[6RS]

Thanks for the answer! That makes sense to me, 2, 4, 7, 9 would have been a unusual combination of favorites, at least to my understanding.
No 8 is very hard to digest for me, I stay outside and get bored. Do you have a tip how to crack it?
I am impressed how many versions you own. Usually, with multiple version, I eventually prefer one that gets most of my listening time.

 

[DarkAngel]

Mahler 8th is almost always the hardest to grasp for most people including myself, it was not discussed in any detail in this thread until much later on. Previously I would rarely listen to it, but after hearing many versions and doing a little research I have come to understand it much better.

A little background info is especially helpful for this work:
Mahler 8th

Check out those rare photos of first performances!
You can see why it is called symphony of a thousand and is not often performed because of the forces/costs invloved.

So with background info in hand and taking a long period of time to gradually get used to this work things will fall into place soon enough

My reference for Mahler 8th is the Horenstein/BBC Legends

 

[6RS]

Thanks, DarkAngel, for the insights.

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mahler 8th is almost always the hardest to grasp for most people including myself, it was not discussed in any detail in this thread until much later on. Previously I would rarely listen to it, but after hearing many versions and doing a little research I have come to understand it much better. A little background info is especially helpful for this work: Mahler 8th Check out those rare photos of first performances! You can see why it is called symphony of a thousand and is not often performed because of the forces/costs invloved. So with background info in hand and taking a long period of time to gradually get used to this work things will fall into place soon enough My reference for Mahler 8th is the Horenstein/BBC Legends

It has only been very recently, with the release of Boulez' M8, that I have come to grips better with the work. Now, I'm not saying that Boulez will lift the scales from your eyes and you'll see Mahler's work in all its glory and understand it all. No, I just listened to the record several times in rapid succession and got to thinking about the M8 more than I had before then.

One record that has been illuminating for me has been Klaus Tennstedt's 1986 version (out, now, as an EMI GROTC coupled with his M4). I think that, and maybe Boulez will reach this point - as I said, I still haven't quite decided whether I like his first part or nott, Tennstedt presents a clear-eyed, yet passionate, performance. In other words, you see how it works without getting too wrapped up in architecture.

Just a thought.

 

[mbhaub]

Time to get this thread moving again...

Does anyone remember several hundred posts ago we were discussing the Mahler 7th, and what it takes to make it a real success. I think several of us came to the conclusion that the supposedly weak finale was made dull, insipid, and weak when taken too slowly, and so, it was the faster recordings that made that movement take life. Well get this...

I've been reading that entire 4-volume monumental (and monumentally heavy and expensive) biography of Mahler by Henry Louis de la Grange. This week I finally got into volume 4, which deals with the premier of the 7th fairly early on. It turns out that there was a fanatic Mahler fan named William Ritter who attended rehearsals, performances, and kept scrupulous notes about it all. Even wrote down the timings Mahler used in each movement. Now the first 4 movements had timings very near to what we expect and hear today. But the finale? If Ritter is accurate, Mahler blazed through the finale in 11 minutes! That's 5 minutes faster than already speedy Kondrashin, twice as fast as many others. Seems impossible, and Ritter had to be wrong. But the other timings seem ok, so why should he be wrong here? I think Ritter is right. In my head, I've "played" that finale many times following the score, really pushing the tempos, it you know, it can be incredibly exhilirating! I hope some conductor reads this bio, comes to the same conclusion and gives it a shot! Could be a mess, as there are many, many notes in the movement.

 

[scottder]

mbhaub.

Will have to go over the the 7th's I currently own (don't have the Kondrashin, but I have a live Scherchen performance with a fairly speedy finale (16:41). Not 11 minutes, but a spot closer. Some day I will get my hands on the Henry Louis de la Grange bios, so pricey but I hear they are excellent.

Scott

PS - and yes, it is time to spark some life in here again.

 

[Bunnyears]

Mb,

This might be an interesting year to read that book! Carnegie Hall is having a Mahler year for 2009 season -- it's the 100th anniversary of Mahler conducting the NYPO in the hall. The SKB is doing all of the symphonies with Barenboim and Boulez on the podium in 10 days, the same way they did it last year in Berlin. I've got tickets for 2 or 3 of the symphonies through my subscriptions and will pick up the others when they are sold individually. I'll let you know how it goes, but I suspect that Barenboim will conduct the 7th, so it should be very, very good.

I don't know the timing on the Rondo specifically, but the 5th movement clocks in around 17:28 in Barenboim's excellent recording of that symphony.

 

[mbhaub]

The books have been very gratifying to read. There's more info and detail in them than I ever imagined existed. Stunning research. And it's not just about Mahler, but anyone else associated. The new Vol. 4 is the New York years and is fascinating. What I've been doing is reading the books, then when I get to the point where Mahler completed a work, I pause and listen to several recordings and then continue. I also keep a very large and very detailed map of Europe nearby. Silly, huh? But it's been fun.

Unfortunately, Vol. 1 is currently out of print. It was published by Doubleday in 1973, the others by Oxford. The original Vol. 1 overlapped with vol. 2. La GRange promises a new, revised vol. 1 soon which will obviously be expanded and not overlap onto vol. 2. I've also read that he's working on a 1-volume edition what won't have all the nitty-gritty. And for many people that will be enough. I have to say that these four enormously long books (esp. vol 4) have chewed up a lot of time reading -- and I'm a fast reader.

 

[koppite]

For someone just getting back into classical music is there a particularly "easy to digest" Mahler that you would recommend? Maybe something up-beat?

 

[scottder]

It does look like they are all pretty weighty reads. I don't mind taking the time to digest them as well. Just past the prices for them, but from what I have seen they are well worth it. Some day....some day.

Scott

 

[scottder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by koppite /img/forum/go_quote.gif For someone just getting back into classical music is there a particularly "easy to digest" Mahler that you would recommend? Maybe something up-beat?

I started out on Mahler's 2nd, not sure if I'd call it "easy to digest" but I have found it the easiest to approach over time. Hope that helps.

Scott

 

[koppite]

Thanks Scott, will try it out.

 

[pbarach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by koppite /img/forum/go_quote.gif For someone just getting back into classical music is there a particularly "easy to digest" Mahler that you would recommend? Maybe something up-beat?

The fourth symphony is pretty easy to digest, given its reasonable length. And it's got a sample of nearly every kind of music that Mahler wrote. In addition, it's got a lot of complexity under the surface that becomes apparent the more you listen to it. To me, that makes Mahler 4th the best introduction to the composer.

And there are many good recordings of it, including some at budget prices.

 

[DarkAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've been reading that entire 4-volume monumental (and monumentally heavy and expensive) biography of Mahler by Henry Louis de la Grange. This week I finally got into volume 4, which deals with the premier of the 7th fairly early on. It turns out that there was a fanatic Mahler fan named William Ritter who attended rehearsals, performances, and kept scrupulous notes about it all. Even wrote down the timings Mahler used in each movement. Now the first 4 movements had timings very near to what we expect and hear today. But the finale? If Ritter is accurate, Mahler blazed through the finale in 11 minutes! That's 5 minutes faster than already speedy Kondrashin, twice as fast as many others. Seems impossible, and Ritter had to be wrong. But the other timings seem ok, so why should he be wrong here? I think Ritter is right. In my head, I've "played" that finale many times following the score, really pushing the tempos, it you know, it can be incredibly exhilirating! I hope some conductor reads this bio, comes to the same conclusion and gives it a shot! Could be a mess, as there are many, many notes in the movement.

A good similar example in Mahler recordings is to compare the famous 1938 Walter/VPO Mahler 9th which times in at 69:42 with the modern 2CD 90 minute performances of Chailly and others........quite a change in performance style!

 

[Tyson]

Walter was quite the firebrand early in his career, and his early Mahler and early Brahms recordings are revelatory. The recording DA mentions is my reference for this work, and everyone else (even Karajan and Ancerl) falls short.