Mahler #6
Raymond Hall
Not only is it the most tragic, even heralding the later tragedies that were
to befall Mahler, but it is the one symphony, like another 6th
(Tchaikovsky), that ends in utter defeat. Cathartic maybe, but it pulls no
punches. It also contains the most glorious slow movement ever written, and
some of Mahler's very best music. To these ears.
Last night I listened to 2 more versions of this work, (and I am not really
a duplicator as such, except when it comes to Haydn and Mahler's 6th).
The two versions I listened to last night, were Karajan's BPO Mahler 6th
(1977/8), and Barbirolli's EMI studio New Philharmonia account of about ten
years earlier.
I listened to HvK's version first, the one with the rainbow on the front
cover. From a slightly tentative and lightweight beginning, the first
movement gains in momentum, and weight. The slow movement is simply
glorious, and crowned by a superb finale. There is a sweep here that is just
unforgettable, despite DG's rather boomy-ish sound (not disastrous by a long
chalk), and a flow, that simply disarms any real criticism. The final bars,
as the trombones set the tone for the complete demise, is jawdropping. Btw,
HvK has the order of Scherzo - Andante on the CD, favoured by many
conductors, but not by Mahler himself, or Janson's/Live LSO version either.
Coming to Barbirolli immediately afterwards, was, in retrospect a mistake I
feel. He feels more deliberate in the first movement, and slower, but in
actually fact, Herbie takes a tad longer as far as timing goes. Barbirolli's
recording is far more analytical, and clear, free from the slight boominess
of the DG recording, although I am not sure I really wanted to adjust so
soon after HvK's rendition. And I am sure I heard some groaning from Sir
John as well. Perhaps another night. As far as middle movement order is
concerned, Barbirolli's CD version is Andante - Scherzo, and swapped from
the way it was on LP. In addition, Barbirolli also followed Mahler's wishes,
in that in live performances he played the Andante first.
But Karajan's M6 is quite stunning. It really impacts, as any Mahler 6th
should, and a notch in Herbie the K's belt.
Anyone agree? Or disagree?
Ray H
Taree
david...@aol.com
I love the 6th myself and especially the two inner movements, but I've
never heard either of the recordings you just listened to. I actually
have a preference for placement of the scherzo after the first
movement. The scherzo stands in the same relationship to the first
movement as the scherzo of the Hammerklavier to the first movement of
the Hammerklavier: both scherzos are parodies of their first movements.
I'm not sure what my favorite 6th is or what my favorite performance of
the Andante is but one of the most remarkable performances of the
scherzo I've ever heard is a live 1973 London performance with Boulez
and the BBC SO that circulated on several labels. Boulez is really in
his element here, relishing the elastic control of tempo he's been
given in the context of changing meters. His command of the constant
gradual shifts of tempo required by this movement is truly amazing.
This is a virtuoso display of conductorial control.
-david gable
Bob Lombard
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136612572.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I posted in this thread once already, but my post seems to have
> disappeared in a Google hiccough.
>
> -david gable
>
"hiccough"? David, I believe that spelling has placed you irrevocably in
the Intellectual Elite category. Congratulations, if such is indicated.
bl
Matthew Silverstein
> I love the 6th myself and especially the two inner movements, but I've
> never heard either of the recordings you just listened to. I actually
> have a preference for placement of the scherzo after the first
> movement. The scherzo stands in the same relationship to the first
> movement as the scherzo of the Hammerklavier to the first movement of
> the Hammerklavier: both scherzos are parodies of their first movements.
I also prefer the Scherzo before the Andante, but mainly because I think
the finale is more powerful (and more tragic) if it directly follows the
lovely slow movement.
If I had to pick one recording of Mahler 6 to keep right now, I would
probably choose Bernstein (DG).
Matty
Sol L. Siegel
> The two versions I listened to last night, were Karajan's BPO Mahler 6th
> (1977/8), and Barbirolli's EMI studio New Philharmonia account of about ten
> Coming to Barbirolli immediately afterwards, was, in retrospect a mistake I
> feel. He feels more deliberate in the first movement, and slower, but in
> actually fact, Herbie takes a tad longer as far as timing goes. Barbirolli's
> recording is far more analytical, and clear, free from the slight boominess
> of the DG recording, although I am not sure I really wanted to adjust so
> soon after HvK's rendition. And I am sure I heard some groaning from Sir
> John as well. Perhaps another night. As far as middle movement order is
> concerned, Barbirolli's CD version is Andante - Scherzo, and swapped from
> the way it was on LP. In addition, Barbirolli also followed Mahler's wishes,
> in that in live performances he played the Andante first.
>
> But Karajan's M6 is quite stunning. It really impacts, as any Mahler 6th
> should, and a notch in Herbie the K's belt.
>
> Anyone agree? Or disagree?
I have HvK, which I like a great deal, though I haven't heard it in some
time. Barbirolli drives me crazy with his slow march and the missing
repeat, but those opening chords always go directly into my central
nervous system.
Another version I wouldn't be without: Nanut/Ljubljana. Seriously.
- Sol L. Siegel
Philadelphia, PA USA
"My reputation has nothing to do with me." - Terry Gilliam
Paul Goldstein
says...
>I also prefer the Scherzo before the Andante, but mainly because I think
>the finale is more powerful (and more tragic) if it directly follows the
>lovely slow movement.
>
>If I had to pick one recording of Mahler 6 to keep right now, I would
>probably choose Bernstein (DG).
Agree on both points. Other top 6ths are by Mitropoulos (Great Conductor
twofer) and Inoue. I find the Barbirolli nearly unlistenable, though not as bad
as his studio 5th.
Bob Harper
> If I have a weakness amongst all of Mahler's symphonies it is for the 6th.
> Not only is it the most tragic, even heralding the later tragedies that were
> to befall Mahler, but it is the one symphony, like another 6th
> (Tchaikovsky), that ends in utter defeat. Cathartic maybe, but it pulls no
> punches. It also contains the most glorious slow movement ever written, and
> some of Mahler's very best music. To these ears.
>
> Last night I listened to 2 more versions of this work, (and I am not really
> a duplicator as such, except when it comes to Haydn and Mahler's 6th).
>
> The two versions I listened to last night, were Karajan's BPO Mahler 6th
> (1977/8), and Barbirolli's EMI studio New Philharmonia account of about ten
> years earlier.
>
> I listened to HvK's version first, the one with the rainbow on the front
> cover. From a slightly tentative and lightweight beginning, the first
> movement gains in momentum, and weight. The slow movement is simply
> glorious, and crowned by a superb finale. There is a sweep here that is just
> unforgettable, despite DG's rather boomy-ish sound (not disastrous by a long
> chalk), and a flow, that simply disarms any real criticism. The final bars,
> as the trombones set the tone for the complete demise, is jawdropping. Btw,
> HvK has the order of Scherzo - Andante on the CD, favoured by many
> conductors, but not by Mahler himself, or Janson's/Live LSO version either.
>
> Coming to Barbirolli immediately afterwards, was, in retrospect a mistake I
> feel. He feels more deliberate in the first movement, and slower, but in
> actually fact, Herbie takes a tad longer as far as timing goes.
is considerably slower.
Barbirolli's
> recording is far more analytical, and clear, free from the slight boominess
> of the DG recording, although I am not sure I really wanted to adjust so
> soon after HvK's rendition. And I am sure I heard some groaning from Sir
> John as well. Perhaps another night. As far as middle movement order is
> concerned, Barbirolli's CD version is Andante - Scherzo, and swapped from
> the way it was on LP. In addition, Barbirolli also followed Mahler's wishes,
> in that in live performances he played the Andante first.
scherzo first. (I agree with those posters who prefer that order. I find
Mahler's apparently preferred order simply wrong psychologically.)
>
> But Karajan's M6 is quite stunning. It really impacts, as any Mahler 6th
> should, and a notch in Herbie the K's belt.
>
> Anyone agree? Or disagree?
certainly beautiful, but overall I simply don't find it 'weighty'
enough. His 9th is, IMO, far finer. For the 6th, I like Bernstein/VPO,
Gielen/SWR, and Kubelik/BRSO live on Audite--*very* fast, but driven by
demons.
Bob Harper
>
> Ray H
> Taree
>
>
Phil Edwards
to play them all again to evaluate them. DO try Jansons on LSO Live though
This was once a rank outsider in my Mahler Symphony favourites, but over the
last few years it has climbed the chart & at the moment is the one I play
the most.
My first Mahler 6th was Kubelik & I still think this is fine recording.
Phil.
"Raymond Hall" <rayt...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:erGvf.204940$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Larry Rinkel
news:1136609405.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I agree also about the placement of the scherzo, both for reasons cited by
David and Matty, and as well because I think the slow movement creates a
greater sense of repose if it follows the manic scherzo. Also I'm not sure
it is quite clear-cut that Mahler favored the Andante-Scherzo ordering.
Mahler was uncertain about the ordering during rehearsals for the first
performance, and the critical edition places Scherzo second. Michael
Steinberg summarizes the issues in his book on The Symphony and also argues
for a stronger succession of key relationships if the Scherzo-Andante
sequence is retained.
I have that Boulez 1973 BBC version, on an Enterprise (who?) CD, and must
return to it for another impression. But I'd say M6 seems like a work very
close to Boulez even now. I heard him conduct the LSO in it about five years
ago at Carnegie, with a performance of the Berg 3 Pieces in the first
"half." The finale of the Mahler was positively scorching, one of the most
intense live performances I have ever attended. If an aircheck or pirate
comes your way of that rendition, grab it. I cannot comment on his DG
commercial version.
Otherwise I have only a couple of other M6s: Bernstein Sony, Kubelik, and
Thomas Sanderling. I think all good but haven't returned to any recently. A
Charles Mackerras version that was included with a BBC Music Magazine has
already hit the library donation pile; it struck me as M6 Lite. I usually
avoid Barbirolli on general principles.
Alex Panda
"Larry Rinkel" <L...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
news:bkawf.27$md6...@fe12.lga...
> <david...@aol.com> wrote in message I agree also about the placement of
> because I think the slow movement creates a greater sense of repose if it
> follows the manic scherzo. Also I'm not sure it is quite clear-cut that
> Mahler favored the Andante-Scherzo ordering. Mahler was uncertain about
> the ordering during rehearsals for the first performance, and the critical
> edition places Scherzo second. Michael Steinberg summarizes the issues in
> his book on The Symphony and also argues for a stronger succession of key
> relationships if the Scherzo-Andante sequence is retained.
But research has moved on since then:
http://posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf
The Critical Edition's official position now is that the correct order is
Andante - Scherzo.
Matthew Silverstein
> I agree also about the placement of the scherzo, both for reasons cited
> by David and Matty, and as well because I think the slow movement
> creates a greater sense of repose if it follows the manic scherzo. Also
> I'm not sure it is quite clear-cut that Mahler favored the
> Andante-Scherzo ordering. Mahler was uncertain about the ordering during
> rehearsals for the first performance, and the critical edition places
> Scherzo second. Michael Steinberg summarizes the issues in his book on
> The Symphony and also argues for a stronger succession of key
> relationships if the Scherzo-Andante sequence is retained.
It's about as clear-cut as these sorts of things can be. We discussed this
a few months ago. The Kaplan Foundation had Jerry Bruck do research into
this issue, and Bruck's conclusion is that almost all of the evidence tells
in favor of the Andate-Scherzo order as Mahler's established preference.
(No performances in Mahler's lifetime adopted the Scherzo-Andate ordering.)
Check out the Bruck's paper for a fascinating discussion of the evidence:
http://www.posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf
There's also an article there by Reinhold Kubik (of the International
Gustav Mahler society). He discusses the history of the critical edition
(which has now been changed to have the Andate before the Scherzo).
None of this speaks to the musical issues involved, of course. This is
purely a historical question about what Mahler's intentions were.
Matty
Raymond Hall
> news:1136609405.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I love the 6th myself and especially the two inner movements, but I've
>> never heard either of the recordings you just listened to. I actually
>> have a preference for placement of the scherzo after the first
>> movement. The scherzo stands in the same relationship to the first
>> movement as the scherzo of the Hammerklavier to the first movement of
>> the Hammerklavier: both scherzos are parodies of their first movements.
>>
>> I'm not sure what my favorite 6th is or what my favorite performance of
>> the Andante is but one of the most remarkable performances of the
>> scherzo I've ever heard is a live 1973 London performance with Boulez
>> and the BBC SO that circulated on several labels. Boulez is really in
>> his element here, relishing the elastic control of tempo he's been
>> given in the context of changing meters. His command of the constant
>> gradual shifts of tempo required by this movement is truly amazing.
>> This is a virtuoso display of conductorial control.
>>
>> -david gable
>>
>
> I agree also about the placement of the scherzo, both for reasons cited by
> David and Matty, and as well because I think the slow movement creates a
> greater sense of repose if it follows the manic scherzo. Also I'm not sure
> it is quite clear-cut that Mahler favored the Andante-Scherzo ordering.
You appear to have read David's post wrong, because he seems to say he
prefers the Andante first, as is now the order in the new Critical Edition.
I say this, because what you say above, seems to indicate you prefer the
Andante AFTER the Scherzo. Please clarify.
<g>
Ray H
Taree
Paul Ilechko
How do you get from "I actually have a preference for placement of the
scherzo after the first movement" to an implication that he prefers the
scherzo after the andante ?
Raymond Hall
news:42degiF...@individual.net...
> How do you get from "I actually have a preference for placement of the
> scherzo after the first movement" to an implication that he prefers the
> scherzo after the andante ?
Let us keep things simple. Larry Rinkel has said, in his post, to quote,
"... because I think the slow movement creates a greater sense of repose if
it follows the manic scherzo. Also I'm not sure it is quite clear-cut that
Mahler favored the Andante-Scherzo ordering."
Seems clear enough to me. Clear as crystal. I'd rather Larry clarify, than
someone else attempting to obscurate matters.
What you have above is a quote from David Gable's post, which I am not in
argument with. In fact I am not in argument with anyone. I am merely
querying what Larry has said. In fact my post was a reply to Larry Rinkel.
My question is to Larry Rinkel. So why you should regurgitate something that
DG has said, is quite beyond me.
Ray H
Taree
Matthew Silverstein
> My question is to Larry Rinkel. So why you should regurgitate something
> that DG has said, is quite beyond me.
Because Larry is saying two things: (1) he prefers Scherzo-Andante, just
like David; and (2) the evidence that Mahler preferred Andante-Scherzo is
not clear cut.
Matty
Paul Ilechko
Go back and read what you said.
Michael Schaffer
Karajan's Mahler 6 is indeed an impressive recording of this symphony.
K only came to Mahler late in his career, but when he did, he
apparently did so because he was convinced by the music, not just
because it had become very fashionable. The few works he conducted he
rehearsed extensively with the orchestra.
If you are interested in other recordings of the 6th, since there is
none from the Sydney SO, you will have to settle for lesser ensembles.
The WP may not be good enough for you, but they made recordings of this
work which many like, under Maazel, Bernstein and Boulez. The 6th from
Maazel's generally underrated Mahler cycle is a fine performance but I
find Bernstein and Boulez even better. Not surprisingly, Bernstein's is
one of the most dramatic and emotional recordings out there. Boulez' is
extremely well played and recorded and there is a lot of attention both
to the fine details and the larger picture. Contrary to what many
people think when they hear the name Boulez, it also has a lot ofweight
and drive and dramatic impact.
I only listened to Abbado's recent BP recording only once, but my first
impression was very good. Textures are open and clear and the playing
Abbado draws from the orchestra is astonishing both in its sonic
substance and the many very fine nuances in the music making.
Another favorite of mine is Sinopoli's recording with the PO. His
analytic approach which some have called "deconstructing" brings many
interesting insights into the piece.
Larry Rinkel
David writes: I actually have a preference for placement of the scherzo
after the first
movement.
I wrote: I think the slow movement creates a greater sense of repose if it
follows the manic scherzo.
QED
Raymond Hall
I have finally discovered where I got my knickers in a knot. I had thought,
that on reading your reply, you were in agreement with what is now the order
of the middle movements, (Andante - Scherzo), as is now in the newly revised
Critical Edition, as performed by Mahler himself, as by Jansons, as by
Barbirolli and some others.
However ... on reading your reply again, your statement of "having a
preference for the Scherzo after the first movement", was automatically
construed by myself, as naturally being *after the Andante as well*. Of
course the Scherzo comes *after* the 1st movement, naturellement. So
apologies all round for a brain fart, but the way you worded it, as you must
admit, was a trifle ambiguous.
In addition, your references to the Hammerthump thing, fell on totally deaf
and ignorant ears, as in no way am I now familiar with the thing, and have
no great wish to be either.
But, coming back to the subject of music, I must say, that, whilst many of
us have become adjusted to a middle order of the Mahler 6th as presented on
many of our CDs and LPs, I am inclined to agree with the newly accepted
order, if only because, the balance of the whole work seems better with
Andante-Scherzo order. The final movement is such a gigantic statement, and
the slow movement such a searingly personal one, that I feel some sort of
weird relief is required between them. Albeit, in the form of the Scherzo.
Purely personal opinion of course, and it could change. But at least I now
know where my misunderstanding <cough, cough>, has derived from.
In any case, the HvK really gripped me, whereas the Barbirolli didn't,
regardless of the fact that HvK uses the order (on CD) to that of which you
prefer. Maybe I should get to hear the Boulez one of these days, but I a
fair number of M6's and I suppose at some stage, I will be curious about the
Boulez recording.
Ray H
Taree
david...@aol.com
> I cannot comment on [Boulez's] DG commercial version.
A major disappointment. I was still buying Boulez's DG recordings as a
matter of course when the 6th came out. No more. Unfortunately, the
virtuosity of the orchestra is about all that this smooth, pretty,
lifeless, and artificially lit recording has going for it. I've heard
countless Boulez recordings both live and studio from throughout his
career as well as hearing him conduct the Los Angeles Philharmonic, the
Chicago Symphony, and the Ensemble InterContemporain many times with a
few other ensembles thrown in for good measure. With few exceptions,
Boulez's worst, most enervated, and least typical performances are his
studio recordings for DG. The only thing they faithfully reflect is
the older Boulez's later Karajan-like preoccupation with sonority,
although a more pellucid and lighter weight sonority than Karajan was
after. And that sonority sounds artificial and somewhat creepy as
captured by DG's engineers.
One of these days, I wish Simon Roberts would post his reaction to
hearing two Boulez performances of Mahler's 3rd with the VPO back to
back: the DG recording and a live performance from a day or two
before.
-david gable
jrs...@aol.com
Phil Edwards wrote:
> I have too many (18) Mahler 6th recordings (if that's possible) & would have
> to play them all again to evaluate them. DO try Jansons on LSO Live though
> This was once a rank outsider in my Mahler Symphony favourites, but over the
> last few years it has climbed the chart & at the moment is the one I play
> the most.
> My first Mahler 6th was Kubelik & I still think this is fine recording.
> Phil.
>
Rest assured that 18 is not too many.
Kubelik is excellent on Audite and DG, but definitely try the recent
Herbig recording on Berlin Classics if you haven't yet. I happen to
agree with Ray that the HvK recording is superb. It came out about the
same time as Abbado's first DG recording--the label was on a role in
the 70s, and one would have had a hard time choosing between their
first three Mahler 6s then or now.
I've only encountered a few that I could safely say were not really
worth the time: Haenchen and Flipse, and even Haenchen isn't all that
bad. I suppose the Scherchen, with cuts, is offensive to some, and I
suspect Rogner is bleah and I've basically shunned the Tabakov cycle.
Nanut and Horenstein were not really keepers, because the playing was
below par. Bongartz was a bomb, for sure. Cortese is enthusiastic but
is only for incurable collector. Otherwise, Mahler 6 has been rewarding
territory for people who like multiple recordings of the same work.
--Jeff
Thornhill
david...@aol.com wrote:
> I posted in this thread once already, but my post seems to have
> disappeared in a Google hiccough.
>
> -david gable
Something seems to be up with Google. I have posts that I made
yesterday, which never showed up then, just appearing now.
Vaneyes
Agree about the Scherzo.
Lenny's openings (DG & Sony) are a little fast for me. Barbirolli and
VPO/Boulez (DG) are my M6 faves.
Regards
Vaneyes
david...@aol.com wrote:
> I posted in this thread once already, but my post seems to have
> disappeared in a Google hiccough.
Lotsa problems with Google the last coupla (or more) days.
Regards
Steve LaBonne
makes me laugh, which is NOT a good way to start a hearing of M6. As to
Barbirolli, an insufficiently discussed aspect of his recording is that
the Finale is a structurally disorganized, sloppily played mess. Even
if people like the slow tempo in the opening movement (I don't) I can't
understand how anyone can forgive the frankly amateurish performance of
the finale. The recording I always return to is Bernstein / Sony.
KY_JELLYFISH
have 8 or so versions...). Of these, my absolute favorite would have
to be Solti's recording with the Chicago Symphony. The pacing
throughout is relentless, the andante conveys breathtaking emotion, and
the CSO's execution of the 4th movement is stunning. When I first
heard this recording many years ago, the emotion I felt after the third
hammer blow in the final movement was tantamount to having physically
fallen from a great height. For some reason, the third hammer is often
omitted, which I personally feel is inexcusable.
The only performance that came close was a subscription concert by the
Philadelphia Orchestra under Muti, at the old Academy of Music.
Unfortunately, there are no recordings of this concert available (as
far as I know...)
KY_JELLYFISH
jrs...@aol.com
Phil Edwards wrote:
> I have too many (18) Mahler 6th recordings (if that's possible) & would have
> to play them all again to evaluate them. DO try Jansons on LSO Live though
> This was once a rank outsider in my Mahler Symphony favourites, but over the
> last few years it has climbed the chart & at the moment is the one I play
> the most.
> My first Mahler 6th was Kubelik & I still think this is fine recording.
> Phil.
>
18 is not too many. Let's see, if one had to narrow it down to 18, and
limiting the list to commercial releases....
Kubelik Audite
Sinopoli
Abbado/CSO
Karajan
Rosbaud
Solti
Levine
Bernstein/VPO
Bertini
MTT
Tennstedt/LPO live
Mitropoulos
Szell
Gielen
Boulez/BBC
de Waart
Chailly
Herbig
--Jeff
Larry Rinkel
"Alex Panda" <alex138...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_iewf.85637$D47....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Larry Rinkel" <L...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
> news:bkawf.27$md6...@fe12.lga...
>> <david...@aol.com> wrote in message I agree also about the placement
>> of the scherzo, both for reasons cited by David and Matty, and as well
>> because I think the slow movement creates a greater sense of repose if it
>> follows the manic scherzo. Also I'm not sure it is quite clear-cut that
>> Mahler favored the Andante-Scherzo ordering. Mahler was uncertain about
>> the ordering during rehearsals for the first performance, and the
>> critical edition places Scherzo second. Michael Steinberg summarizes the
>> issues in his book on The Symphony and also argues for a stronger
>> succession of key relationships if the Scherzo-Andante sequence is
>> retained.
>
> But research has moved on since then:
Good thing. Otherwise, how would academics get tenure?
>
> http://posthorn.com/Mahler/Correct_Movement_Order_III.pdf
>
> The Critical Edition's official position now is that the correct order is
> Andante - Scherzo.
>
I obviously was unaware of this article when I wrote, and look forward to
reading it. If indeed the Andante-Scherzo arrangement was Mahler's
intention, then my position would be that that is the order to follow, no
matter what I may be used to or would favor at this point.
Larry Rinkel
"KY_JELLYFISH" <jade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136735609.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> For some reason, the third hammer is often
> omitted, which I personally feel is inexcusable.
Why?
Simon Roberts
david...@aol.com says...
>One of these days, I wish Simon Roberts would post his reaction to
>hearing two Boulez performances of Mahler's 3rd with the VPO back to
>back: the DG recording and a live performance from a day or two
>before.
Voila:
"As for 3, I wouldn't bother getting the DG release (but if you're curious let
me know ...), whose sole advantages are a wider dynamic range (if that's an
advantage) and more accurate playing by the orchestra.
Perhaps surprisingly, aside from dynamic range, the live performance sounds far
superior to these ears qua sheer sound - more immediate and detailed, tonally
more vibrant and colourful. By comparison, the studio recording (which has to
be played back at a much higher volume setting than normal to make any sort of
impact) sounds cool and almost monochrome - e.g., where the bassoon during the
murmurings at the start of i conveys a range of rich, woody sounds, on the DG
recording it sounds smoother and monochromatic, rather like a low clarinet. I
doubt that any of these differences are attributable to Boulez but are rather
attributable to microphone placement etc. (could or even would he change the
tonal qualities of the entire orchestra in such a way?), but either way they
have the effect of making the live performance sound more, well, alive even
though interpretatively they're probably really quite similar (thereby making
comparisons of the performance as such more difficult than might otherwise be
the case). I won't be playing the studio recording again...."
I agree with you re his studio 5 and 6; impossibly bland.
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> The 6th is also my favorite Mahler symphony (probably explains why I
> have 8 or so versions...). Of these, my absolute favorite would have
> to be Solti's recording with the Chicago Symphony. The pacing
> throughout is relentless, the andante conveys breathtaking emotion, and
> the CSO's execution of the 4th movement is stunning.
I love Solti's recording as well.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
> Perhaps surprisingly, aside from dynamic range, the live performance
> sounds far superior to these ears qua sheer sound - more immediate and
> detailed, tonally more vibrant and colourful. [snip]
My favorite moment of the studio recording is the incredible hushed brass
chorale near the end of the finale. Thanks perhaps to Boulez's reasonably
swift tempo, the VPO brass play with what DH rightly calls an "exquisite
legato." It's really quite breathtaking. (I keep the recording only for the
finale.) How does the playing in the live recording compare?
Matty
Peter Greenstein
<jrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136741395.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No, 18+ versions is not too many. But I woud say that's a lot! Now what we
need again from you Jeff is to take one passage and compare all!
Like which one has the loudest cowbell? I need more cowbell!!
BTW, I've liked Haitink's ever since its use in Ken Russell's "Mahler."
peter
Simon Roberts
says...
I can't remember; and because these is among the discs I've been listening in my
office, and because the contents of my office is temporarily in boxes, it will
be a while before I can check.
Simon
david...@aol.com
>I love Solti's recording as well.
Maybe I should give this another listen given the raves it's getting.
-david gable
Steve Molino
news:1136826135.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jeff,
>
> Tell me more about Gielen. Haven't heard everything on your list, but
> I'm rather less enthusiastic about Szell and Solti than you are.
>
Gielen's cycle is by far my favorite. In general, the performances bring a
lot of clarity as well as warmth and remind me at various times of Boulez
and Rosbaud in their "objective" approach. The 6th is a bit different.
It's darker, more deliberate, the pacing a bit slower than average. But it
never sounds sluggish the way Barbirolli or others do. The finale is
absolutely stunning. And the recording quality is absolutely top-notch.
The hammerblows will rock you out of your seat if it is playing loud.
His recent complete 10th (Cooke) is also by far the best I have ever heard.
Richard Schultz
: 18 is not too many. Let's see, if one had to narrow it down to 18, and
: limiting the list to commercial releases....
Several of which could arguably replaced by Abravanel's (fast but interesting)
performance without anyone feeling that they had missed much.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"We cannot see how any of his music can long survive him."
-- From the New York Daily Tribune obituary of Gustav Mahler
Michael Schaffer
Speaking of Haitink, I have his recent live recording of the 6th with
the Orchestre National de France. Although competently done but neither
very exciting nor musically revealing, it is still very interesting to
hear the ONF play Mahler. They now play considerably smoother and
technically much better than 20 or 30 years ago, but still have a very
noticeably French sound. In the meantime, they released a live
recording of the 5th (which I hear is extremely slow), but apart from
that, this is the only more or less recent recording of a Mahler
symphony by a French orchestra that I know of. Apparently the ONF
recorded Mahler 1 with Maazel, but I have never heard or even seen the
recording.
Anyway, the very French sound of the orchestra with its fine silky
strings, luminous woodwinds and slender brass is quite different from
the kind of sound world Mahler's music comes from, and that makes the
recording very interesting to listen to for anyone interested in
orchestral styles. While I said the performance was competent but not
very exciting, it is still very well played with particularly good
contributions from the solo winds, especially the principal horn, and
recorded in more than acceptable sound.
jrs...@aol.com
All seems right by way of a description. I can't add more until my
Mahler CDs emerge from their temporary banishment to sealed storage
boxes.
--Jeff
jrs...@aol.com
Speaking of the French, I have all but the last movement of a simply
marvelous Mahler 6 with Bychkov/OdeParis that was once-upon-a-time
broadcast. "Slender" is not a word one should use for this orchestra
with this conductor, but "luminous" will do. If anyone happens to have
the last movement, I might be able to dig up something for an
interesting trade....
The Mahler 1 with Maazel/ONF sounded very exciting when I heard it on
the radio many years ago (upon its initial release). It is far better
than competent, but then Maazel is one of those conductors who often
gets spectacular playing. Perhaps the Haitink performance was an off
day--I haven't felt much need to hear it. Two Haitink 6s is enough for
me, for now.
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
What was the source of that live recording?
Did you notice the editing slip in the studio recording (in the third
movement)? I was surprised they let that pass and emailed DG. They
checked it and apologized but didn't have an explanation for how this
could have happened.
david...@aol.com
Mr. Schaffer asks Simon:
"Did you notice the editing slip in the studio recording (in the third
movement)? I was surprised they let that pass and emailed DG. They
checked it and apologized but didn't have an explanation for how this
could have happened."
This slip was immediately noted here when the recording was first
released. There was a similar glitch in Boulez's DG recording of
Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms. No reissue minus the glitch in either
case, either, so far as I'm aware.
-david gable
jrs...@aol.com
Richard Schultz wrote:
> In article <1136741395.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, jrs...@aol.com wrote:
>
> : 18 is not too many. Let's see, if one had to narrow it down to 18, and
> : limiting the list to commercial releases....
>
> Several of which could arguably replaced by Abravanel's (fast but interesting)
> performance without anyone feeling that they had missed much.
Is he fast all the way through? Faster than Solti or Bernstein in the
first movement? I haven't disliked any of Abravanel's Mahler yet (I've
only heard 2-4, 8, and 9) but haven't felt compelled to buy the whole
cycle.
--Jeff
Michael Schaffer
The Haitink recording doesn't sound at all "off". Like I said, it shows
the orchestra in good form, it's just not as extrovertly exciting as
some other readings, probably due to Haitink's often a little detached
manner. The 6th did with the BP was not exactly "white hot" either. On
the other hand, I heard several of the live recordings back when they
recorded the symphonies in Berlin (only 1-6 though, IIRC), and I found
most of the performances rather impressive. I think a lot speaks for
his approach. Some interpreters like Solti may be more exciting at
first ear, but he also tramples over a lot of the musical detail while
Haitink is maybe more circumspect. I remember the 5th was both
extremely well prepared and very exciting though.
I agree about Maazel. Most of the concerts I heard with him in Berlin
were great, including a spectacular Tchaikovsky 6 with the visiting
ONF. But then he didn't come back for many years because he was pissed
off when they elected Claudio. I guess he wanted the job for himself.
Since then, I haven't seen him live again.
That Bychkov recording would be interesting to hear. How come the last
movement is missing? Did the cat eat it? I heard the OdP several times
live with Barenboim, but never under Bychkov. But I have his
Rachmaninov 2 on Philips which is also fairly rich in sound, so I can
vaguely imagine what you mean. Under Barenboim, they also sounded "less
French" than either the ONF or OPRF but still somewhat light and
slender. I guess that's because Barenboim played a lot of repertoire
with them which wasn't often played in France before - like Mahler or
Bruckner. They actually had to buy a set of Wagner tubes so that they
could play the last Bruckner symphonies. although I don't think
Barenboim ever conducted much Mahler, but I read somewhere he invited
Kubelik to conduct several of the symphonies, but not all of them
because Kubelik was already sick by that time. I wonder if any
recordings of the concerts that took place exist.
Phil Edwards
<jrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136669145.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Phil Edwards wrote:
> I have too many (18) Mahler 6th recordings (if that's possible) & would
have
> to play them all again to evaluate them. DO try Jansons on LSO Live though
> This was once a rank outsider in my Mahler Symphony favourites, but over
the
> last few years it has climbed the chart & at the moment is the one I play
> the most.
> My first Mahler 6th was Kubelik & I still think this is fine recording.
> Phil.
>
Rest assured that 18 is not too many.
Kubelik is excellent on Audite and DG, but definitely try the recent
Herbig recording on Berlin Classics if you haven't yet. I happen to
agree with Ray that the HvK recording is superb. It came out about the
same time as Abbado's first DG recording--the label was on a role in
the 70s, and one would have had a hard time choosing between their
first three Mahler 6s then or now.
I've only encountered a few that I could safely say were not really
worth the time: Haenchen and Flipse, and even Haenchen isn't all that
bad. I suppose the Scherchen, with cuts, is offensive to some, and I
suspect Rogner is bleah and I've basically shunned the Tabakov cycle.
Nanut and Horenstein were not really keepers, because the playing was
below par. Bongartz was a bomb, for sure. Cortese is enthusiastic but
is only for incurable collector. Otherwise, Mahler 6 has been rewarding
territory for people who like multiple recordings of the same work.
--Jeff
>
> "Raymond Hall" <rayt...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:erGvf.204940$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> If I have a weakness amongst all of Mahler's symphonies it is for the 6th.
> Not only is it the most tragic, even heralding the later tragedies that
were
> to befall Mahler, but it is the one symphony, like another 6th
> (Tchaikovsky), that ends in utter defeat. Cathartic maybe, but it pulls no
> punches. It also contains the most glorious slow movement ever written,
and
> some of Mahler's very best music. To these ears.
>
> Last night I listened to 2 more versions of this work, (and I am not
really
> a duplicator as such, except when it comes to Haydn and Mahler's 6th).
>
> The two versions I listened to last night, were Karajan's BPO Mahler 6th
> (1977/8), and Barbirolli's EMI studio New Philharmonia account of about
ten
> years earlier.
>
> I listened to HvK's version first, the one with the rainbow on the front
> cover. From a slightly tentative and lightweight beginning, the first
> movement gains in momentum, and weight. The slow movement is simply
> glorious, and crowned by a superb finale. There is a sweep here that is
just
> unforgettable, despite DG's rather boomy-ish sound (not disastrous by a
long
> chalk), and a flow, that simply disarms any real criticism. The final
bars,
> as the trombones set the tone for the complete demise, is jawdropping.
Btw,
> HvK has the order of Scherzo - Andante on the CD, favoured by many
> conductors, but not by Mahler himself, or Janson's/Live LSO version
either.
>
> Coming to Barbirolli immediately afterwards, was, in retrospect a mistake
I
> feel. He feels more deliberate in the first movement, and slower, but in
> actually fact, Herbie takes a tad longer as far as timing goes.
Barbirolli's
> recording is far more analytical, and clear, free from the slight
boominess
> of the DG recording, although I am not sure I really wanted to adjust so
> soon after HvK's rendition. And I am sure I heard some groaning from Sir
> John as well. Perhaps another night. As far as middle movement order is
> concerned, Barbirolli's CD version is Andante - Scherzo, and swapped from
> the way it was on LP. In addition, Barbirolli also followed Mahler's
wishes,
> in that in live performances he played the Andante first.
>
> But Karajan's M6 is quite stunning. It really impacts, as any Mahler 6th
> should, and a notch in Herbie the K's belt.
>
> Anyone agree? Or disagree?
>
> Ray H
> Taree
Ah. Forgot about the Tabakov. So make that 19 recordings. Could not resist
another cycle. Have not played it much. Off the shelf comes the 6th then...
Here's my Mahler Symphony discography, still not complete. My next target is
the Solti cycle.
SYMPHONY No.1 IN D MAJOR. ABBADO. BERNSTEIN. BERTINI. CHAILLY. FEDOSEYEV.
HAITINK. INBAL. JANSONS. KLETZKI. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. LEINSDORF. RATTLE
SIMONOV. SINOPOLI. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT. WALTER.
SYMPHONY No.2 IN C MINOR 'RESURRECTION'. ABBADO BERNSTEIN. BERTINI. CHAILLY.
GIELEN. HAITINK. INBAL. JANSONS. KAPLAN. KAPLAN (VPO). KUBELIK. LEINSDORF.
MEHTA. NEUMANN OZAWA. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SVETLANOV. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT. VONK.
WALTER.
SYMPHONY No.3 IN D MINOR. ABBADO. BARBIROLLI. BERNSTEIN. BERTINI. CHAILLY.
HAITINK. HORENSTEIN. INBAL. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. RATTLE. SINOPOLI.
SVETLANOV. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
SYMPHONY No.4 IN G MAJOR. ABBADO. BARBIROLLI. BERNSTEIN. BERTINI. CHAILLY.
HAENCHEN. HAITINK. HORENSTEIN. INBAL. KLETZKI. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. NOSEDA.
D OISTRAKH. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SZELL. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
3RD MOVEMENT (SYMPHONY NO 4). SVETLANOV.
SYMPHONY No.5 IN F SHARP MINOR. ABBADO BARBIROLLI. BARENBOIM. BARSHAI.
BERNSTEIN. CHAILLY. BERTINI. FEDOSEYEV. INBAL. HAITINK. KLETZKI. KONDRASHIN.
KUBELIK. OTAKA. NEUMANN. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SVETLANOV. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
SYMPHONY No.5 IN F SHARP MINOR - ADAGIO. WALTER.
SYMPHONY No.6 IN A MINOR 'TRAGIC'. ABBADO. BARBIROLLI. BERNSTEIN. CHAILLY.
FEDOSEYEV. HAENCHEN. HAITINK. INBAL. JANSONS. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK.
LEINSDORF. MACKERRAS. RATTLE. T SANDERLING. SINOPOLI. SVETLANOV. TABAKOV.
TENNSTEDT.
SYMPHONY No.7 IN E MINOR, 'SONG OF THE NIGHT'. ABBADO ABRAVANEL. BERNSTEIN.
CHAILLY. HAITINK. HAITINK (Proms '03). HALASZ. INBAL. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK.
MASUR. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT. THOMAS. TILSON.
SYMPHONY No.8 IN E FLAT 'SYMPHONY OF A THOUSAND'. ABBADO. BERNSTEIN.
CHAILLY. GIELEN. HAITINK. INBAL. JARVI. KUBELIK. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SOLTI.
TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
SYMPHONY No.9 IN D MAJOR. ABBADO. BERNSTEIN. CHAILLY. HAITINK. INBAL.
JANSONS. KLEMPERER. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. NEUMANN (LGO). NEUMANN (CZPO).
SINOPOLI. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
SYMPHONY No.10 - ADAGIO. HAITINK. BERNSTEIN. INBAL. KUBELIK. TENNSTEDT.
BERTINI. SINOPOLI. ROZHDESTVENSKY. TABAKOV.
SYMPHONY No.10 (WHEELER ed. OLSON). OLSON.
SYMPHONY No.10 (COOKE). CHAILLY. ORMANDY. RATTLE (BSO & BPO). WIGGLESWORTH.
SYMPHONY: DAS LIED VON DER ERDE. BEINUM. BERNSTEIN. BOULEZ. GIULINI.
HORENSTEIN. HAITINK. KLETZKI. SINOPOLI. WALTER (1938).
It would appear that I have no Karajan! I thought I did but they must be
still on my wish list.
Phil.
jrs...@aol.com
Some people use "competent" with a sniff of disdain; others use it as a
back-handed compliment; others simply use it matter of factly. I was
concerned you might be using it in the first two manners, but that is
not the case. I don't mind Haitink's approach, but as I said, two
examples were plenty. I couldn't think of a reason to get the ONF
performance when the live Concertgebouw recording would do. I'd rather
wait for someone else to record Mahler with the ONF.
> I agree about Maazel. Most of the concerts I heard with him in Berlin
> were great, including a spectacular Tchaikovsky 6 with the visiting
> ONF. But then he didn't come back for many years because he was pissed
> off when they elected Claudio. I guess he wanted the job for himself.
> Since then, I haven't seen him live again.
I haven't seen him live since then either. Fortunately others have, or
we'd have to dispatch a St. Bernard. I'm glad Maazel didn't get the
Berlin job, because he gave us some excellent recordings from Munich as
a consolation. They needed him more than Berlin did, anyway.
> That Bychkov recording would be interesting to hear. How come the last
> movement is missing? Did the cat eat it? I heard the OdP several times
> live with Barenboim, but never under Bychkov. But I have his
> Rachmaninov 2 on Philips which is also fairly rich in sound, so I can
> vaguely imagine what you mean. Under Barenboim, they also sounded "less
> French" than either the ONF or OPRF but still somewhat light and
> slender.
No, the guy who sent me the CDs dubbed a "blank" accidentally where the
fourth movement was supposed to go and never replied when I pointed out
the unfortunate error. My cats are not interested in eating CDs, though
one of them has been slapping around an old English horn reed today.
....I don't think
> Barenboim ever conducted much Mahler, ...
Fortunately, Barenboim lately has been making up for lost time with
Mahler. I predict he'll do 6 someday as music director of the Canary
Islands Philharmonic.
--Jeff
Peter Greenstein
"Michael Schaffer" <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136830442....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't know those later recordings/performances at all. I think Haitink's
first recording was pretty exciting, at least in the first movement and it's
the part near the end that was used in the Mahler film. At the end, when
Mahler says, "No, the doctor says I'm fine, I'm going to live forever!" And
the music just blasts you away.
peter
Joe Martin
> <> No, 18+ versions is not too many. But I woud say that's a lot! Now what we
> need again from you Jeff is to take one passage and compare all!
>
> Like which one has the loudest cowbell? I need more cowbell!!
>
loud as to be unintentionally comical, almost drowning out the
orchestra!
And no, 18+ recordings is not too many for this piece--I believe I own
19, and I'd still like to hear Gielen and Chailly. Oh, and as long as
I'm at it: fave versions are probably Bernstein/DG and
Mitropolous/NYPO.
Steve LaBonne
number of M6 myths including the movement order and the number of
hammer blows. For those who haven't seen it I thought it might prove
instructive. http://www.mahlerfest.org/mfXVI/notes_myth_reality.htm
Michael Schaffer
You also don't have the fantastic 9th with CSO/Giulini. A gaping hole
in your collection. Make sure you get the "Originals" edition, earlier
CD editions of this recording had "fluttering noise" in some places,
probably due to a sloppily done transfer from the master tape.
You also don't have any of the Boulez recordings. I think you should
really hear these. A few posters here didn't seem to like them, but a
surprisingly large number of posters do like them (or at least the
6th). But the quality is fairly consistent.
I also think that Maazel's cycle has much more to offer than many
realized. It is available as a complete set, too.
So is Neumann's complete set with the CzechPO.
I don't think either of these two is "essential" but there are a lot of
good things in these set. I at least find them generally more
interesting than Solti.
I really like the recordings of the 3rd and 4th Salonen has made with
the LAPO. The 3rd is still available for $9.98 from Berkshire.
david...@aol.com
I've never heard Maazel live, although I've heard Abbado many times in
every conceivable repertory from Gabrieli to Boulez. Normally, I have
very little use for Maazel, and that includes his CBS (now Sony) Mahler
cycle (what I've heard of it). But I once heard a live broadcast of
Maazel conducting the Adagio from the 10th that knocked my socks off.
It was so unlike any of the studio Mahler from Maazel I've ever heard,
intense, focused, hyper-expressive, his phrasing actively and intensely
shaped: it was just about ideal. I think the orchestra was the
Pittsburgh Symphony. I have no idea when the performance took place,
although I heard it in the late 90's. Made me want to go home and throw
away my Boulez and Kubelik recordings. (I managed to resist the
impulse.)
-david gable
Michael Schaffer
No, I talked to the producer and he said, sorry, we missed that, but
there will be no reissue.
Josep Vilanova
On 9/1/06 20:33, in article
1136838832.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "david...@aol.com"
<david...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've never heard Maazel live, although I've heard Abbado many times in
> every conceivable repertory from Gabrieli to Boulez. Normally, I have
> very little use for Maazel, and that includes his CBS (now Sony) Mahler
> cycle (what I've heard of it). But I once heard a live broadcast of
> Maazel conducting the Adagio from the 10th that knocked my socks off.
> It was so unlike any of the studio Mahler from Maazel I've ever heard,
> intense, focused, hyper-expressive, his phrasing actively and intensely
> shaped: it was just about ideal.
I've heard Maazel live quite a few times. In two of those occasions he was
conducting Mahler. The first time was the 9th and the second was the 3rd.
The 9th was one of the most intense performances I've ever heard (with the
LSO) and the adjectives you used 'intense, focused, hyper-expressive,
actively and intensely shaped phrasing' could also describe that
performance. The performance with the 3rd was disappointing. Maazel seems to
be more irregular than many of the other top rank conductors I've heard, and
be able to give routine performances some days and suddenly be inspired and
engaged on some other days. His conducting technique is always impeccable,
but sometimes you sense that behind that technique there's nothing else than
an empty gesture and sometimes you can sense something completely different.
j
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:lt2dnfLCG87...@comcast.com:
> Like which one has the loudest cowbell? I need more cowbell!!
*cackle*
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Matthew B. Tepper
in news:1136741395.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> 18 is not too many. Let's see, if one had to narrow it down to 18, and
> limiting the list to commercial releases....
>
> Kubelik Audite
> Sinopoli
> Abbado/CSO
> Karajan
> Rosbaud
> Solti
> Levine
> Bernstein/VPO
> Bertini
> MTT
> Tennstedt/LPO live
> Mitropoulos
> Szell
> Gielen
> Boulez/BBC
> de Waart
> Chailly
> Herbig
Gosh, of those I only have Gielen, as well as Horenstein and Mitropoulos in
the New York Philharmonic Mahler broadcasts box.
Matthew B. Tepper
> All seems right by way of a description. I can't add more until my Mahler
> CDs emerge from their temporary banishment to sealed storage boxes.
Yikes, for your sake I hope that's soon. I recently found a box of CDs which
had gone misplaced for 4.5 years.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:dpu2j...@drn.newsguy.com:
> I can't remember; and because these is among the discs I've been
> listening in my office, and because the contents of my office is
> temporarily in boxes, it will be a while before I can check.
Owee! See my remark to Jeff about not being able to get to all of your CDs
because some are in boxes. That is tough!
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:1136839321.721238.185790
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> david...@aol.com wrote:
>> Mr. Schaffer asks Simon:
>>
>> "Did you notice the editing slip in the studio recording (in the third
>> movement)? I was surprised they let that pass and emailed DG. They
>> checked it and apologized but didn't have an explanation for how this
>> could have happened."
>>
>> This slip was immediately noted here when the recording was first
>> released. There was a similar glitch in Boulez's DG recording of
>> Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms. No reissue minus the glitch in either
>> case, either, so far as I'm aware.
>
> No, I talked to the producer and he said, sorry, we missed that, but
> there will be no reissue.
What an industry! No quality control, no urge to give the customers what
they have paid for.
david...@aol.com
>You also don't have any of the Boulez recordings. I think you should really hear these.
But not if you want to hear what Boulez is really capable of in this
repertory. Indeed, I'm flabbergasted that a defender of the great
Mittel Europa performing traditions like Mr. Schaffer, a musician with
old Vienna in his bood, so to speak, can countenance the smooth bland
Mahler under Boulez that DG has issued. I wonder if he's ever heard
Boulez conduct Mahler in person. In all fairness to Mr. Schaffer,
Boulez has performed far more Mahler in London, New York, or Chicago
than in Vienna and Berlin combined. Or it could be that Mr. Schaffer
prefers the serene elder statesman at his most relaxed to the fierce
young firebrand at his most savage.
Unfortunately, the late DG recordings are not remotely like the live
performances they follow, and his live Mahler is vastly superior.
There's an especially stunning live Mahler 8 with Boulez and the BBC SO
and more than one sensational Mahler 2nd, one from London in the early
70's and a 2005 performance from Vienna. But there are live recordings
with Boulez out there of all of the symphonies except the first
(including two terribly disappointing 9ths).
When it comes to the Mahler discography, my principal regret is that
Boulez didn't record the 7th around the time of the New Philharmonia La
mer or BBC SO Berg Three Pieces. The expressionist savagery he could
bring to the Berg in those days would have made for a sensational
Mahler 7.
It's a pity Boulez didn't record more Mahler when he was under contract
to CBS: his late 60's Das Klagende Lied is one of the splendors of the
Mahler discography.
-david gable
Larry Rinkel
"Vaneyes" <van...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1136756468.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> david...@aol.com wrote:
>> I posted in this thread once already, but my post seems to have
>> disappeared in a Google hiccough.
>
> Lotsa problems with Google the last coupla (or more) days.
>
> Regards
>
Lotsa duplicate posts, for one thing.
Larry Rinkel
news:1136836408.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How many would be too many?
jrs...@aol.com
Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> jrs...@aol.com appears to have caused the following letters to be typed
> in news:1136826905....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > All seems right by way of a description. I can't add more until my Mahler
> > CDs emerge from their temporary banishment to sealed storage boxes.
>
> Yikes, for your sake I hope that's soon. I recently found a box of CDs which
> had gone misplaced for 4.5 years.
I shed a tear when they disappeared from view. The next four weeks may
be an unspeakable torture---much worse than eating a hot dog without a
bun, or playing a round of golf without a putter.
--Jeff
jrs...@aol.com
Maybe 80 or so.
--Jeff
Larry Rinkel
<jrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136876491.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What, only 80? somebody has to cash in their IRA and start buying.
Phil Edwards
> Ah. Forgot about the Tabakov. So make that 19 recordings. Could not resist
> another cycle. Have not played it much. Off the shelf comes the 6th
then...
>
> Here's my Mahler Symphony discography, still not complete. My next target
is
> the Solti cycle.
>
SYMPHONY No.1. ABBADO. BERNSTEIN. BERTINI. CHAILLY. FEDOSEYEV. HAITINK.
INBAL. JANSONS. KLETZKI. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. LEINSDORF. RATTLE. SIMONOV.
SINOPOLI. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT. WALTER.
>
SYMPHONY No.2. ABBADO BERNSTEIN. BERTINI. CHAILLY. GIELEN. HAITINK. INBAL.
JANSONS. KAPLAN. KAPLAN (VPO). KUBELIK. LEINSDORF. MEHTA. NEUMANN OZAWA.
RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SVETLANOV. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT. VONK. WALTER.
>
SYMPHONY No.3. ABBADO. BARBIROLLI. BERNSTEIN. BERTINI. CHAILLY. HAITINK.
HORENSTEIN. INBAL. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SVETLANOV.
TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
>
SYMPHONY No.4. ABBADO. BARBIROLLI. BERNSTEIN. BERTINI. CHAILLY. HAENCHEN.
HAITINK. HORENSTEIN. INBAL. KLETZKI. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. NOSEDA. D
OISTRAKH. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SZELL. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
>
3RD MOVEMENT (SYMPHONY NO 4). SVETLANOV.
>
SYMPHONY No.5. ABBADO BARBIROLLI. BARENBOIM. BARSHAI. BERNSTEIN. CHAILLY.
BERTINI. FEDOSEYEV. INBAL. HAITINK. KLETZKI. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. OTAKA.
NEUMANN. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SVETLANOV. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
>
SYMPHONY No.5 - ADAGIO. WALTER.
>
SYMPHONY No.6. ABBADO. BARBIROLLI. BERNSTEIN. CHAILLY. FEDOSEYEV. HAENCHEN.
HAITINK. INBAL. JANSONS. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. LEINSDORF. MACKERRAS. RATTLE.
T SANDERLING. SINOPOLI. SVETLANOV. TABAKOV.TENNSTEDT.
>
SYMPHONY No.7. ABBADO ABRAVANEL. BERNSTEIN. CHAILLY. HAITINK. HAITINK (Proms
'03). HALASZ. INBAL. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. MASUR. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. TABAKOV.
TENNSTEDT. THOMAS. TILSON.
>
SYMPHONY No.8. ABBADO. BERNSTEIN. CHAILLY. GIELEN. HAITINK. INBAL. JARVI.
KUBELIK. RATTLE. SINOPOLI. SOLTI. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
>
SYMPHONY No.9 IN D MAJOR. ABBADO. BERNSTEIN. CHAILLY. HAITINK. INBAL.
JANSONS. KLEMPERER. KONDRASHIN. KUBELIK. NEUMANN (LGO). NEUMANN (CZPO).
SINOPOLI. TABAKOV. TENNSTEDT.
>
SYMPHONY No.10 - ADAGIO. HAITINK. BERNSTEIN. INBAL. KUBELIK.
TENNSTEDT.BERTINI. SINOPOLI. ROZHDESTVENSKY. TABAKOV.
>
SYMPHONY No.10 (WHEELER ed. OLSON). OLSON.
>
SYMPHONY No.10 (COOKE). CHAILLY. ORMANDY. RATTLE (BSO & BPO). WIGGLESWORTH.
>
SYMPHONY: DAS LIED VON DER ERDE. BEINUM. BERNSTEIN. BOULEZ. GIULINI.
HORENSTEIN. HAITINK. KLETZKI. SINOPOLI. WALTER (1938).
>
> It would appear that I have no Karajan! I thought I did but they must be
> still on my wish list.
>
> Phil.
You also don't have the fantastic 9th with CSO/Giulini. A gaping hole
in your collection. Make sure you get the "Originals" edition, earlier
CD editions of this recording had "fluttering noise" in some places,
probably due to a sloppily done transfer from the master tape.
You also don't have any of the Boulez recordings. I think you should
really hear these. A few posters here didn't seem to like them, but a
surprisingly large number of posters do like them (or at least the
6th). But the quality is fairly consistent.
I also think that Maazel's cycle has much more to offer than many
realized. It is available as a complete set, too.
So is Neumann's complete set with the CzechPO.
I don't think either of these two is "essential" but there are a lot of
good things in these set. I at least find them generally more
interesting than Solti.
I really like the recordings of the 3rd and 4th Salonen has made with
the LAPO. The 3rd is still available for $9.98 from Berkshire.
My catalogue is obviously not up to date as I have just found the Boulez 6th
(making 20 recordings I own). I wonder if I have any more lurking somewhere?
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of other recordings. I will
certainly put your recommendations on my wish list
I played the Tabakov 6. Not much to say about it really. Underwhelmed is the
nearest I can get to my reaction to this recording. Not one to take off the
shelf too often. I am sure some experts could be more precise.
Regards, Phil.
jrs...@aol.com
You're right! I just checked the discography and my highly selective
wish list takes me to just under 100. If releases continue at the
present rate for ten more years, we can estimate "enough" to be about
140, unless one is an incurable completist....
--Jeff
Joe Martin
jrs...@aol.com wrote:
>> > What, only 80? somebody has to cash in their IRA and start buying.
>
> You're right! I just checked the discography and my highly selective
> wish list takes me to just under 100. If releases continue at the
> present rate for ten more years, we can estimate "enough" to be about
> 140, unless one is an incurable completist....
>
> --Jeff
But you're only counting official releases! What broadcasts and
bootlegs, matey? You better make that 160 or so. Unless you're really
fanatical or something.
Paul Ilechko
I have two or three versions of each Mahler symphony (except the 8th -
only one of it). I can imagine getting a third or fourth, but beyond
that it's time to start selling off the ones I don't listen to. Don't
have the shelf space for any more than that. In fact, I don't think I
have more than four versions of *anything*.
record...@gmail.com
Not that it's an addiction or anything...
jrs...@aol.com
Oh no, you're right, Joe. Now, the discography I used included many
bootlegs (mahlerrecords.com), but still, what of the mp3s floating
around? And the old broadcast tapes we unearth. Let's make it 200 even
just to be safe but not to encourage unnecessary hoarding or
fanaticism.
--Jeff
Joe Martin
self-discipline! I can confine myself to a mere 2-3 versions of, say,
Strauss' tone poems. But Mahler 6? Never.
jrs...@aol.com
A mere 2-3 of the Strauss tone poems. You are an ascetic. Maybe a mere
2-3 of each Petterson symphony.
--Jeff
Steve Molino
news:1136930817.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Fortunately for your wallet, most Pettersson symphonies offer only 1-2
options!
Lena
> Joe Martin wrote:
> > Two or three versions of each Mahler symphony? What privation. What
> > self-discipline! I can confine myself to a mere 2-3 versions of, say,
> > Strauss' tone poems. But Mahler 6? Never.
>
> A mere 2-3 of the Strauss tone poems. You are an ascetic.
But how many versions of Wagner's Ring will you stuff losslessly into
your iPod? This is what I call a moment of truth in collecting.
(Not the moment of truth, though; just some old moment of truth. :) )
Lena
Paul Ilechko
I see little point in owning more music than I can easily listen to in
the rest of my life. I'm a music lover, not a collector.
jrs...@aol.com
...and apparently 1-2 S's, given the inadequacy of my spelling.
--Jeff
Joe Martin
your iPod? This is what I call a moment of truth in collecting."
Actually, I do draw the line on Ring cycles. No one should own more
than 10-12. Tristans are another story, of course...
alanwa...@aol.com
Larry Rinkel wrote:
> "KY_JELLYFISH" <jade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1136735609.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > For some reason, the third hammer is often
> > omitted, which I personally feel is inexcusable.
>
> Why?
I thought it excused by the composer himself in one of his (many)
revisions? No?
Either way, the hammer is the responsibility of Percussion II along
with the snare drum along with one of the three triangles in Measure
42.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Larry Rinkel
Larry Rinkel
> only one of it). I can imagine getting a third or fourth, but beyond that
> it's time to start selling off the ones I don't listen to. Don't have the
> shelf space for any more than that. In fact, I don't think I have more
> than four versions of *anything*.
Thank you, thank you, Paul. It is truly heartening that at least one other
person in this NG shares my perspective. Sometimes I feel like a voice
crying in the wilderness . . . .
record...@gmail.com
I'm with you guys. But I got there by collecting.
I've had ~1500 CDs, and many, many more LPs, over the course of my
life; now I'm down to ~500 CDs and ~100 LPs. All stuff I listen to,
and in the case of the records, stuff that sounds better on LP, mostly
rock.
I ought to retire this e-mail address, actually.
Larry Rinkel
Agreed. Two or three should suffice. (I lie. I have four.)
Lena
Dear Larry, no use crying there, CD addiction is easier to locate in
populated areas...
(I'd *much* prefer to have at most 3-4 versions of anything, but there
seems to be a rule that says that you can only like 1/20th of what you
hear, the rest is intolerable. Though intolerable with many
interesting details.)
Lena
PS. I'm encountering this iPod space problem now, and it's forcing me
to actually choose. Maybe I will chuck out the remaining 35 versions,
then...
record...@gmail.com
There's something I have no versions of, happily.
david...@aol.com
Meistersinger is another story.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
iPod? What's an iPod?
-david gable
Larry Rinkel
Lear's wicked daughters trying to reason with him to cull his Mahler 6
collection:
GONERIL Hear me, my lord;
What need you five and twenty, ten, or five,
REGAN What need one?
KING LEAR O, reason not the need!
Everything is to be found in Shakespeare.
Larry Rinkel
news:1136940211.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I could easily live without The Ring and Tristan if I had to.
> Meistersinger is another story.
>
> -david gable
>
I could easily live without Tannhäuser and Lohengrin, perhaps even Parsifal.
The Ring, Tristan, and Meistersinger are my other stories. (I even have a
soft spot for Der Fliegende Holländer.)
Paul Ilechko
> Dear Larry, no use crying there, CD addiction is easier to locate in
> populated areas...
>
> (I'd *much* prefer to have at most 3-4 versions of anything, but there
> seems to be a rule that says that you can only like 1/20th of what you
> hear, the rest is intolerable. Though intolerable with many
> interesting details.)
I've sold many times more CDs than I currently own ... I'm continually
looking for new pleasures, and continually culling what has proven to be
sterile. Not that mistakes are not sometimes made ... ;-)
david...@aol.com
>Everything is to be found in Shakespeare. [Larry Rinkel]
Here in Vienna are laws for all our faults. (Measure for Measure)
-david gable
Simon Roberts
>PS. I'm encountering this iPod space problem now, and it's forcing me
>to actually choose. Maybe I will chuck out the remaining 35 versions,
>then...
Don't be silly. Just buy some more ipods.
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:rhWwf.1973$C34...@fe08.lga:
I know of four CD editions of #7, and three of #8 (plus one recording on LP
which has not yet been issued on CD).
Oh, shoot, who am I fooling, I don't merely know of them, I OWN THEM ALL!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Larry Rinkel
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9747C61A22D...@207.217.125.201...
> "Steve Molino" <s_molin...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:rhWwf.1973$C34...@fe08.lga:
>
>><jrs...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1136930817.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Joe Martin wrote:
>>>> Two or three versions of each Mahler symphony? What privation. What
>>>> self-discipline! I can confine myself to a mere 2-3 versions of, say,
>>>> Strauss' tone poems. But Mahler 6? Never.
>>>
>>> A mere 2-3 of the Strauss tone poems. You are an ascetic. Maybe a mere
>>> 2-3 of each Petterson symphony.
>>
>> Fortunately for your wallet, most Pettersson symphonies offer only 1-2
>> options!
>
> I know of four CD editions of #7, and three of #8 (plus one recording on
> LP
> which has not yet been issued on CD).
>
> Oh, shoot, who am I fooling, I don't merely know of them, I OWN THEM ALL!
>
I'm not going to be impressed until you tell me you own 50 or more!
(My own meager Pettersson holdings consist of 5 CDs, with 7 of the
symphonies - but two versions of #7, Segerstam and Dorati. Also have scores
to 6, 7, and 9.)
jrs...@aol.com
Larry Rinkel wrote:
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Pettersson scores count for 50 each!
--Jeff (who thinks he has two 5s, two 8s, and maybe two 7s, but can't
remember how many of the symphonies overall, because they're mingling
with Mahler in some boxes).