gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: Russ Smiley on July 14, 2010, 03:43:50 AM
-
http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/detail/-/art/Gustav-Mahler-Symphonie-Nr-7/hnum/4498949
-
Before I go any further I should get it out there that my only experience with M7 is the first Bernstein/NYPO recording that, surprisingly, Tony Duggan thinks very highly of. So, with that said, I thought the beginning of the first movement was too fast; it should be brooding, sad, just getting up on its feet after the tragedy of the sixth. The French horn in the opening of the first Nachtmusik seemed too harsh to me as well; I thought this symphony is about night and the pleasant things that can come during that time. I think a gentler, richer sound from the horn in the opening would go a long way.
I did not really get a feel for the third movement except that it was fast, which is fine...the faster the better, in my mind at least.
The beginning of the second Nachtmusik was a shock...wow...fast! I didn't hear the whole thing but the more I think about it, the more I think a faster tempo would work just fine there.
The opening of the last movement was slower than I expected, given the previous tempi of the other four movements. But all I heard was the opening--the march was still yet to come--so who knows.
-
I have a copy of Jarvi's M7. Yes, it's quite different - that's putting it mildly. But within the context of what it is, it's actually quite good (as they say in the American sports world, "it is what it is"). In other words, I really like it. Yes, the intro. to the first movement is quite a bit faster than usual. Therefore, the value of the longer notes do get cheated. But taken as a whole, the first movement is done really well. Frankly, so is the finale (with tons of deep bells at the very end). The scherzo is pretty normal. What is most unusual are the rapid tempi for the two Nachtmusik. Yet, somehow, they seem to "work" as well.
But looking at in the bigger picture, what Jarvi is doing is treating the first four movements as a prelude or warm-up to the finale. Strange as that may sound, it actually works. What helps greatly is the virtuosity of the Residente Orchestre. They don't fight Jarvi at all. Instead, they go right with him as though this were the way the 7th is always played.
This would not be anybody's first choice for a Mahler 7th, but it makes for a very interesting supplement.
-
I'm often interested in "weird" interpretations, at least whenI find them stimulating, thought provoking. This time, I have to give up and to admit that my intellect is too limited to understand Jarvi's interpretation.
I like how he handles the music of the lyrical theme and its developements during all the first movement, but I find the rest superficial, when not ridiculous.
At the beginning of the second movement birds seem very nervous, but then it comes what Mahler prescribes as "Tempo I subito, molto moderato (Andante)" and it seems that, instead of a night patrol, we have the charge of a regiment of Italian Bersaglieri. I laughed heartily.
During the Scherzo I was annoyed by the poping out of secondary voices. It is not particularly fast, but there are not enough differences between Walzer, Laendler, Trio, Transition... Superficiality is the main impression.
The second Nachtmusik... what can I say? Not superficial, simply ridiculous. For a flowing version, I still prefer Kondrashin. For a releaxed version, my first choice remain Jansons's (both efforts), with his lovely rubato ("mannerism" according to detractors).
The Finale seems "normal", but, being "normal", it ends up being inconsistent with all that preceded it, that "normal" is not.
Overall, this seemed to me a Norrington's Seventh with vibrato. My top choices remain Bernstein (Sony), Kondrashin (Tahra), Jansons (BR).
Best regards,
Luca
-
"The Finale seems "normal", but, being "normal", it ends up being inconsistent with all that preceded it, that "normal" is not"
hmmmmm . . . well, I think Jarvi's finale is above normal. What I mean is this: it's one of the few finales that starts out a bit on the slower-than-normal side, and then generally gets faster as it goes. Obviously, I'm being overly simplistic, as Mahler's finale is really almost rhapsodic. But there are so many finales to M7 that start out fast and boisterous, and then actually lose steam along the way. I felt like Jarvi really knew how to have fun with this finale, and really made it lead up to something in its final peroration. In short, I found it rather refreshing.
"this seemed to me a Norrington's Seventh with vibrato"
Fair enough - I can live with that. But does that also make it automatically awful by definition? Also, I think it's far better played and recorded than most of the Norrigton Mahlers. I also agree that the second movement (first Nachtmusik) is the weakest of the five movements in this performance. But hey, I like it better than Boulez's second movement, which was maybe 45 seconds longer.
-
"The Finale seems "normal", but, being "normal", it ends up being inconsistent with all that preceded it, that "normal" is not"
hmmmmm . . . well, I think Jarvi's finale is above normal. What I mean is this: it's one of the few finales that starts out a bit on the slower-than-normal side, and then generally gets faster as it goes. Obviously, I'm being overly simplistic, as Mahler's finale is really almost rhapsodic. But there are so many finales to M7 that start out fast and boisterous, and then actually lose steam along the way. I felt like Jarvi really knew how to have fun with this finale, and really made it lead up to something in its final peroration. In short, I found it rather refreshing.
"this seemed to me a Norrington's Seventh with vibrato"
Fair enough - I can live with that. But does that also make it automatically awful by definition? Also, I think it's far better played and recorded than most of the Norrigton Mahlers. I also agree that the second movement (first Nachtmusik) is the weakest of the five movements in this performance. But hey, I like it better than Boulez's second movement, which was maybe 45 seconds longer.
Sorry for not having succeeded in explaining well what I meant.
I wrote that the Finale's interpretation "seems" normal, not that "is" normal. It seems normal because what precedes it is very peculiar, at least in my book. So, I think that the Finale's interpretation is rather inconsistent when considered within the overall interpretation of the Symphony. That said, considering it in solation from the rest, I like it for the same reasons you expressed so well.
It's true that I have very few respect for Norrington's Mahler (exception made for the First and the Fourth that, if they had been played with vibrato, they would have been good for me). However, in this case, my observation was rather neutral. While listening to Jarvi's I found myself thinkimg: "Probably, this would be the way Norrington did the Seventh".
Boulez/Cleveland's second movement for me is without doubt better than Jarvi's. Well, just tastes.
A part from details depending on the work done during rehearsals, I don't think that the technical side of a recording is due to conductors. I know that Chandos is very often superior on the technical side and this time is no exception.
Best regards,
Luca
-
I listened to again last night, and I still really like it as an alternative. You just have to think of the first four movements as being one singular, unified arch that acts as a prelude to the finale. Jarvi's finale, in turn, acts as a symphony within a symphony. You just have to eschew all notions of a, "song of the night" narrative, in order to get enjoyment out of it.
-
I listened to again last night, and I still really like it as an alternative. You just have to think of the first four movements as being one singular, unified arch that acts as a prelude to the finale. Jarvi's finale, in turn, acts as a symphony within a symphony. You just have to eschew all notions of a, "song of the night" narrative, in order to get enjoyment out of it.
Interesting observations, dear Barry. Indeed, when you get used to listening to a composition done in a certain way, you end up judging each new interpretation on the base of the vision of the work as this "certain way" made you form in your head. When an interpretation deviates beyond a certain limit by this vision, I remain confused and I tend to consider it with caution. In the case of the Seventh, speaking without nocturnal metaphores, the vision I have is that of a block of four movements of character and mood more or less uniform, followed by a movement-postlude of opposed character and mood that attempts to resolve the tensions of the first four ones. This is the main reason why it is so difficult for me to understand Jarvi's interpretation: it is the exact opposite of what my conception of the symphony is.
I could add that I don't like Jarvi because he is too much disrespectful of Mahler's indication in matters of tempos, especially for what concerns the relation among tempos: take, for example, the second movement that, as the Chandos booklet fastidiously reports, is requested to be played Allegro moderato- Tempo I subito, molto moderato (Andante)-sempre l'istesso tempo-Gehalten- poco meno mosso-Tempo-Sehr gemessen; well, it is difficult to find something "molto moderato", "gemessen", "andante" etc.. in Jarvi's rendition.
And yet I feel that this would not be a sufficient point for my argumentation. In fact I like some performances, such as Giulini's Ninth, where there is a similar lack of differentiation in handling tempos, but on the slow side. Why then do I tend to accept and even like an interpretation very slow and reject one very fast? Because I got the idea of Mahler's music as something ponderous (not only, but especially from the Fifth onwards), and very fast interpretations, with few exceptions, make me seem it lighter. I think that this idea is due to the complex harmonies displayed and to the time needed to enjoy their succession and the harmonic trajectory they unfold from the beginning to the end of a movement and of a whole Symphony.
(Moreover, especially with the Seventh, when the music passes away too fast I find difficult to enjoy the fantastic orchestration)
Back to the Seventh with a practical example: I like when conductors slow down significantly during what has been defined the "Moonlight episode" (just before the recapitulation of the introduction) not only for the beauty of the music itself but also because it is music based on the harmony of the fifth degree, the dominant hitherto avoided (it was present in transictional episodes). With this episode, the music finally reaches the central part of the tonic-dominant-tonic arch which governs the path of sonata form (the second theme, during the exposition, had appeared in C major, surely an allusion to the final goal of the symphony). Then, the first movement's harmonic trajectory appears clearly: B minor(introduction), E minor/C major/G major (exposition), B major (goal of the development), E minor/G Major/E major (recapitulation-coda) and we have hints of what is coming.
So, even if my brain can grasp what Jarvi intended with his choices, my heart and, probably, the prejudices born of considerations set out above, protest: "No, sorry, it is not the way to do the Seventh".
Il va sans dire that exchanging views with you is always a pleasure.
Best regards,
Luca
-
In turn, I respect your observations very much. In this particular case, I'm the one who is being a maverick.
Barry
-
...when you get used to listening to a composition done in a certain way, you end up judging each new interpretation on the base of the vision of the work as this "certain way" made you form in your head. When an interpretation deviates beyond a certain limit by this vision, I remain confused and I tend to consider it with caution.
...This is the main reason why it is so difficult for me to understand Jarvi's interpretation: it is the exact opposite of what my conception of the symphony is.
I had the same problem trying to enjoy this one. The first movement isn't really that much out of the ordinary except for the opening section (and where that music returns later). But the two nachtmusiks are just too strange -- at least for my current mood. Moreover, if you're going to take the second nachtmusik at such a fast tempo, I would like to hear a real rip-roaring finale (especially the opening of it). Also, the coda has very audible bells, but they are entirely of the rack-of-chimes variety -- nothing real deep and very little cowbells.
I'm not certain that I'll ever give this one a chance to grow on me.
-
Also sprach Mr. Hurwitz:
http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12908
As it is possible to understand by reading what I have just written about this recording, I agree with him.
Luca
-
I'm going to bite the bullet and buy this one...it sounds like an interesting recording to explore. I especially love the idea of a fast second and fourth movement. Perhaps hearing this I won't think so, but we'll see.
--Todd
-
Barry,
I have read your review on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Symphony-7-Mahler/dp/B003OEFUH2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1280775219&sr=1-1). You wrote that Bruno walter never conducted the Seventh. He did, even if once, on May, 6 and 7, 1920, in Vienna, I think with the Konzertverein Orchestra. He never conducted the 6th and the 10th: the former, apparently, because he was not able to accept the pessimistic message of the music, the latter because he did not agree with Alma's decision to let the Symphony be performed.
For what concerns the 6th, I wrote "apparently" because, beyond the official reason, there is something more personal between Walter and Mahler. We know more when Walter's complete letters to his parents (where he lamented something wrong Mahler had done to him) will be available for research.
Regards,
Luca
-
I've never seen a reference to a B.W. Mahler 7, so I'll just have to take your word for it. Regardless, we have no idea how it sounded. Thanks.
-
I've never seen a reference to a B.W. Mahler 7, so I'll just have to take your word for it. Regardless, we have no idea how it sounded. Thanks.
It's not my word, it's De La Grange's (I'm not such an authority-not yet! ;)). We have no idea how it sounded, but we could have a little bit of it if he could trace the score that he used (for example, he used to jot down timings and he did so even when he followed Mahler's interpretations).
While I checked the exact reference to Walter's performance, I found the timings (according to a review) of the Prague premiere under Mahler's baton: I-20 minutes; II-14; III-11; IV-11; V-18.
Luca
-
Seems that the fleeting tempi choices (especially in the Scherzo) are the rage this year. I have 2010 recordings of the M7 where both Metzmacher with the DSO Berlin as well as Noseda with his customary BBC Phil forces push the speed limit. To me, it's always a touchstone of a performance to check the 3rd movement if nothing else, and as a first place to start from-memory comparisons.
Jarvi always did manage to push the velocity envelope (thinking his Chandos Shostakovich cycle, the 4th and 7th in particular) while giving it all and edge which kept you listening most times.
I'm curious to hear the whole thing now!
Guillermo
http://statework.blogspot.com
-
I heard Noseda's M7th recording is included as a bonus in the current issue of BBC Music Magazine :).
John,
-
Seems that the fleeting tempi choices (especially in the Scherzo) are the rage this year. I have 2010 recordings of the M7 where both Metzmacher with the DSO Berlin as well as Noseda with his customary BBC Phil forces push the speed limit. To me, it's always a touchstone of a performance to check the 3rd movement if nothing else, and as a first place to start from-memory comparisons.
Jarvi always did manage to push the velocity envelope (thinking his Chandos Shostakovich cycle, the 4th and 7th in particular) while giving it all and edge which kept you listening most times.
I'm curious to hear the whole thing now!
Guillermo
http://statework.blogspot.com
I love Jarvi's S7. The battle theme in the first movement is absolutely terrifying, making just about every other version (except perhaps Lennie/CSO) seem way too tame by comparison. The only places that Jarvi's fast tempi miss the mark is in the first rush in the finale (a few minutes in) and in the very final coda.
Conversely, this M7 just sounds wrong to me.
-
Scott,
I am listening to Temirkanov/St. Petersburg PO/RCA S7th for the first time and like it very much.
What's your thought on this one?
John,
-
"Conversely, this M7 just sounds wrong to me"
Of course it's wrong. But I think it's a good kind of wrong: thought provoking (memory erasing?); very well played; very well recorded. I'll take it over the MTT/SFSO one any day. I do like MTT's earlier LSO one, on the other hand.
-
This Jarvi M7 IS FANTASTIC. Finally, I can hear the manic terror of the Nachtmusik movements and scherzo. I rarely listen to Scherchen these days (the bad sonics keep me away), but this recording is a good Scherchen-like replacement if you want an exciting alternative view of this work.
Jarvi's vision is very consistant here, and I never felt it was too fast...the M7 sounds great with a little power and drive added.
As much as I love Mahler's orchestration in this work, I like to move along too. I like Barry's idea that this symphony is a "travelogue" or sorts. It's a Schuberterian work in many ways. Also, the early 20th Century modernity of the work reminds me of Joyce's Ulysses, in that each movement is almost a different style than the previous. Jarvi seems to highlight this Schubertian and Modernist quality in spades.
--Todd
-
As much as I love Mahler's orchestration in this work, I like to move along too. I like Barry's idea that this symphony is a "travelogue" or sorts. It's a Schuberterian work in many ways. Also, the early 20th Century modernity of the work reminds me of Joyce's Ulysses, in that each movement is almost a different style than the previous. Jarvi seems to highlight this Schubertian and Modernist quality in spades.
Good thoughts on M7! I am interested in hearing this recording...
-
Bruno Walter actually conducted three performances of M7 in 1920. They took place on March 5, 6, and 7 in Vienna, at the Grosser Musikvereinssaal. At first only two performances had been announced. The first on March 5th was billed as a “Festaufführung”, to be followed on the 6th by a “Viertes Zykluskonzert.”
The first performance on March 5th was later re-billed as a public dress rehearsal (“Hauptprobe”). It was then announced that due to demand an additional third performance would be added on March 7th. A notice in the “Neue Freie Presse” for this performance may be seen here, near the top of column 3:
http://tinyurl.com/387van8
Walter’s arrival in Vienna to begin rehearsals was noted in the “Neue Freie Presse” on March 3rd, which means he must have arrived a day or two before that.
It has been difficult to find many reviews of these performances with the resources available to me. In a Feuilleton which appeared on March 8 (signed “J. K.” = Julius Korngold), three paragraphs were devoted to a review of the music and performance. Only the last paragraph deals directly with Walter’s conducting (in the Finale). I attempt to translate it as follows:
“Bruno Walter brought out this last movement with the most sensitive feeling, using a dynamic which saved on breath, wisely restrained, and scattered the light. This excellent artist really approaches all Mahler-music with such a complete, singular understanding! The knowledge and feeling that he possesses stood him in good stead with the Seventh as well. Full performance fortune bloomed for this piece, which in previous Vienna presentations was abridged, but not this time. A shortage of rehearsals could not be overcome. The lines were perfectly, clearly drawn out; the spirit was present but the timbre stayed away, not to speak of flu-affected bells and tenor horn. All the more wonderful then was the Mahler-loyalty of the audience, all of whom showed their readiness, even towards this weaker work of the Master, to provide feelings of appreciation”.
For those who can read German, the original text may be found at the bottom of column 2 (from the “Neue Freie Presse”, March 8, 1920):
http://tinyurl.com/2vr8rrw
Assuming my translation is correct, Korngold implies that there were cuts (or not all movements played?) in previous Vienna performances (there can’t have been very many between Mahler’s death in 1911 and these Walter performances).
In the combined April 1920 issue of the “Musikblätter des Anbruch” (2nd Year, issues 7-8), there is an article entitled “Representative Mahler Performances in Vienna”. I translate the very brief comments by the author (R. S. Hoffmann) as follows:
“…Also this year, he [Walter] fascinated us with the powerful ‘Seventh’, with which he unbelievably filled the hall three times.”
Mike Bosworth
I've never seen a reference to a B.W. Mahler 7, so I'll just have to take your word for it. Regardless, we have no idea how it sounded. Thanks.
It's not my word, it's De La Grange's (I'm not such an authority-not yet! ;)). We have no idea how it sounded, but we could have a little bit of it if he could trace the score that he used (for example, he used to jot down timings and he did so even when he followed Mahler's interpretations).
Luca
-
Thanks for Mike's translations.
My grief... :'( that Walter never left a recording of the 7th. By today's standards, his exemplary restraint and warmth could have produced a radically different but fascinating Mahler Seventh.
John,
-
"not to speak of flu-affected bells"
Next time, they need to get those bells vaccinated in time.
"his exemplary restraint and warmth could have produced a radically different but fascinating Mahler Seventh"
In other words, boring. We already have the recent Bernard Haitink for that.
-
This is one heck of a recording! :o :D
Not only the sound is drop dead gorgeous, the playing is nothing short of astounding and thrilling. I think I heard this orchestra playing Mahler once before with Svetlanov in M9th. That one was a fabulous recording but here they excel themselves sounding like a world class band.
I like Jarvi's reading a lot although he is fast in the two night music movts. But for a nice change, it's a perfect M7.
A fantastic release.
John,
-
This is one heck of a recording! :o :D
Not only the sound is drop dead gorgeous, the playing is nothing short of astounding and thrilling. I think I heard this orchestra playing Mahler once before with Svetlanov in M9th. That one was a fabulous recording but here they excel themselves sounding like a world class band.
I like Jarvi's reading a lot although he is fast in the two night music movts. But for a nice change, it's a perfect M7.
A fantastic release.
John,
The players seem to have so much Mahlerian idioms under their skin.
I can't think of a better performance of this symphony!
It's that good.
John,
-
This is one heck of a recording! :o :D
Not only the sound is drop dead gorgeous, the playing is nothing short of astounding and thrilling. I think I heard this orchestra playing Mahler once before with Svetlanov in M9th. That one was a fabulous recording but here they excel themselves sounding like a world class band.
I like Jarvi's reading a lot although he is fast in the two night music movts. But for a nice change, it's a perfect M7.
A fantastic release.
John,
The players seem to have so much Mahlerian idioms under their skin.
I can't think of a better performance of this symphony!
It's that good.
John,
I totally agree John! It's a knock out.
--Todd