OK, but what I'm saying is that there are - for me - elements in Gergiev's that help to compensate for the deficiencies that you've so accurately observed. For example . . .
Mvt III - Yes, the posthorn solos are a bit slow and distant. But they're nowhere as distant as they are on Ben Zander's M3, where you can barely hear it at all. Yes, I would prefer that the posthorn be a bit closer, and a bit faster. BUT, I think that the fast section in the middle - which is sort of a development section of the opening material - is done terrifically. That's a section that's very important to me, and I think that Gergiev/LSO do a good job of working the naughty forest animals into a genuine panic (just before the reprise of the posthorn). The fast coda didn't bother me that much either. Granted, those stupid Paiste gongs speak too slowly to be effective at such a quick tempo. But that's to be expected because it appears that the London orchestras have to intention of replacing them with sensible Wuhans.
Mvt. IV - Yes, this lacking a bit in atmosphere. But I'm convinced that's greatly because of the excessively dry acoustics and close microphone placement (from recording live). Given those factors, I think that the faster than normal timing makes a lot of sense. It's nice to hear those opening, oscillating whole-step notes in the basses - right at the very beginning of the movement (and elsewhere) - just for once, not move along at a snail's pace. Ms. Larsson doesn't sound her very best here, but it's also nice - for once - to hear the music move forward when you get those final stanza's about how "Lust" (joy) triumphs over "tiefe vey". To my ears, those swelling strings and horns sound like they really want to move forward.
Mvt V. - You've got to admit, this is pretty darn good "bim-bam" movement. I like how the kids really, REALLY shout "Liebe nur Gott" towards the end. I also like how Gergiev finishes off by letting the horns play the "Texaco" theme loudly, for once (You can trust your car to the man who wears the star . . ).
Mvt. VI - I'm not nearly bothered by what happens in this movement as much as you are, David. I like Gergiev's pacing of it very much. Again, there's sort of a development section - about 2/3rds the way in, maybe - where the music sounds like it just wants to move forward. It starts out with pizzicatto notes in the basses that accompany the upper strings. Then the notes get swirling faster in the upper strings, and their dynamics swell back and forth as well. Welllll, Gergiev let's that music move forward, but then slows down again where the brass and timpani enter, and the trumpets are sort of screaming on top. I thought that this particular moment was done very well. And as I stated above, I very much like how Gergiev handled the long brass chorale. Honestly, I could see how many people could be kind of repulsed by it, because it's quite different.
As I said, just before the symphony's final cymbal crash, Gergiev continues to increase the tempo, so that the focus is shifted on to the ascending half-notes in the trumpets, and less on the middle register quarter-notes in the horns. I think it helps lend to the feeling of really building up to something. I like the idea of actually broadening the tempo - instead of pushing forward - when we reach the final cymbal crash (accompanied by rolls in the timpani and bass drum). Truthfully, I think that Gergiev could have done this particular climax a bit better (it could always be better!), but he has the right idea - to my mind, that is.
As for the ending passage, with the timpani going back and forth on the tonic and dominant notes, I agree that it's a bit fast, and that the timpani are just a tad too loud. But hey, I'll take that over the opposite problems any day (too slow, or the timpani are too mushy sounding). And as I also stated, a bit more of a rallentando (he does slow down a bit) in the final few bars would have been helpful to his more "secular" (less pious sounding) interpretation of the finale. And yes, the trumpets are a tad bright sounding, but that really didn't bother me that much. At least they're not "screachy" in quality, like they are at the end of the Abbado/VPO M3.
So yes, this is not the most subtle or most atmospheric (in the softer parts) Mahler 3 ever to have come along. But given the dry acoustics and close microphone placement, not to mention that the LSO has never had the sweetest sounding upper strings among the world's big-name orchestras, I think that Gergiev's, "let's keep things scooting along" view of the work is quite appropriate. I like some of his ideas, even if they could be realized better in the future by someone else (or that some of them have been previously). I've heard worse, and I would take it over Haitink/CSO, MTT/SFSO, or any number of other performances that make Mahler's 3rd sound overly mature for its years, so to speak. It's nice to occassionally hear a performance that sort of reflects a lot of the nutty stuff that Mahler himself wrote about the piece ("one might think that they were in a tavern or pig sty", etc.).
I've got to run; I'm late.
