Vanska/Minnesota O. M5 (BIS) now on Spotify

[barryguerrero]

Everyone can judge for themselves. I'll give my thoughts later.

https://open.spotify.com/search/results/mahler%20osmo%20vanska

[barryguerrero]

OK, I'll jump in: I like this! I agree that 12:30 is a bit too slow for the Adagietto, but it's not a deal breaker for me. This isn't earth shaking or shelf clearing, but I very much like the sound and orchestral execution. I particularly like the finale. The middle movement seems pretty good too. I love their tuba player!

I'm very much looking forward to their Mahler 6.

[GL]

In Europe the physical SACD is just available and I listened to it. The Fifth made another victim. The Minnesota Orchestra is truly a splendid band, but made them down-playing Mahler like that should be considered a criminal offense. Low tension predominates for the great part of the 75 minutes. The Fifth's is not gentle music to be played comfortably. I have not enough time to go into many details, then I will pick up some examples to give you an idea of what you can hear.

In the first movement, the Bb minor Trio does not sound desperate, and the final collapse does not bring down the roof as, say, Bernstein/Wiener Philharmoniker. It does not help that in that passage's tremolos the violins are not trying to break their instruments, like in many other passages of this recording.

In fact, it is what one feels at the very beginning of the second movement: where is the storm that sweeps away all motifs like debris in a whirlwind? Given the detailed, excellent recorded sound, it looks like a series of radiographs in slow motion. They play comfortably through it, with great order and precision. Yawn! Think again of Bernstein/Wiener Philharmoniker: it's not much faster, but, oh my, the sound, the fury, the violence, the basses that, when the second part of the primary theme starts, seem to evoke big, oceanic waves. Even Rosbaud, with an orchestra that can't hold a candle to Minnesota, is better. The secondary theme seems struggling to go on and then, at the beginning of the developmental space, here it comes one of Vanska's specialties: the ppppp. Yeah, during their recitative-like passage cellos are instructed to play always pp, but always espressivo too. Decreasing the pp to pppp (or pppppppp) makes it impossible to the poor musicians to play espressivo an espressivo Mahlerian phrase. Something similar happens when, a few bars later, the horn enters playing the secondary theme: yes, the score reads pp, but also hervortretend, not "without disturbing the other musicians and people who dozed off during the recitative passage of the cellos". What Vanska does it right in the second movement is the moment when the recapitulation harmonically derails and catastrophically closes in Eb minor (the tritone of the principal Key of the movement). It can be rendered better, as Gielen and Bernstein (DG) shows, but it is nonetheless good. The hopes raised by that passage were crashed by the big, final collapse, downplayed like the one at the end of the Trauermarsch. If you want to hear how it should sound, look for Barshai's version (moreover, Barshai's second movement lasts longer than Vanska's, but it seems shorter because it is much more filled in with savage contrasts and tensions-for god's sake Mr. Vanska, it is Mahler, not Hadyn!).

Perhaps to distinguish himself, it seems that in the Scherzo Vanska crossed out from the score all the luftpausen. During the recapitulation, he suddenly awakes from the numbness of the trio, and starts running. And again, tension is rather low and passages instructed to be played wild, are not wild.

Even if I am rather sure that the Adagietto should be played flowingly, there are wonderful slow renditions and I am very happy to listen to them. The problem with Vanska is not that it is slow, the problem is that it is flat. Almost all ppppppp, schleppend even when Mahler warns nicht schleppen. I am really sick of this bogus profundity: you play as slow as possible and as ppppp as possible and you think that you have reached the apex of deep expression. Come on!

The rendition of the Finale is the best. It does not seem slow because the rhythms are well carved, at deceptive cadences the orchestra positively snaps, it is so well recorded that you can hear every voice and every color (and I like to hear the effects created by first and second violins sitting in front of each other). But the return of the main theme in D in the strings is too tamed, there is not enough abandonment, they do not seem to rejoice-again they do not try to break their instruments. And as it always happens, the accelerando finale starts well but then it stabilizes and becomes a bit pompous. Alas, not bis zum Schluss beschleundigend. Karajan remains the King of the Fifth's Finale, and his coda, being the craziest, is the most correct one. Well, all the Fifth with Karajan is one of the most correct ones and I wonder what they are waiting for in Japan to produce a SACD super version.

I really hope that this cycle will not be completed, at least not by Vanska.

[barryguerrero]

I have a slightly different take, perhaps because the 5th isn't my favorite among Mahler symphonies to begin with. I think there's plenty of wildness built into the piece and, therefore, doesn't need to be underlined so much. Mahler made a big study of Bach's "Well Tempered Klavier" before embarking upon the 5th. That being the case, I like a tad more control, precision and contrapuntal clarity in the 5th than, say, M6 or M7. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of wildness to get that precision and contrapuntal clarity. But don't get me wrong; I'm not going out on a long limb for the new Vaenska M5: I would give it four stars out of five. But just to cite one example  .   .   .   

Yes, it's obvious that Vaenska is a bit too controlled and hemmed in at the start of the second movement. But it's certainly together, right? More to the point, he doesn't slow down in the slightest when the busy opening stuff transitions into the first theme group (exactly 35 seconds into movement II) - which happens in sooooooo many recordings of M5! Mahler doesn't indicate that there should be ANY slowing down at all. More to the point (again), what's the use of starting uber-fast if you're going to have to slow down in less than a half-minute into the movement? I'll take the slower start if the conductor can keep the tempo up throughout (until we reach the first Trio section - or whatever you care to call it).

Also, I know this is superficial and isn't an important matter, but I love the sound of tuba player Steven Cambpell, playing on the new B&S "MRP" rotary valve CC  tuba. It gets a dark sound like a BBb tuba, but with the immediate response and focus of a C tuba.

https://www.interstatemusic.com/912029-Buffet-Group--B-And-S-Instruments--MRP-CS-Perantoni-CC-Tuba--Silver-Plated-MRPCS.aspx

Later on: I listened again to the middle movement on Youtube. It might be all wrong (I don't think so), but I like it. I like how he approaches the two big solo horn passages: slow the first time (bringing out Mahler's strange, 'fin de siecle' harmonies there) and quite fast the second time. The ending is both exciting and clean - to me, anyway.

[GL]

I have a slightly different take, perhaps because the 5th isn't my favorite among Mahler symphonies to begin with. I think there's plenty of wildness built into the piece and, therefore, doesn't need to be underlined so much. Mahler made a big study of Bach's "Well Tempered Klavier" before embarking upon the 5th. That being the case, I like a tad more control, precision and contrapuntal clarity in the 5th than, say, M6 or M7. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of wildness to get that precision and contrapuntal clarity. But don't get me wrong; I'm not going out on a long limb for the new Vaenska M5: I would give it four stars out of five. But just to cite one example  .   .   .   

Yes, it's obvious that Vaenska is a bit too controlled and hemmed in at the start of the second movement. But it's certainly together, right? More to the point, he doesn't slow down in the slightest when the busy opening stuff transitions into the first theme group (exactly 35 seconds into movement II) - which happens in sooooooo many recordings of M5! Mahler doesn't indicate that there should be ANY slowing down at all. More to the point (again), what's the use of starting uber-fast if you're going to have to slow down in less than a half-minute into the movement? I'll take the slower start if the conductor can keep the tempo up throughout (until we reach the first Trio section - or whatever you care to call it).

Also, I know this is superficial and isn't an important matter, but I love the sound of tuba player Steven Cambpell, playing on the new B&S "MRP" rotary valve CC  tuba. It gets a dark sound like a BBb tuba, but with the immediate response and focus of a C tuba.

https://www.interstatemusic.com/912029-Buffet-Group--B-And-S-Instruments--MRP-CS-Perantoni-CC-Tuba--Silver-Plated-MRPCS.aspx

Later on: I listened again to the middle movement on Youtube. It might be all wrong (I don't think so), but I like it. I like how he approaches the two big solo horn passages: slow the first time (bringing out Mahler's strange, 'fin de siecle' harmonies there) and quite fast the second time. The ending is both exciting and clean - to me, anyway.

I don't see the point of your observations, for more than one reason. First, you can be wild and precise-nay, you can be wild and, at the same time, you must keep being precise. That's the point in much of Mahler's music. For example, even in a Symphony without heavy brass like the Fourth, you still find that near the end of the third movement Mahler marks the climax triple fortissimo, horns and trumpets fortissimo, bells up, with the option of reinforcement by the clarinets in case the trumpets aren’t strong enough, with the timpanist (who plays the Bell-Motif) instructed to use double sticks on each drum. If a conductor goes soft with it, he is clearly wrong.

But let's be back to the Fifth: the conductors in the recordings I mentioned are not wild at the expense of precision. They are precise (and three of them are live recordings!) and make their orchestras play in the true spirit of the music. And they do not slow down nonsensically as you seem to imply:

Barshai:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmzmJ4U8FRE&list=PLYWhSIF4jgxj71a9aiVU1afDRm88BQXbs

Bernstein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwxrTsSQf0Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbc-KLY3tTU

Karajan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cyGKsfGXoI

(I did not find the Gielen and the Rosbaud on youtube, but they do something similar to the ones mentioned above. Moreover, Gielen has an approach to the Rondo similar to Vänskä, but much more effective, because his clarity and the initial relaxed, almost pastoral mood build up impressively until at last the search for the Chorale proves to be successful, while Vänskä remains rather cold).

Anyway, more than one source used for the critical edition of the Fifth indicates a Luftpause between the primary theme/introduction and the primary theme proper, this means that Mahler thought of them as two separate parts of a whole and a change of tempo to distinguish the two could be done, as we know that conductors like Mahler underlined the structural subdivisions by tempo fluctuations (I am listening to the early recordings of Boehm and even he, during the 1930s, was inclined to structural changes of tempo, with excellent results and without renouncing precision as Furtwaengler a bit often did). The point is that it should be done in a way that makes it work. And when it works, it is perfectly ok. Critical editions (when they are correct) can be very useful when approached in order to make informed choices, but they becomes dangerous when they are used in a pilatesquqe way: "I do not need to think about it, I have just to do as it is written" (an so we end up with no more contrabass-solo in the III movement of the First and the Andante preceding the Scherzo in the Sixth...).

Moreover, if it is senseless to slow down after 35 seconds of an Allegro, is it senseless to slow down after 29 of an Allegro moderato?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-ujTjBSqsk

And the slow down here is written.

Something similar happens at the beginning of the First Symphony's Finale, with a "stürmisch bewegt" introduction and an "energish" primary theme (it should not escape this similarity, because this Finale of the First has something in common with the Fifth, even thematically speaking: cf the recitative of the cellos at the beginning of the development space of the II movement of the Fifth with the the second theme on the long dominant of F, before the so called Durchbruch of the Finale of the First).

You reminded me of a professor of which I read he had criticized Borodin because he started a symphony with a fermata (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmUsL6biVro) by saying something like: "It takes an incompetent composer to start a symphony with a fermata!"-- And of course one thinks immediately: ta-ta-ta-taaa (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKcAAA1O2sc)!

Anything is possible, if handled convincingly. And yet the literalism of certain passages of Vänskä would not be a problem per se. The real problem is that Vänskä seems to sedate the music, he seems to be indifferent to it. Of course the notes are right there and correct (it is the minimum required of a studio recording), but what that music should express is not. Take for example another failure of Vänskä's interpretation: the beginning of the secondary theme of the II movement. What happens at this point? The primary theme, in A minor, stormy, tragic, has just collapsed, it has literally disintegrated in an explosion, and the atmosphere should be tense because after that we expect some relief from a secondary theme in major mode; instead, not only we get a secondary theme in F minor, but it is a theme from the Trauermarsch! Take Bernstein or one of the other conductors I mentioned and you can touch the tension of the expectation and the subsequent sense of tragedy of not finding relief (and, on top of that, you seem being mocked by the woodwinds' interjections). After that horrid series of radiographs in slow motion that is the primary theme of Vänskä, there is no expectation, no tension, he just goes through it with an awful indifference. And it's all the same for all the symphony: I keep hoping he will awake to the calls of the music and he keeps letting me down with his being seemingly indifferent, and when something changes (in the Scherzo), it changes for the worst.

The Fifth is an aggressive, modernist symphony and if somebody has problems with that, he/she should stay away, because going against what the music expresses just ruin it. Klemperer did not like it and then stayed away from it. That's how a honest artist should behave.

Of course five-stars reviews are just being written praising the "balance" and the absence of "bombast". Yeah, because exalting the extremes is vulgar, Mahler music should always be played as pleasant as possible; even when he is concerned with a rabble, like in the Third, you have to be gentle and the desperation and the manic joy of the Fifth should be contained within the limits of decorum.

I thought that the beauty of Mahler's music is principally in its honesty: it can express everything, from the sublime to the ugly, because everything it expresses is part of our life, our real life, not a life as it should be or as we wish it were, and excluding some part of it is wrong, it is a lie. But I seem wrong because there is more and more people that want this music normalized: "Let's not underline the ugly, it is not decent!"

Of course on the internet every opinion seems to be valid and it does not matter if it is based on erroneous facts or ignorance as long as 100 users find the review useful.

Of course Vänskä is the top conductor of BIS and BIS is one of the very few companies that have not yet a complete Mahler cycle in their catalogue, and this means that the cycle will go on triumphantly amid hailing crowds of enthusiastic fans. Thus all that I have written is useless. Forget about it and enjoy Vänskä conducting a fantastic Mahler's Fifth, in which

balance and symmetry are restored [indeed that incompetent of Bernstein had ruined it by distorting its real meaning]. 2 movements – central movement – 2 movements [: the hard facts of the Fifth. You can't argue with this brilliant observation about the structure of the symphony]. Each one individually characterized to perfection, played to perfection and recorded to perfection.

Make no mistake this is Mahler. Mahler for grown-ups perhaps [ineeded Bernstein's, Karajan & co. was Mahler for stupid children like me]. Mahler for me now in 2017 and not so much for me at 17 back on 1984. A different Mahler but a marvellous Mahler there's no doubt.

Certainly one of the finest Mahler recording I have ever listened to.

(Steve Kindleson, 3 people found this helpful)

Or, to be more succinct and get faster to the point:

If you think Vanska in Minn. conducting M5 should be good,

you would be right! Plenty of nuance and detail to be found here, emphasized by deep, burnished sound [indeed I had flames bursting from my ears, while listening to it! It's not like Bernstein that makes me fall asleep]. Enjoy!

(P Ski, 4 people found this helpful)

Yeah, enjoy.

[barryguerrero]

You're preaching to the choir because the Karajan happens to be my favorite overall recording of the 5th. I also like the Honeck/Pittsburgh one. That one certainly is real muscular. M5 also happens to be one of the better ones from the MTT/SFSO Mahler cycle. But as for Bernstein, I'm not thrilled with the DG one at all. I'm providing a link to a Bernstein/VPO performance, done on the same tour, from Royal Albert Hall that sounds much more like what I remember hearing in Davies Hall (same tour). I used to think that it was just my imagination, until I stumbled upon this RAH one. The DG recording sounds a bit safe and heavy footed in comparison, I think. Maybe it's just the way DG recorded it that doesn't appeal to me. In general, I prefer Bernstein's earlier Columbia recordings of Mahler (although, M5 wasn't one of the better ones in that earlier batch).

Nowhere did I say that the Vanska is better than the top recordings from the past. Even though the Barbirolli isn't my very favorite, I would still rate it higher than Vanska. Same for the 1988 'live' Tennstedt. But I still like much of what Vanska does here. I would certainly agree that it's not for everyone.  However, especially with works that are as large as these, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. Regardless, I'm still happy to have a new Mahler cycle from an orchestra as good as Minnesota. As far as I'm concerned, there can be new Mahler cycles issued every week! - that's just how much I like Mahler in general (but the 5th isn't my favorite). I'll probably be more critical when it comes to M2, M3, M6, M7 and M8 (I assume there won't be a 10th, but who knows). I judge M1 mostly by the two inner movements and the end of the finale (which often times has issues). For me, the soprano in M4 is huge (I mean her contribution, not how big she is, or how big her voice is). Here's that link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpitDloV-GA

"You reminded me of a professor of which I read he had criticized Borodin because he started a symphony with a fermata (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmUsL6biVro) by saying something like: "It takes an incompetent composer to start a symphony with a fermata!"

I have no idea what you're saying here or why. This doesn't sound anything like something I would say, I don't think. I happen to like Borodin very much - his 2nd symphony is one of my favorites (great tuba part). You make a few presumptions about me without knowing anything about me, which is something that people all too commonly do on posting boards pertaining to topics they're passionate about. Let's not make these things personal - they're simply not that important.

[AZContrabassoon]

David Hurwitz may not be everyone's favorite critic, but he sure didn't like this new M5:

This has got to be the most expressively sterile, emotionally neutral performance of Mahler’s Fifth yet captured on disc. I might call it a “CD from Hell” except that it’s not even that interesting. To be sure, the symphony has tripped up many a fine Mahler interpreter, but Vänskä hasn’t yet earned that distinction, and evidently he has a way to go before he does. Let’s start at the beginning.
The first movement is a true funeral march. Literally. It’s dead. The opening threnody sounds benumbed, which is fine if the music wakes up at that first, hysterical outburst, but it doesn’t. The ensuing wind band passage (figure 12) has never been played more metronomically. “Stormily agitated” and “With the greatest vehemence” hardly describe the tightly controlled start of the second movement. You can practically hear the players counting eighth notes. Its second subject, which Mahler marks to be played in the tempo of the opening funeral march, is far too slow, and the chattering accompaniment in the woodwinds is louder than the tune. So it goes.
The scherzo is a mess of illogical tempo relationships. As in the previous movement, where Mahler’s score says “don’t drag,” Vänskä tends to hurry forward; where it says “don’t rush,” he slams on the brakes. The first trio section features exaggerated portamentos, the very opposite of the gracious, relaxed spontaneity that Mahler had in mind. Those little breath pauses (“Luftpausen”) at figures 17 and 26, so exciting when observed, get ignored entirely. The Adagietto is slooooooooooowwww–some twelve and half minutes. I’m not a fan of those who insist that it be played as quickly as it was done originally, or sometimes is again today (around eight minutes). It’s really a question of contrast and proportion, but this version is lethal.
In the finale, Vänskä achieves an impressive degree of contrapuntal clarity, but at a droopy speed and with a mechanical, sewing machine approach to articulation that makes the fugal episodes (i.e. most of the movement) tedious. As with his pretty dreadful Sibelius cycle with this same band, it’s clear that he has turned into one of those interpretive micromanagers who fiddles around with the music just because he can. It’s a depressing transformation in an interpreter whose prior work often revealed interesting ideas presented idiomatically, in context. We can only hope that this is just a phase.
As for the Minnesota Orchestra, the playing is technically excellent, but faceless. You can appreciate the fine solo horn, the woodwinds playing with their bells up, or the precise string ensemble, but– whether the result of Vänskä’s expressive straightjacket or a simple dearth of personality–it comes across as cold and contrived. Mahler’s Fifth contains some of the most gut-wrenching, intense music in the symphonic repertoire. Its moods swing from the blackest despair to uninhibited giddiness. You won’t hear them in this abstract, clinical exercise in podium control.

Bis doesn't have a Mahler cycle in their catalog, and maybe they want one. Some people swear that the recent cycles of Beethoven and Sibelius from Minnesota are top-notch (I don't) so the Mahler should be great, too. Mahler is so Romantic, and Vanska just isn't. We don't need any more Mahler for a while - a long while. In fact, I can't think of anything we really desperately need new recordings of, except for a bunch of American composers (ca 1900-1950) whose music is unrecorded, but then that's not something Bis or Vanska would be interested in and the subject of another thread or board.

[GL]

David Hurwitz may not be everyone's favorite critic, but he sure didn't like this new M5:

This has got to be the most expressively sterile, emotionally neutral performance of Mahler’s Fifth yet captured on disc. I might call it a “CD from Hell” except that it’s not even that interesting. To be sure, the symphony has tripped up many a fine Mahler interpreter, but Vänskä hasn’t yet earned that distinction, and evidently he has a way to go before he does. Let’s start at the beginning.
The first movement is a true funeral march. Literally. It’s dead. The opening threnody sounds benumbed, which is fine if the music wakes up at that first, hysterical outburst, but it doesn’t. The ensuing wind band passage (figure 12) has never been played more metronomically. “Stormily agitated” and “With the greatest vehemence” hardly describe the tightly controlled start of the second movement. You can practically hear the players counting eighth notes. Its second subject, which Mahler marks to be played in the tempo of the opening funeral march, is far too slow, and the chattering accompaniment in the woodwinds is louder than the tune. So it goes.
The scherzo is a mess of illogical tempo relationships. As in the previous movement, where Mahler’s score says “don’t drag,” Vänskä tends to hurry forward; where it says “don’t rush,” he slams on the brakes. The first trio section features exaggerated portamentos, the very opposite of the gracious, relaxed spontaneity that Mahler had in mind. Those little breath pauses (“Luftpausen”) at figures 17 and 26, so exciting when observed, get ignored entirely. The Adagietto is slooooooooooowwww–some twelve and half minutes. I’m not a fan of those who insist that it be played as quickly as it was done originally, or sometimes is again today (around eight minutes). It’s really a question of contrast and proportion, but this version is lethal.
In the finale, Vänskä achieves an impressive degree of contrapuntal clarity, but at a droopy speed and with a mechanical, sewing machine approach to articulation that makes the fugal episodes (i.e. most of the movement) tedious. As with his pretty dreadful Sibelius cycle with this same band, it’s clear that he has turned into one of those interpretive micromanagers who fiddles around with the music just because he can. It’s a depressing transformation in an interpreter whose prior work often revealed interesting ideas presented idiomatically, in context. We can only hope that this is just a phase.
As for the Minnesota Orchestra, the playing is technically excellent, but faceless. You can appreciate the fine solo horn, the woodwinds playing with their bells up, or the precise string ensemble, but– whether the result of Vänskä’s expressive straightjacket or a simple dearth of personality–it comes across as cold and contrived. Mahler’s Fifth contains some of the most gut-wrenching, intense music in the symphonic repertoire. Its moods swing from the blackest despair to uninhibited giddiness. You won’t hear them in this abstract, clinical exercise in podium control.

Bis doesn't have a Mahler cycle in their catalog, and maybe they want one. Some people swear that the recent cycles of Beethoven and Sibelius from Minnesota are top-notch (I don't) so the Mahler should be great, too. Mahler is so Romantic, and Vanska just isn't. We don't need any more Mahler for a while - a long while. In fact, I can't think of anything we really desperately need new recordings of, except for a bunch of American composers (ca 1900-1950) whose music is unrecorded, but then that's not something Bis or Vanska would be interested in and the subject of another thread or board.

I totally agree with you.

[barryguerrero]

I've listened to this again. In spite of my friend David, I like it. I wouldn't rank it near the top, but it does make for an interesting addendum. It has great sound, great playing (to my taste) and some interesting albeit 'wayward' interpretive ideas. I think it's generally a 'positive' spin on Mahler 5 and perhaps plays down the darkness of the first two movements. However, I think the development of the second movement - the last third to half of it - is really pretty well done. And even though the middle movement scherzo is definitely executed in a 'different' manner, I rather like it. I think Vanska makes the two big horn solos more the central focus of the movement. It's a sort of micro-managed Mahler, I suppose, but I think it's quite interesting for a change. The Adagietto, on the hand, is just too slow and bloodless - I have to admit that. But the finale is really one of the better ones, I think.

Yes, I would leave the Karajan as my personal favorite and I like the Honeck/Pittsburgh when I want something both clean and muscular. I don't have a ton of M5's because it's not really among my favorite Mahler symphonies. I also have a 'pirate' with Jansons/Pittsburgh that's much better than his commercial recordings of M5, IMHO. As good as the Barbirolli is, I've just never warmed up to it that much.

To me - and I know I'm going to get into hot H2O for this - I think it's vastly more interesting and better played than the not-so-distant Fischer M5, which was - if anything - even more lightweight and side stepping of the earlier movement's darker elements.

Let's wait and see on the future Vanska releases. There may be some real surprises, which could be either good or bad (or both).  I'll certainly take M6 and M2 more 'personally' than I do M5. I'm actually anxious to hear the upcoming M6.

[John Kim]

I think Vanska's M5 is both conventional and controversial. Conventional in its overall interpretation, controversial in the execution of orchestral details. That is, it is executed like Vanska's own Sibelius and Beethoven, but the interpretation remains as full bodied, grandly Mahlerian as one can imagine.

I quite like it! ^_^