CSO Resound

[cilea]

The next release on the CSO Resound label seems to be a Bruckner 7, again Haitink conducting. This one will be available both as CD and SACD, which is good news. The HMV.co.jp lists it available on October.

http://www.hmv.co.jp/search/index.asp?sort=date&genre=700&keyword=haitink&target=CLASSIC&formattype=1

[david johnson]

go cso!!!!     i love that group.

dj

[Leo K]

go cso!!!!     i love that group.

dj

I do to...the Haitink CSO M3 is really fantastic in every way...love that recording.


--Leo

[barry guerrero]

Sorry, I don't. Here is my litany of complaints:

Mvt 1:  no tam-tam smash at the end of the trombone solo (marked forte or fortissimo); not enough forward motion (speed) through the climatic "southern storm" passage of the development section; offstage snare drum solo is supposed at the same tempo as the reprise of the symphony's opening horn fanfare (here, played faster than both the "southern storm" itself, and the following horn fanfare). The coda is pretty good.

Mvt II:  fairly well done, but the faster bits don't go like the wind. Levine/CSO is actually better in this particular movement.

Mvt III:  Posthorn (trumpet) solos are very good, but could stand be just a tad further offstage (my complaint is usually the other way around). The centrally placed orchestral interlude - the development passage, in other words - simply doesn't build up enough speed.  For some reason, there's zero tuba -  zilch; nada; none -  at the spot where the entire brass section plays a descending scale in unison (that omission really bothers me). I don't like that omission. I also don't like the smaller tam-tam used at the coda of this movement. The coda is done better on the Levine one, as is most everything else. I do like Haitink's slightly slower tempo for the start of this movement. However, he stays stuck in that tempo.

Mvt. IV - M. De Young doesn't sound as good here as she did on previous outings in M3. Part of that has to do with the acoustics and mike placement, I believe.  There's no observance of the "hinauf ziehen" marking in the solo oboe part. I feel that that stretching sound in the oboe is needed to bring much needed color and relief in this movement.

Mvt V - This is just slightly slower than I like. However, more to the point, the badly needed color and contrast that one has to conjure up during the brief orchestral interlude, simply isn't there. It's badly underplayed. To be more specific, the muted trombones don't "snarl" enough, and where's the exchange of salvos between the suspended cymbal and tam-tam? The bells (glockenspiel and triangle) could stand to be louder and "brighter" sounding at the end of the movement as well. Again, Levine did this movement far better.

Mvt. VI - By and large, this movement is done really well - especially the climax of the long brass chorale towards the end of the movement (the location of the last cymbal crash). However, there are two problems here. First, at the spot where the entire orchestra sinks downward into the abyss - located just before the start of the long brass chorale - well, Haitink drags this out to just a ridiculous extent. If you look at the score, Mahler calls for almost the opposite. Near the end of this section - again, just before the beginning of the brass chorale - Mahler actually marks for the music to go into "cut time"; implying that the tempo should actually double there. If you listen to this same passage on the Bertini recording, you'll hear it performed that way - just as Mahler indicates.

My second problem with Mvt. VI, is with the very ending. The timpani are just slightly too loud (marked forte, not fortissimo), and are somewhat dry and hard sounding. We're not building a garage here, folks. Haitink does the climax of the brass chorale better than Levine - who actually speeds up at the final cymbal crash - but Levine sounds far better in the concluding page of the score. Martinon gets both passages right.

I have also two more general complaints: The recording itself is rather dry and shallow sounding (by "shallow", I mean not much back to front depth). No doubt, that's a byproduct of recording the CSO "live" in Orchestra Hall. I prefer the acoustics of Medinah Temple, as captured on the Levine recording. To me, the hall sounds better on the Martinon recording, even if the dynamic range is much more limited.

My other general complaint is with the CSO woodwinds. What's with their clarinets? Haitink gets them to blast out in this performance, but their tuning is all over the map - sometimes sharp, sometimes flat. Listen to the coda of the first movement:  the clarinets play so loud there, that the note tapers off very flat in pitch. It's actually kind of funny to listen to. But it also draws attention to itself, and just plain sounds flat (in pitch).

Again, I think that the Martinon and Levine M3's do a better job of representing the CSO in top form, not to mention Mahler's music. As for Haitink, I feel that both his 1966 and X-Mas Matinee Concertgebouw performances, show him in a better light as well. Bruckner should be a better match for the Haitink/CSO team (they need a new director; one with fresh repertoire ideas, and can keep standard repertoire works up to tempo).

[sbugala]

Conductors and composers should be allowed to revisit works, but I still question whether there's anything new to say from either party. 
Don't get me wrong, that either should record someone esoteric like Carter just because he's uncommon.  But since Haitink's done two Bruckner 7ths and at least three Mahler 3rds, I can't muster up any energy to plunk $20 or $25 down for this one. 

How many Brahms cycles is Haitink up to? Three...or did another one come out?

[david johnson]

barry:

i still love the cso. 

i got rid of the stokowski/lso m2 for some pitch problems that really bothered me.

since i've had some conductors request certain notes to be played flatter or sharper i wonder how much of what i think a pitch problems on recordings are really conductorial requests.

dj

[John Kim]

Conductors and composers should be allowed to revisit works, but I still question whether there's anything new to say from either party. 
Don't get me wrong, that either should record someone esoteric like Carter just because he's uncommon.  But since Haitink's done two Bruckner 7ths and at least three Mahler 3rds, I can't muster up any energy to plunk $20 or $25 down for this one. 

How many Brahms cycles is Haitink up to? Three...or did another one come out?

Still, if the conductor has something new to say in the piece which he recorded previously I think it's worthwhile to have the new recording. Here are two examples:

Lenny/RCO/DG M1 > Lenny/NYPO/Sony M1
Lenny/VPO/DG M5 > Lenny/NYPO/Sony M5

Even if new recordings have nothing new interpretively, if they are played by different orchestras and have better sound, I'd consider buying.

John,

[barry guerrero]

David,

I get your point. However, I can't imagine that Haitink, or anybody else, would say to the clarinets, "I want you to play your last note really loud, and allow the pitch to taper off flat". It ain't gonna happen. If you think I'm exaggerating, just go back and listen to the clarinets at the coda of the first movement. I find it incredibly distracting. Now I'd like to address the CSO in general.

Yes, obviously, they're one of America's major orchestras. No doubt, they have a fantastic brass section. But if you listen carefully to how they play on that Haitink M3, and compare it to how they play on the Reiner "DLvdE" - or any other Reiner or Kubelik disc, for that matter - there's a world of difference. In those days, the CSO wasn't exclusively about the brass. They still have decent strings, but I've noticed the woodwinds being nothing like they were under Reiner - pretty much ever since Solti took over the reins. They're not terrible, but they're not Cleveland, Boston, or New York either (I'm speaking specifically of the woodwinds). Like or it not, Mahler's music requires superb playing from the woodwind section. I also think think that it's odd that the CSO percussion department, often times plays as though they're intimidated by that brass section - as though they're afraid to add to the overall volume that the brass has already kicked up. Case in point:  compare just the "southern storm" passage of Haitink's CSO M3, to that of Chailly's Concertgebouw M3. Chailly doesn't do this passage really fast either. However, he does a much better job of making certain that all of the independent percussion parts are heard at that point:  bass drum and cymbals (played by one player, with one small cymbal attached to the top of the bass drum); tam-tam (you don't hear the tam-tam at all on the Haitink); snare drum; triangle; tambourine; two sets of timpani. This might seem excessive, but it's very much exactly what's expressed, musically speaking, during this passage. To be more precise, the percussion have parts that are rhythmically independent to what everyone else is doing. They're part of the rhythmic counterpoint. On the Haitink/CSO M3, they sound as though they're hanging on for dear life - just sort of along for the ride, while the brass dominate everything. Listen to how poor the CSO first timpanist sounds at his final flourish near the end of this passage. No doubt, it's a difficult little lick to play. But it sounds much better on a great number of other recordings.

At this point, I just feel that the CSO is a better Bruckner orchestra than Mahler orchestra. Why? Because Bruckner requires - mainly speaking - massive, well in tune brass sonorities (a CSO specialty); loud timpani rolls (what the CSO timpanist is best at), and fairly decent strings. Mahler requires excellent woodwinds, and percussion sections that know what they're doing, and aren't afraid to make it happen. I think because of the sort of hard sonorities that they can easily conjure up, the CSO also strikes me as being better in Shostakovich than they are in Mahler. Sorry, but that's just the way I hear it. For me, Mahler requires excellent contributions from all four departments of any orchestra: strings, brass, woodwinds, and percussion - not just brass and strings.

[david johnson]

i've always thought they sounded better on rca, mercury, and emi rather than on london.   there are both recording location and conductoral changes reflected on the various labels.  as you mentioned once (i think) the medinah temple recordings sure have a nice sound.

dj

[barry guerrero]

That's it? I thought you would probably scream and yell at me. But yes, I agree with all of your points. Just hire some new clarinets and a new prinicipal timpanist, and they'll be fine. Also, get somebody to take some leadership in their percussion department, and give that noisy brass sectioin a run for its money. Then we'll have some truly great Mahler from them.

Barry

[david johnson]

sorry to disappoint    the pipe bomb is on its way    ...the plain brown package marked 'attn. barry'!!

dj

[Jot N. Tittle]

Here is my litany of complaints:....

I have just read David Pickett's essay, "Mahler on Record: The Spirit or the Letter," and wonder whether his observations might be pertinent here.

First, he points out that Mahler wrote his symphonies for concert performance in large halls, without thought that the day would come when more people would be listening to recordings through loudspeakers and headphones than in concert halls. In writing for concert hall performances, Pickett points out, Mahler "gave more detailed instructions about dynamics, tempi and colours than any composer before him." There are instances where the interpreter--conductor and recording engineer--must "determine which of Mahler's directions are to be taken literally and which are part of his . . . plan . . . . Is an extreme dynamic indicative of an intention to shock the listener, or merely there to ensure than an instrument at the rear of the orchestra or in a weak register can be heard in balance with the rest of the ensemble?" Further, "nearly all the instruments used today . . . are different in tone and carrying power from those known to Mahler."

In his essay Pickett discusses the recordings of the first seven symphonies--that is, symphonies that Mahler himself conducted--and to conductors who either had connections with Mahler or were central to his renaissance in the middle of the twentieth century.

I will present here only one of Pickett's examples of the problems inherent in the score-markings' effects on recording practices. "A good case is the one-note entry of the clarinets in V, iii, 397. This note (E) is nothing more than the completion of the E minor arpeggio in the first violins marked piano. In the original manuscript Mahler instructs the first clarinet to play mezzo forte, since the player is at the back of the orchestra. In the first edition the note is assigned to two clarinets and by the second edition we find three clarinets marked ff. The ludicrously comic effect that a close-miked clarinet section produces on many recordings with this one note is quite amazing." (Picket in a footnote cites a 2000 recording that illustrates "this to perfection.")

Pickett concludes that it may be that Mahler's first versions of his symphonies may be "more appropriate for recording."

Does this make any sense to you, Barry?

The Pickett essay is in Perspectives on Gustav Mahler, edited by Jeremy Barham, pp. 345-377. I will be making other observations about this interesting book later.

     . & '

[sperlsco]

V, iii, 397. This note (E) is nothing more than

If you would please clarify which to which symphony and movement this relates.  Also, can you please give an approximate time (generally speaking) within the movement that this can be heard.  Better yet, which 2000 release is it?   

Thanks. 

[Jot N. Tittle]

I read this annotation as Symphony 5, movement 3, bar 397. But I am not a musician by any means and have not yet sought out this particular passage. The 2000 recording referred to is Ben Zander's. Hope someone can listen to it and report.

     . & '

[barry guerrero]

I don't have the Zander M5 anymore. In fact, I don't have any of them, excerpt for a burn job of his M3.

There are some good points made here. The business about instruments being vastly different in Mahler's time has been made numerous times previously. However, it's always discussed as though Mahler had been satisfied with what he had heard. It has to be remembered that Mahler - at least in terms of orchestration and dynamics - was a foward looking revolutionary; not somebody trying to preserve the status quo. In this regard, Mahler was far more a kindred spirit of Bach and Berlioz, than he was of Brahms or Schubert. There's an interesting anecdote, among many, regarding Mahler rehearsing his sixth symphony. At a spot in the finale - presumably at the first or second hammer stroke - Mahler kept stopping and demanding that the trumpets play louder. Everybody in the room felt that the trumpets were already blowing their brains out. Yet, he kept demanding for more. Finally, they got it just unbelievably loud. The person who was observing this rehearsal (I forget who it was) said that the passage in question suddenly made total sense. But immediately after that, Mahler stopped them yet again and said, "good - now even louder yet". Now, here's an anecdote of my own:

I once saw Bernstein/Vienna Phil. do M5 here in San Francisco. It was tremendous performance - far more risk taking than the one that ended up on CD (performed in Frankfurt). The person that I went with was a field rep. for Polygram Records (now Universal). He kept saying to me, that hearing the VPO doing Mahler was like hearing Mahler performed on period instruments. There's some truth to that, but it's also an exaggeration. Anyway, we went backstage to meet Bernstein. Needless to say, there were many others in line to meet Bernstein as well. When we reached our turn to meet Lennie, the conversation went like this:

my friend from Polygram:  "Mr. Bernstein, do you feel that performing Mahler with the Vienna Phil. is like doing original instrument Mahler?"

Bernstein thought about that for a few seconds and replied:  "yes, but they play it much better in tune these days".

That little statement says everything. With the Vienna Phil., there is more of a connection to the somewhat softer sound world of yesteryear. However, today's Vienna Phil. is more of a cross between old-school VPO, and modern influences from virtually every other orchestra on the planet. In other words, hearing the VPO today isn't the same as hearing them in 1936 or earlier. In many ways, this has helped them (intonation being the biggest factor). In other respects, it has hindered them. They sometimes can sound as cold and indifferent as any other orchestra is capable of sounding. Fortunatley, that's not the norm with them.

It also has to be remembered that for all of the precise indications within Mahler's scores, Mahler once turned to his small audience (it was at a rehearsal) and said that it was the obbligation of furture conductors to make changes for the sake of clarity. That statement also tells us that Mahler was looking forwards, not backwards.

The clarinet note at bar 397 in M5/3 is one of very short duration, played in their extreme low register. I don't feel that the note is there, simply to finish the descending arpeggio that the violins are playing. If that were the case, Mahler could have simply let the violas finish it. Instead, it strikes me as a very deliberate effect. I'm not sure that it would sound any less loud with two clarinets, than with three. There's simply no other competition to be heard at that spot. However, the difference between mf (mezzo forte) and ff (double forte) is two notches (single forte being the only dynamic level between them). That would make a difference, for sure. But since the note is in their extreme low register, I don't have a problem with it being played loud, and doubled up as well. It doesn't strike me as comical.

If we were to use all first versions of Mahler's scores, that would mean a bit more percussion in the first movement in M5, and significantly more percussion in the finale of M6. It would also mean that the trombones double the horns at the "false victory parade" passage (my name for it) towards the end of the finale - shortly before the spot where the third hammerstroke is sometimes reinstated. Personally, I'd like that, and I'm not sure why Mahler chose to water down that particular passage a bit. If it were me, I'd double the horns (ff) with the trombones (forte); add tons more percussion (including three short hammerstrokes at the end of the passage), and dub in cheering crowd noises as well. For the sake of clarity, I would greatly underline what Mahler's intentions were with that passage. It's obviously what the entire, final allegro "charge" section leads up to.

Barry