Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[Sergeant Rock]

....the 1970 recording (my first ever Mahler purchase, on a Nonesuch LP  twofer with very attractive psychedelic art cover )

What a coincidence! Horenstein's M3 was my first Mahler purchase too (circa early 1972)    I still have the LPs (left click to enlarge):






Sarge

[Leo K.]

Has anyone heard the Mahler 7, BPO broadcast from 1999, with Rattle conducting the M7? It's possibly my favorite Mahler performance, at least one of the most incredible in terms of exciting execution. Since coming across it I've been listening to it every Saturday afternoon. If it is true this performance got him the BPO job I can certainly believe it. I can't put words how profound this performance sounds, it will haunt me till my dying day.

[DavidRoss]

What a coincidence! Horenstein's M3 was my first Mahler purchase too (circa early 1972)    I still have the LPs (left click to enlarge):






Sarge

Hey, I still have that LP set with the same cover! Still listen to it, too!

[Leo K.]

Hey, I still have that LP set with the same cover! Still listen to it, too!

This LP has incredible sound compared to the Unicorn CD of the same recording!

I love it too 

[DavidRoss]

This LP has incredible sound compared to the Unicorn CD of the same recording!

I love it too 

Don't have the CD but generally prefer analog sound. I like the CD cover art much better, however.

[mahler10th]

What a coincidence! Horenstein's M3 was my first Mahler purchase too (circa early 1972)    I still have the LPs (left click to enlarge):


Sarge

Thats pretty groovy.

[Lilas Pastia]

Has anyone heard the Mahler 7, BPO broadcast from 1999, with Rattle conducting the M7? It's possibly my favorite Mahler performance, at least one of the most incredible in terms of exciting execution. Since coming across it I've been listening to it every Saturday afternoon. If it is true this performance got him the BPO job I can certainly believe it. I can't put words how profound this performance sounds, it will haunt me till my dying day.

I heard the same story. I generally don't like what Rattle does. Too finicky and unspontaneous. But if this concert secured him the BP job, it must have been really special. Has it ever been issued commercially?

I would probably choose something else to listen to every Saturday until my dying moment, though. Wait: isn't that a good subject for a new thread ?   

[mahler10th]

From Bertini's Mahler thread...

In my (more recent) traversal of Mahler cycles, one set rose above the crop and it was Abbado's on DG. I also liked Kubelik's a lot. One thing I look for in a cycle is consistency. I can't say your Inbal cycle did much for me. If anything, Inbal is a mediocre conductor who rarely rises above the occasion. Your other favorite Tennstedt is quite good, but I don't listen to it often. But, all of this said, I don't listen to Mahler much, but when I do Bertini, Kubelik, Abbado, and Chailly are within walking distance.

So what is it with Bertinis' Mahler that is so good, apart from the sound?  Can ANYONE who knows this let us me know.  What is it that Bertini does with Mahlers soundworld that makes listeners think it is so good?  I've not heard any particular phrases or movements which makes Bertinis release stand out at all.  Played well and sounding good is STILL not the essence of what Mahler was about.  This Bertini thing is doing my nut in, it has become necessary to find out just what I am missing in it...because if I am missing something, I will have to upgrade my ears.  Tonight I am going to do a personal blind listening test on the matter, so furious and confused I have become. 

Inbal is a mediocre conductor...

A shocking statement.  He may not be first draft pick for the BPO or the VPO, but he did draw out interpretative elements in Mahler and does have the unplanned habit of making symphonic output something of a symphonic story.  Even his Bruckner set, especially the original 4rth, has a way about it (though it's not my favourite). 

LATER:  I have just found this quotation by Inbal himself on his Mahler:
"For me, Mahler's symphonies are a unity, one gigantic symphony in eleven movements, better still a single great novel with eleven chapters [...]".   That is exactly how he plays it, I've always said so, and I am amazed I was right about his approach.  But what does Bertini do?  He plays the symphonies.  But what else?

[mc ukrneal]

From Bertini's Mahler thread...

So what is it with Bertinis' Mahler that is so good, apart from the sound?  Can ANYONE who knows this let us me know.  What is it that Bertini does with Mahlers soundworld that makes listeners think it is so good?  I've not heard any particular phrases or movements which makes Bertinis release stand out at all.  Played well and sounding good is STILL not the essence of what Mahler was about.  This Bertini thing is doing my nut in, it has become necessary to find out just what I am missing in it...because if I am missing something, I will have to upgrade my ears.  Tonight I am going to do a personal blind listening test on the matter, so furious and confused I have become. 

Well, I think in part it depends what you want from Mahler. I find Bernstein, for example, too hysterical or extreme for my Mahler preferences. He luxuriates over some things that I prefer he'd just get on with (too much angst). What this affects for me is the line and broad cohesion of the piece. Kondrashin is the one who helped me for this particular composer. I get the overarching lines with Kondrashin - he makes sense of the overall picture, allowing me to enjoy the details (which I can find frustrating sometimes when I don't feel the overall picture). I wonder if we would agree about what exactly the 'essence' of Mahler is anyway.

Bertini is, for me, similar to Kondrashin in this way. He plays it straight in such a way that I can 1) See the big picture, 2) Appreciate the details, and 3) Get massive pleasure from the music. I also like that in many of the slower movements - they have a nice balance, drawing out some beautiful lyricism. I love the Das Lied here, particularly the tenor (Heppner), who is glorious. The 8th is the other highlight for me (if one sticks to two).

[Ataraxia]

Well, I think in part it depends what you want from Mahler. I find Bernstein, for example, too hysterical or extreme for my Mahler preferences. He luxuriates over some things that I prefer he'd just get on with (too much angst). What this affects for me is the line and broad cohesion of the piece. Kondrashin is the one who helped me for this particular composer. I get the overarching lines with Kondrashin - he makes sense of the overall picture, allowing me to enjoy the details (which I can find frustrating sometimes when I don't feel the overall picture). I wonder if we would agree about what exactly the 'essence' of Mahler is anyway.

Bertini is, for me, similar to Kondrashin in this way. He plays it straight in such a way that I can 1) See the big picture, 2) Appreciate the details, and 3) Get massive pleasure from the music. I also like that in many of the slower movements - they have a nice balance, drawing out some beautiful lyricism. I love the Das Lied here, particularly the tenor (Heppner), who is glorious. The 8th is the other highlight for me (if one sticks to two).

Good post. Got me curious about Mahler again.

[Sergeant Rock]

From Bertini's Mahler thread...

So what is it with Bertinis' Mahler that is so good, apart from the sound?  Can ANYONE who knows this let us me know.  What is it that Bertini does with Mahlers soundworld that makes listeners think it is so good?  I've not heard any particular phrases or movements which makes Bertinis release stand out at all.

You're right, I think. There's nothing in Bertini's Mahler that really stands out...I mean, nothing that I haven't heard from other conductors. Nothing terribly memorable. But there's nothing wrong with it either. As Neal says, it's Mahler played straight and in that respect it makes perhaps the best basic reference set, a set to get your Mahler bearings. And the sound is really good. I agree with you: you want more than that in Mahler but just luxuriating in the sound isn't bad  I think some of Bertini's Mahler dull and disappointing (his Sixth especially). Other performances (his Ninth, his Second) I find quite appealing if not earth-shattering (nothing like Lenny's Second or Karajan's Ninth). It's not a set I couldn't live without though. If I had to start discarding my box sets (I have 15), Bertini would be one of the first to go.

Sarge

[DavidRoss]

But what does Bertini do?  He plays the symphonies.  But what else?

Isn't that what he should do? Some of us admire that more than we like distortions imposed on the music by interventionist conductors who put their own stamp on it. That's not the same thing as conductors who reveal or emphasize elements usually overlooked. It's like the difference between HJ Lim and Wm. Kempff in the Beethoven sonatas...with, say, Goode as the guy who plays it straight but with consummate technique and attention to detail.

Though my preference these days tends toward conductors who savor the deliciousness of Mahler's wry sensitivity and get under the skin of his cultural cosmopolitanism and pantheistic spirituality--like Bernstein, Barbirolli, and MTT, for instance--there are very few with the temperament and experience to "draw out more Mahler" rather than to express more of the interventionist conductor's personality. And I have always enjoyed those who find Mahler offers quite enough of an emotional roller coaster on his own and have the humility to play the music relatively "straight" rather than burdening it with their need to express "themselves." Bertini is one of these, and he's a good enough Mahlerian to be an ardent advocate for ALL of the symphonies, getting them all pretty right and with none of the awfulness that mars many another conductor's cycle.

Finally, I was quite surprised when Bertini's 6th impressed me so favorably in Daniel's blind listening test recently. (Though I haven't listened to the whole thing through to see if it holds up as well as the samples suggested.)

Does that help you to understand why so many value his set so highly?  You don't have to agree with us in order to understand, right?

And it doesn't hurt that the set is probably the most consistently good one available at such a reasonable price, which is why it's so often recommended to Mahler newbies.

P.S.  FWIW I'm with Sarge in that it would probably be the first to go if I had to relinquish some of my complete cycles. I almost never listen to anything from it, having several other preferences for each of the other symphonies.

[eyeresist]

Bertini vs Inbal - Bertini is sometimes (or often) dull, but Inbal is always bland. He offers nothing beyond competence, as far as I can hear (I've heard his Mahler, Bruckner and Ravel). Bertini, by contrast, even when he is too stodgy, understands something of Mahler's essence and brings out the essential darkness and grit.

[mahler10th]

Bertini vs Inbal - Bertini is sometimes (or often) dull, but Inbal is always bland. He offers nothing beyond competence, as far as I can hear (I've heard his Mahler, Bruckner and Ravel). Bertini, by contrast, even when he is too stodgy, understands something of Mahler's essence and brings out the essential darkness and grit.

Sad. Where is the essential darkness and grit?  WHERE???

[kishnevi]

Bertini vs Inbal - Bertini is sometimes (or often) dull, but Inbal is always bland. He offers nothing beyond competence, as far as I can hear (I've heard his Mahler, Bruckner and Ravel). Bertini, by contrast, even when he is too stodgy, understands something of Mahler's essence and brings out the essential darkness and grit.

In the Bertini thread, you said you felt that Inbal never rises to the occasion.  I wold turn that upside down and say that Inbal never falls beneath the occasion. 

Truth to tell, in Inbal's cycle there are no performances which I would point to as the "best recording of the ....Symphony ever made".  But they are all good--say, all of them A minuses is we were grading them school style.  Almost everyone other cycle is less consistent--there may be some A plus performances, but there are also some Bs and even Cs from time to time, so the overall "average grade" may be lower. (meaning of course cycles I've heard--at this point, that's Zinman, MTT, Gergiev, Tennstedt, Bertini, Inbal, Lenny I and Lenny II,  plus copious amounts of Abbado, Rattle,  and Boulez, and Levine's incomplete cycle.  Sinopoli sits in the "to be listened to" pile.)

Other cycles have some hits and misses.  Inbal doesn't have any hits, but he also has no misses, which in the end is just as important.

My one thorough listen to Bertini left me feeling his cycle is truly all over the place.  Some humdrum, some great, a few of them simply run of the mill.  Although it's been long enough since I listened, and will be long enough before I will listen again (for exramusical reasons) that I don't want to descend into vague details of what exactly I did and did not enjoy.

[eyeresist]

In the Bertini thread, you said you felt that Inbal never rises to the occasion.

That wasn't me.

Truth to tell, in Inbal's cycle there are no performances which I would point to as the "best recording of the ....Symphony ever made".  But they are all good--say, all of them A minuses is we were grading them school style....

For me the best description of Inbal's set is that favourite faintly damning phrase beloved of the critics, "good concert performances". I assume I don't need to explain what the phrase implies. When it comes to Mahler, I'd rather a conductor take risks and fail completely than merely rise to adequacy.

[kishnevi]

That wasn't me.

[Goes back to look]  Oh, yes, I see what it was.  Mirror Image John used the phrase, and you said you agreed with him. 

I suppose I'm either more accepting of Inbal or less forgiving of failure than you are....and I would not use the "good concert performance" phrase in relation to his cycle. 

Actually, I would, but that's because I tend to like 'concerto performances over studio recordings micromanages and massaged to perfection on paper. 

[Lilas Pastia]

In the Bertini thread, you said you felt that Inbal never rises to the occasion.  I wold turn that upside down and say that Inbal never falls beneath the occasion. 

Truth to tell, in Inbal's cycle there are no performances which I would point to as the "best recording of the ....Symphony ever made".  But they are all good--say, all of them A minuses is we were grading them school style.  Almost everyone other cycle is less consistent--there may be some A plus performances, but there are also some Bs and even Cs from time to time, so the overall "average grade" may be lower. (meaning of course cycles I've heard--at this point, that's Zinman, MTT, Gergiev, Tennstedt, Bertini, Inbal, Lenny I and Lenny II,  plus copious amounts of Abbado, Rattle,  and Boulez, and Levine's incomplete cycle.  Sinopoli sits in the "to be listened to" pile.)

Other cycles have some hits and misses.  Inbal doesn't have any hits, but he also has no misses, which in the end is just as important.

My one thorough listen to Bertini left me feeling his cycle is truly all over the place.  Some humdrum, some great, a few of them simply run of the mill.  Although it's been long enough since I listened, and will be long enough before I will listen again (for exramusical reasons) that I don't want to descend into vague details of what exactly I did and did not enjoy.

Re, your last paragraph: I'm with you here. I haven't listened to the whole set, just a couple of the symphonies. I can't recall which ones though. Contrary to my systematic habit, I put the discs back in their order in the box (1-11) instead of taking the latest one I listened to and putting it at the end of the set. I do recall having been very neutrally impressed, which is rather a letdown of sorts. I'm *almost*  sure I heard # 3 and 7, two of the most difficult works to carry off, to be sure.

Inbal impresses me as a natural Mahler interpreter. As Haitink première manière was (his 1960s COA recordings). And the sound of his orchestra is just what you'd hear in the concert hall. Inbal's Mahler is rather sibelian or nielsenian in outline. And his orchestra and sound engineers are both excellent. He's not mediocre, that's for sure. He's tasteful and thoughtful, two qualities I admire im Mahler conducting.

For some reason - is it genuinely artistic or is it tinted (tainted?) by marketing intentions, it seems every jewish conductor has conducted Mahler symphonies: Szell, Solti, Bernstein, Inbal, Bertini, Walter, Klemperer, Horenstein, Ormandy, Zinman, Goldschmidt, Ashekenazy, Tilson-Thomas, Barshai,  Oistrakh, Farberman, Slatkin among those in my collection, and I'm sure I miss a few. And yet, I can't find a common 'jewish style' in these conductors' aesthetic or interpretive style (the most obvious instance being in the first symphony). Inbal and Bernstein, Walter and Klemperer, Oistrakh and Szell for example sit at opposite poles of interpretative discourse. And even though some of those conductors have given us ne plus ultra performances, they aren't alone to have done so: Haitink, Kubelik, Karajan, Sinopoli, Giulini, even Colin Davis, Saraste or Scherchen all gave us great Mahler performances.

Which is why I think there's no reason to buy a full cycle for the conductor's POV. There is no such thing as a consistently 'true' Mahler style. Even from conductors you'd think to be naturally attuned to the style and idiom.

[mc ukrneal]

Sad. Where is the essential darkness and grit?  WHERE???

Ah, but there isn't as much darkness and grit as you think there is. Mahler doesn't have to be played this way and I am generally happier with it when the darkness doesn't overwhelm the piece. Thus, Bertini is not one you will enjoy.

[eyeresist]

Ah, but there isn't as much darkness and grit as you think there is. Mahler doesn't have to be played this way and I am generally happier with it when the darkness doesn't overwhelm the piece. Thus, Bertini is not one you will enjoy.

No, I'm not saying Bertini emphasises darkness and grit (I don't think anyone who'd actually heard his set would say that), but these elements are nonetheless present.