadelphia.

    --David Hurwitz


I mostly agree with Dave's assessment, albeit that I think it is the first mov. that is most disappointing. He mentions the playing is never less than good, but IMO it's the weakest part of this recording. It sounds as if they had not had enough rehearsal time for this recording. Just compare it with the superb Carpenter's edition of M10 done by the same conductor/orchestra/engineer team. They are so apart like polar opposites.

Even the sound quality is below the high standard set by the M3, M6, M8, M10 recordings in the series.

It sounds very distant, lacking details and dynamic range. (you really need to turn up the volumn to hear the details )

Still, I like Zinman's reading and as Dave said I think he has a few very interesting and new things to say about the piece.

John,

[Michael]

I am surprised Dave (Mr. Hurwitz) gave the Zinman M9 such a high rating.  Personally, I did not think all that much of it, mainly because of the distant sound of the recording.  It could have been so much better had the sonics been on par, too.  I was really looking forward to the release of the Zinman M9, mainly because of the great sound in the M6.  That said, I like his refference recording choices!

[John Kim]

I am surprised Dave (Mr. Hurwitz) gave the Zinman M9 such a high rating.  Personally, I did not think all that much of it, mainly because of the distant sound of the recording.  It could have been so much better had the sonics been on par, too.  I was really looking forward to the release of the Zinman M9, mainly because of the great sound in the M6.  That said, I like his refference recording choices!

Yep, the sound is the main distractor here.

Due to the distant sonics many details such as the screaming woodwinds at the major climax of I. are inaudible. Quite disappointing indeed.

Just imagine the same recording would have been put into the sonics that made the M6, M8, M10 so much better sounding!

John

[barry guerrero]

Yes, but because of the fact that it was recorded at a relatively low level, the fourth movement climax is much bigger and less distorted sounding than usual. And while the Zinman M9 would not my first choice, I still think that that's a trade-off well worth its shortcomings. Personally, I would give it an 8/9. I would take it over MTT/SFSO, which I think is just dull as dirt. It's not a truly great Mahler 9, but I'm also tired of so many M9 recordings where the fourth movement climax is both underwhelming and disappointing. Just my zwei groschen on the topic.

[Michael]

Interesting thoughts, Barry--I will have to go back and listen to the fourth movement at some point.  Could that have been why the recording is so distant?

[barry guerrero]

If you mean "why" as in, was it a deliberate decision; then yes, I suspect that capturing the major climaxes of the two outer movements in all their undistorted glory would be the reason why. Remember, this came after the 8th, which was also recorded at a relatively low level (and thus, the organ pedal and bass drum rolls at the end of the symphony weren't distorted or over-saturated).

[Michael]

Thanks for the thoughts again, Barry.  I seem to have an easier time "accepting" this recording now that I understand why it was likely recorded the way it was.  It's all in my head, I know.  ;-)

[barry guerrero]

"It's all in my head, I know." 

Not really, but sometimes these things are just a trade-off.

[John Kim]

Yes, but because of the fact that it was recorded at a relatively low level, the fourth movement climax is much bigger and less distorted sounding than usual. And while the Zinman M9 would not my first choice, I still think that that's a trade-off well worth its shortcomings. Personally, I would give it an 8/9. I would take it over MTT/SFSO, which I think is just dull as dirt. It's not a truly great Mahler 9, but I'm also tired of so many M9 recordings where the fourth movement climax is both underwhelming and disappointing. Just my zwei groschen on the topic.

This is fine, but the recording still lacks 'details' and the low level recording is not an excuse for this defect. You crank up the volume hoping that things will come into focus more clearly, but all you get is the loudness, not the enhanced details.

Zinman's M8th is a different story; it too may be recorded at a low level but not at such a low level as the M9th is. And the details, clarity, transparency of this M8th are astounding, to say the least.

John,

[barry guerrero]

.   .    .   maybe Zinman just doesn't like the 9th all that much (?). It happens. As I've said before, my preference would have it that Mahler finished the 10th instead, and left us with just the first movement of the 9th.

[barry guerrero]

I listened again to the Zinman 9th, and I really disagree with the general negative tone towards this recording. Yes, the first movement. could be a bit more 'focused' here and there (the start of the movement is one spot). But from the second movement on, it's really very good. I think the second and fourth movements are particularly strong. The whole climactic passage of the fourth movement is quite good, punctuated by strong bass drum rolls and solid cymbal crashes, as well plenty of amplitude from the strings.

In the second movement, I like how Zinman takes the second waltz episode a bit slower than usual, thus leaving room for a noticeable increase in tempo at the third and final waltz episode. Among more expansive versions of the 9th symphony, I really think it's one of the better ones. I certainly like it more than the Jonathan Nott(head) and MTT/SFSO ones, which I find to be boring as dirt.  

[John Kim]

Barry,

I agree that Zinman's II-IV are fine, but I just can't pass beyond the first movt.

And for me M9th lives or dies with the great first movement.

Regards,

John,

[barry guerrero]

"And for me M9th lives or dies with the great first movement"

You see, I feel just the opposite because the first movement is, by default, musically so much better than the other three movements. To me, the 9th "lives or dies" via the 'performance' of the other three movements. There are so many performances - the Gielen being a perfect example - where the following three movements just sound like an after-thought to the first movement. I believe that Zinman deliberately tried to avoid that trap by keeping his sights on the fourth movement instead. Just my two cents. Regardless, Zinman has an excellent second movement, and the Rondo-Burlesque is good as well (listen to how the horns blast out at the climax of the slower paced, central section of the movement). In addition, I really like the sound because it leaves plenty of 'head room' for the big bass drum rolls (the 9th is full of them).

[Leo K]

I also disagree with the negative tone of most comments in this thread. This mastering of the recording is very nice, with no compression in the climaxes, leaving room for nice dynamic contrast. Personally, I find no problems with the pacing of the first movement. For a modern, slower M9, it is a fine choice indeed.

--Todd

[John Kim]

I do admire Zinman's Mahler cycle mainly for the outstanding M6, M8, and M10 (Carpenter). These recordings rank with the very best, especially the Sixth.

I also LOVE Zinman's live M9th with Aspen Festival Orchestra. Unfortunately, going from the live concert to this recording with TOZ was a real letdown both musically and technically.

(Has anyone heard the live recording?)

We have quite a few excellent M9ths out there, Bernstein, Levine, Ozawa, Karajan, Solti, all of which are clearly preferable to the Zinman.

That's all I can say.

John,