Reviews of M9, Alan Gilbert, Royal Stockholm PO, BIS on SACD (MERGED)

[Leo K]

A couple of reasons this recording sounds so attractive right now:

--Suberb sonics...in the M9, sonics with clarity is always fun to listen to, regardless of tempos.

--Performance fits on a single disk.


I will try the Nott M9 as well.


Been a good year for Mahler fans.


--Todd

[Michael]

I just downloaded the Gilbert from Napster for only $0.95 after some mp3 credits were applied--and so far I like it.

[Leo K]

On first impression I have not enjoyed the Gilbert M9 as much as I thought I might...I didn't even make it to the adagio so can't completely comment on the arc of the whole performance, so I will try again later.  The sound quality in the treble sounded "glassy" or bright, and I winced all the way through (SACD layer).  The execution is great no doubt, and I love the detail heard in the orchestration.  The third climax in the 1st movement is wonderful in impact.  But I guess I prefer slower tempos overall for this work, otherwise it sounds like "Mahler-lite" like the 2 middle movements sound here.  I will return to it when I am in the mood for a faster M9.

 


--Todd

[John Kim]

On first impression I have not enjoyed the Gilbert M9 as much as I thought I might...I didn't even make it to the adagio so can't completely comment on the arc of the whole performance, so I will try again later.  The sound quality in the treble sounded "glassy" or bright, and I winced all the way through (SACD layer).  The execution is great no doubt, and I love the detail heard in the orchestration.  The third climax in the 1st movement is wonderful in impact.  But I guess I prefer slower tempos overall for this work, otherwise it sounds like "Mahler-lite" like the 2 middle movements sound here.  I will return to it when I am in the mood for a faster M9.

 


--Todd

Todd,

Looks like you're getting into my mode . I said repeatedly that Gilbert's reading lacks subtlety (except for certain parts in Finale). That includes 'poignancy', 'nuance', and even 'charm'. Take the Landler movt. for instance. I don't find much charm in his reading here. It's all executed mechanically. Sure, Barenboim took a similar approach at a more swift tempo but he knew how to avoid generating monotonic, one-dimensional tone by differentiating tempos and dynamics and doing other things. A part of this problem with the Gilbert is, as Todd indicated, originates from the cold digital sound that tends to push the upper limit too much creating the unpleasant shrillness and glassiness. Don't you folks catch this? After a while it will start hurting your ears. It definitely did to mine .

John,

[barry guerrero]

Sorry John, but I think that you're way off the deep end on this one. Just can't agree with you here.

[John Kim]

Barry,

You know how picky I am when it comes to M9th just as you are when it comes to M8th .

Like I said I was very impressed with the playing and to a large extent the sound quality of the Gilbert M9th and hence would give it 8/9 rating. It's just that I don't feel much depth in his reading. I also said that a part of this may be due to the digital recording which tends to push up making the high end too prominent and harsh.

That's my point.

Cheers .

John,

[Leo K]

Indeed!  I think John's review is favorable over all, except for what he states regarding the depth of the reading and the sound quality (which I hear too)...but if you desire accurate suburb playing itself...this one is still a winner.


As for me, I'll be coming back to this recording in due time, as I still love the playing and recording detail.  I have a feeling this one will grow on me with enough time.  


--Todd

[barry guerrero]

Sorry John, but I think that there's a world of difference between saying that something is poor because it's "too generalized", and my not liking the MTT/SFSO Mahler 8, for example, because of several very objective and indisputable facts, such as there being waaaay too little organ (when Mahler specifies fortissimo with the added words "volles werke"), as well as MTT taking the Adagissimo passage in Part II too slow by half, because he's conducting it in an extremely slow 4/4, when, in fact, he's supposed to remain in cut-time (half note gets the beat). It's an Adagissimo in cut-time, not 4/4. The melody is written in half-notes, not quarter-notes. This is basic Conducting 101 stuff. I don't see the same blatant problems with Gilbert's M9.

[John Kim]

Barry,

I like the Finale and the central slow portion of III. in the Gilbert M9th very much. Because of this I am willing to give it 9/9 rating but please don't expect more from me .

You know, John Kim lives and dies with Mahler Ninth!

As for the MTT's M8th, overall I like the recording despite all the (valedictory) quibbles we have made because there are many strengths that ultimately outweigh the weaknesses. I think DH's 8/8 rating was appropriate, although I'd have given 8/9.

Regards,

John,

[barry guerrero]

"there are many strengths that ultimately outweigh the weaknesses"

I strongly disagree with that. I'll take your Schwarz/Seattle Mahler 8 over this one anyday.

[Leo K]

Man, this reminds me I still have to buy the MTT M8...soon I promise!


--Todd

[barry guerrero]

I'm guessing that you'll like it OK. For that type of performance - slow, and sounding as though it came from a hundred different takes - I really prefer the Boulez, even though that one has no organ either (but a great sounding little chamber organ for the harmonium part). I think the singers are just as good on the Boulez (the tenor is clearly better!), and I think he has just as many interesting insights that pop out at such slow tempi. And even though Boulez ignores Mahler's "etwas draengend" marking at the end of Part I (somewhat sped-up), I love how he makes the end of Part I sound so grand and noble. I'm not even going to keep the MTT/SFSO one, as there just isn't anything in it for me. If I want to listen to great singers - and again, A. Dean Griffey is no great shakes under MTT - I'll go put on one of the old, classic recordings of "IL Trovatore" (actually, the Kubelik 8th is the best sung one of them all).

But for me, the Schwarz one just sounds soooooo natural, and it doesn't sound like it was edited from a boat-load of different takes. The organ is sufficient, and I love how you can hear the ascending/descending eighth-note runs from the offstage brass at the end of Part I - something that you can rarely hear clearly. I know, I know; his singers aren't the best. But hey, I wish they'd just go sing from the next county anyway.

This is supposed to be about M9, so I'm getting waaaay off-topic.

[Leo K]

I'm guessing that you'll like it OK. For that type of performance - slow, and sounding as though it came from a hundred different takes - I really prefer the Boulez, even though that one has no organ either (but a great sounding little chamber organ for the harmonium part). I think the singers are just as good on the Boulez (the tenor is clearly better!), and I think he has just as many interesting insights that pop out at such slow tempi.

But for me, the Schwarz one just sounds soooooo natural, and it doesn't sound like it was edited from a boatload of different takes. The organ is sufficient, and I love how you can hear the ascending/descending eighth-note runs from the offstage brass at the end of Part I. I know, I know; his singers aren't the best. Hey, I wish they'd just sing their parts from the next county anyway.

I think I'll listen to the Schwartz M8 tomorrow, since now I'm ready to hear the 8th again...I'm feeling so much better from being sick, I think the M8 is in order for my next listen!!

--Todd

[barry guerrero]

OK John; well, I do think that an 8/9 or 9/9 rating for the A. Gilbert Mahler 9 is quite fair. After all, there have been a whole slough of fine Mahler 9 recordings over the years. Personally, I would give it a 9/10, as I really like the sound quality.  I also like how the movements are proportioned for a single disc 9th.

Strangely enough, I have the same problem with the Nott M9 as you do with the Gilbert M9: I just can't "get into it", and I find the sound quality a bit of a hindrance. I guess that's why we choices in the world.

[Russ Smiley]

I picked up the new Gilbert CD from an ebay seller for a good price.  I've listened to it through a couple times on my Zune.  I have no complaints with the tempi and overall pacing by the maestro, in fact I may like it best compared to other one-disc M9s that I retain (Masur, Gielen, Mund, Abbado).  The winds and strings are very appealling.  As a horn player I feel like I'm sitting in the section (actually, maybe too close).

What I did notice, however, were the low brass and percussion were sometimes insufficiently prominent, I think unnaturally recessed in the overall sound scape.  Places in other recordings that I specifically enjoyed trombones or tuba belting out the terror sometimes are too restrained in this one.  I'd question my assessment of what is correct prominence, possibly having been influenced by too many studio performances, except that just a few weeks ago I attended a live M9 performance and these voices were unmistakable at the appropriate times.

Juxtapose this case of 'mitigated' back row with the instances when the creaking (of a chair) and breathing (concert master or conductor?) are evident (e.g. the last minute or two of Movement I) and it leads me to believe the perspective of the recording is intentionally very much from the podium.  Subsequently I've listened to samples of Masur, Lopez-Cobos, Abbado, Bertini, and Mund to confirm my assessment.

I believe i made the same observation, that the trombones weren't adequately miked, about the recent Schwartz M6.  I wonder if this is a trend.