"This new Haitink/CSO (M6) release has better sound over the MTT, Jansons, and Eschenbach"
Boy Todd, here's a point that I just can't agree with you on. I think that James Mallinson's way of recording, somehow emphasizes that the stage of Orchestra Hall is too shallow for the strong brass of the CSO (or to put that another way, the perception of "strong brass" in Chicago has a lot to do with the stage and its acoustics). It's nice that you can clearly hear the harmony in the trombone writing (but woodwinds, as is so often the case with the CSO, get covered over in many spots), but the trumpets often times sound like they're sitting in the very front, right next to the second violins and violas.
If you consider balances as an important part of "sound", I feel that both the Jansons/Concertgebouw and Eschenbach recordings have far better sound (perhaps you were thinking Jansons/LSO).
As I said in my review for Classicstoday - and I'm not trying to sound haughty here - I could have forgiven so much of the sluggishness in the first three movements, if Haitink had turned in a truly knock-out performance of the finale. But in my opinion, his finale can't hold a candle to those in the two recordings you just mentioned (again, assuming that mean Janson's Concertgebouw recording). Here's a litany of problems I see in Haitink's Chicago finale:
1. Near the start of the finale, Haitink takes that brief, little chorale-sounding dirge for low woodwinds (followed by the low brass) at an unbelievable crawl, but then almost rushes the last A-major to A-minor chord meltdown, just before the start of the first allegro (fast) episode. That's the one spot where he could have done a huge ritard (slow down) to truly great effect. I find that his intro. section isn't the slightest bit frightening; just dark, sluggish, and, ultimately, uninteresting - a microcosm of the whole performance in general.
2. He doesn't objectify the differences between the two hammer strokes, aside from using the optional reinforcement of the second stroke (cymbals & tam-tam). What do I mean by that?
Listen to the Gergiev M6 at these spots (Tennstedt 1991 too). Gergiev speeds up greatly through that chromatic sludge (half-step harmonies) leading up to the first hammer stroke, but then approaches the second hammer stroke with great trepidation (slow!!). Musically, this helps to objectify the differences between the two strokes (as mentioned). In terms of the symphony's narrative, it emphasizes the idea that Mahler's troupes ("hero", whatever you want to call the protagonist of the subtext) barge into the cataclysm of the first hammer stroke with an almost naive enthusiasm, but then know better when feeling their way towards the second one (which is an ever greater whirlpool of mayhem). Haitink uses tempi that are much more unified for the sections that lead up to the two hammer strokes. In this case, I just don't feel that that's a good thing for the reasons I just mentioned.
3. At the first hammer stroke:
The stroke itself isn't particularly overwhelming, but then the brass overbalance everything else (THAT Chicago problem). It's here where the trumpets sound as though they're seated right in the very front. Just compare this very, very same passage with either Jansons/RCO (excellent here) or Eschenbach/Philly.
4. The passage between the two hammer strokes - what I like to call, "the wild ride of the headless horsemen across the scorched battle plains of Europe" (because that's the image that I conjure up in my mind) - shows little or no imagination. This is one passage where MTT was excellent - listen to what he does through here. Frankly, Gergiev doesn't do a whole lot with this particular section either (but he's rhythmically excellent).
5. And this one's the clincher . . .
Go to the brief passage that I like to call, "the false victory parade". It's very brief, and it's located before the last tam-tam smash in the movement, which signals the return of the movement's opening music for the last time (it sounds like the theme music to "Fanasy Island" - "the plane, the plane!"). At this particular spot, Haitink has his horns belt out that ridiculous sounding march melody - truly THE definition of "banal", used so often by Mahler's detractors - at a true fortissimo, which is great. He also does a big ritard going into this passage. But then Haitink fails to bring out the percussion underneath the horns, which is a big mistake. Why is this important? . .
Two reasons: First, it's important because it brings back the "fate" rhythmic motif from the first movement, but in a supposed "victorious" context (in major, instead of minor). That's THE point of the entire symphony, up to now. The forces of good have finally and fully, defeated the forces of darkness; once and for all (but not really!). The other reason is purely musical: it's like watching a big marching band going down the avenue, with lots of brass, but with way too few drummers in the band. Think about that.
Again, compare this very same passage to the one that's on the new Gergiev recording. It's a subtle but huge world of difference.
As usual, I've elaborated a lot. But the reason that I assigned this recording an 8 for sound, was not because it didn't have a big, or even open sound; but because of the issue of balances: trumpets too far forward; woodwinds often times covered over (woodwinds aren't a strong point of the Gergiev one either); percussion too far out towards the back, except for the timpani (percussion are better integrated on the Gergiev M6).
These are all the reasons why I called Haitink's finale, "poorly conceived". For a finale that is over 34 minutes long, I think that the Sinopoli one is actually much more interesting - even if it's not always as well played.
Barry
