# Worst Mahler Conductor



## GGluek

This is all in fun, inspired in part by an anecdote I once read about panic running through the Decca offices with the realization that the aging Ernst Ansermet was running out of repertory to record. ("What happens when he comes to us wanting to record _Beethoven_?!")

Well, we've been through an era when sales were so guaranteed that almost anyone who wanted to record a Mahler symphony was green lighted. I inadvisedly purchased a Sinopoli Fifth that was ghastly. And sat in the driveway listening to the end of a Fifth that I was sure must be a student orchestra -- that turned out to be an early Ozawa/BSO effort!

So, in fun, who are the conductors who seem to have had no business going anywhere near Mahler in a recording studio?


----------



## nightscape

I'll just drop this here so we can all acknowledge it and move along to more interesting discussions.

Gilbert Kaplan


----------



## GreenMamba

What's the duration of Maximillian Cobra's Mahler 3?


----------



## KenOC

I liked the Arthur Fiedler cycle, although some were put off by the use of Leroy Anderson's final performing versions of the scores.


----------



## Mahlerian

Ozawa and Kaplan are two obvious ones, but I'll be controversial and say that Karajan's Mahler recordings show absolutely no understanding of or sympathy with the music whatsoever.


----------



## bigshot

Anderson might actually improve it a bit.


----------



## michaels

Mahlerian said:


> Ozawa and Kaplan are two obvious ones, but I'll be controversial and say that Karajan's Mahler recordings show absolutely no understanding of or sympathy with the music whatsoever.


I would say Karajan painted everything in his own light based on an interview I saw with Rattle, so your assessment fits quite well with what Rattle said.


----------



## Becca

Having had the dubious honour of attending more than one Mahler concert by him, I unequivocally vote for Zubin Mehta.


----------



## Albert7

GGluek said:


> This is all in fun, inspired in part by an anecdote I once read about panic running through the Decca offices with the realization that the aging Ernst Ansermet was running out of repertory to record. ("What happens when he comes to us wanting to record _Beethoven_?!")
> 
> Well, we've been through an era when sales were so guaranteed that almost anyone who wanted to record a Mahler symphony was green lighted. I inadvisedly purchased a Sinopoli Fifth that was ghastly. And sat in the driveway listening to the end of a Fifth that I was sure must be a student orchestra -- that turned out to be an early Ozawa/BSO effort!
> 
> So, in fun, who are the conductors who seem to have had no business going anywhere near Mahler in a recording studio?


Curious to see why you thought that the Sinopoli Mahler was ghastly? I really enjoyed his cycle which is very fascinating. On the other hand, I'm glad that Furtwangler did not touch Mahler because it probably would have been scary for its results.


----------



## ptr

Me thinks that the obvious have already been named! (Kaplan, Ozawa, Karajan), I'd also don't think much of Eliahu Inbal and Manfred Honeck, I'd love to hear Maximianno Cobra's Five, it must be super fast for him, found the timing of the Adagietto and he just paces it 7 minutes slower then the average of my top five recordings (16.48 vs 9.30)...

/ptr


----------



## techniquest

I'd agree with Kaplan and Ozawa (haven't heard Karajan Mahler), and would add Svetlanov.


----------



## joen_cph

The theme of this thread made me curious whether Mahler has ever been through a "James Last filter". Apparently not, including the _Adagietto_. 
But just recently, Last actually stated admiration for Mahler, in February: "I was recently at a big Mahler performance in Moscow, and it was fantastic". So he seems to stick to original Mahler.

http://www.ksta.de/panorama/james-last-hoert-auch-pink,15189504,29833164.html

As regards "poor Mahler conductors", I tend to skip and forget the boring ones, but Inbal´s set for example didn´t make much of an impression. However I don´t agree concerning Karajan, especially the vocal works (Rückert Lieder, Das Lied von der Erde).


----------



## Headphone Hermit

joen_cph said:


> The theme of this thread made me curious whether Mahler has ever been through a "James Last filter". Apparently not, including the _Adagietto_.
> But just recently, Last actually stated admiration for Mahler, in February: "I was recently at a big Mahler concert in Moscow, and it was fantastic". So he seems to prefer original Mahler.


what a scary prospect! - _James Last - Mahler a go-go_ - a torment that might await any of us who do not behave nicely in this world


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Mahlerian said:


> Ozawa and Kaplan are two obvious ones, but I'll be controversial and say that *Karajan's Mahler recordings show absolutely no understanding of or sympathy with the music whatsoever*.


I find the same with his recordings of Berlioz too. He transfers the individuality of Berlioz' eccentric and revolutionary music into his personal taste - like a Ferrero-Rocher chocolate when you want Mayan Gold instead


----------



## GGluek

Gilbert Kaplan

Can someone fill me in? I followed his original story casually: Rich man falls in love with Mahler 2, hires conductor to teach him how to get through it, American Symphony Orchestra to practice on, gives concert for family and friends at Carnegie Hall. End of story.

Then I find he's actually still around, has recorded it at least twice (once for DGG!). Is it a question money talks? Does he have something to say about the work that appeals to some people? Or is it a question of the backstory creating an event that transcends musicality (like that David Helfgott thing 15 years ago)? Just curious.


----------



## elgar's ghost

GGluek said:


> Gilbert Kaplan
> 
> Can someone fill me in? I followed his original story casually: Rich man falls in love with Mahler 2, hires conductor to teach him how to get through it, American Symphony Orchestra to practice on, gives concert for family and friends at Carnegie Hall. End of story.
> 
> Then I find he's actually still around, has recorded it at least twice (once for DGG!). Is it a question money talks? Does he have something to say about the work that appeals to some people? Or is it a question of the backstory creating an event that transcends musicality (like that David Helfgott thing 15 years ago)? Just curious.


Seems little more than a gilt-edged vanity project to me. Bit like aristocrats in the 18th century who had their own ceremonial 'militias' which did nothing but ponce about in dazzling uniforms.


----------



## Azol

Really, I don't inderstand all the trashing of Ozawa's Mahler performances. I cannot claim I heard them all, but his recording of M2 is nothing short of brilliant! One of my top M2 choices alongside with Solti/Chicago, Berstein/NY and Rattle/Berliner:


----------



## hpowders

I know I will be in the minority here but I have yet to hear a Barbarolli/Mahler recording that didn't sound like Mahler speaking with a very foreign accent. Not my Mahler.


----------



## Celloman

This recording of the 9th with David Zinman and the Tonhalle Zurich did nothing for me when I listened to it some months ago.
It's poker-faced and dry. Boulez is much better at the "pathos-free" Mahler interpretation, in my opinion. He brings out the details. Zinman doesn't bring out anything.


----------



## Heliogabo

With all my respect, my vote is for Abravanel. But could be that the problem with him is his orchestra.


----------



## hpowders

Becca said:


> Having had the dubious honour of attending more than one Mahler concert by him, I unequivocally vote for Zubin Mehta.


And yet, he has several recordings of the Mahler 2 that are right up there!

I endured the Mehta/NY Philharmonic years in person and generally agree, he is "over-rated".


----------



## GreenMamba

GGluek said:


> Gilbert Kaplan
> 
> Can someone fill me in? I followed his original story casually: Rich man falls in love with Mahler 2, hires conductor to teach him how to get through it, American Symphony Orchestra to practice on, gives concert for family and friends at Carnegie Hall. End of story.
> 
> Then I find he's actually still around, has recorded it at least twice (once for DGG!). Is it a question money talks? Does he have something to say about the work that appeals to some people? Or is it a question of the backstory creating an event that transcends musicality (like that David Helfgott thing 15 years ago)? Just curious.


For a positive spin on Kaplan, see the link below. It's hard not to think that The Economist is less interested in the actual performance than in the story. The fact that Kaplan made his money in finance probably helps.

http://www.economist.com/node/12675794


----------



## Orfeo

Heliogabo said:


> With all my respect, my vote is for Abravanel. But could be that the problem with him is his orchestra.


I think Abravanel is a fine Mahlerian, if some of his tempo choices and phrasings leave me with some awkward feelings. But, yes, the Utah Symphony, otherwise a fine ensemble, was nowhere near the NY Philharmonic, Berlin PO, the Concertgebouw, the Chicago SO, or the VPO (or even the London PO under Tennstedt or Philadelphia under Levine) in terms of execution and body (provinciality comes to mind). But the orchestra showed commitment and admirably so and Abravanel and his well-prepared team have been having quite a following literally for decades.

But let us also keep in mind that Mahler's music was an emerging phenomenon by the time they started recording the symphonies (at around 1963), and in Utah of all places. So it was quite a risk-taking endeavor for a relatively under-sized orchestra. Abravanel's knowledge and understanding of the music turned out to be the biggest assets in their journey, and how well they paid off. 
-------------------------------------------------------
As others point out, Kaplan yes, even though not all reviews of his recording(s) were negative. But Svetlanov, as Techiquest mentioned? Maybe, but that's because he recorded the symphonies too late in his career. There are many good moments in his set though


----------



## GioCar

Becca said:


> Having had the dubious honour of attending more than one Mahler concert by him, I unequivocally vote for Zubin Mehta.


This is actually one of my favorite recordings of the 2nd...










Anyway, _de gustibus non est disputandum_


----------



## Heliogabo

hpowders said:


> I know I will be in the minority here but I have yet to hear a Barbarolli/Mahler recording that didn't sound like Mahler speaking with a very foreign accent. Not my Mahler.


On the other side, Barbirolli´s Sibelius sounds great to my ears. What do you think?


----------



## JACE

Heliogabo said:


> On the other side, Barbirolli´s Sibelius sounds great to my ears. What do you think?


I love Barbirolli's Sibelius. ...AND his Mahler. 

With both of these composers, I think he has a very _personal_, unique vision.

I could easily see how others might be turned off by it. But, to me, it's very convincing and attractive.


----------



## millionrainbows

nightscape said:


> I'll just drop this here so we can all acknowledge it and move along to more interesting discussions.
> 
> Gilbert Kaplan


More interesting? Like, "Who are the worst Shostakovich conductors?" Ozawa might be included in that one as well.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Ozawa and Kaplan are two obvious ones, but I'll be controversial and say that Karajan's Mahler recordings show absolutely no understanding of or sympathy with the music whatsoever.





michaels said:


> I would say Karajan painted everything in his own light based on an interview I saw with Rattle, so your assessment fits quite well with what Rattle said.


Bearing these comments in mind, might I suggest that Furtwangler would have done a horrible job as well. That was easy.

And, following that bias, I'll say that Walter, Bernstein, and Levine are three of the best. Agreed?


----------



## hpowders

Heliogabo said:


> On the other side, Barbirolli´s Sibelius sounds great to my ears. What do you think?


Better than his Mahler, but for Sibelius, it's Ormandy, Karajan and C. Davis I am more likely to reach for.

I've never been a fan of Barbirolli and if that's a reason for complaining about me on Area 51, so be it.


----------



## JACE

hpowders said:


> Better than his Mahler, but for Sibelius, it's Ormandy, Karajan and C. Davis I am more likely to reach for.
> 
> *I've never been a fan of Barbirolli and if that's a reason for complaining about me on Area 51, so be it.*


You won't hear me complaining, hp!!! We're all entitled to our opinions. That's one of the things that makes life INTERESTING.


----------



## JACE

millionrainbows said:


> And, following that bias, I'll say that Walter, Bernstein, and Levine are three of the best. Agreed?


From my point of view, Levine does not belong among the great Mahler conductors. Naturally, YMMV.

As for Walter and Bernstein, of course. 

EDIT:
Aside from Bruno and Lenny, the other "Great Mahler Conductors" in my book are Kubelik, Horenstein, Tennstedt, and Barbirolli.

But I suppose _that's_ another thread!


----------



## padraic

Does Gilbert Kaplan even count as a conductor?

Have never heard any Mahler from Ozawa - and now I won't haha


----------



## realdealblues

I've not been overly impressed by Mehta's recordings of 1, 4 & 5. His 2 is ok, but why he completely ignores the double bar line before the Chorus starts has always boggled my mind.

I've not been impressed by Kaplan either.

Barbirolli's Mahler 5th and 6th on EMI were ok, but several others I've heard were not good.

Zinman missed the mark on pretty much his whole cycle, especially the 5th.

Karajan was good in the 5th and 9th.

Solti was also pretty lame in 1-4 & 9.

Sinopoli & Abravanel were a pretty mixed bags as well that overall failed to impress.

Dohnanyi had a dreadful 1st and 4th.

I honestly find Tennstedt's 1, 3, & 4 fairly weak as well.

I'll be extremely controversial from here on out and say I consider a good deal of Boulez's Mahler (2, 5, 7, 8, 9, Das Lied Von Der Erde) to be mediocre at best.

I also find Abbado & Rattle to be lame more often than not. Abbado's high mark was his Mahler 5th in Chicago and Rattle's high point was his Mahler 10.

Surprisingly I find Ozawa better than many. His 1, 3, 4, 7, & 9 are actually very good. His 6 being the only the real dud.


----------



## millionrainbows

I thought Bruno Walter was supposed to be "the source" from which all good Mahler conducting arises, since he studied with Mahler himself, and thus continues the "bloodline."



realdealblues said:


> I'll be extremely controversial from here on out and say I consider a good deal of Boulez's Mahler (2, 5, 7, 8, 9, Das Lied Von Der Erde) to be mediocre at best.


Boulez is on record as saying he did not like "the French orchestral sound", and generally speaking, he favors Germanic approaches to everything, including the direction music took in the 20th century. Is it the unspoken contention (controversial) that the more "Germanic" approaches (Boulez, Karajan) are not suited for Mahler?

If so, that seems a contradiction, since Mahler was in the middle of Vienna all that time, and was trying to "out-Wagner" Wagner. That seems pretty Germanic.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Boulez is on record as saying he did not like "the French orchestral sound", and generally speaking, he favors Germanic approaches to everything, including the direction music took in the 20th century. Is it the unspoken contention (controversial) that the more "Germanic" approaches (Boulez, Karajan) are not suited for Mahler?
> 
> If so, that seems a contradiction, since Mahler was in the middle of Vienna all that time, and was trying to "out-Wagner" Wagner. That seems pretty Germanic.


Karajan is not a "Germanic" approach so much as a "nonsense" approach.

He breaks up the first phrase here. At 0:25, we are in the middle of a single phrase, not entering a subsequent phrase. Karajan treats it as if it were a different phrase. I've never heard anyone else do it this way, and it makes no sense.






It's leaden and dull, too, and messes up Mahler's carefully conceived instrumental balances.


----------



## Lord Lance

I've not come across any performance so far off the deep end for its conductor to be billed/termed as incapable of conducting Mahler/worst Mahler conductor.... But that might just be me. I love to see the different flavors which every conductor bring.

Writer's Note: Not heard Ozawa, Zinman's Mahler 6 was good, Barbirolli, Rattle, Kaplan is a scam. Karajan was a _wonderful _*Mahlerian.* Even if he gave his vision and sense of aesthetics priority over the score. Not a score-worshipper - just different.


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> I've not come across any performance so far off the deep end for its conductor to be billed/termed as incapable of conducting Mahler/worst Mahler conductor.... But that might just be me. I love to see the different flavors which every conductor bring.
> 
> Writer's Note: Not heard Ozawa, Zinman's Mahler 6 was good, Barbirolli, Rattle, Kaplan is a scam. Karajan was a _wonderful _*Mahlerian.*


Karajan's Mahler is awful... even the brilliant Sinopoli gets the articulation just right in fact. Karajan attempts to heighten the drama necessarily with his fits and stops per movement.

I grew up with the Szell versions for the Mahler and man it was a really awesome experience. Although later on during my teenage years I would discover the Bernstein and Abbado cycles which were so moving to me up to today.

And people hate Sinopoli's Mahler for some odd reason. Unlike Karajan's intrusions, Sinopoli gracefully conducts Mahler as if it were an opera... subtle drama and underpinnings of true genius here.

Owaza's Mahler is inarticulate too. He is a great conductor but his lack of drama for me makes him not a top contender at all.


----------



## JACE

millionrainbows said:


> I thought Bruno Walter was supposed to be "the source" from which all good Mahler conducting arises, since he studied with Mahler himself, and thus continues the "bloodline."


I think most Mahler aficionados have a high regard for Bruno Walter's recordings. But I wouldn't go so far as to think that Walter's readings are _definitive_, that he somehow cornered the market on Mahler interpretation.

I think all great art -- including Mahler's music -- defies any single interpretation.


----------



## joen_cph

Of course, there´s also a big difference between the earliest Walter and the later one, towards lesser extremes - the earliest being the most "authentic" (?).


----------



## realdealblues

millionrainbows said:


> Boulez is on record as saying he did not like "the French orchestral sound", and generally speaking, he favors Germanic approaches to everything, including the direction music took in the 20th century. Is it the unspoken contention (controversial) that the more "Germanic" approaches (Boulez, Karajan) are not suited for Mahler?


My issue with Boulez is not about a Germanic approach. Take his Mahler 2 with Vienna. The clarinet section in the scherzo says to play "with humor", I don't know if I've ever heard a more humorless approach. The Trio is supposed to end in a "cry of dispair", instead it sounds like someone stubbed their toe. The opening of the first movement lacks all menace in the cellos and basses. The finale has no tension what so ever. There's no climax to be found anywhere in this recording and the closing chorus where we reach for the heavens has absolutely no impact whatsoever.

This Symphony can be played a few different ways and I would call Klemperer's recording the "Germanic" way. He's no heart on sleeve like Bernstein was, yet Bernstein and Walter both "got" this symphony and pull it off wonderfully in their own readings proving you can play this one stressing different things, but Boulez totally missed the boat in my opinion.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> Karajan is not a "Germanic" approach so much as a "nonsense" approach.
> 
> He breaks up the first phrase here. At 0:25, we are in the middle of a single phrase, not entering a subsequent phrase. Karajan treats it as if it were a different phrase. I've never heard anyone else do it this way, and it makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's leaden and dull, too, and messes up Mahler's carefully conceived instrumental balances.


It sounds fantastic- rules be damned.

Genius asks no one's permission.


----------



## JACE

joen_cph said:


> Of course, there´s also a big difference between the earliest Walter and the later one, towards lesser extremes - the earliest being the most "authentic" (?).


I dunno. One example: Personally, I don't regard Walter's '38 VPO Ninth as more "authentic" than his later version with the Columbia SO.

They're just _different_.

Or at least that's how I think about it.


----------



## Becca

millionrainbows said:


> I thought Bruno Walter was supposed to be "the source" from which all good Mahler conducting arises, since he studied with Mahler himself, and thus continues the "bloodline."


While it is true that Bruno Walter worked with Mahler, let's not forget Klemperer who got his real start due to his connection with Mahler, and Klemperer & Walter represent two *very* different styles.


----------



## Mahlerian

realdealblues said:


> My issue with Boulez is not about a Germanic approach. Take his Mahler 2 with Vienna. The clarinet section in the scherzo says to play "with humor", I don't know if I've ever heard a more humorless approach. The Trio is supposed to end in a "cry of dispair", instead it sounds like someone stubbed their toe. The opening of the first movement lacks all menace in the cellos and basses. The finale has no tension what so ever. There's no climax to be found anywhere in this recording and the closing chorus where we reach for the heavens has absolutely no impact whatsoever.
> 
> This Symphony can be played a few different ways and I would call Klemperer's recording the "Germanic" way. He's no heart on sleeve like Bernstein was, yet Bernstein and Walter both "got" this symphony and pull it off wonderfully in their own readings proving you can play this one stressing different things, but Boulez totally missed the boat in my opinion.


I find that Boulez's Mahler may underplay some things if one compares moment-to-moment with others' recordings, but they have an excellent sense of momentum and tension in his control of the line, a finely nuanced tempo that is never metronomical, and of course a texture that brings out all of the elements in Mahler's score. I don't hear the supposed emotionlessness of his readings, either.

Have you heard this version? It's better than the DG CD, I think.


----------



## JACE

Becca said:


> While it is true that Bruno Walter worked with Mahler, let's not forget Klemperer who got his real start due to his connection with Mahler, and Klemperer & Walter represent two *very* different styles.


Yes. Great point. Both equally valid. Both very different.

I *prefer* Walter over Klemperer -- but that almost certainly says more about my musical predilections than it does about those conductors' abilities as artists! 

I'm thinking of Klemp's quote about their differences as conductors: "Walter is a moralist. I am an immoralist." (Or something like that.)


----------



## Lord Lance

Albert7 said:


> Karajan's Mahler is awful... even the brilliant Sinopoli gets the articulation just right in fact. Karajan attempts to heighten the drama necessarily with his fits and stops per movement.
> 
> I grew up with the Szell versions for the Mahler and man it was a really awesome experience. Although later on during my teenage years I would discover the Bernstein and Abbado cycles which were so moving to me up to today.
> 
> And people hate Sinopoli's Mahler for some odd reason. Unlike Karajan's intrusions, Sinopoli gracefully conducts Mahler as if it were an opera... subtle drama and underpinnings of true genius here.
> 
> Owaza's Mahler is inarticulate too. He is a great conductor but his lack of drama for me makes him not a top contender at all.


Difference of opinion, Albert.


----------



## realdealblues

Mahlerian said:


> I find that Boulez's Mahler may underplay some things if one compares moment-to-moment with others' recordings, but they have an excellent sense of momentum and tension in his control of the line, a finely nuanced tempo that is never metronomical, and of course a texture that brings out all of the elements in Mahler's score. I don't hear the supposed emotionlessness of his readings, either.
> 
> Have you heard this version? It's better than the DG CD, I think.


Boulez is excellent in 1, 3, 4, & 6 and I have no issue agreeing with you on what you say about Boulez's Mahler when listening to those, but on some of the others he just misses the mark completely for me. His readings are more cool headed than fiery heart and I've heard Mahler performed successfully that way many times.

I will admit I do compare other recordings in certain moments. If I think back to his recording of the 8th, Part 1 works just fine. But when it comes to the end of Part 2 when the trumpets are blasting and the intensity is driving and we reach for that other worldy place that Mahler seemed to search for I can't help thinking back to Tennstedt or Bernstein or Gielen and feeling that Mahler himself would have been underwhelmed by Boulez's ending when compared to any of them.

I have not heard the version you posted. Only Boulez's DG cycle. I will try to give it a listen.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> It sounds fantastic- rules be damned.
> 
> Genius asks no one's permission.


I agree that rules are unimportant, and that an interpretation may be justified on the strength of the result alone.

Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with my criticism, which is entirely of Karajan's results, which provide neither insight into Mahler nor any other reasonable substitute.


----------



## ddavewes

I'd nominate Maazel, based on his 80's recordings with Vienna. The 4th is good, but the 2nd and 6th were unlistenable. Pushing and pulling tempi for no seemingly good reason other than whim. I had to put the box away for good. 

However, I heard Maazel/Cleveland do a fine 6th live back around 1980 or so


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> I agree that rules are unimportant, and that an interpretation may be justified on the strength of the result alone.
> 
> Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with my criticism, which is entirely of Karajan's results, which provide neither insight into Mahler nor any other reasonable substitute.


Your objection is as aesthetic as my own- I merely 'like' Karajan's phrasing and the resultant emotional effect- whereas you 'don't.'

The only difference is that I am as much pro- as you are contra-.

You claim that what Karajan did "makes no sense"- well the phrase "makes no sense" is contextually anchored to the antecedent claim of yours that ". . . we are in the middle of a single phrase, not entering a subsequent phrase."

Sure.

Granted.

What's not granted is that in so doing, Karajan _ipso facto_ makes the phrase somehow magically sound "leaden and dull"- 'leaden and dull' being psychological 'impressions' and not structural categories of analysis.


----------



## Orfeo

Marschallin Blair said:


> Your objection is as aesthetic as my own- I merely 'like' Karajan's phrasing and the resultant emotional effect- whereas you 'don't.'
> 
> The only difference is that I am as much pro- as you are contra-.
> 
> You claim that what Karajan did "makes no sense"- well the phrase "makes no sense" is contextually anchored to the antecedent claim of yours that ". . . we are in the middle of a single phrase, not entering a subsequent phrase."
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Granted.
> 
> What's not granted is that in so doing, Karajan _ipso facto_ makes the phrase somehow magically sound "leaden and dull"- 'leaden and dull' being psychological 'impressions' and not structural categories of analysis.




That's a food for thought. 
Hmmmmm.


----------



## Celloman

Mahlerian said:


> Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with my criticism, which is entirely of Karajan's results, which provide neither insight into Mahler nor any other reasonable substitute.


There is no "right" performance of a Mahler symphony, of course. It is my opinion that each conductor imposes his or her vision on a composer's work. So the "Karajan" interpretation can be just as valid as the "Bernstein" or "Boulez" interpretations, only it won't go down equally well with every listener.

In his live recording of the 9th, Karajan succeeds with his unique interpretation (I think) as other conductors succeed with theirs. He did not perform Mahler as often as many other conductors, but I don't think that this in any way limits his ability to impose his vision on Mahler's music as the others do. It may have been a little unorthodox, grant you, but I think it succeeds in its own way.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> Karajan is not a "Germanic" approach so much as a "nonsense" approach.
> 
> He breaks up the first phrase here. At 0:25, we are in the middle of a single phrase, not entering a subsequent phrase. Karajan treats it as if it were a different phrase. I've never heard anyone else do it this way, and it makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's leaden and dull, too, and messes up Mahler's carefully conceived instrumental balances.


I don't really have a dog in this fight (though this excerpt does sound rather bland to me, at least at the beginning), but I'm wondering if you hear in Karajan's Mahler what I hear in his late Wagner opera sets with the BPO: a sense of calculation and hypercontrol, in which spontaneous music-making seems sacrificed to producing a smoothly manipulated sonic stream at the expense of spirit and meaning. I was listening to his "transformation music" from Act 1 of _Parsifal_ the other day, just after hearing Knappertsbusch do it at Bayreuth in 1964, and where Kna's was intense and uninhibited and quivering with agony and ecstasy, Karajan's was a glossy photo of the music, carefully retouched like a Cosmopolitan cover - beautiful, but all about the conductor presenting the piece - or presenting himself presenting the piece - rather than coordinating a bunch of people playing their hearts out.

I haven't listened to any other Mahler by Karajan, but I'm wondering if your experience parallels mine in some degree.


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> Difference of opinion, Albert.


At least we both agree that Bernstein does Mahler exceptionally well


----------



## Celloman

I just listened to that Karajan performance of the 6th 2nd movement. It seems glacial to me - slow and boring. So maybe Karajan didn't "get" the 6th symphony as well as he "got" the 9th.

He didn't spend much time with this music. Maybe he didn't even like it.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> What's not granted is that in so doing, Karajan _ipso facto_ makes the phrase somehow magically sound "leaden and dull"- 'leaden and dull' being psychological 'impressions' and not structural categories of analysis.


But this was not my argument. My statement was that he messes up the phrasing, citing a relevant example (of which I could cite many more, including the crucial return of the A section midway through), and, on top of that, it's also leaden and dull, which I added, not as an argument, but as a statement of opinion.



Woodduck said:


> I don't really have a dog in this fight (though this excerpt does sound rather bland to me, at least at the beginning), but I'm wondering if you hear in Karajan's Mahler what I hear in his late Wagner opera sets with the BPO: a sense of calculation and hypercontrol, in which spontaneous music-making seems sacrificed to producing a smoothly manipulated sonic stream at the expense of spirit and meaning. I was listening to his "transformation music" from Act 1 of _Parsifal_ the other day, just after hearing Knappertsbusch do it at Bayreuth in 1964, and where Kna's was intense and uninhibited and quivering with agony and ecstasy, Karajan's was a glossy photo of the music, carefully retouched like a Cosmopolitan cover - beautiful, but all about the conductor presenting the piece - or presenting himself presenting the piece - rather than coordinating a bunch of people playing their hearts out.
> 
> I haven't listened to any other Mahler by Karajan, but I'm wondering if your experience parallels mine in some degree.


One of my early experiences of Karajan was his fine Bruckner Fourth with the Berlin Philharmonic. I loved that recording then, and I feel it holds up well now. Bruckner's music may actually benefit from a heavier-handed approach to orchestral balance as, played straight, it may sound over-the-top in terms of sheer brassiness.

One of my other early experiences with Karajan was his Valkyrie, which at the time I had Solti as my main point of comparison. I was surprised and disappointed at how the sections of the music I found so exciting under Solti sounded far less so under Karajan's baton.

I don't hate Karajan as a conductor. At times his records are excellent and they do feature fine playing. But his Mahler appalls me. When I dislike Boulez in Mahler (I've never liked his Fourth, for example), at worst I feel lukewarm about it; the music may be underplayed, but at least it's there intact. With Karajan I feel Mahler is distorted beyond recognition.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Celloman said:


> There is no "right" performance of a Mahler symphony, of course. It is my opinion that each conductor imposes his or her vision on a composer's work. So the "Karajan" interpretation can be just as valid as the "Bernstein" or "Boulez" interpretations, only it won't go down equally well with every listener.
> 
> In his live recording of the 9th, Karajan succeeds with his unique interpretation (I think) as other conductors succeed with theirs. He did not perform Mahler as often as many other conductors, but I don't think that this in any way limits his ability to impose his vision on Mahler's music as the others do. It may have been a little unorthodox, grant you, but I think it succeeds in its own way.





















I'd go a bit further, myself: Karajan's _Fifth_ and live _Ninth_ are among the most noble, elegant, and heroic Mahler readings I've heard anywhere.

The second movement drama and climaxes in his _Fifth_ are alternately hammering and exhilarating. His _Adagietto_ is the most piercingly-sublime performance I've ever heard.

Karajan's live _Ninth _is caressingly bittersweet- and done with the greatest orchestra on the planet at its absolute technical_ apex_.

We all have our tastes, certainly- but to cavalierly dismiss such sublimely nuanced beauty with some of the feckless remarks I have heard reaches the level of absurdity of an Ionesco play- well, 'almost,' because they're quite beyond it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> Mahlerian: I don't hate Karajan as a conductor. At times his records are excellent and they do feature fine playing. But his Mahler appalls me. When I dislike Boulez in Mahler (I've never liked his Fourth, for example), at worst I feel lukewarm about it; the music may be underplayed, but at least it's there intact. With Karajan I feel Mahler is distorted beyond recognition.


Waitress!- reverse order for me, please: Just transpose the words "Karajan" and "Boulez"- and hold the boredom.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> I don't really have a dog in this fight (though this excerpt does sound rather bland to me, at least at the beginning), but I'm wondering if you hear in Karajan's Mahler what I hear in his late Wagner opera sets with the BPO: a sense of calculation and hypercontrol, in which spontaneous music-making seems sacrificed to producing a smoothly manipulated sonic stream at the expense of spirit and meaning. I was listening to his "transformation music" from Act 1 of _Parsifal_ the other day, just after hearing Knappertsbusch do it at Bayreuth in 1964, and where Kna's was intense and uninhibited and quivering with agony and ecstasy, Karajan's was a glossy photo of the music, carefully retouched like a Cosmopolitan cover - beautiful, but all about the conductor presenting the piece - or presenting himself presenting the piece - rather than coordinating a bunch of people playing their hearts out.
> 
> I haven't listened to any other Mahler by Karajan, but I'm wondering if your experience parallels mine in some degree.


Dearest Woodduck, since you _didn't ask _for my unsolicited opinion <throwing down the pom-poms and slamming the door behind me>, well here, _have it then!:_

Karajan's "Good Friday Music" from _Parsifal_ absolutely exudes 'sexy' and I can feel the libidinous stirrings coming on when I hear it. This is largely because of his gorgeous legato and balancing- of which Knappertsbusch, great as he admittedly is, isn't even in the running.

Karajan's treatment of the strings in the overture is heavenly grace itself- and his horns and climactic buildup at the end of the opera has the glory of a thousand suns.

- Only 'some people' call it an over preciosity and refinement.

I'll take Karajan any day over Knappertsbusch when it comes to the deep orchestral subtexts of _Parsifal_.

Admittedly, I am flouting the conventional wisdom here. . .

Now, let me get out of these hotpants and into this asbestos suit.


----------



## Woodduck

^ ^ ^ My reference to Karajan's late_ Parsifal_ recording was only a point of reference wherewith to try to understand Mahlerian's objections to his Mahler. It was not a review of said recording.

If you and Karajan would like to take this outside, Knappertsbusch and I will gladly meet you there.

Back to Mahler?


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> ^ ^ ^ My reference to Karajan's late_ Parsifal_ recording was only a point of reference wherewith to try to understand Mahlerian's objections to his Mahler. It was not a review of said recording.
> 
> If you and Karajan would like to take this outside, Knappertsbusch and I will gladly meet you there.
> 
> Back to Mahler?


Bleeding spears at 10 paces


----------



## Triplets

Unlike some other posters, I like some of the Mehta (#2) and Karajan (5&6) recordings. When I worked in a record store in the late 70s a Vaclav Neuman set was an inexpensive import and we played it in the store. Haven't heard it since and don't want to.


----------



## hpowders

Heliogabo said:


> On the other side, Barbirolli´s Sibelius sounds great to my ears. What do you think?


You know, I haven't heard much of Barbirolli's conducting, except for Mahler.

For Sibelius, I'm satisfied listening to Ormandy, Karajan and Sir Colin Davis, but if I get the chance, I will try Barbirolli's Sibelius.


----------



## hpowders

Lord Lance said:


> Difference of opinion, Albert.


Yes. Difference of opinion indeed! My favorite Mahler 9 is with Karajan leading the Berlin Philharmonic.

This performance and Bernstein/Concertgebouw are all the Mahler 9 performances I could ever need.


----------



## Lord Lance

hpowders said:


> Yes. Difference of opinion indeed! My favorite Mahler 9 is with Karajan leading the Berlin Philharmonic.
> 
> This performance and Bernstein/Concertgebouw are all the Mahler 9 performances I could ever need.


Plus, I follow Karajan. {The religion}

He is my sole Lord and my sole light in the utter darkness that is my existence.


----------



## hpowders

Lord Lance said:


> Plus, I follow Karajan. {The religion}
> 
> He is my sole Lord and my sole light in the utter darkness that is my existence.


Yeah, but tell us how you really feel!!! :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Lord Lance said:


> Plus, I follow Karajan. {The religion}
> 
> He is my sole Lord and my sole light in the utter darkness that is my existence.


I was taken aback after purchasing his Mahler 9th. This is probably the worst fit I could possibly imagine-the cool Karajan meets emotional Mahler; but it worked....brilliantly!! I was completely moved and astonished!


----------



## Couac Addict

My problem with Karajan+Mahler is when you listen to the 9th first. You get your hopes up before having your soul crushed by the disappointment of the rest of the cycle


----------



## Azol

Back ontopic, the only conductor who could claim the title "Mahler conductor" is Gilbert Kaplan, so he wins hands down. Saw him performing live and wasn't impressed either. But wait till we see "worst Bruckner conductor". Oh boy!


----------



## DavidA

Albert7 said:


> Karajan's Mahler is awful... .


Were there two Karajans then? The one I've got conducting the sixth and ninth is brilliant!


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Becca said:


> Bleeding spears at 10 paces


My heavy Karajan cavalry would ride down Duck's Knappy pike wall like grass. _;D_


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> Dearest Woodduck, since you _didn't ask _for my unsolicited opinion <throwing down the pom-poms and slamming the door behind me>, well here, _have it then!:_
> 
> Karajan's "Good Friday Music" from _Parsifal_ absolutely exudes 'sexy' and I can feel the libidinous stirrings coming on when I hear it. This is largely because of his gorgeous legato and balancing- of which Knappertsbusch, great as he admittedly is, isn't even in the running.
> 
> Karajan's treatment of the strings in the overture is heavenly grace itself- and his horns and climactic buildup at the end of the opera has the glory of a thousand suns.
> 
> - Only 'some people' call it an over preciosity and refinement.
> 
> I'll take Karajan any day over Knappertsbusch when it comes to the deep orchestral subtexts of _Parsifal_.
> 
> Admittedly, I am flouting the conventional wisdom here. . .
> 
> Now, let me get out of these hotpants and into this asbestos suit.




Karajan's Parsifal beats Kna any day. Only surpassed by his 1961 live performance from Vienna of Act 2 with Ludwig unsurpassable.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Karajan's Parsifal beats Kna any day. Only surpassed by his 1961 live performance from Vienna of Act 2 with Ludwig unsurpassable.


Right on.

I really love the Flower Maidens in that 1961 Vienna State Opera performance as well; and the young Gundula Janowitz is outstanding.


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> Plus, I follow Karajan. {The religion}
> 
> He is my sole Lord and my sole light in the utter darkness that is my existence.


Wow, you didn't tell me that honestly... I take a more objective view of von Karajan and think that his strongest suit is with other composers like Beethoven... Mahler is just that difficult to conduct well.

Another Mahler conductor I have yet to judge to Mehta. It seems like a lot of people here don't seem to favor him and honestly I have heard me in other performances and I wasn't particularly floored either ways. Which indicates that his Mahler may not be favored.

By the way, I really do think that Dudamel is pretty underrated as a Mahler conductor. His performances floored me on more than one occasion.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Karajan's Parsifal beats Kna any day. Only surpassed by his 1961 live performance from Vienna of Act 2 with Ludwig unsurpassable.


I believe what you mean to say is that you prefer Karajan to Knappertsbusch. Lovely. There are other threads intended for discussing recordings of Wagner, opera, and _Parsifal_.

Back to Mahler (again)?


----------



## Albert7

If anyone does care about the discography for Mahler we could refer you to this lovely website:

http://www.mahlerreviews.com/

The thing is that I haven't heard enough conductors yet so I can't judge conductors like Sanderling, etc. before I can say whether he or she is any good.


----------



## Woodduck

Marschallin Blair said:


> Right on.
> 
> I really love the Flower Maidens in that 1961 Vienna State Opera performance as well; and the young Gundula Janowitz is outstanding.


And this relates to Mahler how?

You know, since I've already suggested keeping the discussion on Mahler, that I'm not going to engage you on the subject of this work. If you would like to discuss _Parsifal_ recordings, there are a number of threads more appropriate for it. To quote the hero of the opera: "Du weisst wo du mich wieder finden kannst!"


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> And this relates to Mahler how?
> 
> You know, since I've already suggested keeping the discussion on Mahler, that I'm not going to engage you on the subject of this work. If you would like to discuss _Parsifal_ recordings, there are a number of threads more appropriate for it. To quote the hero of the opera: "Du weisst wo du mich wieder finden kannst!"


Indeed, let's keep the Parsifal discussion where it needs to be... back in the opera section where there are threads already concerning this topic at hand already.


----------



## millionrainbows

JACE said:


> I think most Mahler aficionados have a high regard for Bruno Walter's recordings. But I wouldn't go so far as to think that Walter's readings are _definitive_, that he somehow cornered the market on Mahler interpretation.
> 
> I think all great art -- including Mahler's music -- defies any single interpretation.


But the contention here is that there is a "bad" way to play Mahler, and a "good" way. Such statements as_* "all great art defies any single interpretation" *_simply sidesteps the premise of the thread.

...unless you simply wished to contradict me, which is typical.

But it's not about me.


----------



## Albert7

millionrainbows said:


> But the contention here is that there is a "bad" way to play Mahler, and a "good" way. Such statements as_* "all great art defies any single interpretation" *_simply sidesteps the premise of the thread.
> 
> ...unless you simply wished to contradict me, which is typical.
> 
> But it's not about me.


Okay, is the bad way to be too intrusive with your own conducting style into Mahler or is that seen as a good things? I know that Bernstein laid on his personal touch that was distinctively his but without wrecking Mahler at all.  However von Karajan when he tried to do the same, wrecked a lot of it. So apparently there got to be methodology to determine what works and doesn't work for Mahler conducting.


----------



## millionrainbows

realdealblues said:


> My issue with Boulez is not about a Germanic approach. Take his Mahler 2 with Vienna.* The clarinet section in the scherzo says to play "with humor",* I don't know if I've ever heard a more humorless approach. The Trio is supposed to end in a "cry of dispair", instead it sounds like someone stubbed their toe. The opening of the first movement lacks all menace in the cellos and basses. The finale has no tension what so ever. There's no climax to be found anywhere in this recording and the closing chorus where we reach for the heavens has absolutely no impact whatsoever.
> 
> This Symphony can be played a few different ways and I would call Klemperer's recording the "Germanic" way. He's no heart on sleeve like Bernstein was, yet Bernstein and Walter both "got" this symphony and pull it off wonderfully in their own readings proving you can play this one stressing different things, but Boulez totally missed the boat in my opinion.


A humorous clarinet? That sounds like it could be a klezmer element, and I can see how Boulez would want to avoid that.

Some of the "irony" in Mahler doesn't go over well with me. The second movement of the First Symphony, with the "minor-ized" version of 'frere Jacques' doesn't fly with me. What was he doing, using "ghetto music" to freak out the Vienna high-society matrons?


----------



## JACE

millionrainbows said:


> But the contention here is that there is a "bad" way to play Mahler, and a "good" way. Such statements as_* "all great art defies any single interpretation" *_simply sidesteps the premise of the thread.
> 
> ...unless you simply wished to contradict me, which is typical.
> 
> But it's not about me.


million, I wasn't contradicting you. And no offense was intended. All I was saying is that there are many different potential interpretive approaches that could be equally valid.

Also, I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a "bad" Mahler conductor. But I don't know if I'm qualified to make that judgment.

And besides, I'd rather talk about the conductors that _appeal_ to me.


----------



## Albert7

JACE said:


> million, I wasn't contradicting you. And no offense was intended. All I was saying is that there are many different potential interpretive approaches that could be equally valid.
> 
> Also, I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a "bad" Mahler conductor. But I don't know if I'm qualified to make that judgment.
> 
> And besides, I'd rather talk about the conductors that _appeal_ to me.


I agree with you JACE on that point. I have more pleasure talking about Mahler performances that impress me and that I would return back and back again.

Oh, speaking of which, I am catching the live version of the complete Mahler cycle that Thierry Fischer is doing with the Utah Symphony since last year to 2016. I am hoping that they can release the cycle on some label so that I can enjoy it again. I really was happy with the results so far with them.


----------



## Woodduck

The debate about Karajan's, Boulez's, and other controversial conductors' way with Mahler suggests the thought that it's quite possible and acceptable to enjoy the "wrong" way of interpreting a piece of music. What I find interesting is that we can make these distinctions; we can, at times, actually know or sense that a conductor (or other performer) is doing something alien to the style and sensibility of a composer, but like it anyway. This applies obviously to performances of Baroque and Classical period music by conductors whose sense of style was rooted in late Romantic ideas of musical interpretation, but it certainly can apply to other repertoire as well. We always have to remember how little of what we eventually hear in music is actually represented in the score, and that a composer can't fully express his intentions in written form. But even composers are frequently open to the different approaches different performers take to what they've written. In fact they may be more open than some of their admirers!

Is it possible that someone who doesn't care for Mahler's music might enjoy it more if it's performed the "wrong" way?


----------



## JACE

Woodduck said:


> Is it possible that someone who doesn't care for Mahler's music might enjoy it more if it's performed the "wrong" way?


Yes. Of course!

I'll give a concrete example: Several years ago, the French pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard made a recording of Ives' Second Piano Sonata. To me, it sounded all wrong. The performance was Ives filtered through a European modernist perspective, with a particularly French sensibility layered on top. It sounded more like Debussy than Ives. The idiomatically "American" aspects of the music were completely gone.

But MANY people liked the recording and praised it to the skies. I don't think this was a coincidence. Classical music people are much more familiar with Debussy's music and the French classical music tradition than Ives' "home-made," rough-hewn approach to music. So, from my point of view, Aimard's approach to the music was UN-idiomatic -- and, in that regard, it was "wrong." I don't think Aimard's approach bore much resemblance to what Ives _intended_ -- especially compared to many other pianists' recordings.

Of course, that said, Aimard is free to play ANY way that he chooses and others are free to enjoy it, "authenticity" be damned.

Ultimately, I just _prefer_ it to sound like I conceive it -- and how I think Ives conceived it -- that is, as uniquely _American_ music about a specific time and place in American history.

I hope that makes sense.


----------



## realdealblues

Albert7 said:


> If anyone does care about the discography for Mahler we could refer you to this lovely website:
> 
> http://www.mahlerreviews.com/
> 
> The thing is that I haven't heard enough conductors yet so I can't judge conductors like Sanderling, etc. before I can say whether he or she is any good.


Interesting site, I hadn't seen it before. I scanned through and looked at several reviews. The majority I scanned through I agreed with however a few I wondered if the reviewer might be deaf. I see one of the reviewers gave Karajan's 6th 5/5 stars which I know you would disagree with. It's so funny how far away peoples opinions are.

It would be interesting to see if there was actually even 1 recording that everyone on this website would agree on as being a great recording, not necessarily the "greatest" because everyone is going to have their own personal favorite, but just a great recording in general. I'd like to take a classic like Kubelik's 1st or Klemperer's 2nd that have stood the test of time and been hailed by critics for years and see if everyone would concede that they are great recordings or if there would still be one person that would say they hated it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

JACE said:


> million, I wasn't contradicting you. And no offense was intended. All I was saying is that there are many different potential interpretive approaches that could be equally valid.
> 
> Also, I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a "bad" Mahler conductor. But I don't know if I'm qualified to make that judgment.
> 
> And besides, I'd rather talk about the conductors that _appeal_ to me.


_Absolutely_: Its all about _oneself_ and _one's_ _values_- and not a lot of pretentious bosh from detractors who somehow think that they render one stupidly passive by their badly-forged arguments.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Is it possible that someone who doesn't care for Mahler's music might enjoy it more if it's performed the "wrong" way?


Music is meant to be enjoyed. If people enjoy listening then the interpreter must be doing something right!


----------



## millionrainbows

Although Mahler was Germanic in every sense of the word, he was also Jewish by descent. This has gotta cause some contradictions and tensions.

Boulez is a "literalist" and very objective; does Mahler's music suffer under him from a lack of "humor" or "irony?"

Are there dimensions to Mahler (ethnic, nationalistic, social) that need explaining and exploring before we can safely say that a performance is "good," or accurately reflects Mahler's supposed intentions? Would someone who is Jewish, or understood the Jewish sensibility, know more about what Mahler means than someone who is not?

I think I need to read another book on him.


----------



## DavidA

Karajan's detractors might just remember that he won two Gramophone Awards for his recordings of the ninth symphony. The 1981 live ninth won the Record of the Year as well. So obviously some people liked it.


----------



## musicrom

I'm no expert on recordings, and even less so on Mahler recordings, because most of my listening is online, but I do recall getting a CD once from the library of Solti conducting Mahler 5 that was quite underwhelming.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Karajan's detractors might just remember that he won two Gramophone Awards for his recordings of the ninth symphony. The 1981 live ninth won the Record of the Year as well. So obviously some people liked it.


I _love_ that Karajan was recognized for his achievement by the Establishment- but fundamentally, I don't care for the 'titled' but merely the 'great.'

I mean really, look at some of the people who win Grammies nowadays.


----------



## hpowders

Mahler Symphony No. 6

Dallas Symphony
Jaap van Zweden

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the worst performance ever of a Mahler Symphony-absolutely no emotional involvement at all.

Mr. van Zweden, you are the worst Mahler conductor I have ever encountered.


----------



## superhorn

Mehta the worst ? No way, Jose ! All the Mahler recordings by him I've heard have been first rate . 
The L.A.Phil . 3rd is one I would not hesitate to recomend to anyone . This is on Decca . I haven't heard the Israel Phil . remake on Sony , which is digital .
It's amazing how he was able to get an American orchestra , the L.A. Phil., to sound so idiomatically European , something which is rare . For all their virtuosity, US orchestras jus don't have that
Viennese sound .


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Boulez is a "literalist" and very objective; does Mahler's music suffer under him from a lack of "humor" or "irony?"


That is certainly what people _say_ about him, but honestly, I don't hear it.

Fellow conductor Franz Welser-Most on Boulez conducting Mahler's Third: " Some people give everything away in the first movement, and then you have to sit there for another hour. He didn't. It was almost irritating at first. But later on, you understood why he was doing what he did, and in the end it was so much more moving. He made Mahler's music sound pure."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Although Mahler was Germanic in every sense of the word, he was also Jewish by descent. This has gotta cause some contradictions and tensions.
> 
> Boulez is a "literalist" and very objective; does Mahler's music suffer under him from a lack of "humor" or "irony?"
> 
> Are there dimensions to Mahler (ethnic, nationalistic, social) that need explaining and exploring before we can safely say that a performance is "good," or accurately reflects Mahler's supposed intentions? Would someone who is Jewish, or understood the Jewish sensibility, know more about what Mahler means than someone who is not?
> 
> I think I need to read another book on him.


To the extent that we can say with confidence that "Jewish" elements are present in the music - such as the bit of Klezmer in the first symphony - we can say that knowing Mahler's Jewishness may contribute to our ability to perform his music in a certain way. That little bit of dance music could certainly be missed, and misinterpreted, by a conductor unaware of the reference. But to try to find a more generalized "Jewish sensibility" in the music, and to claim that we then know what this would mean for performing a work, is an altogether more tenuous proposition. What if it's really there in some way? How does that tell a conductor what to make of it? He would first of all have to assume that a "Jewish sensibility" is something fairly definable and uniform, and have some sort of personal feeling for it. Then, once he'd worked that out to his satisfaction, he would have to weigh it against all other aspects of the music and decide how much and in what manner he should represent it in his interpretation. Knowledge of a composer's culture and personality may legitimately influence a conductor, but the conductor's own mind will always filter that knowledge in a personal way before the final result reaches the listener.

Can a Jewish listener tell, listening to Mahler, that the composer was Jewish? Can two Jewish conductors agree on whether and how to make this fact apparent to a Jewish listener? I think it's safe to say that if there is any validity in bringing such notions to bear on Mahler's music, we need to look first at the musical score itself for clues as to how to do it in practice. But our two Jewish conductors, looking at the score, might not even agree that such clues are present, much less on what to do with them.

I read an essay a few days ago which argued that Wagner's music is inherently _anti_-Jewish. The music itself! I found the discussion interesting, and some of the points thought-provoking. But I had to come away with the feeling that efforts to impute such specific meanings to music are usually simplistic and tendentious. I think we can be stimulated by them, and learn things we didn't know, but that we're apt to learn rather little about what music means, and still less about what it should sound like when we perform it.


----------



## Lord Lance

DavidA said:


> Karajan's detractors might just remember that he won two Gramophone Awards for his recordings of the ninth symphony. The 1981 live ninth won the Record of the Year as well. So obviously some people liked it.


1. Karajan was a revered personality in his time. With millions of fan. So, I doubt how much Gramophone gave the award out of true agreement in the election room.

2. Gramophone can be as much trusted as bears trusted with not eating salmon.

3. Karajan is my sole Lord and I shall worship him.


----------



## GGluek

Leonard Slatkin did a Mahler tenth, Mazetti 1.0 version. It wasn't awful, but he did a lecture/demo on a 2nd CD in which he compared the performing versions by Cooke, Mazetti, and Clinton Carpenter, in which, by some of the statements in his commentary, he demonstrated that he didn't have a clue about Mahler. Embarrassing.


----------



## hpowders

GGluek said:


> Leonard Slatkin did a Mahler tenth, Mazetti 1.0 version. It wasn't awful, but he did a lecture/demo on a 2nd CD in which he compared the performing versions by Cooke, Mazetti, and Clinton Carpenter, in which, by some of the statements in his commentary, he demonstrated that he didn't have a clue about Mahler. Embarrassing.


I don't care much for any recording Slatkin did.


----------



## iljajj

> Karajan's detractors might just remember that he won two Gramophone Awards for his recordings of the ninth symphony. The 1981 live ninth won the Record of the Year as well. So obviously some people liked it.


Yes, in 1981 perhaps - but times change. For instance, I saw the Inbal cycle for Denon with the Frankfurt RSO receiving some negative comments; yet in my student days (the early 1990s) that cycle was often cited as one of the best ones around. It just doesn't seem to have 'matured' that well as listeners' preferences evolved (and other cycles appeared).


----------



## ArtMusic

Karajan and Mahler don't go well. Mahler's score need to be a little softer and subtle, not like with a Beethoven brute force that Karajan did with Beethoven symphonies.


----------



## Xaltotun

Still feeling that while Karajan + Mahler sounds all wrong on paper, in practice it works superbly well. Of course it's a "different" Mahler. But it's a very interesting Mahler!


----------



## ArtMusic

I doubt Karajan Mahler is *"theeee"* version that a vast majority would take to a dessert island (like they might do with Karajan Beethoven).


----------



## Xaltotun

ArtMusic said:


> I doubt Karajan Mahler is *"theeee"* version that a vast majority would take to a dessert island (like they might do with Karajan Beethoven).


For the 5th symphony, I'd take Karajan! That _sweet_ sound would fit very well in the dessert island.


----------



## ArtMusic

Xaltotun said:


> For the 5th symphony, I'd take Karajan! That _sweet_ sound would fit very well in the dessert island.


Only the 5th? What about the others/what do you think of the other recordings? (I have not listened to them all).


----------



## Xaltotun

I like the 9th as well, but I'm not sure it beats all the competition. It's the 5th that seems to me to stand out when compared to what's out there.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I am no fan of Karajan Mahler, but Ozawa has been mentioned here....I haven't heard any Ozawa Mahler and now I am curious!


----------



## DavidA

Lord Lance said:


> 1. Karajan was a revered personality in his time. With millions of fan. So, I doubt how much Gramophone gave the award out of true agreement in the election room.


I think that is nonsense as the majority of critical opinion tended to be anti-Karajan at the time. People were blown away by the ninth though.


----------



## AnotherSpin

The worst is Gergiev. So insignificant, nobody even care to mention his recent zilch on 8 pages of talk.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mahlerian said:


> Karajan is not a "Germanic" approach so much as a "nonsense" approach.
> 
> He breaks up the first phrase here. At 0:25, we are in the middle of a single phrase, not entering a subsequent phrase. Karajan treats it as if it were a different phrase. I've never heard anyone else do it this way, and it makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's leaden and dull, too, and messes up Mahler's carefully conceived instrumental balances.


This interpretation by Karajan is great to me. Very subtle, restrained. Amazing control. I'm not a fan of Bernstein in general, but he's far from worst in anything.


----------



## paulbest

GGluek said:


> This is all in fun, inspired in part by an anecdote I once read about panic running through the Decca offices with the realization that the aging Ernst Ansermet was running out of repertory to record. ("What happens when he comes to us wanting to record _Beethoven_?!")
> 
> Well, we've been through an era when sales were so guaranteed that almost anyone who wanted to record a Mahler symphony was green lighted. I inadvisedly purchased a Sinopoli Fifth that was ghastly. And sat in the driveway listening to the end of a Fifth that I was sure must be a student orchestra -- that turned out to be an early Ozawa/BSO effort!
> 
> So, in fun, who are the conductors who seem to have had no business going anywhere near Mahler in a recording studio?


Celibidache, the worst,,,his tempos are all off.


----------



## Becca

Given that I have never heard of a Celibidache/Mahler performance, perhaps you will enlighten us with details


----------



## flamencosketches

I found one:






Worst Mahler performance of all time..


----------



## Becca

Mistake on my part, I had intended to say Mahler symphonies.


----------



## D Smith

flamencosketches said:


> I found one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst Mahler performance of all time..


The breadth and encyclopaedic knowledge of TC members continues to astonish me.


----------



## joen_cph

It's been said before: a Celibidache performance does _not_ necessarily mean glacial tempi. 
His earlier recordings and the DG ones are often examples of the opposite, for example; some of the EMI ones too.

Here's a charming, light and quite fast _Haffner-symphony_


----------



## Becca

^^ True, any more than Klemperer means slow. With the exception of his 7th, most of his Mahler is faster than the contemporary average.


----------



## paulbest

Becca said:


> Given that I have never heard of a Celibidache/Mahler performance, perhaps you will enlighten us with details


Goes to show how much involved I am in Mahler

Ok, wait a minute its Bruckner, Celibidache in Bruckner I was referring to. 
Of well same kind/style/sound music as Mahler. 
Lets say, lets imagine HAD Celibidache conducted the Mahler cycle sym/complete,,,the tempos may have been *altered*, = gragging.
I just compared Boulez/Vienna with Celibidache/Munich, at least 4 times (not the entire thing mind you), Boulez takes Bruckner as it is written. Celibidache takes it *a la Celibidache*…
So are not you Mahlerians glad Celibidache did not makea complete Mahler sym cycle,,,think about it, as extended as are Mahler syms, could you imagine even more stretched to the limits. Every sym would require at least 2 cds, some Mahler syms maybe 3 under Celibidache's meticulous baton.


----------



## joen_cph

No, Celibidache's DG Bruckner isn't particularly slow.

Symphony 8, Scherzo at 16:00






Symphony 3, Scherzo at 40:45, Finale at 47:50






As far as I remember, his Bruckner 6 on EMI has quite normal tempi too.


----------



## flamencosketches

D Smith said:


> The breadth and encyclopaedic knowledge of TC members continues to astonish me.


You can gain such knowledge yourself with the help of Google and a dry wit 

Disclaimer: I didn't actually listen to the whole thing. Not a fan of what I've heard of Celibidache. But I'll say this, he's no Maximianno Cobra. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with slow tempi per se. Glacial or not, I'll have to give his Kindertotenlieder a fair shot so I can put my money where my mouth is.


----------



## Becca

paulbest said:


> Goes to show how much involved I am in Mahler
> 
> Ok, wait a minute its Bruckner, Celibidache in Bruckner I was referring to.
> Of well same kind/style/sound music as Mahler.
> Lets say, lets imagine HAD Celibidache conducted the Mahler cycle sym/complete,,,the tempos may have been *altered*, = gragging.
> I just compared Boulez/Vienna with Celibidache/Munich, at least 4 times (not the entire thing mind you), Boulez takes Bruckner as it is written. Celibidache takes it *a la Celibidache*…
> So are not you Mahlerians glad Celibidache did not makea complete Mahler sym cycle,,,think about it, as extended as are Mahler syms, could you imagine even more stretched to the limits. Every sym would require at least 2 cds, some Mahler syms maybe 3 under Celibidache's meticulous baton.


#1 - Think
#2 - Think some more
#3 - Do research
#4 - Think again
#5 - Write


----------



## 1996D

What is all this Karajan hate? He has the best 6th and 9th and excels in all the adagios, only being equalled by Bernstein. Abbado is the only other one that's even in the conversation with the previous two.

To answer the question, Lorin Maazel has some pretty awful Mahler.


----------



## paulbest

joen_cph said:


> No, Celibidache's DG Bruckner isn't particularly slow.
> 
> Symphony 8, Scherzo at 16:00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Symphony 3, Scherzo at 40:45, Finale at 47:50
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I remember, his Bruckner 6 on EMI has quite normal tempi too.


well then why is Celibidache's live/Munich YT upload/Bruckner 8th, like 15 minutes longer than Boulez/Vienna/Live/Bruckner 8th upload YT?


----------



## paulbest

joen_cph said:


> It's been said before: a Celibidache performance does _not_ necessarily mean glacial tempi.
> His earlier recordings and the DG ones are often examples of the opposite, for example; some of the EMI ones too.
> 
> Here's a charming, light and quite fast _Haffner-symphony_


Celibidache at his fastest tempo in his career, He had no choice, Must have been from his younger yrs,,
The tempos are corre4ct...He does have some slippery spots that he handles fairly well ,
His orch in this upload is the Great Sttgart Radio SO.
Amazingly Celibidache always has 1st class orchestras with him. 
The Munich, far superior to Boulez's Vienna in the Bruckner competition.

I am very surprised Celibidache takes this Mozart sym 35 in the proper, perhaps a tad too fast, tempos. 
as I say, had to be from his younger years.

In his Bruckner he loved taking each section of the sym, meticulous and finely chisled,,opposed to Boulez's *le bon ton roule*, tempos. 
I prefer Boulez/Vienna live vs the Celibidache/Munich, yet the Munich is a superior orchestra under Celibidache., vs Boulez *slouchy* Vienna.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Listened to Zimman and Mahler's 3rd and did not think to highly about it.


----------



## Heck148

Leinsdorf. 

why they re-issued those '60s BSO losers is beyond me....awful...


----------



## flamencosketches

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Listened to Zimman and Mahler's 3rd and did not think to highly about it.


In all fairness, that's a tough one to get right. That being said, outside of his excellent, famous recording of Górecki's 3rd symphony, I have not heard anything of Zinman's conducting that impressed me. Am I missing something?


----------



## mbhaub

I agree that Zinman's Mahler missed the mark, especially given all the hype over it. But he has done some superb work. His Arte Nova Beethoven cycle is top-notch, and his Schumann and Brahms sets are also quite fine. For Telarc, he recorded a Rachmaninoff 2nd that I think very highly of - and it really is totally complete - 1st movement repeat and all. And he made one of the great RCA recordings of all time, Charles Koechlin's The Jungle Book which he brought off with terrific panache. A fine 2nd-tier talent, but I'm glad we have him.


----------



## joen_cph

paulbest said:


> well then why is Celibidache's live/Munich YT upload/Bruckner 8th, like 15 minutes longer than Boulez/Vienna/Live/Bruckner 8th upload YT?


With Celibidache you'll find such variations in the interpretations, being it in the general tempi, or in the details on the way. As said, the later EMI recordings have a tendency to be slower, but it's not all if them. Many Celibidache recordings have the variety and contrasts in tempi during the individual movements, that can make performances particularly interesting, contrary to your characterization of the slower Bruckner EMI recordings.

The _Haffner Symphony_ is from the mid-1970s, so it's not that old. It is of course not 'Celibidache at his fastest tempo in his career'.

Listen to further recordings, to know more; you just seem to know some of the EMI recordings, since that's what you keep referring to.


----------



## Larkenfield

The worst Mahler conductor? That’s easy. HvK for his infuriating and abysmal performances of the Mahler fifth and sixth that I never got through even once. But he made up for them with this performance of the ninth. The light must’ve suddenly dawned upon him because it was unlike his earlier recordings that I thought were complete distortions of the composer’s intentions. I could not take the obscene loudness and Bruckner dynamics that he misguidedly inflicted on them.


----------



## Becca

Just how many of the Mahler symphonies did HvK even do? 5th, 6th & 9th ... anything else? It's amusing to note that Barbirolli did much more Mahler with the Berlin Philharmonic than did Karajan.


----------



## Dimace

I have never thought who is the worst conductor. What I can say is that one of the best with Mahler is also the Hermann Scherchen, who is unfortunately ignored widely. Takashi Asahina and Mariss Jansons are in the same level with the German. Bernstein and Mitropoulos are completing the Quintett.


----------



## joen_cph

Becca said:


> Just how many of the Mahler symphonies did HvK even do? 5th, 6th & 9th ... anything else? It's amusing to note that Barbirolli did much more Mahler with the Berlin Philharmonic than did Karajan.


And the 4th too, of course, plus _Das Lied von der Erde_ and orchestral song cycles (_Rückert, Kindertoten_).

A discography on that subject: http://www.karajan.co.uk/mahler.html; 
turns out that he did a few concerts with _Fahrendes Gesellen_ too.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Just a couple of snippets of data for those having a go at/defending Celbidache in Mahler (oops, I mean Bruckner!):

Symphony No.6 (1881 Haas)
Celibidache/Munich 1991 takes 62'29"
Otto Klemperer takes 54'54"

So yeah a bit slow, but nothing glacial. Chose that comparison because both seem to take the opening bars in a similar spirit. Bad choice, maybe, but Klemperer's timings are not out of the ordinary.

Symphony No.8 (1890 Nowak)
Celibidache/Munich 1991 takes an astounding 104 minutes!
Celibidache/Stuttgart Radio 1976 took a far less geological approach at 83'20"

Shall we conclude he wasn't "consistent in his approach".....


----------



## CnC Bartok

On the original question, I'd mention three cycles I own that never really catch fire:

Ozawa (OK, but just dull)
Zinman (OK-ish, but nothing interesting to say anywhere, except in No.10 where he uses the Carpenter Edition, which makes us realise how good the Cooke really is!)

And Gergiev: (tediously dull, charm-free and leaden; and is that really the LSO?) I think he wins the prize for "Worst Mahler Conductor". Congratulations!


----------



## joen_cph

Totals can hide actual tempi. In the mentioned 6th, the longer total with Celi is due to the very slow Adagio (22 minutes). His Scherzo has a quicker timing than Klemperer, the 1st Movement has the same timing, and the Finale is 80 seconds longer.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> The worst Mahler conductor? That's easy. HvK for his infuriating and abysmal performances of the Mahler fifth and sixth that I never got through even once. But he made up for them with this performance of the ninth. The light must've suddenly dawned upon him because it was unlike his earlier recordings that I thought were complete distortions of the composer's intentions. I could not take the obscene loudness and Bruckner dynamics that he misguidedly inflicted on them.


I agree. Although I like a great many of Karajan's recordings I can't abide his Mahler 5 and 6. I'm also with CnC Bartok on the awful Gergiev LSO Mahler recordings but don't take so strongly against Zinman. I find Zinman OK but agree he is not distinctive.


----------



## Enthusiast

Celi's Bruckner - he recorded very little Mahler - was slow during his tenure in Munich but before that and for most of his career was not noticeably slow and was often quite fleet compared with others. We think of him as slow because those late Munich recordings are so memorable and wonderful.


----------



## millionrainbows

Without even hearing them, I would say that, logically, Herbert von Karajan would be the least appropriate, and the worst fit for Mahler.

Gergiev is a suspect, too. I'm not sure how they feel about Mahler over there, but Russians are so ruthless and unrefined (in most cases) that I'll bet that Gergiev's renditions suck. Plus, Gergiev's background is a definite minus, because he's Ossetian:

The Ossetians or Ossetes are an Iranian ethnic group of the Caucasus Mountains, indigenous to the ethnolinguistic region known as Ossetia. They speak Ossetic, an Eastern Iranian (Alanic) language of the Indo-European languages family, with most also fluent in Russian as a second language. The Ossetian language is neither closely related to nor mutually intelligible with any other language of the family today. Ossetic, a remnant of the Scytho-Sarmatian dialect group which was once spoken across the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, is one of the few Iranian languages inside Europe.


----------



## joen_cph

I didn't know about Gergiev's background. Though you seem slightly ironical, the heated conflict there could partly explain some of his views then.

HvK's recordings of Mahler's song cycles are often very good, IMO.


----------



## flamencosketches

joen_cph said:


> HvK's recordings of Mahler's song cycles are often very good, IMO.


Agreed. His Rückert-Lieder with Christa Ludwig is amazing.


----------



## BachIsBest

I don't know about the worst Mahler conducter, since this is just computer generated instruments, but this is certainly the most embarrasing video set to mahler's music:


----------



## Larkenfield

BachIsBest said:


> I don't know about the worst Mahler conducter, since this is just computer generated instruments, but this is certainly the most embarrasing video set to mahler's music:


I must confess that I heard the whole thing out. Even as a midi file… What a composer.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> Without even hearing them, I would say that, logically, Herbert von Karajan would be the least appropriate, and the worst fit for Mahler.
> 
> Gergiev is a suspect, too. I'm not sure how they feel about Mahler over there, but Russians are so ruthless and unrefined (in most cases) that I'll bet that Gergiev's renditions suck. Plus, Gergiev's background is a definite minus, because he's Ossetian:
> 
> The Ossetians or Ossetes are an Iranian ethnic group of the Caucasus Mountains, indigenous to the ethnolinguistic region known as Ossetia. They speak Ossetic, an Eastern Iranian (Alanic) language of the Indo-European languages family, with most also fluent in Russian as a second language. The Ossetian language is neither closely related to nor mutually intelligible with any other language of the family today. Ossetic, a remnant of the Scytho-Sarmatian dialect group which was once spoken across the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, is one of the few Iranian languages inside Europe.


I agree, 
I do not know anything about Mahler's music. But I do know Karajan's history, Here is his ruination of the most simplest sym to get right.

Karajan's bomb of LvB's 5th btw his Philharmonia 1954 record is also a flop


----------



## Guest

GGluek said:


> This is all in fun, inspired in part by an anecdote I once read about panic running through the Decca offices with the realization that the aging Ernst Ansermet was running out of repertory to record. ("What happens when he comes to us wanting to record _Beethoven_?!")
> 
> Well, we've been through an era when sales were so guaranteed that almost anyone who wanted to record a Mahler symphony was green lighted. I inadvisedly purchased a Sinopoli Fifth that was ghastly. And sat in the driveway listening to the end of a Fifth that I was sure must be a student orchestra -- that turned out to be an early Ozawa/BSO effort!
> 
> So, in fun, who are the conductors who seem to have had no business going anywhere near Mahler in a recording studio?


Ansermet recorded Beethoven and it is quite good, in my opinion. The Sinopoli 5th is well regarded, I don't know the Ozawa. Whoever is the worst Mahler conductor, I'm sure he or she was never recorded. No one is going to record Mahler unless _someone _thinks the results are extraordinary in some way.


----------



## BachIsBest

It would sure suck to be this terrible at conducting Mahler. You might leave people in tears.


----------



## Larkenfield

BachIsBest said:


> It would sure suck to be this terrible at conducting Mahler. You might leave people in tears.


This was not von Karajan's only recording of the Mahler symphonies, and this movement was actually quite sensitive and well done with a wonderful finish. I salute his use of the subtle upward and downward portamentos in the strings that add emotion to this performance and his ability to keep up with the numerous emotional changes that Mahler wrote. I wouldn't have imagined that he could keep up though I haven't heard the rest of this recording... The other recording that effectively uses portamentos is the 1939 live Amsterdam performance under the baton of Willem Mengelberg, reputedly Mahler's favorite conductor... I give great credit to von Karajan's imaginative use of portamentos and wish more contemporary orchestras used them because of the sweetness and tenderness they can impart. I was delighted what HvK captured here even if it was strings and bass heavy and sometimes the orchestral texture could sound muddy, unlike Mengelberg's recording. But I thought that what he did was moving, sensitive and well done overall... I believe he knew about the Mengelberg recording in order to justify his use of the string portamentos. If so, he did his homework before doing his recording.

The 3rd movement starts around the 25' mark:


----------



## Becca

^^Re portamento in the Ruhevoll: check out the Tilson Thomas / San Francisco recording


----------



## DavidA

paulbest said:


> I agree,
> I do not know anything about Mahler's music. But I do know Karajan's history, Here is his ruination of the most simplest sym to get right.
> 
> Karajan's bomb of LvB's 5th btw his Philharmonia 1954 record is also a flop


You sure you're listening to the same recordings I have? I know there's an anti-Karajan bandwagon these days made up of people who cannot stand his success but this strikes me as extraordinary. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> The worst Mahler conductor? That's easy. HvK for his infuriating and abysmal performances of the Mahler fifth and sixth that I never got through even once. But he made up for them with this performance of the ninth. The light must've suddenly dawned upon him because it was unlike his earlier recordings that I thought were complete distortions of the composer's intentions. I could not take the obscene loudness and Bruckner dynamics that he misguidedly inflicted on them.


Funny, because the recordings of the 5th and 6th I have are very good. Obscene Bruckner dynamics? That's a new one to me!


----------



## Andolink

I was hugely disappointed by what Osmo Vänskä and his Minnesota Orchestra did with (to?) the 6th for the Bis cycle. I couldn't believe the horribly plodding tempi that sucked the life and drama out of the music throughout the whole performance. After that I had zero interest in hearing anything else from that ongoing project.

Vänskä's approach to Sibelius based on hearing his 4th with the same orchestra displayed a very similar plodding lifelessness. Needless to say, I'm now not a fan of this conductor.


----------



## Larkenfield

Becca said:


> ^^Re portamento in the Ruhevoll: check out the Tilson Thomas / San Francisco recording


Thanks for the tip. I will. Actually, I just found the 1st movement online and he plays it with more of a noticeable playful and pleasing Viennese flavor, but I heard no portamentos in it. Perhaps in the other movements. Outstanding recorded sound!... His performance of the Mahler 7th with the LSO is the best I've heard because this complex symphony is able to hang together under his direction when it usually fragments under someone else's, including Bernstein's with the NYP.


----------



## Larkenfield

DavidA said:


> Funny, because the recordings of the 5th and 6th I have are very good. Obscene Bruckner dynamics? That's a new one to me!


Sorry, but I don't think so, with you being one of his most ardent defenders, and that's not the only negative comments I've made in other posts on those two performances that I never got through after repeatedly trying... I am neutral on von Karajan as a conductor: he's capable of being terrific; but when he's off, I've never heard anyone be as wrong - there are extremes. I thought his performance with the BPO of the Sibelius 7th was perfect, but I have never cared for his recordings of the Mahler 5th and 6th as being insightful when he plays them with obscene dynamic climaxes not found on recordings by other conductors respected for their Mahler performances. Terrible - the only two recordings I've ever unceremoniously and angrily dumped from my Mahler library as misguided when compared with Barbirolli's insightful and understanding recordings of these same two symphonies, not to mention by just about anyone else. In fact, these are the only two recordings I've ever angrily dumped from my entire extensive library that could be heard 24 hours a day for more than a year. Nor does HvK have the middle two movements of the 6th according to Mahler's 2nd and 3rd officially sanctioned and published scores - while Barbirolli does... I would suggest that others hear more recordings of the 5th and 6th before settling on von Karajan. One can usually always do better. I heard little or nothing that I would describe as idiomatic - representative or characteristic of Mahler - in those recordings compared to numerous other recorded performances, including the 5th by Bruno Walter in 1947, who knew and heard Mahler personally. But Walter never performed or recorded the 6th that I know of because he felt it was too tragic and dark... I look forward to hearing the rest of von Karajan's Mahler 4th to hear how the other movements compare to the 3rd... and they better be good!  I thought his 1982 live BPO recording of the 9th was excellent though I've never wanted to own it.


----------



## Totenfeier

I haven't read through the whole thread, but one name immediately presented itself to me completely unbidden, like it or not: Lorin Maazel, He of the Viscous Tempi (not to be confused with Vicious Temper, which might work in a Mahler conductor's favor).


----------



## Merl

Andolink said:


> I was hugely disappointed by what Osmo Vänskä and his Minnesota Orchestra did with (to?) the 6th for the Bis cycle. I couldn't believe the horribly plodding tempi that sucked the life and drama out of the music throughout the whole performance. After that I had zero interest in hearing anything else from that ongoing project.
> 
> Vänskä's approach to Sibelius based on hearing his 4th with the same orchestra displayed a very similar plodding lifelessness. Needless to say, I'm now not a fan of this conductor.


I thought the same about that Vanska Mahler 6. Some people have been impressed by it but im guessing they've been blown away by the sound not the performance. Ive yet to hear all the rest of the Mahler recordings by Vanska but the 2nd is said to be the most successful and that isnt a great reading (again a bit staid). Apart from the the wonderful sound Vanska's Mahler is the polar opposite to Bernstein's and thats not a good thing.


----------



## NLAdriaan

I heard a live concert conducted by Jaap van Zweden of the 7th recently, with the RCO. It was a big mistake, chaotic, left me totally cold.... The RCO cannot be blamed, as it is a top Mahler band, which they prove all the time, provided they have an inspired conductor. 

In concerts and recordings, I must admit that I am very picky. There are quite some conductors to which I have no interest in further listening, like Maazel, Muti, Mehta, Sanderling sr, Sawallisch, Thielemann, Welser-Most & Ozawa, to name a few. This certainly goes for Mahler (if at all applicable), but also for other composers. 

And I don't feel the need to listen to a great deal of Mahler recordings, so I will never be able to find out if I missed something. 

Fortunately, there will always be 'new' kids on the block, like Jurowski, Roth, Shani, Nezet-Seguin, Gimeno, Nelsons, Currentzis, K. Petrenko who are able to deliver ground-breaking inspired interpretations, still to this day. 

Next year, I will hear K. Petrenko conducting the BPO in Mahler 6 at the Amsterdam Mahler feest. Am looking forward already!


----------



## NLAdriaan

millionrainbows said:


> Without even hearing them...
> 
> Gergiev is a suspect, too. I'm not sure how they feel about Mahler over there, but Russians are so ruthless and unrefined (in most cases) that I'll bet that Gergiev's renditions suck. Plus, Gergiev's background is a definite minus, because he's Ossetian:
> 
> The Ossetians or Ossetes are an Iranian ethnic group of the Caucasus Mountains, indigenous to the ethnolinguistic region known as Ossetia. They speak Ossetic, an Eastern Iranian (Alanic) language of the Indo-European languages family, with most also fluent in Russian as a second language. The Ossetian language is neither closely related to nor mutually intelligible with any other language of the family today. Ossetic, a remnant of the Scytho-Sarmatian dialect group which was once spoken across the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, is one of the few Iranian languages inside Europe.


Wow, that sure is an educated opinion without ethnic profiling:lol:

How does this translate to those conductors only speaking the US language? Please, go ahead:tiphat:

Quiz: In which order of age, depth, refinement and ruthlessness should we rank the following cultures: Iranian, Ossetian, American, German, Austrian, Slovakian, Russian?

Just by briefly looking at it, I would say that US conductors should be banned forever from the international stages and recordings studios.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> Sorry, but I don't think so, with you being one of his most ardent defenders, and that's not the only negative comments I've made in other posts on those two performances that I never got through after repeatedly trying... I am neutral on von Karajan as a conductor: he's capable of being terrific; but when he's off, I've never heard anyone be as wrong - there are extremes. I thought his performance with the BPO of the Sibelius 7th was perfect, but I have never cared for his recordings of the Mahler 5th and 6th as being insightful *when he plays them with obscene dynamic climaxes* not found on recordings by other conductors respected for their Mahler performances. Terrible - the only two recordings I've ever unceremoniously and *angrily dumped from my Mahler library* as misguided when compared with Barbirolli's insightful and understanding recordings of these same two symphonies, not to mention by just about anyone else. In fact, these are the only two recordings I've *ever angrily dumped from my entire extensive librar*y that could be heard 24 hours a day for more than a year. Nor does HvK have the middle two movements of the 6th according to Mahler's 2nd and 3rd officially sanctioned and published scores - while Barbirolli does... I would suggest that others hear more recordings of the 5th and 6th before settling on von Karajan. One can usually always do better. I heard little or nothing that I would describe as idiomatic - representative or characteristic of Mahler - in those recordings compared to numerous other recorded performances, including the 5th by Bruno Walter in 1947, who knew and heard Mahler personally. But Walter never performed or recorded the 6th that I know of because he felt it was too tragic and dark... I look forward to hearing the rest of von Karajan's Mahler 4th to hear how the other movements compare to the 3rd... and they better be good!  I thought his 1982 live BPO recording of the 9th was excellent though I've never wanted to own it.


Isn't it funny. We've had others banging on about Karajan not giving us enough dynamics! Just shows how our ears play tricks on us! And as for anger - just don't let it get to you! If you don't like them give them to a charity shop and take anger management classes! :lol:


----------



## Triplets

Andolink said:


> I was hugely disappointed by what Osmo Vänskä and his Minnesota Orchestra did with (to?) the 6th for the Bis cycle. I couldn't believe the horribly plodding tempi that sucked the life and drama out of the music throughout the whole performance. After that I had zero interest in hearing anything else from that ongoing project.
> 
> Vänskä's approach to Sibelius based on hearing his 4th with the same orchestra displayed a very similar plodding lifelessness. Needless to say, I'm now not a fan of this conductor.


Agreed. I bought a download of their 5th, and heard the Sixth plod by on a radio show. Both are stinkers. Vanska seems determined to be distinctive, an understandable aspiration in an overcrowded recorded field, but he just doesn't seem to have any affinity for GM.
I haven't read the rest of this thread, but another Conductor who frequently seems out of depth in Mahler is Maris Jansons. Given that the Orchestras he gets to lead are superlative, his recordings have their occasional moments, but he always seems to lose the the forests for the trees


----------



## NLAdriaan

Larkenfield said:


> ..... I am neutral on von Karajan as a conductor...I thought his 1982 live BPO recording of the 9th was excellent* though I've never wanted to own it*.


Did you ever hear HvK live 9th?


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Wow, that sure is an educated opinion without ethnic profiling:lol:


I was very interested how someone can judge a recording without ever hearing it!:lol:


----------



## CnC Bartok

Totenfeier said:


> I haven't read through the whole thread, but one name immediately presented itself to me completely unbidden, like it or not: Lorin Maazel, He of the Viscous Tempi (not to be confused with Vicious Temper, which might work in a Mahler conductor's favor).


Not Maazel's biggest fan myself, there is much stodge in his Vienna set. But his reading of the Fourth is wonderful, and almost redeems the whole cycle!


----------



## mbhaub

CnC Bartok said:


> Not Maazel's biggest fan myself, there is much stodge in his Vienna set. But his reading of the Fourth is wonderful, and almost redeems the whole cycle!


Maazel's was the first complete digital set I bought and it does have it's high points and negatives, to be sure. What I still like about the recordings is that he plays them big, bold, but not hysterical. Symphonies 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 are excellent - well played, well conducted. The 4th is exceptional - one of the best, and much better than his earlier Berlin RSO recording. The 2nd has some great things, and to read Norman Lebrecht's tirade ("one of the worst recordings ever made") you'd think it's a disaster start to finish - it's not. It's actually quite thrilling. The 8th was the last made and to my ears it sounds tired and uninvolved. Maazel had lost interest. But then he comes back (on RCA) with a top-drawer DLVDE which is underrated. But then, Maazel being Maazel, he went on to record two other cycles - one with the NY Phil (on their in-house label) and then with the Philharmonia. I don't know why he did them - if anything they're less involved. Maazel's Sony set wouldn't be anyone's first choice, but it's better than some. And there was a terrific first recording in Paris that never made it to cd - a shame.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Triplets said:


> ....I haven't read the rest of this thread, but another Conductor who frequently seems out of depth in Mahler is Maris Jansons. Given that the Orchestras he gets to lead are superlative, his recordings have their occasional moments, but he always seems to lose the the forests for the trees


I agree, Jansons seems to become a conductor of routine, he is not 'ripening with depth', like Haitink. I heard Jansons live in Amsterdam many times, especially Mahler. Sometimes very subtle and transparant, but also sometimes a bit on the dull side. There aren't that many conductors that become increasingly interesting through the years. Haitink, Blomstedt, Wand come to mind, even HvK in his last decade (Bruckner 7/8, Mahler 9), but not Jansons.


----------



## Enthusiast

Merl said:


> I thought the same about that Vanska Mahler 6. Some people have been impressed by it but im guessing they've been blown away by the sound not the performance. Ive yet to hear all the rest of the Mahler recordings by Vanska but the 2nd is said to be the most successful and that isnt a great reading (again a bit staid). Apart from the the wonderful sound Vanska's Mahler is the polar opposite to Bernstein's and thats not a good thing.


I've not heard much praise for Vanska's Mahler 2 but have not yet heard it or his 6. I did like his 5, though, and think of it as one of the few in my collection that I would get again if I lost it. Too many Mahler 5s sound too similar and seem to lack that extra something that makes them earn a place on my bulging shelves - they are good but I don't need 10 good Mahler 5s that all tell you similar things about the music - and there are a couple that many praise but I just don't like, including Barshai's superficial reading.


----------



## Becca

While I haven't done an exhaustive search, Vanska's 5th seems to be up there with the slowest of the slow adagiettos. When it is getting close to twice the length of some earlier, and presumably more appropriate lengths, it is molto adagio not adagietto and IMO destroys the entire balance of the symphony.


----------



## Larkenfield

NLAdriaan said:


> Did you ever hear HvK live 9th?


Not in person, no. It was recorded in Europe. But yes, this was his live recording. I haven't heard his studio recording but I understand that he was dissatisfied with it, consequently he did the live one.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Larkenfield said:


> Not in person, no. It was recorded in Europe. But yes, this was his live recording. I haven't heard his studio recording but I understand that he was dissatisfied with it, consequently he did the live one.


You can skip his studio 9th, but I would reconsider getting the live 9th recording. Quite an essential record in any serious Mahler collection.


----------



## Larkenfield

NLAdriaan said:


> You can skip his studio 9th, but I would reconsider getting the live 9th recording. Quite an essential record in any serious Mahler collection.


I appreciate that but I've already heard it and there are other 9ths that I prefer, such as Bruno Walters with the CSO who was a friend and colleague of the composer, and closer to the source of the music. However, I'm glad to have heard HvK's live recording.


----------



## Subutai

N/A


----------



## Subutai

michaels said:


> interview I saw with Rattle, so your assessment fits quite well with what Rattle said.


Seriously? You're taking Rattle's word over Karajan?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Szell’s Mahler (4th and 6th) seems in my view to just skim the surface


----------



## Becca

Subutai said:


> Seriously? You're taking Rattle's word over Karajan?


That post was from 7 years ago so I doubt that you will get a response!

(and yes, I probably would!!)


----------



## Subutai

Becca said:


> That post was from 7 years ago so I doubt that you will get a response!


Yet you responded.


----------



## Becca

So? I was not the person who you queried.


----------



## ORigel

I am not a Mahlerian, but I know that Kaplan and Norrington are terrible. I've also heard Karajan's DLVDE and I don't like it.


----------



## Enthusiast

ORigel said:


> I am not a Mahlerian, but I know that Kaplan and Norrington are terrible. I've also heard Karajan's DLVDE and I don't like it.


How do you _*know *_that? How deep is your knowledge of their Mahler performances and recordings and how wide is your knowledge of how the many very varied others have conducted Mahler?


----------



## larold

I'd vote for Bernstein. Not only were they always exaggerated greatly they got slower and slower and slower and slower as he recorded them.


----------



## hammeredklavier

these-


----------



## superhorn

Roger Norrington . His removal of all string vibrato is absolutely bizarre and perverse . Mahler not only never advocated this, he actually asked orchestras for MORE string vibrato . The lack of vibrato is like flat champagne !


----------



## mbhaub

ORigel said:


> I am not a Mahlerian, but I know that Kaplan and Norrington are terrible. I've also heard Karajan's DLVDE and I don't like it.


Kaplan is NOT terrible. In fact, his first go at the 2nd, with the LSO, is pretty damn good! It's better than the versions by a lot of very famous conductors. His second try, this time with the VPO, is very good, too. He didn't have the skill to make a recording for the ages like Bernstein or Solti, but so what? The man's dedication and love of the music is to be commended. Some orchestral players hated his amateurish conducting background, but if truth were known, there are lot of professional conductors out there who are really terrible. They're lucky to have great orchestras to bail them out. I do have a bit of insider information on this matter. A conductor I played with all too briefly, Charles Zachary Bornstein, was one of the people Kaplan took lessons from to learn how to conduct the Mahler. The teacher himself never made it to the big time and it took just one rehearsal to understand why. Those who can, do. Those who can't,..


----------



## Monsalvat

mbhaub said:


> Kaplan is NOT terrible. In fact, his first go at the 2nd, with the LSO, is pretty damn good! It's better than the versions by a lot of very famous conductors. His second try, this time with the VPO, is very good, too. He didn't have the skill to make a recording for the ages like Bernstein or Solti, but so what? The man's dedication and love of the music is to be commended. Some orchestral players hated his amateurish conducting background, but if truth were known, there are lot of professional conductors out there who are really terrible. They're lucky to have great orchestras to bail them out. I do have a bit of insider information on this matter. A conductor I played with all too briefly, Charles Zachary Bornstein, was one of the people Kaplan took lessons from to learn how to conduct the Mahler. The teacher himself never made it to the big time and it took just one rehearsal to understand why. Those who can, do. Those who can't,..


That's interesting. I was horrified when I first heard of Kaplan. But I've read some reviews that seem to indicate it's not as bad as one might expect; he apparently became well versed in the music (despite apparently also not being able to read music?). But you seem to suggest that he had some charisma or other characteristic that helped him lead the orchestra better than a trained professional. Of course conducting is neither purely craftsmanship nor charisma, but I guess I'm surprised that Kaplan did as well as you seem to suggest he did. Still, I don't think I'll be pulling this out anytime soon (except perhaps out of morbid curiosity) ... don't want to reward Deutsche Grammophon's decision to engage him by giving them my streaming revenues off of his recording. I did read David Finlayson's December 2008 blog post and I think I agree with him that the podium should be hallowed ground, decided on a meritocratic basis and with an eye to preserving the musical institutions it represents. I don't think amateurs should be barred from conducting, not in the least, but I'm not convinced that Kaplan's recordings (including one on a major classical label!) represent "amateur" status either. I think it's better for everyone if an aspiring conductor starts small, as a répétiteur or director of a smaller group, and then works his or her way up once they have proven themselves. Kaplan seemed to short-circuit what used to be a natural process of evolving one's talents and abilities, no doubt helped by the fortune he amassed on Wall Street.



> The man's dedication and love of the music is to be commended. Some orchestral players hated his amateurish conducting background, but if truth were known, there are lot of professional conductors out there who are really terrible. They're lucky to have great orchestras to bail them out.


Certainly to be commended! What a lifelong passion he had for Mahler. And you make an interesting point here. Kaplan was not a professional, despite that DG recording, but those who are ought to be held to a professional standard. 

I suppose Kaplan could also be credited with expanding the audience for Mahler, if it's true (as I've read) that his first recording was the best-selling Mahler album of all-time. Again, I haven't listened to it, so if it's actually good, that isn't a bad thing... but I really hope that those newer audiences are getting a fair picture (and a fine performance) of Mahler.


----------



## larold

I thought Kaplan's first go was good, the second not so much. Not bad for a rich guy that didn't know much about music. Or maybe it really doesn't take so much to do Mahler well.


----------



## Montarsolo

Since this topic came up again, I read it through. I was surprised that Kaplan was mentioned as a bad Mahler conductor. He only conducted Symphony 2. His DG is not bad. On the contrary. See for example: Mahler: Symphony No. 2/Kaplan/Vienna - Classics Today

quote:
_This is, then, a very fine (if a touch studied) Mahler Second, though not quite a first choice. Kaplan gets more authentic results from this recalcitrant orchestra than most other conductors. Certainly it’s comparable to Vienna’s only previous generally successful effort in this symphony, under Mehta for Decca (Maazel’s Sony recording is weird in too many places, and Abbado’s is a bore). In the final analysis, Mahlerians will want to hear it for Kaplan’s own thoroughly sympathetic and cogent view of the music, one that should put to rest once and for all any questions doubters may have about his credentials as a true Mahler conductor with something to say and the technical means to say it._


----------



## mbhaub

Montarsolo said:


> He only conducted Symphony 2.


Not quite; he also made a very, very short cd of the Adagietto from the 5th for basically one reason: to demonstrate that most conductors were playing it way too slowly and stretching it all out of shape. So did it at a much quicker tempo more in line with Bruno Walter and others.


----------



## Mannheim Rocket

Montarsolo said:


> Since this topic came up again, I read it through. *I was surprised that Kaplan was mentioned as a bad Mahler conductor.* He only conducted Symphony 2. His DG is not bad. On the contrary. See for example: Mahler: Symphony No. 2/Kaplan/Vienna - Classics Today


So many high-profile Mahler conductors have been mentioned in this thread that nothing surprises me anymore. We've already had people saying Bernstein, Mehta, Barbirolli, and Karajan. I think the only two that will escape criticism here are Walter and Klemperer because of their direct connection to Mahler.


----------



## mbhaub

Mannheim Rocket said:


> So many high-profile Mahler conductors have been mentioned in this thread that nothing surprises me anymore. We've already had people saying Bernstein, Mehta, Barbirolli, and Karajan. I think the only two that will escape criticism here are Walter and Klemperer because of their direct connection to Mahler.


And both Walter and Klemperer get their fair share of criticism in Mahler...and deservedly so. Klemperer put down what has got to be the least exciting, most deadly dull reading of the 7th of all time. The godawful Bruno Maderna recording is brilliant by comparison. His 2nd is fine - mistakes and all. DLVDE one of the best. The Ninth? The closing pages are a mess.

Walter himself didn't want that EMI recording of the 9th in Vienna released. His 9th with the Columbia Symphony has come in for plenty of criticism as has the mono 5th with the NYPO. His DLVDE on Decca has taken a lot of knocks, too.

What's always been interesting is to compare Walter and Klemperer. They both knew Mahler, but Walter spent a lot more time with him. Yet their recordings are so very, very different. Unfortunately, we can only directly compare symphonies 2 and 9 and DLVDE. If you can stand the sound, the really early Oskar Fried recording of the 2nd is fascinating and when you compare it to the recordings of Walter and Klemperer you have three totally different views.


----------



## Becca

I don't consider Klemperer's 7th as really representative of his approach as it was done almost at the end of his life when he was barely able to manage from all his health related issues. Compare his performances of the 2nd from the 50s and early 60s to one at the end to see an example.


----------



## Posauner

superhorn said:


> Roger Norrington . His removal of all string vibrato is absolutely bizarre and perverse . Mahler not only never advocated this, he actually asked orchestras for MORE string vibrato . The lack of vibrato is like flat champagne !


I read through this whole thread just to look for any mention of Norrington, and was surprised it took this long. I heard his Mahler 9 (I think it might have been from the Proms) and was horrified by it.


----------



## Mannheim Rocket

mbhaub said:


> And both Walter and Klemperer get their fair share of criticism in Mahler...and deservedly so. Klemperer put down what has got to be the least exciting, most deadly dull reading of the 7th of all time. The godawful Bruno Maderna recording is brilliant by comparison. His 2nd is fine - mistakes and all. DLVDE one of the best. The Ninth? The closing pages are a mess.
> 
> Walter himself didn't want that EMI recording of the 9th in Vienna released. His 9th with the Columbia Symphony has come in for plenty of criticism as has the mono 5th with the NYPO. His DLVDE on Decca has taken a lot of knocks, too.
> 
> What's always been interesting is to compare Walter and Klemperer. They both knew Mahler, but Walter spent a lot more time with him. Yet their recordings are so very, very different. Unfortunately, we can only directly compare symphonies 2 and 9 and DLVDE. If you can stand the sound, the really early Oskar Fried recording of the 2nd is fascinating and when you compare it to the recordings of Walter and Klemperer you have three totally different views.


Indeed. I suppose I really meant that Walter and Klemperer are about the only ones I'd imagine nobody saying were the worst. I agree about that Klemperer 7th, particularly. Every now and again, I'll read someone singing its praises here, and I'll give it another shot, but I just don't understand what they hear in it.


----------



## RobertJTh

mbhaub said:


> What's always been interesting is to compare Walter and Klemperer. They both knew Mahler, but Walter spent a lot more time with him. Yet their recordings are so very, very different. Unfortunately, we can only directly compare symphonies 2 and 9 and DLVDE.


They both made several recordings of the 4th as well.


----------



## mbhaub

RobertJTh said:


> They both made several recordings of the 4th as well.


Doh!


----------



## geralmar

This guy weighs in:


----------

