Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Hurwitz recently consigned this performance to his mocking pile of "mediocre Mahler" but I still find Horenstein's rather monumental slow-burn approach wholly convincing if not the only/last word in Mahler 3 interpretation.  The LSO plays beautifully and the natural balances achieved with this minimalist array is very impressive. 

I have the Unicorn LP original issue of the Horenstein 3rd and the Nonesuch LP issue of the Horenstein/LSO 1st.

I agree with you regarding H's "slow-burn approach," I think it's an impressive display of controlled, accumulated power, whereas Hurwitz thinks it's because H was an incompetent conductor who couldn't shift gears effectively. Whatever - I can only go by what my ears tell me. The real problem (at least with the LP issue) is the sound, which is recessed and lacking in impact.

The LSO 1st is the best I've heard of Horenstein's Mahler, and then mainly because of the finale, which is one of the most daring and monumental I've ever heard. The way he stretches out the coda verges on parody, but it works.

[DavidW]

The LSO 1st is the best I've heard of Horenstein's Mahler, and then mainly because of the finale, which is one of the most daring and monumental I've ever heard. The way he stretches out the coda verges on parody, but it works.

I'll have to give it a listen!  I remember Tony Duggan really overselling the third.  My introduction to the M3 was the Bernstein Columbia recording and when I finally heard Horenstein I was underwhelmed.  Not only that but around that time I got to hear Chailly, Gielen, Boulez, Abbado and I thought they were all more interesting than Horenstein.  But his 8th opened the door for me on that symphony (though I also liked Tennstedt as well which came not much later for me).

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I'll have to give it a listen!  I remember Tony Duggan really overselling the third.  My introduction to the M3 was the Bernstein Columbia recording and when I finally heard Horenstein I was underwhelmed.

I think the biggest problem with Horenstein is that he was often let down by the sound or the orchestra or both. The live 7th was considered a "legendary performance" in some circles, but when I finally heard it, it just sounded ordinary when it wasn't being sloppy or mushy. (Hurwitz gave it a 1. I'm more charitable, I'd probably give it a 4.) The 6th with Stockholm is a solid interpretation, but the orchestra just isn't up to the challenge. Same deal with his rather dreary-sounding DLvdE.

[Atriod]

I've been listening to the latest reincarnation of Horenstein's Mahler 3 as released by HDTT



The "source" for this is very unusal.  This is not yet another "back to the original master tapes" sort of thing.  Instead - at the original sessions an American engineer Jerry Bruck was allowed to set up an experimental 4 microphone surround sound array which he recorded on a system quite independent from the Bob Auger commercial recording for Unicorn.  For whatever reason these raw session tapes were never edited into a performance until now.  The HDTT team have done - to my ears - a pretty extraordinary job at replicating the original release in terms of takes chosen (the original production notes for the 1st movement(s) were lost) and although I could only listen in stereo not the 4.0 'ideal' for an early 1970's analogue recording the sound is genuinely remarkable.

Hurwitz recently consigned this performance to his mocking pile of "mediocre Mahler" but I still find Horenstein's rather monumental slow-burn approach wholly convincing if not the only/last word in Mahler 3 interpretation.  The LSO plays beautifully and the natural balances achieved with this minimalist array is very impressive.  Perhaps I want this to be a revelation so I'm not wholly objective.  It is not clear why Bruck never pursued this concept further - I assume money/rights prevented a parallel release of the Unicorn original so perhaps the deal was always more theoretical/experimental than commercial - until now....

The Death & Transfiguration squeezed into the 6th and last Mahler session gets the same recording treatment and emerges impressively too as a considerable bonus

The new mix/microphone setup on the two channel version of the HDTT does sound very good, without doing any comparisons I think it does sound better than the Unicorn CD mix. Interpretively remains one of my favorites, I like Hurwitz but his taste in Mahler/Bruckner is questionable. I listened to many of his favorites when those videos came out, most often exceptionally well played but not particularly interesting. Of course it's not hard to miss on him picking top choices like Bernstein or other obvious ones, those were always going to be there.

[Roasted Swan]

I think the biggest problem with Horenstein is that he was often let down by the sound or the orchestra or both. The live 7th was considered a "legendary performance" in some circles, but when I finally heard it, it just sounded ordinary when it wasn't being sloppy or mushy. (Hurwitz gave it a 1. I'm more charitable, I'd probably give it a 4.) The 6th with Stockholm is a solid interpretation, but the orchestra just isn't up to the challenge. Same deal with his rather dreary-sounding DLvdE.

I think you are spot-on in all you say.  Of course the LSO circa 1970 was absolutely at the top of its considerable game and part of what I enjoyed in this performance was the quality of the solo work.  Not just in terms of technical execution but the sense of expressive freedom the players are given to imprint their personalities on that specific musical passage.  Also, given the 4 channel 'limit' there is a real sense that the balance you hear is the way the orchestra was sounding in the hall on the day.  I did notice some acoustic 'slap' when you hear the quick reverberation of a loud crash or whatever bouncing back from the opposite wall but this is a characteristic of many halls so again I felt it added to the 'real' experience more than anything else.  In the past I've found some HDTT productions to be too manipulated to add impact to the original sources.  This I thought was notable for its naturalness.

[Roasted Swan]

I have the Unicorn LP original issue of the Horenstein 3rd and the Nonesuch LP issue of the Horenstein/LSO 1st.

I agree with you regarding H's "slow-burn approach," I think it's an impressive display of controlled, accumulated power, whereas Hurwitz thinks it's because H was an incompetent conductor who couldn't shift gears effectively. Whatever - I can only go by what my ears tell me. The real problem (at least with the LP issue) is the sound, which is recessed and lacking in impact.

The LSO 1st is the best I've heard of Horenstein's Mahler, and then mainly because of the finale, which is one of the most daring and monumental I've ever heard. The way he stretches out the coda verges on parody, but it works.

For me this is the kind of comment where a potentially interesting musico-critical observation is expressed in terms that make it simply rude and patronising about a fine artist and musician.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

For me this is the kind of comment where a potentially interesting musico-critical observation is expressed in terms that make it simply rude and patronising about a fine artist and musician.

He's assuming that Horenstein's interpretations are a result not of the conductor's choices but of the conductor's inability; therefore they're not really interpretations. Broadly speaking, Horenstein's approach to Mahler is to prefer the gradual to the sudden. I don't know how you get incompetence out of that. It's like saying that Carlo Maria Giulini conducted slow because he was incapable of conducting fast.

[DavidW]

I think the biggest problem with Horenstein is that he was often let down by the sound or the orchestra or both. The live 7th was considered a "legendary performance" in some circles, but when I finally heard it, it just sounded ordinary when it wasn't being sloppy or mushy. (Hurwitz gave it a 1. I'm more charitable, I'd probably give it a 4.) The 6th with Stockholm is a solid interpretation, but the orchestra just isn't up to the challenge. Same deal with his rather dreary-sounding DLvdE.

That is definitely the problem I have with Horenstein's M9.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

That is definitely the problem I have with Horenstein's M9.

Which 9th are you referring to? There's the old Vox Vienna mono from the 1950s, and a live LSO from the 60s. I think the LSO is a great performance mostly, but the sonics are seriously lacking. The worst thing is the constant coughing by some bronchitic audience member during the long drawn-out coda of the Adagio. I've never wanted to kill an audience member more!

I'm also sentimentally attached to that one, because it was one of the first CDs I bought.

[DavidW]

Which 9th are you referring to? There's the old Vox Vienna mono from the 1950s, and a live LSO from the 60s. I think the LSO is a great performance mostly, but the sonics are seriously lacking. The worst thing is the constant coughing by some bronchitic audience member during the long drawn-out coda of the Adagio. I've never wanted to kill an audience member more!

I'm also sentimentally attached to that one, because it was one of the first CDs I bought.

The LSO, yeah the sound is miserable and the performance is fine.

[calyptorhynchus]

Re: the Horenstein recordings

I'm always ready to go with a fine performance with poor sound over a uninteresting performances with excellent sound. At the risk of sounding like an old fogey I rarely enjoy modern performances with great sound because I'm always thinking 'with this sound quality I should be enjoying the music more... but I'm not'.

That said I've never been a fan of old mono recordings with surface noise 

[Atriod]

Re: the Horenstein recordings

I'm always ready to go with a fine performance with poor sound over a uninteresting performances with excellent sound. At the risk of sounding like an old fogey I rarely enjoy modern performances with great sound because I'm always thinking 'with this sound quality I should be enjoying the music more... but I'm not'.

That said I've never been a fan of old mono recordings with surface noise 

Recording quality is fairly low in my mind when I'm listening to something, why should I dwell on something that is out of my control. I will never stop listening to the BBC Horenstein Mahler 9, I don't care how it sounds.

[DavidW]

Recording quality is fairly low in my mind when I'm listening to something, why should I dwell on something that is out of my control. I will never stop listening to the BBC Horenstein Mahler 9, I don't care how it sounds.

I literally relistened to it on Youtube of all places a few months back and posted about how much I loved it!  So no you totally misread me if you thought that SQ stops me from listening to and enjoying a recording.

[Atriod]

I literally relistened to it on Youtube of all places a few months back and posted about how much I loved it!  So no you totally misread me if you thought that SQ stops me from listening to and enjoying a recording.

I didn't know you listened to it, my comment was a general one not about anyone.

[Daverz]

I've been listening to the latest reincarnation of Horenstein's Mahler 3 as released by HDTT

It seems that 24/96 is the lowest "quality"* they offer?  At $30 I'll pass.

* After 16/44 these numbers don't indicate any better audio quality, it's just numerology. 

[Atriod]

Anyone care to weigh in on Wit vs Vänskä for a recent Mahler 8?