Dohnanyi M1, 4, 5 & 6

[akiralx]

Just picked up a deleted boxset, The Cleveland Sound:  five twofers of Dohnanyi conducting various Bruckner symphonies (rather intense, austere but wonderfully played) and the four Mahler symphonies 1 and 4 - 6. 

Does anyone have an opinion on these, I haven't listened yet - I think the M6 is highly regarded here apart from the metallic hammer blows, which doesn't bother me so much.  I sampled part of the Andante of the M6 and it seemed warmer than CvD's approach to Bruckner.

[Dave H]

Possibly the dullest, most underplayed Mahler ever recorded. The Fourth features some shockingly bad playing too--the percussionists get lost at the climax of the first movement. I was stunned at just how poor they are.

Dave H

[Don]

I have only heard the 1st and it was dull and nothing special at all. Dohnanyi has done some wonderful things with Cleveland but the Mahler 1 at least (and it seems the 4th as well) is not among them.

[John Kim]

Unfortunately, the set omits the best of the dullest - M9th. Dohnanyi's Mahler is nothing special indeed, but his M9th was an exception. Unusually expansive and pensive (for Dohnanyi  ) with glorious Cleveland Orch. giving him a full support, this Mahler Ninth soars. It is also, apart from Ozawa's BSO recording, the best played M9th. Still, it will be a mistake to measure Dohnanyi against Bernstein or Levine; he doesn't quite dig into the deep, dark side of Mahler's sound world and in general his phrasing is too gentle, genial to be called truly Mahlerian.

John,

[John Kim]

I'd like to add that Dohnanyi's M6th is possibly the worst recording in my book. If only he could keep up with the level of energy and refinement demonstrated in the first movt. all the way, this might have been much more effective. But it just goes worse and worse as the music proceeds, ending up with a finale that is totally devoid of angst, despair, and world weariness, all of which are the essential elements of the music.  And who could forgive the metallic hammer blows??  The sadest part is that the still gorgeous sounding Cleveland Orch. had been disgracefully wasted.

John,

[John Kim]

I'd like to add that Dohnanyi's M6th is possibly the worst recording in my book. If only he could keep up with the level of energy and refinement demonstrated in the first movt. all the way, this might have been much more effective. But it just goes worse and worse as the music proceeds, ending up with a finale that is totally devoid of angst, despair, and world weariness, all of which are the essential elements of the music.  And who could forgive the metallic hammer blows??  The sadest part is that the still gorgeous sounding Cleveland Orch. had been disgracefully wasted.

John,

Oh, boy, I have never sounded so cynical, have I?

John,

[Dave H]

John:

You would only be cynical if you discounted the possibility of Dohnanyi doing fine work generally in the face of clear evidence of his doing so. He made many wonderful recordings in Cleveland, and I think most would agree with that, but his Mahler was not among them. And you still never met a Ninth you didn't like!  I agree that it's the best of the lot, but I still find it to be as flat and under-characterized as the rest of his Mahler.

I actually saw him do the Sixth at Carnegie Hall. It was appallingly bad. The hammer blows were, to put it mildly, symbolic at best--some old guy picked up a sledge hammer of some sort, held it vertically about six inches off the ground, and then sort of pushed it back down into a cloth-padded cushion on the floor of the stage. That was it. The other players sounded bored to death. That said, these same folks featured in one the most thrilling things I've ever seen in my life--a performance of Varese's Ameriques so perfect that it was breathtaking. So perhaps Mahler just wasn't their cup of tea.

Dave H

[John Kim]

Dave,

Thanks for your backing me up!

I once heard a live Dohnanyi/CVLO M9th concert on radio.

This one was rather different than the commercial recording. It was faster, tighter in both musical  structure and orchestral execution, and more exciting. In fact, I was amazed by the sound that Dohnanyi was able to elicit from his orchestra. The many complicated, polyphonic lines had never sounded so distinct and clear and yet well blended together. The brass had more presence and power. So did the percussion that was somewhat weak in the recording.

No wonder that this concert happened a few years after the recording was made. Maybe Dohnanyi had gone through a complete rethinking. I wish Decca had recorded the symphony at that time instead.

P.S> Dave, there are indeed M9ths I don't like.  Maazel/VPO/Sony (except for the gorgeous Finale), Klemperer/PO/EMI, Neumann/LGH/Berlin (plenty of fire and energy but coarse and not well executed), Rattle/VPO/EMI, Barbirolli/BPO/EMI, Karajan II/BPO/DG (can see your eyes opening wide up , ...  ) ...

John,

[alpsman]

Now boys, am I wrong to say in another topic that it must NOT everyone plays Mahler?

It is obvious from your opinions, which I share, that Dohnanyi is a bad mahlerian. And of course he can play decently the symphonies, but he is not conviced by the works. It is a matter of oportunism and populism to play Mahler under these conditions.

There are a lot maestros and orchestras of this kind out there. They play Mahler appologetically, like they are shamed of the music and the emotion.
Compare with Bernstein, who persuades even the most antimahlerites for the greatness of these works.

[Dave H]

Yes, but your point was that the musicians should "feel" the music deeply, or something like that, and aside from my questioning your ability to detect that, beyond saying "I like it therefore the musician must have the music in his bones," how can you say that Dohnanyi's performances don't reflect his innermost feelings about Mahler? Yes, they suck, but I would never accuse him of insincerity, or lack of feeling. Perhaps he regards these performances as some of his greatest, and most profound. There's no evidence he played Mahler because he "had" to do it, against his will or better judgment.

Dave H

[John Kim]

Perhaps he regards these performances as some of his greatest, and most profound. There's no evidence he played Mahler because he "had" to do it, against his will or better judgment.

Dave H

Dave, you are correct. As I read from articles in Grammophone magazine Dohnanyi was very proud of his Mahler recordings. He believed they were 'authentic' performances, whatever that means.

John,

[barry guerrero]

Funny thing is, if it weren't for the metallic "ping" hammer strokes, I would like Dohnanyi's M6 very much. Yes, it's a bit short on rhetoric, but also very tall on clarity. Like the Boulez/VPO, Dohnanayi treats the 6th like a giant Haydn symphony on steroids - very classical in approach. If nothing else, you can't accuse him of dragging the tempi. I've heard worse - certainly more, "over inflated" M6s.

As for his M1, M4, and M5; the less said, the better.

[akiralx]

Well, I listened to the M6 and like it a lot!  I really got the set for the Bruckner so one good extra recording is a bonus...

[Dave H]

...and much of that Bruckner is very fine! I saw the Fifth live and it was terrific (though a member of the orchestra hated the work and had no qualms about saying so afterwards).

Note to Score Readers: Speaking of Bruckner, ever notice how in the final fff chorale of the Fifth, when the brass are cranking out the chorale theme and the strings are going crazy underneath, the bassoons have a completely independent part? I am wondering which demented conductor will arrange that we actually hear it.

Dave H

[John Kim]

I don't know Dohnanyi conducting Bruckner but his two Berg operas - Wozzeck and Lulu - are excellent. I also like Dohnanyi's Beethoven symphony cycle on Telarc. So, it seems whenever the music calls for an objective, precise, and sometimes 'cold' interpretation he is right on target.

John,