That's what it says on the covers, PW, and my computer just confirmed Szell at 13:35 with the actual perfomance lasting 13:30 (there are a few seconds filled with audience noise between the end of the Andante and the beginning of the Finale. Kulbelik I can't immediately confirm: I have it on LP. I'll have to spin it on the Thorens and time it with my stopwatch. It does seem incredibly fast, you're right. But that's the major reason very little of Kubelik's Mahler appeals to me.
Mmmm .... maybe I should get Kubelik's complete set then?
Because he's known for his rather brisk tempi.
And I guess he might be right.
(Dare I say this?)
I only know Kubelik's 1st (once heard it, don't 'own' it), 4th and 8th.
The 4th is my favourite symphony, and I like Kubelik's approach very much. The slow movement is taking him around 18 minutes, which is .... way too slow!
Nevertheless he's rather quick, compared to many others.
From what I know, Mahler once wrote to Natalie Bauer-Lechner that the entire 4th symphony should last around 45 minutes!
Kubelik's performance lasts 52 minutes, he's (again) rather fast compared to many others.
In his autograph score Mahler has written down the amount of minutes that the movements should last: 15-10-11-8! (At least scholars assume that's what he meant by writing down these figures.)
This would mean, regarding the recordings I know, that lots of conductors take the second movement somewhat too fast (I admit that I've always liked Inbal here, and now that I own the Bertini I also like him
), and the third movement way too slow. Mahler also told Bauer-Lechner that the third movement should actually be played as a 'Moderato'.
Willem Mengelberg was praised by Mahler, because he played his symphonies exactly the way Mahler wanted to. We know that Mengelberg played the 5th symphony 'Adagietto' very fast and lively, in less than 8 minutes! Also Bruno Walter (who was Mahler's assistent-conductor in Vienna) was known for his rather animated interpretation of this movement. Nowadays a performance in 9 minutes is considered 'fast'.
I think that in Mahler's conception - maybe even in most people's conception during 'his' lifetime - the slow movements were to be played faster than we got used to in 'our' 20th century. It wouldn't surprise me if this goes for a lot of music, from pre-baroque until post-romantics. Since the HIP-revolution a lot of Bach's music, to name but one, is played much faster and brisker.
I sometimes feel that, during the 20th century, a lot of music (particularly slow movements and church music) was copiously dowsed with some (overdone) romantic respectively pious dressing. Romantic or pious, that is to say: the way that people in the 20th century began to think what 'romantic' or 'pious' meant, or should mean.
In this connection I think of some 20th century arrangements of classical 'hits'. During the 20th century listeners got used to very slow tempi for
Jesus, joy of man's desiring and Purcell's
When I am laid in earth. What great and lovely religious and/or romantic music!
But who believes that the way the Vatican choir nowadays is singing 'their' Renaissance choral works (slow and with an awful lot of vibato) has got anything to do with the way these works were sung in the 16th century?
Or listen, for instance, to Elgar conducting some of his own compositions: from what I've read about it when these recordings were re-issued, the tempi he chose were much faster than most listeners were used to. So some critics said: this can't be right, Elgar was forced to do this because it had to fit on a 78TPM disc.
But is this really true?
BTW: don't get me wrong, I'm really not sure about the rightness of these assumptions. I'm curious what other listeners think. But from the moment I started listening to Mahler, I preferred many slow movements to be played a bit faster, and some of the 'faster' movements a bit slower
, like the 'scherzi' of the 4th and 5th symphony.
And I also believe that a good conductor can be convincing, even when chosing the 'wrong' tempo. I like Kuijken's slow but appealing and expressive interpretation of Bach's
Johannes-Passion.
I also like Haitink's very slow Adagietto with the Berliner, because it's played in an intense way.
But, to be honest, I prefer Barshai.
