Mahler by Abravanel

I took an opportunity to buy a handful of Mahler’s symphonies conducted by Maurice Abravanel and played by the Utah Symphony Orchestra on Vanguard Classics, and I must write my impressions of the music. First, of course, I need to specify the symphonies I bought: the 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th, and Adagio for the 10th. I bought them for $3-$4 a disc from Berkshire Record Outlet.

So how are they? Well, I cannot report that they are profound, but nor can I report that they are crap. They are interesting, and, as with every conductor, of variable quality. The first trait that all of the recordings hold in common, except for the 9th, is that the performances are very brisk, if not extremely fast. As evidence, the 1st clocks in at 49 minutes (just shorter that Kubelik’s version, so just a little brisk), the 5th at a lightning fast 61 minutes, and the 6th at only 71 minutes. The 9th is just about on the money at about 83 minutes.

Speed does not necessarily translate into satisfying music making. The 1st is the least affected by this, I believe. The opening movement is too fast for my tastes in passages, but overall it is convincing. The increased speed actually does some good in the second movement given Abravanel’s interpretation, and the finale is quite acceptable. The third movement is played at just about the right tempo. Overall, I’d rate this a very good performance, but I’ll take Bruno Walter’s last recording on Sony any day.

The 5th symphony actually benefits the most from the increased speed. The whole works flows more smoothly and makes more sense, I think. The Adagietto is not a syrupy, overly romanticized movement here, and the rest if the work just sounds more convincing. This is actually the first recording of this symphony I have bought. Thus far I’ve had to rely on broadcasts, and both of the versions I’ve heard previously did not do it for me. I can’t remember who conducted the different versions, but they just didn’t float my boat. And while the briskness of Abravanel’s rendition is refreshing, I still don’t think I’ll listen to it a whole lot.

The 6th suffers from the speed. The beginning of the opening movement is just too fast to be appropriately ominous. Ditto the second movement. The Adagio is played fine, and the finale is very good, but the first half of the symphony is almost shot as a result of the excess speed. Compared to the best out there – say, Bernstein or Boulez – this one just does not stand up. But it does have a saving grace in its unique presentation of various textures and the emphasis on different solo instruments and instrumental groupings. In other words, it offers a unique perspective and may be worth it just for that.

The 9th is by far the best of the lot. The tempi are all fine, the appropriate emphasis being given to the appropriate instruments. The first movement actually has more pronounced viola playing than I am accustomed to, and I think that helps to some extent. The beginning of the Adagio is not as searing as I would like, but it concludes wonderfully. And the inner movements are exceptional. Overall, this is an excellent performance, bordering on being a great performance. Again, better is available, but this is much closer to the best. This is a proud addition to my library. I would recommend that anyone interested in Abravanel’s Mahler start here.

The Adagio from the 10th is very, very well done, but the most recent Simon Rattle recording is just too much for it. Good, but the competition is unquestionably great.

I must write a few words on the orchestral playing and the sound. Since it was the Utah Symphony Orchestra he used, Abravanel had a disadvantage when compared to Bernstein or Boulez, or other major conductors. That written, I think the Utah players did a commendable job. They would never be mistaken for the Berlin or Vienna players – not by a long shot – but they’re good. I do wish that Abravanel could have recorded with a better orchestra, though.

And as for the sound, it’s quite good. A little blurring in the brass and boominess in lower frequencies, but the strings and woodwinds are just fine. I do believe these were all recorded in the late 60’s, so the sound has a very pleasant analog sound to it, but it’s also somewhat noisy. I’m not writing about hiss, either. There is a strange low frequency noise that rumbles through many of the recordings, and some other strange sounds here and there. There are also some terrible edits here and there. Fortunately, this does not usually distract from the music (except in the 6th).