Polished vs. Rugged

[Wunderhorn]

I have notice a more polished and eloquent Mahler emerging in the Bertini and Chailly recordings as opposed to the more rugged preformaces of Bernstein and Abbado. Do you think playing Mahler beautifully, without the often macabre elements, is natural for this composer? Buy the way, I've heard much of the music of the Bertini and Chailly sets, and know have the money to get one of them. Which should I get, I can't decide? 

[barry guerrero]

I certainly think of Abbado's Mahler as being more on the polished side of the eqauation. But before we go further down that road, I think we should establish just exactly what we're discussing in the most objective and musical terms possible. More brass? Phrasing that's more choppy? Larger range of dynamics? What's our criteria? Crappy (historical) sound?

As for box sets, I feel that the Bertini is more consistant overall than the Chailly. With Chailly, I think it's better to pick and choose. For example, I advise getting his really dynamic M3 on the SACD/CD hybrid set. It's exactly the same price as the regular CD - maybe a dollar more - and there is some improvement in sound, even for folks using just plain-old CD players. I guess it's that DSD upgrade business that makes the slight difference. The same story is true for Chailly's really fine M9. As for Chailly's M8, the DVD-A(udio) version has significantly better sound than the regular CD. Of course, you would have to have a player that plays DVD-A discs.  Anyway, the Bertini box comes with a really good "DLvdE" (Ben Heppner and Marjana Lipovsek), while the Chailly set comes with his well recorded Berlin M10 in the Cooke version. You really won't go wrong with either. Hope this helps.

[Wunderhorn]

Actually I already own, Chailly 3rd, 9th, and just ordered the 8th! I should probably stick to Bertini for a cheap boxset. Perhaps the reason for Bertini's success is his naturalness and clarity with the music.

I was introduced to Mahler via Bernstein DG recordings, though I hardly listen to them anymore. As far as what I mean by polished, polite, clear, and eloquent interpretation. I think I mean smooth/un-tormented. I simply get sick of hearing Mahler as though he was a struggling heart all the time, holding him as with some sort of suffering genius type scenario. His music connect with people without his idiosyncrasies needing be highlighted all the time.

[Vatz Relham]

I have notice a more polished and eloquent Mahler emerging in the Bertini and Chailly recordings as opposed to the more rugged preformaces of Bernstein and Abbado. Do you think playing Mahler beautifully, without the often macabre elements, is natural for this composer? Buy the way, I've heard much of the music of the Bertini and Chailly sets, and know have the money to get one of them. Which should I get, I can't decide? 

Wunderhorn,

Don't think that Bertini's Mahler lacks any dynamics and is somehow wimpy in comparison to Bernstein or Chailly, it is not.
What defines Bertini's Mahler is his clear understanding of how the music should be played without any personal ego attachments.
When I listen to Bertini I don't think about Bertini, I think about Mahler's music, and that's the difference between him and the more interventional conductors.

Vatz 

[Wunderhorn]

I assuredly agree. That is what defind Bertini's success, less interpretation, more truth to the music.

[barry guerrero]

"What defines Bertini's Mahler is his clear understanding of how the music should be played without any personal ego attachments.  When I listen to Bertini I don't think about Bertini, I think about Mahler's music, and that's the difference between him and the more interventional conductors".

I think that's true for the most part. But I feel that it also shows that some ideas are more convincing than others. Bernstein always made the point that regardless of the amount of small details and instructions that Mahler put in his scores, it was never anywhere near enough - he could add hundreds more. In his M8/Part II, it's purely Bertini's own invention to plow right through the "three penitant women" passages - the series of female vocal solos - then take the ending of Part II incredibly slow. Works for me!!

Barry

[Ivor]

    I'm more on the rugged side. tho' Mahler said the conductor should ( ! ) allow the heat of the moment to drive the performance,hence perhaps the wilful performances of Fried and Mitropoulos.



      Ivor

[barry guerrero]

We don't know anything about Fried's performances other than hearsay, as well as his ancient recording of the "Ressurection" which, allegedly, copied Mahler's own tempo ideas.

[Wunderhorn]

I have notice a more polished and eloquent Mahler emerging in the Bertini and Chailly recordings as opposed to the more rugged preformaces of Bernstein and Abbado. Do you think playing Mahler beautifully, without the often macabre elements, is natural for this composer? Buy the way, I've heard much of the music of the Bertini and Chailly sets, and know have the money to get one of them. Which should I get, I can't decide? 

Wunderhorn,

Don't think that Bertini's Mahler lacks any dynamics and is somehow wimpy in comparison to Bernstein or Chailly, it is not.
What defines Bertini's Mahler is his clear understanding of how the music should be played without any personal ego attachments.
When I listen to Bertini I don't think about Bertini, I think about Mahler's music, and that's the difference between him and the more interventional conductors.

Vatz 

The strange thing about the Bertini is that it is considered maybe the best set out there, yet it is the cheapest. What I was trying to say, though it has been awhile since I made that commet, was that it is more beautiful and focuses less on the more grotesque aspects of Mahler. (I don't even care for Chailly's, now that I've heard it entirely). The Bertini set is the only one I own as of current; And I see no reason to spend more money on other sets.

[Ivor]

   IMO,Fried's Resurrection performance is in a class of its own. It sounds to me more inspirational rather than close to the score of any performance I've heard.


        Ivor

[barry guerrero]

Oh, so you're familiar with Mahler's own performances of his "Resurrection" then?!?

[Ivor]

   You've lost me,there,Barry. Can you say more.




      I.

[barry guerrero]

Well, for one thing, I don't know how you can determine ANYTHING by listening to the Fried M2. You're a better man than I. All I can get out of it is tempo relationships - sort of. Anyway, Fried conducted a rehearsal of M2 in front of Mahler. After the rehearsal, Mahler corrected him on pretty much everything. The next day, Fried told the orchestra to forget everything he had told them, and that they were starting over completely from scratch. Therefore, allegedly, Fried's tempo relationships come directly from Mahler. Then again, Mengelberg learned directly from Mahler, and I can't believe that Mahler conducted the fourth even remotely like the way Mengelberg does on his famous recording. So, who's to say?

[Ivor]

   One of my favourite recordings is a pretty poor one,of Jochum junior in Bruckner 2,from 1944. So yes I can make my way thru the veil. They can't stop me from getting past a murky recording to get to the performance. (Usually I claim to have a hard time distinguishing performers and performances;there are few I separate from the pack,so when I do, I'm the first to be taken aback.)

   For me,the Fried was/is an incredibly moving experience,the first hearing of which was without doubt the most moving listening to a recorded performance I've ever had.

   I felt I was hearing a performance from a world quite different from ours;that I was in a quite different atmosphere. That old E.M.Forster line gets it."The past is a different country. They do things differently there."

   Where I hear Furtwangler as a stand-out different performer because his performances are like a musical talking , as distinct from the playing of music. Fried is like that (I've heard his Beethoven 9,which is also something else). Except that I hear it as tho' from another world (tho 'not another planet).  I'd love to know what the pair of them do (in their different ways) to get those results. It says so much for how different we are from one another (apart from our vast range of similarities) that there are people who can imagine such performances. Which they then have to work out how to get from the orchestra.
   
   Come to think of it,I wouldn't call Fried either rugged or polished . More emotional and moody and delicate - just what I imagine Mahler was inside.

   Yes,I've read that account of Fried,M. and that performance of the 2nd. What of M.'s performance of the 2nd is, in fact,  in the Fried  I have no idea whatsoever. Even the fact that it was the performance nearest in time to Mahler doesn't prove its Mahlerian authenticity.

   I.

[Leo K]

   One of my favourite recordings is a pretty poor one,of Jochum junior in Bruckner 2,from 1944. So yes I can make my way thru the veil. They can't stop me from getting past a murky recording to get to the performance. (Usually I claim to have a hard time distinguishing performers and performances;there are few I separate from the pack,so when I do, I'm the first to be taken aback.)

   For me,the Fried was/is an incredibly moving experience,the first hearing of which was without doubt the most moving listening to a recorded performance I've ever had.

   I felt I was hearing a performance from a world quite different from ours;that I was in a quite different atmosphere. That old E.M.Forster line gets it."The past is a different country. They do things differently there."

   Where I hear Furtwangler as a stand-out different performer because his performances are like a musical talking , as distinct from the playing of music. Fried is like that (I've heard his Beethoven 9,which is also something else). Except that I hear it as tho' from another world (tho 'not another planet).  I'd love to know what the pair of them do (in their different ways) to get those results. It says so much for how different we are from one another (apart from our vast range of similarities) that there are people who can imagine such performances. Which they then have to work out how to get from the orchestra.
   
   Come to think of it,I wouldn't call Fried either rugged or polished . More emotional and moody and delicate - just what I imagine Mahler was inside.

   Yes,I've read that account of Fried,M. and that performance of the 2nd. What of M.'s performance of the 2nd is, in fact,  in the Fried  I have no idea whatsoever. Even the fact that it was the performance nearest in time to Mahler doesn't prove its Mahlerian authenticity.

   I.

Great post.  I haven't heard the Fried, but now I'm going to check it out.  I love historical recordings.  Furtwangler changed the way I listen to Beethoven and Mozart...and now I love his Brahms.

I understand the Fried recording is limited in terms of sound quality...but that has never been an issue for me either. 

Again, thanks for that review Ivor.