gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: John Kim on September 11, 2008, 05:00:05 AM
-
Having enjoyed David Zinman's Mahler cycle to date, I came to this release with high expectations. What a disappointment! This is a lame, undercharacterized performance. It has one thing going for it: a nice clarity to the string counterpoint (and this work has lots of it), but this is a purely technical issue since emotional expression seems not to be high on Zinman's list of priorities. The opening funeral march is about as flat-footed as they come. Its two big outbursts don't so much climax as simply fizzle. This "wet noodle" approach positively kills the second movement. Could anyone call the opening "vehement", as Mahler demands, or is it simply neat as a pin? At nearly 19 minutes the scherzo sags badly well before its quiet central section. The adagietto is pretty (when is it not?), and the finale has the most string counterpoint and so bounces along reasonably well; but the final chorale has the weakest brass playing on disc combined with a tempo that starts off too fast but winds up too slow. The ample acoustic further blunts the music's impact. The most dangerous thing about this whole production is the cover (possibly the first full-frontal male nude to grace a Mahler symphony album).
--David Hurwitz
Dave, are you sure on this? ??? :-[
John,
-
I can only agree with Dave Hurwitz’ review.
Right after the release of the CD at the end of June I was very curious and purchased a cheap WMA download, prepared to buy SACD soon. Since then I have given it several tries and always the same word “lame” came to my mind. In addition there is some stop&go and artificial excitement in the first movements. For example, the first outburst is (in my opinion) overemphasized as if to redeem in a few seconds what is missing in the minutes before. But it's not working.
When the first release of this cycle came out, there was an interesting interview with David Zinman in FonoForum, where he stated that the emotional approach to Mahler (he mentioned Bernstein as one example) is not his thing. It seems that his approach may work out nicely for some Mahler symphonies, but apparently not for this M5.
Meanwhile another review has been published by Attila Csampai in FonoForum. He not only has a similar opinion on the performance itself, but even complains about the sound philosophy of the recording.
Michael
-
...emotional expression seems not to be high on Zinman's list of priorities.
What are the "Reference Recordings" leading the pack, etc., as the preferred formulation goes: the usual "Mahler with Everything" and the "Mahler with Extra Cheese"?
I.e., the taste makers?
:)
And why do we care, again?
-pt
-
John:
I'm REALLY sure. This performance is a decently played non-happening. Nothing more. Let me make one thing clear--"emotional expression" does not always mean "Bernstein"--it's not a function of slow tempos or self-evidently moulded phrasing (though it can be). Bernstein, in any case, really is neither of those things. Kubelik, for example, is always extremely expressive and usually very swift and "non-interventionist." So is Levine (one of my reference versions). I see it more as a question of proportion--does the conductor realize the music's range of contrasts, its climaxes and important moments (both loud and soft), and the architecture of each movement?
Zinman's handling of the final chorale is a case in point. It is both badly played AND badly conducted. Leading into it, the tempo is very swift, the brass (which have the tune, let us not forget) buried in a welter of string figurations. These may be interesting to hear, but as I point out in another review of very different music running shortly, it's like wearing your internal organs on the outside of your body. Interesting, perhaps, but appealing or comfortable? No. Then, at the climax, everyone blasts in for a bar or two--it's nicely explosive, but it comes out of nowhere. It's not the natural result of the build-up in the preceeding bars, and then it vanishes as quickly as it came. Remember, this music is a reprise of what happened at the end of the second movement--it's needs to have a sense of inevitability; the entire hour and ten minutes of the symphony has been heading for just this moment. It's not a difficult effect to achieve. Like everything in Mahler it's very well stage-managed, but Zinman misses it completely. Then, after the chorale, when the music should take off in an exciting rush to the final pages, Zinman largely ignores Mahlers very, very clear "Allegro molto and speeding up through the end" directive. Remember, this acellerando STARTS at "allegro molto." All Zinman had to do was pay attention to what Mahler asks. This is only one moment of many that are misjudged, underplayed, or undercharacterized, and the result, as with most of the performance, is expressively flat.
Dave H
-
Hey, it's not a crime. There are a very few cycles - almost none - where the conductor/orchestra combination score a 10/10 on every outing. Neither should we expect that. I love the Bertini cycle (EMI), but his 5th isn't anything to write home about either (I understand a remake was better). My prediction is that Zinman will be better with the 6th and 7th, and then will give us a very musical 8th.
I think that there are a surprisingly large number of M5's that are rather flat-footed; competent and little else: Segerstam; Gielen (sorry, does absolute nothing for me); Abbado (both of his); Haitink (none of his impress me much); even Bernstein strikes me as a tad bit disappointing on both of his.
Obviously, I haven't heard Zinman's M5 yet. It's not available in the U.S., and I'm not about to spend the big bucks to get it. But I did listen to some brief samples at some website (forgot where), and I did notice that the start of the second movement sounded waaaaay under tempo. As Dave points out, where is the "vehemence"? It sounds like Zinman was trying to do the right thing at the climax of the finale's brass chorale, but it just simply misfired. Hey, I'll tell you what: I'll take what Dave describes over DePreist/LSO, where DePriest slows down waaay, waaaaay, WAAAAAAAAY before reaching the start of the brass chorale (he slows down greatly where the trombones do their unison descending line, and the horns begin doing their ascending fanfare-like figures). His is the worst conducting decision I've ever heard at that spot.
I don't mind middle movement sherzos that are 19 minutes in duration, as long as there's some sense of swing or lilt to the rhythms and phrasing. As much as I'm not always crazy about Barbirolli's Mahler, he manages to achieve just that in M5/III. The horns also have to be very impressive. Otherwise, speed it up to about 16.5 or 17 minutes. I love Karajan's scherzo, and I think he's closer to 17 minutes (maybe 18?).
My "benchmark" M5's remain Karajan and Baribirolli, but my personal favorite of any is the Marcus Stenz one from ABC Classics. David gave that a 10/10 rating, and I thoroughly second his enthusiasm for it. DeWaart is surprisingly good with M5 too (I saw his conduct a great one in S.F.).
. . . and I won't even listen to the MTT/SFSO one. No way.
Barry
-
Ditto! :D
de Waart/NRPO/RCA M5th has quickly become one of my favorites.
It is dark and slow, with terrific base lines including tam tam smashes in I. & II.
A very solid Mahler Fifth indeed.
John,
-
I also like De Waart very much in the Fifth. Interestingly, his timings are almost identical to Zinman's (right down to the slow scherzo), but the performance has so much more sharpness of focus and life to it. There are many performances in this cycle that are seriously underrated--only the 6th and 9th to my mind disappoint somewhat.
Dave
-
Sorry to make an entrance to this site with a negative post but D.H. is absolutely right. This has to rank as one of the most soporific interpretations of this score, ever. I've been collecting all previous issues in this cycle and have been rather pleased with the performances and the sound. This 5th has left me wondering what in the world was Zinman trying to prove. Anyway, Hurwitz has described the carnage better that I could so pay attention before you buy this turkey.
I also recently acquired the MTT 5th and was equally disappointed. The "Boy with Manicured Eyebrows Lunching at the Ritz" covers of these releases pretty much tells you what you are going to hear. The San Francisco orchestra--who must be complemented for some outstanding orchestral playing throughout this series and respected for not collectively jumping out of their seats during the concerts and beating the living crap out of their conductor--is a magnificent orchestra. They follow every nip-and-tuck of the embalmer with admirable accuracy. I have heard all except the 1st and 9th and probably won't unless I get them as gifts.
I'll end on a positive note and tell you that the 2 Pretre/Vienna Symphony releases--Mahler 5 & 6 (available from HMV.jp)--are sensational. After listening to the walking-dead above, I put on the Pretre Fifth and was brought back to Mahler's world of light-dark, sweet-sour, up-down, etc. There are a few fluffs (they are both one-nighters with no editing) but never of Horensteinian proportions. Pretre conducts, and the orchestra plays, with all the energy and passion one would desire but without pummeling the score. The last movement of No. 5, in particular, is one of the greatest performances I've ever heard. I've read that there may be more Mahler/Pretre on the way. If it's true, I look forwad to hearing them all.
The de Waart cycle is one of the finest group of recordings NOT available. It's also a shame that the Segerstam and Svetlanov cycles are deleted. The last two are big personalities on the podium and they always give you an opinion.
Congratulations and thanks to those responsible for this wonderful site. I came late to Mahler's music but now can't seem to listen to anything else. Well, not true. Along with Mahler, I've also found my "Brucknerian Heel." (I'll attempt to fall for a three-symphony composer next so as not to enter my old age penniless.)
I voted for Bertini as my favorite boxed set. For Bruckner, I am rather fond of the Skrowaczweski/Saarbrücken and Wand's 3-9 with NDR (the RCA/Japan remasters).
-
Me Five-Star Chief Mahler Nut like 'em new Brave Newbie-On-The-Block :D. Brave Newbie speak like Sage Mahler Medicine Man. I pronounce him Brave Golden Ears - golden beyond his years.
Hey, I'm hoping that Pretre's M8 (VSO) from Wien's Konzerthaus gets released someday. I heard that on a radio broadcast, and it sounded awesome. The Konzerthaus is Vienna's bigger concert hall, the one with THE "killer" organ. You can hear that thing ROAR on Chailly's VPO "Glagolitic Mass" (Janacek) on Decca. Remember, an M8 without organ is like an M8 without organ.
-
(In my most sarcastic voice) Thanks a bunch for finally posting this review. Couldn't you have posted it 2 days earlier? I just ordered it from Amazon earlier this week! >:(
-
Yikes! Well, there's always the chance you may love the performance. If it makes you feel any better, I did not receive a promotional copy for review. Major labels used to get product to us in advance. How, it's usually much later after the release date, if at all. I bought mine on Amazon.com, so we're in the same boat.
Dave H
-
Well, you steered me away from it in time. I was waiting until the end of the month. If it drops in price, I may get it, but we'll have to see. Bummer! His 3rd is one of my many favorites (along with Nagano, both Bernsteins, and the Bertini.)
Maybe things will rebound with the M6.
-
I really liked the Third too. A wonderfully fresh and colorful performance. But no one is equally strong in every work in a complete cycle. I do have a live Mahler 6 with Zinman that was issued on the Baltimore Symphony's private label--it's a quick, exciting performance that features some sort of electronic nuclear detonation noise for the hammer blows that's just insane. I'm very curious to see if he uses the same effect in his new recordings!
Dave H
-
www.goingagainstfate.com
Dave,
Check out this film about Zinman/Tonhalle Zurich doing Mahler 6. It'll eventually be available on DVD. Apparently, it's being shown at some movie house in Zurich. It appears that there won't be any additional mojo to the hammer strokes. Nor does it appear that there would be any need to embellish them (you'll see!).
Barry
-
I really liked the Third too. A wonderfully fresh and colorful performance. But no one is equally strong in every work in a complete cycle. I do have a live Mahler 6 with Zinman that was issued on the Baltimore Symphony's private label--it's a quick, exciting performance that features some sort of electronic nuclear detonation noise for the hammer blows that's just insane. I'm very curious to see if he uses the same effect in his new recordings!
Dave H
My friend attended the Peabody Conservatory when Zinman did that performance. He called them "Praxis" Hammerblows, in tribute to a planet that gets destroyed in a Star Trek film, (causing a giant shockwave.) I never grasped what he was talking about until I finally heard that set!
-
Re: Zinman M5/III
Good lord, what is that bass drum roll at 12:50 of the scherzo? Is this from the revised score, such that I would also hear it on Rattle's BPO M5?
-
It is in the revised score of 2002, but the critical commentary indicates that its inclusion in the various sources as Mahler's final word isn't certain, so it's marked "ad libitum." Personally, I'd leave it out. It sounds awfully strange there.
Dave H
-
Regarding the second movement:
David Hurwitz in classicstoday:
Could anyone call the opening "vehement", as Mahler demands, or is it simply neat as a pin?
Brian Burtt in Musicweb:
No one could accuse him of lacking vehemenz in the orchestral outbursts.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Very helpful reviews!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
By the way:
Could anyone call... no one could accuse... when will the critics stop thinking for their readers?
-
No one is thinking for anyone. Don't confuse literary style with presumption. We have to write stuff that's interesting to read (especially when the performance is as dull as ditch water), but I certainly take your point. One thing I do know: in this case, I'm right. The majority of comments in this group suggest as much also. But at the end of the day there's only one true answer: Listen for your yourself!
Best,
Dave H
-
"Wet noodle" certainly described my reaction to much of this performance. However, when I finished listening I realized that I had the "Night Mode" setting engaged on my system -- which severely restricts the dynamics. So I am due for a repeat listening this weekend.
-
No one is thinking for anyone. Don't confuse literary style with presumption.
I realize that obviously it is a literary device but both examples show how easily critics tend to support their views –in this case absolutely incompatible- appealing to an hypothetical general consensus with their own views. I accept it as a literay device, but I am afraid I do not like this kind of arguments. Please I hope you take my rejection to this as a constructive critic.
To make matters worse ;) in your reply you appeal to “the majority of comments in this group”. Same kind of device :D Well, How many comments in this group about this recording? Three, maximum four! >:(
Though there were a lot of people telling the same, what’s matter? It is not a question of democracy but of knowledge. Galilei was alone against the science of his time, but was he wrong for that?
We have to write stuff that's interesting to read (especially when the performance is as dull as ditch water).
As this comes out I cannot help saying that as a regular reader of your reviews the Zinman’s Fifth review was particularly disappointing to me. Obviously I do not like its literary style ;-) but I do not read your reviews to be entertained, just to be informed. In that context what's the point of making in such a short and superficial review a reference to the male frontal nude in the cover art. Again I hope you take my view as a constructive one.
One thing I do know: in this case, …But at the end of the day there's only one true answer: Listen for your yourself!
Sorry about that but I must disagree again. You say Could anyone call the opening "vehement"? and after hearing it once and again, after comparing it with tens of recordings I have to say that this opening is impressively vehement. This is not question of personal views, affinities, empathies… There are infinity of debatable topics in this recording, but this is not one of them. In this passage the vehemenz not only reach the highest point but the extraordinary sound intensifies extremely this feeling.
I invite to compare this opening with Gielen’s one (9/9 in your review). In your book on the symphonies you describe this passage as: “It opens “stormily agitated, with the greatest vehemence”, the music recalling in mood if not in theme the funeral march’ hysterical first episode." Both recordings succeed in bringing to light this, both are absolutely similar in terms of vehemence in this pasage but the sound quality light-years ahead in the SACD strenghen this feeling in an impressive way. There's no comparison between them.
-
I take your comments as completely constructive, and I agree with you that what matters at the end of the day is knowledge, and not consensus--it just so happens, though, that sometimes there is a consensus, and sometimes knowledgeable people hear the same things, and this is worth noting. If you hear sufficient vehemence in Zinman, that's your perogative, but it's a false comparison to raise the issue of Gielen when the ratings are based on the impressions that the recordings make AS A WHOLE, and examples are chosen merely by way of illustration. I could point to many other performances in which the start of the second movement does indeed make Zinman sound as tepid as I describe it.
I am sorry that you were disappointed with the brevity of the review, but there are times when that in itself says something useful. An uninteresting performance does not always deserve to have its dullness described at great length, and in this case I had no desire merely to flog Zinman further. Partly, I suppose, it was out of respect for the fact that he's done well to this point, so I felt that this particular mis-step didn't need to be rubbed in. But we critics often find ourselves in an impossible situation; write "long" and someone will argue that it's too long and too negative. Write short, and you aren't being sufficiently detailed. You can't please everyone, and it's not a very good idea to try--you'll make yourself crazy. I realized when I wrote it that this review will certainly disappoint those who disagree with me about the performance's virtues, but then a longer review wouldn't have changed anything in that respect. Your argument reminds me of the story of the couple that goes to a restaurant, hates the food, and then complains to management that the portions are too small!
Dave H
-
I could point to many other performances in which the start of the second movement does indeed make Zinman sound as tepid as I describe it.
Please let me know the names of any of these recordings. I see that you do not include Gielen between them. I chose it as I remembered your high rating.
I am sorry that you were disappointed with the brevity of the review, but there are times when that in itself says something useful…
Thanks for expanding on this point. My take is that I always regret how the review of a new Mahler CD is dispatched in printed magazines as Gramophone, BBC Music, etc. in such a few lines. Fortunately there is not this space constraint in the internet, so I feel disappointed when the reviewer does not show any interest in giving free rein to his points of view particularly when the ratings are either very poor or extremely good.
Your argument reminds me of the story of the couple that goes to a restaurant, hates the food, and then complains to management that the portions are too small!
A bit of humour:
(http://i13.servimg.com/u/f13/12/13/35/40/nbe04610.jpg)
I do not want to be rude but as I must retell that in this particular case (Zinman’s Fifth) I am not only complaining about quantity. Quality is also important, particularly when you give such a poor rating.
In this very thread you write in depth on Zinman's handling of the final chorale, aspect which I find really interesting as this question is substantial and problematic. In the review this topic is reduced to this words: “a tempo that starts off too fast but winds up too slow”. Why only gustavmahlerboard readers are having the chance to know the magnitude of this phrase. Do classicstoday readers deserve this?
I realized when I wrote it that this review will certainly disappoint those who disagree with me about the performance's virtues, but then a longer review wouldn't have changed anything in that respect.
For sure a longer and more serious review would have stimulated a more critical appraisal of this version from your readers and at the same time it would have earned more respect for your work.
-
Let me fill you in on some facts that might strike you as counter-intuitive.
1. The fact that the internet offers theoretically unlimited space to write is a bad thing. It merely encourages acres and acres of dreadful critical writing, and fosters a lack of professionalism that has greatly damaged the already never in very high repute job of being a critic. I take great pride in being able to dispatch a dull recording in a single paragraph, and I have already explained why I did so. You may not accept that explanation, but that's the only one I have to offer: it was my professional decision. I respect your desire to see more, but don't assume that your preference is shared generally.
2. That said, I agree that there is much more to say (there always is, isn't there?). You ask why I didn't go into the business of the final chorale in greater detail in the review--but you have answered your own question in a sense. This is the place to do it, and it's why I'm here!
3. Our experience with the site over the course of nearly a decade now has given us plenty of evidence that readers do not like to read long reviews on their computer screens. Text is still more difficult to follow and less approachable than having print in hand. We originally started by posting longer reviews, articles, and all kinds of features. Guess what--no one read them. They wanted to look at reviews that were succinct and easy to scan. I'm actually surprised we manage to write pieces as long as we do so often.
4. Recordings that have a more "vehement" opening of the second movement--where to start? Karajan, Barenboim, Abbado (Chicago), Boulez, Mackerras...I could go on. What sounds so poor in Zinman's recording is the patently artificial balance between cellos and basses and the brass. I can see how some people might like the really, really close lower strings (they do sound vehement with a mike up their collective butts like that), but to me it's such a phoney sound that I don't buy it. No orchestra sounds like that in real life. The brass (and everyone else) are way, way behind them, and almost completely without impact. Normal ensemble perspective is backwards. Then there's Zinman's exaggerated staccato phrasing (which Mahler does NOT ask for), which doesn't let the sound growl as it should (compare Barenboim here)--the music has to sound wild. This is way too controlled, too tightly and fussily over-articulated.
Most disappointing.
Dave H
-
As I mentioned before, I did listen to the second movement, as a download, at some Swiss music site (I forget the name). Sure enough, the 2nd movement starts out at a tempo that is truly slower than normal. This can be verified by making comparisons to a wide number of other M5 recordings. However, I did appreciate the fact that Zinman didn't slow down at all for the second subject (first subject, if you consider the opening material to be just "introductory" material). Many conductors who start the movement REALLY fast, end up slowing down at the next section (or sub-section). This happens on the Danielle Gatti recording, and it happens to lesser extent on the Dudamel one. Obviously, Zinman must have been aware that Mahler doesn't ask for any slowing down of tempo anywhere in that whole opening passage. All of this, then, brings up the question of just exactly what, "with vehemence" means. Without a metronome marking, it could possibly be more of a "mood" marking than an actual tempo request. Still, I agree that Zinman's opening should go a bit quicker than it does. It just needs more oomph.
I did feel that Zinman handled the numerous gear changes in the last seven minutes or so, very well. I could give specific bar numbers, if anybody really wants to dredge all this up. Until such a request is made, I'll just state that I've heard these same gear changes (tempo shifts) handled much more poorly in any number of other recordings. And as for the big tam-tam smash that pretty much negates the brass chorale (which turns out to be a false victory, until it's revived in the finale); the fact is is that it's not clearly audible on a wide swath of other M5 recordings either. Zinman is hardly the first person not to get the most out of the gong right there.
As for the rest of the symphony, I can't comment. Maybe somebody out there might burn me a copy, if they would like to get my two cents about it.
-
Weird about the tam-tam, isn't it? Marked triple forte and inaudible in so many recordings? I don't get it--even Karajan doesn't have it (though you can hear it great just before the chorale, go figure). But unlike Zinman, Karajan is fabulous everywhere else, whereas Zinman's lack of a climax tracks his general tepidness elsewhere (the two big outbursts in the first movement, the stiff opening of the second movement which, as you point out, is under-tempo).
However, I am puzzled by your insistence that the second subject should not be played in a slower tempo, when Mahler clearly marks it "Bedeutend langsamer" (significantly slower) and further adds "in the tempo of the first movement funeral march"--which is of course where the theme comes from. The contrast should be all the more marked because it follows a big accelerando (sehr drangend) as the first subject disintegrates. Or are you referring to the passage at figure 2 where the tune comes in on the violins? If so, then I agree with you whole-heartedly--no reason to slow down, but to be fair, not too many conductors do it (at least painfully).
Dave H
-
The fact that the internet offers theoretically unlimited space to write is a bad thing
:o
It merely encourages acres and acres of dreadful critical writing, and fosters a lack of professionalism that has greatly damaged the already never in very high repute job of being a critic.
I would not be so pessimistic. Record collectors or lovers are knowledgeable enough to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is a kind of natural selection acting over this wild environment that you describe. I do not read more than four or five classical-reviews websites and I find this quite usual between my friends.
On the other hand if the critics lower the level of their writing –both in terms of quantity and quality - they are not just informing worse, they are not forming their audience.
I take great pride in being able to dispatch a dull recording in a single paragraph
…¿made of sentences like this: “The adagietto is pretty (when is it not?)”? Sure many of your readers approach this new Fifth mainly curious for its most popular movement, but you dispatch them in this way, not very helpful to them.
You may not accept that explanation, but that's the only one I have to offer: it was my professional decision. I respect your desire to see more, but don't assume that your preference is shared generally.
I thank your explanation –and by the way your patience with my English. You know much better than me your business, and of course you know what is the better path for your web. As one of your readers I just wish that at least you find a middle way between this laconic and cursory statements and the really serious and challenging reviews we were used to. I personally have disagreed with your ratings lots of times but it does not mind at all as far as I may know in depth the logic behind them.
We originally started by posting longer reviews, articles, and all kinds of features. Guess what--no one read them.
I resist to believe this. In any case they gave to classicstoday prestige and consideration.
Recordings that have a more "vehement" opening of the second movement--where to start? Karajan, Barenboim, Abbado (Chicago), Boulez, Mackerras...
Thanks. I will prepare a file with them in order to compare with friends and of course here if anybody is interested,
I could go on. What sounds so poor in Zinman's recording is the patently artificial balance between cellos and basses and the brass. I can see how some people might like the really, really close lower strings (they do sound vehement with a mike up their collective butts like that),
So you agree that they sound really vehement. I find indeed these low strings frightening. Artificial? A great bass section should obtain this sound in a live concert. Lucern Festival Fifth DVD is a good example.
Barry Guerrero wrote:
I did feel that Zinman handled the numerous gear changes in the last seven minutes or so, very well. I could give specific bar numbers, if anybody really wants to dredge all this up. Until such a request is made, I'll just state that I've heard these same gear changes (tempo shifts) handled much more poorly in any number of other recordings.
I would be very grateful if you give the bar numbers. I am really interested in this.
-
"However, I am puzzled by your insistence that the second subject should not be played in a slower tempo, when Mahler clearly marks it "Bedeutend langsamer" (significantly slower) and further adds "in the tempo of the first movement funeral march""
Ahhh, Dave; you made me drag out the score. I don't even own this recording, so that's what I get for opening my big cyber-mouth. Anyway, I'm talking about rehearsal figure 2, which is the 31st measure of the movement. The tuba is blasting out low notes, and the phrasing for everybody else has switched from staccato to long slurs. Many people slow down at this spot because they've started so darn fast (or, they feel that it "interpretively" sounds good). One argument that you could make for NOT starting too fast, is that Mahler marks "drangend" at bar 61; followed by "sehr drangend" at bar 67, located just six bars before the "bedeutend langsamer" that you mention (the true second subject, I suppose). I now see that you've already mentioned this detail.
Psanquin,
OK, I will eventually go back to that download with my score in hand. I'll assume this means that you own a score as well (?). If not, I'll try to get timing numbers for you, if that site gives them while you're playing the thing. It's going to take some time before I get around to doing this chore. Pretty much what I'm talking about begins at rehearsal figure 18, launched by its fortissimo cymbal crash, and arrives at the trumpets huge ascending cry at rehearsal figure 27 - in major - which is more or less the beginning of the the chorale section (with the actual chorale "tune" happening at Mahler's "hohepunkt" marking, located one bar before rehearsal figure 29).
Now before it sounds like I'm stretching to great lengths to defend Zinman here, let's let just one fact speak for itself: I'm not willing to shell out $20 (with shipping) to get this baby through a third party at Amazon.com, when the Jansons/Concergebouw M5 is just right around the corner (and I'll probably hear a promotional copy).
-
OK, I will eventually go back to that download with my score in hand. I'll assume this means that you own a score as well (?).
Yes I do, but timings would be also helpful to everybody. Thanks in advance and of course take all the time you need.
-
psanquin wrote:
"As one of your readers I just wish that at least you find a middle way between this laconic and cursory statements and the really serious and challenging reviews we were used to."
That WAS the middle way. The short version is: "It sucks. Don't buy it!" ;)
Dave H
-
That WAS the middle way. The short version is: "It sucks. Don't buy it!" ;)
Olé!!! but...
(http://i13.servimg.com/u/f13/12/13/35/40/psanqu10.gif)
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
psanquin wrote:
"Thanks. I will prepare a file with them in order to compare with friends and of course here if anybody is interested"
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here ever heard of copyright? I'm all for comparing recordings, as long as it's legal. I do hope that this site isn't put at risk.
Dave H
-
4. Recordings that have a more "vehement" opening of the second movement--where to start? Karajan, Barenboim, Abbado (Chicago), Boulez, Mackerras...I could go on. What sounds so poor in Zinman's recording is the patently artificial balance between cellos and basses and the brass. I can see how some people might like the really, really close lower strings (they do sound vehement with a mike up their collective butts like that), but to me it's such a phoney sound that I don't buy it. No orchestra sounds like that in real life. The brass (and everyone else) are way, way behind them, and almost completely without impact. Normal ensemble perspective is backwards. Then there's Zinman's exaggerated staccato phrasing (which Mahler does NOT ask for), which doesn't let the sound growl as it should (compare Barenboim here)--the music has to sound wild. This is way too controlled, too tightly and fussily over-articulated.
Dave H
In my mind, the most vehement second movement is the Barshai/GMJO. I listened to the second movement of the Zinman last night (without the "Night Mode" engaged), and there is a severe lack of intensity to my ears. The tempi seems strangely stiff and inflexible, which is a change from Zinman's wonderful handling of tempi on Mahler's first four symphonies. I'll have to re-listen to see if I can pick up on the staccato phrasing.
It is always interesting that two people can come away with completely opposite impressions of the same performance. That is one of the key reasons to compare one's own past reactions to others' on a wide range of recordings. In terms of whether you'll share someone else's impression of the music, it is not so much that Poster A is right and Poster B is wrong. It's more relevant (to you) whether they have similar tastes in music. For example, I tend to lurk on the M-List, and find some fascinating discussions there. However, there are some very intelligent and knowledgable posters (seemingly professors and teachers) that have polar-opposite tastes from me when it comes to Mahler recordings. I would never state that Psanquin is "wrong" when he hears vehemence in Zinman's M5-2. However, I would perhaps not base a purchasing decision on him if he (or anyone) consistently had different reactions to recordings than me.
-
I just don't think that it should be a big surprise that Zinman might not be equally great in all 9 (or 10, or 11) Mahler symphonies. Who is? I really didn't feel that Zinman's "Resurrection" was all that interesting or unusual either, other than for the nicely recorded (natural sounding) bells at the end. Again, my guess is that he'll feel more involved with M6 through M8.
But again, I've yet to hear his 5th.
Barry
-
However, I would perhaps not base a purchasing decision on him if he (or anyone) consistently had different reactions to recordings than me.
That's one of my rules as well. There are some user reviews at Amazon in which I consistently disagree with the reviewer, and use that disagreement sometimes as the basis for purchasing a recording that the reviewer has panned.
-
Agreed! You can find a review with which you disagree just as useful as one with which you agree. The key is to find a critic who chooses his examples well (so you can see if you share the same points of emphasis or significance), and who then describes them accurately and consistently. You then have a basis to decide how useful the comments are--whether the critic likes the performance or not. I always tell my writers: "No one really cares about your opinion; just get the facts right and choose your examples well."
Two examples: I've read tons of reviews of the Mahler Second and Third by opera critics that only talk about the singers. I remember in particular a review of the Second that only talked about how wonderful the soprano was. Does anyone buy a Mahler 2 for the soprano (or alto, for that matter) as THE prime consideration? Perhaps some do, but I would never trust a critic with those priorities.
Next, there was an unbelievable Gramophone review (which you can find in their review archive) praising the Claudio Abbado's Berlin Dvorak's 8th for its "refusal to whip up excitement in the coda of the first movement" (or words to that effect). This, I thought to myself, is a COMPLEMENT? Here is a case where we find an accurate observation (it is a boring coda) but a conclusion drawn from it that tells me that this is a critic whose recommendations I would never trust--but I might love something he hates.
I remember also the reviews of Dmitri Mitropoulos's Vaughan Williams Fourth Symphony with the NY Phil on tour of the UK, quoted in Thomas Trotter's book "Priest of Music"--the critics sniffed that it was too loud and aggressive. I mean, the FOURTH?
You get the picture...
Dave H
-
In my mind, the most vehement second movement is the Barshai/GMJO. I listened to the second movement of the Zinman last night (without the "Night Mode" engaged), and there is a severe lack of intensity to my ears. The tempi seems strangely stiff and inflexible, which is a change from Zinman's wonderful handling of tempi on Mahler's first four symphonies. I'll have to re-listen to see if I can pick up on the staccato phrasing.
I would never state that Psanquin is "wrong" when he hears vehemence in Zinman's M5-2.
Please feel free to state that. Nobody is infallible; errare humanum est. But regarding the vehemence issue I must strees that I refer to the beginning of the movement. Hopefully we will be able to do the promised comparative listening that sure will clarify this topic.
Regarding the whole movement I understand and respect your opinion. Zinman paces and shapes the movement in a very particular way not for all tastes. It is miles away from the typical heart on sleeve approach which everybody like so much (myself included). But I also enjoy (and need) other Mahler Fifths, provided they are so extraordinarily played and recorded like this is. Zinman manages to maintain line and interest. Melodic lines are lovingly cherished but never saccharine. Another characteristic is the frequent use of dynamic shading, dipping from mf to p and back again. Quite a revelatory reading, please allow me, just for the initiated.
I just don't think that it should be a big surprise that Zinman might not be equally great in all 9 (or 10, or 11) Mahler symphonies. Who is?
Barry, I have the answer… at least according to Dave. Amazing as it seems there is one conductor who gets outstanding ratings (9 or 10) in ALL :o the symphonies in terms of Artistic Quality:
Symphony No.1
10
Symphony No.2
10
Symphony No.3
10
Symphony No.4
9
Symphony No.5
9
Symphony No.6
9
Symphony No.7
10
Symphony No.8
9
Symphony No.9
(9 or 10?) *
Symphony No.10
10
* The Ninth is addressed in the review of the box, as it was released separately subsequently. In that review it is assesed as even finer than No.5
Well, Who’s that boy? The name is… Michael Gielen!!
-
Well first off, David certainly isn't alone in holding Gielen's Mahler in high esteem. Just read the personal testimonies at Amazon.com, for example. Second, many of his reviews were written before something else even greater (in my opinion) was made available. Gielen's "Resurrection" would be an example of that happening, I think. Since then, we've had the MTT/SFSO M2, which ain't bad (even though I'm not huge fan of the MTT cycle), as well the excellent (in my opinion) Ivan Fischer one. I think the dvd of Boulez's M2 is far better than his DG studio recording of it.
I've been very upfront about this: for a complete cycle that's conducted by just one person, the Gary Bertini one reins supreme for me. That doesn't mean that I can't respect Dave's high opinion of Gielen's Mahler. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice and dice it, Gielen is still a pretty darn good conductor. For me, Bertini steers a course that's straight between Berstein, Tennstedt, and Inbal on the one hand, and Boulez or Zinman on the other hand (actually, so far, I think of Zinman as the modern day equivalent of Kubelik. Then again, I haven't heard this disputed M5 from him).
Barry
-
David certainly isn't alone in holding Gielen's Mahler in high esteem.
That Gielen is an estimable conductor goes without saying. I rank among his fans. His tenth is a first choice to me. But as you said yesterday it is almost an impossible task to find a Mahler cycle successful in all the symphonies –in fact I have not found it yet. For that reason I have always found David’s ratings on Gielen very surprising. The orchestra is not first rank, the sonic does not resist comparison with his competitors and Gielen's approach does not always work so well to reach this flying colours.
Since then, we've had the MTT/SFSO M2, which ain't bad (even though I'm not huge fan of the MTT cycle), as well the excellent (in my opinion) Ivan Fischer one. I think the dvd of Boulez's M2 is far better than his DG studio recording of it.
Amazing :D I just agree with everything. Extraordinary MTT2 in a cycle not always successful; exciting Fischer 2 (against the opinion of a dear mahlerian friend of mine), and as well agreement regarding both Boulez M2.
I've been very upfront about this: for a complete cycle that's conducted by just one person, the Gary Bertini one reins supreme for me.
End of the agreement >:( Err, I also adore Gary Bertini. In twice unforgettable occasions I enjoyed his Mahler live (Seventh and Fifth) and I know well his cycle with the WDR and also the Tokyo Metropolitan recordings. As a whole I would not give these higher ratings in all the symphonies. In fact I find Gielen more consistent than Bertini.
I think of Zinman as the modern day equivalent of Kubelik
I would say they are worlds apart. I dare to say that Zinman' Mahler is absolutely different to any other conductor's Mahler.
-
A few points re: Gielen--
Barry makes a sensible observation when he says that you need to look at reviews in context--that is, in terms of what was available at the time. Since those recordings have come out, and the Mahler explosion (glut?) has continued, there have been individual performances that may be better in certain respects, but Gielen's work certainly stands on a high enough plateau that I see no need to revise my view. As Barry also knows, I am a big fan of Bertini's.
Second, as usual when one is speaking in gross generalities, psanguin misses the nuances in my view of Gielen's cycle. For example, his Fourth is a good performance, but the recording got a "9" rating, as I make perfectly clear in the actual review, because of the sensational performance of the coupling--Schreker's Prelude to a Drama. To say that Gielen's orchestra is not "world class" or the sound isn't to psanguin's taste strikes me as begging the question. As a rule, I never worry much about sound ratings because this is even more impressionistic that opinions about performances. Everyone hears music on different equipment, in a different acoustic environment, and a recording that sounds fabulous in one room may sound dreadful on headphones, or on cheaper (or more expensive) systems. So why quibble about it? Beyond very general issues of balance and naturalness (such as I point out concerning the lopsides basses in Zinman's Mahler 5), the whole issue strikes me as nonsense. If anyone here has participated in an audiophile chatroom, you will know that they make our discussions of performance issues look like perfect examples of the scientific method!
As to the orchestra--again, a generic criticism of no real value. Gielen obtains world-class results IN MAHLER. You will not hear any significant lapses in ensemble, any embarrassing slips, or other mishaps such as mar cycles with orchestras that are theoretically "world class", such as Karajan's Berlin Philharmonic, Bernstein's New York Philharmonic, Solti's Chicago Symphony, Sinopoli's Philharmonia, etc. From a purely technical point of view, Gielen's work is more consistent than any of them (as is Bertini's). These German radio orchestras, as I never tire of pointing out, are often superb, and terribly under-rated. But beyond that, there's a question of idiomatic style, and this is where I think Gielen has few peers aside from Bernstein. He understands Mahler's sense of color, his desire to make rough or ugly sounds, and his willingness to give him what is actually written in the score, better than just about anyone else. One example: listen to the downward clarinet glissando/portamento at the beginning of the scherzo of the Seventh. It's just as written, but you won't hear it to the same degree in any other performance. This is what makes Gielen special.
Finally, my relationship to the Gielen cycle was a interesting. Originally, I was asked to contribute notes to the cycle (for free, by the way, because I wanted to review the recordings so I couldn't take money). I did, and those notes formed the basis of my book on the Mahler symphonies. Gielen HATED the notes so much he decided to write the rest of them himself, with typically incoherent and demented results. He objected to the fact that I "only" talked about the actual music, but neglected the wider philosophical and aesthetic context. So I didn't feel at all bad reviewing the discs and praising them knowing that he detested my work in the first place. Perhaps he hated the reviews too, because they were too kind!
Dave H
-
Finally, my relationship to the Gielen cycle was a interesting. Originally, I was asked to contribute notes to the cycle (for free, by the way, because I wanted to review the recordings so I couldn't take money). I did, and those notes formed the basis of my book on the Mahler symphonies. Gielen HATED the notes so much he decided to write the rest of them himself, with typically incoherent and demented results. He objected to the fact that I "only" talked about the actual music, but neglected the wider philosophical and aesthetic context. So I didn't feel at all bad reviewing the discs and praising them knowing that he detested my work in the first place. Perhaps he hated the reviews too, because they were too kind!
Dave H
Now that story is hysterical! The main reason that I keep both the boxed set and the individual commercial releases is because I love your booklet notes in some of the symphonies (IIRC M2 and M7 come to mind). Rarely do I find other booklet notes as useful (the first Kaplan M2 is also one of the best in terms of booklet notes; oh yeah and the Waart cycle too). The pairings of modern music have yet to do anything for me and are certainly not part of the reason that I keep the individual recordings. Conversely, the pairings in some of Chailly's individual releases is what makes me keep both those and the boxed set.
-
"End of the agreement Angry Err, I also adore Gary Bertini. In twice unforgettable occasions I enjoyed his Mahler live (Seventh and Fifth) and I know well his cycle with the WDR and also the Tokyo Metropolitan recordings. As a whole I would not give these higher ratings in all the symphonies. In fact I find Gielen more consistent than Bertini."
Fair enough. I would still prefer to pick and choose different performances from different sources. I just happen to find the Bertini Toshiba/EMI recordings to be remarkably consistent. I think that his 2nd and 5th fall just a tad flat, but I truly like the double set of bells that Bertini employs at the end of the "Resurrection": one set of bells - on stage - playing the part as written, and another set of bells playing ad lib. behind them (they sound either offstage or dubbed-in, to me). I love his 8th; it's still my favorite of anybody's.
As for Zinman sounding nothing like Kubelik, fair enough again! My point was more that both conductors come across, to me, as sounding "very musical" - putting musical priorities above those of theatrics or point-making. Zinman just happens to be a conductor who I admire across a very wide range of repertoire, and I feel the same way about Kubelik.
-
David wrote:
"He (Gielen) understands Mahler's sense of color, his desire to make rough or ugly sounds, and his willingness to give him what is actually written in the score, better than just about anyone else. One example: listen to the downward clarinet glissando/portamento at the beginning of the scherzo of the Seventh. It's just as written, but you won't hear it to the same degree in any other performance".
Folks, while I'm not always THAT crazy about Gielen's Mahler - mostly because of tempo relationships, I suppose - this is THE aspect of Gielen's Mahler that I do admire; a willingness to sound rough and tumble when the music asks for such a treatment. I believe that this treatment is fully inline not only with what Mahler put down on the page, but with his somewhat cantankerous personality as well. And, if you admire Gielen's willingness to sound this way, then it follows that you're not always going to be thrilled with Abbado's - and other folks! (let's not pin it all on Abbado) - attempts to constantly purify, beautify, and make more "chamber-like", Mahler's special brand of polyphony and counterpoint. I do often times like Abbado for tempo relationships though.
I hope I've expressed my thoughts somewhat clearly. Probably not.
-
Everyone hears music on different equipment, in a different acoustic environment, and a recording that sounds fabulous in one room may sound dreadful on headphones, or on cheaper (or more expensive) systems.
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.
As to the orchestra--again, a generic criticism of no real value. Gielen obtains world-class results IN MAHLER. You will not hear any significant lapses in ensemble, any embarrassing slips, or other mishaps such as mar cycles with orchestras that are theoretically "world class", such as Karajan's Berlin Philharmonic, Bernstein's New York Philharmonic, Solti's Chicago Symphony, Sinopoli's Philharmonia, etc.
To my ears in Gielen the orchestral contribution sounds more dutiful than inspired. To be not so generic: the Langsam of Mahler’s Third is a palpable example of the orchestra weakness. Ending of the Andante amoroso in the Seventh; compare it to Maazel / Wiener Philharmoniker.
But most importantly all of the conductors you cite are much more demanding for their musicians than the anticlimactic readings of Gielen.
Finally, my relationship to the Gielen cycle was a interesting. … Perhaps he hated the reviews too, because they were too kind!
:o Nice account; sure he was happy with the ratings. Hopefully in February I will attend to his Knaben Wunderhorn near of my town. I’ll take with me his box and Dave’s book and will ask him –innocently- about it.
I criticize Gielen but I find his approach thought-provoking. I rate very high his 1st, 7th and 10th, and individual movements as the vertiginous Scherzo of the Fifth, his restrained Second movement of this same symphony (quite close to Zinman’s!) the first movement of the Third with his ironic final march, etc.
I love his 8th; it's still my favorite of anybody's.
I know this well Barry as you have told about that many times. I am afraid I don't share your entusiasm. In the 8th –btw my most beloved Symphony- Bertini came as a disappointment, mainly due to the solists: listen to the tenor barking in the Höchste Herrscherin. Isn’t it? In addition Bertini resorts to some rather crude adjustments of tempo. Also disappointing the caotic Gloria and the languid orchestral introduction of the second part.
I find the Adagio of the Ninth the greatest realization of bertini both in his EMI and Fontek recordings.
As for Zinman sounding nothing like Kubelik, fair enough again! My point was more that both conductors come across, to me, as sounding "very musical" - putting musical priorities above those of theatrics or point-making. Zinman just happens to be a conductor who I admire across a very wide range of repertoire, and I feel the same way about Kubelik.
Now I see what you mean and I agree absolutely.
-
"I know this well Barry as you have told about that many times. I am afraid I don't share your entusiasm. In the 8th –btw my most beloved Symphony- Bertini came as a disappointment, mainly due to the solists: listen to the tenor barking in the Höchste Herrscherin. Isn’t it? In addition Bertini resorts to some rather crude adjustments of tempo. Also disappointing the caotic Gloria and the languid orchestral introduction of the second part."
Everybody is excessively languid with the opening of Part II. I do wish they would ALL speed it up a bit. In fact, I seriously would like to see a cut made somewhere it there. Yes, the tenor isn't the best by any means; but certainly no worse than any number of other ones in M8. Richard Leech was fabulous on the Maazel/VPO M8 (too slow overall, though; not enough organ either). Ben Heppner was better on his first recording of it for Colin Davis, than the one he did with Chailly. Johann Botha is pretty good on the Boulez. But for me, those are just, "smelling the flowers along the way" issues. For me, the crux of the entire piece is the very ending, and I've never heard a better one than the Bertini. I love how he plows right through the 3 Penitant Women section - often times dragged out waaaay slowly - and then takes the ending of the symphony at an unbelievably slow speed. I love it. Sorry, I just do. It makes no sense to me to schlag your way through 80 minutes of a huge symphony, only to rush the very best part: the ending. Too many conductors do just that.
If Boulez had had more organ in his recording, along with bigger tam-tam smashes at the end, I would have liked his all the more.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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
-
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.
-
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 >:(
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
:o :o :o 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 :o
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.
-
I am truly sorry to hear of your baby's illness, and hope that everything is OK now.
With all due respect, I think you have basically proven my point. I never said that the SWR orchestra was as good as, say, the Concertgeobouw--but they don't have to be. They are capable, as you yourself admit, of turing in an excellent PERFORMANCE, this being a combination of playing and interpretation. Obviously not every moment is perfect, but then, not every moment in Chailly's is perfect either. If you want to pick any performance apart bar by bar you can make similar criticisms of any performance. My only point is that there are no obvious technical errors, no stylistic or idiomatic shortcomings, and the playing is GENERALLY of very high quality. You are bothered by the tone of the brass at that particular moment in the finale--I am not. But then, this is your favorite Mahler movement and you have very specific preferences in this regard--but that is all they are: preferences--and not measures of quality. Incidentally, I like Chailly's Mahler 3 very much.
Dave H
-
I am truly sorry to hear of your baby's illness, and hope that everything is OK now.
Thanks a lot for your best wishes David. Martín has gotten over it and now he is happily helping me to compare Soltí’s Fifths :)
(http://i43.servimg.com/u/f43/12/13/35/40/119.jpg)
They are capable, as you yourself admit, of turing in an excellent PERFORMANCE, this being a combination of playing and interpretation.
Summarizing my viewpoint: an ideal performance would be Royal Concertgebouw conducted by Gielen ;-)