Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[Bogey]

Oh, okay, I just read about it. The one he has pictured is a live recording from the late '70s. Very cool. I'd like to hear it myself.

As Jens pointed out in his link, you can get the cd for about 12 bones:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004TQUC/weta909-20

[jlaurson]

Ionarts-at-Large: Eschenbach in Munich
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/01/ionarts-at-large-eschenbach-in-munich.html

[knight66]

I have just found this on Youtube


Mahler: Das Lied von der Erde
Lorraine Hunt Lieberson and David Rendall join Edo de Waart and the Netherlands Radio Philharmonic Orchestra in this live performance of Mahler's great work. Utrecht, 1999.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZW-U0CPjts

The complete performance has been uploaded on one 'track' lasting 65 minutes. I will not get a chance to hear this for a few days, but I was surprised to find such a long track. The same member uploaded Elgar's 'Music Makers' complete at around half an hour and the sound quality is very good.

Mike

[DavidRoss]

Muy fantastiche!  Thanks, Mike!

[knight66]

David, I am about to go out, but started it off, but beyond bizarre....it starts with the final song!

Mike

[jlaurson]

Ionarts-at-Large: Boulez' Mahler in Amsterdam
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/01/ionarts-at-large-boulez-mahler-in.html




Ionarts-at-Large: Birmingham in Amsterdam
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/01/ionarts-at-large-birmingham-in.html

[DavidRoss]

David, I am about to go out, but started it off, but beyond bizarre....it starts with the final song!

Listening now, Mike.  Bizarre, indeed.  They labeled it right, but sho 'nuff, it's "Bye, y'all" and not "Bottoms up!"

Not one of Ms Hunt's best days, sorry to say.

[Drasko]

Mahler: Das Lied von der Erde
Lorraine Hunt Lieberson and David Rendall join Edo de Waart and the Netherlands Radio Philharmonic Orchestra in this live performance of Mahler's great work. Utrecht, 1999.

Someone elsewhere uploaded audio recording (in supposedly good stereo) in correct order of songs and including Adagio from 10th, which was the other piece on program for the night.

http://rapidshare.com/files/341429800/RFO990926.zip

[Marc]

Someone elsewhere uploaded audio recording (in supposedly good stereo) in correct order of songs and including Adagio from 10th, which was the other piece on program for the night.

http://rapidshare.com/files/341429800/RFO990926.zip

Thanks for the link.
Listened to the Adagio and the first two songs: rather good performances so far, IMHO.

[MishaK]

Mahler's "Insurrection" Symphony 

Letter to Lorin Maazel

[The new erato]

Mahler's "Insurrection" Symphony 

Letter to Lorin Maazel

Good one. Will save me the money of ever buying a single recording by Lorin Mazel ever again.

[MishaK]

Good one. Will save me the money of ever buying a single recording by Lorin Mazel ever again.

Now, one must separate the man from the music still. His old Vienna Sibelius cycle is quite a scorcher.

[The new erato]

Now, one must separate the man from the music still. His old Vienna Sibelius cycle is quite a scorcher.

I already have it. 

And while I tend to agree, I find it easier to do this separation of man and work after the man is dead, as in Reiner and Bøhm.

[MishaK]

I just finished listening to this one for the first time.

[asin]B00004SR4X[/asin]

Will the collective GMG-hood forgive me, if I say that in this case I prefer the studio DG version to this live iteration? Here is my problem: this is far and away the most virtuosic of Mahler's symphonies, and the BRSO of that time simply wasn't (yet) a top flight virtuoso orchestra. It's an inspired performance, no doubt, and it's amazing just how well Kubelik judges the pacing, and of course orchestral balances, of which he was an absolute master. But the first two movements have a few bothersomely raw moments, with all too noticeable wrong notes, as if the orchestra wasn't yet warmed up. The Scherzo also somehow doesn't want to congeal into a whole in this performance, not quite as well, at least, as on the studio version. The Adagietto is incredibly well judged, however, one of the finest. I have no complaints about the last movement either. But in the case of the first two especially, but also the third, the controlled studio environment produced the better musical results.

[jlaurson]

I just finished listening to this one for the first time.


G. Mahler
Symphony No.5
Kubelik / BRSO
live, 1981
audite

Will the collective GMG-hood forgive me, if I say that in this case I prefer the studio DG version to this live iteration?

Oh, f_*# it. The DG is *much* preferable to this one, in my book. http://www.weta.org/fmblog/?p=1218
Not even the sound is notably better, if I recall correctly.

Here is my problem: this is far and away the most virtuosic of Mahler's symphonies, and the BRSO of that time simply wasn't (yet) a top flight virtuoso orchestra...

But your reasoning is, if I may be frank, bollocks. For starters, the BRSO has been a top flight virtuoso orchestra [considering the time and international competition then] even before Kubelik began work there.

Then you go on preferring the same orchestra in the DG version? Which was recorded a decade or two before this one? And a studio recording vs. a live recording? Individual mistakes get chalked up to the fact that this was a *real* live performance; no patching, no "studio live" conditions. Live then is different from "live" now.

And while I completely agree that Kubelik in this particular remake had lost much of the zip that made the earlier incarnation so, well... zippy and coolly exciting and excellent, it's just not sensible to blame it on the orchestra. They may not be a particularly emotional band, nor one with a particular 'sound', but they can play, alright. I know them better now, of course, than then, but precision and virtuosity (I prefer the word: agility) have always been their strong suits. Today they are among a handful orchestras (Cleveland, Berlin-under-Rattle come to mind) that exhibit that particular characteristic so powerfully.

[MishaK]

But your reasoning is, if I may be frank, bollocks. For starters, the BRSO has been a top flight virtuoso orchestra [considering the time and international competition then] even before Kubelik began work there.

Then you go on preferring the same orchestra in the DG version? Which was recorded a decade or two before this one? And a studio recording vs. a live recording? Individual mistakes get chalked up to the fact that this was a *real* live performance; no patching, no "studio live" conditions. Live then is different from "live" now.

And while I completely agree that Kubelik in this particular remake had lost much of the zip that made the earlier incarnation so, well... zippy and coolly exciting and excellent, it's just not sensible to blame it on the orchestra. They may not be a particularly emotional band, nor one with a particular 'sound', but they can play, alright. I know them better now, of course, than then, but precision and virtuosity (I prefer the word: agility) have always been their strong suits. Today they are among a handful orchestras (Cleveland, Berlin-under-Rattle come to mind) that exhibit that particular characteristic so powerfully.

Look, I adore Kubelik. He's hands down one of my very top favorite conductors. I have collected a ton if his BRSO recordings, and have quite a bit of Jochum's even older BRSO stuff, and am quite familiar with some of Jansons' and Maazel's work there, too. Yes, when Jochum created it, he had his pick of superb virtuosos for his first chairs. But that quality did not *at that time* extend through the depth of the rear of each section. In familiar repertoire they sounded great, especially when they had the benefit of studio edits. But put a more challenging, or not so frequently played piece (even if it's a Kubelik staple) before them, and the results are mediocre at best. E.g. I have a live Janacek Sinfonietta with Kubelik which is frankly hard to listen to on account of the really sketchy brass intonation and ensemble. Yes, today, they absolutely belong among the very top orchestras in the world, but they didn't in the 60s and 70s. Not by any stretch. If you compare to, e.g. the Cleveland and Berlin you mention, but I would also add Chicago and Concertgebouw, from all of whom historic broadcasts exist from throughout the past six decades at least, you hear much more disciplined orchestras who could maintain the same level of virtuosity live that they did in the studio, with nary a lapse to betray the live nature - and they maintained that quality throughout the decades! The BRSO today is brilliant, yes. But not back then.

PS: the two recordings are exactly ten years apart - DG 1971, Audite 1981.

[jlaurson]

The BRSO today is brilliant, yes. But not back then.

"Back then"... all the way in 1981 they were "not by any stretch" a top orchestra? After 20 years of Kubelik? I tend to disagree. When did they suddenly get so good precise? Under Colin Davis and Lorin Maazel? [Skeptical look over the rims of my glasses.] It's in the very nature and their daily work that Radio Symphony Orchestras, if the level of player-talent is sufficient, are more accurate, disciplined, and spontaneous orchestras... and that was the business they had been in for 30 years at that point.

In any case it's odd that you should like the earlier recording but then suggest it's the crappy orchestra* (ten years later) that makes this Mahler 5th less satisfactory.

*rather than a bad day for the orchestra

[MishaK]

"Back then"... all the way in 1981 they were "not by any stretch" a top orchestra? After 20 years of Kubelik? I tend to disagree. When did they suddenly get so good precise? Under Colin Davis and Lorin Maazel? [Skeptical look over the rims of my glasses.] It's in the very nature and their daily work that Radio Symphony Orchestras, if the level of player-talent is sufficient, are more accurate, disciplined, and spontaneous orchestras... and that was the business they had been in for 30 years at that point.

I'd credit Maazel probably. I haven't followed them that closely to pinpoint the exact moment, but he is, for all his flaws, without doubt a fine and uncompromising orchestra builder. Every orchestra he directed improved appreciably technically under his leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the one who whipped them into shape, but again I don't know that precisely.

In any case it's odd that you should like the earlier recording but then suggest it's the crappy orchestra* (ten years later) that makes this Mahler 5th less satisfactory.

*rather than a bad day for the orchestra

You're misrepresenting my logic here. I prefer the studio performance not because of its earlier date, but because it is a controlled studio performance that benefited from judicious edits and patches. Compared to some other live performances I have (e.g. the aforementioned Janacek Sinfonietta), they aren't having all that bad of a day at all in the '81 Mahler 5. In the last two movements especially everything is going according to plan. It's just that when your other choices include Kubelik's studio recording, Chailly's RCO recording, the surprisingly amazing Barshai, and four excellent Mahler 5s from the CSO that made this piece its international calling card for the past four decades, then the lapses in the first two movements take this recording out of the running as a serious contender.

I have enough live broadcast performances, official and bootlegs, of the BRSO from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s to judge quite well that they were not completely solidly reliable in earlier decades and only became so in the last twenty years. Sorry if that offends you.

[jlaurson]

You're misrepresenting my logic here. I prefer the studio performance not because of its earlier date, but because it is a controlled studio performance that benefited from judicious edits and patches...

I didn't try to misinterpret your logic. It just sounded like you liked one recording (DG), but not the other (Audite), because the orchestra was yet good enough.
What was missing--hence the confusion--was the part where you suggested that the orchestra wasn't (in your opinion) yet good enough for live performances (though good enough for studio performances, ten years earlier). Without being aware of that distinction, it sounded you loved one performance, but not another--because the orchestra was no good in general. Which would have been odd. Anyway... there's lots of early, completely live Mahler with the BRSO (the First with Kubelik, not the least of them), that suggests at the very least that they had their days. Listen to the live Berlin Phil Mahler from around that time and tell me, honestly, if that's any better.

Anyway, speaking of the BRSO in Mahler:



Ionarts-at-Large: Mahler Seventh with Bernard Haitink
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/02/ionarts-at-large-mahler-seventh-with.html

[MishaK]

I didn't try to misinterpret your logic. It just sounded like you liked one recording (DG), but not the other (Audite), because the orchestra was yet good enough.
What was missing--hence the confusion--was the part where you suggested that the orchestra wasn't (in your opinion) yet good enough for live performances (though good enough for studio performances, ten years earlier). Without being aware of that distinction, it sounded you loved one performance, but not another--because the orchestra was no good in general. Which would have been odd. Anyway... there's lots of early, completely live Mahler with the BRSO (the First with Kubelik, not the least of them), that suggests at the very least that they had their days. Listen to the live Berlin Phil Mahler from around that time and tell me, honestly, if that's any better.

It's peculiar that, given that I never spelled it out the way you misread it, you would choose to misread my argument in such an apparently self-contradictory and illogical fashion. If indeed I didn't express myself clearly, you could have at least asked me to clarify, before deeming my reasoning "bollocks". Can we try that approach next time? 

Berlin was indeed technically inconsistent during certain phases in their history, though still considerably more consistent than BRSO. But it was you who brought them up as a comparison. I'd still argue Concertgebouw, CSO and Cleveland have been far more technically consistent over the course of their histories, as evidenced in live broadcasts over the past six decades at least.