Vanska/MO/BIS Mahler 7th SACD to be released in June

[Konsgaard]

Is Vanska's Mahler the most inconsistent cycle so far?

It's definitely a curiosity. When I reviewed Vanska's Ressurection on my site (https://thehigharts.com/mahler-symphony-2-resurrection-vanska-minnesota-orchestra/), I had nothing but praise for it (apart from the not very germanic sounding choir in the finale). In fact, I thought it was one of the best recent performances!

But this was the only Vanska Mahler I reviewed. Why? I've just found the rest of the cycle (well, so far) uneven and slightly uncharacteristic. Mahler's drama, power and emotion are trademark characteristics (along with his spirituality) - elements that I thought were lacking the most in Vanska's cycle.

Still, I was eager to listen to Vanska's 7th. I thought the super analytical approach will work wonders here. Well, super-analytical it is, but at the expense of expressiveness and spirituality.

Let's take the tempi first. On paper, the timings of this new release look absolutely fine. But wait until you hear the first movement with the countless tempo shifts all over the place. Individual expression can be a fine characteristic but is it to the point of altering the work so much? The second nuisance here is the orchestral playing. Not only do the instruments sound as if they have been recorded separately from each other. But also the whole performance of the first movement sounds as if played by a chamber orchestra. Why do the horns sound so loud and distinct? Where is the opulence of the string sound that should create the eerie atmosphere in this most nocturnal of all Mahler symphonies? But, no this is not a chamber-orchestra arrangement, it is clearly the Minnesota Orchestra as stated on the cover.

Even though the 1st movement had been such a negative experience that I really didn't want to carry on listening, I pushed myself to do so. And I am glad I did. The rest of the movements sound absolutely OK. And truth be told, there are some very fine singing lines emulating the Vienesse sound in the 2nd movement. The mandolin can be heard clearly in the second Nachtmusik. As for the Scherzo, it is certainly impressive: it is the only time in this recording where I found the playing particularly expressive.

And then the Finale. Vanska keeps the opening timpani slightly subdued (but perfectly audible) in the sense that their phrasing is pretty straight-forward (same for the opening brass that accompanies it) compared to the athleticism of conductors like Bernstein, Chailly, Sinopoli, Barenboim. Still, a very valid and certainly safe approach, and perhaps closer to the score, also followed by Haitink, Jansons and Abbado. As for the rest of the movement, it is as exciting as it should be and my only complaint has to do with the cowbells and low bells which are not as prominent in the final minutes.

Overall I find the performance to be a mixed bag in a crowded field where there are some really excellent performances. And in terms of eeriness and re-creating the nocturnal soundscape of the 7th -- well, let's just say that this performance fails in the atmosphere department. And the letdown of the first movement alone will make it difficult for me to revisit this performance. Save for the exciting Scherzo where Vanska and the Minnesota Orchestra really shine and if I were to choose a reason to recommend this release, this would be it.

[John Kim]

I'm really surprised that people have such different ideas about how M7th should be played, after having lived with the piece for so long!

I have nothing to say but that I've listened to it 3 times already and really like the recording. I think the 1st movt  is outstanding: had it not have those little quirks you folks mentioned and disliked it'd have been less interesting and less perfect, on the contrary. Mahler is a composer whose music invites variety of interpretations and approaches and I m happy to have Vanska's way with the music. It adds, not subtracts, to my listening experience and pleasure.

John

[John Kim]

One more thing (to Thomas).

I know what you're talking about (Mahler's instruction not to slow down). But I like it done the way Vanska did and he isn't the only one who did it so.

When it comes to listening. I always try to look for positive things, try to like rather than criticize them. But that's me!
.

[John Kim]

"One man's floor is another man's ceiling."

We all have points to make. As for me, I'm not bothered by Vanska's chamber music approach (overall) at all and I think his Scherzo is among the finest I've heard. Above all, I find Vanska very cogent and consistent; I hate any performance of any piece - anything in Life! - that lacks cogency & consistency.

Btw, I like Vanska's Mahler cycle thus far. To be fair, the Introduction to M6 Finale feels somewhat uneventful, but that's about the only thing I found disappointing. Oh, I haven't heard the M1st yet either.

[Konsgaard]

So much goes wrong in the first ten minutes or so of this recording that I started to wonder whether Vänskä even bothered to read Mahler’s indications (or whether he can read German).

I was about to stop listening during the first 10 minutes. I was like, "how can someone stand in the way of the music so much"? Of course, it is the conductor's artistic right and choice to do so, but this really is way beyond what Mahler indicated. Chailly often raises an eyebrow with this tempo choices in this Mahler cycle BUT what he does in one movement is also reflected later on, in order to counterbalance it. But here it is just the first movement that has been altered so much. A pity really...

[John Kim]

Ok, fair enough.

Where is Barry, the King of Mahler 7th?? 

[erikwilson7]

Firstly, I do really like this recording. It checks all the boxes for me as for what I look for in a M7 performance. Great sound and playing too!

Now, as for Vänskä's conducting, this is a whole separate issue. We know that Mahler as a conductor was an interventionist by nature. He was always taking liberties with the scores he conducted for the sake of performance effect. I don't have the durations on hand for when he conducted his own Seventh, but I remember them being vastly different from one performance to the next. We also know what Otto Klemperer said about how Mahler was always making small changes to his scores. In the case of the premiere of the Eighth, Klemperer said, "He always wanted more clarity, more sound, more dynamic contrast. At one point during rehearsals he turned to us and said, 'If, after my death, something doesn't sound right, then change it. You have not only a right but a duty to do so." Heck, Mahler even switched the inner movements for the Sixth performances after it was published in S/A order. He was such an insecure perfectionist that he never made up his mind about most of his scores. This tells me that many of his score instructions are suggestions and "wishes" on his part, but if they don't fit the conductor's personal approach it's alright to take some liberties.

Yes, Mahler left many very detailed instructions, and they should be respected and adhered to, but he also said that if something doesn't sound right to a conductor then they should change it as they see fit. After all, that's what Mahler the conductor did all the time. To me, it all boils down to subjection. If you don't like what Vänskä does with the second subject of the first movement, then it's alright. I personally think it's effective. Since there is no true adagio in the Seventh (Mahler said it himself in a letter to Johanna Jongkindt), I find it effective to inject slower elements into the first movement. I really like what Chailly does with this movement too.

[barryguerrero]

I agree with every point Erik makes. This is now my personal favorite of any Mahler 7. For me, it's not even close.

To me, Vanska just 'gets it' that the 7th is a gradual transition from darkness to light. I'm not real concerned about Mahler's various 'traffic cop' instructions in the first movement. Frankly, I don't think the 'huge contast-y' treatment of the first movement works at all.  For example - and If you're going to keep track of these kinds of things - we have to examine how SO MANY conductors greatly slow down at a spot that is treated as though it were the second subject, when it isn't the second subject at all! On the Vanska recording, the spot I'm talking about is at exactly 4:15 (the actual second subject happens just after the 5 minute mark). He does slow it down slightly, but it doesn't sound exaggerated. Why?    .    .   .   because Vanska doesn't take the initial allegro too fast, as so many conductors do. Why does it matter that the main allegro not be taking too fast?   .    .   . 

.   .   .  because the finale sounds stupid and supercilious, if it's taken slower than the first movement (witness MTT/S.F.S.O.). More to the point, when the first movement's main subject returns near the end of the finale, it comes back sounding a bit slower under Vanska's scheme of things, not faster! I think that's correct.  Why?   .    .    .  because we need to be reminded that the first movement's main subject - in minor! - belongs to the dark world of the 6th symphony, and should not be treated as a competing theme to the main ritornello theme of the finale. Get it?   .    .   .  In the Vanska finale, the spot I'm talking about starts at exactly 13:10.

If Vanska's M7 has any fault at all - for me - it's that the back half of the finale could be a tad bit more 'unbuttoned'; more crazed perhaps. But only by just a little. The two Nachtumusik movements are superb, with plenty of atmosphere. The scherzo is arguably a tad too fast, but 'who cares' when it's played in such an agile manner, as it is here. I really like it this way. It's spooky with a quick wind blowing (it reminds me a bit of the final short movement of Chopin's 2nd piano sonata).

One more interpretive point. There's a spot towards the end of the scherzo where - for me - not only the seventh symphony makes its transition from darkness to light, but the entire trilogy of symphonies 6 through 8 hinges on this one point. On the Vanska, that spot is at exactly 7:04. It's the sort of carnival, merry-go-round tune for low brass, and Vanska really plays it up. From there on, most everything is humorous and lighter than previous.

I'm hopeful that Vanska will stick around long enough that BIS can finish the cycle with an 8th symphony.

[John Kim]

Barry,

I was going to text you about the Vanska M7th but didn't want to give impression I got too excited. 

John

[Konsgaard]

Clearly, there’s no arguing with taste and I’m glad to see that people like this recording. Personally, I think it’s abysmally bad, particularly the first movement. I’ll spare everyone the details, but lust listen to the moment at bar 19 in the introduction, at ‘Etwas weniger langsam.’ Here, Vänskä takes a far too slow tempo, anything but ‘a little less slow,’ and then starts to speed up. Some may find this sudden accelerando an acceptable liberty, I think it’s tacky.

My thoughts exactly. People who know my taste and reviews know that I favour the idiosyncratic and new. But not when there are specific instructions. And really, if the conductor wants to mess up the first movement, why does he decide to follow the score in the rest of the symphony? Why the first movement only (this is not a rhetorical question, just food for thought).

Anyway, even though I was shocked when I heard that Vanska will record a complete cycle (the lean, sharp sound doesn't go well with Mahler; an approach he has been following with his Sibelius and Beethoven), there have been some nice touches in some of the symphonies, like in the Andante of the Resurrection symphony. But in this 7th, I really couldn't believe my ears when I heard the 1st movement. Anyway, the 7th is one of my top 3 favourite Mahler symphonies, and thank God there are recordings that do it full justice.

[erikwilson7]

These are all very good points. It’s truly amazing to me how polarizing these Vänskä recordings are. It’s almost as if you love it or hate it (kind of like the finale of the Seventh, no? hah.)

Anyway, I actually do agree with what Thomass is saying about blatantly ignoring Mahler’s instructions in general. I think if Mahler were to somehow hear the part in the first movement that is under consideration his infamously short temper would be set off.

Regardless, it does come down to taste and opinion, of course, and you’re right: that is the whole point. Imagine how boring it would be if we all simply loved or hated these recordings! But no, they inspire discussion, and to me that’s part of what makes them valuable.

This Seventh is right on the money for me. I’m personally not bothered by an interpretive choice, even in its wrong. If it sounds interesting to me and is delivered and employed effectively, I won’t be bothered by it. I see how it could be meddlesome to some, and I respect those who would denounce a recording for it being literally incorrect, but to me if it gets the big picture message across then that’s what matters. It’s almost like delivering a line in a play with a different tone than is expected. Surely it will turn some heads, but it may add new meaning to the line (or even the play!) that you’d never considered before.

Gabriel Feltz has a couple unique choices up his sleeve too, some of which I admire. He has extreme tempo shifts in his recordings of M2/III and M3/I-development section: exactly where Mahler says not to speed up. I do wonder if those who criticize Vänskä would also rip apart Feltz.

[barryguerrero]

For me, it's a 'forest from the trees' type of situation. I think what Vanska does in the introduction 'works', because he takes the main allegro slower than normal - something I have absolutely zero problem with. No offense meant in saying this, but If one can't get past bar 19, then of course they're not going to care for a 70-something minutes long symphony.

Here's my take on the first movement. I think we need to back-off of the notion that it's about how modern Mahler could be, and what a virtuoso movement it is. I don't think it should be perceived as a symphony within a symphony. Instead, I think it needs to fit the narrative of the entire symphony, as well as reflect upon where it came from: the 6th symphony. I think the highly herky-jerky, up and down, back and forth exaggeration of this movement really doesn't work. In fact, I like Boulez's 23 minute version of it, where he takes large swatches of it at pretty much the same tempo. Why?   .    .   .  because the harmonic rhythm of this music is just too rich to be constantly charging ahead. More to the point, why would you want to make the first movement the finale!

In addition, the central 'moonlit' (slower tempo) passage of the first movement is absolutely gorgeous on this recording. Maybe played a bit more reticently than usual, but it's just lovely with its lighter approach. I also like how Vanska handles the long and awkward transition back to the allegro tempo, with its reiteration of the first subject (some call this the Recap., if you consider this to be a sonata movement [which I don't]).  At rehearsal figure 62 (fliessend), I like how Vanska drives home the 'telegraph' rhythm in the horns and snare drum (20:42 on the recording). And, more than anything else, I like how how Vanska slows down for the brief funereal dirge - the highlight of the entire movement, other than the coda! - that's located at bar 512, just two bars after rehearsal 62 (21:22 on the recording). Mahler marks it "Breit", which means "broad". Some conductors don't broaden here at all. Some, like Tilson-Thomas (S.F.), actually speed up. Wrong, wrong, wrong! These few bars are what the entire previous 21 minutes of noise have built up to (or down to, depending on your perspective). Great cymbals in the coda as well, including the big suspended cymbal roll.

[barryguerrero]

What he does in bar 354 doesn't bother me and, thus, doesn't strike me as tasteless. At the risk of putting words in Vanka's mouth, my guess is that he's deliberately interpreting the "a tempo" as coming after the dotted quarter note. Again, that's not an offensive enough tree to keep me from viewing the forest. That's just me.

I'm very familiar with the three recordings you list. Bernstein's first Mahler 7 is very good. I still prefer a slower approach to the first movement, but it's good. Tennstedt's first recording is decent, but is poorly recorded with almost zero bass - rather opaque sounding (whatever the reason, London orchestras often times sound thin in the bottom end). The second 'live' recording sounds much better, but I don't care for his use of slower tempi from start to finish. I like the M6 in that same three disc set, but not so much the 7th. Again, I prefer for M7 to sound like a gradual accelerando from beginning to end. That's what works for me.

I have a similar problem with Abbado as I do with Bernstein: the first movement is too fast for my liking and for my vision of the work. I greatly prefer the second, Berlin one, where Abbado shortens the fourth movement (2nd nocturne) by about a minute and a half. Also, the Berlin one has far better deep bells and cow bells at the end of the finale. Both his Chicago and Berlin ones are quite good, but I prefer the latter. At the time when Abbado's C.S.O. M7 came out, I liked it because there hadn't been a truly good M7 for a good while (as I recall), and it came with a billion extra tracks. Much has changed since this time.

You mentioned the Zinman recording - I do like that one quite a bit. I could easily swap out Zinman's first movement and plop it into the Vanska. I too feel he's excellent with the slower, 'moonlit' passage - maybe the best thing in that entire recording. From the second movement on, I have a slight preference for Vanska. In particular, Vanska's finale is more to my liking. Again, I like how when the big, bad ogre first subject of the first movement - in minor - reappears near the end of the finale, Vanska brings it in at a tempo that's a tad slower than normal. That works for me. Also, the Vanska recording is more 'full body' in the lower half of the audio spectrum. Still, I do like the Zinman. I was - and still am - a big defender of his cycle - something I took a lot of heat for over the years (not at this site). Like any Mahler cycle, it's not all equally good, but it's more consistent than most.

[John Kim]

My lesson about Mahler:

Don't be hung up too much on the score. Whatever approach makes sense, it works!

After all, Mahler said:

"What is best in music is not to be found in the notes."

[barryguerrero]

Not only that, let's take down the temperature a bit. I'm not singling anybody out - I'm as guilty of any rhetoric as anyone. At a time in our nation where so much truly serious stuff is going on, does any of this really matter? Even in the slightest?    .    .    .   Let's face it, at most, there may be about 500 people in the entire nation who take any interest in this debate - maybe more, maybe less. A very small percentage of the populace. That being the case, this is nothing for anyone - myself included - to get steamed up about.

I only jumped in to this because I was, more or less, asked for my opinion. I've given it! I've had my say, and my say is NOT in an effort to persuade others. When it comes to Mahler, I'm no longer concerned - or even interested - in popular consensus. If somebody feels that Vanska is a poor conductor, they're not alone! They're in good company. My good friend Dave Hurwitz has been on that band-wagen for while now. We're still good friends. Regardless, I don't care. I'm only stating what works for me, and WHY it works for me. At least I've offered the WHY of it.

The Vanska M7 works for me and I like it. If it doesn't for others, fair enough. That's why we have choices. Live and let live.