D.H. gives 5/8 rating for Zinman/Tonhalle Orch./RCA M5th

[Psanquin]

I also find the Finale in Bertini EMI memorable. In the Tokyo recording the chorus mysticus is beautifully wrought but the orchestral coda is too fast.

Recently I have listened to the broadcast of the Eighth conducted by the controversial Franz Welser-Möst to the GMYO. Sublime; also very very slow but perfectly build-up.

I enjoy both Heppner in Davis and Botha in Boulez, although he is a bit theatrical.

[Dave H]

psanquin wrote:

"I would not consider myself a high fidelity fanatic but the flat sound and poor dynamic range of most of the Gielens are audible in any medium level equipment. It makes their listening a bit irritating."

I rest my case. In the first place, they do not sound so to me, and I have excellent equipment. This doesn't mean that you are "wrong," merely that the criteria as to what constitutes "good sound" differ markedly. Nothing in Gielen's cycle strikes me as worse than Zinman's Mahler Fifth, for example. Second, Gielen's performances were recorded over a a substantial span of time (some were released on Intercord originally), and I admit that the sound quality varies (and I note this in my reviews). The First Symphony is superb, for example. I agree that not all are "the best" sonically, but the sound never gets in the way of the performance.

As for the rest, I find your statements to be quite unpersuasive. How does the "langsam" (which one) in the Third Symphony show the orchestra's weaknesses? How do you know that other conductors are "more demanding" than Gielen was, and what does that mean? Demanding how? Of what? And what does that have to do with Mahler? That Gielen's orchestra plays with fewer technical flubs than the examples mentioned is a fact, not an opinion. So how are they then inferior?

I think, to be honest, that you are not holding yourself to anything like the same standard that you wish to impose on others.

Finally, I am very curious about something and would honestly appreciate your viewpoint. I often find myself defending the theoretically "lesser" European ensembles, such as the radio orchestras, to friends and colleagues in Europe. It seems as though they are brainwashed to automatically prefer the sound and style of the "premier" groups, such as the Berlin Philharmonic or (in the UK) the LSO or Philharmonia, when to me the audible evidence of the recordings shows quite clearly that on any given day these "second tier" groups can play rings around their more illustrious brethren. Similarly, the sound quality obtained by the German radio engineers (especially) routinely surprasses what we hear on the so-called "major labels." I'm genuinely puzzled.

Is it because my experience of these ensembles largely comes through recordings, while people living with them have the day-in, day-out sound of actual concerts in their ears where their quality is more variable (I can readily understand if this is the case)? Or is some other factor at work? Remember, I am not interested in the ranking game--this odd orchestral caste system--I merely point out that their playing rises to a very high level on the specific recordings that I happen to hear, and I try very hard not to prejudge any group in advance of actual listening. Still, in terms of versatility, consistency, and accuracy, I'll take the Cologne or Bavarian radio orchestras over the Berlin Phil just about any day in Mahler (maybe not Beethoven or Richard Strauss--depending on the conductor).

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

"I enjoy both Heppner in Davis and Botha in Boulez, although he is a bit theatrical."

I like your taste in tenors. And in all truth, the tenor part is pretty crucial to me too. But in the Bertini, I can overlook it for once. Great piece, isn't it? As much as I've complained about MTT's ongoing cycle here in S.F., I really look forward to the final installment: M8 (to be performed & recorded in November).

Barry

[achri-d]

I would not consider myself a high fidelity fanatic but the flat sound and poor dynamic range of most of the Gielens are audible in any medium level equipment. It makes their listening a bit irritating.

I understand that this topic can be considered OT here but - I am one of those "audiophile" guys that sometimes do equipment reviews and so on. When I came across Gielens Mahler I found their sonic qualities very satisfactory. I recommend them as benchmarks for testing equipment. In my latest review I used M1 #3, M2 #1&3, M5 #1,2&3, M6 #2, M7 #2&3, M9#1, i.e. many movements in order to assess performance. Your statement about their qualities seems odd to me - and I would like that you recommend some good quality recordings that I can listen to to get your point. I can give you one Gielen example - about 4min 30sec into the 2. movement of M5 the orchestra slows down and quietly start with a string section. This is in my opinion very well performed&conducted, and the quality of the recording enables an illusion of presence I almost never hear.

Well - having written some OT a little more wouldn't harm. The way I "found" Gielen was by his M9 - on which you can read Mahler & Boulez - (I did not read carefully) so I thought that I bought Mahler conducted by Boulez. The first movement was so good - still my favourite - that I read the cover and discovered that it was Gielen conducting Mahler & Boulez. Now I have both the box & all individual records.

Finally, I have to emphasize that the reason for listening to Mahler is that I enjoy his music very much. Yesterday I started to explore Das Lied ... - never listened to it before - and again I heard a lot I like (Kletzki/PO/EMI). RGDS.

[Psanquin]

I rest my case. In the first place, they do not sound so to me, and I have excellent equipment. This doesn't mean that you are "wrong," merely that the criteria as to what constitutes "good sound" differ markedly.

Instead the adjective ‘irritating’ that I used yesterday I think that ‘frustrating’ would depict better my feelings. Actually the sound does not hamper the enjoyment of these recordings, but it is frustrating to feel that it falls short of what it is currently achievable. Of course it is my take, quite different to yours and to what acrid-r has told us, but as you say this sound terrain is even more slippery than recordings review.

Regarding the message of acrid-r I would say that in order to compare equipments, to do it over and over again with the same referential CD or SACD is more relevant than the chosen recording itself, but I am glad to answer to your question. I use to check equipments with Chailly’s Fifth (CD) and Ninth (SACD); and more recently with the CSO Resound SACDS... by the way, rated by Hurwitz and Guerrero as 8 in terms of sound quality. So I am afraid that we have one more disagreement

Well, I am not a preacher so I am not here to show the people what I feel that is the right way. I just enjoy sharing my views with all of you. In the same way as you appreciate sound quality of these Gielen recordings, I have read many reviews, posts, and listened to the opinion of my mahlerian friends which think in the other way; but I would not say that either you or them are right of wrong.

As for the rest, I find your statements to be quite unpersuasive. How does the "langsam" (which one) in the Third Symphony show the orchestra's weaknesses?

Until Tuesday I am out of home. As soon as possible I’ll give you exact timings. I have also to upload the file with snippets of the Fifth in order to see how different conductors translate the word Vehemenz at the beginning of V/2.

How do you know that other conductors are "more demanding" than Gielen was, and what does that mean?

What I mean it is that the conductors you cite (Bernstein!!, Karajan, Solti, Sinopoli) were much more concerned than Gielen with either getting a refined sound or squeezing the last drop of expressiveness that their musicians can get. I have not read many critics praising SWR-Gielen’s refined sound; rather the opposite. It is not by itself a flaw; just the contrary, as you point in some review it is quite lucid.
 

That Gielen's orchestra plays with fewer technical flubs than the examples mentioned is a fact, not an opinion. So how are they then inferior?

Nowadays it is almost impossible to find technical flubs or slips in any recording, even in pseudo “live” recordings. But how are they then inferior? Well, again subjective terrain. I told earlier in the thread, they sound to me more dutiful than inspired. The orchestra fall short in bringing tutti passages fully to life; full string passages where certain notes seem to lose impact; cautious soloists… all that kind of things that may you feel you are not listening to a really first class ensemble. 

Finally, I am very curious about something and would honestly appreciate your viewpoint. I often find myself defending the theoretically "lesser" European ensembles, such as the radio orchestras, to friends and colleagues in Europe. It seems as though they are brainwashed to automatically prefer the sound and style of the "premier" groups, such as the Berlin Philharmonic or (in the UK) the LSO or Philharmonia, when to me the audible evidence of the recordings shows quite clearly that on any given day these "second tier" groups can play rings around their more illustrious brethren. Similarly, the sound quality obtained by the German radio engineers (especially) routinely surprasses what we hear on the so-called "major labels." I'm genuinely puzzled.

I would swap your BPO/WPO/RCO tickets for my SWR/NDR/BRSO/MDR/WDR/RIAS tickets Well I think that WDR and BRSO are first class ensembles more reliable tan SWR and much more than NDR. The TV broadcast of NDR/Dohnanyi Mahler´s First (2006) is plagued of slips.

Is it because my experience of these ensembles largely comes through recordings, while people living with them have the day-in, day-out sound of actual concerts in their ears where their quality is more variable (I can readily understand if this is the case)? Or is some other factor at work?

My experience live with these orchestras is quite limited, mostly from recordings and TV and radio broadcast. It would be enlightening to know the opinion of the board German members.

As much as I've complained about MTT's ongoing cycle here in S.F., I really look forward to the final installment: M8 (to be performed & recorded in November).

I have the broadcast of their Lucern Eighth (2006). Not very promising with a chaotic first Part and a sluggish second 

[Dave H]

psanquin wrote:

"Nowadays it is almost impossible to find technical flubs or slips in any recording, even in pseudo “live” recordings. But how are they then inferior? Well, again subjective terrain. I told earlier in the thread, they sound to me more dutiful than inspired. The orchestra fall short in bringing tutti passages fully to life; full string passages where certain notes seem to lose impact; cautious soloists… all that kind of things that may you feel you are not listening to a really first class ensemble."

Well, here you are simply wrong--that was my point. Let me give you some examples:

1. Bernstein Mahler 5 (Sony)--timpani get lost in an important passage in the scherzo.
2. Karajan Mahler 9 (first version, not live): E-flat clarinet in the Rondo:Burleske famously comes in a bar early and everyone else slows down until they get back in sync.
3. Haitink Mahler 3 (Berlin): Cymbal player is a bar early for, like, much first movement's first march episode. It's hiddeous.
4. Bernstein Mahler 9 (Berlin, live): Trombones are missing entirely from the climax of the finale (and they have the tune!)
5. Solti Mahler 1 (Chicago): Cymbal crash missing at the start of the finale
6. Neumann Mahler Third (Supraphon): horns mis-transpose their part in the first movement and wind up in parallel fifths rather than octave unison
7. Sinopoli Mahler 7 (Philharmonia): trumpets cracking, timpani missing at points in the finale
8. Barbirolli Mahler 5 (Philharmonia): Woodwinds in the scherzo enter early wtih their downward run just before the movement's climax. Very strange.

I could go on. These problems vary in terms of seriousness, but they are real. Your comments, by contrast, are entirely impressionistic--you speak of "refined sound," and "more dutiful than inspired." And how do you know that Gielen was NOT as concerned with getting a "refined sound" as Solti or Sinopoli? Who told you? Refined by whose definition (Solti's--the butcher of Chicago)? Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and I'm not saying that SWR is the best orchestra in the world (or even as consistent as Bertini's Cologne players), but they play as well or better than the above ensembles in these particular recordings.

Dave H

[achri-d]

Regarding the message of acrid-r I would say that in order to compare equipments, to do it over and over again with the same referential CD or SACD is more relevant than the chosen recording itself, but I am glad to answer to your question. I use to check equipments with Chailly’s Fifth (CD) and Ninth (SACD); and more recently with the CSO Resound SACDS... by the way, rated by Hurwitz and Guerrero as 8 in terms of sound quality. So I am afraid that we have one more disagreement

OK - Chailly. I used his 6. and 9., and Des Knaben Wunderhorn songs in my last review. These readings are also -in my opinion- very good, and the quality of the recordings are good. However, CSO Resound (Haitink 6) did not impress me - I refer both to the quality of the recording and I'm afraid to the reading.

Of course I need to play the reference music more than once - but why not play the music I like best when such quality recordings are available?

Rgds.

[Psanquin]

Let me give you some examples…

  I realize how poor is my English. When I used the word nowadays I thought that I meant at the present day; in these times. Obviously I was wrong as your latest example is Sinopoli’s Seventh; fifteen years old! Not to mention Barbirolli, Bernstein CBS, forty years old. Just Sinopoli and Haitink are contemporary to Gielen.

On the other hand; most of the examples are false entries, which tell more about underehearsal or conductor carelessness.

acrid-r

However, CSO Resound (Haitink 6) did not impress me - I refer both to the quality of the recording and I'm afraid to the reading.

Of course I appreciate your views. I really love the SACD sound, absolutely clear -I have heard nuances that I had never listened to before- and absolutely impactful.

[Dave H]

Psanquin wrote:

"I realize how poor is my English. When I used the word nowadays I thought that I meant at the present day; in these times. Obviously I was wrong as your latest example is Sinopoli’s Seventh; fifteen years old! Not to mention Barbirolli, Bernstein CBS, forty years old. Just Sinopoli and Haitink are contemporary to Gielen.

On the other hand; most of the examples are false entries, which tell more about underehearsal or conductor carelessness."

Now I'm afraid you're just arguing for the sake of the point. Neither you nor anyone else is in a position to quantify the relative improvement (or not) globally in the the percentage of errors in recordings made now versus those made 15 years ago--or even more. You are being completely arbitrary and your assertion is without the slightest foundation. While standards have improved over time, this general trend does not apply so much to the "major" ensembles (which have always attracted the best players), but to the "second tier" and other ensembles, who (like Gielen's SWR) have reached the point where they successfully challenge their more illustrious colleagues, at least on disc.

And remember, Gielen's Mahler cycle was recorded between 1989-2003, and so it is certainly a closer contemporary of many of the recordings I cite. It is you who are taking it out of context by referring to it as much more recent than in fact it actually is. Finally, in studio or "edited from live" recordings in ANY period, there is no reason that anything should be wrong technically--that is the whole point of doing it that way. So the comparison is perfectly legitimate. "Under-rehearsal" and "conductor carelessness" is precisely the point--these are qualities you will seldom if ever find in Gielen's performances, but as you concede they are present in the others that I mention, and they matter to me far more than such vague and relativistic notions as "world-class-ness" or "refinement."

Again: you may prefer the sound of one orchestra to another; you may cite an example of, say, string playing in one ensemble as superior to that in another based on certain criteria, but whatever one's personal preference the technical quality of Gielen's results is as high, if not higher, than any other cycle currently available, and beyond that his realization of the Mahler's specific timbral intentions is second to none. You still may not like the result arising from Gielen's interpretive choices--that's your call, obviously--but Gielen deserves to have his achievement recognized for what it is, and to be given credit where credit is due.

By the way--your English is very good. There's no need to apologize for it; and I just want to add in all sincerity that I appreciate and admire you and every other participant here who dives in fearlessly and discusses these points from the uncomfortable position of not having the freedom to speak in their native tongue.

Dave H

[Psanquin]

And remember, Gielen's Mahler cycle was recorded between 1989-2003, and so it is certainly a closer contemporary of many of the recordings I cite. It is you who are taking it out of context by referring to it as much more recent than in fact it actually is.

Although I do not see the point of insisting on this, you oblige me to repeat that some of the Gielens have been recorded in the XXIst century whereas most of your “nowadays” examples of technical flubs are more than five lustra old.

Anyway I agree that “in studio or "edited from live" recordings in ANY period, there is no reason that anything should be wrong technically”. In fact that was exactly my point when I answered to your positive statements regarding the Gielen’s  recordings: “you will not hear any significant lapses in ensemble, any embarrassing slips, or other mishaps” “That Gielen's orchestra plays with fewer technical flubs than the examples mentioned is a fact, not an opinion.” I replied “Nowadays it is almost impossible to find technical flubs or slips in any recording, even in pseudo “live” recordings.” And you tell me now “in studio or "edited from live" recordings in ANY period, there is no reason that anything should be wrong technically”. Well, at least in something we hold the same point of view. It was not easy to reach this 

But I would like to insist that my experience comparing broadcast with the corresponding commercial releases shows me that the differences between them in terms of orchestral playing are bigger in these radio orchestras than in the big three (Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam). Of course it is an empirical statement; you will find it arbitrary and without foundation. My only foundation are twenty-five years listening to Mahler broadcast and recordings. But I miss more genuine live concert experience with these orchestras. Well, like Lohengrin maybe some German connoisseur may come in my help in a boat drawn by a swan bringing light to this.

By the way a friend of mine would be very grateful if you could give him the time point of that cymbal crash missing in Soltis’ First Symphony. Thanks.

"Under-rehearsal" and "conductor carelessness" is precisely the point--it is the one quailty you will never find in Gielen's performances.

Neither you will find them in Chailly/Concertgebouw Mahlers and however some of them are really boring.

[Psanquin]

I realize that you have edited your message whereas I have sent mine; so more confusion aboard 

Again: you may prefer the sound of one orchestra to another; you may cite an example of, say, string playing in one ensemble as superior to that in another based on certain criteria, but whatever one's personal preference the technical quality of Gielen's results is as high, if not higher, than any other cycle currently available, and beyond that his realization of the Mahler's specific timbral intentions is second to none. You still may not like the result arising from Gielen's interpretive choices--that's your call, obviously--but Gielen deserves to have his achievement recognized for what it is, and to be given credit where credit is due.

Just to end with our digressions, against such a overwhelming statement I just may summarize my point telling that I also find Gielen’s approach really insightful but I disagree when you come to terms of technical quality both in terms of sound and playing.

[barry guerrero]

From Achri-d:

"OK - Chailly. I used his 6. and 9., and Des Knaben Wunderhorn songs in my last review. These readings are also -in my opinion- very good, and the quality of the recordings are good. However, CSO Resound (Haitink 6) did not impress me - I refer both to the quality of the recording and I'm afraid to the reading"

I agree on all points here. M6, M9, and "DKW" are among Chailly's very best Mahler recordings. The Haitink/CSO M6 is among the very worst performances of the piece I've ever heard - not from a technical standpoint, but from an interpretive standpoint. Haitink just seems to get worse and worse with each outing.

[Dave H]

psanquin wrote:

"Anyway I agree that “in studio or "edited from live" recordings in ANY period, there is no reason that anything should be wrong technically”. In fact that was exactly my point when I answered to your positive statements regarding the Gielen’s  recordings: “you will not hear any significant lapses in ensemble, any embarrassing slips, or other mishaps” “That Gielen's orchestra plays with fewer technical flubs than the examples mentioned is a fact, not an opinion.” I replied “Nowadays it is almost impossible to find technical flubs or slips in any recording, even in pseudo “live” recordings.” And you tell me now “in studio or "edited from live" recordings in ANY period, there is no reason that anything should be wrong technically”. Well, at least in something we hold the same point of view. It was not easy to reach this"

Sigh. And we haven't. You miss the point, which is (a) that NOTWITHSTANDING the lack of excuse for such lapses, they occur anyway, and with major conductors and ensembles, and (b), for the same reason, it is perfectly legitimate to compare Gielen to recordings with major ensembles that are decades old--because they ARE major (had the best players), and have no excuse for their mistakes.

What we do agree on, and what I would not dispute, is your impression based on 25 years of listening to radio ensembles versus the larger orchestras. What I do dispute, is the fact that you seem to have carried your negative impression of them over to your view of Gielen's Mahler, when what matters is only the sounds they make on those recordings, compared to the sounds other ensembles make on THEIR recordings. I have never suggested that major ensembles do not deserve their reputations--merely that their reputations are not always in evidence in their Mahler recordings on disc, while some less-than-stellar groups (in a historical sense) can do quite astounding work in individual cases. The Melbourne Symphony Mahler 5 with Stenz is a case in point, as is the Pesek Royal Liverpool Mahler 9, or quite a few of Levy's Mahler recordings from Atlanta (I'm thinking of the Second, Fourth, and Sixth).

Dave H

P.S. Re the Solti, if I have a moment I'll get back on it, but I need to see if I kept the box of the cycle, as opposed to individual performances. It's pretty obvious though--right at the beginning of the finale. Your friend should have no problem locating it, unless I had a memory lapse and got it mixed up with something else (missing cymbal crashes in Mahler are nothing new--Karajan's Mahler Sixth has a couple in the finale, if I recall, as well).

[Dave H]

Follow up re: Solti Mahler 1.

Why do I save these second rate performances? I don't know. Anyway, you will find the passage with the missing forte cymbal crash at about 1:23 in the finale. This is in addition to the somewhat labored tempo and glassy sonics. A pity--Solti made such a terrific Mahler 1 with the LSO at the start of his career.

Dave H

[Psanquin]

Anyway, you will find the passage with the missing forte cymbal crash at about 1:23 in the finale.

Thanks David for taking your time to return to Solti’s recording.

The cymbal is more an impression than a presence. It is an astounding omission, really weird. I wouldn’t say that it actually happened. Probably it was an edition blunder. Amazing how in a studio recording both producer and conductor omit that kind of thing 

I had two Pending issues:

Until Tuesday I am out of home. As soon as possible I’ll give you exact timings (of bad playing) in the Finale of Gielen’s Third. I have also to upload the file with snippets of the Fifth in order to see how different conductors translate the word Vehemenz at the beginning of V/2.

Regrettably last week our little baby fell ill –nothing really serious, unless for inexperienced parents like us- so I have not found time to prepare the promised comparative listening file. Hopefully next week.

However yesterday I enjoyed listening again to Gielen’s Third. Going into the orchestra issue, that is what I said in my previous post:

the Langsam of Mahler’s Third is a palpable example of the orchestra weakness

Browsing the notes of the box I realized that it wasn’t by chance that I chose the Third as an example of imperfect playing. The Third was the only live recording in the cycle, so it is understandable that the orchestra particularly at the end of the symphony sounds somewhat flabby. From midway through the last movement we feel that the brass is walking in the tightrope, sounding strained in the higher register. But any of the orchestral blasts are not the best instances indeed. The more disgusting example is a very soft diminuendo, just along four bars before rehearsal number 31 (22’30” in the recording) where the trumpets playing is wobble-riffic! Very disgusting; it reminded me 'The invasion of the body snatchers' sound-track.

Please compare it with the stylish playing of the Royal Concertgebouw/Chailly in this passage. The difference is like chalk and cheese. Of course Gielen is live, but it makes it more relevant to our disagreement regarding the real measure of the SWR.

That said, in spite of the playing I love Gielen’s performance of the Finale –by the way my most beloved single Mahler movement- much more than Chailly’s which is perfectly played but I am afraid that the conductor is unable to sustain a flowing line.