Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[Sergeant Rock]

When it comes to the Third, the answer is: Yes. Newer is better. Better playing, better singing, and very, very importantly: better sonics.

How about better conducting? conducting that goes both to the heart of music and has a unique point of view? You left that out. That's where we disagree. For me the conductor's vision is always going to trump playing, singing and sonics. I think that essentially explains our different choices. Many in the older generation had unique personalities whose take on the music was quite individual. And it was music they really believed in. They were pioneers. Today conductors play Mahler because it's expected of them, whether they believe in the music or not. Does Boulez believe? I don't know. He certainly waited long enough to begin programming Mahler.

Abbado...I should probably listen to that again, too (not with me to have re-checked)... what's not to like?

If Mahler conductors can be classified (e.g., the classical objectivists like Bertini and Szell; modernists like Gielen and Dohnányi; the emotional subjectivists like Bernstein, Barbirolli; the Mahler-Lite of Kubelik, Neumann and Segerstam; the weird interventionists Sinopoli and Maazel), Abbado is Mahler as Mush: the music smoothed out and polite; guaranteed to give no offense; nothing crude or vulgar allowed. It's especially true of his Berlin Phil recordings (an orchestra with no Mahler tradition). Mahler should be crude and vulgar at times; he should give offense. The power should be felt and believed. Abbado fails from the very beginning: Mahler's instructions say Kräftig. Entschieden. Instead Abbado and Berlin sound schwach und unentschieden. At least that's the way I hear it. Your ears may be, probably are, tuned differently


Sarge

[jlaurson]

How about better conducting? conducting that goes both to the heart of music and has a unique point of view? You left that out. That's where we disagree. For me the conductor's vision is always going to trump playing, singing and sonics. I think that essentially explains our different choices. Many in the older generation had unique personalities whose take on the music was quite individual. And it was music they really believed in. They were pioneers. Today conductors play Mahler because it's expected of them, whether they believe in the music or not. Does Boulez believe? I don't know. He certainly waited long enough to begin programming Mahler.

Well, that's because I didn't mention that part. I don't think the conducting/interpreting has gotten "better". That's not objectively determinable. Perhaps it goes some way in explaining my (lack of) understanding of the Third Symphony that there, more than anywhere else, I consider technical excellence to outweigh personal choices. Also: A lot of the early recordings of the Third I happen to find particularly unsuccessful.

If Mahler conductors can be classified (e.g., the classical objectivists like Bertini and Szell; modernists like Gielen and Dohnányi; the emotional subjectivists like Bernstein, Barbirolli; the Mahler-Lite of Kubelik, Neumann and Segerstam; the weird interventionists Sinopoli and Maazel), Abbado is Mahler as Mush: the music smoothed out and polite; guaranteed to give no offense; nothing crude or vulgar allowed. It's especially true of his Berlin Phil recordings (an orchestra with no Mahler tradition). Mahler should be crude and vulgar at times; he should give offense. The power should be felt and believed. Abbado fails from the very beginning: Mahler's instructions say Kräftig. Entschieden. Instead Abbado and Berlin sound schwach und unentschieden. At least that's the way I hear it. Your ears may be, probably are, tuned differently

The Berlin Phil has not a lot less Mahler tradition than the Vienna Phil. So one didn't play much Mahler until the 80s... and the other band did, but grudgingly. 

Neither are the NYP or RCO in that respect. Or Munich, had they not neglected their Mahler tradition at the expense of a Bruckner-only tradition. I agree with Abbado, generally. I respect few conductors as much as C.A., but his Mahler I often find too %^&*(# boring. Too well behaved. Not unlike Jansons. Yawn. Or like Chailly, without the glorious glow. But in the Third... that's a little different. I like the understated approach to that Symphony. What makes a Sixth a failure can make a Third work for me. Perhaps you put more weight on the first movement(s), and I more on the last? Abbado's Berlin 6th? Yikes. His 4th? Nope.

[Que]

You must separate interpretation from technical performance. A note missed is a note missed, and it's easy to tell.
You may well think that old interpretations are so superior to new ones, that they make up for all the shoddy playing... but that's not the argument I am making (or care to get into, for that matter). I've rarely heard a 3rd where better execution didn't also lead to a better result.

B.Walter Mahler 3rd???

Sure, no Bruno Walter Mahler III.
But I also read your pieces on the 2st & 2nd symphonies - with interest, I might add!

So, the Old Masters and their orchestras dropped notes and their successors do not? I don't know... What I do know however, is that recordings are much more "perfected" nowadays than they used to be.

Q

[jlaurson]

Sure, no Bruno Walter Mahler III.
But I also read your pieces on the 2st & 2nd symphonies - with interest, I might add!

So, the Old Masters and their orchestras dropped notes and their successors do not? I don't know... What I do know however, is that recordings are much more "perfected" nowadays than they used to be.

Q

I believe I mentioned and recommended (of sorts) the Walter M1. And immediately this praise was singled out for ridicule at some other Mahler forum, where the Walter Columbia M1 was declared crap.
Can't win with the Mahlerites.   


And yes, the orchestral standards--every individual player and the bodies as a whole--have increased, as have the soloistic ones, immensely over the years. From Schnabel to Pollini? That's from gaslight to halogen spots. I know people who prefer gaslight (romance!), but that's interpretation, not technical ability. Even more dramatic increases in sheer ability in chamber groups, esp. string quartets.

[Renfield]

From Schnabel to Pollini? That's from gaslight to halogen spots.

I would have preferred to stay neutral in this discussion, but do permit me to raise an eyebrow at the above.

I don't think expression is discrete from the concept of technical ability: and that's what a number of old recordings are distinguished by. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard, say, Furtwängler's level of orchestral phrasing, lately.

Or Barbirolli's, if you want a Mahler example that's not Walter or Klemperer.

[jlaurson]

I would have preferred to stay neutral in this discussion, but do permit me to raise an eyebrow at the above.

I don't think expression is discrete from the concept of technical ability: and that's what a number of old recordings are distinguished by. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard, say, Furtwängler's level of orchestral phrasing, lately.

Or Barbirolli's, if you want a Mahler example that's not Walter or Klemperer.

Furtwängler was a special artist. There are special artists, today, too--and I hear plenty of them. Time tends to glorify; I've heard too much music to buy into it, I'm afraid--but it is probably also a matter of Musikweltanschauung whether one sees it that way or not. It's not an argument in which facts play a particularly important role, I don't think. Which is in itself one of the fascinating aspects of Music (or Art).

[Renfield]

Furtwängler was a special artist. There are special artists, today, too--and I hear plenty of them. Time tends to glorify; I've heard too much music to buy into it, I'm afraid--but it is probably also a matter of Musikweltanschauung whether one sees it that way or not. It's not an argument in which facts play a particularly important role, I don't think. Which is in itself one of the fascinating aspects of Music (or Art).

Well, it is a fact that overall orchestral standards have improved drastically over the past few decades, as a rule. I just have doubts over whether that would effect the exceptions to this rule, regardless of decade, or century (!).

Isn't it the 'special artists' of each era that we ultimately debate between, for a majority of our favourite recordings?


That 'The Past Masters' as a label is often the product of needlessly exclusive (past vs. present) glorification, however, I would be inclined to agree with. But only to the extent that this is not taken to entail the other extreme, viz. disingenuousness about their achievements. I have no doubt Osmo Vänskä is at least as great a conductor as Felix Weingartner, but that does not, IMO, make Felix Weingartner dispensable.

(Unless the deciding factor is recording quality, of course! For me, it isn't. )

[Lilas Pastia]

Jens, you should consider also that, as orchestral standards do increase (no doubt about that), the level of indviduality from one orchestra to the next decreases proportionately. What you're gaining in terms of orchestral fluency brings a corresponding decrease in the ability of the players to give a 'face' to their playing. That is particularly true with the so-called world Youth orchestras. There's no way to distinguish one from another. That was certainly not the case in Mahler's time, where each orchestra had its own tone, phrasing, even different instruments.

Personally I lament the fact that some of the really great orchestras like the Concertgebouw have become just like their neighbours in corporate personality. Execution is still immensely polished, their virtuosity probably even greater than before, and recognizable tonally when performing at their home (because of the hall's magnificent acoustics). But it's distinctly not the orchestra that recorded Mahler under Haitink, van beinum let alone Mengelberg (with whom Mahler worked very closely).  The same thing is happening in Vienna and Dresden .

[jlaurson]

http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1157

Gustav Mahler – Symphony No.4 (Part 1)

[jlaurson]

http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1170



Gustav Mahler – Symphony No.4 (Part 2)

[Drasko]

Gustav Mahler – Symphony No.4 (Part 2)

You have unfinished sentence about Ivan Fischer slow movement in there.

[jlaurson]

You have unfinished sentence about Ivan Fischer slow movement in there.

Thanks! I took care of the stray.

[MishaK]

A couple of things here...

It's especially true of his Berlin Phil recordings (an orchestra with no Mahler tradition).

The Berlin Phil has not a lot less Mahler tradition than the Vienna Phil. So one didn't play much Mahler until the 80s... and the other band did, but grudgingly. 

Neither are the NYP or RCO in that respect. Or Munich, had they not neglected their Mahler tradition at the expense of a Bruckner-only tradition.

I am frankly thinking more and more that this concept of a [insert composer of choice]-tradition within one orchestra or another is complete bunk. The living musicians of a given band do not somehow osmotically absorb an idiomatic approach to a composer's work just because their dead predecessors had one. Yes, there is a certain continuity that can be passed from sitting musicians to newer ones as they enter an orchestra, but the effect of this is exaggerated. Whether or not a collective of musicians has an intuitive grasp for the music of one particular composer is far more the result of their musical training and listening experience, and then most importantly the work of the conductors with whom they have had meaningful relationships. I do think we should more often do blind listening comparisons. These [composer]-traditions I think are far more the product of our prejudice based on our knowledge of an orchestra's history (or marketing hype) than an actual measurable musical manifestation.

Still, I have to correct some statements of yours regarding Mahler "tradition" of the various bands in question. While I think the claims of a lack of Mahler in the pre-Bernstein, pre-Abbado programming of the BPO and VPO is somewhat exaggerated, you simply can't put the Concertgebouw in that group. If there is one orchestra that has consistently devoted itself to the music of Mahler it has got to be that band, having performed Mahler right up to occupation (there is a 1939 live recording of das Lied with Carl Schuricht). The RCO's continuity in Mahlering is clearly evidenced on those wonderful 14-CD sets of historic radio broadcasts they have been issuing on their own label.

Jens, you should consider also that, as orchestral standards do increase (no doubt about that), the level of indviduality from one orchestra to the next decreases proportionately. What you're gaining in terms of orchestral fluency brings a corresponding decrease in the ability of the players to give a 'face' to their playing. That is particularly true with the so-called world Youth orchestras. There's no way to distinguish one from another. That was certainly not the case in Mahler's time, where each orchestra had its own tone, phrasing, even different instruments.

Personally I lament the fact that some of the really great orchestras like the Concertgebouw have become just like their neighbours in corporate personality. Execution is still immensely polished, their virtuosity probably even greater than before, and recognizable tonally when performing at their home (because of the hall's magnificent acoustics). But it's distinctly not the orchestra that recorded Mahler under Haitink, van beinum let alone Mengelberg (with whom Mahler worked very closely).  The same thing is happening in Vienna and Dresden .

While there is some truth to increased assimilation due to an elevation of technical standards, I would have to disagree with the purported lack of distinction in the sound of different orchestras. The sonic tradition of an orchestra has first and foremost to do with the hall. Drier halls yield clearer, more precise ensembles (e.g. CSO), warmer halls, yield richer, lusher bands (RCO, VPO, BPO, BSO), while German opera orchestras seem to be overcompensating for a lack of bass resonance of their houses by developing a very dark, botttom-heavy sound (SK Dresden, SK Berlin). Overall that doesn't change. Nor does the German orchestras' preference for German rotary trumpets and German oboes with shorts scrape reeds, as opposed to longer scrapes on American oboes and piston trumpets. These basic ingredients of an orchestral sound are still the same.

What *has* changed is one thing: music directors have shorter residencies each season than they used to and their tenures tend to be shorter as well. The seemingly interminable tenures of e.g. Ormandy in Philly, Szell in Cleve, Haitink at the RCO, Karajan in Berlin, are practically unthinkable today. So the lack in distinction is less one resulting from a change in the orchestral sound per se, but a lack of routine in developing one particular soundscape for one particular conductor. I do not think that is a bad thing. I empathize with Salonen when he tells of his futile travails in trying to scrub the Karajan out of the BPO's Sibelius. Today's orchestras are much more flexible in producing *different* soundscapes for different conductors while still retaining their basic identity. There is still no mistaking the BPO for the RCO or the VPO or the CSO. Yet, it never amazes me how much e.g. Haitink can get the CSO to sound like his old RCO when he's in town (BTW, the RCO under Haitink when he guest conducts today does not sound in any way significantly different than the RCO when he was still music director). If you want to compare orchestras over time, you have to look at how they sound under the *same* conductor.

PS: the youth orchestras are not at all the same. E.g., the East-Western Divan has a unique sound based completely on Barenboim's sonic ideals. One would sooner confuse them for the Staatskapelle Berlin than for the UBS Verbier orchestra. Likewise, the Simon Bolivar has a heft and mass of sound stemming from its sheer size that is unmistakable, not to mention their unique sense of rhythm.

Does Boulez believe? I don't know. He certainly waited long enough to begin programming Mahler.

The question is: does Boulez believe what? I do think he quite seriously believes in Mahler the prescient modernist and that is the angle he presents. Of course he doesn't care for Mahler the heart-on-sleeve purveyor of Weltschmerz any more than he ever cared for raw primordial violence in Stravinsky. That doesn't mean you can accuse Boulez of a lack of individuality of interpretation in Mahler.

If Mahler conductors can be classified (e.g., the classical objectivists like Bertini and Szell; modernists like Gielen and Dohnányi; the emotional subjectivists like Bernstein, Barbirolli; the Mahler-Lite of Kubelik, Neumann and Segerstam; the weird interventionists Sinopoli and Maazel), Abbado is Mahler as Mush: the music smoothed out and polite; guaranteed to give no offense; nothing crude or vulgar allowed.

I agree with Abbado, generally. I respect few conductors as much as C.A., but his Mahler I often find too %^&*(# boring. Too well behaved. Not unlike Jansons. Yawn. Or like Chailly, without the glorious glow. But in the Third... that's a little different. I like the understated approach to that Symphony. What makes a Sixth a failure can make a Third work for me. Perhaps you put more weight on the first movement(s), and I more on the last? Abbado's Berlin 6th? Yikes. His 4th? Nope.

Sarge, I'll have to disagree with you here. Firstly, Kubelik is not Mahler-"lite" in any way. What he does is to play out the folkloristic elements in Mahler, an approach that I find extremely rewarding, for it lures the listener in with a certain congeniality that inescapably leads to exposing the grotesqueness of Mahler's music. Barenboim writes intelligently on how much Kubelik in this respect influenced his approach to Mahler. I think this approach yields the most rewards in symphonies like 1, 4, 5 and 7. But I consider e.g. Kubelik's 2nd one of the finest on record, and there is nothing "lite" about it.

I see where you and Jens are coming from on Abbado. I too find Abbado on disc frustrating. There is an insightfulness and attention to detail and naturalness of phrase that contrasts with a certain inescapable blandness on record at times. I'm not sure what that is, whether his performances are just more exciting live than on these (possibly overengineered?) recordings or what. The supposed night-and-day difference between his studio Beethoven cycle and the live version issued shortly thereafter might support that finding. I haven't heard either yet.  Still there is too much I find fascinatingly interesting in Abbado's approach to various details to dismiss him out of hand as "boring". Mahler does not always have to be a roller-coaster ride and I do find both Abbado and e.g. Haitink/CSO massively rewarding in Mahler's 6th despite a superficial lack of initial intensity.

From Schnabel to Pollini? That's from gaslight to halogen spots.

But only if you ignore the fact that Pollini's teacher, the late Arturo Bendetti Michelangeli, radiated a pure solar light that Pollini at his best has never approached. ;-)

It's not that simple. Developments aren't always linear. And Birgit Nilsson still beats every Wagnerian soprano that came after her. 

Also, halogen spots burn out awfully fast. I have to fix a light in the kitchen yet again!

[jlaurson]

Still, I have to correct some statements of yours regarding Mahler "tradition" of the various bands in question. While I think the claims of a lack of Mahler in the pre-Bernstein, pre-Abbado programming of the BPO and VPO is somewhat exaggerated, you simply can't put the Concertgebouw in that group. If there is one orchestra that has consistently devoted itself to the music of Mahler it has got to be that band, having performed Mahler right up to occupation (there is a 1939 live recording of das Lied with Carl Schuricht).

I don't know how my sentence was meant to be read, but I know I meant the opposite of what you think I said. I meant to say that ONLY the NYP and the RCO have a living Mahler tradition, whereas the VPO does not. And the MPhil does, but it's nascent. I have excel files of every Mahler performance ever produced by all of these three orchestras, if you are interested.

And thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful reply, in the first place.

[Lilas Pastia]

While there is some truth to increased assimilation due to an elevation of technical standards, I would have to disagree with the purported lack of distinction in the sound of different orchestras. The sonic tradition of an orchestra has first and foremost to do with the hall (...) So the lack in distinction is less one resulting from a change in the orchestral sound per se, but a lack of routine in developing one particular soundscape for one particular conductor. I do not think that is a bad thing. I empathize with Salonen when he tells of his futile travails in trying to scrub the Karajan out of the BPO's Sibelius. Today's orchestras are much more flexible in producing *different* soundscapes for different conductors while still retaining their basic identity. T .

Some time ago there was a thread with a link to a series of recordings by the RCO. Haitink, Kondrashin, Janssons, Bernstein, Harnoncourt, etc.  Same hall, same orchestra, recordings made over some 30 years under various conductors. Should I expect a 'signature sound' ? Obviously the whole series should make for an interesting test on the issue OM mentions.

I just today started listening to one: Beethoven's second symphony, from 2004 (Janssons).  Well, this either gives the lie to the 'continuity', the 'tradition' of sound achieved over generations of musicians in the Concertgebouw, or it gives credence to OM's comment that 'Today's orchestras are much more flexible in producing *different* soundscapes for different conductors while still retaining their basic identity'.  I couldn't possibly recognize the sound as recorded here as that imprinted in my mind (and on numerous discs I own) as being that of the Concertgebouw - I'm speaking both of the orchestra and the hall.

I'm not referring to the Haitink era in particular but, to give two examples, just listen to Kondrashin's Schéhérazade or Harnoncourt's Jupiter symphony (both well-known and widely available commercial discs). They are obviously the work of the same group of musicians. The 'RCO sound'  is instantly recognizable in both cases. Under Janssons, the orchestra plays in a thoroughly unfamiliar way (to MY ears, of course). It could very well be that they're producing a 'different soundscape' because that's what Janssons wants from them. I suppose the amsterdamers are flexible enough to be more chameleon-like in sonority than the berliners (I'm referring to the interesting Salonen-Sibelius comment here).

It's possible also that I'm unsympathetic to what I hear because I thoroughly disliked the interpretation. I've been afflicted by bronchitis lately and what I hear reminds me a lot of how I've been since I became ill: short of breath, unable to speak more than a couple of sentences without breaking into a bout of spastic coughing. This Beethoven has no legato, phrasing is choppy, it never sings, it erupts in loud bursts that come out of nowhere. Totally unsympathetic, unsmiling. Comparison with Jochum's Philips RCO 2nd is very instructive here. Either the orchestra did sound different then, or it's the conductor (Jochum) who simply respected their corporate sound. The deep gurgle of the 1969 RCO horns, their inimitable low winds' organ sounds are what I recall from that era. Maybe I will hear it again as I'll listen to that series of concerts - under Bernstein (Mahler 1), Haitink (Schumann 1, Bizet), Harnoncourt (Schubert , Giulini (Dvorak , Chung (Saint-Saëns 3) or Kondrashin (Menselssohn 4). Janssons conducts 4 out of 10 works here (Beethoven 2, Brahms 2, Franck, Sibelius 2). Altogether it should be a pretty comprehensive survey. It will certainly take time, but I think I'll have a better idea of the subject. So far I acknowledge that my impressions are just that. They will either be confirmed, modified, or refuted.

[MishaK]

Lilas, two questions for you:

1. How often have you heard the RCO live in person as opposed to on recordings? If we're going to say that the RCO preserved on RCO live today does not sound like the homogeneous productions that emanated from Philips for decades, be they with van Beinum, Jochum, Haitink, Kondrashin or whoever, there is no question the sound has changed. But that is an engineering issue!

2. Do you have any of the RCO 14-CD sets of live broadcasts covering the 1940s to the 1980s? Those give a much better idea of how the orchestra sounded over time.

It's funny you take Jansons to task when I recall reading some behind the scenes comments by Haitink who disliked what Chailly did to the sound of the RCO, praising that Jansons had returnd the "old" RCO sound!

I don't know how my sentence was meant to be read, but I know I meant the opposite of what you think I said. I meant to say that ONLY the NYP and the RCO have a living Mahler tradition, whereas the VPO does not. And the MPhil does, but it's nascent. I have excel files of every Mahler performance ever produced by all of these three orchestras, if you are interested.

And thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful reply, in the first place.

Fine. But what does a tradition make? Three Mahler performances per year? What's your cutoff? How do you measure this? Why is this meaningful at all?

[jlaurson]

Fine. But what does a tradition make? Three Mahler performances per year? What's your cutoff? How do you measure this? Why is this meaningful at all?

I didn't respond to that because I kindof agree with you.

But I can tell you what tradition means in my book: An actual historical tradition of performing these works... i.e. premieres under the composer et al.
And continued performance of with that music or, alternatively, experience with music that is relevant to the performance. (If you deal with an orchestra of which no one has grown up prancing around in Lederhosen, absorbing Laendlers and Austrian Folk music, it's going to be awfully difficult to convey in an efficient manner what you want in this bit or that part... You can play the notes, sure... and Mahler gives more instructions than most, but "flavor" is going to be more easily (not exclusively!) attained by those with a performing tradition or cultural kinship.

Meanwhile:

http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1192




Gustav Mahler – Symphony No.4 (Part 3)

[Lilas Pastia]

OM, the answer is three times. In 1983 under Harnoncourt (all Mozart), 2005 under Davies (Prokofiev), and 2009 under Myung-Whun Chung (Bruckner). I'm going back next year for a Mahler concert under Daniele Gatti (crossing my fingers of course). There's no doubt  that the sound in concert was slightly different from that of commercial records (less reverb). But this is something that's easy to factor in (or out). The closest 'traditional RCO sound' I heard from that limited exposure was under Russell Davies.

It's definitely not an engineering issue. If you have ever sat in the Concertgebouw, I'm sure you've recognized the acoustics immediately, even if your prior experience was through records. But the playing is different. The tone of the brass instruments and winds in particular has changed. BTW my impression is that Philips reproduced the hall's sound better than Decca.

I do have a few CDs from the big centenary boxes (Haitink, Kubelik). And a few others from the Dutch Radio archives, not included in that box AFAIK (but I could be wrong). The sound of course did change, IMO substantially, as the Haitink tenure started. In their  earliest records, it was still van Beinum's orchestra. Personally I prefer their 1960s to mid 70s sound. It was at its most euphonious (not always the case under Beinum) while still preserving unique tonal qualities.

If you compare the sound of the two Beethoven seconds I mention, you can't miss the difference. And it has nothing to do with live vs recorded performance.

[jlaurson]

OM, the answer is three times. In 1983 under Harnoncourt (all Mozart), 2005 under Davies (Prokofiev), and 2009 under Myung-Whun Chung (Bruckner). I'm going back next year for a Mahler concert under Daniele Gatti (crossing my fingers of course).

Let's all meet at the Concertgebouw for Mahler. I'm going in February for the 7th under Jansons. 


Meanwhile, Mahler-off-beat:

http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1204


The Spheres of Mahler
Bukowski, Berio, Caine, and Zimro

[Lilas Pastia]

Mine will be June 24 (or 25). Gatti conducts the 5th. Do you plan to attend?