Should Mahler be performed only by the big bands?

[shawn]

Hi everyone, I've been reading the review on Classicstoday.com of the recent M2 and M9 as conducted by Adam Fischer and the Dusseldorf SO.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but something about the review felt so wrong to me.

The reviewer went to some lengths to make disparaging remarks about the Dusseldorf SO. The reviewer even claims they are only fitting for local consumption, good for their region but certainly not for the rest of the world. Am I the only one who thinks this is some kind of snobbery? Why shouldn't we hear the Dusseldorf SO in this music, on the whole I think they acquit themselves very fine.

I'm simply not of the opinion that Mahler should only be interesting when played by the well-known powerhouse orchestras in the world.

Kind regards,

Shawn

[barryguerrero]

Shawn, I've known D.H. for a very long time. I agree with him on many, many things. But of more recent times, I've been parting ways with him on things pertaining to Mahler. In a recent round-up of complete Mahler cycle boxes, he trashed Bernard Haitink. I understand the point that he makes, but he takes it too far. David has a tendency to exaggerate. Things get divided into wonderful or terrible. Things he deems as 'boring' get tossed into the 'terrible' pile. He doesn't like 'grey' areas. I'll admit that he isn't wishy-washy, like many critics can be. But he can also be too easily dismissive of things. Adam Fischer's Mahler is a case in point.

As for my own feelings on A. Fischer's Mahler, he's pretty much like most everyone who attempts to tackle the whole cycle: some things are better than others. In general, I like Adam Fischer's work more than Ivan Fischer's. David probably feels that I. Fischer's Budapest Festival Orchestra is more precise and cleaner sounding. At times, I find them a bit too light weight and clinical sounding. In general, I have a preference for the 'darker' and grittier sound of the Dusseldorf band. They lend a rustic quality that I find to be appropriate, even at the expense of some loss of precision. In the case of Mahler 2, I definitely prefer Ivan Fischer's version (Channel Classics). However, I feel just the opposite regarding Mahler 9, as I like Adam Fischer's Mahler 9 very much. I like way it's proportioned; it  has a great tam-tam smash at the first movement's main (anti)climax (you'd think D.H. would love that!), and it has really decent string playing in the last movement. Sure, there's a bit of slop in the winds in the middle two movements, but I also think they're appropriately 'rustic' sounding too. The Ivan Fischer M9, on the other hand, just comes off too light weight and not quite as well proportioned as his brother's. To use David's go-to verdict, it's booooooring!

Anyway, that's my two cents. You could probably talk to ten Mahler fans and get eleven different opinions. More and more, I'm keeping my own opinions to myself, because I don't need the reassurance of others. I like what I like. You should too. Just keep listening critically.

[erikwilson7]

I respect Mr. Hurwitz's opinions, and I actually own most of his books. HOWEVER (and that's a Dave Hurwitz "HOWEVER"), like Barry, I just don't agree with him on most of his Mahler opinions. Sometimes I do, and to my surprise. I was pretty shocked when he picked Gielen and Chailly as the two best Mahler cycles of all time, and not Bernstein DG or something (because he ALWAYS refers to them as the reference recordings, and I for one find them abhorrently overrated, egotistical, melodramatic, and so on; just my opinion of course). My two favorite cycles are Chailly's and Kubelík's. But like most normal people, my opinions are evolving over time. This is just where I'm at in my understanding of Mahler's music.

Now to the topic. I personally found the Adam Fischer M2 and M9 to be the weaker installments in the cycle, but unlike Hurwitz I don't think it has anything to do with the Düsseldorfers. In fact, I don't often care how 'perfect' and 'amazing' the big name orchestras sound. These are ALL professional orchestras, and either they sound good, or great. These Düsseldorfers sound better than New York, Utah, and possibly the BRSO did in the pioneering Mahler cycles of the 60s, and Hurwitz rates those very highly (let's be real, the Concertgebouw is king). Who cares if it's a big, famous city like Vienna or Berlin? Listening to the Berliners and Viennese play Mahler today is a bit boring for me because they hardly need to try while performing this music anymore. It all sounds too perfect and uninvolved, and that's not Mahlerian. Mahler is dirty, rustic, and full of character. If we want to return to a time where the orchestra has to play their hearts out and 'discover' this music anew like in the 60s, we have to turn to folks like the Düsseldorfer Symphoniker and the Bamberger Symphoniker and the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, and we have to turn to fresh minds and youthful conductors like Jakub Hrusa and Yannick Nezeelfresezldorf who are discovering this music and not treating it like another day at the office. Though I will admit that I'll always love the BRSO and the Concertgebouw in Mahler; it's just in their blood and you can tell they always care.

I'm surprised that Hurwitz doesn't understand this about provincial orchestras, and then goes on to rate 60-year old recordings near the top of the list. Don't get me wrong, those are still great recordings, but they're historical. My rebuttal to Hurwitz's snobby comment of "who wants to hear a provincial orchestra do this music" is "who wants to hear, YET AGAIN, the Vienna Phil or the Berlin Phil do this music with a guy like Haitink or Abbado or Maazel (random examples)? What NEW ideas are being brought to the table?" I want to hear Mahler like I've never heard it before.

You know what I want? I want a Mahler cycle of Adam Fischer conducting the Concertgebouw, and I want a Mahler cycle of Chailly conducting Düsseldorf. How will Fischer's ideas with this music transfer to the Concertgebouw, and what kind of playing will Chailly coax from Düsseldorf? Food for thought.

I could rant about this on and on, but I think you all get my point. In short, Shawn I agree with you. Hurwitz's thoughts on Mahler performance today are elitist and out of touch.

[shawn]

I think it's great that many orchestras are doing Mahler. Why shouldn't they, it keeps the Mahlerian spirit alive, even if there are recordings that might be somewhat below par. It's all a question of taste. On the whole, I enjoyed the Adam Fischer cycle a lot, I even like it better than his brother's on Channel Classics. The fact that it comes from Dusseldorf instead of Vienna, New York or Amsterdam doesn't bother me, I like the Dusseldorf sound. I agree with Erik that these 'lesser known' orchestras give a fresh take, and their unique way with the music is well worth hearing.

It's also is a fact that a superior orchestra is no guarantee for a superior Mahler recording. Sinopoli in London was, for the most part, a disappointment. Solti in Chicago is too brutal to my ears. Jansons' Mahler recordings from Amsterdam are, for the most part, disappointing. Maazel in Vienna is slow and severely lacking in temperament. And these are just a few examples.

Mahler often used the word 'Schlamperei', based on his own experiences with orchestra's and artists. I find the prospect of an orchestra willing to prove itself - especially when they don't have a reputation in Mahler's music, so much more endearing than a well known Mahlerian orchestra not finding the need to prove itself. I'm frankly shocked that the Classicstoday reviewer is so narrow minded and finds it necessary to disqualify orchestras just because they don't have a pedigree. It just isn't fair.

Kind regards,

Shawn

[ChrisH]

I would agree with everything written here, honestly. And, who really cares what DH thinks about anything. His entire job is to bring clicks to his site. Nothing more. It would be more interesting if he were reviewing the recordings blind. Not knowing who is playing/conducting would bring about a much more informed review.

Provincial orchestras have produced many of my favorite recordings. I'd rather listen to a less well known band play Mahler, than Berlin or Vienna any day of the week. The idea that the players in these big orchestras are better is also, in many instances, crap. For 70 years, classical music lovers have had these larger orchestras, and the men who helm and populate them, crammed down our throats. This has created a large bubble of bias for the majority of the classical music lovers. However, places like this are much more open minded it seems. It's why I still stick around.

Like what you like, you don't need validation from anyone else.

[John Kim]

I liked A. Fischer's M3rd and 7th very much.

John

[John Kim]

When David reviewed Myung-Whun Chung/SPO (Seoul Philharmonic Orchestra)/DG M9th he called it 'a local phenomenon [in Korea]'. haha

IMO, Chung's Mahler on DG (there are M1st, 2nd, 5th, and 9th available) is superb.

John

[ChrisH]

When David reviewed Myung-Whun Chung/SPO (Seoul Philharmonic Orchestra)/DG M9th he called it 'a local phenomenon [in Korea]'. haha

IMO, Chung's Mahler on DG (there are M1st, 2nd, 5th, and 9th available) is superb.

John

Chung's 5th has some of my favorite trumpet playing for that symphony, and overall, is one I pull of of the shelf frequently. I missed his 1st and will grab the very soon.

[erikwilson7]

Dave himself said in those videos that he doesn’t care for the Lucerne Festival Orchestra, even though they’re a band of all-stars from the top orchestras. He said in a Classics Today review of one of the Abbado videos that an all-star orchestra doesn’t necessarily translate to an all-star Mahler performance. And then he praises the Tabakov cycle with the Sofia Philharmonic and shuns the Düsseldorfer Symphoniker for sounding too provincial? I just don’t know what he’s looking for then. He has no real stance, it seems.

But Vehemence is right, who cares what he says. He’s saying all of these things because it’s his job.

[barryguerrero]

Yep. I'm very sorry to see this happen, because I knew him very well in earlier decades. Few know or understand more about Mahler than D.H. does. And I understand his stance that 'too much Mahler isn't a good thing'. I get that. I get that this 'glut' makes Mahler's music somewhat less of a 'special event'. That said, I don't see any reason why Mahler should have any less recorded cycles than Beethoven, Brahms or anyone else. He's missing the point that for those of who don't live near orchestras that frequently perform Mahler, recordings are our only real link to what's going on. I look forward to new Mahler releases, period! I'm like a kid in a candy store. I can't wait for more Mahler, even if it is completely unnecessary. And frankly, it's ALL unnecessary - recordings are a luxury item. It doesn't matter who the composer is.

Sure, I could have gone to more and more Mahler performances in S.F., but they were ALL with M. Tilson-Thomas. He made certain that nobody got a crack at conducting Mahler in S.F. during his reign. Even visiting orchestras NEVER played Mahler at Davies Hall; just occasionally in Berkeley. The situation truly sucked, especially since MTT's Mahler just became more and more mannered over the decades.

I'm glad you guys are speaking up. Furthermore, I apologize for the way I reacted towards John Kim and his posting of the Gramophone review of K. Pentrenko's Munich M7. I was dictating my beliefs and I was wrong to do so. Now I fully understand why I was wrong. I apologize to you, John.

[John Kim]

Barry,

Just to be clear, I didn't like Petrenko's M7th either for reasons similar to yours. I posted the review because I was just excited to see the new Mahler release (it was before I got to listen to the recording^).

I am attached to Dudamel's DG M7th instead. I just can't shake off the feeling that his is one of the best Mahler recordings that came out recently. The conducting is hot and jazzy, the playing and sound are first rate.

John

[erikwilson7]

John, I love that recording. It has one of the most exciting finales on disc. Up there with Stenz, IMO.

[barryguerrero]

And just to let you two guys know, I bought the Alexandre Bloch M7 on Alpha. I really like it! It's very clear and detailed. The first two movements could be a tad slower and 'darker' in sound (like how Vanska does). But the middle, 'moonlit' passage in the first movement is done really well. The last three movements are quite good. I'm really pleasantly surprised by the Bloch M7. Further more, they had Anna Stoll Knecht do the program notes - the nice lady who wrote an entire book on Mahler 7!

[erikwilson7]

Barry, glad to hear you bring up that recording again. I haven’t listened to it since around the time it came out and I should revisit.
Do you think they’ll churn out a cycle? I know this M7 was a part of a live cycle.

[John Kim]

Here is Bloch's M5th with the same orchestra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWdvlHyNnk0