mahler
Posted by: fidelio on 30 May 2008
wondering if anyone has an opinion on gergiev's 6th symphony of mahler? did a search, doesn't appear anyone's commented on this yet. he recorded it recently w/ the lso.
i saw his ring in orange county last year and enjoyed it. perhaps a ceratin "theatricality" is indicated for gustav ....
i saw his ring in orange county last year and enjoyed it. perhaps a ceratin "theatricality" is indicated for gustav ....
Posted on: 30 May 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Artie,
Mahler is not my favourite composer, but two of the great musician conductors who left some recordings were Otto Klemperer and Bruno Walter [both worked with the composer very early in their careers], and both were also steeped in opera.
Whether theatricality is important for realising his music is a good question!
I hope some Mahler fans add more than I think I could to it for you!
ATB from George
Mahler is not my favourite composer, but two of the great musician conductors who left some recordings were Otto Klemperer and Bruno Walter [both worked with the composer very early in their careers], and both were also steeped in opera.
Whether theatricality is important for realising his music is a good question!
I hope some Mahler fans add more than I think I could to it for you!
ATB from George
Posted on: 31 May 2008 by Tam
I haven't heard it yet, though I will probably pick it up on emusic at some point. From what I've read it is a rather brisk and severe account.
My brother attended one of the concerts (when they performed it in Newcastle) and thought it was awful. It's worth noting that he isn't the world's biggest Mahler fan, though he said he felt the performance we heard at the Edinburgh festival several years ago with Haitink and the EU Youth Orchestra was better (though I didn't care for that too much - I think Haitink lacks weight in the work and what I've heard so far of his latest CSO recording is a little lacklustre).
They played a few exerts of the Gergiev on CD Review last week, so you might still catch it on listen again - it didn't leave me desperate for more.
Personally my feeling on Gergiev is that his repertoire is rather limited (as his concert programme with the orchestra next season would seem to indicate), and perhaps unsurprisingly dominated by the Russians. But even there he doesn't always wow me - he's great in Prokofiev's first symphony, but I'm not so swept away by the others.
Personally I would first investigate the Jansons/LSO Live recording of the same work (or possibly the Jansons/RCO Live which is in better sound, though slightly less compelling), Mackerras (if you can track him down, since the recording with the BBC Philharmonic has only ever been issued as a BBC Music Magazine cover disc), Abbado in Berlin or Barbirolli's Philharmonia account (though not, I think, the live Berlin issue, where the metal hammer blows in the finale rather spoil things). Rattle's live Berlin account, on the other hand, is very exciting.
regards, Tam
My brother attended one of the concerts (when they performed it in Newcastle) and thought it was awful. It's worth noting that he isn't the world's biggest Mahler fan, though he said he felt the performance we heard at the Edinburgh festival several years ago with Haitink and the EU Youth Orchestra was better (though I didn't care for that too much - I think Haitink lacks weight in the work and what I've heard so far of his latest CSO recording is a little lacklustre).
They played a few exerts of the Gergiev on CD Review last week, so you might still catch it on listen again - it didn't leave me desperate for more.
Personally my feeling on Gergiev is that his repertoire is rather limited (as his concert programme with the orchestra next season would seem to indicate), and perhaps unsurprisingly dominated by the Russians. But even there he doesn't always wow me - he's great in Prokofiev's first symphony, but I'm not so swept away by the others.
Personally I would first investigate the Jansons/LSO Live recording of the same work (or possibly the Jansons/RCO Live which is in better sound, though slightly less compelling), Mackerras (if you can track him down, since the recording with the BBC Philharmonic has only ever been issued as a BBC Music Magazine cover disc), Abbado in Berlin or Barbirolli's Philharmonia account (though not, I think, the live Berlin issue, where the metal hammer blows in the finale rather spoil things). Rattle's live Berlin account, on the other hand, is very exciting.
regards, Tam
Posted on: 31 May 2008 by Todd A
I've not heard it, and it will take a number of really positive reviews until I'll consider it. (Or if I can find it cheaply enough.)
I just can't imagine him matching Bernstein's last recording, or Abbado's most recent one, or MTT's compelling take.
--
I just can't imagine him matching Bernstein's last recording, or Abbado's most recent one, or MTT's compelling take.
--
Posted on: 31 May 2008 by Tam
I'm afraid I don't get on with MTT at all. I found his 5th rather dull and the 7th something of a mess in concert last summer. He's also something of a drama queen on the platform, without, in my view, much cause to be.
regards, Tam
regards, Tam
Posted on: 01 June 2008 by KenM
The people at Classics today have a review of this on
http://classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11620
They seem to like it pretty well.
Ken
http://classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=11620
They seem to like it pretty well.
Ken
Posted on: 01 June 2008 by Tam
Interesting review, but.... 9 for sound quality, on an LSO Live issue, some mistake surely (unless they've suddenly stopped taping in the Barbican). LSO Live are a good label for many reasons, but sound quality isn't their hallmark.
Also, his comments on the placement of the andante are, to say the least, odd. Certainly the symphony was first published scherzo-andante but Mahler switched this in rehearsals leading up to the first performance. He then instructed his publishers to change this and insert errata slips. This order was observed in all performances Mahler gave. In 1963 Erwin Ratz's 'critical edition' switched back, but didn't offer any support for this decision. [Interestingly Barbirolli went andante-scherzo on his EMI recording, only for the record company to change it so that it was 'correct'.] The only evidence for scherzo-andante seems to be a rather tenuous telegram from Alma Mahler to Mengelberg and the most recent critical edition has reverted to andante-scherzo.
However, the review states that "the only substantive argument in favor of placing the scherzo third is that in keeping with Mahler's neo-classical preoccupations in this symphony" which is either patent nonsense, or suggests he doesn't consider what the composer did when he performed the work to be a "substantive argument".
Clearly a lot of people grew up with scherzo-andante and prefer that, but it doesn't make it correct.
regards, Tam
Also, his comments on the placement of the andante are, to say the least, odd. Certainly the symphony was first published scherzo-andante but Mahler switched this in rehearsals leading up to the first performance. He then instructed his publishers to change this and insert errata slips. This order was observed in all performances Mahler gave. In 1963 Erwin Ratz's 'critical edition' switched back, but didn't offer any support for this decision. [Interestingly Barbirolli went andante-scherzo on his EMI recording, only for the record company to change it so that it was 'correct'.] The only evidence for scherzo-andante seems to be a rather tenuous telegram from Alma Mahler to Mengelberg and the most recent critical edition has reverted to andante-scherzo.
However, the review states that "the only substantive argument in favor of placing the scherzo third is that in keeping with Mahler's neo-classical preoccupations in this symphony" which is either patent nonsense, or suggests he doesn't consider what the composer did when he performed the work to be a "substantive argument".
Clearly a lot of people grew up with scherzo-andante and prefer that, but it doesn't make it correct.
regards, Tam