Then again I'm sure you already know that any self-respecting conductor would spend good time researching the sources before going public with his engagement with them -- and as anyone knows Abbado is on the more meticulous side in this respect, especially when it comes to the composers more important to him personally such as Mahler.
Yes Timo, Abbado has always carried a reputation for doing his homework ahead of time. But I think that David is saying that that is often times part of the problem: that Abbado is very good at the particular moments he chooses to focus upon, but sometimes at the expense of the overall picture. If that's true, he's certainly not alone in having that fault - he's in good company (Rattle certainly comes to mind). I feel that in executing or realizing orchestral music, conductors frequently walk a tightrope between overplaying something, or underplaying it. While perhaps Bernstein might have been someone who came close to overplaying many moments, Abbado nearly always errs on the side of underplaying something. That's not always a tragic thing because, as I mentioned, one has to nearly always walk this tightrope. But after just listening to Gergiev's fiery, exhilarating M7, I'm in the mood to err on the side of overdoing things. Although I didn't hear this disputed M5 concert in N.Y., I must say that neither of Abbado's DG recordings of M5 really knock me out (I have a preference for his earlier Chicago one).
but the average Joe would rather say something like "Personally I like/I don't like though I may not understand this thoroughly enough yet" and not go use his maximum leverage to prevent every possibility for others to discover and appreciate what for whatever reason one cannot find as meaningful for one's own self.
Yeah, OK; fair enough, Timo. But for better or for worse, David HAS to state such decisive opinions because it's his job to do so as a critic. You may not like the approach or angle that he takes, and that's your right- or anyone else's right - to express that dislike. But one of the things that has always bothered BOTH David and myself, is the sort of wishy-washy, noncommittal, "try to read between the lines", kind of reviews that one frequently sees in Gramophone, for example. How is that helping anybody? I believe that it was partly frustration from such a nonprofessional state of affairs that propelled David to go into this business to begin with. When I say "nonprofessional", I don't mean to imply that David always knows better than English critics, or some such thing. What I'm saying by "nonprofessional", is simply their unwillingness to come right to the point, and tell a lessor informed reader whether or not they should buy such-and-such recording. That's the service that a good critic should provide, for better or for worse.
You would like to steer everyone up along the path that you found for your own self some, what, thirty-forty years ago, and just about everything radically departing from it and not on your map is measured as a deviation from, not a possible advancement over and beyond, those landmarks that provided your parameters long ago.
Yes, but what other path would there be, other than also studying what the composer actually wrote? Say what you will about David's path - and I personally try to follow him up the same path, because I'm a schooled musician myself - he at least writes from a position of knowing what it is that the composer actually wrote. I find it strange that so many other "classical music lovers" dismiss the idea that a critic should be fully schooled about what the composer wrote. It's almost as though people are saying that you can't trust a critic with that knowledge. If you're praising Abbado for doing his homework ahead of time, why would your praise not also be extended to a critic who does his homework as well? Hello! - why the disconnect? Believe me, I'm not saying that all Mahler performances need to be evaluated from a Leonard Bernstein based position. I don't believe that David is saying that either. Far from it, in fact, because at least David approaches Mahler - and pretty much every other composer that he writes about - from a very strong basis of comparison. Timo, do you yourself fully know the Mahler recordings of Gary Bertini, Eliahu Inbal, Michael Gielen, Vaclav Neumann, etc.? David does, and so do I - for the most part. All four of the conductors that I just mentioned have received more than their fair share of praise from David - perhaps more than I would ever extend to them (I love Bertini's Mahler though). It might surprise you to know that David might - depending on which way the wind is blowing, I suppose - recommend Gielen's Mahler over Bernstein's to somebody. Certainly you wouldn't consider Gielen to be somebody who's regressive, sentimental, or backwards looking, would you? (and personally, I like Gielen far less than David does. That's just me.). It just happens that David doesn't include Abbado in that company, and I'm not sure that I would either. Frankly, I need more time to fully absorb his latest efforts in Mahler. Regardless, though, there's no way that I'm going to view them as radical departures, or huge improvements. I also have a difficult time lending a lot of praise to ANY conductor who has a rather low opinion of Mahler's 8th symphony. On that topic, I very much take Mahler at his own word. Behind the noise and bluster, I happen to think it's an outstanding piece of music. The more I get to know, the more I feel that way.
I also take some exception to your implying that Claudio Abbado somehow represents an advancement on something that didn't exist 30 or 40 years ago. First off, Abbado WAS around 30 and 40 years ago. I believe that Abbado received his fair share of encouragement from Leonard Bernstein, no less. So, where is the radical departure? I just don't see it that way. One of the things that is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, is this recent movement to make Mahler little more than Brahms with extra brass and more percussion. I really, REALLY hate that concept, because it's based on a narrow Austro-German view of things. When I say "Austro-German", I do not mean that in a social or political context. Instead, I mean that from a purely musical point of reference. Influences upon Mahler were as much Czech (Smetana and late Dvorak), French (Berlioz), and Italian (opera composers), as they were German speaking. At the same time, I do not in the slightest bit downplay the influence of Beethoven and Wagner upon Mahler either (and to a lessor extent, Schumann and Von Weber). And while Abbado has certainly done his fair share of Beethoven and Brahms (who I feel has very little in common with Mahler), I find it curious that he has done so little Haydn, Schumann, and Wagner. Those folks just don't seem to be part of his schtick (and granted, nobody can get around to doing justice to everybody). In that sense, I don't consider Abbado to be all that better prepared to approach Mahler than anybody else. All of them study the scores and - when time permits - drafts, manuscripts, first editions, etc.
Naturally, you might counter that neither do I operate that way; but that's the nice comfort I have as nothing but an anonymous opinionated individual on the net who's not immediately taken by his word by anyone around.
Oh, come now - you can't play both sides of the sword like that. You're better than that, and you know it. Also, what you're saying is true for ALL OF US, to some extent or another. I don't agree with every single little point that David makes either. But I at least know where he's coming from, and the solid work that he put in, prior to reaching his opinions. I know first-hand the kind of money he has spent in accumulating scores from all over the world. He reads them, too. I have to respect that. Nobody will ever accuse him of not voicing those opinions strongly though.
Unfortunately, Timo, this is really just a case where you happen to really like Claudio Abbado, and David just doesn't cut him that much slack. Personally, I try to avoid fan-dom of any classical music performers, especially conductors (little more than a medium, and a necessary evil). To me, the composer is always far more important. If I had to choose just one conductor for Mahler - something that I would never want to be forced to do - it would definitely be Gary Bertini. Then again, I'm very intrigued by David Zinman's Mahler recordings, so far (I wish the 4th had a better soprano though). To me, he's the new Kubelik.
Barry
Topic: Which is Mahler's most difficult movt. to bring off? (Read 25697 times)