# Mahler Symphony 3



## DavidA

This enormous work has become a favourite of many. 

Your favoured recordings?


----------



## mbhaub

What a great, beautiful, powerful work. It's been incredibly lucky on recording. Choosing the "one" - can't do it. But if I could only keep one, here it is:


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Bernstein: The Sony recording and the later one on DG. I'd choose the latter if pushed, if only because of the monumental final movement; the way Bernstein builds up to the climax, and what the NY Philharmonic deliver when they get there, never ceases to amaze me. The fact that we also have the wonderful Christa Ludwig as soloist, still in remarkable voice in this late recording, is another bonus.

Chailly: A very strong performance by the Concertgebouw, recorded beautifully. I particularly like the vocal movements: intense singing from Petra Lang (and some remarkable oboe glissandi) in the fourth movement, and nicely articulated contributions from the women and children's chorus in the fifth. Chailly and orchestra top it off with a magnificent sixth movement, almost - but not quite -rivalling Bernstein in my affections.

Boulez: I love the transparency that Boulez brings to Mahler, which allows me to hear more details in the music than I do with many other conductors. His recording of the 3rd isn't as lush or romantic as either Bernstein or Chailly, but it's not soulless either, and I welcome Boulez's fresh approach to this complex work. Superb recorded sound from the DG engineers.


----------



## Becca

I recently spent time with a number of versions of Mahler's massive 3rd symphony. I have listened to versions that I knew, some that whose reputation I knew about and even one that I was mostly unaware of. All of them, in their own ways, are successful interpretations of a very complicated symphony however the question for me is which satisfies me the most.

Here are the recordings/performances which I have listened to...

Vienna Symphony Orch. / F. Charles Adler / Hilde Rossl-Madjan - studio recording 1952
London Philharmonic Orch. / Klaus Tennstedt / Waltraud Meier - live performance 1986
Halle Orch. / Sir John Barbirolli / Kerstin Meyer - live performance for broadcast 1969
Royal Concertgebouw Orch. / Riccardo Chailly / Petra Lang - studio recording 2004
London Symphony Orch. / Jascha Horenstein / Norma Proctor - studio recording 1970

Needless to say, there many more which could have been included but these are an interesting and representative sampling of both ones that I know and didn't know.

(Another reason for not including more is that I am not sure that I could maintain a good focus when listening to too many recordings!)

As I went into this project I felt that the key to each would be how the conductor handled the ~33 minute 1st movement with its almost extreme range of styles, tempi and emotions. Having listened to them all, I think each conductor aces that part and I would be loathe to try and judge one over the other. Now that I am ending the project I have come to realize that what makes the real difference is the approach that the conductor takes to the intense last movement 'What loves tells me'. In simplistic terms I would describe the various approaches as solemn, consoling, cathartic and ecstatic. A case can certainly be made for all of them provided, of course, that the conductor sees that as the natural arc of the work from the very beginning as in this symphony, more than most, it is necessary to understand where you are going before you start, and to keep that in mind for the next 90+ minutes - not an easy feat.

Adler/VSO
This was the first commercial recording of the Mahler 3rd. While Adler is not a well-known name, he both knew and worked with Mahler. The Mahler 3rd is a long symphony and this is the longest performance of it but while I was aware of the slower tempi, it never seemed to drag - slow but strong boned! Having said that, I am not convinced that it works.

Horenstein/LSO
Whereas this symphony is considered part of Mahler's Wunderhorn symphonies, I get the impression that Horenstein views it as a darker work, more as a precursor to the world of the later symphonies, a view that I don't share. The last movement in particular has a solemnity to it that seems out of place even though it fits with the rest of the performance.

Tennstedt/LPO
There is an EMI studio recording by Tennstedt but this recording comes from a live Royal Festival Hall concert. While the studio recording is excellent, the live performance definitely makes a positive difference. This is an exceptional performance, one that really shows the long inevitable journey with a cathartic ending which clearly had the audience on its feet.

Chailly/RCO
This studio recording is part of Chailly's first Mahler cycle and is available as a hybrid SACD/CD disc in quite exceptional, Concertgebouw sound. Until I got to the last movement I felt that the Chailly recording was up at the top but then that last movement ... it isn't anywhere near as slow as Adler, actually only about 40 seconds slower than Tennstedt but there is something about the pulse that made it feel somewhere between funereal and consoling.

Barbirolli/Halle
While this is a live performance, it is not from a concert, rather it took place in Manchester's Free Trade Hall specifically for BBC broadcast. A prospective listener should be warned that while the sound is excellent, there are technical mistakes in it, particularly from the horns as there was no opportunity for patching so if anything less than perfect annoys you, don't bother - but you will be missing a lot. What kind of interpretation is it, well my personal view is that Barbirolli both understood the symphony and was able to manage all the twists and turns. It isn't hard to lose some focus during the 3rd movement, but that doesn't happen here. The work ends with something close to an (appropriately?) ecstatic ending. Faster than others but why should it be slow?

What do I prefer ... this is not the world of the Mahler 6th or 9th, or even the 3 movement Bruckner 9th torso, it owes more to the conclusions of the 1st, 2nd and 5th symphonies ... I go with Barbirolli and, if technical quality is preferred, the Tennstedt is well worth investigating.


----------



## Heck148

Levine/CSO
Bernstein/NYPO II [DG]

Special mention - Martinon/CSO - live from 3/1967 - amazing Finale - best I've ever heard....just perfect....incredible, shattering climax - followed by perfect _pianissimo_ call from far-off sounding trumpet/trombone....real goose-bump stuff....can't imagine what it sounded like live, in the hall


----------



## Merl

I don't like the 3rd Symphony much but the only ones I can tolerate are Honeck (what a recording!) and Jansons. I have lots of other recordings in cycles and some individual discs but most bore me rigid. I particularly dislike Horenstein's 3rd (that I have as part of the Brilliant Classics cycle) but know that others love it. Different strokes.....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> I recently spent time with a number of versions of Mahler's massive 3rd symphony. I have listened to versions that I knew, some that whose reputation I knew about and even one that I was mostly unaware of. All of them, in their own ways, are successful interpretations of a very complicated symphony however the question for me is which satisfies me the most.
> 
> Here are the recordings/performances which I have listened to...
> 
> Vienna Symphony Orch. / F. Charles Adler / Hilde Rossl-Madjan - studio recording 1952
> London Philharmonic Orch. / Klaus Tennstedt / Waltraud Meier - live performance 1986
> Halle Orch. / Sir John Barbirolli / Kerstin Meyer - live performance for broadcast 1969
> Royal Concertgebouw Orch. / Riccardo Chailly / Petra Lang - studio recording 2004
> London Symphony Orch. / Jascha Horenstein / Norma Proctor - studio recording 1970
> 
> Needless to say, there many more which could have been included but these are an interesting and representative sampling of both ones that I know and didn't know.
> 
> (Another reason for not including more is that I am not sure that I could maintain a good focus when listening to too many recordings!)
> 
> As I went into this project I felt that the key to each would be how the conductor handled the ~33 minute 1st movement with its almost extreme range of styles, tempi and emotions. Having listened to them all, I think each conductor aces that part and I would be loathe to try and judge one over the other. Now that I am ending the project I have come to realize that what makes the real difference is the approach that the conductor takes to the intense last movement 'What loves tells me'. In simplistic terms I would describe the various approaches as solemn, consoling, cathartic and ecstatic. A case can certainly be made for all of them provided, of course, that the conductor sees that as the natural arc of the work from the very beginning as in this symphony, more than most, it is necessary to understand where you are going before you start, and to keep that in mind for the next 90+ minutes - not an easy feat.
> 
> Adler/VSO
> This was the first commercial recording of the Mahler 3rd. While Adler is not a well-known name, he both knew and worked with Mahler. The Mahler 3rd is a long symphony and this is the longest performance of it but while I was aware of the slower tempi, it never seemed to drag - slow but strong boned! Having said that, I am not convinced that it works.
> 
> Horenstein/LSO
> Whereas this symphony is considered part of Mahler's Wunderhorn symphonies, I get the impression that Horenstein views it as a darker work, more as a precursor to the world of the later symphonies, a view that I don't share. The last movement in particular has a solemnity to it that seems out of place even though it fits with the rest of the performance.
> 
> Tennstedt/LPO
> There is an EMI studio recording by Tennstedt but this recording comes from a live Royal Festival Hall concert. While the studio recording is excellent, the live performance definitely makes a positive difference. This is an exceptional performance, one that really shows the long inevitable journey with a cathartic ending which clearly had the audience on its feet.
> 
> Chailly/RCO
> This studio recording is part of Chailly's first Mahler cycle and is available as a hybrid SACD/CD disc in quite exceptional, Concertgebouw sound. Until I got to the last movement I felt that the Chailly recording was up at the top but then that last movement ... it isn't anywhere near as slow as Adler, actually only about 40 seconds slower than Tennstedt but there is something about the pulse that made it feel somewhere between funereal and consoling.
> 
> Barbirolli/Halle
> While this is a live performance, it is not from a concert, rather it took place in Manchester's Free Trade Hall specifically for BBC broadcast. A prospective listener should be warned that while the sound is excellent, there are technical mistakes in it, particularly from the horns as there was no opportunity for patching so if anything less than perfect annoys you, don't bother - but you will be missing a lot. What kind of interpretation is it, well my personal view is that Barbirolli both understood the symphony and was able to manage all the twists and turns. It isn't hard to lose some focus during the 3rd movement, but that doesn't happen here. The work ends with something close to an (appropriately?) ecstatic ending. Faster than others but why should it be slow?
> 
> What do I prefer ... this is not the world of the Mahler 6th or 9th, or even the 3 movement Bruckner 9th torso, it owes more to the conclusions of the 1st, 2nd and 5th symphonies ... I go with Barbirolli and, if technical quality is preferred, the Tennstedt is well worth investigating.


You mention all 3 of my prime recommendations, and in the same order!

Adler (slow movement is sublime!)
Horenstein
Barbirolli

I would add the below as alternatives:

Bernstein (Sony)
Mitropoulos
Abbado
Haitink
Scherchen
Kubelik (Audite)
Levine


----------



## Azol

Bernstein NYPO (DGG) is my favorite here, hands down best Finale ever recorded.


----------



## Heck148

Azol said:


> Bernstein NYPO (DGG) is my favorite here, hands down best Finale ever recorded.


almost - LB/NYPO II is good, but for Finale - Martinon/CSO live is best I've ever heard....magical...


----------



## merlinus

Bernstein/NYPO II for me as well.


----------



## Rogerx

Solti C.S.O/ Bernstein twice. 
Great recordings.


----------



## CnC Bartok

While it'd be difficult to pin the epithet "Mahler's greatest symphony" on this work, it is probably my favourite, and I am not ashamed to admit to that; I also doubt I am completely alone on that either.

Very difficult to select a definitive favourite recording, though. It was only recently that I finally got hold of the famed Horenstein recording, and yeah, it's great, darker than some others', it's true. But it hasn't usurped my other long-loved recordings, which are:

Favourite: James Levine/Chicago
Then... Haitink/Concertgebouw (his first recording)
Abbado (his first recording)
Ivan Fischer

My most recent addition was the Zander recording, and that one is well worth hearing as well.


----------



## Kiki

Horenstein/LSO 1970. Raw and dark.









Scherchen/RSO Leipzig 1960 Live. Just as raw, although in inferior sound. Scherchen did pull the music, but to good effects, and it's uncut... I think.









Tilson Thomas/LSO 1987. The sensitive approach also works. 









Among recent recordings, I also like

Abbado/Lucerne 2007 Live, IMO better played than his Berlin and Vienna accounts.
Honeck/Pittsburgh 2010 Live
Jansons/Concertgebouw 2010 Live


----------



## Heck148

Rogerx said:


> Solti C.S.O/ Bernstein twice.
> Great recordings.


Yes, Solti/CSO is very good.


----------



## SONNET CLV

It's difficult to find a poor Mahler Third. I've heard dozens; I seem to love them all. But the first Mahler Third I ever heard was the recording by Maurice de Abravanel and his Utah forces on Vanguard Cardinal.









It still satisfies.


----------



## mbhaub

SONNET CLV said:


> It's difficult to find a poor Mahler Third.


Oh, I have one for you...dreadful sonics, weak conducting, poor playing. Wretched start to finish.


----------



## Heck148

SONNET CLV said:


> It's difficult to find a poor Mahler Third.


Not that hard - Leinsdorf/BSO is pretty sad...I can't get past the big trombone solo in mvt I.


----------



## Merl

SONNET CLV said:


> It's difficult to find a poor Mahler Third..


I dunno about that.... I had to sit thru Gergiev's LSO 3rd, years ago, and to say I was bored rigid would be a massive understatement. Tbf, some of the performances in Gergiev's cycle are good but that one was mind-numbingly dull. By the 10 minute mark I was looking around the house for things to clean, by 20 minutes I was wondering what kind of things Mahler ate for breakfast and by the half-hour mark I was contemplating cutting thru my speaker wires (or my wrists).


----------



## david johnson

Solti/lso
Horenstein/lso
Levine/cso


----------



## DavidA

Recording I have

Mehta / LAPO 

Tennstedt / LPO

Kubelik / BRSO

Abbado / VPO


All really good in their different ways


----------



## WaterRat

Becca said:


> Barbirolli/Halle
> While this is a live performance, it is not from a concert, rather it took place in Manchester's Free Trade Hall specifically for BBC broadcast. A prospective listener should be warned that while the sound is excellent, there are technical mistakes in it, particularly from the horns as there was no opportunity for patching so if anything less than perfect annoys you, don't bother - but you will be missing a lot. What kind of interpretation is it, well my personal view is that Barbirolli both understood the symphony and was able to manage all the twists and turns. It isn't hard to lose some focus during the 3rd movement, but that doesn't happen here. The work ends with something close to an (appropriately?) ecstatic ending. Faster than others but why should it be slow?


I love Barbirolli's interpretation of this work, with the single exception of the final movement. Why should it be fast? To me, the work loses some of its soulfulness by taking it so fast. It should be a measured ascent, and Barbirolli's in too much of a hurry to get there. The first three movements, at least, are immediate and revelatory.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

It's been a long time since I've listened to it, but I've never been more impressed with Dimitri Mitropoulos' interpretation (though in mono sound) with the Cologne Radio Symphony Orchestra just before his passing.


----------



## realdealblues

Love this symphony! I listen to it very frequently.

Favorite recording:

Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic [Rec. 1961]

I literally have hundreds of Mahler recordings (might be a 1,000 now as I lost count years ago) and have spent years collecting and listening to them and I have tons of favorites for each Symphony but this one is probably the easiest for me to really pick one recording as a favorite. There are many recordings that do this or that detail as good or in some cases better, but on the whole, this is the one for me. Lenny's first movement has never been bettered in my mind. I use to listen to it for weeks at a time. What I wouldn't give to lie about on a summer day beneath with Alps with that movement cranked though a nice set of speakers


----------



## DavidA

realdealblues said:


> Love this symphony! I listen to it very frequently.
> 
> Favorite recording:
> 
> Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic [Rec. 1961]
> 
> I literally have hundreds of Mahler recordings (might be a 1,000 now as I lost count years ago) and have spent years collecting and listening to them and I have tons of favorites for each Symphony but this one is probably the easiest for me to really pick one recording as a favorite. There are many recordings that do this or that detail as good or in some cases better, but on the whole, this is the one for me. Lenny's first movement has never been bettered in my mind. I use to listen to it for weeks at a time. What I wouldn't give to lie about on a summer day beneath with Alps with that movement cranked though a nice set of speakers


Interesting that when this recording came out Derek Cooke called it 'monstrous'! Can't comment as I haven't heard it. What do other people think?


----------



## techniquest

mbhaub said:


> Oh, I have one for you...dreadful sonics, weak conducting, poor playing. Wretched start to finish.
> View attachment 111366
> View attachment 111367


How very dare you! 

It's like a total delight when compared to the appaling Gergiev / LSO live recording which does just about everything wrong.


----------



## Totenfeier

I love all the usual suspects. But if you haven't heard it yet, hop on over to Youtube and look up Tennstedt/Minnesota SO 1981 live. Well worth it!


----------



## Merl

I'm gonna make a confession. I've been listening to this symphony for the first time in 2 years and I'm actually enjoying it! Bloody hell..... Last time I listened I found the performance great but the music too long and dull, as I always do with this symphony. However I played Haitink and the VPO's Mahler Feest performance today and its a cracker. What's happening to me? Am I going thru the male menopause? Next I may actually find the 8th 'below average' (that would be amazing for an 8th hater like me). :lol:


----------



## 89Koechel

-> Heck148 - (Martinon/1967) - I've begun to look/listen-into the diff. Mahler 3rds, and have only 1 recording (Horenstein, w/Procter & LSO/Nonesuch). I've even found a "venerable", old review of Kubelik/DG, from the pages of High Fidelity/1968, by Bernard Jacobson, in which he rates the Kubelik as second-only, to Leonard B (1961/NYP). Of course, at the TIME, Bernard J could not have known-of subsequent, excellent recordings, such as Horenstein and others, and not that REMARKABLE performance by Martinon, and the CSO of it's time. … In other words, would you still rate the Martinon/CSO as highly? and thanks for mentioning one, other CSO performance/recording - James Levine. I mention the Chicago/CSO simply because even in the post-Reiner period … which Martinon EXCELLED-IN, albeit for a short time … one can still listen-to the exceptional CHARACTER and VERVE of the orchestral playing, from one of the best periods of a great ensemble … woodwinds, thru trumpets, thru all sections of strings, etc.


----------



## 89Koechel

Merl - Sometimes, it seems that Mahler's longer works can go on LONGER, than they should. Maybe, with his fellow Austrian - Bruckner - it might seem the same. Of course, we have more-"schmaltzy" Austrians, such as Johann Strauss, and many of Strauss's works might seem-more concise. Possibly all of this length (short, medium, long) is part of the very-remarkable legacy of Austrian composers. … Sometimes it can healthy to take a "breather" from the longer, Mahlerian "vocabulary", and return to the less-than-hour compositions - his 1st & 4th - for obvious examples. It's true that Mahler could develop certain melodic ideas into lengthy forms, but Wagner did, also. After Wagner, Mahler and Bruckner, it's difficult to think of many composers who could sustain developments … orchestral-wise, let's say … over the entire expanse of a memorable, orchestral work (over an HOUR) - eh? … unless we're talking Sibelius, and who?


----------



## Heck148

89Koechel said:


> -> Heck148 - (Martinon/1967) - I've begun to look/listen-into the diff. Mahler 3rds, and have only 1 recording (Horenstein, w/Procter & LSO/Nonesuch).......that REMARKABLE performance by Martinon, and the CSO of it's time. … In other words, would you still rate the Martinon/CSO as highly?


The Finale is top-notch, best I've ever heard...just listened again last week...crank up the volume....amazing, nothing like it...



> and thanks for mentioning one, other CSO performance/recording - James Levine. I mention the Chicago/CSO simply because even in the post-Reiner period


Levine/CSO is my overall favorite M3 - it was recorded in '75...the Solti years - amazing virtuosity of the orchestra - the Trumpets were incredible - in addition to Herseth, Cichowitz, etc, Phil Smith was playing 3rd trumpet [soon became NYPO principal]....the big solos - trombone [mvt I. J. Friedman], posthorn/tpt [mvtIII, Herseth] are handled with great panache and artistry.



> … which Martinon EXCELLED-IN, albeit for a short time … one can still listen-to the exceptional CHARACTER and VERVE of the orchestral playing, from one of the best periods of a great ensemble … woodwinds, thru trumpets, thru all sections of strings, etc.


Martinon had a stormy time at CSO, but they produced some incredible music during that period - I highly recommend the complete Martinon/CSO Box set - best sound of any cd releases - and some absolute bests included - Bartok-Miraculous Mandarin, Hindemith-Noblissima Visione, Frank Martin - Concerto, Varese - Arcana - the amazing Nielsen Sym #4 which still leads the pack, Mennin - Sym #7, Bizet and lots of first-rate Ravel, which even rivals Reiner's classic accounts. The orchestra that Solti inherited in 1967 was in great shape, musically....


----------



## Konsgaard

Merl said:


> I don't like the 3rd Symphony much but the only ones I can tolerate are Honeck (what a recording!) and Jansons. I have lots of other recordings in cycles and some individual discs but most bore me rigid. I particularly dislike Horenstein's 3rd (that I have as part of the Brilliant Classics cycle) but know that others love it. Different strokes.....


There is a recording by Jansons released in Germany: https://www.amazon.de/Mahler-Symphonie-Nr-3-Doppel-CD/dp/B005WV7GNG/

I find it even better than the RCO recording. Also the Haitink on the same label (BR Klassik) is outstanding. (Btw, this is my favourite Mahler symphony)


----------



## Konsgaard

Being my favourite Mahler symphony, I've collected a lot of different recordings. If I had to choose one, that would be the Chailly on Decca. I find the finale of the 3rd to be the most beautiful music Mahler composed. There is also a great live video of Mahler 3 by Currentzis on the SWR site (his inaugural concert): https://www.swr.de/swrclassic/symph...phonieorchester-currentzis,event-swr-110.html If you scroll down a bit on the same page, there is a 1-hour lecture of him talking about the symphony and that otherworldly finale.


----------



## Granate

*Bernard Haitink!!!!!*

Literally no-one mentioned the wizard of Mahler 3s in my opinion: *Bernard Haitink!* Not my favourite conductor at all, but he had a great hand conducting this symphony. I wish I ever had one of his many recordings on CD, because with the sonic advances the experience has been improved time after time. His final Bavarian performance is a desert-island disc just for the sonics and the playing.










Mahler
_*Symphony No.3 in D minor*_
*Maureen Forrester*
Sint Willibrordkerk Knapenkoor
Groot Vrouwenkoor
Concertgebouworkest Amsterdam
*Bernard Haitink
Decca (1966/1994 Reissue Edition)*










Mahler
_*Symphony No.3 in D minor*_
*Jard van Nes*
Tölzer Knabenchor
Damenchor der Ernst-Senff-Chor
Berliner Philharmoniker
*Bernard Haitink
Decca (1990)*










Mahler
_*Symphony No.3 in D minor*_ Live recording
*Michelle DeYoung*
Chicago Childrens' Choir
Women of the Chicago Symphony Chorus
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
*Bernard Haitink
CSO Resound (2007)*










Mahler
_*Symphony No.3 in D minor*_ Live recording
*Gerhild Romberger*
Augsburger Domsingknaben
Frauenchor und Symphonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks
*Bernard Haitink
BR-Klassik (2017)*

Other Favourites? Bernstein NYPO DG and Tennstedt LPO Live (the one praised by Becca).

Bernstein NYPO Sony and Kubelík SOdBR DG are a step behind for me, great performances too.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Granate, see my post (#12). You're not the first one!!!!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

CnC Bartok said:


> Granate, see my post (#12). You're not the first one!!!!


...or the second


----------



## Larkenfield

Horenstein and the other ’stein NYP are favorites. I find the first movement of the Horenstein magical and unforgettable... and I get the distinct impression that Mahler is taking us back to the primordial ooze of creation.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

CnC Bartok said:


> Granate, see my post (#12). You're not the first one!!!!


I mentioned him too a few posts earlier. #7 on my list.


----------



## RockyIII

I haven't heard any of the recordings mentioned above, but I like the live recording by the Cologne Radio City Orchestra (now known as the WDR Symphony Orchestra) with Gary Bertini conducting.


----------



## DavidA

Just got the earlier Bernstein with NYPO which sounds so beautiful in the slow movement.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Don't know if anyone's posted this, but here's a recent performance of M3 by Teodor Currentzis and the SWR Symphony Orchestra:

https://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/player/Y3JpZDovL3N3ci5kZS9hZXgvbzEwNTY2MDI

I'm enjoying it so far!


----------



## Larkenfield

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Don't know if anyone's posted this, but here's a recent performance of M3 by Teodor Currentzis and the SWR Symphony Orchestra:
> 
> https://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/player/Y3JpZDovL3N3ci5kZS9hZXgvbzEwNTY2MDI
> 
> I'm enjoying it so far!


Would love to have heard it but apparently it's blocked in some countries such as the US.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Mahler 3 is my absolute favourite Symphony, already from taping the live radio broadcasts from the Concertgebouw orchestra and Haitink when I was still in highschool.

I have quite a Mahler collection now and a few of my favourite number 3 recordings are the following:

Part 6 "Final part": Haitink, Wiener, Mahler feest Amsterdam 1995 (CD box was not for sale), this is probably the most intense 6th part I ever heard, by the wonderful Wiener Philharmoniker string section 

Overall: 
Haitink, Berliner 1992, Philips
Abbado, Berliner, Live in London 1999, DG
Vaclav Neumann, Czech Philharmonic, 1982 (it was my first recording)

In 2015 there was a wonderful concert by Gatti and the Concertgebouw Orchestra, which however was not issued on CD. It would be great of this recording somehow would be issued (small chance, as Gatti's early forced leave from the RCO).


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Larkenfield said:


> Would love to have heard it but apparently it's blocked in some countries such as the US.


Bummer! Sorry about that.


----------



## flamencosketches

I listened to the first movement of Mahler's 3rd this morning. I love most everything I've heard of Mahler's so far, but I couldn't make heads or tails of this one. Perhaps I was just in the wrong mindset, but it seemed to have very little thematic continuity. I just couldn't feel any sense of "line" through the music. For reference, I was listening to Bernstein with the NYPO on Sony (recorded for Columbia in the 1960s). 

Maybe I just need to listen again on a good day, but is there any kind of "listener's guide" out there or something that might help me? Coherent or not, it's a massive work, and I couldn't help but feel kind of lost in the sound. 

Worst case scenario, I'll stick to 1, 2, and 4. Hours of great music in those 3 alone.


----------



## Granate

Third is still my favourite Mahler symphony today, one of the two Mahler symphonies I had the pleasure to experience in concert. However, it's becoming harder for me to find a great recording. Won't say them here, but being Tennstedt my favourite Mahler interpreter, I don't think his studio No.3 is great in any kind. And what is worse, I gave a listen to his 1986 live recording yesterday and I failed to be moved, although it is indeed a very good effort by his account.


----------



## starthrower

I just put on Bernstein's NYP recording. I also have his DG recording, Tennstedt, Gielen, and Ozawa BSO.


----------



## Heck148

the first mvt of Mahler #3 is, tmk, the longest movement of any symphony in the standard orchestral repertoire...there is definitely structure to it, an exposition, development, recapitulation, coda...pay special attention to the trombone solo, which is featured throughout in each major section...also, there is a whole collection march tunes which appear throughout. the movement is big. and a bit sprawly, but as I said, there is a. definite sonata form structure to it


----------



## flamencosketches

I will have to give it another shot, maybe on another Sunday morning.


----------



## cyberstudio

When I was in college, I tried out Mahler for the first time, and it was the 3rd. I fell asleep halfway. Over the years I grew to love all Mahler symphonies except the 3rd and the 4th, until I read this excellent article, and it all made perfect sense. The symphony was about evolution. Not that of Darwin, but that of Genesis. After all, it was very hard to "get" such a long symphony without some help. The first movement is supposed to be brutal, harsh and fragmentary, because that was what the beginning of the world was like.

http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/Mahler3.htm


----------



## CnC Bartok

Heck148 said:


> the first mvt of Mahler #3 is, tmk, the longest movement of any symphony in the standard orchestral repertoire...there is definitely structure to it, an exposition, development, recapitulation, coda...pay special attention to the trombone solo, which is featured throughout in each major section...also, there is a whole collection march tunes which appear throughout. the movement is big. and a bit sprawly, but as I said, there is a. definite sonata form structure to it


I think it's the recognition of the structure's existence that ends up making this movement such a great piece of music. It is not a sprawl then, nor is it episodic, even though it can seem to be both. Myself, I don't listen out for these things, I am emphatically not a musician (yes I can hear the sarcastic chorus of "what a surprise"!), but they are discernible, and make sense of the music.

The second movement of Mahler 8 is longer, but it is not a "typical Symphonic movement", so let the first statement stand!


----------



## wkasimer

flamencosketches said:


> Maybe I just need to listen again on a good day, but is there any kind of "listener's guide" out there or something that might help me?


Try to find a copy of Zander's recording on Telarc, which comes with an extra disc of discussion by Zander. It's also an excellent performance of the work.


----------



## mbhaub

flamencosketches said:


> ...is there any kind of "listener's guide" out there or something that might help me?


Yes, there is. A wonderful DVD. And a trip to Austria and actually visit the places Mahler spent his summer will help. Stunning scenery all caught in this wonderful music.


----------



## flamencosketches

Good call. I will try and find that movie. As for the trip to Austria, that is certainly on my bucket list, but alas not in my near future. Maybe in a couple years. I've never been to Europe at all.


----------



## mbhaub

Go! Save, scrimp, beg...but go! Any classical music listener really needs to see it (while you can). When I was a youngster the best thing I did was spend a month in Austria - started in Vienna. It really isn't the musical mecca it was in the 19th c, but still impressive. The Central Cemetery, Grinzing, Ringstrasse, Opera House, National Library, Konzerthaus...so much to see and hear. Then take the train around the country and visit those places Mahler (and so many others) did. Hike the Dolomites like Mahler. If you're more into Mozart, then Salzburg is your place. But it's well worth a visit, too (and expensive). If you're a Bruckner fan, Linz must be on the itinerary. For Hayd, Esterhazy. I stayed in Hostels to keep costs down and public transportation in Austria is phenomenal. I've been back since and never get bored. Go, go, go!!!!


----------



## flamencosketches

mbhaub said:


> Go! Save, scrimp, beg...but go! Any classical music listener really needs to see it (while you can). When I was a youngster the best thing I did was spend a month in Austria - started in Vienna. It really isn't the musical mecca it was in the 19th c, but still impressive. The Central Cemetery, Grinzing, Ringstrasse, Opera House, National Library, Konzerthaus...so much to see and hear. Then take the train around the country and visit those places Mahler (and so many others) did. Hike the Dolomites like Mahler. If you're more into Mozart, then Salzburg is your place. But it's well worth a visit, too (and expensive). If you're a Bruckner fan, Linz must be on the itinerary. For Hayd, Esterhazy. I stayed in Hostels to keep costs down and public transportation in Austria is phenomenal. I've been back since and never get bored. Go, go, go!!!!


You're preaching to the choir, trust me. I will go. It just may be a year or two before I realistically can. I'm a broke recent college grad with very little savings (and even less knowledge of German) and I'm just now getting on my feet. But I'm working on it 

I'm reading Haruki Murakami's book Absolutely On Music and he talks about driving a rental car around Bohemia and seeing the village where Mahler's parents lived, and that it helped him understand his music. Definitely was inspiring to read even if it was just a short passage.


----------



## mbhaub

Don't worry about the German. Most Europeans are generally better educated than Americans and are at least bilingual, often more. Everyone speaks basic English and your cell phone Translate feature is really useful. In smaller towns communication with the natives can be harder, but not impossible. And Austrian German is not like Munich German and even further from Berlin German. 

Driving in Europe is just scary. At least they drive on the correct side, unlike the Brits.:tiphat:Roads are narrow, signs largely absent, towns congested. But some out of the way places (like Jihlava) are best reached by car. There's a pretty good book, "Classical Destinations" which has suggestions and guides all over Europe, Scandinavia, UK, and such. Let us know when you go!


----------



## Larkenfield

mbhaub said:


> Yes, there is. A wonderful DVD. And a trip to Austria and actually visit the places Mahler spent his summer will help. Stunning scenery all caught in this wonderful music.
> 
> View attachment 117819


I have seen this DVD and it is tremendous. There's also a performance of the Third that I like very much despite the occasional fluffs in the French horns. I'm a big fan of the Third because the first movement is like the story of creation. Mahler got primal starting at the cellular level.


----------



## mikeh375

flamencosketches said:


> Good call. I will try and find that movie. As for the trip to Austria, that is certainly on my bucket list, but alas not in my near future. Maybe in a couple years. I've never been to Europe at all.


I heartily recommend Salzburg, it is a wonderful place. If you go, book a table here....

https://www.mozart-dinner-concert-salzburg.com

....at the oldest restaurant in Europe. It serves dinners Mozart and his family ate and you eat accompanied with live performances by roving players of his music. I think they claim he actually dined in the restaurant too if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> I listened to the first movement of Mahler's 3rd this morning. I love most everything I've heard of Mahler's so far, but I couldn't make heads or tails of this one. Perhaps I was just in the wrong mindset, but it seemed to have very little thematic continuity. I just couldn't feel any sense of "line" through the music. For reference, I was listening to Bernstein with the NYPO on Sony (recorded for Columbia in the 1960s).
> 
> Maybe I just need to listen again on a good day, but is there any kind of "listener's guide" out there or something that might help me? Coherent or not, it's a massive work, and I couldn't help but feel kind of lost in the sound.
> 
> Worst case scenario, I'll stick to 1, 2, and 4. Hours of great music in those 3 alone.


A lot of people have trouble liking 3. It can seem like something of a mess. In the end I suspect you will come to like it but meanwhile you have 5, 6 and 9 to explore - all are very great works (as great as 2 but very different) which succeed in various performances. For 3 you might try Horenstein - he did it for me.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> A lot of people have trouble liking 3. It can seem like something of a mess. In the end I suspect you will come to like it but meanwhile you have 5, 6 and 9 to explore - all are very great works (as great as 2 but very different) which succeed in various performances. For 3 you might try Horenstein - he did it for me.


Good call, encouraging words. I have been trying to listen in chronological order, but I think i'll skip to 5. (Already love 4). An hour and 40 minutes is a long time to devote if I'm not hooked right away.


----------



## Merl

flamencosketches said:


> Good call, encouraging words. I have been trying to listen in chronological order, but I think i'll skip to 5. (Already love 4). An hour and 40 minutes is a long time to devote if I'm not hooked right away.


Don't worry, it's took me years to appreciate the 3rd. Finding the right recording will open the doors for you but as you say I'd definitely go with those that appeal to you the most for now.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

mbhaub said:


> a trip to Austria and actually visit the places Mahler spent his summer will help.


Here's a charming lecture by a Mahler enthusiast who did the same pilgrimage:


----------



## cyberstudio

Regarding Haitink on BR Klassik, I bought his entire "Portrait" box set for 14.62 shipped (Canadian dollars). I played Mahler 3 first, of course, and my jaws dropped. I would have never thought that a huge complex orchestral piece can be played and recorded with this level of detail and clarity... all the wide palette of colors... exotic percussion... This is exemplary demo material for audiophiles.

I have bought too many box sets lately, but I still clicked Add to Cart because at that price the Mahler 3 alone is more than worth it. It could have been Amazon's price error. In the US it's USD49, still a good deal. A total of 11 CDs comes in - Bruckner 5/6, Mahler 3/4/9, Beethoven Missa Solemnis, Haydn Creations and Seasons. The rest is good, but his Mahler 3 is certainly the highlight of the set.

Haitink can make Mahler 3 more colorful than La Mer and he does. The raving is well deserved but at the end of the day, some, me included, may want to see more of the hadean side of the symphony.


----------



## Larkenfield

flamencosketches said:


> I listened to the first movement of Mahler's 3rd this morning. I love most everything I've heard of Mahler's so far, but I couldn't make heads or tails of this one. Perhaps I was just in the wrong mindset, but it seemed to have very little thematic continuity. I just couldn't feel any sense of "line" through the music. For reference, I was listening to Bernstein with the NYPO on Sony (recorded for Columbia in the 1960s).
> 
> Maybe I just need to listen again on a good day, but is there any kind of "listener's guide" out there or something that might help me? Coherent or not, it's a massive work, and I couldn't help but feel kind of lost in the sound.
> 
> Worst case scenario, I'll stick to 1, 2, and 4. Hours of great music in those 3 alone.


Bernstein's is a very fine recording, but I would rate Horenstein's 1970 studio recording much higher for its greater sense of unity and momentum:






This is one of my favorite Mahler symphonies because of its connection with nature and creation... and the world wasn't created in a day, thus the symphony's considerable length.


----------



## Merl

I like this one a lot. Fresh, invigorating and sonically superb. Not everyone will agree, though. What do you lot think of it?


----------



## flamencosketches

Horenstein seems to be the one to get... I'll check that one out, in due time, and report back.


----------



## Kiki

Merl said:


> I like this one a lot. Fresh, invigorating and sonically superb. Not everyone will agree, though. What do you lot think of it?
> 
> View attachment 118933


Positive. I'm a big fan of François-Xavier Roth. Think his #5 is also excellent. His recent Hamburg #1 with Les Siècles is eye-opening.


----------



## CnC Bartok

flamencosketches said:


> Horenstein seems to be the one to get... I'll check that one out, in due time, and report back.


A gentle warning about the Horenstein Third. I bought it as a download first, and found it distinctly underwhelming. Mine had a very low recording level. It's a million times better on CD! If you can find it at a reasonable price......


----------



## Granate

^^










ASIN: B00WJ5JGF4

This is the box with the newest CD editions of Horenstein's studio Mahler. I don't like any of them, but they are right now the box to go to get the recordings. 30 pounds.


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## mbhaub

Kiki said:


> Positive. I'm a big fan of François-Xavier Roth. Think his #5 is also excellent. His recent Hamburg #1 with Les Siècles is eye-opening.


I'm going to get this - I have so many 3rds already - but this is getting so many positive reviews and few negatives. Or, should I wait until he finishes cycle and get 'em all in a budget box?


----------



## Kiki

mbhaub said:


> I'm going to get this - I have so many 3rds already - but this is getting so many positive reviews and few negatives. Or, should I wait until he finishes cycle and get 'em all in a budget box?


Yeah a set would be nice, just that who knows when Roth will finish his cycle, if he would at all.

I got the hi-res release. Happy as a lark. 

It is available on Spotify though.


----------



## flamencosketches

Coming around on Mahler's 3rd. Still listening to the Bernstein/NYPO on Sony which is just an excellent. It's filled with these little explosions of sound and color that can't be contained. If I were to have any complaint, it's that it may come off somewhat episodic at times, and it's still quite difficult for me to listen to the whole thing in one sitting. 

Granate, which of Haitink's recordings do you reckon is the best? I love his Das Lied von der Erde with James King and Janet Baker, but have heard none of his other Mahler. Do you have an opinion of his Mahler 8th as well (Concertgebouw, on Philips)...? I frequently see that CD for very cheap at a local record store and always pass it up.


----------



## flamencosketches

I've done the impossible today: I listened to Mahler's 3rd in its entirety  To be fair, I had to do this in two listening sessions, movements 1 through 4, and then 5 and 6 a couple hours later. It really is quite a good symphony. Perhaps even as good as the 2nd. I think it's too damn long for its own good, but there is tons of valuable, beautiful music in there. Programmatically, the first movement really is like the creation of the earth, and then I guess movements 2 through 6 are some kind of survey of that creation. Of course, this is Mahler, and not Berlioz, so there is no strict tone-painting, but I think the entire symphony works as some kind of birds-eye view of some kind of vast, mysterious cosmic phenomena. 

In any case, it's a fascinating work and one which I'll be returning to, and I hope my patience for it grows. As much as I did enjoy it today, there were certainly several moments in which I felt it was dragging some. I am on a self-administered hiatus from my most favorite Mahler symphonies, 1, 2, 4, 5, as well as 6 (I'm holding out until I can get a different recording)... so I will be spending more time with symphonies 3, 7, 8, DLvdE, and perhaps also 9, which is (along with the completed 10th) the only Mahler symphony which now remains for me to hear in its entirety. I am saving the 9th for a different point in my life, as I have so much other music to work through now. Hell, I just came around on Beethoven's 9th last month...

Also just wanted to pointlessly note that I found Horenstein's famous LSO recording of this symphony at a record store in a nearby town and passed it up... and I regret it now. It was quite overpriced in all fairness to myself. Regardless, the Bernstein/NYPO (Columbia/Sony) is an excellent recording I think now that I have gotten to understand it some.


----------



## Larkenfield

The Horenstein 3rd can be heard online and it’s a tremendous performance. The first movement has been previously posted. It can also be found in the Brilliant Classics collection of Mahler Symphonie though unfortunately it’s currently out of print.


----------



## flamencosketches

Larkenfield said:


> The Horenstein 3rd can be heard online and it's a tremendous performance. The first movement has been previously posted. It can also be found in the Brilliant Classics collection of Mahler Symphonie though unfortunately it's currently out of print.


Yeah, I listened to the first movement of the Horenstein that was posted in this thread a few months ago. Really good, though I think ultimately I like the Bernstein a little bit better. This could be due to more familiarity with his style. It was really heavy stuff.


----------



## Merl

Ive had the Horenstein 3rd for years and, try as I might, it still does nothing for me.i even gave it another try last week and still turned it off. The Kubelik 3rd was the same for me. I never got this symphony until about 6 months ago and even now there's not too many recordings I like but Jansons, Chailly, Honeck and Bernstein (NYPO) all resonate with me. Yeah, I know, there's plenty of recordings but we all have ones that work for us. I've got lots of Mahler sets but it 's not an easy symphony to get into (IMO) and few people pull it off well. However, once I heard Haitink's Mahlerfeest performance it all started to make sense.


----------



## Becca

Larkenfield said:


> Would love to have heard it but apparently it's blocked in some countries such as the US.


Regarding the Currentzis/SWR concert, it is available within the US ... I was just watching it...

https://www.swr.de/swrclassic/symphonieorchester/SWR-Web-Concerts-Mahler-3-Antrittskonzert-Teodor-Currentzis,aexavarticle-swr-114.html


----------



## NLAdriaan

Merl said:


> once I heard Haitink's Mahlerfeest performance it all started to make sense.


I was there in the Concertgebouw and actually only in the final part, Haitink and the VPO string section really took off. On the quite rare CD box of the Mahler feest, you can hear it again. Next year, there will be another Mahler feest, but the line-up is less tempting. I only have a ticket for the 6th with BPO/Petrenko, to which I really look forward. The 3rd and 9th will be conducted by Myung Wung Chung, a very questionable choice IMO.

Personally, I like Haitink's studio recording on Philips with the BPO a lot and of course Horenstein.


----------



## Larkenfield

Merl said:


> Ive had the Horenstein 3rd for years and, try as I might, it still does nothing for me.i even gave it another try last week and still turned it off. The Kubelik 3rd was the same for me. I never got this symphony until about 6 months ago and even now there's not too many recordings I like but Jansons, Chailly, Honeck and Bernstein (NYPO) all resonate with me. Yeah, I know, there's plenty of recordings but we all have ones that work for us. I've got lots of Mahler sets but it 's not an easy symphony to get into (IMO) and few people pull it off well. However, once I heard Haitink's Mahlerfeest performance it all started to make sense.


 I think it's easy to tell when a listener doesn't truly have a feel or deep appreciation for this symphony, when there are still some reservations. I never had a problem getting a feel for this symphony and the Horenstein is considered a classic performance and highly prized over the years. When it went out of print, people were willing to a relative fortune to get a copy. The first movement is worth the price alone and Hornstein was a true Mahlerian who did a number of memorable recordings. It was recorded in 1970 and naturally there have been many more recordings of this great symphony. But the pacing and the momentum of the first movement make this performance special. The symphony is really about the story of creation and that's the understanding that many listeners have about it - the creation of the world, most certainly in the first movement.


----------



## Granate

For the bazillion time, No.3 is my favourite Mahler symphony and I share with Merl my feeling of boredom and lack of grip for the Horenstein Unicorn recording. There are indeed very few recordings I love for this one, but I don't get in your post that people can still have different tastes or a different take on a recording based on their own intuition.


----------



## wkasimer

Granate said:


> For the bazillion time, No.3 is my favourite Mahler symphony and I share with Merl my feeling of boredom and lack of grip for the Horenstein Unicorn recording.


That's how I feel about virtually every Horenstein recording I've ever heard. At least the Mahler 3rd features a competent orchestra, something which can't be said about some of Horenstein's other recordings.


----------



## flamencosketches

Thoughts on Nagano's Mahler 3?










The samples I heard sounded really good. Leaner than the likes of Bernstein or Horenstein.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Mahler’s 3rd seems like such a great “summertime” symphony (don’t ask me why I think that) and thus I’m trying to seriously devote some time to this monolithic work and finally find some performances that suit my tastes. I’ve heard this symphony twice in its entirety before - from Haitink (forgot which version, I was bored stiff) and Bernstein/NY (1960s Columbia/Sony), the latter which helped me to understand the symphony a bit more, but it’s still far down my list of favorite Mahler symphonies. The legendary Horenstein/LSO is playing now on YouTube, and I find his grasp of the first movement and its dramatic flow very engaging (even though the recorded sound, at least on YouTube, is quite poor). Also my first time hearing Horenstein in any Mahler. If I can keep my level of interest up for the work, I’m planning on hearing Barbirolli/Halle, Boulez, and Adler soon. I’m sure this monster will fully “click" for me soon, but for now I still admire it more than love it.


----------



## Gray Bean

I'll never forget the first time I heard it. It was a live radio broadcast with Zubin Mehta and the New York Philharmonic. I was in high school (in rural Alabama). It blew my mind! 
There are many wonderful recordings but if I had to choose a few, I would recommend:

Bernstein/NYPO, DG and Sony

Haitink/COA, Philips, the one with Maureen Forrester, I also like Haitink's recording with the Berlin Philharmonic 

Horenstein/LSO

Honeck/Pittsburgh SO

Abbado/Vienna Philharmonic with Jessye Norman 

Tennstedt/LPO on ICA Classics

Litton/Dallas SO


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Well, the Horenstein is probably now my favorite so far. There’s such an intense, laser-sharp concentration throughout and he doesn’t turn it into a bombastic spectacle but treats it as an epic lyric drama with infrequent but memorable high points. There’s a sustained eloquence and a cohesive understanding of dramatic narrative that’s quite special. I think it is stripped of some of Bernstein’s passion and personality this way, but this is an interpretation of great force and insight. I can certainly envision how some might not like it though; he doesn’t go in for thrills and the reward comes in how fulfilling the whole journey seems. A thinking-man’s performance, if you will.


----------



## Gray Bean

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Well, the Horenstein is probably now my favorite so far. There's such an intense, laser-sharp concentration throughout and he doesn't turn it into a bombastic spectacle but treats it as an epic lyric drama with infrequent but memorable high points. There's a sustained eloquence and a cohesive understanding of dramatic narrative that's quite special. I think it is stripped of some of Bernstein's passion and personality this way, but this is an interpretation of great force and insight. I can certainly envision how some might not like it though; he doesn't go in for thrills and the reward comes in how fulfilling the whole journey seems.


Agreed, but those horn trills in the first movement as Spring marches in certainly give me a thrill!


----------



## Heck148

Levine/CSO is my overall favorite....love the first mvt trombone solo(J. Friedman), and 3rd mvt posthorn solo (A. Herseth)...it is excellent throughout....
Bernstein/NYPO II (DG) is really good also.
But the great Adagio - Finale (one of the very greatest, along with Bruckner/II) - best I've ever heard is Martinon/CSO live from '67 - really amazing - beautifully paced, with huge swells of sound, alternating with exquisite soft playing....the final full orchestra tutti "fortississimo" is incredible, a great wall of sound coming at you, followed by a truly memorable moment....after the great climax, a soft chord, then the trumpet and trombone - pianissimo - intone the main theme - perfect!! so soft, perfectly balanced, together, the "far off call of eternity", which we must all answer.. ..magical!! Truly special...can't imagine what it sounded like live in the hall.


----------



## Gray Bean

I forgot Martinon! Add that one to my list!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Horenstein, Barbirolli, and Bernstein (Sony) are all great, and I also like the Haitink and Levine already mentioned, but the one nobody talks about (except Becca) is F. Charles Adler, my absolute favorite. Horenstein and Barbirolli are great in the final Adagio, but I think Adler nails it.

I'd probably recommend Horenstein first for being stereo, but the Adler recording is in very good sound for 1952.

"Essentials" list:

F. Charles Adler (1952 studio) (Harmonia Mundi, Music & Arts)
Jascha Horenstein (Unicorn) ◄
Sir John Barbirolli (1969) (BBC)
Leonard Bernstein (Sony)

Further listening: Dimitri Mitropoulos (1960) (Tahra, ICA, Archipel), Claudio Abbado (1982) (DG), Bernhard Haitink (1966) (Philips), Hermann Scherchen (1950) (Tahra), Rafael Kubelik (Audite), James Levine (RCA)


----------



## Merl

I've been working my way back through Gielen's excellent Mahler cycle. I love Gielen's unmannered way with many of the symphonies. His 3rd is now one of my favourite 3rds. Check out that posthorn.


----------



## CnC Bartok

^^^ ..... and check out that oboe in the 4th movement!


----------



## Enthusiast

The Horenstein is great and quite unique. I agree with Merl that the Gielen is very good. Probably Adam Fischer's is my favourite. I would like to hear Roth's at some point.


----------



## Merl

Enthusiast said:


> The Horenstein is great and quite unique. I agree with Merl that the Gielen is very good. Probably Adam Fischer's is my favourite. I would like to hear Roth's at some point.


I forgot about Fischer. Yep that's a cracker too.


----------



## starthrower

Merl said:


> I've been working my way back through Gielen's excellent Mahler cycle. I love Gielen's unmannered way with many of the symphonies. His 3rd is now one of my favourite 3rds. Check out that posthorn.


I bought the Gielen box a year and a half ago but I haven't listened to his 3rd. I will rectify this soon.


----------



## DarkAngel

Under the radar Salonen M3 in one of his rare Mahler recordings delivers a great 3rd in excellent audiophile sound, I would probably list this in my top 5 among very competitive M3 list.........

My question for the expert Mahlerite panel here.....
Do you prefer early Bernstein NYPO Sony or later NYPO DG, both very good but is there a clear favorite?


----------



## Heck148

DarkAngel said:


> Under the radar Salonen M3 in one of his rare Mahler recordings delivers a great 3rd in excellent audiophile sound, I would probably list this in my top 5 among very competitive M3 list


I'd like to hear this Salonen/LAPO...Salonen is a fine conductor



> The new live Haitink M3 is not only his best recorded M3 but also perhaps his best Mahler recording ever!


His CSO recording on CSO Resound is very good also


> My question for the expert Mahlerite panel here.....
> Do you prefer early Bernstein NYPO Sony or later NYPO DG, both very good but is there a clear favorite?


I prefer LB/NYPO II (DG) - one of the best.


----------



## DarkAngel

https://www.pristineclassical.com/products/pasc565?_pos=20&_sid=0c15b38ae&_ss=r

Pristine XR has the best collection of Horenstein performances supplied to them by Misha Horenstein, for M3 they have live 1961 LSO in excellent sound and more dramatic forceful tempo compared to 1970 LSO Unicorn studio, listen to last 4 minutes of final movement the blazing massive brass fanfares sweep all away in HD sound sample above, Bruckner would have a smile on his face.....


----------



## Knorf

I personally prefer the DG recording for Mahler 3 with Bernstein, but they're very close and I own and often listen to both.

The Salonen is a dark horse, a very good but neglected Mahler 3.

Also excellent: Iván Fischer, Claudio Abbado with Berlin, and especially Pierre Boulez with Vienna, which is a highlight of that cycle.


----------



## Azol

DarkAngel said:


> My question for the expert Mahlerite panel here.....
> Do you prefer early Bernstein NYPO Sony or later NYPO DG, both very good but is there a clear favorite?


DGG for me, made in Heaven.


----------



## mbhaub

For me, Bernstein owns the Third. There are of course many, excellent, wonderful recordings: Levine, Mehta, Lopez Cobos, Litton...long list. But no one seems to probe it as deeply, or rejoice in it's most exhilarating passages like Bernstein. I give DG a slight edge over Sony, but both are terrific. It's also a work that I will always regret Bruno Walter dying before he had a chance to record it.


----------



## Josquin13

I totally agree with Brahmsianhorn about F. Charles Adler's early 1952 (actually it was made in 1951) Mahler 3rd, whose Mahler I've mentioned myself on these treads (as often as I can). It's the best conducted and most idiomatic Mahler 3rd I know, but alas, the sonics aren't great. Unfortunately, the CD was made from a copy tape, since the original tape perished a fire. However, I expect some listeners will be more let down by the sound than others. The conducting is great. & the performance is about as close as we'll ever get to hearing how Mahler might have conducted his 3rd Symphony, in my view. Adler was, after all, one of Mahler's protégés, and the only conductor to record the 3rd that knew and worked with the composer (& by the way, Leonard Bernstein once told Hannah Adler, the conductor's wife, that he had learned a great deal from listening to her husband's Mahler records). Adler's recording has been issued by Tahra, French Harmonia Mundi, and Music & Arts. I'm not sure which has the best sound, or if they're all roughly the same--any opinions?:

Adler, Vienna Symphony Orchestra: 



Adler, Orchestre du Wiener Konzertverein (i.e., the Vienna Symphony Orchestra), Harmonia Mundi: 




I'd also strongly recommend a live 1967 Mahler 3rd from Rafael Kubelik & the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra on Audite (which I prefer to Kubelik's DG studio recording made in the same week): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gustav-Mah...belik+mahler+3&qid=1593840966&s=dmusic&sr=1-3, Sir John Barbirolli's Hallé Orchestra recording from 1969 on BBC Legends (despite some sloppy trumpet playing), Leonard Bernstein's Columbia recording with the New York Philharmonic (on Sony), with Christa Ludwig in top form (which I prefer to Bernstein's later DG recording of the same--though the sound quality is better on DG), Jascha Horenstein's London Symphony Orchestra recording on Unicorn, and Riccardo Chailly's Concertgebouw recording on Decca (released in both a hybrid SACD and CD format). I've not heard Chailly's second 3rd with the Leipzig Gewandhaus, on DVD, but would like to.

Those are my top five Mahler 3rds besides Adler's historical recording. In addition, Klaus Tennstedt is also excellent with the London Philharmonic Orchestra, as is Bernard Haitink in his 1983 Christmas matinee performance, which I prefer to his 1966 studio account, along with Maurice Abravanel's 1969 Mahler 3rd with the Utah Symphony Orchestra on Vanguard Classics--all worth hearing for Mahler fanatics.

Kubelik, Bavarian RSO, live Audite: 



Barbirolli, Hallé Orchestra (1969): 



Bernstein, NYPO, Columbia/Sony (just click on the link to the 3rd below the YT screen): 



Horenstein, LSO: 



Chailly, Concertgebouw Orchestra, Decca: 




I've also not heard Manfred Honeck's recording with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra on Exton, which I expect offers astonishing sonics, as is usually the case with Exton's phenomenal engineers: https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8001735--mahler-symphony-no-3. Another fine audiophile choice is Zdenek Macal's Mahler 3rd with the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra--likewise on two Exton hybrid SACDs: which I've found to be about as close to sounding like you're in the concert hall as I've heard in Mahler's 3rd (but the same may be true about Honeck's 3rd, as well, since it comes from the same source):

https://www.amazon.com/Symphony-No-3-Mahler/dp/B000P12D0E. 
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8076000--mahler-symphony-no-3

It's certainly nice to hear and own Mahler's 3rd in 'state of the art' audiophile sound, as it allows the listener to hear the whole score in greater detail & clarity. Not only is the 3rd an extremely difficult symphony to conduct well, but it's also very difficult to record well, too. Speaking of which, I've also not heard the Mahler 3rd that Michael Tilson Thomas recorded in San Francisco, which I expect likewise comes in audiophile sound, since that was the case with the other symphonies that I have heard from MTT's cycle.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Merl said:


> I've been working my way back through Gielen's excellent Mahler cycle. I love Gielen's unmannered way with many of the symphonies. His 3rd is now one of my favourite 3rds. Check out that posthorn.


Gielen's set is amazing.


----------



## Knorf

Count me in as well as a fan of Gielen's Mahler. I probably don't mention his recordings as much as they deserve.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Count me in as well as a fan of Gielen's Mahler. I probably don't mention his recordings as much as they deserve.


The Musicweb reviewer obviously felt the same way as you Knorf and I although I don't often agree with online reviews I'm with you both on this. 
_
"I should say that prior to receiving this set I was insufficiently familiar with Michael Gielen's work. I now realise that was a glaring omission on my part. I've come away from this set with a considerable respect for Gielen, both as a conductor tout court and as a Mahler interpreter in particular. Everything he does in this set is thoroughly musical, focuses the attention of the listener firmly on Mahler rather than on the conductor, and bespeaks a deep and serious knowledge of the composer's music. His is not the only way to play these inexhaustible scores......
.....Gielen's interpretations have made me listen to the music and engage with it in a different way and for that I'm very grateful. I find it interesting that these recordings were made over such a long span of time - much longer than one often finds in Mahler cycles. I think that Gielen's extensive engagement over time with the music pays dividends. So, too, does the fact that Gielen was working with an orchestra who knew him well. The playing of the SWR orchestra is splendid throughout: what an act of vandalism it was when this orchestra was sacrificed on the altar of budgetary rectitude.

Normally, I wouldn't recommend a single-conductor cycle of Mahler symphonies. There is so much in the music that no individual can hope to do every work equal justice. However, if you're a seasoned Mahler collector I'd say that Gielen is very well worth hearing. If you're less familiar with Mahler's music then this relatively inexpensive set will provide an excellent and very reliable way of adding all his orchestral music to your collection.

I'm going to leave the last word to my colleague, Dan Morgan. When he heard I'd received this set for review Dan emailed me and said "As for the Gielen, I have them all and there's hardly a weak link anywhere." He was right."_


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Alright, I've discovered _the one_ for me. It's Barbirolli 1969, playing right now. Yes, this is how it's done! Every phrase is given its proper weight and there is drama and passion even in the softer sections. I do admire Horenstein for his supreme musicality and sharp sense of focus, but I thought his performance sounded slightly more Brucknerian than Mahlerian; and you have to love Bernstein for his enthusiasm but with Barbirolli you get all the emotional weight you could ever want, while still maintaining an excellent overall grasp of structure; nothing less than what you'd expect from him in Mahler. And those strings...could anyone phrase them better than Sir John? I think he is definitely my favorite Mahlerian conductor. Yes, there will be those (ahem...Hurwitz) who trash his performances because "the mistakes in bar number blah-blah-blah of the first movement are inexcusable, and how could the horn entry be so late in the coda, and it's such a shambles, the conductor's job is to get the orchestra to play the thing perfectly, what a joke, etc. etc. etc." You know what, whatever. That's pure pedantry. All the average listener hears is creative, joyful, radiant, passionate, life-enhancing music-making. And that's all that matters.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

As you can see from my list of essential recordings for each symphony, Barbirolli is my favorite Mahler conductor as well for the reasons you mention:

Symphony No. 1 ('Titan')

Bruno Walter (1939) (Music & Arts, IDIS)
F. Charles Adler (Tahra)
Sir John Barbirolli (Dutton)
Leonard Bernstein (DG)
Rafael Kubelik (DG)

Symphony No. 2 ('Resurrection')

Sir John Barbirolli (1970) (EMI, Hunt, Arkadia, Living Stage)
Otto Klemperer (1965) (EMI)
Otto Klemperer (1962) (EMI)
Zubin Mehta (Decca)
Simon Rattle (EMI)

Symphony No. 3

F. Charles Adler (1952 studio) (Harmonia Mundi, Music & Arts)
Jascha Horenstein (Unicorn)
Sir John Barbirolli (1969) (BBC)
Leonard Bernstein (Sony)

Symphony No. 4

Jo Vincent/Willem Mengelberg (Philips, Grammofono, Dante Lys, Iron Needle) 
Heather Harper/Sir John Barbirolli (BBC)
Hilde Güden/Bruno Walter (1955) (DG, Andromeda)
Margaret Price/Jascha Horenstein (CfP)

Symphony No. 5

Sir John Barbirolli (EMI)
Jascha Horenstein (Pristine)
Frank Shipway (RPO)
Rudolf Schwarz (Everest)
Leonard Bernstein (DG)

Symphony No. 6

Sir John Barbirolli (EMI)
Eduard van Beinum (Tahra)
Leonard Bernstein (DG)
Jascha Horenstein (1969) (BBC)

Symphony No. 7

Otto Klemperer (EMI)
Jascha Horenstein (Music & Arts, BBC)
Hermann Scherchen (1965) (Music & Arts)
Claudio Abbado (1984) (DG)

Symphony No. 8 ('Symphony of a thousand')

Jascha Horenstein (BBC)
Dimitri Mitropoulos (Orfeo, Music & Arts)
Leonard Bernstein (DG)
Georg Solti (Decca)

Symphony No. 9

Sir John Barbirolli (1960) (IDIS, Archipel)
Sir John Barbirolli (EMI)
Bruno Walter (EMI, Dutton)
Herbert von Karajan (1982) (DG)
Otto Klemperer (EMI)
Jascha Horenstein (1966) (Music & Arts)


----------



## Gray Bean

Yesterday I hopped in the car and turned on the radio. The finale of Mahler 3 had just started. I listened as I drove and for the life of me couldn’t identify the recording. It was very, very good. I just couldn’t guess who! After the stunning conclusion the announcer reported: Boulez and the Weiner Philharmoniker. I was floored! I never thought of Boulez as a Mahler conductor so I had never investigated his DG cycle. I will look into it very soon. Any comments?


----------



## Knorf

Boulez's Mahler cycle is terrific, and the Third is one of the highlights. It's one of my favorite Mahler recordings.


----------



## blondheim

I love the love that Honeck and Pittsburgh are getting! I have seen them do Mahler's 2nd and also the film music of Howard Shore and they are an incredible ensemble. I have not heard that recording yet though as I insist on physical media and for a while it was heard to find inexpensively. I am definitely going to check it out now.

I also love that I am not the only admirer of Boulez. I was listening to a bunch of Mahler 3's on a loop for a while, streaming, so I could make an intelligent purchase of one for the shelf, and I sat up while listening to Boulez' and had to see who it was and was very surprised, considering his reputation, for how lovingly it was presented, but still crystal-clear, almost the same effect as an HD remaster of The Wizard of Oz.

I find Kubelik sort of the middle of the road between the heart-over-head approach of Bernstein and the head-over-heart approach of Boulez. I am merely commenting on the balance here, as I think Bernstein and Boulez have plenty enough of both. I mean, Bernstein might always have a _bit_ too much heart but that's Bernstein.

I am definitely very fond of Horenstein's recording with the LSO. The opening movement is incomparable. Please inform me of any you would rank above it in terms of sheer octane excitement. I do appreciate other views of that movement, Boulez again, Bychkov definitely, Kubelik, but there is none that gives such a garish display. I mostly prefer ugly, 'immoralist' Mahler and Horenstein seems to agree with me on that.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

blondheim said:


> I am definitely very fond of Horenstein's recording with the LSO. The opening movement is incomparable. Please inform me of any you would rank above it in terms of sheer octane excitement. I do appreciate other views of that movement, Boulez again, Bychkov definitely, Kubelik, but there is none that gives such a garish display. I mostly prefer ugly, 'immoralist' Mahler and Horenstein seems to agree with me on that.


I find Horenstein very philosophical in the 3rd, very dark and meditative. I think it really fits with the atmosphere Mahler was going for, including the Nietzsche poem and all. As I mentioned before I really like it, but prefer Barbirolli for his more extrovert, passionate approach. Maybe it was just the terrible recording quality on the YouTube of the Horenstein that I heard, but my impression was that he tries to make more out of the quieter sections in an attempt to build the structure.


----------



## blondheim

I think the Horenstein has a wide dynamic range that is evident although not heavily supported by the recording, which is not always the greatest. I haven't heard the SACD release to see if this has been improved. I also, controversially, sort of like the effect of the timpani, even though it is clearly mixed improperly and was probably not intended to sound quite like that.

What I like about Horenstein most is that he really makes the forest come alive. You can feel Pan waking up, stretching his arms and then having his day, alternately playful and cruel, as any great cosmic force would be, conscious or unconscious, one or many, Pan and pan-. Horenstein's Pan feels a little more on the sinister side, which is where my bias lies. Pan as both singular and plural just as Mahler's universe-view. Also his view of the symphony as 'the world' plays into all this.

I have definitely not heard enough recordings of this symphony, especially newer recordings, since I began by working through the Duggan survey, and branched off from there. Definitely grabbing the Pittsburgh recording next.


----------



## Heck148

Gray Bean said:


> I never thought of Boulez as a Mahler conductor so I had never investigated his DG cycle. I will look into it very soon. Any comments?


Boulez is very good with Mahler....his #9 with Chicago is great, one of the best....


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> Boulez is very good with Mahler....his #9 with Chicago is great, one of the best....


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## DrSardonicus

With the slight exception of not finding Ewa's voice to quite fit the movement, I've been really impressed with this performance:


----------



## Enthusiast

I heard this one last night and will be listening to it again. So far, it strikes me as a rather different take on the work to others that I have liked (Horenstein and Adam Fischer) but it seems to work surprisingly well. Does anyone else know it?


----------



## blondheim

I have not but I am interested. What struck you as rather different?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'm not sure I can explain yet. But I think I found the Roth more gentle - Horenstein aims at more excitement? - and magical. But I need to hear Roth again at least once. It seemed to have a coherence that many accounts of this sprawling symphony seem to lack.


----------



## blondheim

The first movement on the Roth recording has almost the feeling of a fairy forest. The bird calls are rather balletic as well. For the first time in a Mahler symphony, I was reminded of Tchaikovsky. I am curious to see how he interprets the other movements. I fear a magical opening may rob the ending of some of its spiritual feeling, but who knows? It's always nice to hear something refreshingly different.

After finishing the recording, I believe I was correct about the relationship between the first and final movements. The first is a literal Midsummer Night's Dream. It is beautiful, characterful and touchy and this mood lasts through the first three movements. The third movement sounds especially raucous after such a Shakespearean opening. It is almost rude. I felt like I was in the presence of an obnoxious child at a dinner I need to impress someone at. Almost like the coronation of fairies in the first movement was frowning. As we began moving into spirituality and humanity inherent in the fourth and fifth movements, the previous three suddenly felt almost pagan. Roth seems to see the hand of a divine creator that he waits to reveal in the sixth and final movement. His journey along the way is definitely supportive of this vision: the fifth movement morning bells are very proper-sounding and highly feminine, a regal choir of nuns. Not Mahler's intention but certainly captivating. The final hymn may be a little too symphonic and studious after what has come before, but I think this conception is totally valid and others may enjoy it more than I do.


----------



## Enthusiast

I listened to three Mahler 3s today! One was the Roth, which I am liking more and more, and the other two - Gielen's and Jansons' - are also among the best in my collection. I will probably continue listening to the symphony in different versions tomorrow.


----------



## flamencosketches

^That's some serious commitment. I could never. But I am planning on listening to the symphony in full tomorrow. Probably Haitink/Berlin, which I've been enjoying lately. I hear his more recent recording w/ the Bavarian RSO is even better.


----------



## Granate

You guys are making me want to listen to the FX Roth recordings. Since it was Harmonia Mundi and played by the Cologne State Orchestra (which doesn't have the fame of the Western Germany Radio Symphony Orchestra) I was putting it on hold until it was completed. The Adam Fischer recording also sounds really bold, but it is played in a fashion that is a bit harsh for me for Mahler. Anyways, I attended the Mahler 9th he conducted in Valencia with the Dusseldorf orchestra (I wasn't sitting in a very good place).

Dark Angel considers the Bavarian 3rd by Haitink his best Mahler recording. I always go further to say it is the most amazing Mahler 3rd caught on record.


----------



## DarkAngel

Granate said:


> You guys are making me want to listen to the FX Roth recordings. Since it was Harmonia Mundi and played by the Cologne State Orchestra (which doesn't have the fame of the Western Germany Radio Symphony Orchestra) I was putting it on hold until it was completed. The Adam Fischer recording also sounds really bold, but it is played in a fashion that is a bit harsh for me for Mahler. Anyways, I attended the Mahler 9th he conducted in Valencia with the Dusseldorf orchestra (I wasn't sitting in a very good place).
> 
> Dark Angel considers the Bavarian 3rd by Haitink his best Mahler recording. *I always go further to say it is the most amazing Mahler 3rd caught on record*.


That's a bold statement! :angel:

I also really like the new FX Roth M3 (and M5) on DHM with highly detailed clear sound, does not have the big heart and emotional sweep of Bernstein but a more precise fine tuned performance (perhaps closest to Boulez style) with some surprises along the way, not far from the best available..........


----------



## blondheim

I do appreciate Roth's unique viewpoint. Still have to check out his 5th. I haven't heard the Bavarian Mahler 3rd by Haitink except once, I will definitely have to check it out again. I think Haitink has gotten more and more interesting as he gets older. His recent Bruckner 6ths are much more evolved than what he was doing for Philips back in the day. I wonder how his CSO 3rd compares. Lots of listening to do.


----------



## Heck148

blondheim said:


> I wonder how his CSO 3rd compares. Lots of listening to do.


Haitink's M3 with CSO is very fine...well- conducted beautifully played...finale is very good.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I hope to take a vacation next month, a walking holiday and I'm preparing a playlist for my otg device and will add three M3s: 
*
Haitink *-Symphonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks
*Sinopoli* - SWRRO Stuttgart. Waltraud Meier. Stuttgart Choirs
*FX Roth* - Gürzenich-Orchester Köln

No particular reason, they are just the ones I've been listening to most, lately. So many other good ones out there too, Boulez, Lenny DG, Sinopoli DG, Fischer, Tennstedt and on and on and on!

Mahler 3 was the last time I saw Haitink perform a few years ago in London. I guess I won't get another chance .....


----------



## blondheim

I know music wasn't mobile then, but it feels like it was almost Mahler's intention to have us walking around while we hear the 3rd.


----------



## HenryPenfold

blondheim said:


> I know music wasn't mobile then, but it feels like it was almost Mahler's intention to have us walking around while we hear the 3rd.


That feels strangely true


----------



## flamencosketches

OK, I'm a convert: Haitink is a master of Mahler 3. I've been listening to his Berlin recording from the 1990s. This is one of the most transparent, crystal clear recordings of Mahler I've ever heard, and Haitink gives quite a sober, precise reading, but the magic of the music never fades, and indeed is as convincing than ever. Wow. Granate assures me that the Bavarian RSO account from recent years (2017?) is even better, so I'll be seeking that one out posthaste. 

There are other Mahler 3s I'd like to acquire or hear: the famous Horenstein/LSO (which I've heard once and did not much care for; but one ought to have at least one of Horenstein's Mahler recordings, and this seems to be the best one), Boulez/Vienna, the recently much-lauded Roth/Gürzenich on Harmonia Mundi (Blondheim's Tchaikovskian description really piqued my interest), Barbirolli/Hallé on BBC Legends, Tennstedt/LPO on EMI. Wow, we're spoiled for choice for recordings of this massive symphony. 

What a killer work!


----------



## blondheim

I definitely recommend giving the Horenstein another chance. It is practically Lovecraftian. But this symphony can handle so many viewpoints, it is really nice to hear as many as possible. I stand by the Nutcracker ballet of Roth as an interesting alternative.

Let me also offer forward the Semyon Bychkov 3rd. Very hard to find now, and expensive. I regret not purchasing it when that was less true. His opening movement is a Little Shop of Horrors: a silky seduction but rot underneath. The trombones are the massive voice of some great proto-Audrey II, trying to convince the listener of marvelous promise, despite the harsh edges to the sound picture that whisper 'turn back!' The ending of that movement isn't quite as vicious as it probably should be after what came before, but still an incredible performance I would not want to be without.


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> There are other Mahler 3s I'd like to acquire or hear: the famous Horenstein/LSO (which I've heard once and did not much care for; but one ought to have at least one of Horenstein's Mahler recordings, and this seems to be the best one),


If you don't care for the Horenstein Mahler 3 (which is fair enough as he took a different approach to that currently favoured by conductors) but want some Horenstein Mahler there are some good BBC Legends options including one of the 9th (and this was not his only recording of the work) and one of Das Lied.

For Mahler 3 we are spoiled for choice these days. In addition to Horenstein, there are Haitink (the Bavarian one although I have also heard one recorded late in his career with the Vienna Phil that was superb, as well), Roth, Barbirolli and Adam Fisher - all top choices for me (and each so different to the others) - and then the Gielen and the Jansons are excellent also rans (for me). Boulez is good and in a less strong field ....


----------



## Enthusiast

blondheim said:


> Let me also offer forward the Semyon Bychkov 3rd. Very hard to find now, and expensive. I regret not purchasing it when that was less true. His opening movement is a Little Shop of Horrors: a silky seduction but rot underneath. The trombones are the massive voice of some great proto-Audrey II, trying to convince the listener of marvelous promise, despite the harsh edges to the sound picture that whisper 'turn back!' The ending of that movement isn't quite as vicious as it probably should be after what came before, but still an incredible performance I would not want to be without.


I've not heard it but would like to. Your description fits well with other Bychkov Mahler recordings that I have heard (including his 6th which, on the surface, seems good but a little ordinary) - the dark subtext: at first you wonder if it is really there and if he intended it (it can be quite subtle) ... but then you know he did.


----------



## Granate

We'll have a hot discussion the day BBC or ICA releases the Mahler symphonies that Horenstein performed in the UK. Apart from the Unicorn studio CDs, we have a BPO 5th recorded in Edinburgh, 6th and Das Lied with BBC, 7th and 8th in Royal Albert Hall, plus the first 3rd with the London Symphony.


----------



## blondheim

We really do need a Horenstein box. And a Klemperer box.

A nice Walter was recently released. And the Barbirolli is almost here now. I am rather fond of the conductor boxes. I have both volumes of Jochum on DG as well as the complete Kubelik. The Kubelik box is easily one of the greatest purchases I have ever made.


----------



## Enthusiast

BTW Presto offer a download of the Bychkov Mahler 3 at £22 for the FLAC one.


----------



## blondheim

Thanks for the heads-up! I love lossless files and definitely may grab this while I wait for one to go for less than $150 on ebay. But I am huge on physical media. I want a pretty version for the shelf, to display. I need a factory-pressed CD at the very least, no CD-Rs. Which is why I no longer buy on Amazon. They no longer specify for that.


----------



## mbhaub

$314.40!!!!!! Heck, I'll sell anyone my original copy for a lot less than that!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Now that I finally love this symphony I’m on a big M3 spell right now too. Heard Boulez the other day, and was expecting a lot based off some of the reviews here. I’m sorry to say that I just don’t find his “cool-headed” approach very interesting in Mahler. I don’t hear the unique abilities that Horenstein, Barbirolli, and Bernstein possessed to animate this sprawling score into a coherent whole with their special visions. Everything seems very straight-laced and underplayed with a lack of imagination in the conducting, with interest coming only from the top-notch playing. Right now listening to the Roth. Holy smokes, what a brilliant first movement! I’m almost getting a sort of Klempererian vibe - the climaxes are spot-on, the woodwinds vibrant, the momentum inexorable. And yet there is a special lightness of rhythm and texture. He really animates it into a story, swinging effortlessly between dark-as-hell grimness and Viennese fantasy. I’m going to have to finish this one tomorrow, too good to only sample.


----------



## blondheim

I don't know about how dark-as-hell Roth's version sounds. I actually felt like it was almost a coronation of sorts. Even the trombones sounded stately.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

blondheim said:


> I don't know about how dark-as-hell Roth's version sounds. I actually felt like it was almost a coronation of sorts. Even the trombones sounded stately.


Yes, definitely a sort of fairy-tale vibe (as you so wonderfully described). But I did also think he handled Mahler's mood swings in teh first few minutes exceptionally well. After the initial statement of that trombone theme, the music suddenly becomes very dark and questing like a funeral march, and Roth doesn't hold back in delivering it in all its full force. But then when the lighthearted march dance comes in he sounds utterly magical and enchanting. All the while he keeps a straight line and doesn't lose the sense of structure. I'm really excited to finish listening to it tomorrow because that first movement was just delightful.


----------



## blondheim

Definitely let me know how you feel about the rest. I actually found the third movement the darkest and I am curious if you agree.


----------



## Enthusiast

Listening to Adam Fischer's recording and feeling that it may well be the best of all! Of course, it can't be because there are quite a few really good ones but it makes its case very compellingly and does so in a very Mahlerian way - there is less sense that he has gone searching for a language that works for it and yet, if you want a powerful and inspiring account, it is all there. His Mahler is so much better than his brother's, IMO.


----------



## DarkAngel

Enthusiast said:


> Listening to Adam Fischer's recording and feeling that it may well be the best of all! Of course, it can't be because there are quite a few really good ones but it makes its case very compellingly and does so in a very Mahlerian way - there is less sense that he has gone searching for a language that works for it and yet, if you want a powerful and inspiring account, it is all there. *His Mahler is so much better than his brother's, IMO*.



















I got to agree with you I also like Adam F (pix 1) much better than Ivan F for Mahler, Ivan in general can be too refined and polished sounding to fully capture Mahler's world of mental conflict and human struggles, great sound quality but I prefer more dramatic contrast 

I reluctantly bought a few of the Adam F Mahler series knowing full well there will eventually be a complete boxset at reduced price for those who wait........


----------



## Knorf

I do not agree. I find Adam Fischer's Mahler frequently mismanaged. Iván's packs a greater emotional punch for me, because of it's greater focus on the whole and overall dramatic balance. There's a place for wallowing in the moment, but too much sucks away the true drama in Mahler's concept. My poster child for too much wallowing is Dudamel, but this thread's turn towards bashing the likes of Boulez and Iván Fischer is misguided, in my opinion. Moment to moment, I can see why Adam Fischer and similar approaches are appealing (and I would not dispute that his are overall excellent, based on what we have,) but for me the drama of the larger picture, where the stakes are highest, is most compelling elsewhere.


----------



## blondheim

I hate seeing Boulez get bashed just because he doesn't dance around on the podium.


----------



## Knorf

blondheim said:


> I hate seeing Boulez get bashed just because he doesn't dance around on the podium.


Boulez's Mahler 3 is great a recording to play as a blind listen for people who think his conducting was detached or unemotional or whatever.

Incidentally, Mahler 3 in my opinion is probably the weakest of Iván Fischer's Mahler cycle (although _Das Lied von der Erde_ is yet to be released, and he's said he won't do 8. It's hardly poor-in fact's it's terrific-but there are others in the cycle I think are more special, especially Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9, where Iván's are absolutely competitive among any of my top favorites, and 1 and 6 are not at all far behind.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Dang, I’m going to have to give Boulez another try. I did try to wipe my mind of any preconceptions to the best of my abilities, but it just didn’t grip me like my other favorites. I had a very similar reaction to the other Boulez Mahler I heard, the 5th. I suppose I’m just so used to Barbirolli and Bernstein that the more “classical” and “linear” approaches don’t resound as well with me.


----------



## Knorf

I'm sorry, Allegro Con Brio. I shouldn't imply that you specifically didn't listen with open ears. I'd guess a much better than an average chance that you did. For the record, I also didn't especially warm to Boulez's Mahler 5, a weak link in the cycle I think. I should probably revisit it.

I do think Boulez's Mahler 3 is special, but sometimes we have to say _de gustibus_. Right?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Knorf said:


> I'm sorry, Allegro Con Brio. I didn't mean to imply you specifically didn't listen with open ears. I'd guess a much better than an average chance that you did. For the record, I also didn't especially warm to Boulez's Mahler 5, a weak link in the cycle I think. I should probably revisit it.
> 
> I do think Boulez's Mahler 3 is special, but sometimes we have to say _de gustibus_. Right?


Oh no problem, I didn't interpret it as a swipe at all _Dē gustibus _indeed, but your advocacy does make me want to revisit it. In my experience, Boulez's music seems to be much more emotional than his conducting. Ironically I had no problem understanding his compositions (I had got the impression that he was an inpenetratable über-modernist academic, but nothing could be further from the truth) but am having a tough time getting into his performances.


----------



## blondheim

I think his complete Mahler cycle has more to it than people give it credit for. I have actually done the blind 3rd with a friend of mine! I can't remember who he guessed but it wasn't Boulez. I also think his 5th is perhaps a little weak. Another good one to do blind is the 2nd movement of Symphony no. 1. That was the moment when the Boulez's textures really clicked for me. I had no idea, I was listening to a bunch of those on shuffle. I was looking for one like Herbert Kegel's, with a little drag to the opening. But when I heard the Boulez, I was impressed. Bought his cycle the next day.


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Oh no problem, I didn't interpret it as a swipe at all _Dē gustibus _indeed, but your advocacy does make me want to revisit it. In my experience, Boulez's music seems to be much more emotional than his conducting. Ironically I had no problem understanding his compositions (I had got the impression that he was an inpenetratable über-modernist academic, but nothing could be further from the truth) but am having a tough time getting into his performances.


It could just be that Boulez's Mahler won't speak the same to you. I hope it does at some point, but one never knows. There are _so many_ great recordings, more than enough for a lifetime.

ETA: I changed "didn't mean to" to "shouldn't" to take more ownership of my previous comments.


----------



## blondheim

I try to listen to new recordings all the time but it is so hard to resist the temptations of the tried-and-trues.


----------



## Knorf

blondheim said:


> I try to listen to new recordings all the time but it is so hard to resist the temptations of the tried-and-trues.


Heck, I just spent significant time with Walter's Brahms.


----------



## blondheim

I have had a hard time breaking into Brahms. I have the Jochum set and the sound quality is exactly what I love. I don't know why it hasn't clicked for me yet but don't worry, I will get there. The fault definitely lies with me.


----------



## flamencosketches

blondheim said:


> I have had a hard time breaking into Brahms. I have the Jochum set and the sound quality is exactly what I love. I don't know why it hasn't clicked for me yet but don't worry, I will get there. The fault definitely lies with me.


Same thing happened for me, and I suspect a lot of us. Brahms is one of my favorite composers now.

Damn, am I the only one who loves Boulez's Mahler 5? Might be my favorite Mahler 5 actually. So good. I can't speak on his 3 but I'm sure it's excellent. I also completely disagree with anyone who describes his Mahler as detached or cool. He conducts this composer with commitment. It ain't hard to tell that Mahler is one of a handful of very important composers to him.


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> I do not agree. I find Adam Fischer's Mahler frequently mismanaged. Iván's packs a greater emotional punch for me, because of it's greater focus on the whole and overall dramatic balance. There's a place for wallowing in the moment, but too much sucks away the true drama in Mahler's concept. My poster child for too much wallowing is Dudamel, but this thread's turn towards bashing the likes of Boulez and Iván Fischer is misguided, in my opinion. Moment to moment, I can see why Adam Fischer and similar approaches are appealing (and I would not dispute that his are overall excellent, based on what we have,) but for me the drama of the larger picture, where the stakes are highest, is most compelling elsewhere.


We are all made differently but I find it very hard to relate to what you have written there. I don't bash Ivan F but the two Mahler recordings by Adam that I know go a lot further and for me that include very strong overall conception.


----------



## Enthusiast

blondheim said:


> I hate seeing Boulez get bashed just because he doesn't dance around on the podium.


I love the Boulez way with Mahler and his 3 is very good. It is just that for me he is not quite as good as one or two others.


----------



## Enthusiast

blondheim said:


> I think his complete Mahler cycle has more to it than people give it credit for. I have actually done the blind 3rd with a friend of mine! I can't remember who he guessed but it wasn't Boulez. I also think his 5th is perhaps a little weak. Another good one to do blind is the 2nd movement of Symphony no. 1. That was the moment when the Boulez's textures really clicked for me. I had no idea, I was listening to a bunch of those on shuffle. I was looking for one like Herbert Kegel's, with a little drag to the opening. But when I heard the Boulez, I was impressed. Bought his cycle the next day.


And his 9th is superb as is his DLVDE. But he is good in all and would be in my top 5 for every symphony. There is a lot of competition these days and not just for the Bernsteins and Barbirollis out there. Gielen is consistently good and takes an approach not a million miles from Boulez. I have loved some of the emerging Vanska set: he is another conductor who some find too clinical. And then there is Ivan F, of course, who comes close (for me) to those three.


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> Heck, I just spent significant time with Walter's Brahms.


If you didn't know it then it is new for you. Walter's Brahms is quite something but it might be a bit mellow for those who are having difficulty with the Brahms symphonies who often seem to want something more rugged or exciting ...


----------



## blondheim

flamencosketches said:


> Same thing happened for me, and I suspect a lot of us. Brahms is one of my favorite composers now.


I keep trying. I read that Brahms' first was referred to as Beethoven's 10th and that definitely perked my ears up. It is just that I prefer the really heavy Romantics, and his music is less programmatic, more pure, more classical, possibly. When I was first dipping my toes into this pond, I wasn't making terribly innovative choices. Programme music, left and right. Dvorak's Vlodnik was the first piece I attached to in 2012, then found Dorati's Concertgebouw Nutcracker, so essentially I was only barely upgrading from the things I knew, like Beethoven's 7th and the Tchaikovsky 5th. Then, of course, I found Mahler. Bruckner. Sibelius. And Shostakovich.

(Antal Dorati is absolutely my favorite conductor, still. I am really upset we haven't seen his other complete Minneapolis ballets surface. Before I lost my MLP II box, that original recording of Swan Lake is the one thing I would have saved from my house in a fire.)


----------



## blondheim

Enthusiast said:


> If you didn't know it then it is new for you. Walter's Brahms is quite something but it might be a bit mellow for those who are having difficulty with the Brahms symphonies who often seem to want something more rugged or exciting ...


Guilty. The Jochum set will be right up my alley. I always really like Walter but I also always listen to others first, because he has such an effortless spirituality, I want to be able to appreciate that in its proper context.


----------



## flamencosketches

blondheim said:


> I keep trying. I read that Brahms' first was referred to as Beethoven's 10th and that definitely perked my ears up. It is just that I prefer the really heavy Romantics, and his music is less programmatic, more pure, more classical, possibly. When I was first dipping my toes into this pond, I wasn't making terribly innovative choices. Programme music, left and right. Dvorak's Vlodnik was the first piece I attached to in 2012, then found Dorati's Concertgebouw Nutcracker, so essentially I was only barely upgrading from the things I knew, like Beethoven's 7th and the Tchaikovsky 5th. Then, of course, I found Mahler. Bruckner. Sibelius. And Shostakovich.
> 
> (Antal Dorati is absolutely my favorite conductor, still. I am really upset we haven't seen his other complete Minneapolis ballets surface. Before I lost my MLP II box, that original recording of Swan Lake is the one thing I would have saved from my house in a fire.)


Maybe don't try so hard. It'll either make sense some day, or it won't. Come back to Brahms's music in the fall. It works better that way


----------



## Enthusiast

I probably went through my own difficulty with the Brahms symphonies as a child. My parents had the Walter recordings - which I now love - but they didn't work for me then. I found the Klemperer set from the library much more to my liking. I am not so keen on them now as I find Brahms (for me now) responds best to more warmth than Klemperer musters. If they have that then I find I enjoy a very wide range of approaches (fast-slow, lyrical-exciting etc). It is certainly a worthwhile journey and I still find myself amazed at what Brahms achieves every time I listen: I keep wondering "where did he get _that_?"


----------



## blondheim

Enthusiast said:


> I probably went through my own difficulty with the Brahms symphonies as a child. My parents had the Walter recordings - which I now love - but they didn't work for me then. I found the Klemperer set from the library much more to my liking. I am not so keen on them now as I find Brahms (for me now) responds best to more warmth than Klemperer musters. If they have that then I find I enjoy a very wide range of approaches (fast-slow, lyrical-exciting etc). It is certainly a worthwhile journey and I still find myself amazed at what Brahms achieves every time I listen: I keep wondering "where did he get _that_?"


So are the Walter recordings your favorite? What other interpretations do you enjoy?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Aside from Walter's, I love Abbado's Brahms (and he is not really a favourite conductor otherwise), I love Kempe's Brahms and I love Sanderling's Brahms. I also find much to enjoy in Harnoncourt's set - notably the 3rd and 4th - and have recently been enjoying some recordings using smaller forces (lots of new detail emerges) including Zehetmair's radical set, Dausgaard's slightly radical recordings and Berglund's more staid and traditional set. There are lots of others, too - Karajan, Jochum, Szell - but (perhaps for no good reason) I tend to stick with those I have named.


----------



## blondheim

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Aside from Walter's, I love Abbado's Brahms (and he is not really a favourite conductor otherwise), I love Kempe's Brahms and I love Sanderling's Brahms. I also find much to enjoy in Harnoncourt's set - notably the 3rd and 4th - and have recently been enjoying some recordings using smaller forces (lots of new detail emerges) including Zehetmair's radical set, Dausgaard's slightly radical recordings and Berglund's more staid and traditional set. There are lots of others, too - Karajan, Jochum, Szell - but (perhaps for no good reason) I tend to stick with those I have named.


Thanks! I will definitely check out Sanderling and Szell next, after I get acquainted with the Jochum.


----------



## Enthusiast

There are at least two Sanderling sets - one from Berlin and one on RCA from Dresden (only available separately, I think). I think I prefer the Dresden but there are others here who go the other way. They are not that different.


----------



## blondheim

Enthusiast said:


> There are at least two Sanderling sets - one from Berlin and one on RCA from Dresden (only available separately, I think). I think I prefer the Dresden but there are others here who go the other way. They are not that different.


Sort of like the two Jochum Bruckner cycles. There are differences, but mostly in the way the orchestra sounds. I can understand why someone would be more attracted to the Dresden brass, but there is something about that first cycle. I guess it's just my personal it factor.

I will say about Sanderling that I have enjoyed everything that came out of his collaboration with Berlin. His incomplete Shostakovich set, his Sibelius, his Mahler.


----------



## Knorf

flamencosketches said:


> Damn, am I the only one who loves Boulez's Mahler 5?


Ok, ok! I'll give it another listen sometime soon!

Darn you, persuading me to listen to awesome recordings of Mahler.


----------



## mahlerenigmatic

Enjoy guys


----------



## blondheim

Also, can't help but mention his recording of the 2nd is way, _way_ better than people give it credit for.


----------



## Knorf

blondheim said:


> Also, can't help but mention his recording of the 2nd is way, _way_ better than people give it credit for.


It's fantastic, but admittedly in a crowded field.


----------



## DavidA

Bernstein NYPO is a benchmark


----------



## mahlerenigmatic

blondheim said:


> I have had a hard time breaking into Brahms. I have the Jochum set and the sound quality is exactly what I love. I don't know why it hasn't clicked for me yet but don't worry, I will get there. The fault definitely lies with me.





flamencosketches said:


> Same thing happened for me, and I suspect a lot of us. Brahms is one of my favorite composers now.
> 
> Damn, am I the only one who loves Boulez's Mahler 5? Might be my favorite Mahler 5 actually. So good. I can't speak on his 3 but I'm sure it's excellent. I also completely disagree with anyone who describes his Mahler as detached or cool. He conducts this composer with commitment. It ain't hard to tell that Mahler is one of a handful of very important composers to him.


If your trying to find good Brahms recordings...


----------



## flamencosketches

Can the OP please rename this thread "Recommend Brahms Recordings"? All this Mahler talk is really getting in the way... 

Just kidding. I didn't really get on with Karajan's Brahms symphonies, though I love his German Requiem in Berlin (DG, w/ Waechter and Janowski); ditto Bernstein's Brahms, but I owe both another chance. That Bernstein/Vienna Brahms 3 is considered quite controversial. I guess people might think it's too slow?


----------



## mahlerenigmatic

flamencosketches said:


> Same thing happened for me, and I suspect a lot of us. Brahms is one of my favorite composers now.
> 
> Damn, am I the only one who loves Boulez's Mahler 5? Might be my favorite Mahler 5 actually. So good. I can't speak on his 3 but I'm sure it's excellent. I also completely disagree with anyone who describes his Mahler as detached or cool. He conducts this composer with commitment. It ain't hard to tell that Mahler is one of a handful of very important composers to him.


 I have not listened to the Mahler 5th by Boulez but will soon. Anyways l do like his interpretation of the 1st and 6th symphonies with the CSO and VPO.


----------



## mahlerenigmatic

flamencosketches said:


> Can the OP please rename this thread "Recommend Brahms Recordings"? All this Mahler talk is really getting in the way...
> 
> Just kidding. I didn't really get on with Karajan's Brahms symphonies, though I love his German Requiem in Berlin (DG, w/ Waechter and Janowski); ditto Bernstein's Brahms, but I owe both another chance. That Bernstein/Vienna Brahms 3 is considered quite controversial. I guess people might think it's too slow?


 I don't know about that, l think that 3rd is very good ( Although, the Allegro con brio is the only one l want to listen to ). And just like the 3rd, the 4th by Lenny aswell is the best ...


----------



## blondheim

I will admit I have a difficult time with Karajan. Many legendary recordings, many more glossy, performances made practically on an assembly line. Though I have not given his Brahms a chance, and will definitely check them out. He will probably deliver, Brahms was German after all. Bernstein isn't always my favorite either but he makes very bold choices, especially late in his career. That Pathetique!

Also: I am sorry for de-railing the Mahler thread. I do love all the suggestions though!


----------



## Gray Bean

Brahms is one of my favorites (as is Mahler). I simply adore the Bruno Walter stereo cycle with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra. His performance of the 3rd in this cycle is my all time favorite. Really good!
And do continue with Jochum. Another great cycle.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Having finished the Roth Mahler 3 (I'm assuming this thread is about Mahler 3?) I can give some overall impressions. My initial enthusiasm for the first movement was definitely tempered by the rest of it. That element of capricious, fairy-tale fantasy that I found so excellent in the first movement became more of a "play it safe" approach in the rest of the symphony with little interpretive risk-taking. The second movement comes out very well and is certainly highly enchanting. Things started to lose direction, I thought, in the scherzo where the woodwinds just didn't sound quite up to par and the posthorn trio was just lazy (I can't think of any other word to describe it). Sara Mingardo does have a nice voice for the vocal movements, but then the Adagio just let the whole thing down. _Soooo_ straightforward and unimaginative and the quality of the playing started to taper off too. Even Boulez sounds much more noble and warm-hearted compared to this. So I guess I shouldn't have got my hopes up with a modern performance like this, but I really did like the special narrative quality of the first movement and it almost seemed like Roth put all his imagination into it while waving off the rest. A worthwhile performance, but not essential IMO.

Honestly I think I'm a bit burnt out on M3. I would like to give the Boulez another try and _maybe_ the Adler, but for now I'm content that I've finally found some favorites for this long-neglected (by me) symphony and have come to see the work as on an equal footing with my favorite Mahler symphonies - the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 9th. Also, since I was on vacation in the mountains this week, it was nice to take the opportunity to listen to the symphony a lot and get a taste of the natural inspirations that filled Mahler's mind when he was writing it


----------



## blondheim

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Having finished the Roth Mahler 3 (I'm assuming this thread is about Mahler 3?) I can give some overall impressions. My initial enthusiasm for the first movement was definitely tempered by the rest of it. That element of capricious, fairy-tale fantasy that I found so excellent in the first movement became more of a "play it safe" approach in the rest of the symphony with little interpretive risk-taking. The second movement comes out very well and is certainly highly enchanting. Things started to lose direction, I thought, in the scherzo where the woodwinds just didn't sound quite up to par and the posthorn trio was just lazy (I can't think of any other word to describe it). Sara Mingardo does have a nice voice for the vocal movements, but then the Adagio just let the whole thing down. _Soooo_ straightforward and unimaginative and the quality of the playing started to taper off too. Even Boulez sounds much more noble and warm-hearted compared to this. So I guess I shouldn't have got my hopes up with a modern performance like this, but I really did like the special narrative quality of the first movement and it almost seemed like Roth put all his imagination into it while waving off the rest. A worthwhile performance, but not essential IMO.
> 
> Honestly I think I'm a bit burnt out on M3. I would like to give the Boulez another try and _maybe_ the Adler, but for now I'm content that I've finally found some favorites for this long-neglected (by me) symphony and have come to see the work as on an equal footing with my favorite Mahler symphonies - the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 9th. Also, since I was on vacation in the mountains this week, it was nice to take the opportunity to listen to the symphony a lot and get a taste of the natural inspirations that filled Mahler's mind when he was writing it


I mostly agree, although I actually liked the third movement. After that it did become more traditional and that was mildly disappointing. He definitely tried to enhance the hymn quality of the final section though. While I personally believe it robs it of some of its lyrical power, and I prefer more flowing adaptations, it does give the symphony a different split into first 3 and second 3 that I enjoy. This was the first performance I heard where I would suggest the conductor split it between the third and fourth movements. If he coaxes this performance out of a live ensemble for a concert, I think an intermission there would balance the two three-part sections. Leave the fairies in the forest and then dissect man and god in the second half.

I do appreciate the very different sounding morning bells. Or mourning belles, in this case.


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Having finished the Roth Mahler 3 (I'm assuming this thread is about Mahler 3?) I can give some overall impressions. My initial enthusiasm for the first movement was definitely tempered by the rest of it. That element of capricious, fairy-tale fantasy that I found so excellent in the first movement became more of a "play it safe" approach in the rest of the symphony with little interpretive risk-taking. The second movement comes out very well and is certainly highly enchanting. Things started to lose direction, I thought, in the scherzo where the woodwinds just didn't sound quite up to par and the posthorn trio was just lazy (I can't think of any other word to describe it). Sara Mingardo does have a nice voice for the vocal movements, but then the Adagio just let the whole thing down. _Soooo_ straightforward and unimaginative and the quality of the playing started to taper off too. Even Boulez sounds much more noble and warm-hearted compared to this. So I guess I shouldn't have got my hopes up with a modern performance like this, but I really did like the special narrative quality of the first movement and it almost seemed like Roth put all his imagination into it while waving off the rest. A worthwhile performance, but not essential IMO.
> 
> Honestly I think I'm a bit burnt out on M3. I would like to give the Boulez another try and _maybe_ the Adler, but for now I'm content that I've finally found some favorites for this long-neglected (by me) symphony and have come to see the work as on an equal footing with my favorite Mahler symphonies - the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 9th. Also, since I was on vacation in the mountains this week, it was nice to take the opportunity to listen to the symphony a lot and get a taste of the natural inspirations that filled Mahler's mind when he was writing it


Boulez _is_ noble and warm-hearted in the Adagio. Trust me. Find some way to play it for yourself blindly and you'd never guess it was Boulez, with how much he's been stereotyped as an ice-king.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> Boulez _is_ noble and warm-hearted in the Adagio. Trust me. Find some way to play it for yourself blindly and you'd never guess it was Boulez, with how much he's been stereotyped as an ice-king.


I never bought that criticism. And with Boulez conducting I hear a lot of detail too. I'm slowly picking up used copies of his Mahler cycle and No.3 is next on my list. I've really enjoyed his Nos.1,5,6 and 8.


----------



## blondheim

starthrower said:


> I never bought that criticism. And with Boulez conducting I hear a lot of detail too. I'm slowly picking up used copies of his Mahler cycle and No.3 is next on my list. I've really enjoyed his Nos.1,5,6 and 8.


He does the best with the Wunderhorn symphonies, I think. His 1-4 are remarkable.


----------



## Heck148

blondheim said:


> He does the best with the Wunderhorn symphonies, I think. His 1-4 are remarkable.


Boulez' M9 with Chicago is outstanding, one of the very best...inner mvts are esp effective....whole performsnce is terrific.


----------



## blondheim

Heck148 said:


> Boulez' M9 with Chicago is outstanding, one of the very best...inner mvts are esp effective....whole performsnce is terrific.


I agree with the first three movements. The last one leaves me wanting a little, but it is definitely an excellent entry. I just mean the most solid period overall.


----------



## Heck148

blondheim said:


> I agree with the first three movements. The last one leaves me wanting a little, but it is definitely an excellent entry. I just mean the most solid period overall.


Yes, Boulez is nearly as good as Giulini in mvt I - Giulini is best I've ever heard, along with live Salonen/CSO I caught a couple of years ago.
Finale is tough - Solti/CSO is best for me (Solti always excels at the long line, slow buildup to climactic eruption) Walter/ColSO very good also...


----------



## blondheim

Heck148 said:


> Yes, Boulez is nearly as good as Giulini in mvt I - Giulini is best I've ever heard, along with live Salonen/CSO I caught a couple of years ago.
> Finale is tough - Solti/CSO is best for me (Solti always excels at the long line, slow buildup to climactic eruption) Walter/ColSO very good also...


I am fond of Barbirolli and Klemperer in the final movement. I love Kubelik's entire set very much, but like Boulez, while I think he sets up an incredible display, I don't think he sticks the landing as well as some others.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Boulez is outstanding in Mahler 6 as well, in my humble opinion....


----------



## Knorf

CnC Bartok said:


> Boulez is outstanding in Mahler 6 as well, in my humble opinion....


I certainly agree. And also in the 8th! Boulez's Mahler 8 is an incredibly exciting and transcendent recording. It's another good blind listen selection: the coda of the 1st movement of this recording in particular provokes in me greater frisson than any other recording I've heard, the number of which is not few.

I've not been sure about the Boulez 7th, with Cleveland, but perhaps I should revisit it, just as with the Fifth..


----------



## blondheim

CnC Bartok said:


> Boulez is outstanding in Mahler 6 as well, in my humble opinion....


It's been a while but I will give it another listen. I remember thinking it wasn't particularly distinctive, which is a quality I look for more than others perhaps. I have heard these symphonies so many times, I really want something unique.

I do remember wishing it had been in A/S order. I don't ever re-program the disc, mind you. I want to hear what the conductor decides. But, while I accept that it was performing practice for a time, I much prefer Mahler's order. Oddly enough, more of my favorite recordings are S/A.

Being a Mahler fan is an adventure.


----------



## CnC Bartok

blondheim said:


> It's been a while but I will give it another listen. I remember thinking it wasn't particularly distinctive, which is a quality I look for more than others perhaps. I have heard these symphonies so many times, I really want something unique.
> 
> I do remember wishing it had been in A/S order. I don't ever re-program the disc, mind you. I want to hear what the conductor decides. But, while I accept that it was performing practice for a time, I much prefer Mahler's order. Oddly enough, more of my favorite recordings are S/A.
> 
> Being a Mahler fan is an adventure.


Your final comment is the understatement of the decade!!!!

But "Mahler's order"? Just don't go there.........:devil:


----------



## blondheim

CnC Bartok said:


> Your final comment is the understatement of the decade!!!!
> 
> But "Mahler's order"? Just don't go there.........:devil:


Hahahaha. I actually have been working on organizing my thoughts about this for a post, but don't want to start a sensation. I can see the Furtwangler thread.

(I do think I have some valid thoughts about why A/S is more effective narratively, rather than musically, and would like to share them at some point. But I also totally accept and understand why someone would prefer the bleakness of the keys returning and returning like that. What does seem beyond debate at this point is that Mahler himself preferred A/S.)


----------



## Heck148

blondheim said:


> Hahahaha. I actually have been working on organizing my thoughts about this for a post, but don't want to start a sensation. I can see the Furtwangler thread.


Really!!  The order of mvts for Mahler 6 has been beaten to a pulp on this forum, time and again....


----------



## blondheim

Heck148 said:


> Really!!  The order of mvts for Mahler 6 has been beaten to a pulp on this forum, time and again....


I have seen. However, I have read a lot of them and have not seen it put quite the way I see it. Not to say my thoughts are new, just the way they are expressed might be. One of these days.


----------



## starthrower

Knorf said:


> Boulez's Mahler 8 is an incredibly exciting and transcendent recording. It's another good blind listen selection: the coda of the 1st movement of this recording in particular provokes in me greater frisson than any other recording I've heard, the number of which is not few.


Agreed! My first listen to Boulez's M8 gave me such a huge rush! A very exhilarating performance.


----------



## blondheim

To return to Mahler 3: The Adagio from the 9th is practically a sequel to the 'love' Adagio from the 3rd.


----------



## flamencosketches

blondheim said:


> To return to Mahler 3: The Adagio from the 9th is practically a sequel to the 'love' Adagio from the 3rd.


Yes! I've made a similar connection.


----------



## blondheim

It's so interesting how that emotional stepwise motion in the 3rd's finale isn't always resolved in the same way. It often jumps slightly higher or drops back down. Although it does reprise exactly a few times as well.

It seems Mahler wrote a Farewell to end the 9th named Das Lied, and then another love letter to eternal love in the 9th 9th, you know, just in case.


----------



## starthrower

blondheim said:


> To return to Mahler 3: The Adagio from the 9th is practically a sequel to the 'love' Adagio from the 3rd.





> Yes! I've made a similar connection.


Boy, you fellas are sharp listeners! I'm going to have to listen for that the next time I go on a Mahler binge.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Just want to put it out here, after a first listening through Inbal's 3rd Mahler cycle with Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, I think this really is a great set and well worth listening to for seasoned Mahlerians.

These live recordings (superbly recorded by Exton) are spacetious, warm, colorful, wonderfully spontaneous, and idiomatic, just what you would expect from a devout Mahler specialist. Full of insights and touching moments. TMSO might be second rate but they sure can play and are espectially responsive to the Maestro. Their orchestral color is full-bodied and rich.

For anyone looking for a fresh cycle with superior sonics that isn't analytical (such as the ongoing Vanska cycle), I highly recommend this set.


----------



## blondheim

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Just want to put it out here, after a first listening through Inbal's 3rd Mahler cycle with Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, I think this really is a great set and well worth listening to for seasoned Mahlerians.
> 
> These live recordings (superbly recorded by Exton) are spacetious, warm, colorful, wonderfully spontaneous, and idiomatic, just what you would expect from a devout Mahler specialist. Full of insights and touching moments. TMSO might be second rate but they sure can play and are espectially responsive to the Maestro. Their orchestral color is full-bodied and rich.
> 
> For anyone looking for a fresh cycle with superior sonics that isn't analytical (such as the ongoing Vanska cycle), I highly recommend this set.


I rarely enjoy Exton releases. The mixing is very wet, and you lose a lot of the distinction you get in a full concert hall. Maybe it is too much reverb. I am not sure. But the Honeck/Pittsburgh recordings don't sound great to me. And neither did Hisaishi's Rite of Spring. I am willing to continue to give them a try though.

I am more of a mono, early stero kind of guy. I personally think Mercury Living Presence is the best we have ever done, and may ever do. Too bad there is not much Mahler there.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> I rarely enjoy Exton releases. The mixing is very wet, and you lose a lot of the distinction you get in a full concert hall. Maybe it is too much reverb. I am not sure. But the Honeck/Pittsburgh recordings don't sound great to me. And neither did Hisaishi's Rite of Spring. I am willing to continue to give them a try though.
> 
> I am more of a mono, early stero kind of guy. I personally think Mercury Living Presence is the best we have ever done, and may ever do. Too bad there is not much Mahler there.


I have an ultra dry/analytical sound system so the Exton sounds come off just right for me but I understand your plight.

I love those Mercury Living Presence recordings (and RCA living stereo too) and cherish them. The background noise could use a bit of filtering but otherwise I couldn't get enough of their explosive and translucent sounds.


----------



## blondheim

Hmm. Maybe that is it. One of these days I will need to start a thread about equipment. I care about audio quality, but don't necessarily know the technical side of achieving it. Or have the budget for doing so.


----------



## flamencosketches

blondheim said:


> I rarely enjoy Exton releases. The mixing is very wet, and you lose a lot of the distinction you get in a full concert hall. Maybe it is too much reverb. I am not sure. But the Honeck/Pittsburgh recordings don't sound great to me. And neither did Hisaishi's Rite of Spring. I am willing to continue to give them a try though.
> 
> I am more of a mono, early stero kind of guy. I personally think Mercury Living Presence is the best we have ever done, and may ever do. Too bad there is not much Mahler there.


Agreed. I wasn't impressed by the much acclaimed Honeck/Pittsburgh Mahler 1. Is there any Mahler on MLP?

Back to Boulez for a moment. There are those out there who hate his Mahler 8; I spoke to a publishing music critic on another board who said with an air of authority that Boulez didn't even like the 8th (as if he had this on record somewhere) and that he only recorded it to complete the cycle. I haven't heard his 8th, but it sounded like BS to me.


----------



## blondheim

flamencosketches said:


> Agreed. I wasn't impressed by the much acclaimed Honeck/Pittsburgh Mahler 1. Is there any Mahler on MLP?
> 
> Back to Boulez for a moment. There are those out there who hate his Mahler 8; I spoke to a publishing music critic on another board who said with an air of authority that Boulez didn't even like the 8th (as if he had this on record somewhere) and that he only recorded it to complete the cycle. I haven't heard his 8th, but it sounded like BS to me.


Haha. I am not sure about Mahler on MLP actually. I had MLP box 2 at one point but I lost it in a move and frequently think about it. It haunts me. It contained Dorati's original Swan Lake which is one of the best recordings of anything, of all time. Fight me.

As for Boulez, he clearly isn't the type to do anything half-assed. If he recorded it, and performed it, then that's all we need to know. His Bruckner comes under fire for the same reason, and that is a _glorious_ recording, to be treasured.

You all have me listening to so much Boulez again, I love it! I can't wait to sit down with his 8th, it has been a minute. All this talk of Veni's coda, I am pumped.


----------



## Enthusiast

These days it seems to me that there are almost too many very good - I feel "exceptional" would be appropriate when I am listening to one of them but then there seem to be others as good that demand to be called exceptional as well - accounts of most of the Mahler symphonies. Of course, there are also many that don't quite get there. I just listened to the 6th conducted by Leinsdorf. I bought it during a busy time, noticed that it was good but then forgot it: it is actually very good indeed. I can think of at least five Mahler 2s that are really great (and many more quite famous ones that are pretty good, too), a similar number of 3s, several 5s and 6s and at least five 9s that are really great.


----------



## blondheim

I also have so many recordings I like of almost every symphony at this point. So far on the list of 3rds that meet my sensibilities best, I have Horenstein, Kubelik, Bernstein, Barbirolli, Bychkov, two different Boulez, and Adler.

Not that there aren't many others that I enjoy very much, but those are my current top tier. I have not heard the Telarc cycle, which I have heard great things about. I also haven't heard either Fischer. So there is much much more exploring to do.

Since hearing the Roth, I am putting some space between another listen so it can smack me again, maybe I will like it more. It has piqued my interest to find another 'fairy ballet.' That was the first time I heard that. I would love to hear more conductors tap into that side of this symphony.

It's given me a new side-quest with this symphony.


----------



## Knorf

flamencosketches said:


> Back to Boulez for a moment. There are those out there who hate his Mahler 8; I spoke to a publishing music critic on another board who said with an air of authority that Boulez didn't even like the 8th (as if he had this on record somewhere) and that he only recorded it to complete the cycle. I haven't heard his 8th, but it sounded like BS to me.


I never saw anything close to a primary source to support this claim. I think it's rubbish. Boulez was perfectly capable of saying no when he wanted to, and we would have seen no essential need to complete a cycle if he didn't believe it.

Anyway, you can go hear Boulez's Mahler 8 yourself and decide. I think it's amazing!

One other thing: we professional musicians have to perform music we hate all the time. It's inevitable.

I don't think Boulez had to conduct anything he disliked once he retired from the New York Philharmonic, but here's the point: whether we hate the music we're playing is not in any way germane to the quality we're expected to provide. I have to play music I hate or dislike or am indifferent to and make absolutely sure no one in the audience would have the _slightest_ inkling that I played with any besides total love and commitment. And I know I can do this, because I've received effusive praise numerous times after playing repertoire, or at least a solo in something I hated, or at least disliked (Bolero, I'm looking at you.) And there's a simple reason for this: there's something I love more than any single composition, and that's music itself.

Boulez was a consummate professional. His ideas might not have always come off well (like that infamous Beethoven 5), but in any case I'm quite sure there was nothing he performed or recorded after his NYPhil career that he wasn't 100% committed to, and that is all that matters.


----------



## blondheim

Knorf said:


> I have to play music I hate or dislike or am indifferent to and make absolutely sure no one in the audience would have the _slightest_ inkling that I played with any besides total love and commitment. And I know I can do this, because I've received effusive praise numerous times after playing repertoire, or at least a solo in something I hated, or at least disliked (Bolero, I'm looking at you.) And there's a simple reason for this: there's something I love more than any single composition, and that's music itself.
> 
> Boulez was a consummate professional. His ideas might not have always come off well (like that infamous Beethoven 5), but in any case I'm quite sure there was nothing he performed or recorded after his NYPhil career that he wasn't 100% committed to, and that is all that matters.


I am cracking up over the Bolero comment.

And I am not familiar with this Boulez Beethoven 5! Infamous, you say? Tell me more, sounds amazing.

I would rather listen to a spectacular disaster than competent mediocrity. Did he do that one for DG? I am more familiar with that period in his career.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> I am cracking up over the Bolero comment.
> 
> And I am not familiar with this Boulez Beethoven 5! Infamous, you say? Tell me more, sounds amazing.
> 
> I would rather listen to a spectacular disaster than competent mediocrity. Did he do that one for DG? I am more familiar with that period in his career.


He conducted the 5th at "practice speed", a Wim Winters' wet dream.


----------



## Knorf

Enjoy!

(And my apologies, it's the New Philharmonia, not the New York Phil. Even as odd as its, this is not evidence he hated Beethoven, nor even the Fifth. Notice the other movements aren't weird tempos, and in fact the last movement is quite good.)


----------



## blondheim

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> He conducted the 5th at "practice speed", a Wim Winters' wet dream.


I am unsure what you mean by this. Do you mean it sounds like a run-through? Or that it is easier to play it this way? Cause I can assure you as an instrumentalist, slower music is almost always, if not always always, harder.

I may have misunderstood you, though.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Knorf said:


> Enjoy!
> 
> (And my apologies, it's the New Philharmonia, not the New York Phil. Even as odd as its, this is not evidence he hated Beethoven, nor even the Fifth.)


Boulez was an immense intellectual but he was not infallible as a conductor. He did know his Mahler.


----------



## Knorf

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Boulez was an immense intellectual but he was not infallible as a conductor. He did know his Mahler.


You know it's odd, listening to this Beethoven 5 again. It's been awhile.

Ok, flat out: the first movement tempo is ridiculous. But, if I accept it for what it is; it's actually a very strong performance. Perhaps it is a failure, but it's an interesting failure. And the other movements really aren't weird, with many lovely and imaginative touches. I'm not going to say I will be returning to this recording again any time soon, or ever, but I don't feel that I've wasted my time.

(Incidentally, some of Boulez's Beethoven is actually quite good, for example there's a bootleg of the Fourth floating around, and honestly I like it a lot.)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> I am unsure what you mean by this. Do you mean it sounds like a run-through? Or that it is easier to play it this way? Cause I can assure you as an instrumentalist, slower music is almost always, if not always always, harder.
> 
> I may have misunderstood you, though.


Well I am sure it's a worthwhile musical experiment. Wim Winter is this musicologist who advocates for playing Beethoven at half tempo due to some historical evidences that have no been widely recognized.

I don't disagree that slow music is hard. And I like music being played slow if done right. But it's not about easy or hard. Boulez's 5th is so far from Beethoven's metronome marking (40 bpm off) that the music becomes entirely different.

And I don't think he is careful with the score in this recording either. The Scherzo is played at plodding pace it breaks the continuity between the 3rd and 4th movement that is so central to the work.


----------



## blondheim

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Well I am sure it's a worthwhile musical experiment. Wim Winter is this musicologist who advocates for playing Beethoven at half tempo due to some historical evidences that have no been widely recognized.
> 
> I don't disagree that slow music is hard. And I like music being played slow if done right. But it's not about easy or hard. Boulez's 5th is so far from Beethoven's metronome marking (40 bpm off) that the music becomes entirely different.
> 
> And I don't think he is careful with the score in this recording either. The Scherzo is played at plodding pace it breaks the continuity between the 3rd and 4th movement that is so central to the work.


I agree. It is definitely not Beethoven's intention. That doesn't make it invalid, but it is _very_ odd. I am listening to it now for the first time, and it does sort of steadily plod along, you are right. There is a nice rise and fall to the Scherzo though, despite its tempo. So many people rush through it and we can't hear the right ebb and flow to the famous tag. Most people just bounce that passage with no regard whatsoever for inner tension.

This is definitely not going to take the place of any other 5th I own, but it is a very interesting performance and I am glad to be aware of it, at least. Sometimes the unsuccessful interpretations are wonderful clues to the really great performances by the same conductor. That is why I love the bog box sets that are so popular right now.

Oh! and no doubt, that transition between the last two movements is... Well, it is what it is.


----------



## blondheim

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Well I am sure it's a worthwhile musical experiment. Wim Winter is this musicologist who advocates for playing Beethoven at half tempo due to some historical evidences that have no been widely recognized.
> 
> I don't disagree that slow music is hard. And I like music being played slow if done right. But it's not about easy or hard. Boulez's 5th is so far from Beethoven's metronome marking (40 bpm off) that the music becomes entirely different.
> 
> And I don't think he is careful with the score in this recording either. The Scherzo is played at plodding pace it breaks the continuity between the 3rd and 4th movement that is so central to the work.


I agree. It is definitely not Beethoven's intention. That doesn't make it invalid, but it is _very_ odd. I am listening to it now for the first time, and it does sort of steadily plod along, you are right. There is a nice rise and fall to the Scherzo though, despite its tempo. So many people rush through it and we can't hear the right ebb and flow to the famous tag. Most people just bounce that passage with no regard whatsoever for inner tension.

This is definitely not going to take the place of any other 5th I own, but it is a very interesting performance and I am glad to be aware of it, at least. Sometimes the unsuccessful interpretations are wonderful clues to the really great performances by the same conductor. That is why I love the big box sets that are so popular right now.

Oh! and no doubt, that transition between the last two movements is... Well, it is what it is.


----------



## blondheim

(I am unsure why that double-posted. I merely wanted to edit a misspelling.)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> I agree. It is definitely not Beethoven's intention. That doesn't make it invalid, but it is _very_ odd. I am listening to it now for the first time, and it does sort of steadily plod along, you are right. There is a nice rise and fall to the Scherzo though, despite its tempo. So many people rush through it and we can't hear the right ebb and flow to the famous tag. Most people just bounce that passage with no regard whatsoever for inner tension.
> 
> This is definitely not going to take the place of any other 5th I own, but it is a very interesting performance and I am glad to be aware of it, at least. Sometimes the unsuccessful interpretations are wonderful clues to the really great performances by the same conductor. That is why I love the bog box sets that are so popular right now.
> 
> Oh! and no doubt, that transition between the last two movements is... Well, it is what it is.


Yes, I am all for experiments and risk-taking. It is definitely valid in that sense but failed to work for me, unfortunately. I wish I see the Maestro explaining the reasoning behind it.


----------



## blondheim

I would define this as a spectacular failure myself.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> One other thing: we professional musicians have to perform music we hate all the time. It's inevitable.
> .......I don't think Boulez had to conduct anything he disliked once he retired from the New York Philharmonic, but here's the point: whether we hate the music we're playing is not in any way germane to the quality we're expected to provide. I have to play music I hate or dislike or am indifferent to and make absolutely sure no one in the audience would have the _slightest_ inkling that I played with any besides total love and commitment. And I know I can do this, because I've received effusive praise numerous times after playing repertoire, or at least a solo in something I hated, or at least disliked (Bolero, I'm looking at you.) And there's a simple reason for this: there's something I love more than any single composition, and that's music itself.


I agree completely. Professionals often have to play music we dislike or think is of poor quality, but the performance must always be fully committed to excellence and the best possible effort. I'd substitute Rachmaninoff for "Bolero", and if I never saw Tchaik 4 or 5 again, that would be fine....still - everything in the book must be played with the best possible concentration and expressive effort.


----------



## Knorf

What I *really* hate playing: anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber. I would say that dreck is what challenges me the most in terms of not revealing to the audience that I despise it.


----------



## arpeggio

As a professional at least you get paid something when you have to perform stuff you do not care for.

As an amateur you still have to play it. Since I am volunteering I insist that at least some of the music I play is appealing to me. There are some groups that have tried to recruit me that play nothing but poorly arranged popular dreg. Such groups really freak-out and get defensive when I tell them that I would not play for them because I do not care for their programing. I usually make up an excuse.

It really infuriates me when I play with a group I am volunteering to play with that refuses to play anything that I like. I eventually quit those groups.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> What I *really* hate playing: anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber. I would say that dreck is what challenges me the most in terms of not revealing to the audience that I despise it.


Some of the Pops arrangements are really tough to endure....bland, dull arrangements....go on endlessly, very thick, heavy...ugh....


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> Some of the Pops arrangements are really tough to endure....bland, dull arrangements....go on endlessly, very thick, heavy...ugh....


Nailed it exactly.

Now, Mahler on the other hand. Oh, how I love playing Mahler!

(And of course getting paid is a nice motivator. But to do more than go through the motions, you have to look for more motivation than that, especially since the pay for musicians is rarely all that great outside a small handful of orchestras that are the most elite. And considering the enormous talent, effort, persistence, and sheer luck that it takes to win one of those jobs, equivalent to becoming a professional athlete, the pay is still rather inadequate. Conductors, however, if anything are often overpaid, like CEOs.)


----------



## 89Koechel

Knorf - Well, I hope you can derive MORE inspiration/motivation from the concerts that you'll play in the future. Well, the "Pops arrangements" are some of the "tickets" that musical organizations try to use, to get MORE people, interested in classical music. We have such "Pops" motivations, even in ol' Louisville, and probably, in other cities. Also, there's NO question that certain conductors are overpaid; as for CEOs, they ... by-and-large ... are GROSSLY-overpaid, esp. in a relation to their workers - no? IN any case, it's fine to know that you DO love playing ol' Gustav M, and maybe, many of his works. This, young, Viennese man was certainly a transitional figure (let's say) in the progressions of classical music ... and he had a fine career (from what I've gleaned) in his career, as a conductor. There's some angst, some "redemption", some-or-many moments of LYRICISM, and many moments of extending his orchestral works, into a finalized ... yet, not, trivialized ... form, in their many moments & PROGRESSIONS, to a certain end. The great HOPEFULNESS of his 4th, parts of the 5th, and others ... are some of the "signposts" of how 20th Century compositions, even in ... "Viennese hands" .. maybe we could say, and in the ERA that could include, or lead-to Stravinsky, Sibelius, Copland and others, are still so-remarkable, and still such as those, that still involve the HEART, after all. Opinions only, of course.


----------



## blondheim

Knorf said:


> What I *really* hate playing: anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber. I would say that dreck is what challenges me the most in terms of not revealing to the audience that I despise it.


You are my new favorite person.


----------



## Knorf

It's a myth that that pops concerts make money or convert people to classical music.

First of all, pops concerts are often extremely expensive. Almost all of the music is copyrighted and the star performers are very expensive, more than all but the top classical stars. They also commonly require large orchestras or extra equipment of various types. This is mitigated somewhat by requiring fewer rehearsals, but the latter is commonly a compromise to help offset the cost of extra players, which can be numerous. Some pops programs are actually wicked hard. In general, more often than not, pops concerts cost more money to put on than they generate in ticket sales, just like classical.

Second of all, it's not necessarily true that pops concerts outsell classical. Certain ones often do, like Xmas pops, which are usually a blend of classical and pops to be fair, but many more do not. Not everyone is André Rieu. Those that probably will outsell a subscription classical concert, say a live orchestra with a Star Wars movie, are also _extremely_ expensive and ultimately cost a lot of money because ticket sales typically are not enough to make up the difference.

Third of all, building a pops audience is not generally correlated with building a larger classical audience. These are two different audiences, with different expectations, and in general there is not a lot of overlap except in smaller, regional orchestras. There are decades of data to back this up: you can build a pops audience, or you can build a classical audience, or both separately, but they are not usually symbiotic.

Of course I am always happy to get work. But it is also not always true that pops concerts are unrewarding work. Some of them are a blast! Pops concerts in general are lower stress and often very fun (and yes, there are some that are crazy hard, but that can be fun, too). And some classical programs are a grind. I share Heck148's disapprobation of Rachmaninoff, except for one or two pieces like the _Symphonic Dances_.

Andrew Lloyd Webber is the opposite of fun, at least for me.


----------



## arpeggio

For me I enjoy listening to Webber but his music is boring to play.


----------



## starthrower

Knorf said:


> What I *really* hate playing: anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber. I would say that dreck is what challenges me the most in terms of not revealing to the audience that I despise it.


He's made a billion dollars too! I read an interview once and he sounded like a Thatcherian churl.


----------



## blondheim

arpeggio said:


> For me I enjoy listening to Webber but his music is boring to play.


His Requiem is a disaster. I do occasionally listen to a cast album of his, but those are basically well-produced albums, not in any way replications of live experiences. Having seen some of those, I can say that the music is not well-written or orchestrated in the extreme.

Also, he needs better lyricists. He should have continued picking through dead English poets.


----------



## Heck148

It's true that "Pops" audiences do not necessarily cross over to classical concert audiences...an orchestra I played with for many years actually built up 2 distinguishable audiences for each genre....the longtime conductor built a very solid classical base, but he did not esp enjoy pops programming...he did it because the orchestra needed the $$....his successor, kind of a pretentious dude, isn't particularly good at classical repertoire, but his pops programming is very creative and outstanding. They draw big audiences...the orchestra presents 6 xmas pops programs, and virtually all of them sell out....they are expensive tho, lots of guest artists, large orchestras, smaller featured groups...there is some crossover of audience, to be sure, but the core is different...


----------



## blondheim

It is inevitable, but unfortunately it will be the end of live classical music. Especially after the pandemic. We will get film scores performed live and symphonies of Final Fantasy music. It's what audiences want. Eventually the other stuff won't be programmed anymore. The classical concerts in Pittsburgh are rarely full, but John Williams sold out. Not that there is anything wrong with Williams but eventually that is as far back as some of these concerts will go. Even Beethoven is fading, and I once thought people would never tire of that.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> It is inevitable, but unfortunately it will be the end of live classical music. Especially after the pandemic. We will get film scores performed live and symphonies of Final Fantasy music. It's what audiences want. Eventually the other stuff won't be programmed anymore. The classical concerts in Pittsburgh are rarely full, but John Williams sold out. Not that there is anything wrong with Williams but eventually that is as far back as some of these concerts will go. Even Beethoven is fading, and I once thought people would never tire of that.


Don't be so pessimistic. Last time I read the news, Classical music is the genre that has the greatest growth in the music industry, so there is that.

With all the streaming services and free online education, the entry cost is so low and Classical music will eventually find its way back.


----------



## blondheim

I like to think of myself as a realist. But seriously, I hope you are right. I would love nothing more than to be wrong about that.


----------



## Granate

First Brahms and now Pops concerts? In my favourite Mahler symphony's thread?


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> You know it's odd, listening to this Beethoven 5 again. It's been awhile.
> 
> Ok, flat out: the first movement tempo is ridiculous. But, if I accept it for what it is; it's actually a very strong performance. Perhaps it is a failure, but it's an interesting failure. And the other movements really aren't weird, with many lovely and imaginative touches. I'm not going to say I will be returning to this recording again any time soon, or ever, but I don't feel that I've wasted my time.
> 
> (Incidentally, some of Boulez's Beethoven is actually quite good, for example there's a bootleg of the Fourth floating around, and honestly I like it a lot.)


That's more or less what I hear, too. I came to a conclusion long ago that speed as such is not too important - except that you can't stop comparing it with the speeds used in other performances that you know (especially if you have just listened to one) - and that it is what performers do with the speeds they chose. I can think of lots of quite fast Beethoven performances that are tedious and some slowish ones that work. I'm not sure I know a slower Beethoven 5 than this one, though.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> That's more or less what I hear, too. I came to a conclusion long ago that speed as such is not too important - except that you compare it with the speeds used in other performances that you know (especially if you have just listened to one) - and that it is what performers do with the speeds they chose. I can think of lots of quite fast Beethoven performances that are tedious and some slowish ones that work. I'm not sure I know a slower Beethoven 5 than this one, though.


Klemperer '59 is pretty slow. So is Bernstein NY. Can't remember offhand whether they're slower than the Boulez, but probably not. Anyway they both work surprisingly well, IMO. Not sure about the Boulez, but I'm curious now. I'll try and listen to the whole thing later. I know it was recently picked as a top pick for that symphony by the NY Times (?) in their list of the top choice for each symphony, which many found odd.


----------



## vincula

I am yet to warm up to Mahler's no.3. Klemperer's did put me to sleep, even if I wasn't specially tired. Bertini/SWR do pretty well -focusing on the beauty of timbres and those widescreen-like sonic landscapes- so I haven't researched any further on this one. Maybe later in life.

_Ars longa vita brevis._

Regards


----------



## joen_cph

vincula said:


> I am yet to warm up to Mahler's no.3. Klemperer's did put me to sleep, even if I wasn't specially tired. Bertini/SWR do pretty well -focusing on the beauty of timbres and those widescreen-like sonic landscapes- so I haven't researched any further on this one. Maybe later in life.
> 
> _Ars longa vita brevis._
> 
> Regards


There's no Mahler 3rd Symphony with Klemperer ...

Rögner and Gielen are among the better and interesting ones.


----------



## vincula

joen_cph said:


> There's no Mahler 3rd Symphony with Klemperer ...


Right about that. My mistake. I got it mixed up with his no.4.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> Klemperer '59 is pretty slow. So is Bernstein NY. Can't remember offhand whether they're slower than the Boulez, but probably not. Anyway they both work surprisingly well, IMO. Not sure about the Boulez, but I'm curious now. I'll try and listen to the whole thing later. I know it was recently picked as a top pick for that symphony by the NY Times (?) in their list of the top choice for each symphony, which many found odd.


I think the slowest sounding Beethoven 5 that I know is the Bohm Vienna recording - a fine performance, I think - and there is also Celibidache from Munich (similar speeds to Bohm). Klemperer is a little faster, I feel. That Boulez sounds a lot slower than any of these. Interesting that it was picked as a favourite by the NY Times.


----------



## joen_cph

Of course, as regards Beethoven 5, the earlier Klemperer from 1951 is not particularly slow:


----------



## blondheim

vincula said:


> I am yet to warm up to Mahler's no.3. Klemperer's did put me to sleep, even if I wasn't specially tired. Bertini/SWR do pretty well -focusing on the beauty of timbres and those widescreen-like sonic landscapes- so I haven't researched any further on this one. Maybe later in life.
> 
> _Ars longa vita brevis._
> 
> Regards


Did Klemperer ever record the 3rd?

You corrected yourself, I apologize. I see that now.


----------



## Granate

*deleted reply*

But please, stick to the thread topic.


----------



## Knorf

Granate said:


> First Brahms and now Pops concerts? In my favourite Mahler symphony's thread?


Apologies, Granate. Conversation drift, dontcha know. It means it's a great conversation that we're all enjoying.

I find it interesting that some people found Mahler 3 problematic, gravitating earlier to No. 2. For me, learning these pieces as a teenager in the mid-to-late 80s when Bernstein's DG cycle was brand-new, it was the opposite; I thought No. 3 made sense and No. 2 was the sprawler.

Early on Bernstein was for me was everything in Mahler. Except for one or two Walter recordings, it was a question only of whether the first Bernstein cycle was better or the DG cycle. The video performances weren't in consideration, in those days of VHS tapes. I scoffed at the likes of Horenstein. To me it seemed like a joke to compare his to Bernstein at all, much less prefer it. I admit I still kind of think that.

But there are a number of Mahler 3s I now admit as competitive with Bernstein, which I mentioned up thread, mainly the superb Boulez account, but also Abbado, especially with Lucerne.

As for Bernstein's Mahler 3, I love them both, but I think the DG album is better.


----------



## starthrower

I have five recordings of No.3 but I've listened only to Bernstein NYP. When I get over my chamber music kick I'll listen to the others. I went through this with No.5 listening to 7-8 versions and didn't really form a favorite in my mind. I guess I'm not that picky or my brain has yet to fully absorb the music.


----------



## blondheim

Knorf said:


> Apologies, Granate. Conversation drift, dontcha know. It means it's a great conversation that we're all enjoying.
> 
> I find it interesting that some people found Mahler 3 problematic, gravitating earlier to No. 2. For me, learning these pieces as a teenager in the mid-to-late 80s when Bernstein's DG cycle was brand-new, it was the opposite; I thought No. 3 made sense and No. 2 was the sprawler.
> 
> Early on Bernstein was for me was everything in Mahler. Except for one or two Walter recordings, it was a question only of whether the first Bernstein cycle was better or the DG cycle. The video performances weren't in consideration, in those days of VHS tapes. I scoffed at the likes of Horenstein. To me it seemed like a joke to compare his to Bernstein at all, much less prefer it. I admit I still kind of think that.
> 
> But there are a number of Mahler 3s I now admit as competitive with Bernstein, which I mentioned up thread, mainly the superb Boulez account, but also Abbado, especially with Lucerne.
> 
> As for Bernstein's Mahler 3, I love them both, but I think the DG album is better.


I also grabbed at Bernstein first and at first I found him very compelling. I found Boulez and Kubelik next and then started looking for individual releases and sought after Horenstein and Barbirolli, who I loved the Sibelius cycle of.

I personally think Horenstein's recording is closest to perfect but it is rather bombastic. Not that it bothers me, because he has the ruggedness I want, but Boulez really captured a beauty and an organization to the music that Horenstein would lead you to believe is well-orchestrated chaos.


----------



## Knorf

The last time I tried to listen to Horenstein's Mahler 3 to me it sounded like a total mess, and I couldn't get past the first movement. I'm well aware that some people really like it, including people whose opinions I respect, but I tried more than once and don't feel highly motivated to try again with that recording. 

Bernstein's recordings are just as high powered in intensity but far better conducted, in my opinion. YMMV.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> I'm well aware that some people really like it, *including people whose opinions I respect*, but I tried more than once and don't feel highly motivated to try again with that recording.


Not just the usual suspects? Wow, that's saying a lot! :lol:


----------



## blondheim

Knorf said:


> The last time I tried to listen to Horenstein's Mahler 3 to me it sounded like a total mess, and I couldn't get past the first movement. I'm well aware that some people really like it, including people whose opinions I respect, but I tried more than once and don't feel highly motivated to try again with that recording.
> 
> Bernstein's recordings are just as high powered in intensity but far better conducted, in my opinion. YMMV.


That's interesting that you say that. I love how different each listener is. It is what I love about classical music, that it inspires this kind of discussion.

When I listen to the Horenstein, it almost sounds like the music is being born. The bird calls seem like they come out of thin air and they are never timed the same way twice. Likewise the ornamentation from the violin. I swear the trombone solo about seven minutes in is saying "Weh! Weh!" like it is Wagner's Ring. That ominous sorrow deepens the thunderous sections later, which are exciting but garish, practically grotesque. Both of the Summer march climaxes are the best I have ever heard them, just enough of Bernstein's weight without overdoing it (like I personally think he does, although less in his earlier recording which I prefer) tempered with a bird's eye view of the movement that is on the side of people like Kubelik and Boulez, although no one has more of a bird's eye view in this work than ol' Pierre. I love how the summer march sections feel like order being imposed on chaos and chaos almost having no choice but to join in, leaving us to decide if they have been converted or are just reluctantly playing along.

And that is only the first movement.


----------



## Knorf

blondheim, you've almost got me persuaded.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

blondheim said:


> Did Klemperer ever record the 3rd?


Not to my knowledge, which is a real shame considering how well Klemperer performed the symphonies either side of it.


----------



## blondheim

Knorf said:


> blondheim, you've almost got me persuaded.


Thanks! I will admit that I listen to this stuff so much that I probably persuade myself of things that may or may not be there, but I find the rationalizing we do for stuff we love is wonderful experience. As a composer, I would be so honored if someone cared about my work enough to try to figure out why it was written or how it should be performed. I like to think that Mahler would feel that way too. I refer to him as the Prophet.

Which reminds me, Bernstein called Beethoven "god's antenna" once and I thought that was hilarious. He was a character. The first conductor I grew to love. But then I found Dorati.


----------



## blondheim

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Not to my knowledge, which is a real shame considering how well Klemperer performed the symphonies either side of it.


I think I read somewhere that he either didn't like it or understand it, which I so respect. Too many conductors these days want to put their hands on everything (ahem, grandma Rattle) but the old guard knew to record the works they had a real connection to.

I have conducted and I love the 3rd but I wouldn't feel capable of steering that vessel.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> I think I read somewhere that he either didn't like it or understand it, which I so respect. Too many conductors these days want to put their hands on everything (ahem, grandma Rattle) but the old guard knew to record the works they had a real connection to.
> 
> I have conducted and I love the 3rd but I wouldn't feel capable of steering that vessel.


Don't give Simon such a hard time. He seems to be the most unassuming Maestro on the planet, a champion of 20th-century music and a great music educator. Having subscribed to the digital concert hall since its infancy, I must say that people often mistook humbleness for blandness. The old guards recorded plenty of box fillers too. Since you are a conductor, you must know that Maestros have limited time they can't possibly be specialized and meticulous in everything. Conducting something they don't have a deep connection is a transgression almost every conductor commits.


----------



## Knorf

And it could be that we'll think better of Rattle in 20 years or so. That happens a lot.


----------



## blondheim

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Don't give Simon such a hard time. He seems to be the most unassuming Maestro on the planet, a champion of 20th-century music and a great music educator. Having subscribed to the digital concert hall since its infancy, I must say that people often mistook humbleness for blandness. The old guards recorded plenty of box fillers too. Since you are a conductor, you must know that Maestros have limited time they can't possibly be specialized and meticulous in everything. Conducting something they don't have a deep connection is a transgression almost every conductor commits.


It is the manner in which he doesn't really dig into the music, but tries to provide a surface-level idiomatic Rattle interpretation anyway. I wish he was bland sometimes. Whatever his connection, he seems like he is always trying to peddle something deep. I am in no way saying he is terrible, or that he is the only conductor guilty of this. Like you say, the old guard was too. Bernstein should definitely have recorded less than he did. I love the man, so I value it all now in some way, but not always for the right reasons. Some of those recordings are like pictures from a pimply, awkward adolescence. I would rather have quality over quantity, in regards to both their and my own legacy (if I ever have one), and maybe we will think of him differently in time. But he seems like he tries to give the Solti experience, the Bernstein heart, the Karajan management, etc. I rarely hear things that sound instantly like him. When I listen to his recordings blind, I often say "Who is this?" and not positively.

Let me add: he may act unassumingly, but he conducts like he assumes much about the music he presents to us.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> But he seems like he tries to give the Solti experience, the Bernstein heart, the Karajan management, etc. I rarely hear things that sound instantly like him. When I listen to his recordings blind, I often say "Who is this?" and not positively.
> 
> Let me add: he may act unassumingly, but he conducts like he assumes much about the music he presents to us.


Thank you for this enlightening view. I do share some of that impression. To my ears, he is definitely not as driven and overt as Solti, not nearly as self-indulgent and possessed as Lenny, and does not produce the focused and luxurious sound like Karajan (Abbado produced better sound from BPO than him, maybe that's why people dislike him).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Alright, so the weirdest thing just happened to me. Flamencosketches suggested that I listen to Boulez’s Adagio blindly and see if it still struck me as cold, and since I always respect and appreciate his thoughts I decided to heed that advice. I threw it in a playlist on my streaming service with three other versions that I had not previously heard (Bernstein DG, Kubelik, and Haitink ’66). I set it to shuffle and started listening. Immediately I was struck by the first version and its generous, warm, expansive expressivity. I was thinking to myself, “This has to be Bernstein; I can’t imagine any of the other three conductors allowing such expressive liberties like the rubato and portamento.” The string playing was just gorgeous and the whole thing felt like a grand, inexorable spiritual narrative with an overwhelming conclusion. Several times throughout I actually exclaimed out loud, “My gosh, this is just amazing." I eagerly checked to see who it was, and...

IT WAS BOULEZ!!!!

My jaw dropped open once I saw that. If nothing else, this showed to me just how strong our (OK, my) previously established biases can be. Even though I tried my darndest to listen without any preconceptions when I first heard Boulez, something somewhere in my subconscious had to be telling me, “Boulez is cold and clinical! He’s the iceman! He can’t do Mahler!” and that somehow carried over into my evaluation. But listening blindly was a totally different story. I quite literally heard a completely different performance. I really need to do this more often with other artists who I might have subsconscious biases against! Wow! Now to reevaluate the rest of Boulez’s 3rd to see if it all lives up to that same standard. Seriously, I still can’t quite believe what just happened. 

As it turns out, I just can’t quit this M3 kick. Sampling Kubelik right now and that unmistakable, uniquely “rustic” and “folksy” vibe that he always brought to Mahler works very well.


----------



## blondheim

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thank you for this enlightening view. I do share some of that impression. To my ears, he is definitely not as driven and overt as Solti, not nearly as self-indulgent and possessed as Lenny, and does not produce the focused and luxurious sound like Karajan (Abbado produced better sound from BPO than him, maybe that's why people dislike him).


The BPO is not my favorite anyway, and I will admit a heavy bias against most Karajan. That being said, I agree with what you say, he is lesser in all those aspects than his predecessors. May be someday that combination will congeal into something that is clearly his. May be not enough time has passed for that yet.


----------



## blondheim

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Alright, so the weirdest thing just happened to me. Flamencosketches suggested that I listen to Boulez's Adagio blindly and see if it still struck me as cold, and since I always respect and appreciate his thoughts I decided to heed that advice. I threw it in a playlist on my streaming service with three other versions that I had not previously heard (Bernstein DG, Kubelik, and Haitink '66). I set it to shuffle and started listening. Immediately I was struck by the first version and its generous, warm, expansive expressivity. I was thinking to myself, "This has to be Bernstein; I can't imagine any of the other three conductors allowing such expressive liberties like the rubato and portamento." The string playing was just gorgeous and the whole thing felt like a grand, inexorable spiritual narrative with an overwhelming conclusion. Several times throughout I actually exclaimed out loud, "My gosh, this is just amazing." I eagerly checked to see who it was, and...
> 
> IT WAS BOULEZ!!!!
> 
> My jaw dropped open once I saw that. If nothing else, this showed to me just how strong our (OK, my) previously established biases can be. Even though I tried my darndest to listen without any preconceptions when I first heard Boulez, something somewhere in my subconscious had to be telling me, "Boulez is cold and clinical! He's the iceman! He can't do Mahler!" and that somehow carried over into my evaluation. But listening blindly was a totally different story. I quite literally heard a completely different performance. I really need to do this more often with other artists who I might have subsconscious biases against! Wow! Now to reevaluate the rest of Boulez's 3rd to see if it all lives up to that same standard. Seriously, I still can't quite believe what just happened.
> 
> As it turns out, I just can't quit this M3 kick. Sampling Kubelik right now and that unmistakable, uniquely "rustic" and "folksy" vibe that he always brought to Mahler works very well.


This makes me so happy. I feel like that is the best way to come to Boulez. When I would hear about a new release of his, I would always think "the Iceman cometh." Not because I actually felt that way, it turns out, but because that was the consensus opinion.

Now I listen to my recordings blind a lot. The next movement I think I am going to do this with is the third movement of Mahler 4. That movement still eludes my total understanding. But dammit, soon. Soon.

I love Kubelik's whole cycle but his 3rd might be the best of the bunch. (I am a lonely lover of his fifth which is very, very fast. Duggan's review called it "lean and hungry" which I must admit is accurate. While he didn't enjoy that, I certainly did.)


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Alright, so the weirdest thing just happened to me. Flamencosketches suggested that I listen to Boulez's Adagio blindly and see if it still struck me as cold, and since I always respect and appreciate his thoughts I decided to heed that advice. I threw it in a playlist on my streaming service with three other versions that I had not previously heard (Bernstein DG, Kubelik, and Haitink '66). I set it to shuffle and started listening. Immediately I was struck by the first version and its generous, warm, expansive expressivity. I was thinking to myself, "This has to be Bernstein; I can't imagine any of the other three conductors allowing such expressive liberties like the rubato and portamento." The string playing was just gorgeous and the whole thing felt like a grand, inexorable spiritual narrative with an overwhelming conclusion. Several times throughout I actually exclaimed out loud, "My gosh, this is just amazing." I eagerly checked to see who it was, and...
> 
> IT WAS BOULEZ!!!!
> 
> My jaw dropped open once I saw that. If nothing else, this showed to me just how strong our (OK, my) previously established biases can be. Even though I tried my darndest to listen without any preconceptions when I first heard Boulez, something somewhere in my subconscious had to be telling me, "Boulez is cold and clinical! He's the iceman! He can't do Mahler!" and that somehow carried over into my evaluation.


Suspending our own preconceptions is very, very hard. It's why orchestral auditions should be blind every round.

Anyway, good job! You set a standard we could all do better at.



> As it turns out, I just can't quit this M3 kick. Sampling Kubelik right now and that unmistakable, uniquely "rustic" and "folksy" vibe that he always brought to Mahler works very well.


Quit Mahler 3? But why?

Kubelík's Mahler will always hold a soft spot in my heart, for the sound of the orchestra and it's wonderful _Mitteleuropa_-ness, for the rustic and folksy vibe you mention, for sheer great musicianship every moment...


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Alright, so the weirdest thing just happened to me. Flamencosketches suggested that I listen to Boulez's Adagio blindly and see if it still struck me as cold, and since I always respect and appreciate his thoughts I decided to heed that advice. I threw it in a playlist on my streaming service with three other versions that I had not previously heard (Bernstein DG, Kubelik, and Haitink '66). I set it to shuffle and started listening. Immediately I was struck by the first version and its generous, warm, expansive expressivity. I was thinking to myself, "This has to be Bernstein; I can't imagine any of the other three conductors allowing such expressive liberties like the rubato and portamento." The string playing was just gorgeous and the whole thing felt like a grand, inexorable spiritual narrative with an overwhelming conclusion. Several times throughout I actually exclaimed out loud, "My gosh, this is just amazing." I eagerly checked to see who it was, and...
> 
> IT WAS BOULEZ!!!!
> 
> My jaw dropped open once I saw that. If nothing else, this showed to me just how strong our (OK, my) previously established biases can be. Even though I tried my darndest to listen without any preconceptions when I first heard Boulez, something somewhere in my subconscious had to be telling me, "Boulez is cold and clinical! He's the iceman! He can't do Mahler!" and that somehow carried over into my evaluation. But listening blindly was a totally different story. I quite literally heard a completely different performance. I really need to do this more often with other artists who I might have subsconscious biases against! Wow! Now to reevaluate the rest of Boulez's 3rd to see if it all lives up to that same standard. Seriously, I still can't quite believe what just happened.
> 
> As it turns out, I just can't quit this M3 kick. Sampling Kubelik right now and that unmistakable, uniquely "rustic" and "folksy" vibe that he always brought to Mahler works very well.


Awesome, I had a feeling you might reconsider once you heard Boulez's Mahler 3 adagio, especially going in blindly. I had quite a similar reaction when I first heard his recording of that adagio-I couldn't believe the warmth and passion of it, which quite well surpassed any other I'd heard. Not because the other recordings I know are lacking in warmth or passion per se, but Boulez definitely is bringing something special to the table here. I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

By the way, thanks for yet another reminder that I really need to give more of Kubelík's Mahler a chance. Everything I've heard, which is really not much, has been excellent, but I have a feeling he may be most successful in the Wunderhorn symphonies. Makes me curious to hear his 2nd and even more so the 3rd. This is a conversation for another thread, but I've heard his Audite recording of the 8th is really great, and something that might be helpful in convincing skeptics (a category which includes you, ACB-unless I'm mistaken?) of that symphony. I haven't heard it myself, so no comment, but might be worth checking out (I think Audite is streamable, but I'm not sure)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> By the way, thanks for yet another reminder that I really need to give more of Kubelík's Mahler a chance. Everything I've heard, which is really not much, has been excellent, but I have a feeling he may be most successful in the Wunderhorn symphonies. Makes me curious to hear his 2nd and even more so the 3rd. This is a conversation for another thread, but I've heard his Audite recording of the 8th is really great, and something that might be helpful in convincing skeptics (a category which includes you, ACB-unless I'm mistaken?) of that symphony. I haven't heard it myself, so no comment, but might be worth checking out (I think Audite is streamable, but I'm not sure)


I'm not a big 8th fan and it is my least favorite Mahler, but I certainly don't dislike it. I'm eager to hear Kubelik in it; I need a recording that can vie for second place after the Horenstein, which is my runaway favorite. I guess the 8th is my next Mahler binge!


----------



## blondheim

Has anyone been able to compare the Boulez Weiner 3rd with the one in the NYP Mahler Broadcast box? I would love to hear someone else's thoughts on the differences.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Incidentally, here's what Tony Duggan had to say about Boulez's M3. I do admire his reviews and agree with him on many things but I don't see him as any sort of authority, just thought his perspective was interesting. Was he possibly listening through subconscious bias as well?



Tony Duggan said:


> I really cannot this time empathise with Boulez's seeming unwillingness to engage with the very elements of the work which I find so crucial. A creative detachment, so admirable in other symphonies, just seems, to me, misapplied here. Interestingly, his performance of the last movement is transcendently moving but his portrayal of the first seems wounded by his inability to bend with its many contours and byways and some of the tempi are on the slow side. The second movement too doesn't seem to possess enough warmth of heart though the third is more appealing. So, with regret, and with praise for the sound and the playing, I shall pass over this version even though I am certain Boulez has delivered the very performance that he meant us to have.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm not a big 8th fan and it is my least favorite Mahler, but I certainly don't dislike it. I'm eager to hear Kubelik in it; I need a recording that can vie for second place after the Horenstein, which is my runaway favorite. I guess the 8th is my next Mahler binge!


Bernstein DG for me, after Horenstein


----------



## blondheim

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Incidentally, here's what Tony Duggan had to say about Boulez's M3. I do admire his reviews and agree with him on many things but I don't see him as any sort of authority, just thought his perspective was interesting. Was he possibly listening through subconscious bias as well?


I most definitely agree and I have devoured that survey. I may know it by heart. (Currently writing a sequel actually. Hoping music-web lets me publish it there one day.) The man single-handedly ignited a love in a genre I had only rarely chosen to explore.

That being said, I have come to different conclusions sometimes. This is one. I agree that it is a very different interpretation and I actually agree very much with how he thinks this work should sound but not exclusively on his views on how it should always be conceived and therefore conducted. This work seems so simple; that is its magic. There is so much room for interpretation. This is why we love ballet suites. Simple, rhythmic siblings. It makes it easier to see the spin of the orchestra and the conductor. This work is not simple in any way, but each layer is so neat and cleanly divided --pan the singular deity/pan as everything/the mountains/all of summer, the flowers/the meadow, the creatures/the forest, etc. etc. Simple structure, complex themes. It shows us, more than perhaps any of the other symphonies, what Mahler means to its orchestra and conductor.

Boulez just lets the music be music. He is so effing humble.

In another review of his, the 9th, Duggan talks about how he believes Haitink expresses this ideal, 'let the music be music', and later an appendix says the same about Rattle's Berlin recording. I am not sure yet about those, but I understand how refreshing that approach to a piece is. This is what I believe Boulez provides. He is not perfunctory in his simplicity, but adoring, obedient, respectful. He approaches Mahler as someone delivering a eulogy for a dead parent. I believe it is a very special recording.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I so wish Duggan had lived longer so he could revise all his surveys (he only got to No. 6 in his revisions). I too want to step into his shoes and write my own versions I really like his idea of “the concert hall as theater” and think he was a very talented writer. I really scratch my head when I see he recommends Rattle/BPO as the greatest 9th though.

I wasn’t all that interested in Mahler before I came to this site, but now I’ve got hooked on comparing recordings and it’s become an official obsession to rival my obsessions with Brahms and Sibelius symphony recordings.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I so wish Duggan had lived longer so he could revise all his surveys (he only got to No. 6 in his revisions). I too want to step into his shoes and write my own versions I really like his idea of "the concert hall as theater" and think he was a very talented writer. I really scratch my head when I see he recommends Rattle/BPO as the greatest 9th though.
> 
> I wasn't all that interested in Mahler before I came to this site, but now I've got hooked on comparing recordings and it's become an official obsession to rival my obsessions with Brahms and Sibelius symphony recordings.


May I ask who is this Duggan fellow? Rattle/BPO of the 9th is a bit underwhelming, to be honest.

I find Mahler to be much more addictive than Brahms and Sibelius in the long run. There is so much more to unpack in Mahler (and everyone is seemingly good with Mahler) and Mahler recordings also tend to have the best audio quality. The MTT cycle is still the benchmark in terms of the overall presentation for orchestral music in my opinion.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> May I ask who is this Duggan fellow? Rattle/BPO of the 9th is a bit underwhelming, to be honest.
> 
> I find Mahler to be much more addictive than Brahms and Sibelius in the long run. There is so much more to unpack in Mahler (and everyone is seemingly good with Mahler) and Mahler recordings also tend to have the best audio quality. The MTT cycle is still the benchmark in terms of the overall presentation for orchestral music in my opinion.


The fellow who wrote these recording surveys of the Mahler symphonies. They make for some lovely, thought-provoking reading!


----------



## blondheim

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> May I ask who is this Duggan fellow? Rattle/BPO of the 9th is a bit underwhelming, to be honest.
> 
> I find Mahler to be much more addictive than Brahms and Sibelius in the long run. There is so much more to unpack in Mahler (and everyone is seemingly good with Mahler) and Mahler recordings also tend to have the best audio quality. The MTT cycle is still the benchmark in terms of the overall presentation for orchestral music in my opinion.


You will see that he mostly agrees with you about the MTT cycle.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> ..... luxurious sound like Karajan (Abbado produced better sound from BPO than him, maybe that's why people dislike him).


Yes, defintely agree....


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> You will see that he mostly agrees with you about the MTT cycle.


Skimming through it, this is quite a detailed survey, he seems to like performances with more "guts" than "brain and brawn".

And I totally understand what he was talking about on Boulez's superb 3rd: for all its pure musicality and impeccable shapes, something is missing, a certain wildness and rawness present in the likes of Kubelik and Horenstein. Ivan Fischer's recent 3rd moved me more than Boulez. (I don't think it's prejudice against Boulez)


----------



## blondheim

That's fair. I think his opinion is valid. I personally disagree but it took me a while to come to these conclusions. I initially agreed with him too and did for a while. It was the blind listens once I had acquired a number of these that really brought me around.

I feel like Boulez conducts it like he is playing the piano for Mahler, who sings. There is just something about this recording. It plays the long game. Although I would definitely not say it is the best of all time. I still think Horenstein is the master of this symphony.

But I also would not want to live without Boulez, or Kubelik or Bychkov or even Bernstein, who conducts it like he wrote it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> I feel like Boulez conducts it like he is playing the piano for Mahler, who sings.
> 
> But I also would not want to live without Boulez, or Kubelik or Bychkov or even Bernstein, who conducts it like he wrote it.


I like the way you put it.

Mahler 3rd sure is weird, it's so sprawling and philosophical it seems really difficult to hold it together. The last movement always feels too sentimental to me. I get the point but I am not sure hammering this point for another 20 mins after 70 mins is the best way to express it (on the contrary, the tragic blows in the 6th is far more effective and shocking for me).

This leads to a point that's different from yours and Tony Duggan's. For me, Lenny's approach clearly went overboard with his usual grand gestures and unconstrainted fervor (which risks over-exaggerating the exaggeration) and Boulez is as nonchalant as a zen monk (while Mahler is still in his Christian-Darwinian phase). And I agree, Horenstein seems to balance pretty well.

I also find the 70 Horenstein LSO recording (even though this was a go-to for many years) lacking in terms of quality of orchestral play (flaccid string, colorless winds) and the chorus. I would much prefer the remastered 61 live recording (small foibles aside).


----------



## blondheim

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I like the way you put it.
> 
> Mahler 3rd sure is weird, it's so sprawling and philosophical it seems really difficult to hold it together. The last movement always feels too sentimental to me. I get the point but I am not sure hammering this point for another 20 mins after 70 mins is the best way to express it (on the contrary, the tragic blows in the 6th is far more effective and shocking for me).
> 
> This leads to a point that's different from yours and Tony Duggan's. For me, Lenny's approach clearly went overboard with his usual grand gestures and unconstrainted fervor (which risks over-exaggerating the exaggeration) and Boulez is as nonchalant as a zen monk (while Mahler is still in his Christian-Darwinian phase). And I agree, Horenstein seems to balance pretty well.
> 
> I also find the 70 Horenstein LSO recording (even though this was a go-to for many years) lacking in terms of quality of orchestral play (flaccid string, colorless winds) and the chorus. I would much prefer the remastered 61 live recording (small foibles aside).


Mahler definitely tried to write the symphony to end all symphonies. His comments about the symphony itself support this. Like when he told Bruno Walter, as he looked up at the mountains, "Don't look up there, I have composed all that."

As to the 6th, that is a conversation for another time. I have many strong feelings about this symphony.

I will politely disagree about the 1961, but to each their own. I don't know if the Horenstein studio 3rd is the most essential single symphony Mahler release, but I suspect it may be.


----------



## chesapeake bay

I surveyed Mahlers symphonies a few years back, but this thread has inspired me to go back and listen again to some more no. 3's. My current favorite is Barbirolli, but I did listen to the Jean Martinon, and I do enjoy the sound of that CSO brass! Next up will have to be Boulez, I am not a fan of his conducting, but enough has been said here that I have to give it a listen!!


----------



## blondheim

chesapeake bay said:


> I surveyed Mahlers symphonies a few years back, but this thread has inspired me to go back and listen again to some more no. 3's. My current favorite is Barbirolli, but I did listen to the Jean Martinon, and I do enjoy the sound of that CSO brass! Next up will have to be Boulez, I am not a fan of his conducting, but enough has been said here that I have to give it a listen!!


I have never been able to get my hands on the Jean Martinon/Chicago 3rd. I have never found it streaming or in lossless format, and so far as I know it is only part of a commemorative Chicago Symphony Orchestra box. I would love to hear impressions of it.


----------



## Heck148

blondheim said:


> I have never been able to get my hands on the Jean Martinon/Chicago 3rd. I have never found it streaming or in lossless format, and so far as I know it is only part of a commemorative Chicago Symphony Orchestra box. I would love to hear impressions of it.


Right, it's included in the archival set - <<CSO in 20th Century>> the CSO store may still have some copies left.....great set of discs...
The Finale of Martinon is awesome. Best I've ever heard...


----------



## chesapeake bay

There is a box set of Jean Martinon complete CSO recordings at Amazon and ebay


----------



## blondheim

Yes, but I do not believe that recording is in there. As it was not a studio recording, it was a broadcast.


----------



## chesapeake bay

ah you are correct


----------



## blondheim

Heck148 said:


> Right, it's included in the archival set - <<CSO in 20th Century>> the CSO store may still have some copies left.....great set of discs...
> The Finale of Martinon is awesome. Best I've ever heard...


I want this set!


----------



## Knorf

I agree that's Boulez's Mahler 3 is a special recording, but for slightly different reasons than blondheim.

As for Duggan, he's just off base in this assessment. Boulez doesn't downplay the score at all, in fact his interpretation is quite scrupulous as to following the all of the indications, and without underselling any of them except in service of a greater goal. This is a score that does not require adding more; as much I like Bernstein's recordings, he does take liberties. Boulez takes very few. I'm not saying taking liberties with the score here or anywhere is "wrong"; I'm saying it's not necessary at all in Mahler 3 to take many. However, many listeners become very used to certain liberties and feel like something is missing when they're not there, and this becomes a Procrustean bed of sorts. (It reminds me of when I saw Peter Jackson's _Fellowship of the Ring_ for the first time; I was so distracted with changes to and omissions from Tolkien's actual novel that it was difficult for me to appreciate what was there in the film. Some changes I never accepted, but I digress.)

Of course there's always interpretation. If the score indicates "etwas drängend," i.e. "somewhat moving forward": how much is "etwas"? Doing nothing is clearly wrong, as is slowing down (Bernstein sometimes slows down when "drängend" is indicated, or the opposite.) How much is right? That's an interpretation.

I feel Boulez's Mahler 3 is extremely well judged in how much. He also does well at allowing solos to express themselves freely; he enables the musicians' independent musicianship within reasonable limits, an aspect that greatly endeared Boulez to many great orchestras, that and being very clear.

Things Boulez 3 is not:

It is not "unemotional." Emotion in music is a chimera anyway, fraught with problems. But usually it's shorthand for underplaying the music's drama or ignoring the indications (whether notated or traditional) in the music, which Boulez doesn't do.

It is not "an X-ray" of the score. There's plenty of meat on those bones, and this one of the most successful elements revealed when doing blind listening or whatever it takes to listen with minimized preconceptions. The Vienna Philharmonic under Boulez plays with great richness and phrase all over the place.


----------



## blondheim

Knorf said:


> I agree that's Boulez's Mahler 3 is a special recording, but for slightly different reasons than blondheim.
> 
> As for Duggan, he's just off base in this assessment. Boulez doesn't downplay the score at all, in fact his interpretation is quite scrupulous as to following the all of the indications, and without underselling any of them except in service of a greater goal. This is a score that does not require adding more; as much I like Bernstein's recordings, he does take liberties. Boulez takes very few. I'm not saying taking liberties with the score here or anywhere is "wrong"; I'm saying it's not necessary at all in Mahler 3 to take many. However, many listeners become very used to certain liberties and feel like something is missing when they're not there, and this becomes a Procrustean bed of sorts. (It reminds me of when I saw Peter Jackson's _Fellowship of the Ring_ for the first time; I was so distracted with changes to and omissions from Tolkien's actual novel that it was difficult for me to appreciate what was there in the film. Some changes I never accepted, but I digress.)
> 
> Of course there's always interpretation. If the score indicates "etwas drängend," i.e. "somewhat moving forward": how much is "etwas"? Doing nothing is clearly wrong, as is slowing down (Bernstein sometimes slows down when "drängend" is indicated, or the opposite.) How much is right? That's an interpretation.
> 
> I feel Boulez's Mahler 3 is extremely well judged in how much. He also does well at allowing solos to express themselves freely; he enables the musicians' independent musicianship within reasonable limits, an aspect that greatly endeared Boulez to many great orchestras, that and being very clear.
> 
> Things Boulez 3 is not:
> 
> It is not "unemotional." Emotion in music is a chimera anyway, fraught with problems. But usually it's shorthand for underplaying the music's drama or ignoring the indications (whether notated or traditional) in the music, which Boulez doesn't do.
> 
> It is not "an X-ray" of the score. There's plenty of meat on those bones, and this one of the most successful elements revealed when doing blind listening or whatever it takes to listen with minimized preconceptions. The Vienna Philharmonic under Boulez plays with great richness and phrase all over the place.


I am curious what parts you disagree with! I love differences of opinion.

Oh! and I hate when people use that phrase: X-ray of a score. I prefer the term bird's eye view. I definitely think Boulez sees the end in the beginning, which is the mark of a great conductor.

Amazing point about what Bernstein does with specific markings. That is what I mean when I say he is indulgent, not to Mahler, but to himself. Exaggerating what is there is one thing, doing the opposite another, and may be a tad presumptuous.

The Weiner is delicious in that recording. Boulez gets that sound out of every orchestra he conducts. The Cleveland Chloe is a revelation.


----------



## Knorf

blondheim said:


> I am curious what parts you disagree with! I love differences of opinion.


Especially with what you just wrote, the differences might be mainly semantic!



> Oh! and I hate when people use that phrase: X-ray of a score. I prefer the term bird's eye view. I definitely think Boulez sees the end in the beginning, which is the mark of a great conductor.


Yes! Perfectly said.



> Amazing point about what Bernstein does with specific markings. That is what I mean when I say he is indulgent, not to Mahler, but to himself. Exaggerating what is there is one thing, doing the opposite another, and may be a tad presumptuous.


Indeed. One must realize, when you hear Bernstein's Mahler, glorious as can be at its best, you're hearing _*Bernstein's*_ Mahler. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it is most definitely a thing. Bernstein usually imposed a very strong stamp of personality on almost everything he conducted, for better or worse, especially late in his career.

I don't dislike conductors who put less of their own personal stamp and try to disappear into the score. I also don't think it's necessarily better.

I like to compare it to acting. Some actors beautifully disappear into their roles (Gary Oldman, Alec Guinness, Miranda Otto) others are always themselves, either with subtlety (Lawrence Olivier, Grace Kelly, Judi Dench), with lovely scenery chewing (Katharine Hepburn, Peter O'Toole, Lawrence Fishburne), or gloriously obscene scenery chewing (BRIAN BLESSED.)

Leonard Bernstein is typically about the scenery-chewing level of Marlon Brando. Boulez is more like Lawrence Olivier; the personality is there, but it rarely intrudes. On my scale, Furtwängler was BRIAN BLESSED.



> The Weiner is delicious in that recording. Boulez gets that sound out of every orchestra he conducts. The Cleveland Chloe is a revelation.


YES!


----------



## blondheim

Knorf said:


> Especially with what you just wrote, the differences might be mainly semantic!
> 
> Yes! Perfectly said.
> 
> Indeed. One must realize, when you hear Bernstein's Mahler, glorious as can be at its best, you're hearing _*Bernstein's*_ Mahler. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it is most definitely a thing. Bernstein usually imposed a very strong stamp of personality on almost everything he conducted, for better or worse, especially late in his career.
> 
> I don't dislike conductors who put less of their own personal stamp and try to disappear into the score. I also don't think it's necessarily better.
> 
> I like to compare it to acting. Some actors beautifully disappear into their roles (Gary Oldman, Alec Guinness, Miranda Otto) others are always themselves, either with subtlety (Lawrence Olivier, Grace Kelly, Judi Dench), with lovely scenery chewing (Katharine Hepburn, Peter O'Toole, Lawrence Fishburne), or gloriously obscene scenery chewing (BRIAN BLESSED.)
> 
> Leonard Bernstein is typically about the scenery-chewing level of Marlon Brando. Boulez is more like Lawrence Olivier; the personality is there, but it rarely intrudes. On my scale, Furtwängler was BRIAN BLESSED.
> 
> YES!


I think Bernstein might have considered himself something like an Ian McKellen. Blockbuster-friendly, but Shakespeare-trained.


----------



## Becca

One also has to think about what a phrase meant to someone in Mahler's time. An example, there is a marking in the 4th symphony - 'ohne hast' - 'without haste'. When Rattle was doing this in his younger days, Berthold Goldschmidt told him (approx.) 'Consider what 'without haste' meant in the days before the automobile.' That type of thinking can lend a somewhat different perspective on Mahler's intent from how we may view it today.


----------



## Knorf

blondheim said:


> I think Bernstein might have considered himself something like an Ian McKellen. Blockbuster-friendly, but Shakespeare-trained.


Ian McKellen could disappear into his roles. His subtlety can be spectacular.

If Bernstein could disappear into a score, I've never heard it. Subtlety is not really a Bernstein thing.

Becca, excellent point.


----------



## blondheim

That's an excellent point! Do you know where in the symphony that marking is? I guess I could just flip through the score on IMSLP.


----------



## blondheim

Hahaha I didn't say he was Ian McKellen, but I believe he fashioned himself that way. I think that was his impression of himself.


----------



## Becca

blondheim said:


> That's an excellent point! Do you know where in the symphony that marking is? I guess I could just flip through the score on IMSLP.


The 2nd movement...
In gemächlicher Bewegung, ohne Hast (Leisurely moving, without haste) - scherzo and trio


----------



## Knorf

May I quibble with your German translation, Becca? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I think "leisurely" connotes something different in English than _gemächlich_ in German. I think something like "comfortable" or "easygoing" is closer. Going somewhere, not dilly-dallying, but definitely not in a hurry, either. Andante is pretty accurate. Adagio is wrong. Allegro is really wrong. (Just examples.)

_Hast_ is definitely "haste," however, and yes as you noted more like the haste of a person running or horses at full gallop, not a car or an airplane.


----------



## Becca

Blame Wikipedia


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> Blame Wikipedia


I will, as I do often! :lol:



blondheim said:


> Hahaha I didn't say he was Ian McKellen, but I believe he fashioned himself that way. I think that was his impression of himself.


Hahaha, gotcha.


----------



## chesapeake bay

gemächlicher, probably unhurried is closest


----------



## blondheim

Becca said:


> One also has to think about what a phrase meant to someone in Mahler's time. An example, there is a marking in the 4th symphony - 'ohne hast' - 'without haste'. When Rattle was doing this in his younger days, Berthold Goldschmidt told him (approx.) 'Consider what 'without haste' meant in the days before the automobile.' That type of thinking can lend a somewhat different perspective on Mahler's intent from how we may view it today.


I have always considered that movement 'the Violinist of Hamelin', in a way, and I think your points about the tempo are supportive of that image. Especially with Knorf's clarifications of "comfortable" and "easygoing". Also, chesapeake's "unhurried".

Please, stay a while, it sings. Stay as long as you like.


----------



## wkasimer

Does anyone have an opinion about van Zweden's 3rd with the Dallas SO? It's received some pretty positive reviews.


----------



## blondheim

I have not heard it yet, but I will give it a try and get back to you.

Okay: I have heard the first movement now and I have many thoughts. I will definitely be listening to the rest. Right off the bat, there is something military about this. Then, as if to confirm this theory, the great big trombone solo sounds like a Reveille. In my opinion, the military feeling pervades the entire movement. It begins to sound like each new line is announcing their presence at roll call before maneuvers. Then the maneuvers, which have an air of reluctant participation at first. I can't help but think this is designed because it gets more raucous as it goes own. If you accept this theory, it starts to give the impression that the 'soldiers' are snickering behind the drill sergeant's back, or slouching off. By the end, the sergeant convinces them and they put on a good show. It all seems to fuse: the uptight with the practically comical, with seriousness and self-awareness. This movement was aware that it was a production. I felt like the two swells were lacking, but I get the sense van Zweden wants it that way too. I am not sure why, but it is clearly purposeful. However, the final charge has a go-for-broke abandon that is immediately remarkable. It sounds like they are having a lot of fun.

Like the Roth, I am curious to see what one does with such an interesting first movement and worry that the grand finale will seem like it is a part of a different work. That's the hardest thing for conductors to accomplish with this symphony, I think. To both ascend through the movements and also fit the first to the last, side-by-side.

I always get excited when I hear a well-organized opening to this symphony because they make for really interesting listening experiences, whether or not I rate them highly in the end. Thanks for suggesting this one!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

blondheim said:


> I love differences of opinion.


I don't.

QED


----------



## Heck148

chesapeake bay said:


> There is a box set of Jean Martinon complete CSO recordings at Amazon and ebay


If it's the RCA CSO set, it doesn't include the Mahler 3 or 10. It's a great set of discs tho - some real treasures, best remastering of these recordings that I've heard.


----------



## Heck148

blondheim said:


> I want this set!


Contact the CSO Store....last time i was out there they had a couple sitting on the shelf!!


----------



## Knorf

The CSO store is awesome. I have picked up more than one item there that was otherwise hard to find, out of print, or just obscure. I literally bought the last available copy of the CSO "A Tribute to Pierre Boulez" 2CD* set last fall, after I was sure it was totally gone before I had ever heard of it!

Anyway, for _anything_ CSO related, even obscure, I'd definitely check there.

*This little set has some amazing gems, such as Boulez conducting _Till Eulenspiegel_, Janáčeks "Glagolitic" Mass, his little Fanfare for Solti's 80th Birthday.. incredble performances!


----------



## 89Koechel

Knorf - Your July 15th post, about pops concerts, etc. .... You do make some VALID points, about the efficacy of those pop concerts, and how they, potentially .... could "intertwine", let's say, with an enhanced interest in classical music. I'm sure, esp. in LARGER cities, that pop concerts can be prohibitively-expensive, but many of us listeners (and those of us who want to PROMULGATE classical music, further) live in somewhat-smaller venues, well ... such as Louisville. Pops concerts, here, are probably not expensive at all, and almost never (if ever) include an expensive star performer. Our Louisville O. conductor is very young (Teddy Abrams) and he schedules some interesting programs ... both of the "pops" types, and the usual repertoire. You are right, though, in saying that the usual pops audience is NOT the type that would, usually, be of the classical type ... but I've known at least a FEW people (in Louisville) who've said that a pops concert gave them at least a preliminary interest in classical music. Well, probably the division between pops and classical audiences can VARY, from place-to-place, but if a pops concert isn't expensive, and might even interest a decent NUMBER of people to investigate classical music, then ... in many cases ... I'd say it's worth it.


----------



## 89Koechel

Knorf - BTW, you mentioned that the ol' master - Rachmaninoff - can be a GRIND. OK, fair enough, and the Symphonic Dances are very-dynamic and diversified. Well, those Piano Concertos ... 2 and 3 ... still retain, for some of us, a certain HEART and exceptional, musical development. The interpretation doesn't have to be of the order of Earl Wild/Horenstein ... or Richter, or you-name-your-"poison", and we could even include Rachmaninoff, himself, in those old recordings. There are some things to be SAID, and listened-to, about Sergei's old warhorses. Well, opinions only ... and I'd like to know what a practicing musician would say, furthermore. OK?


----------



## starthrower

Knorf said:


> The CSO store is awesome. I have picked up more than one item there that was otherwise hard to find, out of print, or just obscure. I literally bought the last available copy of the CSO "A Tribute to Pierre Boulez" 2CD* set last fall, after I was sure it was totally gone before I had ever heard of it!
> 
> Anyway, for _anything_ CSO related, even obscure, I'd definitely check there.
> 
> *This little set has some amazing gems, such as Boulez conducting _Till Eulenspiegel_, Janáčeks "Glagolitic" Mass, his little Fanfare for Solti's 80th Birthday.. incredble performances!


I was just reading about that CD last night on his Wiki page. I assumed it was long gone by now. Glad you got a copy. Although Ancerl's Glagolitic Mass is a corker!


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> The CSO store is awesome. I have picked up more than one item there that was otherwise hard to find, out of print, or just obscure. I literally bought the last available copy of the CSO "A Tribute to Pierre Boulez" 2CD* set last fall, after I was sure it was totally gone before I had ever heard of it!
> 
> Anyway, for _anything_ CSO related, even obscure, I'd definitely check there.
> 
> *This little set has some amazing gems, such as Boulez conducting _Till Eulenspiegel_, Janáčeks "Glagolitic" Mass, his little Fanfare for Solti's 80th Birthday.. incredble performances!


I don't think i ever saw thst Boulez/CSO set...I'll have to see if i can score it somehow....


----------



## 89Koechel

(Karel Ancerl, in Janacek's Glagolitic Mass) - Geez, this is probably an exceptional recording, and thanks to you guys, for mentioning the CSO store! ... I'll still say that Desire DeFauw/CSO, in Franck's "Le Chasseur Maudit" is one of the best of the archives of this long-vaunted Orchestra. It's available, though, on a different label (St. Laurent). ... OK, it's back to discussions of Mahler's 3rd, and I want to listen to my Horenstein interpretation, which has both PRO and CON comments.


----------



## Heck148

89Koechel said:


> Knorf - BTW, you mentioned that the ol' master - Rachmaninoff - can be a GRIND..... Well, those Piano Concertos ... 2 and 3 ... still retain, for some of us, a certain HEART and exceptional, musical development....There are some things to be SAID, and listened-to, about Sergei's old warhorses. Well, opinions only ... and I'd like to know what a practicing musician would say, furthermore. OK?


I know that Rachmaninoff is popular with audiences, but for me, a real drag to play...if i never have to play, or hear Rach-y Sym #2, 3 or the concerti, it will be too soon...very frustrating to perform. Terribly orchestrated - thick, murky, muddy gloom. Jillions of notes, of which most are inaudible, covered by the heavy sonic murk...like middle school band music - everyone must play, all the time...ugh.
Actually, the Pag/Vars is pretty well orchestrated, not bad, he must have had on "off day"...lol...


----------



## Heck148

89Koechel said:


> ..... I'll still say that Desire DeFauw/CSO, in Franck's "Le Chasseur Maudit" is one of the best of the archives of this long-vaunted Orchestra....


Yes!! A real winner, for sure...great horns. The section was at the time ('46) headed by Helen Kotas, the first woman to hold first chair in a major US orchestra...(other than harp.)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Interesting to hear that opinion of Rachmaninoff from professional musicians, since I have always thought of him as a brilliant orchestrator. Those Symphonic Dances are quite extraordinary, and the piano concerti perhaps have the most interesting orchestral accompaniments in the genre IMO (along with Prokofiev). I agree that the 2nd symphony is not his best work (though I still like it), I much prefer the more compact, less overblown 3rd.


----------



## 89Koechel

Heck - (Rachmaninoff) - Oh, I KNOW (even as a listener) that ol' Sergei might be a true DRAG, to play, after many times. I'm not expecting a GREAT, NEW interpretation to magically, show-UP, by now. Maybe it's that even playing the piano (in Concertos 2 and 3, esp.) and BEING in an Orchestra, to accompany ... has become hardly-more than an exercise ... esp. when there've been GREAT recordings (and performances, maybe) of both, in the past. ... No doubt, that's one of the "dangers" of programming the piano concertos of Sergei, or even Beethoven, or Schumann/Grieg ... in the present and future. Many of us listeners have HEARD the great concertos for so long, and in so-many interpretations, that listeners and musicians, both ... can almost be-WEARY of them - eh? ... Well, I, for one ... could listen to (the probably forgotten) Earl Wild, and the dynamic interpretations of Mr. Horenstein, in Rachmaninoff 2 & 3, virtually all DAY, even though their collaboration goes-back to 1966. To me (and forgive me) it's still interesting to listen to Sergei, himself (in both) with Stokowski or Ormandy, from back then. Well, enough of a minority opinion, but I still find a certain Russian HEART in what Sergei devised/composed, back then. If you and others find it too-hackneyed, well, that's another opinion ... and thank you for YOURS.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> I know that Rachmaninoff is popular with audiences, but for me, a real drag to play...if i never have to play, or hear Rach-y Sym #2, 3 or the concerti, it will be too soon...very frustrating to perform. Terribly orchestrated - thick, murky, muddy gloom. Jillions of notes, of which most are inaudible, covered by the heavy sonic murk...like middle school band music - everyone must play, all the time...ugh.
> Actually, the Pag/Vars is pretty well orchestrated, not bad, he must have had on "off day"...lol...


I quite agree. His orchestration is generally quite poor, in my opinion, and his piano music is uniformly awful. For me, the concertos are nearly unlistenable, especially the 2nd (to be fair, never heard the 1st.) I walked out of a concert I was attending last fall to avoid the interminable 2nd symphony.

However, I really do love Rachmaninoff's choral music. And I think a few of the orchestra pieces, outside of the wretched symphonies, are very good, such as the _Symphonic Dances_, or _Isle of the Dead_.

But Rachmaninoff's _All-Night Vigil_ is a true masterpiece, among the greatest choral works ever.


----------



## 89Koechel

Allegro - GOOD points (in your 20:54) about the Rachmaninoff & Prokofiev Piano Concertos, and opinions 'bout Sergei R, and his Symphonies. To be honest, I've almost never favored any of Prokofiev's Pn. Concertos, except for his Third, and Rachmaninoff's Symphonies are fine ... but, maybe, not as structurally-sound, or maybe as-INSPIRED, as two of his Piano Concertos. Maybe we could say that both Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff were ... um, SPIRITUALLY-allied, most of all, to the piano. Fortunately, BOTH men could branch-out, so to speak .... Symphonic Dances, Alexander Nevsky/film score, Le Pas d'Acier, Seven, They Are Seven, Scythian Suite, etc.


----------



## Knorf

Prokofiev, on the other hand, I adore, the symphonies, the concertos, the sonatas, the ballets, the operas...I love it all.


----------



## 89Koechel

Knorf/choral works, of Sergei - Vespers? I have an old, LP recording - Sveshnikov, conducting. Darn good ... but his/Rachminoff's piano music is "uniformly awful"? ... Well, maybe, not-ENTIRELY awful, but maybe not up to the LEVEL of Schubert, Schumann, Chopin .... obviously. I only hope you can find more-amenable composers, in your musical future. Have you ever listened-to Copland's "The Tender Land"? It's great. .... OK, maybe it's time to go-forwards, with opinions of Mahler's 3rd.


----------



## 89Koechel

OK, Knorf, despite your enthusiasm ... I do NOT ADORE ol' Sergei Prokofiev, although there is MUCH of his output (um, esp, the Violin Concertos ... with Szigeti and/or Heifetz/Koussevitzky) that are exceptional. Some of his music seems "mechanistic", and pivots-on certain musical devices ... repeated. Even Shostakovich repeated certain musical devices/patterns, later on. ... Well, ANYHOO, we do share a certain respect for this BRILLIANT, Soviet composer (Prokofiev), and parts of his inspirations are still SHINING-ON, so to speak, as days and years go on. Thanks!


----------



## Knorf

Well, I might be exaggerating my dislike of Rachmaninoff's piano music a little.

Yes, back to Mahler 3! Greatest use of a children's choir in the repertoire! 

(It is, but of course, so much more than that.)


----------



## starthrower

89Koechel said:


> (Karel Ancerl, in Janacek's Glagolitic Mass) - Geez, this is probably an exceptional recording, and thanks to you guys, for mentioning the CSO store!


Lots of Ancerl CDs here for cheap.
https://www.importcds.com/search?q=karel+ancerl&mod=AP


----------



## 89Koechel

starthrower- (Ancerl/CDs) - Thanks! ... and make NO mistake, some of us know 'bout Karel A, in the Dvorak Symphonies, and their best recordings! Geez, I even have a VHS video, about Ancerl and his legacy. ... Thanks again!


----------



## 89Koechel

Knorf - "... exaggerting my dislike" - Sure, sometimes familiarity can breed CONTEMPT, eh? Also, thanks for "Greatest use of a children's choir ..." I should, truly, listen to MORE interpretations of Mahler's 3rd, no matter it's limitations. Mahler could use such a decisive use of the voice, in many compositions. ... A favorite of many (not to belabor the obvious) in Kath. Ferrier, in the closing section of "Das Lied von der Erde", from some many times ago ... a "final statement", so to speak, from a person dying from cancer, but still in GREAT voice, in a sort-of "final statement" from a composer who didn't see TOO many days, before him. ... OK, enough of THAT, so let's listen, more, to Mahler's 3rd, in your all's opinions - OK?


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Prokofiev, on the other hand, I adore, the symphonies, the concertos, the sonatas, the ballets, the operas...I love it all.


Yup, same here. Prokofieff is great, love playing it, great listening as well. P was a great orchestrator....he loved the low choirs of winds, low clarinets and horns, bassoons, trombones, tuba....but he always maintains a clear texture...I still love Peter & the Wolf, even tho I've played it literally hundreds of times...


----------



## Heck148

Two keys for Mahler 3, for me, are the big trombone solo in mvt I - huge, biggest in the rep for the 'bone; and the posthorn solo in mvt III....Love the CSO recordings with Friedman and Herseth, great players, Bernstein II is really fine also - Alessi, Phil Smith....for me, a recording of M3 cannot recover if these solos are lackluster or wimpy.


----------



## blondheim

I have always thought Rachmaninoff's 1st symphony is best. The Previn/LSO recording is raw, quick and searing. The Maazel/Berliner would be a close runner-up for me. I agree that Rach. is melodramatic, maybe even a little campy, but that is what I love about him. A sort of Baz Luhrmann of classical composers.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> Yup, same here. Prokofieff is great, love playing it, great listening as well. P was a great orchestrator....he loved the low choirs of winds, low clarinets and horns, bassoons, trombones, tuba....but he always maintains a clear texture...I still love Peter & the Wolf, even tho I've played it literally hundreds of times...


Yes! _Peter and the Wolf_ is a terrific piece; I'm never sick of it. Prokofiev was an incredible orchestrator, so distinctive and imaginative, but always clear and always him. Everyone gets great parts.

Mahler, of course, I'd make similar comments about! Take Mahler 3 for example, the last movement is as perfectly orchestrated as I could imagine.


----------



## blondheim

Heck148 said:


> Two keys for Mahler 3, for me, are the big trombone solo in mvt I - huge, biggest in the rep for the 'bone; and the posthorn solo in mvt III....Love the CSO recordings with Friedman and Herseth, great players, Bernstein II is really fine also - Alessi, Phil Smith....for me, a recording of M3 cannot recover if these solos are lackluster or wimpy.


The big trombone solo really shows you what kind of recording you are listening to. I don't like it too stately and clean, but any conception can work if the rest of the symphony supports it.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Here’s a fun fact about Mahler’s 3rd you might have not have noticed - the opening theme of the first movement is based (whether intentionally or not) is based on the big “Ode to Joy” inspired theme from the finale of Brahms’s 1st symphony. (da-DAAAAHH-da-da-DAAAHHH-da) I just found that out from Wiki. It makes perfect sense now that I know it, but I never made the connection!


----------



## blondheim

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Here's a fun fact about Mahler's 3rd you might have not have noticed - the opening theme of the first movement is based (whether intentionally or not) is based on the big "Ode to Joy" inspired theme from the finale of Brahms's 1st symphony. (da-DAAAAHH-da-da-DAAAHHH-da) I just found that out from Wiki. It makes perfect sense now that I know it, but I never made the connection!


I am not familiar enough with Brahms to have caught that, but great observation. Even more incentive to pull out that Jochum set.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Mahler, of course, I'd make similar comments about! Take Mahler 3 for example, the last movement is as perfectly orchestrated as I could imagine.


Mahler was indeed a great orchestrator...consider Sym #9 and DLvDE....amazing....the colors, the clarity....even the loudest parts are crystal clear, everything audible, (given a great orchestra). I'm sure his career as a major conductor gave him the perspective on orchestration...what sounds, what doesn't....he was right on the podium, ringside seat, so to speak.


----------



## Heck148

blondheim said:


> The big trombone solo really shows you what kind of recording you are listening to. I don't like it too stately and clean, but any conception can work if the rest of the symphony supports it.


I love the Levine/CSO recording - Jay Friedman plays with a big booming, husky sound...he was really putting some air thru the horn!! Joe Alessi sounds great on Bernstein/NYPO II also...very expressive, terrific playing.


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Here's a fun fact about Mahler's 3rd you might have not have noticed - the opening theme of the first movement is based (whether intentionally or not) is based on the big "Ode to Joy" inspired theme from the finale of Brahms's 1st symphony. (da-DAAAAHH-da-da-DAAAHHH-da) I just found that out from Wiki. It makes perfect sense now that I know it, but I never made the connection!


I'm surprised a devoted Brahmsian like you never caught that before in your recent Mahler 3 binging. It jumped at me immediately as one of the more obvious examples of homage in all of Mahler's work.


----------



## Knorf

Do we know for sure the similarity between the two themes was intentional? After all, Brahms is in major, Mahler in minor, among many differences, and the resemblance fades after a couple bars.


----------



## Enthusiast

I think it was not intended ... and as you say the resemblance is transitory and superficial. I must confess I rarely hear such resemblances unless the resemblance goes to harmony as well as a bit of melody.


----------



## blondheim

Heck148 said:


> Mahler was indeed a great orchestrator...consider Sym #9 and DLvDE....amazing....the colors, the clarity....even the loudest parts are crystal clear, everything audible, (given a great orchestra). I'm sure his career as a major conductor gave him the perspective on orchestration...what sounds, what doesn't....he was right on the podium, ringside seat, so to speak.


This comment is even more interesting considering that he never had a chance to revise either of those two works you mentioned. I am sure through performing them the first few times even more clarity would have been gained.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> This comment is even more interesting considering that he never had a chance to revise either of those two works you mentioned. I am sure through performing them the first few times even more clarity would have been gained.


How I envy you, being able to study in detail and perform such monumental work.

Mahler's orchestration is absolutely mind-blowing. Despite the polyphonic complexity of his symphonies, most conductors can make good sounds out of it without much effort (I love 4th for some of the most heavenly sounds Mahler created). Personally, he is a better orchestrator than Wagner.

Holding a Mahler symphony all together is very difficult just by hearing it. The structural form of his symphonies is often too complicated. The only conductor who totally convinced me of the structural unity of Mahler is Klemperer but unfortunately, he didn't record the whole cycle. The way he homogenized the dynamics and decolorized the sound help me focus on structural aspect of the work, which I find very interesting.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Delete for double posting.


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> Do we know for sure the similarity between the two themes was intentional? After all, Brahms is in major, Mahler in minor, among many differences, and the resemblance fades after a couple bars.


I definitely don't know for sure. I never even thought of the possibility that it might be just a coincidence-like I said, it jumped at me immediately, and I made the connection with the "Frère Jacques" theme being transposed into the minor in the 1st symphony, so I never thought it terribly odd in that regard. But of course, it could be total coincidence. If anyone knows of a direct source on the matter, I would love to read it.


----------



## blondheim

Even just by reading the scores, I can imagine trying all sorts of things with the tempo and coloring. Oh, to have a symphony orchestra to play with.

I find it interesting to compare him with Bruckner, as well, as an orchestrator.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

blondheim said:


> Even just by reading the scores, I can imagine trying all sorts of things with the tempo and coloring. Oh, to have a symphony orchestra to play with.
> 
> I find it interesting to compare him with Bruckner, as well, as an orchestrator.


Bruckner is more structured and efficient than Mahler, but the range of orchestral color is fairly limited. I would prefer Bruckner to be played with a homogenous, organ like sonority whereas in Mahler, I prefer more translucency and separation, a kaleidoscopic sound.


----------



## Barbebleu

I just acquired the Horenstein Mahler 3, also the Kletzki Mahler 4 and the Mengelberg Mahler 4. Now I just need to acquire the time to listen to them!:lol:


----------



## blondheim

Barbebleu said:


> I just acquired the Horenstein Mahler 3, also the Kletzki Mahler 4 and the Mengelberg Mahler 4. Now I just need to acquire the time to listen to them!:lol:


Great choices! You won't regret any of those three, I promise you. I believe Horenstein has the best 3rd and the Mengelberg is a contender for best recording of that symphony too, so long as you don't care about the sound as I don't.


----------



## Barbebleu

blondheim said:


> Great choices! You won't regret any of those three, I promise you. I believe Horenstein has the best 3rd and the Mengelberg is a contender for best recording of that symphony too, so long as you don't care about the sound as I don't.


Or Mengelberg's idiosyncratic approach to tempi!


----------



## blondheim

You say idiosyncratic, I hear expressive.


----------



## Barbebleu

blondheim said:


> You say idiosyncratic, I hear expressive.


I presume you're replying to me from another thread Blondie? :lol:

Btw, I like idiosyncratic. Glenn Gould, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Josephine Foster (google her!), Albert Ayler. I could go on but I'll spare you all the pain.


----------



## blondheim

Glenn Gould? Glenn Yarbrough.

I also like idiosyncratic.


----------



## Barbebleu

Never one to shun the limelight then?


----------



## 89Koechel

OK, ladies & gents - I'm still trying to assimilate ALL of the opinions, 'bout Mahler's 3rd .... esp. those that pertain to the Kiev-born master - Jascha Horenstein. I think there was ONE comment - "bland" - about JH's interpretation ... but blondheim, flamencosketches, Barbebleu and others have contributed truly POSITIVE opinions, about this still-famous interpretation. Well, I've dubbed (and used a software program, to alleviate the ticks & pops) the old, Nonesuch 2-LP set, and can simply say that this is probably the BEST-BALANCED of all recordings. Sure, I'd like to listen to Boulez, Kurt H Adler, Haitink and others ... but it's possible that in the LONG run, the JH/Horenstein approach might be the best, after all. Eh?


----------



## 89Koechel

Barbebleu - Albert Ayler!! ... Wow, he of those late-'60s recordings, on the ol' LP source - ESP (and/or etc.). Don't forget Archie Shepp (although, IMO, he was never a GREAT improviser), or the late Ornette Coleman (again, never crazy 'bout his innovations, despite his great intentions). Well, not to sound ludicrous, but if you (or others) want to go back to the best Charlie Parker recordings - those on the old Dial label, around 1947, reissued on Spotlite - listen-to a man named Lucky Thompson, on tenor sax. In his way, I think Lucky could put Albert, Archie and others to almost-SHAME, in originality.


----------



## blondheim

89Koechel said:


> OK, ladies & gents - I'm still trying to assimilate ALL of the opinions, 'bout Mahler's 3rd .... esp. those that pertain to the Kiev-born master - Jascha Horenstein. I think there was ONE comment - "bland" - about JH's interpretation ... but blondheim, flamencosketches, Barbebleu and others have contributed truly POSITIVE opinions, about this still-famous interpretation. Well, I've dubbed (and used a software program, to alleviate the ticks & pops) the old, Nonesuch 2-LP set, and can simply say that this is probably the BEST-BALANCED of all recordings. Sure, I'd like to listen to Boulez, Kurt H Adler, Haitink and others ... but it's possible that in the LONG run, the JH/Horenstein approach might be the best, after all. Eh?


It is as simple as: when I listen the Horenstein recording, I feel better than any of the others. I have a bigger reaction. I have positive experiences with many of them, but if I could only have one, that's it. It still lifts me during the big moments. I actually get that rush you can get from listening to really great music. It gets harder and harder to get that rush as I get older, and the old tricks all get familiar, so anything that still does it is precious to me.


----------



## Barbebleu

89Koechel said:


> Barbebleu - Albert Ayler!! ... Wow, he of those late-'60s recordings, on the ol' LP source - ESP (and/or etc.). Don't forget Archie Shepp (although, IMO, he was never a GREAT improviser), or the late Ornette Coleman (again, never crazy 'bout his innovations, despite his great intentions). Well, not to sound ludicrous, but if you (or others) want to go back to the best Charlie Parker recordings - those on the old Dial label, around 1947, reissued on Spotlite - listen-to a man named Lucky Thompson, on tenor sax. In his way, I think Lucky could put Albert, Archie and others to almost-SHAME, in originality.


Yes I've heard Bird's Dial stuff and I concur. Excellent stuff but I wouldn't trade my Ayler or my Coleman but I can certainly include Mr.Parker in my listening. Sorry to op for digressing.


----------



## 89Koechel

Oh, gosh, Barbebleu, but NO need to be sorry, for digressing. Yes, the Ft. Worth man/Ornette Coleman ... was a true improvisor, and the late Whitney Balliett, in the pages of The New Yorker, interviewed him, and started to understand his, unique style, in those days when musicians were still TRYING to escape the influence of Mr. Charlie Parker. As for "Bird", and his Dial recordings, of 1947, these are probably the BEST examples of the jazz/bop era, as Charlie, Bud Powell, T. Monk, Dizzy Gillespie and others DEVELOPED another of great, jazz directions. Is there any doubt about THIS, anymore?


----------



## 89Koechel

Thanks, blondheim ... and are there, ANY refutations of what JH/Horenstein accomplished, in the studio, back then? It's SO-great that JH's nephew - Misha Horenstein - has contributed so-MUCH to the great catalogue of Pristine Classical, based-in France. Man, but I'd still like to investigate what Boulez accomplished, in his recording. There've been criticisms, back-and-forth, about Boulez and his Mahler recordings. One of his EARLIEST recordings - in Debussy's "La Mer" - remains a true indication of his dynamism, and his sense of "repose", let's say ... in a balance of musical interpretations. Such a WORTHY successor he was, after the "George Szell days" ended .... IMO.


----------



## 89Koechel

Thanks for the positive notes/likes from you, blondheim and Knorf! Well, should I go-ahead and FIND Boulez, in the Mahler 3rd? ... or maybe, even Horenstein, from the 1970s, was GOOD-ENOUGH, in his entirety/totality? Well, I "gotta" be honest, and Jascha H was almost-unassailable, let's say, in his unspectacular, yet-wonderful-enough way with the ol' Mahler 3rd. Is there any reason, moreover, to investigate Mr. Lenny Bernstein, or others, in this Symphony? In other words, could we simply "close the book" on Mahler 3rd, with knowing JH/LSO? ... Should we go further, or what? I'm just asking ....


----------



## blondheim

I don't believe we should ever close the book on anything. Even if the Horenstein is the best I have heard, there is still everything I haven't heard yet to conquer. I plan on exploring these symphonies, and those of many other composers, for the rest of my life.

Through this thread alone I have explored Roth, van Zweden, re-discovered Boulez, and finally had a chance to check out Martinon. Boulez was already in my top tier, and none of the three new ones has so far replaced my top selection, but that could change. I can see the Martinon recording growing on me already. I do not regret hearing any of them though. My appreciation for new interpretations always leads me deeper into the work. I will pull them out again the next time Mahler 3 comes around.


----------



## 89Koechel

Explorations and discoveries, blondheim - yes, indeed. We should always be HAPPY that we've been given such "avenues" to find the best recordings of virtually-ANY classical work. Certain works of Schubert were NEVER heard by, Schubert, himself ... Mozart died a pauper ... and Beethoven went-DEAF, so we can know (?) that he only-heard the best of his "late period", in HIS OWN MIND (or soul - eh?). Every time one of us finds another, interesting recording/interpretation of a classical work, we are truly fortunate to be able to enjoy it, or them. So, I hope that we are not "jaded", nor "spoiled" listeners, these days ... and I don't think we are, but it's so wonderful to enjoy what we have - eh? .... Thanks, also, for mentioning Roth & van Zweden - two men that I'd never heard-of, before. As for Boulez, we're still rediscovering his legacy - geez, why did he ever persist in composing, when great classical compositions ... after the many greats (Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann ... or the 20th-Century gentlemen ... Bartok, Copland, Sibelius, Walton, Nielsen, et. al.) had already shown original WAYS, that could hardly be-surpassed? Shouldn't he have KNOWN that the Schoenberg/minimal way (um, atonal, if you will) would lead NOT very-far, at all, ultimately? ... And, finally, why I am asking YOU this question, about Schoenberg, and the increasing-barrenness of certain classical compositions, from back then? Hope you'll forgive my FORAY into a certain area, and hardly anyone should be expected to ANSWER it, I think, unless they're brave-enough to try.


----------



## flamencosketches

89Koechel said:


> Explorations and discoveries, blondheim - yes, indeed. We should always be HAPPY that we've been given such "avenues" to find the best recordings of virtually-ANY classical work. Certain works of Schubert were NEVER heard by, Schubert, himself ... Mozart died a pauper ... and Beethoven went-DEAF, so we can know (?) that he only-heard the best of his "late period", in HIS OWN MIND (or soul - eh?). Every time one of us finds another, interesting recording/interpretation of a classical work, we are truly fortunate to be able to enjoy it, or them. So, I hope that we are not "jaded", nor "spoiled" listeners, these days ... and I don't think we are, but it's so wonderful to enjoy what we have - eh? .... Thanks, also, for mentioning Roth & van Zweden - two men that I'd never heard-of, before. As for Boulez, we're still rediscovering his legacy - geez, why did he ever persist in composing, when great classical compositions ... after the many greats (Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann ... or the 20th-Century gentlemen ... Bartok, Copland, Sibelius, Walton, Nielsen, et. al.) had already shown original WAYS, that could hardly be-surpassed? *Shouldn't he have KNOWN that the Schoenberg/minimal way (um, atonal, if you will) would lead NOT very-far, at all, ultimately?* ... And, finally, why I am asking YOU this question, about Schoenberg, and the increasing-barrenness of certain classical compositions, from back then? Hope you'll forgive my FORAY into a certain area, and hardly anyone should be expected to ANSWER it, I think, unless they're brave-enough to try.


It is best to be quiet about things one knows little about.

In any case, they said the same thing about Mahler during his lifetime: "he's a great conductor, sure, but why does he ever persist in composing?"


----------



## flamencosketches

Dimitri Mitropoulos conducting Mahler 3 in under 80 minutes. Not going to listen to it all now, but I'm curious; what's the story here? Super fast, huge cuts, both...?


----------



## wkasimer

flamencosketches said:


> Dimitri Mitropoulos conducting Mahler 3 in under 80 minutes. Not going to listen to it all now, but I'm curious; what's the story here? Super fast, huge cuts, both...?


As I recall - I listened to it only once - extensive cuts.


----------



## Enthusiast

89Koechel said:


> Explorations and discoveries, blondheim - yes, indeed. We should always be HAPPY that we've been given such "avenues" to find the best recordings of virtually-ANY classical work. Certain works of Schubert were NEVER heard by, Schubert, himself ... Mozart died a pauper ... and Beethoven went-DEAF, so we can know (?) that he only-heard the best of his "late period", in HIS OWN MIND (or soul - eh?). Every time one of us finds another, interesting recording/interpretation of a classical work, we are truly fortunate to be able to enjoy it, or them. So, I hope that we are not "jaded", nor "spoiled" listeners, these days ... and I don't think we are, but it's so wonderful to enjoy what we have - eh? .... Thanks, also, for mentioning Roth & van Zweden - two men that I'd never heard-of, before. As for Boulez, we're still rediscovering his legacy - geez, why did he ever persist in composing, when great classical compositions ... after the many greats (Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann ... or the 20th-Century gentlemen ... Bartok, Copland, Sibelius, Walton, Nielsen, et. al.) had already shown original WAYS, that could hardly be-surpassed? Shouldn't he have KNOWN that the Schoenberg/minimal way (um, atonal, if you will) would lead NOT very-far, at all, ultimately? ... And, finally, why I am asking YOU this question, about Schoenberg, and the increasing-barrenness of certain classical compositions, from back then? Hope you'll forgive my FORAY into a certain area, and hardly anyone should be expected to ANSWER it, I think, unless they're brave-enough to try.


Call this brave, if you like. It is saddening to read that you - so sensible in you attitude to most music - have closed your ears to much of the really great music of the last century. I suppose you are not alone in that but I still feel a little sorry for you because of what you are missing or have missed. Why not accept the advice of so many serious classical music listeners and critics (it is a little arrogant to think that you hear the truth while they are deluded, don't you think?) and keep your ears open in the hope that one day the composers you deride will make sense to you?

Meanwhile, BTW, Mozart did not die a pauper. His income for the time was very high but he wasn't very good at holding on to his money. Still, he had no trouble earning more.


----------



## 89Koechel

Enthusiast - Excellent post!! ... but, NO, NO, NO, I would never close my ears to the great music, esp. of the LAST Century, my friend! I still ENJOY listening to Schoenberg's Tranfigured Night ... or Berg's chamber music, or his exceptional Violin Concerto (dedicated to the memory of an "angel", as he mentioned - Manon Gropius, being the lady) or other parts of the Viennese Three. Maybe I should've said that I'm still trying to CORRELATE the Schoenberg/Berg/Webern forays into atonal music, with a certain predilection, let's say, for the more-tonal works, even of the early parts of the 20th Century. ... Good Lord, I still like the brief (but memorable) tonal compositions of .. um, Roy Harris .. or the exceptional (tonal) contributions of Sir William Walton, and so many OTHERS, of the Schoenberg/Berg/Webern time. To be honest, I still think that Stravinsky, himself, reached his "apotheosis" in the "great three"/Rite of Spring, Petrouchka & of course, Firebird (even he regarded that latter as ... um .. "schmaltz"?) Well, Igor S went-on to numerous, OTHER compositions, and I respect many of THOSE ... but maybe I might say that his greatest inspirations lay-with those first 3. ... Thank you, also, for that info 'bout ol' Wolfgang (Mozart) - yes, esp, in HIS time (maybe being arrogant? - I don't know), it's sure that he wasn't a tycoon, nor a capitalist, at holding ONTO money. To me, it's still a wonder that Mozart, Schubert and others could even hold-onto the limited moneys of their time, while fulfilling the compositional requests, of many. Well, we'll always be ALERT, as to what these great men created, in the musical ways of the time ... and, of course, the durability of the same. Hope you know what I mean! ... and thanks, again.


----------



## 89Koechel

Well, again, this thread is supposed to be about an early part of Mahler's inspiration - Third Symphony. I'd still like to listen to Boulez and others, and thanks to many, for their recommendations. ... To be STRICTLY-honest, I still regard Mahler's 4th as his most-succinct, and in many ways, most-heartfelt contribution to the Symphonic legacy. Maybe it's obvious, by now, that the LONGER Symphonies, incl. the 3rd, or 7th, or 8th ... and the great 2nd - have their, own strengths and DIFFERENCES, from each other.


----------



## blondheim

A little of both unfortunately. Still interesting.

Edit: This is about Mitropoulos Mahler 3, so sorry.


----------



## Kiki

I'm not exactly a fan of Mahler 3. I sat down and listened to this only because I've always been interested in Mariss Jansons. I also wonder why it took 11 years for this 2010 recording to be released; perhaps because it was recorded only 10 months after Jansons' Concertgebouw recording, and they sound very similar, so it could be a marketing decision to avoid unnecessary competition, but I'm only guessing.

Like the Concertgebouw recording, this Mahler 3 sounds beautiful, ingenuous and lucid. There is little emphasis on grandeur or anything heavenly, nor is there any stare into the abyss (Horenstein, anyone?). It is a relatively straightforward account like the Concertgebouw recording, but it does sound slightly tauter which I like more.

There are also some amazing pianissimo. Did that transfigure into sublimity? Maybe it did… but I was simply marvelled by the beauty of it, the "beauty of the soul", with little additives.

The strings sound a little dry, but the brass is awesome. They swing! But then, so does the Concertgebouw brass. Overall, the Concertgebouw's playing sounds more glorious in every department.

The orchestral balance is excellent, showing a great deal of polyphonic details. The Bavarian recording is transparent, in fact much more so than the Concertgebouw recording, although it sounds a bit drier next to the warmer (or murkier if you don't like it) Concertgebouw acoustics.

I sat through the whole recording in one go on the first attempt. Maybe I like it more than I think I do.

Any comments on this recording?

There is also an Oslo M3 from Mariss Jansons. Any comments on that?


----------



## Radames

Levine ruined this piece for me. His live performance in Boston in 2008 was so awesome that recordings never fully satisfy anymore. Bernstein's 2 recordings are really good though.


----------



## Merl

Kiki said:


> I'm not exactly a fan of Mahler 3. I sat down and listened to this only because I've always been interested in Mariss Jansons. I also wonder why it took 11 years for this 2010 recording to be released; perhaps because it was recorded only 10 months after Jansons' Concertgebouw recording, and they sound very similar, so it could be a marketing decision to avoid unnecessary competition, but I'm only guessing.
> 
> Like the Concertgebouw recording, this Mahler 3 sounds beautiful, ingenuous and lucid. There is little emphasis on grandeur or anything heavenly, nor is there any stare into the abyss (Horenstein, anyone?). It is a relatively straightforward account like the Concertgebouw recording, but it does sound slightly tauter which I like more.
> 
> There are also some amazing pianissimo. Did that transfigure into sublimity? Maybe it did… but I was simply marvelled by the beauty of it, the "beauty of the soul", with little additives.
> 
> The strings sound a little dry, but the brass is awesome. They swing! But then, so does the Concertgebouw brass. Overall, the Concertgebouw's playing sounds more glorious in every department.
> 
> The orchestral balance is excellent, showing a great deal of polyphonic details. The Bavarian recording is transparent, in fact much more so than the Concertgebouw recording, although it sounds a bit drier next to the warmer (or murkier if you don't like it) Concertgebouw acoustics.
> 
> I sat through the whole recording in one go on the first attempt. Maybe I like it more than I think I do.
> 
> Any comments on this recording?
> 
> There is also an Oslo M3 from Mariss Jansons. Any comments on that?


Like you, Kiki, I'm not a huge fan of Mahler's 3rd but I like this Jansons recording so it must be decent, as I can rarely sit thru most M3s. I agree it's a bit dry in the strings but yes the brass is lovely. I've got to admit to liking most of Jansons' Mahler (I really like his Concertgebouw 1st btw). It's not emotionally draining but I'd call Jansons' way with most Mahler 'classy'.


----------



## Heck148

Radames said:


> Levine ruined this piece for me. His live performance in Boston in 2008 was so awesome that recordings never fully satisfy anymore. Bernstein's 2 recordings are really good though.


Levine's CSO recording is awesome...overall, my favorite.


----------



## brucknerian1874

Suffice to say I got to know the piece through this classic recording on double audio cassette and hadn't really felt a pressing need to look much further.







However, I did pick this up as a download in the days of the 'original' eMusic. I think it equally fine.


----------



## Kiki

Merl said:


> Like you, Kiki, I'm not a huge fan of Mahler's 3rd but I like this Jansons recording so it must be decent, as I can rarely sit thru most M3s. I agree it's a bit dry in the strings but yes the brass is lovely. I've got to admit to liking most of Jansons' Mahler (I really like his Concertgebouw 1st btw). It's not emotionally draining but I'd call Jansons' way with most Mahler 'classy'.


"Classy" is a good word to describe Jansons' Mahler. It is in general non-sensationalistic, meticulous in details, appropriately accentuated and idiomatic, while it can still blow the roof off when required, e.g. his Bavarian M7.

Although I enjoy some idiosyncratic Mahler, e.g. Scherchen, Jansons' is a different kind of Mahler that also bears reward, especially upon repeated and attentive listening.


----------



## vincula

Kiki said:


> "Classy" is a good word to describe Jansons' Mahler. It is in general non-sensationalistic, meticulous in details, appropriately accentuated and idiomatic, while it can still blow the roof off when required, e.g. his Bavarian M7.
> 
> Although I enjoy some idiosyncratic Mahler, e.g. Scherchen, Jansons' is a different kind of Mahler that also bears reward, especially upon repeated and attentive listening.


It reminds a bit of how I feel when I come back to the EMI Bertini box. I'd say _classy_ and _classical_, as he emphasizes the classical side of Mahler where other focus more on his romantic one. We're all blessed with different flavours. There's an ample palette of colours on any Mahler canvas!

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## wkasimer

Kiki said:


> Any comments on this recording?


I listened to it last night. An excellent Mahler 3rd, very well recorded and played. Sonically, I think that it's better then Jansons' RCO recording. My only negative is Stutzmann, a singer I've never really liked - I tend to dislike that sort of blowsy, overvibrant mezzo sound.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Count me as a HUGE fan of Mahler's 3rd (one of my favorite symphonies from any composer). Here are a few favorite performances:


----------



## Enthusiast

It has maybe been mentioned somewhere in the 25 pages of this thread, but it is worth mentioning again: the live *Martinon *recording with the Chicago SO is a really excellent one. I find it as good as any other that I have heard and I have heard a great number - I haven't seen a recommendation to one in the last few pages that I haven't heard a few times and I am a big fan of both the Horenstein and the Jansons recordings.


----------



## Heck148

Enthusiast said:


> It has maybe been mentioned somewhere in the 25 pages of this thread, but it is worth mentioning again: the live *Martinon *recording with the Chicago SO is a really excellent one.....


I always recommend the Martinon/CSO one..it is really excellent and the finale is the best I've ever heard...
It's a live performance recording...can't imagine how it sounded live, in the hall...must have been thrilling.


----------



## Azol

Does anyone know why Chailly hasn't recorded M3 with Gewandhaus Orchestra in his series of video performances available from Accentus on Blu-ray/DVD? I'm enjoying most of the series and can't help but wonder how successful it might have been considering Chailly's M3 on Decca?


----------

