Blind Comparison: Mahler Symphony no.1

Started by madaboutmahler, August 18, 2012, 11:07:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

trung224

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 28, 2012, 02:33:05 AM
Interesting fact: the top four places went to live recordings! And the top three were recorded within the last five years. Conclusion: That we're living in a golden age of Mahler performance?   ;D 8)

Sarge
Possobly not. Conductors now conduct Mahler conveniently, but lacks the angst, turbulent quality of the past. They focus on details, with the exceptional sound recording make the "natural" symphonies like Mahler 1,3,4 more affective. But with some symphonies, like 2,6,9, the result is less convincing. Otherwise, the diversity quality are much less than the past (before 1995). The Russianess of Kondrashin, Svetlanov or the Czech school with rustic woodwind sound is disappeared. The emotional angst of Bernstein, Tennstedt or the relentless intensity of Karajan, Solti is no longer existed. There are only two ways of Mahler's conducting these days: modernist (Boulez,Gielen) or straight, literal (Jansons, Chailly, Fischer, Abbado,Haitink), except Tilson Thomas,Gergiev.

Daverz

Quote from: zauberflöte on October 27, 2012, 04:54:08 PM
Whenever David Hurwitz hates a recording I tend to check it out more thoroughly and almost always avoid his 10/10s. Comes from years of practice regarding his tastes.

But he gave the Jansons a very positive review, with only a few nitpicks in the last paragraph.

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: zauberflöte on October 28, 2012, 03:13:43 AM
Perhaps I should give Mr. Hurwitz another chance. I did like the Honeck. But it was his 10/10 review of the aforementioned Segerstam Sibelius 5 that had been the last straw for me. I bought the recording based on the review and it never took off for me.

I'm not saying I agree with every 10/10 review. That Sibelius Fifth is a case in point: although, for me, Segerstam's Fifth does take off, in the end he crash lands it.  ;D  But, more often than not, I've been satisfied with his recommendations....and that goes back decades. I recall his early reviews in High Fidelity and other mags in the 80s. He was just as caustic and abrasive then as now (his negative review of the Rattle M2 went on for three pages!) and just as wonderfully enthusiastic and persuasive about the recordings he did love.

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

madaboutmahler

Great to read all of your feedback. I too was surprised when I enjoyed the Jansons so much. I was hoping it would do well, so was very glad when it won! Good choices everyone! ;)
Like Sarge, I was also interested to see that the top 3 were the 3 most recent recordings in the comparison.

Quote from: Beale on October 27, 2012, 02:56:14 PM
Great job for hosting a most enjoyable journey. Is the final result here the culmination of all three rounds? The winner was never in doubt, but the scoring of the others were very close.

I will definitely seek out the top three here.
Thank you! :) The final result was taken from votes just from the final round.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 28, 2012, 03:31:28 AM
You did a great job, Daniel (even though the final round was protracted almost to the breaking point  ;D  If we ever do one of the really long symphonies, like the Third, the last round will probably last about six months  :D  )  Thank you very much for conducting this. As I said in another thread, listening, and listening so intently, to this many Titans has increased my admiration for this symphony.

I'm disappointed Horenstein and Fischer weren't included (I should have offered a Horenstein rip). I understand it wasn't possible to include every M1 but Horenstein was the only "classic" M1 that wasn't included. There should have been room for it.

Thank you, Sarge. It was a pleasure. :) haha - when we do get to the longest ones, like 3 and 9, will have to think a lot about how the final round can be done.... ;) Sorry about Horenstein and Fischer, should have included those two. Great to read your feedback, Sarge, I'm really glad you enjoyed the comparison.

Thanks again, everyone! I'm really glad that you enjoyed the comparison and that so many of you have signed up for the Berlioz already. More Mahler next year! :)
"Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"
— Ludwig van Beethoven

DavidRoss

Howdy, y'all. I'm just checking in on a beautiful sunny Sunday morning in Texas. Thanks for putting the M1 comparison together, Daniel. I was most surprised by the Solti. I've already purchased a copy of the remastered CSO recording and will be interested to see how it holds up with more familiarity.

Interesting, too, that I've liked the Honeck less each time I've heard it, though I was very favorably impressed the first time or two. Abbado & MTT weren't surprising as they're two of my favorite Mahler conductors leading great orchestras. MTT's first is one of my faves, and I bought Abbado's just a few months ago and liked it quite a bit though felt it fell just a bit short of my top five or six.

I will have to give Jansons's Mahler more attention. Apparently effortless near perfection in the first might not seem especially exciting on first hearing if we're seeking "new insights," but it should probably wear very well!

Thanks also to everyone who participated, especially for sharing your impressions along the way!
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

DavidRoss

Quote from: Beale on October 27, 2012, 04:35:42 PM
For a point of reference here are David Hurwitz's scores for the top three.


  • Jansons: Artistic Quality 8; Sound Quality 8
  • MTT: Artistic Quality 9; Sound Quality 10
  • Honeck: Artistic Quality 10; Sound Quality 10

Hurwitz has limited value for me because he's all over the map, inconsistent even in most of his prejudices. For instance, he generally dislikes MTT/SFS, but every once in a while rates one of their recordings highly (though seldom with a 10/10).  Hurwitz also gives out 10/10 ratings very freely -- grade inflation. And his most consistent prejudice is against historically informed performance practice and period instrument recordings, which make his comments regarding them worthless.

HOWEVER -- when both Hurwitz and Huntley Dent (Amazon's "Santa Fe Listener") disparage a recording, you can be sure it's well worth your attention and might just be very, very good!
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

mc ukrneal

I will add my thanks to the chorus of others for all the work put into this! I got many hours of entertainment as well as insight all for the cost of my time. Perhaps our families should be happy that we spent all our time listening instead of buying! Imagine all the money we saved! :)

I was also considering doing one of these in the future (probably next year), but was considering Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky. The reason is that most people have not heard more than a few and there are actually quite a few out there - over 25 for sure. But before I go through the work - is that a piece of interest? Perhaps we should create a separate thread to consider this and other ideas?
Be kind to your fellow posters!!

madaboutmahler

Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 28, 2012, 07:08:47 AM
I will add my thanks to the chorus of others for all the work put into this! I got many hours of entertainment as well as insight all for the cost of my time. Perhaps our families should be happy that we spent all our time listening instead of buying! Imagine all the money we saved! :)

I was also considering doing one of these in the future (probably next year), but was considering Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky. The reason is that most people have not heard more than a few and there are actually quite a few out there - over 25 for sure. But before I go through the work - is that a piece of interest? Perhaps we should create a separate thread to consider this and other ideas?

Glad you enjoyed it, Neal! :)
Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky?  8) Yes, I would be definitely up for that!!!! :) We have Brian's Gaspard da nuit in January, then I'll be hoping to do another Mahler after that. But how about you running the Prokofiev after that? Would be very exciting to compare many performances of 'Battle on the Ice'. :D
"Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"
— Ludwig van Beethoven

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: DavidRoss on October 28, 2012, 06:45:54 AM
Hurwitz has limited value for me because he's all over the map, inconsistent even in most of his prejudices. For instance, he generally dislikes MTT/SFS, but every once in a while rates one of their recordings highly (though seldom with a 10/10).

Actually, that's proof he isn't prejudicial; it's proof he's listening with an open mind to each new recording...that even in a cycle he doesn't particularly like, he'll find gems. And that's been my experience with MTT. I hate his Second. I find his Seventh middling. I rather like his First.

I don't find any Mahler cycle 100% great or 100% bad. That's not inconsistency on my part; it's reality. No conductor does everything perfectly; no conductor does everything badly. Hurwitz reflects that reality.

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

Daverz

Some things that do bother me about Hurwitz:

1. The Horenstein vendetta
2. When he's a jerk, he's really a jerk, vulgar and petty.
3. He'll sometimes rate a dull recording highly because of orchestral execution.  I call this the "band geek" problem.

mc ukrneal

Quote from: Daverz on October 28, 2012, 04:23:13 PM
3. He'll sometimes rate a dull recording highly because of orchestral execution.  I call this the "band geek" problem.
Forgetting who this was directed at, how can a recording be dull AND have orchestral execution? I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you talking about when an orchestra creates a beautiful sound, but does not 'get the music' or does not play 'the spirit of the music'? 
Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Daverz

Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 28, 2012, 04:54:33 PM
Forgetting who this was directed at, how can a recording be dull AND have orchestral execution? I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you talking about when an orchestra creates a beautiful sound, but does not 'get the music' or does not play 'the spirit of the music'?

It seems to me that sometimes Hurwitz will rate a bland performance highly because he's impressed by the quality of orchestral execution or that the conductor got all the p's and q's in order.

zauberflöte

Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 28, 2012, 04:54:33 PM
how can a recording be dull AND have orchestral execution?
Try listening to a bad Maazel performance.

Brian

Quote from: mc ukrneal on October 28, 2012, 07:08:47 AM
I was also considering doing one of these in the future (probably next year), but was considering Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky. The reason is that most people have not heard more than a few and there are actually quite a few out there - over 25 for sure. But before I go through the work - is that a piece of interest? Perhaps we should create a separate thread to consider this and other ideas?
That would be a phenomenal work to consider in this game.

What a great conclusion! I am very, very impressed by Jansons' win - when trying to guess the identity of the conductor, I simply couldn't attribute such phenomenal Mahler conducting to Jansons. On the other hand, I knew Honeck, correctly guessed Solti and MTT, and am very glad I liked Abbado's so much. Claudio Abbado has been rising quite a lot in my estimation thanks to these GMG blind listening games! :)

Sergeant Rock

#474
Quote from: Daverz on October 28, 2012, 04:23:13 PM
Some things that do bother me about Hurwitz:

1. The Horenstein vendetta

I don't think it's a vendetta. He's merely reporting negatively about recordings that actually aren't very good.  I hear the same things when I listen to Horenstein. My most recent acquistion is a CD of Nielsen 3 coupled with Sibelius 5. I was looking forward to it because I'm a Horenstein fan and those two symphonies are in my Top 5 of all time. But it's appalling, both in orchestral execution and conducting. I might never listen to it again. It makes Hurwitz's comments about other poor Horenstein performances perfectly understandable.

Sure, he thinks the British critical establishment overrates him, and that fuels Hurwitz's negativity . But he doesn't hate Horenstein. Hurwitz says, "My admiration for Horenstein's tireless championship of Bruckner and Mahler in Britain has always been tempered by what I actually hear on the recordings that have been preserved, whether live or in the studio."

I've heard many of the recordings he disses, and I agree with him. Horenstein and his orchestras could be incredibly sloppy, sounding often like amateurs; and his attempts--or non-attempts--to vary tempo within movements awkward.

But when he was good, he was great, and Hurwitz acknowledges that. For example:

A 9 rating for the Bruckner 5 ("Horenstein's Bruckner Fifth is, by and large, a terrific performance, played with tremendous authority and concentration by a clearly energized BBC Symphony Orchestra. Brass and timpani sound simply stupendous, and are captured in an amazingly lifelike live recording.")

A 9 rating for the Bruckner 9 ("Horenstein's Bruckner represents both a true victory of mind over matter, and an incandescent example of great conducting.")

Horenstein's Kindertotenlieder gets an 8 ("Jascha Horenstein's sensitive and passionate direction of the Kindertotenlieder....this truly is an important recording, not just for its self-evident musical accomplishments, but as the first example of Horenstein's lifelong, if not always happy, engagement with Mahler's music.")

The Hurwitzer gives Horenstein's Prokofiev a 7 ("He leads an engaging performance of the Chout ballet suite, presenting a vivid dramaturgy through the finely characterized playing of the Paris Philharmonia Orchestra. Lieutenant Kijé is finer still under Horenstein's brisk and energetic direction (particularly The Birth of Kijé, and Kijé's Wedding). No, it doesn't beat George Szell's classic recording with the Cleveland Orchestra, but it lends credence to Horenstein's storied reputation.")

He gives Horenstein's Dvorak Ninth an 8 and a long, detailed review, pointing out the differences between his two (very good) recordings of the symphony.

In his 7/6 review of Das Lied he says "Jascha Horenstein deserves tremendous credit for his Mahlerian crusade in Britain in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. But with hindsight, we can now see that he was seldom given the best working conditions or the best orchestras, and some "legendary" performances–the Third and Eighth Symphonies in particular–have dated. The same holds true for this Das Lied von der Erde. "

Not that they're bad performances, but that they've dated. Only a couple of us here would disagree with that, I think. Another critic, our own Jens, certainly agrees with Hurwitz. Jens wrote about why Horenstein wasn't included in his massive WETA Mahler marathon:

"There are older recordings [of the Third] that are much admired, too. They are not included because they cannot honestly compete with newer, better sounding versions. Rarity and nostalgia have made a very good interpretation like Horenstein's, for example, a mythical one."

I think these reviews prove the point I made in my reply to David. Hurwitz reviews each recording without prejudice. He praises Horenstein when he thinks he's good; he points out the reasons he thinks other recordings are bad. In other words, he's doing his job as a music critic. There is no vendetta.

Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"

jlaurson

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 29, 2012, 04:33:18 AM


Not that they're bad performances, but that they've dated. Only a couple of us here would disagree with that, I think. Another critic, our own Jens, certainly agrees with Hurwitz...

I should like to point out that that's entirely coincidental. I wouldn't want to be known, generally, as agreeing with Hurwitz. Although in this case, I suppose -- difficult though that is to fathom -- it's meant as a compliment. What's next: comparison to Midgette or Lebrecht? Yikes.  ;)

DavidRoss

#476
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 28, 2012, 07:29:10 AM
Actually, that's proof he isn't prejudicial; it's proof he's listening with an open mind to each new recording...that even in a cycle he doesn't particularly like, he'll find gems. And that's been my experience with MTT. I hate his Second. I find his Seventh middling. I rather like his First.

I don't find any Mahler cycle 100% great or 100% bad. That's not inconsistency on my part; it's reality. No conductor does everything perfectly; no conductor does everything badly. Hurwitz reflects that reality.
Well there's a big "duh," Sarge. ;)
I believe that Hurwitz's comments about MTT's Mahler (he's reviewed several of the recordings) betray a prejudice--that is, a pre-existing belief that conditions his perceptions. He imagines that MTT is fussy, interventionist, inserting inappropriate mannerisms that interfere with the music--so when his prejudices are foremost, he listens for things to reinforce them, rather than listening with an open mind.

That's what I value most about these blind comparisons--the opportunity to hear things without knowing or caring WHO the performers are. And I'm gratified to find that this final round offering the entire performances both affirmed my feelings about the performances I'm familiar with (MTT, Abbado, Honeck) and alerted me to the virtues of performances that my prejudices suggested would not be so appealing (Jansons & especially Solti).

And unlike you, Sarge, I enjoy the complete cycles of several conductors--especially Boulez, Bernstein, Gielen, Sinopoli, & MTT.

Edit: & let's add Kubelik, Bertini, and Chailly to that batch whose cycles are uniformly good (noting, of course, that none are uniformly GREAT.) ;)
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

jlaurson

Quote from: DavidRoss on October 29, 2012, 07:44:29 AM
Well there's a big "duh," Sarge. ;)
I believe that Hurwitz's comments about MTT's Mahler (he's reviewed several of the recordings) betray a prejudice--that is, a pre-existing belief that conditions his perceptions. He imagines that MTT is fussy, interventionist, inserting inappropriate mannerisms that interfere with the music--so when his prejudices are foremost, he listens for things to reinforce them, rather than listening with an open mind.

That's what I value most about these blind comparisons--the opportunity to hear things without knowing or caring WHO the performers are. And I'm gratified to find that this final round offering the entire performances both affirmed my feelings about the performances I'm familiar with (MTT, Abbado, Honeck) and alerted me to the virtues of performances that my prejudices suggested would not be so appealing (Jansons & especially Solti).

And unlike you, Sarge, I enjoy the complete cycles of several conductors--especially Boulez, Bernstein, Gielen, Sinopoli, & MTT.

I have prejudices generally (everyone does), and esp. reg. Jansons, but I'd like to think that I can (though not necessarily) overcome them. That's easier in concert, when the impression is more immediate and inescapable and when the review the next day forces you to evaluate, if you haven't already. Jansons Mahler live (in Amsterdam and Munich) usually disappoints me, but one day, in the Sixth of all Symphonies (he has three less-than-hot recordings of it), he let rip: http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/05/ionarts-at-large-jansons-mahler-six.html I was completely taken by (happy) surprise, as was the orchestra.

I must have the Jansons 1st somewhere -- and must re-listen. Perhaps I was asleep at the wheel. (I did appreciate Honeck very much -- did I even point Sarge in that directon? -- and also MTT, who I thought on par as delivering the best SACD version, alongside the new Chicago Haitink. Abbado I may not have taken seriously (though I should have, after finding the similarish 5th quite good, in its unassuming ways) and Solti / Chicago I didn't have (and don't) -- only the London recording which I think is rather pointless. I value Boulez' 1st almost as much as his 5th, but he apparently floundered in an earlier round.

Brian

Quote from: DavidRoss on October 29, 2012, 07:44:29 AM
That's what I value most about these blind comparisons--the opportunity to hear things without knowing or caring WHO the performers are. And I'm gratified to find that this final round offering the entire performances both affirmed my feelings about the performances I'm familiar with (MTT, Abbado, Honeck) and alerted me to the virtues of performances that my prejudices suggested would not be so appealing (Jansons & especially Solti).
Agreed. I know that I'd like to say "oh I am totally unprejudiced with orchestras/conductors" but there is always a chance that, for instance, knowing the Brussels Philharmonic was in the final round for Debussy, competing with Cleveland and others, would incline me to say "the orchestra isn't as good as the rest." In this example, I'm shocked because like Jens I had always been left somewhat cold by Jansons. These games rock!

Sergeant Rock

Quote from: DavidRoss on October 29, 2012, 07:44:29 AM
I believe that Hurwitz's comments about MTT's Mahler (he's reviewed several of the recordings) betray a prejudice--that is, a pre-existing belief that conditions his perceptions. He imagines that MTT is fussy, interventionist, inserting inappropriate mannerisms that interfere with the music--so when his prejudices are foremost, he listens for things to reinforce them, rather than listening with an open mind.

I don't know how you know what Hurwitz "imagines" prior to listening to anything. Do you have a link to his brain?  ;D  I have no idea where you get the idea he's not listening with an open mind. The reviews themselves belie that belief.

Knowing the characteristics of a conductor's style, and then finding those characteristics in a recording, is not the same as being prejudiced. Expecting those characteristics isn't showing prejudice either (in the negative sense of the word). It's simply expecting an artist to have a consistent style. Damning every recording because of those characteristics would show prejudice, I think. Assigning a score before listening would definitely be a sign of prejudice  :D  But he doesn't do either of those things to MTT (or anyone else I'm aware of. See my post about Horenstein). His MTT scores exhibit range and change with each recording reviewed.


1 - 9/10
2 - 9/9
3 - 7/9
4 - 10/10
5 - 7/7
6 - 7/8
7 - 8/8
7 - 9/9 (LSO)
8 - 8/8
9 - 9/9
DLVDE - 6/9
Klagende - 10/9
Songs - 6/9


You assert that "his prejudices are foremost, he listens for things to reinforce them, rather than listening with an open mind" and that creates negative reviews. Well, yes, he listens for certain things, but when those things are done well (in his opinion) he says so. For example, the First

"This fresh and exciting performance of Mahler's First Symphony reveals MTT and his orchestra on largely top form. Unlike the mannered and heavy-handed Sixth from these same forces, this piece adapts well to the conductor's interventionist approach."

and the DLvdE:

"This performance has two big assets and one huge liability. The assets are Stuart Skelton's really heroic performance of the tenor part, and Michael Tilson Thomas' excellent conducting of a supremely responsive San Francisco Symphony... MTT's Mahler sometimes suffers from mannered phrasing, but here he proves himself supremely sensitive to his singers, and well able to project the subtleties of Mahler's orchestration.

So yes, he's not surprised that these performances are characteristic of MTT's general style in Mahler, and no, it doesn't lessen his admiration for the performances. In fact, he thinks they are wonderful (with the exception of Hampson in DLvdE, the sole reason Hurwitz gave it a lower score). In fact, the majority of his MTT Mahler reviews are positive, with 9 of 13 receiving an 8 or higher. Where's the prejudice?

Quote from: DavidRoss on October 29, 2012, 07:44:29 AM
And unlike you, Sarge, I enjoy the complete cycles of several conductors--especially Boulez, Bernstein, Gielen, Sinopoli, & MTT.

No Mahler cycle is perfect. The one I like the most for consistency is Chailly, but I think his Second a dud...so, not perfect. Bernstein and Gielen employ dreadful singers in their Fourths. They aren't perfect either. But I believe there's a difference between liking a cycle as a whole and saying that each symphony in the cycle deserves a 10/10 rating and shouldn't be criticized at all. Hurwitz would be a piss poor critic if he gave every MTT Mahler recording in the cycle a 10/10. (I know that's what you, David, want him to do...but you're showing your Left Coast prejudice there :D )

As far as I know, Hurwitz has never given any of Mahler cycle perfect scores for each of the symphonies. But he has given complete cycles a 10 (Bertini, Gielen, Bernstein/Sony), and that makes sense to me. One or two duds shouldn't disqualify a entire cycle, when viewed as a whole, from a great rating.


Sarge
the phone rings and somebody says,
"hey, they made a movie about
Mahler, you ought to go see it.
he was as f*cked-up as you are."
                               --Charles Bukowski, "Mahler"