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
