D.H. gives 5/8 rating for Zinman/Tonhalle Orch./RCA M5th

[sperlsco]

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? 

[Dave H]

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

[Psanquin]

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!!! 

By the way:

Could anyone call... no one could accuse... when will the critics stop thinking for their readers?

[Dave H]

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

[sperlsco]

"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. 

[Psanquin]

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  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.

[Dave H]

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

[Psanquin]

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:



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.

[Dave H]

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

[barry guerrero]

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.

[Dave H]

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

[Psanquin]

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 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.

[barry guerrero]

"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).

[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 (?).

Yes I do, but timings would be also helpful to everybody. Thanks in advance and of course take all the time you need.

[Dave H]

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