Blind comparison : Mahler 2nd symphony [2nd round until March 16]

Started by Cosi bel do, February 06, 2014, 12:55:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

mc ukrneal

Here are my comments for Group O:

O1 –  Well now. This has got my attention.  The detail is great in the early going (and later too – I love the way it flows and ebbs). There is clear propulsion, detail and great playing. Oh wow, my pulse is racing here. Intense! Full blooded! Yes!  This one has so much detail, it is just 'right'. The playing is stellar and there is so much to hear in this performance. Masterful.  It's a 10 for me (unless one of the others beats it). This conductor really shows you the overarching line, but at the same time doesn't lose the intensity of the moment (and shows us so many details). My love of M2 is re-established! I think what I love most is the restraint and the anticipation.   Ranking: 1

O2 – Oh yes.  Another good performance. The overall timing is exactly the same timing as the previous O1. It also has a lot of the same qualities that O1 has. It is perhaps a bit more aggressive (mostly on the climaxes), but overall quite good. But it lacks a certain reverent atmosphere that the first attains. It doesn't quite hold the propulsion that the first does. Still, it is miles above any in group M. Excellent!   Ranking: 2

O3 – Less sure in unison at the beginning (something I noticed in other places too, along with some minor execution issues in the playing), which reduces its effectiveness. But still, there is much more detail than in any of the M group. So I feel this is the weakest in the O group, and yet it is still pretty good indeed. It has, perhaps, a bit more analytic approach. The balance doesn't seem quite ideal either (with some instruments not quite shining like they can).  Ranking: 3

I decided to do this one as soon as possible after the M group, while everything was still fresh. What a difference. O wipes the floor with the M group (in this movement at least). O1 was amazing. It was well executed and so natural. The clear winner for me.  O2 was also very good, but a hair more aggressive and less organic (a bit more pulling and pushing of tempos). Still, I'd have no complaints to have this one in my collection. O3 didn't quite engage me as much and seemed a bit less intense (though the underlying pulse was visible, so to speak).

From First to third: O1, O2, O3.
Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Cosi bel do

Great.

About group O
2 votes for the moment, and aukhawk and mc ukrneal have exactly the same ranking, and close comments :) Well, let's wait a little before jumping to conclusions, but anyway I guess O1 is starting well, and O3 is already in difficulty.

Will you have another one, Neal ? I'm sure this group has only strenghtened your appetite :)

mc ukrneal

Quote from: Cosi bel do on March 08, 2014, 05:54:57 PM
Will you have another one, Neal ? I'm sure this group has only strenghtened your appetite :)
Ok. But tomorrow is the last day I can do it. So just one more (famous last words)...
Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Wanderer

Group J:

I liked both versions very much. No pacing problems, both equally heroic.  J1 gets a slight edge because of being a tad more succinct (mainly during climaxes). However, the more I listen to J2 the more I see there's nothing wrong with it (compared to J1). So while I considered ranking J1>J2 at first, I feel like I would like to see them both advancing to the next round, so final ranking from me is:

J1=J2.

aukhawk

About Group O

Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 08, 2014, 05:44:15 PM
O2 – ... The overall timing is exactly the same timing as the previous O1.

Yes - to the second, if you time the audio (rather than the track timings).  However, the internal timings are quite different - O2 gains more than half a minute on O1 in the first five ...

Cosi bel do

I had not even noticed that. Funny coincidence. The difference in the result is even more interesting when you consider that tempi alone do not make an interpretation (even if, of course, tempi are not all the same in the course of the movement).

aukhawk

Very true.  Of course peeking at the track timings does de-blind the test to some extent.  If I am predisposed towards slower performances (as I am*) - then if I look at the timings beforehand (as I do**) I am going to be biased straight away.  An honest tester would not peek until after listening  ;)

* on the principle that if it's music I like***, a slower performance will last longer and so extend my pleasure
** mainly to quickly check that none of the test samples are likely to be a version I already know
*** if it's not music I like, then I probably won't be listening to it at all - so on that basis, I could say, slower is always better  :-\

Cosi bel do

Wanderer joins group K, and aukhawk will listen to group L if he finds the time and the wish to do so ;)

mc ukrneal

Here are my comments for Group I:

I1 – Didn't like the longer than usual pauses – didn't add anything and disturbed the flow.  I find this a bit more willful with some relatively small oddities, but they really break up the flow. The playing is on the more aggressive side. The slower sections lose intensity for me in their build ups. It's good, but doesn't take it that next level for me.    Ranking: 3

I2 – This one also has some slightly longer pauses at the start, but then seems to get into it. Here is another version where there is not so much nuance (again with the upper strings, as an example – loud, soft, biting, etc., but not really anywhere in between). The pacing is more to my liking than I1. There is also some technical issues (noticed it with the lower strings). The middle section is more enjoyable, in part because the pace seems to move forward more. It has a tendency to hit you over the head, but it does make for some very exciting moments.   Ranking: 2

I3 – Some balance (and recording) issues, but the nuance is quite a bit better. The crescendos and the overall flow are better. What I can't understand is how this was recorded. It sounds like a warped record at times, which really is irritating (but does not have an old/dated sound, so a bit odd). I can hear one speaker is stronger than the other, so perhaps something happened in the engineering (it does seem to come to get better as it goes along).  If you can ignore that, a wonderful performance (good pacing and detail).     Ranking: 1

I3 just gets the feel of the piece so well, that I feel the performance is still better than I2 or I1, despite some sound issues. The difference between I2 and I3 is negligible. In the end, the performance of I3 is just so much stronger (across the board), that I went with it.

Ranks: I3, I2, I1. 

Be kind to your fellow posters!!

Cosi bel do

Great, thanks ! :)
If you finally find the time before the end of this round, be sure to ask for some more ;)

nachtalberich


K1:  Opening seems fleet, very briskly paced. Some brassy intonation..shrill in parts.  Seems a little too rushed, nice string playing, but mediocre sound.  Never seems to catch fire.  Excellent dynamic range though.  Weird balance though...at times.  Live(?)  Simply lacks gravitas.

K2:  Much more to my liking.  Authoritative opening, with better brass and woodwind sound than K1.  Also, not quite as rushed as K1.  A very nice balance in the orchestral playing.  Excellent handling of the finale.  Good sound with nice dynamics and color.  Not sure I know this one, but I'm intrigued to find out who it is.

K3:  Pretty bad sound right out of the gate...loads of reverb.  Live performance with it's share of coughing and other extraneous noises.  Having said that, this was an electric performance.  The shortest of the 3, but didn't feel that way.  Great dynamic, forceful playing in the opening.  Still lyric where needed.  Excellent playing and conducting throughout.  My favorite despite the sound.   

K3->K2->K1

aukhawk

Group L

   L1 > L2
That said - I've listened to three groups and neither of these would have done very well in either of the other two groups.  In their very different ways, neither of them finishes making you want to pause and draw breath before before moving on to the next movement. Neither of them is helped by their recordings, which both sound dated.

L1 - opens slow, with basses somewhat lacking in attack, but soon speeds up. I like the lyric section which moves along unfussily but by the next transition the words 'indecent haste' are forming in my mind.  This is the fastest 'blind' version I've heard (though one in my own collection is faster) and it doesn't really offer anything in compensation - the net result at the end is just ordinary, like a first run-through with a youth orchestra. 
The recording is dry, and rather opaque - hard to hear instrumental details.

L2 - the start is just static, and throughout this version lacks energy, except for briefly in the dramatic section (around 15 minutes in, in this very slow reading - the slowest I've heard). The overall sense at the end is one of tired resignation.  It's a view certainly, but I prefer the more muscular accounts.
The recording is unfortunate in that it does the basses no favours at all.


I was interested to read in Wikipedia, that Mahler indicated that in performance there should be a gap of 5 minutes after this 1st movement, before continuing.  One version in particular, out of the 8 'blind' I've heard plus 3 more that I have, certainly had me wanting to draw breath.  Well, for 2 minutes anyway, I'm not sure the modern attention span is up to a 5 minute break, everyone would be getting their phones out!

zauberflöte

OK Second round, group N

Preferences in order:
N2
N3
N1

To be honest, none of the performances really got to me. I've come to like the first movement performed slowly because it allows for all kinds of contrasting details and emotions. N2 came the closest to that and there were times I was carried along, buffeted and battered. But there were other moments where the energy just stopped. But for me clearly the no. 1 choice.
N3 was the fastest so maybe I liked it more than N1 only because it was over sooner. But the orchestra was tighter in N3 and seemed to have a bit more energy. But I couldn't get excited about it.
N1. Playing was perfunctory.
I listened to these recordings several times each. Only N2 improved with age.


I'd happily ask for another group but I see we are running out of time. But with the weekend coming I think I could do it.

Papy Oli

Group K

A very brief vote.
Completely underwhelmed by K1, gave up halfway through it.
K2 is nearly close to perfect for my personal test and references points on this movements.Can't wait to see which version it is.
K3 was fairly close to the mark as well (great impact) but for me was let down by a poor finishing.

K2 > K3 > K1
Olivier

Cosi bel do

Group O for nachtalberich.
Group P for zauberflöte.
Group Q for Papy Oli.

I'm gathering more and more votes and things are getting clearer in most groups :)

kishnevi

Quote from: aukhawk on March 12, 2014, 05:18:11 AM

I was interested to read in Wikipedia, that Mahler indicated that in performance there should be a gap of 5 minutes after this 1st movement, before continuing.  One version in particular, out of the 8 'blind' I've heard plus 3 more that I have, certainly had me wanting to draw breath.  Well, for 2 minutes anyway, I'm not sure the modern attention span is up to a 5 minute break, everyone would be getting their phones out!

The liner notes for several recordings I have note that intention of Mahler, and more than one recording that spill over onto 2 CDs keeps the first movement on CD 1 and the others on CD 2 so a listener can arrange that pause for themselves if they want.   Conversely,  aren't the last three movements written so as to flow one into the next, even if not formally specified "attaca"? 
The DVD of Chailly leading the Gewandhaus in fact includes such a pause, although I'm not sure how long it lasts:  Chailly steps down from the podium and stands next it for the duration of the pause, before returning to the podium to start the second movement.

aukhawk

Hmm, well I hadn't spotted that 'common knowledge' before.  As I said in one of my whited comments, I'm pretty happy with this 1st movement as a standalone piece of music.  That's as a recording of course, I wouldn't be walking out of the concert hall!

I do also sometimes dip into other (recorded) Mahler symphonies, notably the 7th I like to listen to just the inner three movements which are perhaps my favourite of all Mahler.  His music is after all 'variable', by which I mean that in any symphony and for any listener, there will be some sections that are liked more than others. I'm well aware of Sir Thos. Beecham and others deriding the 'bleeding chunks' approach but, having listened to recorded serious music for over well over 50 years, I find it's the humble remote control that has really altered my listening habits.  It's no longer a question of trying to reproduce the concert hall experience.

Drosera

Group K

K1: Restrained opening and continues in the same vein. Not bad at all, but rather faceless and occasionally superficial. Keyword: Well-mannered.

K2: Very well proportioned performance. Very detailed too, apparently from a conductor who is intimately familiar with the score. Rather deliberate pauses take some getting used to, but do work. Keyword: Beautiful.

K3: Completely different approach. Goes for the big picture in broad strokes. But such exciting strokes. Keyword: Exciting.

K2 and K3 are so different in their approach that I will rank them equally. (I believe that was allowed?)

Result: K2 == K3 > K1

Wanderer

Group K

Just the raw results:

K3 > K2 = K1

Pat B

Well, this is the longest blind comparison I have done. I had more trouble with it and am almost reluctant to vote, but here goes.

Group M

M1: I liked this fairly well on its own, but on repeated listens I felt that some of the phrasings were not completely convincing, and some of the climaxes were, well, anticlimactic.
M2: A live recording from the mono era, faster than my preference, and, I think, holding a relatively steady beat. This is what I would expect Toscanini to sound like, if he ever performed Mahler, which he did not. On first listen I thought this was clearly at the bottom, but I have reconsidered that and moved it ahead of M1.
M3: My favorite all the way through. The slower tempo builds more tension than M2 and the phrasing and rubato works better than M1. This also has the best sound.

M3 > M2 > M1