Recordings That You Are Considering

[Bogey]

That 8 is pure CK energy. Terrific.

Ah, another positive vote....better get it before its gone.  Thank you V.

This looks quite interesting, but I haven't heard any of the recordings. I think the box is a little on the pricey side, although those Andante collections are usually elaborately annotated and packaged (I have one with historic Bruckner recordings of the WP). But then it is mostly the recordings I am interested in, not so much the packaging.

Karajan live recordings are often very interesting because they show a different side from the often too glossy and sterile studio productions and make it easier to understand why Karajan's conducting left such a deep impression on those who witnessed it live (as I was fortunate to do, too, in the 80s). Performances under him were often very well prepared and often, but not always, technically executed on a very high level. But not always, because contrary to popular opinion, that wasn't actually what was most important to him. Technical brilliance was something he demanded from his players and, understandably, found essential as the basis for really good performances, but technical "perfection" wasn't his ultimate aim (as can be seen from the fact that he often left small booboos or ensemble imperfections in his studio recordings). What he aimed for was for the music to "happen" in a natural way, unfolding out of itself, in long melodic contexts across the barlines, not resulting from a metronomic exact execution of the black and white dots on paper. Orchestras which played under him had a much higher degree of freedom than many realize, and sometimes, this led to truly extraordinary performances, with a whole orchestra breathing and playing like one giant chamber music ensemble. He even pulled off the feat of making the whole "Ring" happen like that, and when he performed for him less "typical" repertoire, like Shostakovich, the Mahler symphonies (which he only came to late in life), the Second Viennese school, or "Le Sacre du Printemps", he also worked very hard on reaching that kind of inner familiarity with the music instead of just letting the technically brilliant orchestras he worked with play the notes one after the other.

So, this might be something really interesting to listen to, even, or especially, if these might not even be the most "polished" and "brilliant" readings of these pieces. But they will probably be very "live".

Thank you for the extensive write up here M.  It definitely has piqued my curiosity.  And I believe you are correct about the thourough liner notes, as it comes with a 120 page booklet.

[Novi]

I'm considering this one ...



I've been listening to Sibelius's symphonies quite a lot the past couple of days (love that soundscape!). But I don't have any of his tone poems or incidental music.

Is this a good set for covering all bases or am I better off getting separate interpretations? 

I notice that the set contains the Vänskä/Lahti symphonies which I'm keen to listen to. I heard Vänskä lead a fantastic #3 and Kullervo last year and I think his set should complement what I currently have (Bernstein/NYPO, Rozhdestvensky and Blomstedt - although the last one seems to have gone awol . I think my sister pinched it ). 

[Renfield]

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=76047

I have this one, and I've really got little worth adding to M Forever's comments: very "live" indeed, with the Mozart "Coronation" Mass being an especial highlight of that point, as is a very interesting Te Deum in the same disc.

Novitiate, if "covering all bases" is what you seek, then that Sibelius set you're considering should do just that, I think: the incidental music is performed excellently, the tone poems "solidly" (though some of them not as exceptionally as others), and Vanska's reading of some of the symphonies is very beautiful indeed! All in all, worth buying.

(Though may I once again be the "spoiled Karajan brat" and also point you to his early DG recordings of the symphonies 4-7, as well as his late DG recordings of Finlandia, Valse Triste and the second part of the Lemminkäinen Suite? I always find those are the recordings I return to, for the works in question.)

[not edward]

Any opinions?

[M forever]

Though may I once again be the "spoiled Karajan brat" and also point you to his early DG recordings of the symphonies 4-7, as well as his late DG recordings of Finlandia, Valse Triste and the second part of the Lemminkäinen Suite?

Did he also record "Lemminkäinen's Return"? I thought from that suite he only recorded "The Swan of Tuonela" (several times).

[bhodges]

Any opinions?

Love it, love it, love it, but then I'm a fan of the two singers.  I haven't listened to it in awhile, but played it many when I first got it.  I also have Goerne/Bonney with Chailly, which is also very good and the classic Fischer-Dieskau/Schwarzkopf and Szell, which I like just fine, but prefer either of the other two versions.

--Bruce

[Renfield]

Did he also record "Lemminkäinen's Return"? I thought from that suite he only recorded "The Swan of Tuonela" (several times).

I'm almost positive he did record it at least once, for EMI. But I'll check to make sure, and get back to you.

The interesting thing about his recordings of the second part of the "Legends" ("The Swan of Tuonela"), by the way, is how different they are from each other! I honestly wonder just how much he changed his mind, especially between the first and the second on DG...

[Scriptavolant]

Wagner, my first classical music enthusiasm which now I've set aside in search for others, in an interesting edition.

[M forever]

I'm almost positive he did record it at least once, for EMI. But I'll check to make sure, and get back to you.

The interesting thing about his recordings of the second part of the "Legends" ("The Swan of Tuonela"), by the way, is how different they are from each other! I honestly wonder just how much he changed his mind, especially between the first and the second on DG...

I never noticed that, but then I never compared them side-by-side. They all have the same soloist, BTW, Gerhard Stempnik, who was the BP's english horn player for many decades.
Did you check for "Lemminkäinen's Return" in the meantime?

[Renfield]

I never noticed that, but then I never compared them side-by-side. They all have the same soloist, BTW, Gerhard Stempnik, who was the BP's english horn player for many decades.
Did you check for "Lemminkäinen's Return" in the meantime?

I did, and I was wrong: it was Barbirolli who had recorded parts two and four of the Legends, for EMI. So to the extent of my knowledge, Karajan has indeed only recorded the Swan of Tuonela, three times, out of that suite.

And if what you're saying holds true, then Stempnik was BPO's english horn player from at least 1965 to at least 1984 - quite impressive. Also quite interesting, how the same player can be recorded so differently in three separate occasions (albeit over 19 years).

Which one is your favourite, by the way? I've yet to make my mind between the EMI and the second DG, myself; though the latter comes with a far better coupling, in terms of execution.

[M forever]

I don't really know. I haven't listened to them in a long time, and like I never said, I never directly compared them.
Stempnik was indeed there for a long, long time. Dunno for how long, but I remember his replacement, Dominik Wollenweber, came in in the early 90s. Stempnik was a WWII veteran (he had a huge dent in the side of his temple because he had been shot in the head in Russia), so I am guessing he was born in the 20s and probably joined the orchestra not long after the war. He may well have been there for a good 40 years or maybe even more (like my first bass teacher who was roughly the same age and who almost lost his right arm in Russia, but only almost, and then he played with the orchestra for 42 years).

[Renfield]

I don't really know. I haven't listened to them in a long time, and like I never said, I never directly compared them.
Stempnik was indeed there for a long, long time. Dunno for how long, but I remember his replacement, Dominik Wollenweber, came in in the early 90s. Stempnik was a WWII veteran (he had a huge dent in the side of his temple because he had been shot in the head in Russia), so I am guessing he was born in the 20s and probably joined the orchestra not long after the war. He may well have been there for a good 40 years or maybe even more (like my first bass teacher who was roughly the same age and who almost lost his right arm in Russia, but only almost, and then he played with the orchestra for 42 years).

I almost expected you to mention a pianist contemporary of Stempnik, who had his fingers blown off and sewn back on, after a certain point in the above narration. German constitution!

Besides the joke, however, it really is interesting how certain aspects of an orchestra's sound are literally individual musicians that are a part of the orchestra for decades... Makes one wonder if traditions such as that of the "great" German orchestras simply originate from "royal lines" of musicians passing on their post and "traditional values" to the next person in line, who gets to "carry the torch" for his own share of the century!

Then again, this is pure speculation on my part, unbased on concrete evidence of any sort as it is; and in any case, this is also entirely out of topic.

So to be on topic, I am considering the Haitink/Concertgebouw Mahler 3rd, but wondering if it really will add anything to my current "roster" of notable Mahler 3rds - including the Boulez/VPO, both of the Bernsteins, the Abbado/VPO, the Bertini/CRSO, and even the Haitink/CSO (which Gramophone consigned to the deepest of pits, making an interesting point about it, true enough)...

The recording in question is this one:




And I'm also considering Chailly's (Mahler) 3rd, also with the (Royal) Concertgebouw Orchestra - and perhaps as an alternative to the Haitink. I've read some very positive comments about it. Your thoughts?

[mahlertitan]

And I'm also considering Chailly's (Mahler) 3rd, also with the (Royal) Concertgebouw Orchestra - and perhaps as an alternative to the Haitink. I've read some very positive comments about it. Your thoughts?

This is my favorite Mahler's 3rd symphony, it will make you listen from the first note to the last. Very intense performance that is in a class of its own. 5/5 stars.

[Que]

The recording in question is this one:

And that is my favourite recording of the 3rd!
IMO the best performance of the whole Haitink / Concertgebouw Orchestra cycle (the 2nd and the 7th are also very good)

Strongly recommended!

Q

[M forever]

Besides the joke, however, it really is interesting how certain aspects of an orchestra's sound are literally individual musicians that are a part of the orchestra for decades... Makes one wonder if traditions such as that of the "great" German orchestras simply originate from "royal lines" of musicians passing on their post and "traditional values" to the next person in line, who gets to "carry the torch" for his own share of the century!

It's basically the complex cultural environment in which these traditions are passed on and at the same time developed, which is something which is very important for a living tradition, and individual personalities can indeed play a very important role in the ongoing development process and have a lot of influence, by their playing and teaching. But the key to understanding this is, like I said in another post in the Asahina thread, realizing that music making, especially this kind of music making, is basically a craft, not a random artistic and completely subjective cultural activity. It is a very complex subject though, it is probably impossible to understand how this actually works unless you come from such an environment, but at the same time, there are many parallel phenomena in many cultures, in the way traditions are passed on and preserved and at the same time reviewed and reformed.

So to be on topic, I am considering the Haitink/Concertgebouw Mahler 3rd, but wondering if it really will add anything to my current "roster" of notable Mahler 3rds - including the Boulez/VPO, both of the Bernsteins, the Abbado/VPO, the Bertini/CRSO, and even the Haitink/CSO (which Gramophone consigned to the deepest of pits, making an interesting point about it, true enough)...

What "interesting point" did they make about it? And why did they consign it to the "deepest of pits"? It is a very well done reading, nohing particularly outstanding or interesting about it, that's true, but certainly not in any way really "bad" either.

Of the two recordings you are thinking about, I would get the older Haitink recording. The Chailly one is rather good, too, but honestly, nothing really special either. Very well played and also recorded in a very pleasing way, the kind of round, soft, pleasing sound that many people like although a lot of detail gets lost in the warm sound sauce, but musically, it isn't anything worth writing home about. Actually, in the context of some of the other really very good KCA/Chailly recordings (e.g. the incredibly good Mahler 5), it is quite disappointing. Nice to listen to, that's why a lot of shallower musical minds were so impressed with it, but nowehere near the class of some of the recordings you already have (esp. the Abbado and the Boulez recording).
The older Haitink recording however has some very special qualities, a lot of fine musical detail and a great feeling for the poetic substance of the music, plus you get the old Concertgebouw sound with the really dark horns and beepy woodwinds, so I would definitely recommend this one above the competent, but routined and streamlined Chailly recording.

[Renfield]

It's basically the complex cultural environment in which these traditions are passed on and at the same time developed, which is something which is very important for a living tradition, and individual personalities can indeed play a very important role in the ongoing development process and have a lot of influence, by their playing and teaching. But the key to understanding this is, like I said in another post in the Asahina thread, realizing that music making, especially this kind of music making, is basically a craft, not a random artistic and completely subjective cultural activity. It is a very complex subject though, it is probably impossible to understand how this actually works unless you come from such an environment, but at the same time, there are many parallel phenomena in many cultures, in the way traditions are passed on and preserved and at the same time reviewed and reformed.

Granted - otherwise, phrases such as "molding" orchestral sound would be meaningless. It still is about manipulating form, however: hence potentially accessible to more than those immediately involved with form in this context.

Still, that is quite a long (and may I add "interesting") discussion, for some other (forum-)place, some other time.

What "interesting point" did they make about it? And why did they consign it to the "deepest of pits"? It is a very well done reading, nohing particularly outstanding or interesting about it, that's true, but certainly not in any way really "bad" either.

They pretty much made the very point you just made yourself: that it's a basic reading, albeit supported by superb orchestral playing. In fact, the reviewer went as far as to call it a failure and a disappointment; I wouldn't go that far, myself, but I do admit that I listened to it on the alert more for signs of possible ensemble weakness, than I did for signs of possible interpretative novelty...

And since that view made me reconsider what it was I had really listened to, and realise that the reading might as well have been entirely on auto-pilot, for all it had to say (or for all it didn't have to say, which I was careless enough not to consider), I described the point as being "interesting".

Perhaps "probing" or "poignant" might have been better terms to use, in this context. But then again, it is very much a fact that I have not slept for more than 24 hours, so "wayward" terms do not surprise me all that much.

Of the two recordings you are thinking about, I would get the older Haitink recording. The Chailly one is rather good, too, but honestly, nothing really special either. Very well played and also recorded in a very pleasing way, the kind of round, soft, pleasing sound that many people like although a lot of detail gets lost in the warm sound sauce, but musically, it isn't anything worth writing home about. Actually, in the context of some of the other really very good KCA/Chailly recordings (e.g. the incredibly good Mahler 5), it is quite disappointing. Nice to listen to, that's why a lot of shallower musical minds were so impressed with it, but nowehere near the class of some of the recordings you already have (esp. the Abbado and the Boulez recording).
The older Haitink recording however has some very special qualities, a lot of fine musical detail and a great feeling for the poetic substance of the music, plus you get the old Concertgebouw sound with the really dark horns and beepy woodwinds, so I would definitely recommend this one above the competent, but routined and streamlined Chailly recording.

Thank you (and Que) for the affirmation: that's where I was heading myself, before I asked for a second opinion. Still, the Chaily does seem interesting enough for me to add it to my collection, along with the Haitink...

After all, posessing different viewpoints around the same piece of music is part of what collecting (classical) music is about, isn't it? And I wouldn't necessarily reject the notion of calling Chaily's "superficiality" a viewpoint deliberately chosen, versus simply a "by-the-way" occurence.

I mean, you yourself mentioned he does have his strengths: so perhaps they lie more in presentation than in depth. It won't make it my favourite recording, but it does make it worth my attention, I think.

[rubio]

Has anybody here heard Kondrashin's account of Mahler 7 with the Royal Concertgebouw on Tahra (and got any comments)? It seems pretty interesting.

[Renfield]

Has anybody here heard Kondrashin's account of Mahler 7 with the Royal Concertgebouw on Tahra (and got any comments)? It seems pretty interesting.

Didn't one of the Gramophone reviewers get all excited about it, last issue? It was part of an article about "hidden musical gems".

Regardless, it's Kondrashin, and the Concertgebouw Orchestra. I'd say you can safely consider it noteworthy.

(But I don't have it in my collection, nor have personally listened to it, mind you.)

[Renfield]

And I got the Haitink/Concertgebouw Mahler 3rd we were discussing above, today. Quite a performance indeed!

I'm not sure if I should praise the (legendary) woodwinds first, or the strings; and the reading is also quite meticulous, without being pedantic. Many thanks for "pushing me over the edge", about buying this one.

[M forever]

After all, posessing different viewpoints around the same piece of music is part of what collecting (classical) music is about, isn't it? And I wouldn't necessarily reject the notion of calling Chaily's "superficiality" a viewpoint deliberately chosen, versus simply a "by-the-way" occurence.

I mean, you yourself mentioned he does have his strengths: so perhaps they lie more in presentation than in depth. It won't make it my favourite recording, but it does make it worth my attention, I think.

That's not what I meant, and I would never call Chailly "superficial", not even in "". I think he is one of the best conductors on the loose today, a very intelligent and interesting interpreter whose readings are obviously based on thorough reflection and understanding. He is really good in a very wide spectrum of repertoire. I have seen him live many times with the RSO Berlin (where he was pincipal conductor in the 80s) and heard many of his recordings from Amsterdam. I think he brought a lot of strong and important new impulses to the orchestra there, even though Haitink was so pissed off that they chose him as his successor that he fell out with the orchestra for a while (he had apparently championed de Waart which wouldn't have been such a good idea, I think, maybe from a point of view of continuity, but de Waart is just not such an interesting conductor). I am very happy for the Gewandhausorchester that they have him now.

Some of his Mahler recordings are simply awesome, like the 5th, but I just couldn't warm up the the 3rd. That doesn't mean it's "not good". It certainly happens on a very high level. Maybe I just don't agree with his basic view of the piece here which is rather dark and brooding, massive and primeval. That seems to really fit the music but I think this piece, "Ein Sommermorgentraum" (a summer morning dream) as it was originally called, really should be seen more from the "Wunderhorn" perspective. I think it's basic tone should be light and poetic, it should have a fairy tale athmosphere, grace and lyrical qualities are really important. Sure, there are some very massive and dark passages, especially the "nature stirs" passages and other elements of the first movement, but I think those automatically happen in most good performances because of the sheer scope of the writing and orchestration. Really more critical IMO are the many, many very fine lyrical details of the music. It has to be very eloquently told.

Obviously, like you said, the interesting thing about different interpretations is that they do offer us different view points, so I don't "insist" on hearing it the way I think is "right". But whatever approach is taken, it has to be convincing and consequent. This is where I have a little problem with this recording. Unlike many of his other Mahler recordings, there is a lot of detail which just passes by unnoticed, a lot of phrases which don't really "speak" but are just executed nicely. It is a kind of blurry and general view of the music which is certainly below the level of what I have come to expect from Chailly, especially after the incredibly good 5th which really gets every detail "right" (which doesn't mean "right=the way I want it" but "right=whatever they do, it's not just perfunctory, it has a defintive expressive shape") and still manages to put them all into one large, balanced concept.

This is where Abbado's and Boulez' readings stand out so much. The attention to fine detail and lyrical context in these recordings is just mindblowing, there is really no phrase or detail which isn't given proper attention, and it all still doesn't fall apart into myriads of small unconnected details but it all "fits" together perfectly. That also has a lot to do with the orchestra, too, the WP just simply "own" this piece which relies so extremely on the expressive values of instrumental color, and they come closest to the colors Mahler knew, especially the horns which are so prominent here and they play exactly the same kind of horn Mahler. Plus the naturally elegant and eloquent phrasing of the orchestra just totally fits the music, especially the lyrical elements in it. Both conductors make optimal use of that potential.

Here is a little "secret tip" for the 3rd:
http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-Zemlinsky-Lyrische-Sinfonie/dp/B00008Y176/ref=sr_1_4/105-9794522-2724404?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1187485866&sr=8-4

Not one of the most "spectacular" Mahler 3 wither, but a very musical and very enjoyable (live) performance from the OSR conducted by the late Armin Jordan. A rather light and lyrical M3, too, but there is also plenty of sonic excitement in the right places. Not a "must have", but still a very nice and listenable version of the symphony which is little known.