Hearing the Zinman M5 (B.G.'s revised rating: 8/9)

[barry guerrero]

First things first:

I listened to this from a very good burn job, which means that I'm hearing just the CD layer. Obviously, the CD layer is in DSD.

I would give this a 7/8 or 8/8 ranking (the "boomy" bass is a bit of a problem).

My favorite recordings of M5 are Karajan; Marcus Stenz (ABC Classics); Chailly; Tennstedt/NYPO (from the NYPO Mahler box); Edo De Waart (RCA); Slatkin/SLSO (from one of the St. Louis S.O. boxes); Kubelik (DG or Audite). I do not enjoy the Barbirolli one as much as many other folks do, but acknowledge that it's quite good.

I do like the Boulez/VPO M5, which many folks think is quite boring. I would not rate it as highly as the ones I mention above. I'm also looking forward to the upcoming Jansons/Concertgebouw M5.

Because I did not capture timing numbers, I'll have to refer to specific spots from the score.

Summary: this is a well recorded performance - with the exception of a very "boomy" acoustic around the double basses - that is short on rhetoric but tall on sheer musicality. In this singular regard, it's quite consistent with first four releases from Zinman. "Short on rhetoric" means that it's somewhat under-tempo here and there, and that it's slightly underplayed in spots as well. However, the crux of the symphony, which is the reprise of the big brass chorale towards the end of the finale, IS a bit of a misfire - just as David explained. I didn't find it quite as bothersome as Dave did, but I'll explain in greater detail below.

Sound and balances: Remember, this is from the cd layer. On my machine, balances were pretty good. The woodwinds were very present, which I like. Trombones and trumpets could have cut through more here and there, but there were spots where Zinman drew them out as well (Trombones 1 & 2 at two bars before rehearsal figure 34, truly sound fortissimo!). I thought that the percussion balances were generally good. To my ears, the cellos didn't sound excessive, but the double basses were very "boomy". The tuba was quite present as well. I think the boomy low end might have affected Zinman's choice of tempi.

Mvt. I: I thought this one of the best movements in the performance. It was much "bigger bone" sounding that I had expected it to be. I liked the fact I could finally hear all of the soft percussion underneath the slower, funereal episodes. I had no trouble hearing the "muted" snare drum, for example. The fast, "break out" section didn't strike me as being under powered (then I again, I like the Boulez, which many people thought was a non-happening too). rating: 9/8.

Mvt. II: We could debate all day just exactly what, "with vehemence" means in terms of tempi. I do think that it is a bit under-tempo, but we don't have actual metronome markings from Mahler (or do we?). However, I did like how Zinman handled some of the tempo relationships in the last half of the movement, leading up to the first sounding of the big chorale tune. Since Zinman starts the movement relatively slow, he sounds a bit under tempo at figure 18 (the spot with the solo bass drum strokes, just after where the triangle and timpani go nuts for a few beats). However, he keeps the same exact tempo at figure 20, which is the spot where so many overly excited conductors lose speed. Then at the double bar located just shortly after rehearsal 20, Mahler makes this curious indication: "Somewhat slower (but don't drag)". Zinman is careful not to turn "somewhat slower" into "much slower". After rehearsal figure 22, Zinman doesn't turn Mahler's "don't drag" into an accellerando, as so many conductors do there. Nor does he slow down much after figure 23, where Mahler writes "don't rush". In other words, Zinman takes Mahler's numerous "don't rush" and "don't drag" indications at face value, minimizing tempo contrasts through these passages that, actually, aren't asking for extreme contrasts. Along with careful rhythms and careful phrasing, this is what I mean by "short on rhetoric; tall on musicality". Without metronome markings, we really don't know just how much Zinman is off-the-mark throughout this movement. Then again, Bruno Walter was VERY fast from beginning to end. Rating: 7/8.

Mvt. III: Again, tempi are generally on the slow side. But like more and more conductors these days, Zinman places his solo horn at the front of the orchestra. It's greatly a matter of taste, but I like it. The coda is much slower than usual -especially compared to Karajan - but you can also hear the details very clearly. It's very "Brucknerian", in a sort of weird way. Frankly, it doesn't really bother me that much. I thought that all of the solo horn passages went very well. Rating: 8/8 (mostly because of the fine horn solos).

Adagietto: Look, all I do is listen to the start - to see if there's enough harp in the mix or not (there is) - and then jump to the climax near the end. Because the sound is so "boomy" around the double basses, they absolutely nail their low "F" that resolves the harmony at the end of the climax (just three bars before the very end). As David has pointed out previously, the basses aren't marked to get really soft until AFTER the harmony is resolved. Rating: 8/8 (but I cheated!!).

Finale: This is the crux of the symphony - what everything eventually leads up to. I liked all of Zinman's finale until rehearsal figure 32, where Zinman takes off with the tempo too much, and his trumpets and trombones are closer to sounding mezzo-forte than an actual forte (but they're not to play fortissimo here!). This is Zinman's biggest miscalculation here. As a result, at figure 33, he's not able to execute Mahler's "sehr drangend" (really take off!) request because he's already going very fast. However, you do hear the all-important bass drum stroke at figure 33 (in many recordings you don't because the timpani also enter there, but at fortissimo - the bass drum is marked only forte). However, Zinman does bring his trumpets and trombones  back up to a full fortissimo for the reprise of the chorale tune, which is the "Pesante" located seven bars after 33. Great fortissimo cymbal crash there, by the way. I also liked how Zinman brought out the sort of pious or "Protestant" sounding trombone lick, just before the coda (as mentioned above). At the coda, Zinman saves his accellerando until much closer to the end than usual. It's kind of strange - very different - but it didn't really bother me that much either. I could see how many people would hate that.

Rating: 7/8 (1/8 between figure 32 and the Pesante after 33).

So yes, Zinman makes a pretty big miscalculation before the reprise of the brass chorale tune. He simply pushes too fast/too soon, and his brass can't keep their volume up (which might have been deliberate, I don't know). However, this is nowhere as awful as what James De Priest did (Naxos), which was to slow down way, way, WAAAAAY too soon (it happens before rehearsal 32, which is where the trombones do their descending scales, and the horns do their "whooping", fanfare-like figures).

So far, I think that symphonies 1 and 3 have been the best in Zinman's Zurich cycle (I predicted that, actually). The "Resurrection" is very straight forward - almost too plain, really - but has great bells at the end (good organ, too). His 4th was very good for the first three movements - excellent climax to the slow movement, by the way - but Orgonasova was a bit of a let-down in the last movement.

Now bring on the Jansons. Maybe he'll get it all right.

[John Kim]

Barry,

Thanks for your detailed review.

I heard RCA will release Ziman's next installment in his on going Mahler cycle, M6th in early November in Europe (I saw the jacket cover).

You mentioned de Waart/NPO/RCA M5th. This one is one of my favorites too. The orchestra sounds beautiful and de Waaarts lays out all the musical lines clearly and deliciously. The bass is strong (listen to tam tam) and although it is slow his control of the structure is very convincing.

But of all the M5ths I heard, Jansons/PSO live concert was the most impressive and hence I have highest expectation of the upcoming RCA recording.

John,

[Psanquin]

Barry, thanks a lot for sharing your views about Zinman 5 in such a detailed way

I would give this a 7/8 or 8/8 ranking

8/8 is nearer to my 9/9 than David’s 5/8  Anyway they are just numbers; the important thing are comments and, either agree or disagree with them, I find yours enlightening.

My main disagreement with you is in the finale which importantly seems your major reservation on the performance. I see that your final decision on it is quite hard.

Just before getting into it I cannot help saying that I also find the first movement the best in the performance. So I am really curious in knowing what you mean with "bigger bone" sounding.

But I go into the finale. I have taken the liberty to add timings to your rehearsal numbers.

Finale: This is the crux of the symphony - what everything eventually leads up to. I liked all of Zinman's finale until rehearsal figure 32, where Zinman takes off with the tempo too much, and his trumpets and trombones are closer to sounding mezzo-forte than an actual forte (but they're not to play fortissimo here!).

Fig 32=13’50” in the recording. Regarding dynamics it has to be mf and f  in some instances but –as you say- never ff. Zinman avoids at this point a great brass blast giving more prominence to the strings, and I find it an interesting choice, not wrong to my view. The trap is going for ff and Zinman does not fall on it.

Regarding the tempo; my view is that Zinman keeps it or at the most increases just slightly the tempo.

at figure 33, he's not able to execute Mahler's "sehr drangend" (really take off!) request because he's already going very fast.

Fig 33: 14’03”. To my view the previous tempo is -according to the score- really fast so sehr drangend at this point does not should imply a big accelerando. The thing is that many conductors at rehearsal 32 (13’50”) do a very big SLOW DOWN NOT MARKED in score so when they reach the sehr drangend they have to accelerate a lot.

Jansons does this in his latest Fifth. It is a wonderful example; very well done; but I am afraid that he is rewriting the score slowing down at fig.32.

Another example is De Preist. Well, in fact, you compare DePreist’s with Zinman. If comparisons are odious this is really hateful  DePreist's finale is chaotic; at this point just before rehearsal 32 he makes an awful retardando just before the trombones have finished the descending scale you describe so well –by the way I find this scale perfectly materialized in Zinman’s version; it makes me quiver. Before the sehr drangend DePreist is really slow but without any trace of Janson’s elegance... Elegant but to my taste not mahlerian; Jansons do this in a way that reminds me the resolution of the climax in  the first movement of the Leningrad.

At the coda, Zinman saves his accellerando until much closer to the end than usual. It's kind of strange - very different - but it didn't really bother me that much either. I could see how many people would hate that.

14’55”. I find this the most arguable point in the finale. You describe it perfectly. I really find it a nice innovation from Zinman -well, sure it has been done before that way or close to that but I do not remember. Undoubtedly the marking “um bis zum Schluss beschleunigend” invites to accelerate at the very beginning (Solti of course the best example). But well, there are many other kinds of accelerando.

  The most impressive accelerando that I know is that experienced while the plane is taking off and that is exactly what Zinman does  . A slight and uniformly accelerated motion and suddenly a big increase breaking the gravity force. That’s what I feel when I listen to this passage in Zinman's 

Arguably there were not airplanes in Mahler’s days  , but I feel that Mahler bore something like that on mind. Actually it is quite close to those exciting Beethoven endings.

[barry guerrero]

Wow, well, you really covered the waterfront here. As you'll see, I was being harsh mostly just for the passage between figure 32, and the Pesante after 33. I agree that it's nice to hear the string detail there. But I do feel that Zinman "takes off" a bit too much, too soon - regardless of just exactly how Mahler asks for those gradations - and that the brass disappear just a little too much. It gives the feeling, intentional or not, that the brass weren't expecting such an increase in speed, and got somewhat left behind.

By "big bone" (Mvt. I), I meant that not only did the horns sound full, but that the cymbal crashes and snare drum rolls were quite huge sounding too - at least, on my system anyway. Good percussion, in other words, and I really hadn't been expecting that. It just sounded bigger and fuller than I had anticipated. I usually find the first movement to be the most poorly executed one in many M5 recordings - often times just glossed over.

Barry

[barry guerrero]

OK, well now I've discovered that I had a "bass boost" button activated on my stereo, and that that was causing the excessive amount of bass that I was hearing. Once I corrected that, the tendency to favor the bass end of the spectrum wasn't nearly so pronounced. Anyway, I went back over the fifth movement, and I have to say that the brass between figures 32 and 33 didn't sound nearly so buried as the first time I played it. I could see that Zinman was very much trying to keep the brass no louder than forte. I still think that it still sounds a bit "mezzoforte-ish", but I get the picture now. I very much liked the way he handled the brass balances at the climax of the long brass chorale in M3/VI, so it's quite obvious that he pays attention to those details. As I said the first time, it's all very musical: short on rhetoric, tall on musicality.

Barry

[brunumb]

Reactions from a non-musicologist (long time listener, little musical knowledge) so please don't ask me to explain.

The first time I listened to Zinman's M5 was in the car and it seemed quite good.  There was one interesting moment.  The day I was driving was rather overcast and grey.  About 13 minutes into the 3rd movement I heard this rumble of thunder and looked about to see if there was a storm brewing.  Nothing.  Then on the return journey the same thing happened and I realised that it was a very prominent timpani roll that I hadn't heard before.  The timps in Zinman's cycle are fairly boomy to my ears.  As for the 5th overall....OK but no great shakes.

The 1st movement is nicely melancholic and somewhat songful.  I liked it.  The opening trumpet sounded a bit 'fuzzy'.

The 2nd movement begins with enough vehemence for me, logically following the more restrained first movement.  I liked the gentle approach to the quieter passages which seemed to have pre-echoes of the Adagietto.  The middle section is a bit too slow and lacking in character.  Some of the tempo changes rob the music of momentum.  The chorale seemed a bit too stately and lacking in impact.

'All over the place' was my reaction to the 3rd movement.  I did not like the very forward sounding horn.  I feel the brass are often too prominent throughout

The Adagietto is a little to drawn out but probably fits well with the overall concept.  It seemed to almost come to a halt at one point towards the end.

The 5th movement did not have enough bounce and momentum for me.  It all sounded a bit too restrained, lacking in an element of 'joyfulness'.  There did not seem to be any build up to the final climax which in itself was rather tame.

So no jumping out of the seat with enthusiastic applause after this one.  As a completist (*sigh*) I will continue to collect the Zinman cylce, having already bought the first five symphonies.  I hope this one will be the only 'blot' on his copybook   

[Dave H]

Let me make a prediction: there are lots of performances that have the basic values of musicality, and very good technical quality. They have a few details that make them "unique," and maybe a couple of moments that are really outstanding. But once you live with them for a while, and hear the really great recordings along with some newer ones with similar "good" qualities, they will be forgotten. Zinman's Fifth has no staying power beyond the novelty of being the new kid on the block.

You heard it here first!

Dave

[barry guerrero]

Well, that's obviously true. We have no right to expect that each symphony in any conductor's Mahler cycle is going to be equally great. That just isn't realistic. And so far, I think that Zinman has done fairly well, assuming that you're not looking for something that resembles Bernstein, Tennstedt, Solti, or Inbal, for example.

[Dave H]

I agree that Zinman's doing well, particularly in the symphonies that you mentioned (1, 3, 4 for the first three movements). I'm merely noting the tendency, when a recording is new, fresh in the memory, and generally pretty good, to give it more credit than it likely deserves in the long run. Once it's sitting on the shelf, however, with other favorites, and has time to "settle," we often find that "good" or even "very good" simply isn't good enough to justify returning to it over and over when we feel like listening the piece in the normal course of our lives. To take a line from the current political scene, Zinman's isn't a "game changer."

I have over 50 recordings of Mahler 5, most of which I keep around for comparison purposes in writing reviews. I will keep Zinman's too, at least for now, having paid full price for it, and knowing full well that the whole cycle will eventually come out as a box, most likely at reduced price, and then be reissued for something like $1.99 on Brilliant Classics shortly thereafter. But when I want to listen to the 5th just for pleasure, I will still reach for Levine, or de Waart, or Barshai, or Karajan, or Stenz, or Kubelik, or any one of several others. Each listener will have his own list, but I would be very surprised in Zinman's recording makes many of them.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

Yes, I'm agreeing with you David. It's the flip-side that's far more unfortunate: good recordings, such as the Marcus Stenz M5, go completely unnoticed. And when they do get noticed, some knuckle-head will say it's not great because it doesn't involve the Berlin Phil., or some such nonsense. That's far more unfortunate, in my mind.

[Dave H]

Mine too. One of my greatest pleasures as a critic and music lover is discovering excellence in unexpected places (and being able to share the discovery with others).

Dave H

[achri-d]

OK, well now I've discovered that I had a "bass boost" button activated on my stereo, and that that was causing the excessive amount of bass that I was hearing. Once I corrected that, the tendency to favor the bass end of the spectrum wasn't nearly so pronounced. Anyway, I went back over the fifth movement, and I have to say that the brass between figures 32 and 33 didn't sound nearly so buried as the first time I played it. I could see that Zinman was very much trying to keep the brass no louder than forte. I still think that it still sounds a bit "mezzoforte-ish", but I get the picture now. I very much liked the way he handled the brass balances at the climax of the long brass chorale in M3/VI, so it's quite obvious that he pays attention to those details. As I said the first time, it's all very musical: short on rhetoric, tall on musicality.

Barry

There is one issue here: why the 7 -> 8 for the performance when - as I understand it - only the sonics was corrected due to a "setting error" - did I miss something? Notice that I haven't heard this CD - just got curious. Rgds.

[sperlsco]

... About 13 minutes into the 3rd movement I heard this rumble of thunder and looked about to see if there was a storm brewing.  Nothing.  Then on the return journey the same thing happened and I realised that it was a very prominent timpani roll that I hadn't heard before. 

I mentioned this in a previous thread on this recording.  According to DH, it is in the revised critical edition of the score, but is optional to some extent.  I do not like it myself.  I keep meaning to take out the Rattle recording (which also used the revised critical edition) and see if it appears there as well.  Actually, I believe that it is a bass drum roll, not a timpani roll. 

[barry guerrero]

"There is one issue here: why the 7 -> 8 for the performance when - as I understand it - only the sonics was corrected due to a "setting error" - did I miss something? Notice that I haven't heard this CD - just got curious."

Well, let's not take it too seriously. There's nothing terribly official about what we're doing here, and I still want to be able to indulge myself from time to time - being flippant, in other words. I changed it to an 8 because, after making the correction with the bass boost button, the passage between rehearsal figure 32 and the "Pesante" after 33 didn't bother me nearly so much as the first time around. As I mentioned, I could see what Zinman was trying to do at that point. He is correct in that the brass are marked only forte there, and then a full fortissimo at the Pesante. I still think that it sounds a bit "mezzo-ish", but at least he is making a contrast.

I do like this recording. I like the heavy and soft percussion in the first movement, and I like the horn balances in the scherzo. But I want to be clear on this one point: I still don't like it more than the "favorites" that I listed at the start of this thread. I suppose I do like it better than the Barshai, for example, which strikes me as being a tad too brassy.

 I think that the really interesting question is this: how correct was Bruno Walter with his M5? He's awfully fast from beginning to end - far faster than most everybody else. I almost find it boring.

[Psanquin]

Barry, obviously your revised rating pleases me very much  Thanks for your explanation of “big bones”. I find excellent the sound quality, very realistic and well balanced.

I very much liked the way he handled the brass balances at the climax of the long brass chorale in M3/VI, so it's quite obvious that he pays attention to those details.

Touché. I find M3/VI his best achievement so far in the cycle.

Brunumb. What a hilarious story the pseudo-storm! Good luck in Zinman’s upcoming issues. The Sixth has just been released.

And so far, I think that Zinman has done fairly well, assuming that you're not looking for something that resembles Bernstein, Tennstedt, Solti, or Inbal, for example.

Absolutely. Zinman’s is quite a different world. As I said earlier not for all tastes; neither better nor worse, just far removed from those conductors.

I will keep Zinman's too, at least for now, having paid full price for it, and knowing full well that the whole cycle will eventually come out as a box, most likely at reduced price, and then be reissued for something like $1.99 on Brilliant Classics shortly thereafter. But when I want to listen to the 5th just for pleasure, I will still reach for Levine, or de Waart, or Barshai, or Karajan, or Stenz, or Kubelik, or any one of several others. Each listener will have his own list, but I would be very surprised in Zinman's recording makes many of them.

I wouldn’t be so optimistic David. RCA has yet lots of mahlerians waiting eagerly for a reissuing of the unobtainable De Wart’s cycle.

I'm merely noting the tendency, when a recording is new, fresh in the memory, and generally pretty good, to give it more credit than it likely deserves in the long run. Once it's sitting on the shelf, however, with other favorites, and has time to "settle," we often find that "good" or even "very good" simply isn't good enough to justify returning to it over and over when we feel like listening the piece in the normal course of our lives.

I admit experiencing that kind of frustration with quite a number of recordings. But the opposite is also possible; sometimes recordings –as wines- come of age with the passage of time. Hopefully in the future you come to enjoy Zinman’s Fifth.