Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[DavidRoss]

I just checked out the Universal Mahler site under discussion.  Interesting concept, but the "winning" cycle so far comprises mostly recordings I already have, so my checkbook seems safe!  Looking at the possible selections makes me appreciate how much we're spoiled for choice these days.

[Renfield]

[As I noted in another thread, I am in something of an impromptu - though extended - summer break. Meaning, I might still not post any further for a while; but I thought I'd share a few relevant thoughts while I'm here, with apologies for lumping them all into a single post!]

BTW this Mahler 9 binge started when I watched Eschenbach and l'Orchestre de Paris on Medici tv. An interpretation that is marred occasionally by monumentally slow tempi (no swing in the Landler), but is rather interesting in the way Eschenbach makes it a journey from celestial light at the start to yet again celestial light at the end.

Interestingly, this description (without having heard the performance itself) feels to me as it if could be describing Maazel's 9th.

As regulars of this thread might remember, I was going through his cycle last month: and even though I will still post detailed impressions at some point in the future, that 9th was one of the most unexpectedly powerful performances in it.

Very, very steely, almost 'industrial Mahler' (cf. Industrial Metal) like a lot of Maazel's Mahler, but it still manages to link up the light at the beginning and the light at the end of that particular tunnel more strongly than most bar, say, Walter 1938 ever manage.

Perhaps Boulez will satisfy similarly, once I get around to hearing his, with less post-apocalyptic barrenness in between.


But yes: firstly, I am very inclined to listen to Eschenbach's 9th, based on your above comment.

And secondly, I am equally inclined to recommend Maazel's, for those who can stomach it (and him).

I haven't heard your Abbado but are there compelling reasons to prefer it to the Chicago performance; any reason one needs both in their collection? I'm not saying it isn't a great version but I would guess many Mahlerites already have an Abbado Seventh.

This is strictly my opinion, but I think both Abbado 7ths have their merits. The two performances are fairly similar overall, but the details of the phrasing, the character of the respective orchestra, and certain tweaks here and there end up making them feel surprisingly dissimilar.

The difference, in short, is that the Chicago (as you probably know) is a razor-sharp performance, aggressively lyrical in the Nachtmusik, and sort of hyped-up in the finale; whereas the Berlin 7th, by comparison, feels much more comfortable in its own skin, for lack of a more rigorous term.

It's a little like the difference between the LSO-era, and the CSO-era Solti, only chronologically inverted. To me, the apparent extra amount of security and comfort the BPO had with Abbado pays off more than the CSO's oomph, even if it is less sharp, and the recording somewhat fluffy.

I have only one amsi-fied disc but don't have different release of the same to compare. The disc in question has Brahms' 1st Symphony by BPO/Karl Bohm from 1959 and Tragic Overture with VPO/Bohm from 70s. So if anyone has Australian Eloquence release of the 1st Symphony or Tragic Overture from the set and is willing to upload maybe we could do A - B comparison.

Milos, I'm not quite sure where, but I do remember having a discussion with Scarpia on AMSI a couple of months ago, leading to each of us uploading a track from Schiff's WTC for an A-B comparison. You might still find the links if you look.

And, I don't think Scarpia posted any comments before my break, but my own impression was that the AMSI version in stereo has a little more reverb to it, and is slightly less aurally focused as a result - a bit 'woolier', if you will, than the original.

But it really is a slight difference: hardly a deal breaker, under most circumstances.

[Scarpia]

And, I don't think Scarpia posted any comments before my break, but my own impression was that the AMSI version in stereo has a little more reverb to it, and is slightly less aurally focused as a result - a bit 'woolier', if you will, than the original.

But it really is a slight difference: hardly a deal breaker, under most circumstances.

I uploaded a track for comparison, but never compared myself.  AMSI is what DG uses to make simulated surround sound for DVD out of old stereo tapes.  On the Eloquence, they go one step farther (apparently) and encode the surround sound in the 2 channel CD for Dolby Pro-logic decoding.   I don't know what happens when you listen to Dolby Prologic encoded audio without the decoding.  Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. 

[Renfield]

I uploaded a track for comparison, but never compared myself.  AMSI is what DG uses to make simulated surround sound for DVD out of old stereo tapes.  On the Eloquence, they go one step farther (apparently) and encode the surround sound in the 2 channel CD for Dolby Pro-logic decoding.   I don't know what happens when you listen to Dolby Prologic encoded audio without the decoding.  Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Well, it isn't! As I said, there is an observable lack of focus in the sound.

But by 'observable', I mean the original is a little bit quieter and tighter when you listen on headphones. I've no doubt it could be more pronounced on higher-end (£250+) headphones, but I'm sure most people's dedicated amplifiers can decode Dolby Pro-logic, so it should be less of an issue for speakers. It's not a catastrophic difference anyhow: more like an audiophile nuisance, within the context of a substantially smaller asking price. Certainly less substantial than the average difference between remasterings of a historical recording, for example.

[Scarpia]

Well, it isn't! As I said, there is an observable lack of focus in the sound.

But by 'observable', I mean the original is a little bit quieter and tighter when you listen on headphones. I've no doubt it could be more pronounced on higher-end (£250+) headphones, but I'm sure most people's dedicated amplifiers can decode Dolby Pro-logic, so it should be less of an issue for speakers. It's not a catastrophic difference anyhow: more like an audiophile nuisance, within the context of a substantially smaller asking price. Certainly less substantial than the average difference between remasterings of a historical recording, for example.

Well, you could buy the eloquence set, then, since you legitimately own a copy of the recordings, download a lossless copy of the proper, non-bastardized version from a shady web site.  Just saying, hypothetically.

[Renfield]

Well, you could buy the eloquence set, then, since you legitimately own a copy of the recordings, download a lossless copy of the proper, non-bastardized version from a shady web site.  Just saying, hypothetically.

Hypothetically, I suppose that's not a bad suggestion!

[Renfield]

Just dropping in to say: Sarge, if you haven't heard Maazel's New York 7th, you really should. It's even slower than the VPO version. Suffice to say, I thought that one held together (though I could see why someone could think otherwise); this one literally crawls to a halt.

Still fascinating, in a Celibidache-does-Mahler kind of way.

[BMW]

Last week on his BBC 3 program "In Search of Mahler" (unfortunately no longer available online) Norman Lebrecht made quite a point of declaring that Mahler was never known to have entered a church after his conversion and marriage.  Yesterday I started Alma's Memories and Letters where she writes that Mahler "could never pass a church without going in; he loved the smell of incense and Gregorian chants."  Does Lebrecht have any evidence to support his claim?  I am well aware of the "Alma Problem" but what reason would she have to make something up about how often her husband entered churches?

Incidentally, the book has been very enjoyable so far (and I look forward to visiting others to learn where Alma stretched the truth).

[not edward]

I think Lebrecht is the very paragon of the unreliable narrator.

Given the choice between trusting him and Alma Mahler, I suspect many people would choose neither.

[kishnevi]

I think Lebrecht is the very paragon of the unreliable narrator.

Given the choice between trusting him and Alma Mahler, I suspect many people would choose neither.

Alma is much more interesting, at least.

I have heard the claim that Mahler never attended church after his baptism, but can not remember at the moment where.  However, it is possible for both Alma and Lebrecht to be correct: to admire the aesthetics of sound and spectacle at a mass and to attend as an act of religious devotion are two entirely different things.

However little he did attend mass, he was at least familiar enough with liturgical texts to recall the words of the Venite almost perfectly when he began to compose the Eighth.

[BMW]

However, it is possible for both Alma and Lebrecht to be correct: to admire the aesthetics of sound and spectacle at a mass and to attend as an act of religious devotion are two entirely different things.

Very true.  But if I remember correctly, Lebrecht's statement would lead the listener to believe that Mahler never even set foot inside a church for any reason after the wedding, a claim I found peculiar at the time and then questionable while reading Alma's book.

[jlaurson]

I think Lebrecht is the very paragon of the unreliable narrator.

Given the choice between trusting him and Alma Mahler, I suspect many people would choose neither.

Amen. 

[Brahmsian]

In the middle of listening to Mahler's 7th.  I find I am enjoying it a lot more today than in previous attempts.  It is still such a different symphony.

One comment (and not to be taken as a criticism), but I am wondering why the use of cowbells in the 2nd movement?  They seem, to me, out of place.  At least, I find the use of the cowbells in #6 to be very effective and visually give me the idea that I'm standing in a pasture out in the Alps.  However, I don't get the use of them in Symphony No. 7? 

[jlaurson]

In the middle of listening to Mahler's 7th.  I find I am enjoying it a lot more today than in previous attempts.  It is still such a different symphony.

One comment (and not to be taken as a criticism), but I am wondering why the use of cowbells in the 2nd movement?  They seem, to me, out of place.  At least, I find the use of the cowbells in #6 to be very effective and visually give me the idea that I'm standing in a pasture out in the Alps.  However, I don't get the use of them in Symphony No. 7? 

Crossing  a  lake.  Still dark, perhaps fog.  From afar, up and around you on the Alms you hear the distant cow bells, assuring you that there is a serene existence, parallel to you.

For example. Or anything else you wish to imagine.  But don't be disheartened, M7 is a tough not to crack and I certainly haven't come close to understanding it yet, either.

[Brahmsian]

Crossing  a  lake.  Still dark, perhaps fog.  From afar, up and around you on the Alms you hear the distant cow bells, assuring you that there is a serene existence, parallel to you.

For example. Or anything else you wish to imagine.  But don't be disheartened, M7 is a tough not to crack and I certainly haven't come close to understanding it yet, either.

Thanks, Jens.  M7 is a mysterious work.  I must say that the 4th movement (Nachtmusik II) is utterly delightful, and a welcome reprieve to the eerieness and weirdness that pervades the rest of the symphony.  Love the mandolin!!

[not edward]

For example. Or anything else you wish to imagine.  But don't be disheartened, M7 is a tough not to crack and I certainly haven't come close to understanding it yet, either.

I don't actually think I've ever heard anyone say they understand M7. I know I don't.

And for me, that's part of the greatness of the work: there's so many different things it can say, depending on interpreter and listener. (For this reason, it's probably become my favourite Mahler symphony in recent years.)

[DavidRoss]

What's to understand?  It's music, not a logical proposition.  Understanding just gets in the way.

[greg]

I don't understand it. I just enjoy the moments.

[brunumb]

What's to understand?  It's music, not a logical proposition.  Understanding just gets in the way.

Wow.  Those thoughts were going through my head, I turned the page, and there was your post.
Snap!

[Scarpia]

What's to understand?  It's music, not a logical proposition.  Understanding just gets in the way.

Depends on what you mean by understand.  If mean "understand what the composer was trying to get across" I agree understanding is not necessary to enjoy.  But with some works (to some extent M7 in my case) I have trouble coming to terms with (or understanding) what it means to me.