[keithdn]

@pbarach: Was that M1 by the NBC Symphony conducted by Toscanini, do you know? It sure sounds like him.. fiery and whatnot.

 

[pbarach]

No, it was conducted by Bruno Walter. Toscanini had no Mahler in his repertoire.

 

[keithdn]

Yes, sorry.. I did a bit of research and discovered that fact myself. I think Bruno Walter is pretty good, I have a recording of Brahms Symphonies nos. two and three with Columbia Symphony Orchestra. For being recorded in the 50s, it's a very decent recording (sonically) and very musical. Did Walter do many recordings with NBC Symphony Orchestra, do you know?

 

[stokitw]

Not a lot, and actually his recordings with NBC also suffer from poor sound.
As for Wlater's Mahler, Columbia is the safe bet.
Some historical recordings with european orchestra are also worth listening.
You may skip NBC for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by keithdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, sorry.. I did a bit of research and discovered that fact myself. I think Bruno Walter is pretty good, I have a recording of Brahms Symphonies nos. two and three with Columbia Symphony Orchestra. For being recorded in the 50s, it's a very decent recording (sonically) and very musical. Did Walter do many recordings with NBC Symphony Orchestra, do you know?

 

[pbarach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stokitw /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not a lot, and actually his recordings with NBC also suffer from poor sound. As for Wlater's Mahler, Columbia is the safe bet. Some historical recordings with european orchestra are also worth listening. You may skip NBC for now.

If your focus is strongly on sound quality, I'd agree. But the Walter who recorded M1 in 1939 with the NBC was much more vital and energetic than he was when he recorded Mahler symphonies with the "Columbia Symphony" (which was actually a pick-up group of LA musicians).

I think we miss out on some unique and wonderful performances of Mahler if we **only** listen to recordings with the best sound quality. Mengelberg's Mahler 4 with the Concertgebouw is a prime example. Terrible sound, but no Mahler fan should miss hearing it.

 

[pbarach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by keithdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, sorry.. I did a bit of research and discovered that fact myself. I think Bruno Walter is pretty good, I have a recording of Brahms Symphonies nos. two and three with Columbia Symphony Orchestra. For being recorded in the 50s, it's a very decent recording (sonically) and very musical.

A number of Walter's Columbia Symphony recordings were reissued on SACD in Japan, where you can really hear just how good the sound is. His M9 with the Columbia Symphony has very good sound, too.

 

[stokitw]

double posts.. my bad

 

[stokitw]

Actually the Columbia performance is an anomally of Walter's reading on Mahler's Symphony No.1.
If you like energetic Walter, you can grab his 1954 recording with NYPO.
I also strongly recommend his 1950 live with BRSO (published by Orfeo).
(One may skip those two 1947 recordings from Tahra and Testament)
1939 NBC is simply poorly played and recorded.

As for other early recordings (~1960) of Mahler Symphony No.1..
1940 Mitropoulos & MSO
1957 Barbirolli & Halle
1958 Boult & LPO
are interesting reads worthy for collecting.

Guys like Horenstein and Kubelik reach their peak later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbarach /img/forum/go_quote.gif If your focus is strongly on sound quality, I'd agree. But the Walter who recorded M1 in 1939 with the NBC was much more vital and energetic than he was when he recorded Mahler symphonies with the "Columbia Symphony" (which was actually a pick-up group of LA musicians). I think we miss out on some unique and wonderful performances of Mahler if we **only** listen to recordings with the best sound quality. Mengelberg's Mahler 4 with the Concertgebouw is a prime example. Terrible sound, but no Mahler fan should miss hearing it.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif The general consensus on Boulez is that while it's analytically keen, brilliantly played without exception, and generally very well recorded, it's echt-Mahler. It's too cold, too bloodless. It's emotional devoid of those highs and lows that are what Mahler fanatics are looking for. For my taste, I like a lot of Boulez' Mahler. Sometimes a clear-eyed, fresh approach is very desirable, and it works well in symphonies 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and even 9. His restrained emotional control holds back symphonies 2 & 8, although the clarity he brings to 8 is quite welcome. The third is somewhere in between. The orchestral detail and execution is astonishing, but his remoteness will leave some wanting more. So while I'm not going to give up my favorite Mahler cycles, the Boulez is a nice change of pace and well worth investigating. Boulez is no newcomer to Mahler. Many people are unaware that the first complete version of Das Klagende Lied was made almost 40 years ago by Boulez on Columbia records, and it was a thrilling, ultra-romantic reading. But I will say this: there isn't one of the Boulez Mahler symphonies that I would consider a first choice, but as a second or third version for a library, go for it.

Echt Mahler? That means genuine, real or true Mahler. From what you have written, I think you meant to write Ersatz Mahler -- substitute for the real; fake, false or inferior Mahler. And after seeing and hearing him conduct 5 of the 9 symphonies, I wouldn't really disagree. He's a brilliant conductor, but so rational and analytical. Emotional context is missing even when he is at his most dramatic, and Boulez does drama very well. While it's not precisely "fake" he really doesn't get Mahler except on the most technical level.

 

[radiohlite]

that may be why I'm responding so well to it. After Bernstein and some of the more histrionic conductors it's a kind of cleansing experience, listening to a completely opposite perspective. The lines are clarified, the balances are perfect. It's sort of cold, but somehow warm at the same time.

I also just discovered Mahler's own piano-roll performances, and he seems to go for clarity and directness, especially in the first movement of the 5th. Only this is also passionate and personal, unlike Boulez.

if only Mahler had lived to record his own music!!!

BTW: recently heard the M2 with Klemperer live from '65 (Bavarian RSO) and it blew me away. Never heard Klemperer's Mahler until now. gotta find all his stuff!

 

[mbhaub]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Echt Mahler? That means genuine, real or true Mahler. From what you have written, I think you meant to write Ersatz Mahler

You are absolutely correct, my error. Thanks for the correction!

radiohlite: be sure to try Klemperer's Das Lied on EMI, it's a heart-wrenching reading, even if it took a long time (and two orchestras) to get on tape. But don't ever listen to his M7: it's probably the worst version ever, and that's saying a lot because there are plenty of duds.

 

[radiohlite]

are any of Abbado's 80's recordings worth getting? I have his 7th with CSO but it's the only 7th I've ever heard. Yeah, shame on me.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiohlite /img/forum/go_quote.gif that may be why I'm responding so well to it. After Bernstein and some of the more histrionic conductors it's a kind of cleansing experience, listening to a completely opposite perspective. The lines are clarified, the balances are perfect. It's sort of cold, but somehow warm at the same time. I also just discovered Mahler's own piano-roll performances, and he seems to go for clarity and directness, especially in the first movement of the 5th. Only this is also passionate and personal, unlike Boulez. if only Mahler had lived to record his own music!!! BTW: recently heard the M2 with Klemperer live from '65 (Bavarian RSO) and it blew me away. Never heard Klemperer's Mahler until now. gotta find all his stuff!

First, looking for Mahler with the emotion dialed down is like looking for a great special effects movie with the effects diminished. You can see the detail, get the plot, and appreciate the acting, but the POW quality is gone. There are many conductors who do balance the emotionalism of Mahler with technical mastery without going into full fledged histrionics. From what you have written, I would think that the objectivist Mahler is more to your taste than the more romantic approach. Try Gielen's Mahler, or even Bertini (more lyrical). Also Ivan Fischer's Mahler is top rate, even if he did put the Scherzo third in the M6. Abbado is too tame, too introspecctive -- Mahler with no punch, but of technical mastery and great orchestral playing. Abbado doesn't do it for me, but you may like his subdued approach. If you want great sound with the emotional edge present but the harsh edges softened and smoothed, try some of MTT's Mahler

Btw, Fisher, Litton and Slatkin have great M2s also.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif In my insatiable desire to hear every recording of the Mahler 7th, I've heard something that's truly sensational. It's a new SACD release of Mariss Jansons conducting the Symphony Orchestra of the Bavarian Radio on their own label. Jansons gets it!

Have you heard Hans Zender's Maher 7th? He also gets it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are absolutely correct, my error. Thanks for the correction!

 

[pbarach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Abbado doesn't do it for me, but you may like his subdued approach. If you want great sound with the emotional edge present but the harsh edges softened and smoothed, try some of MTT's Mahler

The Chicago Abbado performances are relatively subdued and not so overtly emotional as some of his later performances. My faves are on DVD: the Lucerne Festival M2 and M3, and the Mahler Jugendorchester recording of M9.