Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mahler 7
597 views
Skip to first unread message
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 3, 2020, 2:55:44 PM1/3/20
to
Mahler, Symphony No. 7
Concertgebouw Orchestra, RIccardo Chailly, 1994
Decca 444 446-2
YES
... even though I am unable to appreciate two entire movements, and the whole piece seems too long to me, so I'm not inclined to call this symphony an obvious, compelling example of an elegant composition in which the proportions are perfect and nothing is redundant and everything fits together nicely.
I have listened to this CD many times, perhaps out of a sense of duty, but it's been five years at least since the last time.
The first movement still sounds too complicated for me. I'll have to keep trying.
The second movement (Nachtmusik I) is more melodic than the first, and therefore much easier to appreciate (or reject). I don't dislike it.
Did Chailly follow Mengelberg's score annotations? I wouldn't be surprised.
I find the third movement (Scherzo) almost as difficult to come to grips with as the first. I suspect Mahler did not intend it to be enjoyed. Fortunately, it's relatively short.
But the fourth movement (Nachtmusik II) seems more fun too listen to, at least for while. It reminds me of the Fourth Symphony. Mengelberg performed this movement separately a number of times.
Unfortunately, it goes on and on.
The finale is exuberant, loud and repetitive bombast, albeit with variations.
Is it pompous, gaudy kitsch? It sure sounds like it, but I don't mind. I sort of like it, although I think it's too long, too.
As regards to orchestra, it sounds impressive. I remember thinking their playing slightly mannered in a few places, but I have changed my mind.
All in all, this recording (but not the piece) gets a YES from me, at least today.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
Twitter: @RPvanGaalen
Concertgebouw Orchestra, RIccardo Chailly, 1994
Decca 444 446-2
YES
... even though I am unable to appreciate two entire movements, and the whole piece seems too long to me, so I'm not inclined to call this symphony an obvious, compelling example of an elegant composition in which the proportions are perfect and nothing is redundant and everything fits together nicely.
I have listened to this CD many times, perhaps out of a sense of duty, but it's been five years at least since the last time.
The first movement still sounds too complicated for me. I'll have to keep trying.
The second movement (Nachtmusik I) is more melodic than the first, and therefore much easier to appreciate (or reject). I don't dislike it.
Did Chailly follow Mengelberg's score annotations? I wouldn't be surprised.
I find the third movement (Scherzo) almost as difficult to come to grips with as the first. I suspect Mahler did not intend it to be enjoyed. Fortunately, it's relatively short.
But the fourth movement (Nachtmusik II) seems more fun too listen to, at least for while. It reminds me of the Fourth Symphony. Mengelberg performed this movement separately a number of times.
Unfortunately, it goes on and on.
The finale is exuberant, loud and repetitive bombast, albeit with variations.
Is it pompous, gaudy kitsch? It sure sounds like it, but I don't mind. I sort of like it, although I think it's too long, too.
As regards to orchestra, it sounds impressive. I remember thinking their playing slightly mannered in a few places, but I have changed my mind.
All in all, this recording (but not the piece) gets a YES from me, at least today.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
Twitter: @RPvanGaalen
Frank Berger
Jan 3, 2020, 3:32:07 PM1/3/20
to
disappoint me, despite excellent reviews. For Mahler 7, I think you are
going to like Kondrashin again. There are two. One with The
Concertgebouw, the other with the Leningrad PO. I don't remember if one
is better than the other. Others I remember favorably, in no particular
order, and for reasons I don't remember, are Maderna, Bertini, Gielen,
Rosbaud and Scherchen. Probable Levine with the CSO, but I don't
actually recall it.
sfr...@nycap.rr.com
Jan 3, 2020, 5:55:33 PM1/3/20
to
MIFrost
sfr...@nycap.rr.com
Jan 3, 2020, 5:58:01 PM1/3/20
to
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 5:55:33 PM UTC-5, sfr...@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>
Barenboim/Staatskapelle
Make that Staatskapelle Berlin.
MIFrost
>
Barenboim/Staatskapelle
Make that Staatskapelle Berlin.
MIFrost
msw design
Jan 3, 2020, 7:06:16 PM1/3/20
to
Precious Roy
Jan 3, 2020, 8:19:10 PM1/3/20
to
As between Kondrashin’s two recordings, the sound on the Concertgebouw one is better, which would make the choice easy for me.
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 4, 2020, 9:30:44 AM1/4/20
to
Mahler, Symphony No. 7
Concertgebouw Orchestra, Eduard van Beinum, live, 1958
Gustav Mahler Stichting Nederland CD: GMSN-001
YES!
1. To my ears, the orchestra sounds totally different from Chailly's polished, virtuoso Decca recording.
This is very, very much like the pre-war Mahler recordings of Concertgebouw Orchestra, especially the Fourth Symphony and Das Lied von der Erde (both from 1939).
I am sure I am not imagining this.
The interpretation is in my opinion also very different from Chailly's. It's clearly something you would expect from Mengelberg, with lots of rubato and the like.
Chailly's recording is exciting, but almost boring in comparison, as if an entire dimension is missing.
Here everything is lively, more like a conversation with individual characters, as it were, and the various sections of orchestra, though undoubtedly well rehearsed, somehow sound relaxed, as if not afraid to express themselves and doing so effortlessly and playfully.
Such voices were previously heard in Mengelberg's recording of Mahler 4: in 1958 quite a few were still the same as in the 1930s, although they had grown older of course.
2. This recording also doesn't sound like Haitink's Mahler, either.
Not at all.
3. Had it been labeled as a rediscovered lost Mengelberg recording from the late 1930s or so, I would have believed it.
This is not the sort of sanitized Mahler interpretion you might perhaps expect from Van Beinum.
On the contrary: if this is Mengelberg's Mahler, I think it's more likely that Van Beinum perfected it.
4. According to the liner notes (2011), "this recording, which was considered lost, turned out to be saved and in reasonably good condition, because Eduard van Beinum made no studio recording of this symphony".
The liner notes give no information about the Mahler tradition of the orchestra and Van Beinum's interpretation.
By the way, I think the sound is pretty good by historical mono standards.
5. The Concertgebouw Orchestra had performed this symphony with Mengelberg in the following years:
(information combined from various books):
1909: 3 concerts, with Mahler conducting
1910-1934: 22 concerts, with Mengelberg conducting
plus roughly 10 times just one or two "Nachtmusik" movements, all before 1932, with Mengelberg conducting.
Therefore, by 1958, they had not performed this piece in 24 years.
That does not imply, however, that Van Beinum started from scratch with this symphony: many orchestra members served for decades; Mengelberg wrote notes in his scores; and I remember reading somewhere that the section leaders had always been drilled by him and in turn always drilled their subordinates. Moreover, Van Beinum himself may have been influenced by Mengelberg.
6. I would like to know if Van Beinum used Mengelberg's scores and notes. In 1910, Mengelberg had already thoroughly rehearsed this piece for a week before Mahler arrived. According to Diepenbrock, almost all members of the orchestra strongly disliked it, but Mahler was happy. (I read this in a book.)
I suppose Mengelberg took copious notes and that all this work must have been the basis of all his subsequent peformances. By 1934, the Concertgebouw Orchestra must have known exactly what they were doing.
If the orchestra still loathed Mahler's 7th in 1958, they managed to hide it very well.
7. This stunning recording, which I give the highest recommendation, is a joy to listen to from beginning to end.
Concertgebouw Orchestra, Eduard van Beinum, live, 1958
Gustav Mahler Stichting Nederland CD: GMSN-001
YES!
1. To my ears, the orchestra sounds totally different from Chailly's polished, virtuoso Decca recording.
This is very, very much like the pre-war Mahler recordings of Concertgebouw Orchestra, especially the Fourth Symphony and Das Lied von der Erde (both from 1939).
I am sure I am not imagining this.
The interpretation is in my opinion also very different from Chailly's. It's clearly something you would expect from Mengelberg, with lots of rubato and the like.
Chailly's recording is exciting, but almost boring in comparison, as if an entire dimension is missing.
Here everything is lively, more like a conversation with individual characters, as it were, and the various sections of orchestra, though undoubtedly well rehearsed, somehow sound relaxed, as if not afraid to express themselves and doing so effortlessly and playfully.
Such voices were previously heard in Mengelberg's recording of Mahler 4: in 1958 quite a few were still the same as in the 1930s, although they had grown older of course.
2. This recording also doesn't sound like Haitink's Mahler, either.
Not at all.
3. Had it been labeled as a rediscovered lost Mengelberg recording from the late 1930s or so, I would have believed it.
This is not the sort of sanitized Mahler interpretion you might perhaps expect from Van Beinum.
On the contrary: if this is Mengelberg's Mahler, I think it's more likely that Van Beinum perfected it.
4. According to the liner notes (2011), "this recording, which was considered lost, turned out to be saved and in reasonably good condition, because Eduard van Beinum made no studio recording of this symphony".
The liner notes give no information about the Mahler tradition of the orchestra and Van Beinum's interpretation.
By the way, I think the sound is pretty good by historical mono standards.
5. The Concertgebouw Orchestra had performed this symphony with Mengelberg in the following years:
(information combined from various books):
1909: 3 concerts, with Mahler conducting
1910-1934: 22 concerts, with Mengelberg conducting
plus roughly 10 times just one or two "Nachtmusik" movements, all before 1932, with Mengelberg conducting.
Therefore, by 1958, they had not performed this piece in 24 years.
That does not imply, however, that Van Beinum started from scratch with this symphony: many orchestra members served for decades; Mengelberg wrote notes in his scores; and I remember reading somewhere that the section leaders had always been drilled by him and in turn always drilled their subordinates. Moreover, Van Beinum himself may have been influenced by Mengelberg.
6. I would like to know if Van Beinum used Mengelberg's scores and notes. In 1910, Mengelberg had already thoroughly rehearsed this piece for a week before Mahler arrived. According to Diepenbrock, almost all members of the orchestra strongly disliked it, but Mahler was happy. (I read this in a book.)
I suppose Mengelberg took copious notes and that all this work must have been the basis of all his subsequent peformances. By 1934, the Concertgebouw Orchestra must have known exactly what they were doing.
If the orchestra still loathed Mahler's 7th in 1958, they managed to hide it very well.
7. This stunning recording, which I give the highest recommendation, is a joy to listen to from beginning to end.
Message has been deleted
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 4, 2020, 10:19:42 AM1/4/20
to
On 15 February, 2012, I wrote about
> Mahler, Symphony No. 7
> Concertgebouw Orchestra, Eduard van Beinum, live, 1958
> Gustav Mahler Stichting Nederland CD: GMSN-001
after listening to it twice:
> It's far from boring, but not that special either.
I have changed my mind. Now I think it's very special.
> The sound of this mono recording varies between mediocre and fair.
> It's certainly not good by 1958 standards, even for live recordings.
Now I emphasize the positive: the sound is OK by historical mono standards.
> I can't read scores, but I hear nothing particularly unusual, except perhaps somewhat more
> string portamento than in the other recordings I know.
This time I heard more rubato, too, and something very similar to the pre-war Concertgebouw Orchestra sound. Moreover, this time I am struck by the resemblance to their Mahler recordings of 1939.
> It is of course tempting to believe that this 1958 performance reflects the Concertgebouw
> Orchestra's pre-war Mahler tradition. Maybe they used Mengelberg's notes, but don't forget
> that this orchestra had not performed this symphony since 1934/35.
True, but now I suspect that the tradition had been drilled into the orchestra and may have survived intact to 1958 (at least), even though they hadn't performed this piece for 24 years.
> ... I am not inclined to recommend it to anyone else ...
I have changed my mind.
In 2012 I listened twice, and was not very impressed. That, combined with the fact that Mahler 7 was never one of my favorite pieces, must be why I did not rediscover this CD until now.
> Mahler, Symphony No. 7
> Concertgebouw Orchestra, Eduard van Beinum, live, 1958
> Gustav Mahler Stichting Nederland CD: GMSN-001
> It's far from boring, but not that special either.
I have changed my mind. Now I think it's very special.
> The sound of this mono recording varies between mediocre and fair.
> It's certainly not good by 1958 standards, even for live recordings.
Now I emphasize the positive: the sound is OK by historical mono standards.
> I can't read scores, but I hear nothing particularly unusual, except perhaps somewhat more
> string portamento than in the other recordings I know.
This time I heard more rubato, too, and something very similar to the pre-war Concertgebouw Orchestra sound. Moreover, this time I am struck by the resemblance to their Mahler recordings of 1939.
> It is of course tempting to believe that this 1958 performance reflects the Concertgebouw
> Orchestra's pre-war Mahler tradition. Maybe they used Mengelberg's notes, but don't forget
> that this orchestra had not performed this symphony since 1934/35.
True, but now I suspect that the tradition had been drilled into the orchestra and may have survived intact to 1958 (at least), even though they hadn't performed this piece for 24 years.
> ... I am not inclined to recommend it to anyone else ...
I have changed my mind.
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 4, 2020, 11:18:36 AM1/4/20
to
In this wonderful, glowing review dated April 2012
https://www.opusklassiek.nl/cd-recensies/cd-mb/mbmahler19.htm
musicologist Maarten Brandt writes that, prior to 1958, the Concertgebouw Orchestra had performed Mahler's 7th symphony on only three occasions: in 1909, in 1920 and in 1934.
That is incorrect, in view of tables in
(1) _Willem Mengelberg Gedenkboek 1895-1920_, Martinus Nijhoff, 1920 p. 276.
(2) Frits Zwart, _Willem Mengelberg - Een biografie 1920-1951, Prometheus, 2016, p. 575-580.
(3) _Mahler in Amsterdam - van Mengelberg tot Chailly_, THOTH, 1995, p. 126.
I count 25 complete concerts (excluding some 10 incomplete concerts with one or two 'Nachtmusik' movements), all conducted by Mengelberg, except the first three, which were conducted by Mahler (after a week of rehearsals under Mengelberg).
Those concerts took place in 1909, 1910, 1916, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1930, and 1934.
https://www.opusklassiek.nl/cd-recensies/cd-mb/mbmahler19.htm
musicologist Maarten Brandt writes that, prior to 1958, the Concertgebouw Orchestra had performed Mahler's 7th symphony on only three occasions: in 1909, in 1920 and in 1934.
That is incorrect, in view of tables in
(1) _Willem Mengelberg Gedenkboek 1895-1920_, Martinus Nijhoff, 1920 p. 276.
(2) Frits Zwart, _Willem Mengelberg - Een biografie 1920-1951, Prometheus, 2016, p. 575-580.
(3) _Mahler in Amsterdam - van Mengelberg tot Chailly_, THOTH, 1995, p. 126.
I count 25 complete concerts (excluding some 10 incomplete concerts with one or two 'Nachtmusik' movements), all conducted by Mengelberg, except the first three, which were conducted by Mahler (after a week of rehearsals under Mengelberg).
Those concerts took place in 1909, 1910, 1916, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1930, and 1934.
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 4, 2020, 4:22:04 PM1/4/20
to
Mahler, Symphony No. 7
Concertgebouw Orchestra, Bernard Haitink Eduard, live, 1985
Philips 464321-2 (9 CDs)
YES
My tentative opinion after listening to Haitink's *1969* live recording was:
-in movements 1-4 conductor and orchestra should loosen up
-the finale is pretty wild, however
-there is no obvious family resemblance to the Van Beinum recording or the orchestra's pre-war Mahler recordings
-this is the Haitink sound and, except in the finale, Haitink's restraint, good taste
-this recording is not quite satisfactory to me, a least based on my first impressions
Rather than listen to this 1969 recording again, I switched to the 1985 Christmas Matinée concert:
-movement 1 sounds fine this time
-the 1969 the second movement (Nachtmusik I) felt like plodding, as if constricted; the 1985 version seems more relaxed
-again, this is Haitink's sound, and it's also in Haitink's style (but broader, giving a little more leeway this time, pushing the limits of his good taste?)
-this recording feels less polished, less bright, but warmer than Chailly's
-it's not reminiscent of the 1939 Mahler recordings by Mengelberg and Schuricht or the rediscovered 1958 Van Beinum recording.
Concertgebouw Orchestra, Bernard Haitink Eduard, live, 1985
Philips 464321-2 (9 CDs)
YES
My tentative opinion after listening to Haitink's *1969* live recording was:
-in movements 1-4 conductor and orchestra should loosen up
-the finale is pretty wild, however
-there is no obvious family resemblance to the Van Beinum recording or the orchestra's pre-war Mahler recordings
-this is the Haitink sound and, except in the finale, Haitink's restraint, good taste
-this recording is not quite satisfactory to me, a least based on my first impressions
Rather than listen to this 1969 recording again, I switched to the 1985 Christmas Matinée concert:
-movement 1 sounds fine this time
-the 1969 the second movement (Nachtmusik I) felt like plodding, as if constricted; the 1985 version seems more relaxed
-again, this is Haitink's sound, and it's also in Haitink's style (but broader, giving a little more leeway this time, pushing the limits of his good taste?)
-this recording feels less polished, less bright, but warmer than Chailly's
-it's not reminiscent of the 1939 Mahler recordings by Mengelberg and Schuricht or the rediscovered 1958 Van Beinum recording.
Gerard
Jan 4, 2020, 5:19:32 PM1/4/20
to
Op zaterdag 4 januari 2020 22:22:04 UTC+1 schreef Roland van Gaalen:
Do you also know Haitink's recordings from 1982 (RCO) and 1992 (BPO)?
Message has been deleted
Gerard
Jan 4, 2020, 5:47:30 PM1/4/20
to
Op zaterdag 4 januari 2020 23:39:00 UTC+1 schreef Roland van Gaalen:
>
> > and 1992 (BPO)?
>
> Yes.
>
> But at this stage I will give priority to listening to Mahler 7 recordings of two conductors whose interpretations are polar opposites (one is very slow, the other quite fast), which is remarkable, if only because their last names both start with the letter K.
>
Klemperer vs Kubelik?
> On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:19:32 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
>
> > Do you also know Haitink's recordings from 1982 (RCO)
>
> I've head of it, but I don't have it in my collection.
>
> > Do you also know Haitink's recordings from 1982 (RCO)
>
>
> > and 1992 (BPO)?
>
> Yes.
>
> But at this stage I will give priority to listening to Mahler 7 recordings of two conductors whose interpretations are polar opposites (one is very slow, the other quite fast), which is remarkable, if only because their last names both start with the letter K.
>
Klemperer vs Kubelik?
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 4, 2020, 5:49:20 PM1/4/20
to
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:19:32 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
> Do you also know Haitink's recordings from 1982 (RCO)
I've heard of it, but I don't have it in my collection.
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 4, 2020, 6:00:21 PM1/4/20
to
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 11:47:30 PM UTC+1, Gerard wrote:
> Klemperer vs Kubelik?
No, Klemperer and Kondrashin.
I used to like that extremely slow Klemperer performance very much, but I expect to dislike it tomorrow.
I don't know how I will respond to Kondrashin's. I remember being impressed, many years ago.
> Klemperer vs Kubelik?
No, Klemperer and Kondrashin.
I used to like that extremely slow Klemperer performance very much, but I expect to dislike it tomorrow.
I don't know how I will respond to Kondrashin's. I remember being impressed, many years ago.
Chango
Jan 4, 2020, 7:01:53 PM1/4/20
to
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:55:44 PM UTC-5, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> Mahler, Symphony No. 7
> Concertgebouw Orchestra, RIccardo Chailly, 1994
> Decca 444 446-2
>
> YES this recording (but not the piece) gets a YES from me, at least today.
> Concertgebouw Orchestra, RIccardo Chailly, 1994
> Decca 444 446-2
>
> --
> Roland van Gaalen
> Amsterdam
> Twitter: @RPvanGaalen
My favorite Mahler 7th remains Kubelik (DG).
> Roland van Gaalen
> Amsterdam
> Twitter: @RPvanGaalen
Steve Koenig
Brooklyn
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 5, 2020, 3:35:49 PM1/5/20
to
On March 9, 1923, this entertaining review by Richard Aldrich (1863-1937) of the New York premiere of Mahler's Symphony No. 7 appeared on p.18 of that newspaper:
<< It was perhaps desirable and even necessary that Mr. Mengelberg should put Mahler's seventh symphony upon the program of the Philharmonic Society's concert last evening in Carnegie Hall. It was, we believe, the last remaining symphony of the composer that had not been played here, and it is at the same time the final reduction ad absurdum of Mahler's pretensions to be a composer.
... poverty ... in ideas, ... weakness in structure and workmanship, ... unskillfulness in orchestration ...
... hollow, thin, airy, overladen, raucous, fragmentary, noisy and strident ...
... the pseudo-naivité that was Mahler's stock in trade
... tedious development ... intolerable length ... appalling emptiness ...
... laborious manipulation of trivial ideas ...
... the hope that the time and labor and funds of the Philharmonic Society shall not further be expended upon this sort of music. ...
... The record requires the statement that at the end there was much applause, and that Mr. Mengelberg caused the orchestra to rise and share it with him. So far as this was intended for the performance, it was well deserved. ... >>
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1923/03/09/105852329.html?pageNumber=18
<< It was perhaps desirable and even necessary that Mr. Mengelberg should put Mahler's seventh symphony upon the program of the Philharmonic Society's concert last evening in Carnegie Hall. It was, we believe, the last remaining symphony of the composer that had not been played here, and it is at the same time the final reduction ad absurdum of Mahler's pretensions to be a composer.
... poverty ... in ideas, ... weakness in structure and workmanship, ... unskillfulness in orchestration ...
... hollow, thin, airy, overladen, raucous, fragmentary, noisy and strident ...
... the pseudo-naivité that was Mahler's stock in trade
... tedious development ... intolerable length ... appalling emptiness ...
... laborious manipulation of trivial ideas ...
... the hope that the time and labor and funds of the Philharmonic Society shall not further be expended upon this sort of music. ...
... The record requires the statement that at the end there was much applause, and that Mr. Mengelberg caused the orchestra to rise and share it with him. So far as this was intended for the performance, it was well deserved. ... >>
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1923/03/09/105852329.html?pageNumber=18
Bozo
Jan 5, 2020, 6:23:00 PM1/5/20
to
Frank Berger
Jan 5, 2020, 6:37:44 PM1/5/20
to
On 1/5/2020 6:22 PM, Bozo wrote:
> Then, there is this oddity in my collection , version for piano duet:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/wpmouqf
>
I have No. 4 by the same forces. I also a version of No. 1 arranged for
> Then, there is this oddity in my collection , version for piano duet:
>
> https://tinyurl.com/wpmouqf
>
two pianos by Bruno Walter on Praga by the Prague Piano Duo, whoever
they are.
http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=78255
Raymond Hall
Jan 5, 2020, 7:40:42 PM1/5/20
to
On Monday, 6 January 2020 07:35:49 UTC+11, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> On March 9, 1923, this entertaining review by Richard Aldrich (1863-1937) of the New York premiere of Mahler's Symphony No. 7 appeared on p.18 of that newspaper:
>
> << It was perhaps desirable and even necessary that Mr. Mengelberg should put Mahler's seventh symphony upon the program of the Philharmonic Society's concert last evening in Carnegie Hall. It was, we believe, the last remaining symphony of the composer that had not been played here, and it is at the same time the final reduction ad absurdum of Mahler's pretensions to be a composer.
>
> ... poverty ... in ideas, ... weakness in structure and workmanship, ... unskillfulness in orchestration ...
>
> ... hollow, thin, airy, overladen, raucous, fragmentary, noisy and strident ...
>
> ... the pseudo-naivité that was Mahler's stock in trade
>
> ... tedious development ... intolerable length ... appalling emptiness ...
>
> ... laborious manipulation of trivial ideas ...
A lot of Mahler is close to being as described above. That is what makes him so great ;)
> On March 9, 1923, this entertaining review by Richard Aldrich (1863-1937) of the New York premiere of Mahler's Symphony No. 7 appeared on p.18 of that newspaper:
>
> << It was perhaps desirable and even necessary that Mr. Mengelberg should put Mahler's seventh symphony upon the program of the Philharmonic Society's concert last evening in Carnegie Hall. It was, we believe, the last remaining symphony of the composer that had not been played here, and it is at the same time the final reduction ad absurdum of Mahler's pretensions to be a composer.
>
> ... poverty ... in ideas, ... weakness in structure and workmanship, ... unskillfulness in orchestration ...
>
> ... hollow, thin, airy, overladen, raucous, fragmentary, noisy and strident ...
>
> ... the pseudo-naivité that was Mahler's stock in trade
>
> ... tedious development ... intolerable length ... appalling emptiness ...
>
> ... laborious manipulation of trivial ideas ...
Ray Hall, Taree
Roland van Gaalen
Jan 5, 2020, 8:00:38 PM1/5/20
to
Not too long, not too short, not pompous.
Subtle, but easy to like, apparently
There's probably much to discover here for me, but my naïve listening experience suffices for me to call this a elegant, beautiful piece of music.
Mahler it his best, in my (naïve) opinion -- at the same level as the Fourth Symphony.
What do you think?
Raymond Hall
Jan 5, 2020, 11:53:55 PM1/5/20
to
I love the 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 9th. As for the 5th, I've heard the work so many times I think I am sickened of it.
Mahler's greatest work must surely be Das Lied von der Erde (effectively his 9th symphony). Fortunately this work has fared very well in recordings. Walter premiered the work, and his recording on Columbia (Sony) with Miller and Haefliger, is hard to beat, and my favourite, amongst a host of other great ones.
Ray Hall, Taree
fomalhaut
Jan 6, 2020, 7:09:48 AM1/6/20
to
Michael Gielen
SWF Baden-Baden, 19-23 April 1993
Intercord INT860924/Hänsler Classic CD93.030
or
Berlin, 21 September 1994 (Live)
Testament SBT1480
fomalhaut
SWF Baden-Baden, 19-23 April 1993
Intercord INT860924/Hänsler Classic CD93.030
or
Berlin, 21 September 1994 (Live)
Testament SBT1480
fomalhaut
Bozo
Jan 6, 2020, 8:50:31 AM1/6/20
to
>On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 10:53:55 PM UTC-6, Raymond Hall wrote:
> I love the 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 9th. As for the 5th, I've heard the work so many times I think I am sickened of >it.> Mahler's greatest work must surely be Das Lied von der Erde (effectively his 9th symphony).
The only works I listen to much are his 5th and 6th,and "Kindertotenlieder."
> I love the 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 9th. As for the 5th, I've heard the work so many times I think I am sickened of >it.> Mahler's greatest work must surely be Das Lied von der Erde (effectively his 9th symphony).
Tassilo
Jan 10, 2020, 1:32:05 PM1/10/20
to
I love Mahler's 7th symphony, and I think the first movement is one of his greatest achievements despite the difficulties that it poses for the listener. I have no reason to believe that Mahler's first movement was modeled on Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, another authentically difficult movement, but they have something very important in common: in neither work do the principal themes exist in a single stable form that periodically recurs in recognizably the same shape. Their themes are subject to constant transformation, recurring only in altered guise. The first movement of the 7th is in perpetual, almost grim, evolution, the themes that function as landmarks recurring in transformed shapes within ever changing contrapuntal contexts. The more you listen, the easier it is to grasp all of this, and the more stupefied you will be by Mahler's stupefying achievement.
-Tassilo
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:55:44 PM UTC-5, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
-Tassilo
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:55:44 PM UTC-5, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
uof...@gmail.com
Jan 10, 2020, 2:28:23 PM1/10/20
to
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 1:32:05 PM UTC-5, Tassilo wrote:
> I love Mahler's 7th symphony, and I think the first movement is one of his greatest achievements despite the difficulties that it poses for the listener. I have no reason to believe that Mahler's first movement was modeled on Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, another authentically difficult movement, but they have something very important in common: in neither work do the principal themes exist in a single stable form that periodically recurs in recognizably the same shape. Their themes are subject to constant transformation, recurring only in altered guise. The first movement of the 7th is in perpetual, almost grim, evolution, the themes that function as landmarks recurring in transformed shapes within ever changing contrapuntal contexts. The more you listen, the easier it is to grasp all of this, and the more stupefied you will be by Mahler's stupefying achievement.
> -Tassilo
Neither the GF nor the Mahler 7 were difficult listens for me, I have the GF in various arrangements including a 2 piano arrangement. The quartet had a spellbinding attraction to me on first listen. In fact it was among the first pieces of classical music I had ever listened to almost 60 years ago. A musicologist buddy thought that was remarkable, I never understood why.
> I love Mahler's 7th symphony, and I think the first movement is one of his greatest achievements despite the difficulties that it poses for the listener. I have no reason to believe that Mahler's first movement was modeled on Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, another authentically difficult movement, but they have something very important in common: in neither work do the principal themes exist in a single stable form that periodically recurs in recognizably the same shape. Their themes are subject to constant transformation, recurring only in altered guise. The first movement of the 7th is in perpetual, almost grim, evolution, the themes that function as landmarks recurring in transformed shapes within ever changing contrapuntal contexts. The more you listen, the easier it is to grasp all of this, and the more stupefied you will be by Mahler's stupefying achievement.
> -Tassilo
Lewis Perin
Jan 10, 2020, 4:21:06 PM1/10/20
to
Tassilo <david...@gmail.com> writes:
>I love Mahler's 7th symphony, and I think the first movement is one of
>his greatest achievements despite the difficulties that it poses for
>the listener. I have no reason to believe that Mahler's first
>movement was modeled on Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, another authentically
>difficult movement, but they have something very important in common:
>in neither work do the principal themes exist in a single stable form
>that periodically recurs in recognizably the same shape. Their themes
>are subject to constant transformation, recurring only in altered
>guise. The first movement of the 7th is in perpetual, almost grim,
>evolution, the themes that function as landmarks recurring in
>transformed shapes within ever changing contrapuntal contexts. The
>more you listen, the easier it is to grasp all of this, and the more
>stupefied you will be by Mahler's stupefying achievement.
This makes me want to know which recording you, David, like best.
>I love Mahler's 7th symphony, and I think the first movement is one of
>his greatest achievements despite the difficulties that it poses for
>the listener. I have no reason to believe that Mahler's first
>movement was modeled on Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, another authentically
>difficult movement, but they have something very important in common:
>in neither work do the principal themes exist in a single stable form
>that periodically recurs in recognizably the same shape. Their themes
>are subject to constant transformation, recurring only in altered
>guise. The first movement of the 7th is in perpetual, almost grim,
>evolution, the themes that function as landmarks recurring in
>transformed shapes within ever changing contrapuntal contexts. The
>more you listen, the easier it is to grasp all of this, and the more
>stupefied you will be by Mahler's stupefying achievement.
/Lew
---
Lew Perin / pe...@acm.org
https://babelcarp.org
Oscar
Jan 10, 2020, 7:49:00 PM1/10/20
to
Boulez.
Bob Harper
Jan 10, 2020, 8:38:17 PM1/10/20
to
heard it, though I have of course become more familiar with it over the
decades. As for the GF, that took a lot longer to crack, though today I
find it, if not easy, then extremely rewarding to hear.
Bob Harper
0 new messages