Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[eyeresist]

I've heard Wheeler and Barshai.
The performance for Wheeler wasn't great, and some of the orchestration just sounded wrong to me.
Barshai added percussion, which in theory I am in favour of, but he tends to pile on all the percussion near the beginning of each movement, which is not idiomatic at all. I'd like to hear Cooke with (tastefully) added percussion.

[Brian]

I haven't heard Wit, but imagine it would be pretty good.

Wit M3 was what I heard today 'cuz I had a craving and needed satisfaction fast. Excellent conducting - exactly the way I want the symphony done, all through - but you really, really yearn for a better orchesta and more sophisticated sound. The final movement, sadly, has the Katowice strings+trumpets sounding thin and ragged. I saw Warsaw/Wit do M3 live in '11, and it was the most awe-inspiring feat of orchestral playing (& band-conductor synergy) I've ever witnessed. I had to remind myself mid-symphony that it was really happening. Would kill for even a radio broadcast.

[kishnevi]

This has probably been covered here before, but I can't go down through all 133 pages to find it, so here goes:

In my circle, we generally agree that much as we appreciate what Deryk Cooke did to make the 10th listenable, we all think we could produce a better, more Mahlerian, orchestration.  So it's been instructive that over the past decade other versions have now been recorded -- Clinton Carpenter's, Joe Wheeler's, Barshai's, both Mazetti versions, etc.

So my question is:  What do you all think?  Do any of them send you more than either Cooke -- even realizing that many of them are by less than top rate bands?  I'll save my opinion until I've heard some of yours'.

geoge

Wheeler--mmph.  Carpenter--failed for me.  Don't know if this was the conductor's fault (Zinman) or the orchestrator, since apparently Zinman's is the first recording of that version.  Barshai--sort of liked. 
Have not heard either Mazetti version.

But  I find Cooke to satisfy me most of the time.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I haven't heard it yet but have ordered Bychkov (twice...the first seller reneged on the deal). Tony Duggan raved about it, calling it the best "modern" Third...or something like that.

I have it. The first time I listened to it I felt let down (not sure why). The second time I listened I had quite an enjoyable time. Definitely want to hear it again.

Great sonics, for one thing. And whether by Bychkov's hand or the characteristics of the orchestra influencing things (or both) it's quite a colorful performance. Something I admire in general. 

[jlaurson]

I've heard Wheeler and Barshai.
The performance for Wheeler wasn't great, and some of the orchestration just sounded wrong to me.
Barshai added percussion, which in theory I am in favour of, but he tends to pile on all the percussion near the beginning of each movement, which is not idiomatic at all. I'd like to hear Cooke with (tastefully) added percussion.

The real problem is that anyone wishing to improve on what exists is invariably held back by the fact that they can't take any valid extant attempts and work off that (because that would infringe on their copyright and is too expensive to bother with) and instead have to come up with novel solutions of their own, even if they aren't better at all. It's like if you wanted to improve the translation of a poem by just changing a handful of words of a fine extant translation, but aren't allowed to... so you have to surround your improvements with a gratuitously different new translation of the rest, too.

[eyeresist]

The real problem is that anyone wishing to improve on what exists is invariably held back by the fact that they can't take any valid extant attempts and work off that (because that would infringe on their copyright and is too expensive to bother with) and instead have to come up with novel solutions of their own, even if they aren't better at all. It's like if you wanted to improve the translation of a poem by just changing a handful of words of a fine extant translation, but aren't allowed to... so you have to surround your improvements with a gratuitously different new translation of the rest, too.

OTOH, there shouldn't be anything preventing conductors from modifying these performing editions however they see fit.

[ggluek]

I'm not really sure you can copyright an orchestration.  Look at the various versions of Pictures at an Exhibition and note how much they steal from each other.

Also, Mahler's draft of the 10th did include marginal notations indicating some of the instrumentation, which the arrangers use as a guide -- but they're far from comprehensive.

Anyway, here are my thoughts:  Joe Wheeler's version is really uneven and doesn't move me much.  Carpenter's I liken to a pizza with everything on it -- he pours in everything but the kitchen sink -- which is fun, but not the version you want to listen to all the time.  Rudolph Barshai's sounds to me to be basically a further revision of Cooke II.  Mazetti I has merit, but suffers from the recording by Slatkin -- who seems to be a very unidiomatic Mahler conductor.

Which brings us to my personal winner:  Mazetti II.

It's almost hard to separate his achievement from the interpretation provided by Jesus Lopes-Cobos  (who?), who conducts the 2nd-tier Cincinnati Symphony as if it were one of the world's great orchestras.  By itself, it's a wonderful performance.  The Purgatorio is one of the best I've ever heard.  The "dance band" passages in the 4th movement are absolutely frighteningly delightful.  And the final pages of the finale are heartrending.  All in all, it's (unexpectedly) one of my favorite performances.

I find the Mazetti reconstruction much more Mahlerian than either Cooke.  For one, he gets rid of the damn xylophone in the 4th movement.  The shrill passages are less so (and Mahler was never shrill).  And does something I've always wanted to hear:  He combines the drumstrokes that end the 4th movement and begin the 5th, and uses a single stroke to segue one into the other.  (I've wondered about that since I first heard Ormandy's premiere Cooke recording in the late 1960s.)

It's a version and a performance that's much worth hearing and I recommend it.

Another thing about the 10th that strikes me after hearing all these recordings is how bullet-proof the first movement is.  It's not my favorite Mahler movement, but hearing so many different takes on it, I was surprised to note that not one of them was bad or sounded less than convincing.

george

[jlaurson]

I'm not really sure you can copyright an orchestration.  Look at the various versions of Pictures at an Exhibition and note how much they steal from each other.

Also, Mahler's draft of the 10th did include marginal notations indicating some of the instrumentation, which the arrangers use as a guide -- but they're far from comprehensive.

Obviously you can use anything that's fallen out of copyright protection. But just as naturally any creative work is under copyright... do you think you can just take the Cooke/Matthews work and run with it? (Incidentally I'm not making any of this up, it's David Matthews who alerted me to the problem in the first place.)

OTOH, there shouldn't be anything preventing conductors from modifying these performing editions however they see fit.

This, I should think, would indeed be their prerogative, but they couldn't publish a version, if it relied on work previously done by others. Slatkin, for example, makes claims that Mazetti II is really partly/mostly his work. (See Mahler Survey, 10/2)

[Lilas Pastia]

I'm not really sure you can copyright an orchestration.  Look at the various versions of Pictures at an Exhibition and note how much they steal from each other.

Also, Mahler's draft of the 10th did include marginal notations indicating some of the instrumentation, which the arrangers use as a guide -- but they're far from comprehensive.

Anyway, here are my thoughts: (...)

I find the Mazetti reconstruction much more Mahlerian than either Cooke.  For one, he gets rid of the damn xylophone in the 4th movement.  The shrill passages are less so (and Mahler was never shrill).  And does something I've always wanted to hear:  He combines the drumstrokes that end the 4th movement and begin the 5th, and uses a single stroke to segue one into the other.  (I've wondered about that since I first heard Ormandy's premiere Cooke recording in the late 1960s.)

It's a version and a performance that's much worth hearing and I recommend it.

Another thing about the 10th that strikes me after hearing all these recordings is how bullet-proof the first movement is.  It's not my favorite Mahler movement, but hearing so many different takes on it, I was surprised to note that not one of them was bad or sounded less than convincing.

george

George, your instincts are right about the initial Adagio.

All the rest is open to conjectures, even the Purgatorio movement that Mahler did finish - at the time. How long would it ave taken him to get back to it in the context of a finished tenth? All these putative 'finished' tenths should be taken for what they are: sincere attempts  by dedicated scholars to enter into a great composer's mind and figure out what 'might have been'. The Bible got it right: on the seventh day God took off his shoes and called it a day. Who would have guessed that at bednight time on the sixth day?

In the end, all that counts is the communicative power of the interpretation of whatever version of the tenth the conductor has put his faith in.

Tip: try to download the Goldschmidt version. This might solve the issue of the transition between IV and V. Not a matter of conjecture, but of conviction.

[Lilas Pastia]

I listened twice to the Ashkenazy Czech Philharmonic version of the 6th symphony (SACD on the Exton label). It had been a long while since a version of that work made me sit up and take notice. This one did, in spades. It has a commitment, a burning desire to communicate that sweeps all before it. Many times over the course of the recording I was surprised by some detail that had never emerged with such force and clarity. The scherzo in particular was a revelation. In Ashkenazy's hands it becomes as feverish and bold as that of the ninth. Wind balances are astonishing, a stunning presence. The first and last movements are simply staggering. Climaxes explode with immense force. It's not just a matter of decibels. The rage behind the gesture is intimidating. A great listening experience. 77 minutes including repeat in I. That's about 10 minutes less than Zander, Sinopoli, Farberman and a few others. Timings are 21:17  / 12:16 / 15:43 / 27:58.

[eyeresist]

I listened to some of Sony's Bruno Walter edition over the weekend.

[asin]B006XOBFTM[/asin]

So far the surprise highlight has been the wayfarer songs. Walter's tempos as usual tend to be quick, sometimes too quick, but Mildred Miller's singing is wonderful! Simple, sensitive, beautiful tone, very touching. (And unlike certain others, she actually sounds female.) Till now, I have preferred baritone recordings. It's nice to finally have an alternative

I enjoyed Walter's broad tempos for the middle movements of the 9th, but the finale somehow sounds rushed, even though it is several minutes slower than his Vienna recording, which sounded fine to me.

[Lilas Pastia]

I initially thought Walter's speeds for the 9th's finale were quite swift, but I was soon won over by the seamlessness he imparts to the movement. There's always a danger of the musical argument breaking down in sections, but not so here. Walter's warmth and powerful embrace fuse to make this an intense, very emotional experience. I recall having been blaaah'd by that 9th as a teenager. I now find it simply perfect. This 9th is my favourite. The slow, 'lunar landscape' portions of the scherzo are also wonderfully done. Orchestral playing is good and the sound is fantastic even not considering the age of the recording.

I have the box too, but haven't listened  to the Wayfarer Songs yet, so thanks for that interesting preview !

[eyeresist]

Walter's warmth and powerful embrace fuse to make this an intense, very emotional experience. I recall having been blaaah'd by that 9th as a teenager. I now find it simply perfect. This 9th is my favourite. The slow, 'lunar landscape' portions of the scherzo are also wonderfully done. Orchestral playing is good and the sound is fantastic even not considering the age of the recording.

I've read people slighting the Columbia orchestra, but have no complaints, and can only put the put-downs down to snobbery.

Re the 9th, I do worry that I don't really seem to like the first movement these days.  I'll have to review a number of performances and see who can make it work for me.

[kishnevi]

I've read people slighting the Columbia orchestra, but have no complaints, and can only put the put-downs down to snobbery.

Re the 9th, I do worry that I don't really seem to like the first movement these days.  I'll have to review a number of performances and see who can make it work for me.

Hmm, reading this you made me realize that I've never really heard a performance of the first movement that's gripped me or moved me in the way the other movements do.  There's no drunken oompah band playing like there is in the middle movements; there's no ascent to heaven or slow glide to nothingness (depending on the conductor) like the last movement.  The only part of that sticks out for me is the fragmentary motives which begin the symphony;  otherwise the first movement hits me mostly as setting the scene or establishing the atmosphere.    It's preparatory to the rest,  allowing one to acclimate to the emotional surges that come later in the symphony.

[Leo K.]

Hmm, reading this you made me realize that I've never really heard a performance of the first movement that's gripped me or moved me in the way the other movements do.  There's no drunken oompah band playing like there is in the middle movements; there's no ascent to heaven or slow glide to nothingness (depending on the conductor) like the last movement.  The only part of that sticks out for me is the fragmentary motives which begin the symphony;  otherwise the first movement hits me mostly as setting the scene or establishing the atmosphere.    It's preparatory to the rest,  allowing one to acclimate to the emotional surges that come later in the symphony.

For me its generally the opposite feeling, that the II, III, and IV movs. don't measure up to the first movement. The last movement almost does, but not quite. That said, I'm obsessed with the Mahler 9 and have probably a hundred or so recordings of it!

[Cato]

That said, I'm obsessed with the Mahler 9 and have probably a hundred or so recordings of it!

I once knew a priest - Requiescat in pace - who had the same obsession.  He told me once he had "every" recording of the work, and would travel almost anywhere - within a few hundred miles - to hear it live.  Living in Toledo, that opened up everything from Chicago to Pittsburgh and Detroit to Cincinnati.

[eyeresist]

Last night I listened to the Neumann/Leipzig recording of the 9th (from the Brilliant box) - or bits of it! I was called away before the first movement finished, so have no idea how that turned out. Later listened to the finale (while ironing) - started well, but then he started doing some things I didn't expect, including taking some quite rapid tempos. That broke the mood for me. He managed to slow down again for the ending, but then the last chord was short and stopped abruptl

I've been contemplating the EMI Klemperer box for a while. I'm not a huge fan of his 2nd, as the finale doesn't work for me, but I'd like to hear some individual takes on the other symphonies, and see what he does with the 9th first movement - presumably less heaving about than most, which I think might work well.

[kishnevi]

For me its generally the opposite feeling, that the II, III, and IV movs. don't measure up to the first movement. The last movement almost does, but not quite. That said, I'm obsessed with the Mahler 9 and have probably a hundred or so recordings of it!

I have, what with complete cycles and one offs,  about thirty, possibly a little over that now.  My favorite is Zinman, because of the finale.    But this thread has prompted me to change my listening plans and put on Mitropolous conducting  from Jan 1960, out of the Mitropolous Mahler (West Hill Radio Archives) set I just got, for a first listen.  Also in the pile is the Sinopoli cycle and the Neumann eyeresist wasn't taken with.

[Lilas Pastia]

The 9th is my favourite Mahler symphony. I don't have as many versions of it than some of you guys. Maybe a couple dozens. I like it in many different ways, but the scherzo and finale is the crux of the work for me. The way the main theme of IV is softly heralded in the 'moonscape' episode of III always breaks my heart.  It's the most sheerly beautiful symphonic creation I know.

Some conductors underline its toughness, others its beauty, or its classical perfection. Still others see in it an hymn to the afterlife. I listened to it about 20 times in the past 12 months.

[Leo K.]

I have, what with complete cycles and one offs,  about thirty, possibly a little over that now.  My favorite is Zinman, because of the finale.    But this thread has prompted me to change my listening plans and put on Mitropolous conducting  from Jan 1960, out of the Mitropolous Mahler (West Hill Radio Archives) set I just got, for a first listen.  Also in the pile is the Sinopoli cycle and the Neumann eyeresist wasn't taken with.

Jeffrey, I agree the Zinman M9 is quite extraordinary in each movement, and it holds a high place in my fav M9s. Zinman doesn't play down the finale climax as many recent accounts do, and there is no compression because of the low level recording, the loud sections shine in detail without distortion.

Horenstein's account (with the LSO) on the Music and Arts label has my favorite finale.