Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hey!!! Yeah I'll be at the rest of the cycle.........we should definitely try and meet up. Incidently I just got home.....I found Boulez very VERY underwhelming in the Resurrection symphony. Quite disappointed. It's the wrong vehicle for him, whereas I think the 4th, 6th and 7th are much more his thing.....not sure about the 3rd. His whole performance tonight felt too deliberate for me....the tempos didn't sway, the music had no stagger, nothing felt to surprising. The Resurrection symphony should BLOW YOU AWAY, it didn't for me. But I was with a woman who was hearing it for the first time and she loved it. So I guess it's in the ear of the beholder
|
I have to agree: it was a very calculated and analytical reading of the symphony. Boulez is something of a control freak, so I was not expecting the emotional intensity of Barenboim. It was a very good M2, but there should have been a sign over the door: Check Your Emotions Here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayG /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Meant to post here sooner to see if others were taking part in the Carnegie series. I too have tickets to the entire cycle.
I agree for the most part with what has been said about Barenboim's M1 Wednesday night. It certainly was an electric, vivacious performance, and I think it's the most propulsive I've ever heard it. I enjoyed it immensely. That said, I wouldn't be as quick to call it a legendary performance. The orchestra was clearly under-rehearsed, and the playing at times was really quite ragged. This was also exacerbated by Barenboim's live-in-the-moment approach, which I think you would have to admit included some wild changes in tempo and truly breakneck speeds in a few instances. Not a deal breaker by any means, especially considering how alive the performance was, but worth mentioning. I agree that Quasthoff was superb. I've never failed to be thrilled with his performance at a live event - he's truly one of the greatest currently singing.
I have to completely disagree with David on Boulez's M2. It's my favorite symphony, and I was a little concerned going into the concert because I was underwhelmed with Boulez's studio recording, and his temperament wouldn't really seem to fit the piece. However, my worries were unfounded, and Boulez delivered what was, in my opinion, a magnificent M2. A little bit of the ensemble raggedness from the first night was still there, but to a much lesser degree. Boulez let the piece breathe wonderfully, completely different from his recording, and apart from a slightly rushed intro to the final theme, I thought his choices of tempo were spot on. Whether it is because Boulez doesn't normally work with this orchestra, I don't know, but there was none of the sparseness of tone often found in his Mahler recordings. The orchestra delivered a beautifully rich account of the work, and I think the celli, basses, horns, and percussion deserve special mention for that. The Carnegie acoustics certainly didn't hurt either. Michelle DeYoung was fantastic, though she seemed to want a slightly slower tempo at the beginning of Urlicht than Boulez was willing to give her. The big surprise of the night for me was Dorothea Roschmann, who I though was absolutely outstanding in a part that almost always is overshadowed by the mezzo. The choir was plenty competent, and were thoroughly haunting at their first pp entrance, one of those truly magical moments of the repertoire. Honestly, the only thing I really missed all night was the presence of a real pipe organ. David, I wonder if you could elaborate a little more about what you didn't like - I would love to hear a contrasting point of view. Bunny, your thoughts?
Last night's M3 was, I thought, also very very good. A little less impressive to me than the M2, but I have to say Boulez's Mahler stock is rising in my book. In contrast to M2, I actually very much like his recording of the 3rd, and his live take was very similar, though again with more richness and breathing space. Definitely the most impressive from an orchestral playing point of view so far. There is just a ridiculous number of extremely difficult and extremely exposed solos, and they were done very well. Special mention to the principal trombone who was just amazing in his long first movement solo. The offstage trumpet was kind of a sad story, because it was absolutely incredible until near the end and then nearly fell apart. More to come on the third later, ran out of time.
Would love to hear more thoughts on these concerts.
|
First, you should know that Boulez conducts the SKB regularly and that he and Barenboim regularly alternate podium duties in Unter-den-Linden. This is also a repeat of the same cycle that they did in Berlin in 2007, so I suspect that the orchestra knows Boulez very well. Everyone here should also realize that the SK Berlin has quite a long history with Mahler, and they are the orchestra that made the first Mahler recordings of the M2 and the Kindertotenlied with Oskar Fried and Jascha Horenstein. If you haven't heard the recordings, they are available from Naxos.
The M3 by Boulez was far more satisfying to me than his M2, perhaps because the M3, while as dramatic, is not as emotional a work as the M2. I have to agree with PSmith: Boulez's approach to this symphony is perhaps not what most Mahler fans are looking for. That said, his dvd of a live performance is quite exciting when compared to his cd recording of the same symphony.
I also think this M2 coming after Barenboim's electrifying M1, suffered in comparison. The M2 is a symphony where so many fans (including myself) want all the stops pulled out. I want the conductor taking me on a roller-coaster ride that hovers on the edge of disaster. It is after all, a symphony about death, fear. redemption on Judgment Day. It is an affirmation of deep religious faith, and it has to be played that way. It's schmaltz factor is very, very high and to get the best reading the conductor cannot be afraid of fleshing out all of the sentimentality and religiousity that exists in the symphony. Without this, it's beautiful but not special. It's probably these aspects of the work that left the critics in Mahler's day cool, but created tremendous popular support for the composer. Boulez's reading, while very good, did not produce any emotional response from me or anyone else in my box. I didn't smile during the Ländler, or feel the tears coming during the Urlicht. Boulez examined the score with his brain: brilliantly but coldly.
The soloists and chorus were excellent, though. I have been a fan of Michelle DeYoung for years, since acquiring her recoriding of Das Lied. Dorothea Röschmann has a voice with excellent highs that easily soars above the orchestra. However, I was disappointed not to see the soloists seated after the first movement. Instead, the soloists came on stage at the end of the Ländler, making a break in the action that should have been minimized. Worse, there was a big, break in concentration between the end of the third movement and the Urlicht which included some disconcerting stage clatter. I had hoped that as the last notes of the third movement died, the Urlicht would start. That transition was handled very, very poorly by a conductor who is famous for his elegance. Perhaps that is also something that I found lacking: the symphony progressed as one movement after another rather than as something that grew organically. (For the life of me, even though I know that Barenboim broke between each movement, all I can recall is how the symphony evolved and grew: intervals or excitement broken by intervals of serene beauty; intervals of sadness, followed by intervals of triumph; sarcasm and honesty; each balancing and enhancing the other.) At the end of the night, did it really matter if there were some horn biffs (the brass section seems to be having problems in all of the performances), and the play was little ragged in spots, when compared to really egregious lapses like the bad transition into the Urlicht? No, the M2 was a fine performance, but it wasn't great theater. It didn't have that spark that characterizes the truly great interpretation. Boulez didn't put a foot wrong, so to speak, but the symphony just missed the target. It was all brain and no heart.
Now, the M3 on the other hand was more satisfying. I think this is because it is a much less emotional work, while still being very dramatic. Boulez knows how to do dramatic and this symphony reflected that. Btw, did anyone notice that awful biff during the off stage horn solo? I think everyone in my box groaned after that one. Otherwise, the play was considerably better than in the earlier performances. Although the brass seem to continue to have some problems, they are diminishing as the cycle progresses.
Did anyone see the article in the Times where Boulez said that if Mahler had lived 10 more years, we wouldn't have needed Schoenberg? That was a good reminder for me. At once I realized that Boulez is more interested in the parts of Mahler's work that foreshadow the development of the atonal movement than in how the works reflect the decaying splendor and the "Sturm und Drang" of turn of the century Austrian Empire.
I'm hoping that tonight we will hear a good Mahler 4th, which is one of my favorite symphonies. Röschmann seems to have the right vocal quality for the song, and the symphony should lend itself to the Boulez's restrained style.
