# What do you think of Boulez's Mahler?



## flamencosketches

To piggyback on DavidA's interesting series of threads on the great Mahler conductors Tennstedt, Bernstein, and Rattle, I wanted to pose another question of the TC community:

What do you think of Pierre Boulez's Mahler?

It seems that Boulez, like the other names I mentioned, is more divisive than most, both as a conductor in general and more specifically as a Mahlerian. Some love his clarity, others think his approach to Mahler lacks emotion or flexibility. 

Personally, I haven't heard much, but I love what I have heard. He treats Mahler like a 20th century composer, which of course he was. In his recordings I'm always hearing details that I've never heard in others.


----------



## mbhaub

It's a variable set - like a lot of others. Some highs, some lows. The orchestral precision is phenomenal, the choice of orchestras as good as it gets, the recorded sound excellent. But very often I am reminded of that quip about him when he went to New York: The Iceman Cometh. There's more to Mahler than just getting all the notes right, and his emotional restraint is sometimes a handicap. His method works well with 5, 6, 7 and even 9. There are times in the 2nd that I just wish he would let his hair down and let loose! It's not my favorite Mahler, but it works well enough for many people. Kind of like Tchaikovsky: do you want all the emotions raw and exposed? then get Bernstein. You want more control and restrain, then Jarvi is your man.


----------



## Knorf

You won't be surprised to hear me advocate strongly for Boulez's Mahler. It was all very divisive when released, but it seems to me it has earned reasonably broad acceptance since then. It is certainly far less sentimental overall than say Bernstein, but never unmusical or unemotional.

First of all, Boulez's recording of _Das klagende Lied_ (the first one with the LSO) remains a reference recording. It's superb, and unmatched still. Boulez's Mahler 3 is very close to being my favorite No. 3, and I turn to it often. I recently listened to No. 6 and still think it's one of the best. Same with No. 9. But I really have no significant reservations about any of Boulez's Mahler. The weakest is probably No. 7, but not to the degree of being unrecommendable.


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> You won't be surprised to hear me advocate strongly for Boulez's Mahler. It was all very divisive when released, but it seems to me it has earned reasonably broad acceptance since then. It is certainly far less sentimental overall than say Bernstein, but never unmusical or unemotional.
> 
> First of all, Boulez's recording of _Das klagende Lied_ (the first one with the LSO) remains a reference recording. It's superb, and unmatched still. Boulez's Mahler 3 is very close to being my favorite No. 3, and I turn to it often. I recently listened to No. 6 and still think it's one of the best. Same with No. 9. But I really have no significant reservations about any of Boulez's Mahler. The weakest is probably No. 7, but not to the degree of being unrecommendable.


I bought his Mahler 6. Should be coming to me soon and I'm very much looking forward to hearing it. The 6th, I'm afraid to admit, is a symphony I've had trouble fully understanding-sometimes it completely bowls me over, other times I get little out of it. Interesting that you say the 7th is the weakest, I've heard others declare it a strong point of his cycle and indeed I was just looking at buying it the other day

I've heard a good many people trash Boulez's Mahler 8 on the grounds that Boulez himself disliked the symphony and "only recorded it to complete his cycle". A fairly well known critic who writes for Forbes wrote something along those lines on his survey of Mahler 8th recordings, and when I asked him for a source, he told me he'd read it somewhere but couldn't link me to any reading material that corroborates this. Anyway, as Boulez has recorded the 8th multiple times, as early as 1975 (or earlier) with the BBC SO, I have doubts about this claim, and I am curious to hear his DG account. Maybe others here might be able to weigh in on this...? I am genuinely curious what Boulez would have thought of the 8th symphony, beyond any questions of whether his interpretation of it is worth hearing.

Finally, I think it's high time I track down his Klagende Lied. I don't have a recording of that at all.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

All I have is his newer DG album of Mahler Lieder with Quasthoff and van Otter, which I enjoy quite a bit.


----------



## bz3

His set is my favorite overall, but far from perfect. I like him in 3, 4, and 9 a great deal, and find his middle period symphonies a worthy addition but none coming close to the best interpretations. The lieder is top notch, DLVDE worth hearing for the baritone but some dislike the work performed this way (I am relatively agnostic as DLVDE is not among my favorite Mahler). Oh and the Adagio of the 10th is very fine.


----------



## Knorf

flamencosketches said:


> Interesting that you say the 7th is the weakest, I've heard others declare it a strong point of his cycle and indeed I was just looking at buying it the other day


Well, I mean, heck, if you're interested, go for it. It definitely doesn't suck, quite the contrary. It's just further from my own absolute favorites than the others. I know commentators call it the highlight, but it isn't for me. This is one where I _do_ find Boulez a bit stiff, like he can't quite believe in the last movement. Compared to Bernstein or Fischer or Abbado, it's not just that competitive for me. But, as I said, it's still very good.



> I've heard a good many people trash Boulez's Mahler 8 on the grounds that Boulez himself disliked the symphony and "only recorded it to complete his cycle"...I am genuinely curious what Boulez would have thought of the 8th symphony, beyond any questions of whether his interpretation of it is worth hearing.


I think Boulez never would have recorded anything he didn't believe in that late in his career. He had no trouble saying no by then. But I don't know what he might have said or written about it.

Also, it's hardly necessary to like something to perform it well. I, as a professional bassoonist, have to play stuff I dislike all the time, but I must, as my job, play it well enough that no one would ever know! I've gotten praise for my performances of stuff I hated, so I know I can pull it off. No one can read minds. Telepathy isn't real. We performers have to create the scenario, where audience will connect to the music, using physical means; whatever is in our head is mainly "hey, don't screw this up."

Anyway, I found Boulez's Mahler 8 to be quite good. Admittedly, I don't own it, because I was not that into the 8th when it came out and I didn't feel like I needed more recordings of it, as good as it is. But I'm much more into the 8th now, so maybe I will get it sometime.



> Finally, I think it's high time I track down his Klagende Lied. I don't have a recording of that at all.


YES! Be sure to get the Boulez recording with the LSO, on Sony, _not_ the DG remake. The latter just isn't quite as good.


----------



## Merl

OT: hit and miss


----------



## flamencosketches

Merl said:


> OT: hit and miss


What are some of the hits for you, Merl?


----------



## Heck148

I have Boulez' Mahler #1 and #9...both very good...His CSO #9 is one of the very best..


----------



## wkasimer

bz3 said:


> The lieder is top notch, DLVDE worth hearing for the baritone but some dislike the work performed this way


??? There's no baritone on Boulez's DLVDE.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> I have Boulez' Mahler #1 and #9...both very good...His CSO #9 is one of the very best..


Hey! We agree on something!

(Just kidding, I know we agree on lots of stuff. For example, make I take from your user handle that you play on a Heckel? I play on an old Heckel bassoon and contrabassoon; I just adore the Heckel sound!)

I think the only reason I haven't bought the Boulez Mahler box is that I bought so many of them already individually, and on SACD. Not all of them are my favorite, but none of them have disappointed me, either, and I listen to those I have pretty frequently, especially the Third.


----------



## Merl

flamencosketches said:


> What are some of the hits for you, Merl?


I like the 1st, 6th and (to a lesser degree) the 9th but the 2nd and 5th leave me cold. Tbh, I've not played them in years. Maybe I should.


----------



## flamencosketches

Merl said:


> I like the 1st, 6th and (to a lesser degree) the 9th but the 2nd and 5th leave me cold. Tbh, I've not played them in years. Maybe I should.


I can only speak for myself, of course, but I loved Boulez's 5th. A damn fine recording. But I'm afraid to admit that we may have different preferences in Mahler. I found that the Honeck Mahler 1 which bowled you over left me rather cold. But I'm picky with Mahler 1.

In either case, you might owe it to yourself to give Boulez's Mahler another shot. If nothing else maybe you'll hear something you never noticed before in eg. the 5th. That's how I felt listening the other day, even though I'd heard that recording before.


----------



## Knorf

With Boulez, you'll almost always hear something you never heard before! Some people like that; some don't. 

Yep, I like it.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Knorf said:


> With Boulez, you'll almost always hear something you never heard before!


I just relistened to the 9th yesterday, and I agree with you.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Hey! We agree on something!
> 
> (Just kidding, I know we agree on lots of stuff. For example, make I take from your user handle that you play on a Heckel? I play on an old Heckel bassoon and contrabassoon; I just adore the Heckel sound!)


yes, I think we are in frequent agreement.  I do love the Heckel sound [I play a 12K series mid-70s]...to me it's the essence of bassoon sound....holds the center of the tone at any volume....at "_ppp_" the sound is nicely centered with projection...at full volume, the tone stays focused, does not get diffuse or muffled.



> I think the only reason I haven't bought the Boulez Mahler box is that I bought so many of them already individually, and on SACD. Not all of them are my favorite, but none of them have disappointed me, either, and I listen to those I have pretty frequently, especially the Third.


I'm curious to hear the Boulez Mahler 3, and 6....I saw him on PBS-TV "Great performances" conduct #7....excellent performance, tho Boulez' podium manner, conducting style, is hardly going to attract a lot of rave reviews from the audience!!:lol:


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> yes, I think we are in frequent agreement.  I do love the Heckel sound [I play a 12K series mid-70s]...to me it's the essence of bassoon sound....holds the center of the tone at any volume....at "_ppp_" the sound is nicely centered with projection...at full volume, the tone stays focused, does not get diffuse or muffled.


You nailed it! It's what I love, too. I have yet to be better bassoonist than my bassoon. I know there's so much more it can still do! The range of color available is amazing with Heckel bassoons.



> I'm curious to hear the Boulez Mahler 3, and 6....I saw him on PBS-TV "Great performances" conduct #7....excellent performance, tho Boulez' podium manner, conducting style, is hardly going to attract a lot of rave reviews from the audience!!:lol:


Boulez's deal was that he knew how much empty, blowy showmanship there is conducting, showy nonsense that has zero actual beneficial effect on the orchestra's performance, and he wanted no part of that. He wanted to give the orchestra just what they needed, and do nothing that could be distracting or unnecessary. So he looks very plain on the platform. But that rhythmic precision! That clarity of phrasing! That suppleness of tempo! That ear for balance!

Boulez's efficiency in rehearsing was legendary. I regret that I never played for him, but I have many friends who did, and they all loved how easy he made their work.

Anyway, I do think his Mahler is well worth hearing. You may well stay with other favorites, but I very much doubt you'll think your time was wasted.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> You nailed it! It's what I love, too. I have yet to be better bassoonist than my bassoon. I know there's so much more it can still do! The range of color available is amazing with Heckel bassoons.


yes, the color, tonal possibilities are great fun to explore..



> Boulez's deal was that he knew how much empty, blowy showmanship there is conducting, showy nonsense that has zero actual beneficial effect on the orchestra's performance, and he wanted no part of that. He wanted to give the orchestra just what they needed, and do nothing that could be distracting or unnecessary. So he looks very plain on the platform. But that rhythmic precision! That clarity of phrasing! That suppleness of tempo! That ear for balance!


Yes, many years back, 1970ish??, I heard him conduct Cleveland in Rochester Eastman Theater...Ravel, Rossini, Ives...
He did this thing in the Ives - there were bell or triangle notes to be played, over several bars - the pattern was something like 7 against 8, or 8 against nine...it was truly impressive, he conducted 4/4 with the stick in his right hand, and cued the percussion, each note, with his left....stood stock still - just the stick, and his left hand moved....great Ravel - Alborado - crystal clear, scintillating....


----------



## bz3

wkasimer said:


> ??? There's no baritone on Boulez's DLVDE.


Indeed, I believe I confused it with the MTT version in his complete set which I also have. I do not often listen to either MTT or Boulez DLVDE and, as I said, it's not among my favorite Mahler. The Haitink serves fine when I wish to hear it.


----------



## Enthusiast

Boulez Mahler is excellent and many - including his 6, 9 and DLVDE - are surely among the greatest recorded.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> Boulez Mahler is excellent and many - including his 6, 9 and DLVDE - are surely among the greatest recorded.


I tried listening to his 6th today as I just got it in the mail today. I couldn't make it past the first movement. I think the problem is with the 6th itself rather than Boulez. I just haven't been in the mood for it lately. But there was plenty of that signature clarity and fluid, organic motion that I love in Boulez's conducting.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Interesting. I like it a lot ... and remember from a recent thread that he picked Mahler 6 (not 9 surprisingly) was for him one of the key works of the 20th century. The symphony is astonishing and seems (for me) to work (in different ways) in a wide variety of approaches (my other long standing favourites for the 6th include Barbirolli's, the Vienna Bernstein and the LSO Live Jansons) - performances that are each radically different to the others.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Interesting. I like it a lot ... and remember from a recent thread that he picked Mahler 6 (not 9 surprisingly) was for him one of the key works of the 20th century. The symphony is astonishing and seems (for me) to work (in different ways) in a wide variety of approaches (my other long standing favourites for the 6th include Barbirolli's, the Vienna Bernstein and the LSO Live Jansons) - performances that are each radically different to the others.


Sometimes I love it, sometimes I don't get much out of it. I couldn't possibly explain it. But I will definitely try again with the Boulez. It's certainly a masterpiece, and it is fascinating that Boulez singled it out as one of the 10 key works of the century.


----------



## starthrower

Nos. 1,6 and 8 for me. I also have 9 which is okay but doesn't blow me away.


----------



## mbhaub

Knorf said:


> You nailed it! It's what I love, too. I have yet to be better bassoonist than my bassoon. I know there's so much more it can still do! The range of color available is amazing with Heckel bassoons.


I know this doesn't belong here...but...yes, some Heckels are great, but not all. Same with any make. I hang out with a lot of bassoonists and three of them play Heckels, half a dozen Fox, I'm a Moosmann (bssn & contra), a couple play on Puchners, one Schreiber and one Yamaha. The Puchners and Fox red maple sound fantastic - huge volume, rich sound. And of course it depends on the bocal and reed. One of the Heckel owners plays on a model from 1960s but his reed making and design is terrible - and he gets a thin, reedy, out of tune sound that makes the Scheiber seem like a great instrument!

But you'll enjoy this: a number of years ago I was asked to play in a summer opera festival in Mexico. I've done it four times now. The idea of taking my expensive Moosmann there didn't thrill me. So just for fun I put a bid on a very old (mid 60s) Linton plastic bassoon - you are aware of their reputation. Shockingly, I won for only $200. I took it apart, cleaned it up, repadded it and what do you know! It worked. The Linton bocal was awful, so I used a spare Heckel brass #2. This thing could sing! In the first rehearsal, a flute player who I play with at home and didn't know about my new bassoon came up at break and said how much she loved the sound of my new bassoon! It had such a warm, clear sound - it was so much better sounding than my "old" Moosmann, which cost about 100 times as much! The conductor too, mentioned how nice the bassoon section was - the other player on an older Heckel - our timbres were so well matched. It doesn't have a high E key, and the key positions are slightly different from what I'm used to, but that stupid Linton from Ebay was a great learning experience. It now travels with me to Mexico and China (well, used to) and I don't worry about it getting lost or stolen. Too bad Linton didn't make contras!


----------



## millionrainbows

Fascinating post. And logical.


----------



## Knorf

Somehow, I'm thinking a discussion of different bassoon makers is ridiculously too much of a digression in a Boulez/Mahler thread, even for me.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Somehow, I'm thinking a discussion of different bassoon makers is ridiculously too much of a digression in a Boulez/Mahler thread, even for me.


I dunno, I love threads occasionally going off on a tangent.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> I can only speak for myself, of course, but I loved Boulez's 5th. A damn fine recording.


I found a mint copy at discogs for 4 dollars so ordered it. I listened a bit on YT and I liked the way it sounds.


----------



## Itullian

If you like your Mahler straight, objective, it's very good and well recorded.
I bought it because all the symphonies are on single discs except for #8.
And I love being able to listen straight through.

My personal preference is Bernstein, I have both cycles.
I think Mahler needs emotion and angst, just mho.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> I found a mint copy at discogs for 4 dollars so ordered it. I listened a bit on YT and I liked the way it sounds.


I think you'll love it. Let me know what you think. Boulez showed me a lot of details that I never heard in this symphony.


----------



## flamencosketches

Itullian said:


> If you like your Mahler straight, objective, it's very good and well recorded.
> I bought it because all the symphonies are on single discs except for #8.
> And I love being able to listen straight through.
> 
> My personal preference is Bernstein, I have both cycles.
> I think Mahler needs emotion and angst, just mho.


And No.3, of course.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> I think you'll love it. Let me know what you think. Boulez showed me a lot of details that I never heard in this symphony.


Yeah, that's why I enjoy his interpretations. Although I didn't really like his opening to the 7th so I held off buying that one. But I compared some of his 5th to Barbirolli and Shipway and I preferred Boulez and Shipway. But of course this is all based on truncated listening sessions. But I think I'm pretty well set with Boulez / Mahler. I already have Nos. 1,6,8,9 and the beautiful Lieder disc with von Otter.


----------



## Knorf

The Boulez Mahler 3 is absolutely fantastic. Highly recommended if you like at least some of the others.


----------



## starthrower

I'm still trying to absorb more of no.3 after several years. I usually listen to Bernstein's first recording but I have a few others. Maybe I'll get around to Boulez eventually.


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm still working on the 3rd. It's a fantastic symphony, just a matter of building up the attention span and clearing enough freetime to hear it all. It's the kind of work that demands to be heard straight through, though I must confess I often stop after the first movement. An epic journey in itself, it takes a lot to go on and hear the other 2/3 of the symphony after that. 

Anyway, the Boulez 3rd is on my radar. I've been listening to movements from it on Apple Music while driving to and from work. The finale is amazingly done.


----------



## Heck148

flamencosketches;1826147. said:


> .....It's the kind of work that demands to be heard straight through, though I must confess I often stop after the first movement. An epic journey in itself, it takes a lot to go on and hear the other 2/3 of the symphony after that.


I rarely listen to Mahler 3 straight thru...I'll listen to one or two mvts at a time...usually I, III, or VI...
I do that often with many works - 1 or 2 mvts, or a couple of opera scenes, or maybe just one act.


----------



## starthrower

I've got Tennstedt's No.3 playing now. Pretty heavy and stormy first movement. With many of these very long Mahler symphonies my brain only retains the themes from the opening movements and I have to listen to see where things go after that. This keeps it fresh for me. Not to mention listening to several different versions. This opening movement from no.3 is over a half hour.


----------



## starthrower

I'm enjoying No.5 quite a bit. In my opinion, the middle three movements are superb! I give top honors to the 18 minute Scherzo. But I also find the Adagietto very beautiful and quite moving. I reject Tony Duggan's assertion that it is emotionally detached. The stormy second movement doesn't start off as agitated as Tennstedt but it builds in intensity and energy and maintains this feeling throughout. I don't really have any comments about the Rondo-Finale as this is my least favorite movement. But I'm going to keep listening to this fine Boulez recording throughout the week until I switch the the Bernstein DG disc which is on deck.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> I'm enjoying No.5 quite a bit. In my opinion, the middle three movements are superb! I give top honors to the 18 minute Scherzo. But I also find the Adagietto very beautiful and quite moving. I reject Tony Duggan's assertion that it is emotionally detached. The stormy second movement doesn't start off as agitated as Tennstedt but it builds in intensity and energy and maintains this feeling throughout. I don't really have any comments about the Rondo-Finale as this is my least favorite movement. But I'm going to keep listening to this fine Boulez recording throughout the week until I switch the the Bernstein DG disc which is on deck.


The Boulez is the most convincing Rondo-Finale I've ever heard, with good emphasis on the contrapuntal elements and good clarity, but overall I share your indifference for the movement. Glad you are enjoying it.


----------



## Enthusiast

For the finale, you can also find excellent accounts from the Vienna Bernstein recording and the Vanska ... among others. I do agree that Boulez gave us an excellent Mahler 5, one of the best.


----------



## Manxfeeder

flamencosketches said:


> I'm still working on the 3rd. It's a fantastic symphony, just a matter of building up the attention span and clearing enough freetime to hear it all.


I know a guy back in the Mahler craze of the '70s who had a listening party for the 3rd. All his friends gathered, and they heard the first three movements, then broke for grilled salmon on an outdoor barbecue, and ended with the rest, departing with hugs and well wishes. That sounds like a lovely way to hear the piece. Of course, now when I hear the 3rd, salmon is in the back of my mind.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

I just bought Boulez's Mahler, and I like it very much. I am very leery of discussions about how emotional musicians are. If we mean Boulez is a cold conductor, well this should not matter. If this is any sort of metric, it would imply that Strauss had no musical feeling while Lang Lang had vast amounts, and nobody would posit that. Rather, Boulez shows healthy restraint. If we mean that the interpretation of the piece is too restrained, then this should come down to simply how good the interpretation is and be divorced from speculations about the conductor's emotional state. In this sense, I like it very much. I find that dynamic exaggerations and the like serve to make momentary interest while compromising the trajectory of the whole of the music, which is what really matters. All in all I can say that I believe that the interpreation is very good. But moreover, it was very cheap—only about $30 on Amazon for all 14 discs. One must also remember that these recordings were made much more recently than, say, Bernstein's, and so the sound quality is much, much better.


----------



## starthrower

flamencosketches said:


> The Boulez is the most convincing Rondo-Finale I've ever heard, with good emphasis on the contrapuntal elements and good clarity, but overall I share your indifference for the movement. Glad you are enjoying it.


The clear lines and clarity of the music realized by Boulez is what I noticed too. And it makes for a great listening experience even if the musical content isn't as dear to my heart as other movements.


----------



## Granate

Back in November 2020, I purchased the FLAC edition of the Boulez Columbia complete recordings (the one for 7€ on supraphononline). I haven't had time to explore the box at all, outside the reference recording of Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande. But yesterday, in a sudden Das Klagende Lied challenge, I streamed my FLAC files from his London Symphony recording and I was delighted with the playing and conducting. The recording was as analogue as I could wish for and the singers were great for the most part. I'm now through the performances with the Original Score, but I think that I will put the Boulez LSO as my reference and the one I turn to (even if I'm not really attracted to this work).


----------



## CnC Bartok

I think I am in with a good number of listeners here, in finding Boulez hit-and-miss with Mahler. Fortunately more of the former, though, although I feel 2, 5 and 8 are the weakest of his recordings here (sorry about the 5th, but I have not found it particularly convincing)

6 and 3 are the best performances here as far as I'm concerned, 6 being one of the very best I know. DLvdE is excellent as well, as is Das Klagende Lied, despite being incomplete (sic).

I don't think there's a perfect cycle out there from anyone; Boulez comes closer than many more "obvious Mahlerians"....


----------



## Knorf

I think I said it earlier this thread, but Boulez's Mahler 8 I think is actually a highlight, and in fact is one of my favorites of all Mahler 8s! 

But aside from I that I agree 3 and 6 from the Boulez cycle are very special, and I have a soft spot for Boulez's Mahler 9 as well.


----------



## Bwv 1080

2 felt a little cold to me, never listen to 8, like the rest, particularly 7


----------



## CnC Bartok

Granate said:


> Back in November 2020, I purchased the FLAC edition of the Boulez Columbia complete recordings (the one for 7€ on supraphononline). I haven't had time to explore the box at all, outside the reference recording of Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande. But yesterday, in a sudden Das Klagende Lied challenge, I streamed my FLAC files from his London Symphony recording and I was delighted with the playing and conducting. The recording was as analogue as I could wish for and the singers were great for the most part. I'm now through the performances with the Original Score, but I think that I will put the Boulez LSO as my reference and the one I turn to (even if I'm not really attracted to this work).


Just listened to this old Klagende Lied, and I have to confess it blew me away. A fabulous recording, thanks for the heads-up! Such wonderful siniging, both the chorus and the soloists.

That's two Klagenden Lieder that have been revelations to me in recent months, the other one having been Michael Gielen's unearthed 1990 live performance on Orfeo.


----------



## starthrower

Re: Knorf's comment on No.7



> This is one where I do find Boulez a bit stiff, like he can't quite believe in the last movement. Compared to Bernstein or Fischer or Abbado, it's not just that competitive for me. But, as I said, it's still very good.


One of two Boulez /Malher recordings I don't have. The other being No.2. I just finished listening to Bernstein NYP, and I was blown away by the first four movements. Just incredible orchestration and beautiful music. But I didn't like the finale as much and I can imagine Boulez not really warming up to that music. It just sounds a bit over the top / flag waving type of music that isn't as interesting as the other movements.


----------



## Itullian

I have he Boulez box.
If you like a direct approach, its a good cycle. Very good sound.
I prefer more flexibility and feeling, so I prefer Bernstein.
But i still enjoy it for what it is.


----------



## starthrower

Mahler fans say to listen to Boulez for the details he brings out in the scores which is true. But I feel the same way about Klemperer. I hear details in his interpretations that I don't notice in others. And not just in Mahler.


----------



## Knorf

Klemperer was also a superb Mahler conductor; I would not argue otherwise.


----------



## SanAntone

It is impossible for me to compare recordings of Mahler symphonies. They are too big, too long, and too complex. 

By the time I've finished the last movement I've forgotten the first, much less, remembering enough about it to compare to a different recording. Each time I listen to any Mahler symphony recording it's like the first time.


----------



## starthrower

SanAntone said:


> It is impossible for me to compare recordings of Mahler symphonies. They are too big, too long, and too complex.
> 
> By the time I've finished the last movement I've forgotten the first, much less, remembering enough about it to compare to a different recording. Each time I listen to any Mahler symphony recording it's like the first time.


I can relate to that. For a long time all I could remember was the opening themes of each symphony but over time I'm absorbing more of it.


----------



## Malx

starthrower said:


> Mahler fans say to listen to Boulez for the details he brings out in the scores which is true.* But I feel the same way about Klemperer. I hear details in his interpretations that I don't notice in others. And not just in Mahler.*


I believe that his use of antiphonal violin sections/seating contributes to the clarity he finds in many pieces - it is unlikely to be the only thing but I'll leave it to others with more musical nouse than I have to elucidate.


----------



## Knorf

Malx said:


> I believe that his use of antiphonal violin sections/seating contributes to the clarity he finds in many pieces - it is unlikely to be the only thing but I'll leave it to others with more musical nouse than I have to elucidate.


There's definitely something to that.

The shift to massed rather than antiphonal violins, which was almost entirely done post-WWII, totally ruined any number of orchestrational effects all the way back to Haydn symphonies through Mahler, and beyond.

It's a deplorable situation to me. But violinists are really used to it now, and typically revolt at returning to an antiphonal set up, despite that having been standard practice for 200 years or more.

Boulez was not an advocate for antiphonal violins, incidentally. I think he was wrong about that, even in his preferred 20th c. repertoire.


----------



## starthrower

Interesting! I wasn't even aware of these two different approaches. I've never really read anything about orchestras and their set ups. I'd be interested in a short list of recordings which utilize the different approaches to hear the difference in sound and detail.


----------



## Knorf

Period instruments recordings will always use the antiphonal set up.

Some conductors insisted on traditional antiphonal violins, such as Boult, Klemperer, and others. Some used it selectively: Abbado, Chailly, Mackerras, Haitink, and others used it at least when conducting Classical-period or early/mid-Romantic repertoire, in their later recorded cycles.

A great spot to check out the effect is Brahms Symphony No. 1, mvt. IV, mm. 24 & 26 where the contrapuntal effect is totally lost when the violins I & II are massed together. Listen on good headphones or anything with excellent stereo imaging, and the difference is obvious.

There are innumerable such places all through the repertoire!


----------



## starthrower

Thanks, Knorf! I'll listen to the different conductors to see if I can notice the contrast in sound. But I knew something was different with Klemperer. I have several of the EMI boxes and his orchestra sounds different on certain passages.


----------



## Malx

starthrower said:


> Thanks, Knorf! I'll listen to the different conductors to see if I can notice the contrast in sound. But I knew something was different with Klemperer. I have several of the EMI boxes and his orchestra sounds different on certain passages.


I believe you have the Klemperer Romantic Symphonies box.

Put on headphones and listen to the first movement of the Schubert 8 as the music swells in the quieter sections you should hear the first violins in the left channel and the seconds in the right, perhaps most clearly heard around 2.45 into the first movement.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast

Every time I listen to Mahler's 2nd played by Boulez I bawl my eyes out, so yeah, I don't understand this thing people say about him being restrained. Yes, he doesn't wallow like Bernstein, he's not an actor (I like Lenny tho, so don't jump at this comment), but he moves me like no other with Mahler. The one miss for me in his cycle is No. 1. 

Where he does show restraint is with Parsifal, but that's a different story.


----------



## Merl

I think I said earlier in this thread that I needed to re-evaluate some of Boulez's Mahler (I promised Knorf too). I finally got round to playing both the 2nd and 5th last night and this morning and they are indeed fine recordings. I did enjoy his view of the 2nd more than before and appreciate his reading but still much prefer others however I really enjoyed the 5th. There"s some wonderful detail (especially at the end of the 1st movement and in the scherzo). Maybe it's because I'm almost exclusively playing chamber music at the moment but that was a lovely revisit and I take back some of what I said (even though I was not particularly negative). I'll catch up with the 9th again next week.


----------



## fluteman

flamencosketches said:


> To piggyback on DavidA's interesting series of threads on the great Mahler conductors Tennstedt, Bernstein, and Rattle, I wanted to pose another question of the TC community:
> 
> What do you think of Pierre Boulez's Mahler?
> 
> It seems that Boulez, like the other names I mentioned, is more divisive than most, both as a conductor in general and more specifically as a Mahlerian. Some love his clarity, others think his approach to Mahler lacks emotion or flexibility.
> 
> Personally, I haven't heard much, but I love what I have heard. He treats Mahler like a 20th century composer, which of course he was. In his recordings I'm always hearing details that I've never heard in others.


First, I'd add Kubelik to your list of great Mahler conductors. Solti's entire first set of the symphonies is impressive, except perhaps less so for the 3rd. For me, Boulez belongs on that list. His Chicago Mahler 9, along with his Berlin Daphnis et Chloe and his Cleveland Sacre du Printemps, are highlights of his discography as a conductor.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> Boulez belongs on that list. His Chicago Mahler 9,.....and his Cleveland Sacre du Printemps, are highlights of his discography as a conductor.


Yes, absolutely outstanding recordings...his conducting style on the podium is quite unremarkable - almost pedantic or awkward in appearance...but he is in complete command of the orchestra, extremely accurate, and gives very clear signals to the musicians...
I saw/heard him conduct Cleveland, years ago - a Charles Ives piece - there was a complex pattern - iirc, the strings were playing an 8 beat pattern, and the percussion - bell, or chime - had to place 7 beats on top of the 8 [a while ago - it was a complex problem, whatever]....Boulez conducted the 4/4 pattern with his right hand, and cued the 7 beats in his left...maybe it was for show, but we were impressed !!


----------



## Becca

starthrower said:


> Thanks, Knorf! I'll listen to the different conductors to see if I can notice the contrast in sound. But I knew something was different with Klemperer. I have several of the EMI boxes and his orchestra sounds different on certain passages.


Herbert Blomstedt is adamant about having antiphonal violins. Another younger conductor who always seems to do that is Daniel Harding.


----------



## Becca

As to Boulez, my only experience with his Mahler is a performance of the 5th with the LA Phil at the Ojai Festival. It was good but not outstanding, the kind that leaves a positive impression after the concert but which would seem ho-hum on repeated hearings as a recording.


----------



## SanAntone

What do you think of Boulez's Mahler?

I consider Mahler's Boulez more interesting to contemplate.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Malx said:


> I believe that his use of antiphonal violin sections/seating contributes to the clarity he finds in many pieces - it is unlikely to be the only thing but I'll leave it to others with more musical nouse than I have to elucidate.


Kubelik and Gielen also used antiphonal violins most of the time (and their Mahler is at least worth trying out, I think a lot of it is very good). As mentioned above, until the mid-20th century it was the more common seating but of course it is not distinguishable on mono recordings.


----------



## Dmitriyevich

His No.6 on DG was my first Mahler experience. It's still one of my favorite Mahler disc today.


----------



## HerbertNorman

I'm sorry ... maybe just me... but I just ignore Boulez... his remarks and aversion of Shostakovich , just put him in my "no listen" bin and he's been there ever since.


----------



## Knorf

HerbertNorman said:


> I'm sorry ... maybe just me... but I just ignore Boulez... his remarks and aversion of Shostakovich , just put him in my "no listen" bin and he's been there ever since.


There's hardly a composer alive or dead who never made disparaging remarks about other composers.

Ignoring Boulez is a serious mistake, in my opinion, regardless of whether one agrees with him about Shostakovich, which I personally do not. I don't expect to agree with everyone on everything I care about in music... but Boulez was an incredible musician, a great conductor, and an even greater composer.

In any case, Boulez was a very well-admired Mahler conductor, and even detractors admit his Mahler offered novel insights.


----------



## HenryPenfold

HerbertNorman said:


> I'm sorry ... maybe just me... but I just ignore Boulez... his remarks and aversion of Shostakovich , just put him in my "no listen" bin and he's been there ever since.


Serious mistake. _ibid.

_Listen to Boulez's music-making, not his opinions.


----------



## jim prideaux

Have just begun listening to Boulez and the VPO performing the 5th (DG).I had chanced upon a bargain second hand copy and having really appreciated Boulez' DG recordings of the 1st and 2nd I could not ignore the opportunity. It seems as if there is a degree of debate regarding Boulez and Mahler....I am thoroughly enjoying this performance and really do appreciate a certain clarity that actually ( to my ears anyway) makes the relatively complex music more accessible.


----------



## Merl

jim prideaux said:


> Have just begun listening to Boulez and the VPO performing the 5th (DG).I had chanced upon a bargain second hand copy and having really appreciated Boulez' DG recordings of the 1st and 2nd I could not ignore the opportunity. It seems as if there is a degree of debate regarding Boulez and Mahler....I am thoroughly enjoying this performance and really do appreciate a certain clarity that actually ( to my ears anyway) makes the relatively complex music more accessible.


Yeah that's what I got from relistening to the Boulez 5th. Real clarity. Thank you Knorf and Co for recommending that I listen again.


----------



## starthrower

CnC Bartok said:


> Just listened to this old Klagende Lied, and I have to confess it blew me away. A fabulous recording, thanks for the heads-up! Such wonderful siniging, both the chorus and the soloists.
> 
> That's two Klagenden Lieder that have been revelations to me in recent months, the other one having been Michael Gielen's unearthed 1990 live performance on Orfeo.


I can't believe I've overlooked this piece until now. I haven't heard the Gielen but after listening to some of the original Boulez recording I ordered the CD. Beautiful music! And Mahler's first major work completed in 1880. There are some different versions which I'm not too clear about so I'll have to do some reading up on the history of this work.


----------



## RobertJTh

starthrower said:


> There are some different versions which I'm not too clear about so I'll have to do some reading up on the history of this work.


I always feel that it was the closeset Mahler ever came to writing an opera. Maybe it would have worked even better as an opera than a cantata? The work has some glaring flaws, but it's surprising that all the elements of Mahler's more mature style are already there, in rudimentary form.
Anyway, it exists basically in two versions: the original 1880 version in 3 movements, and the revised one, where Mahler cancelled the first movement and intensively reworked the orchestration of the remaining two movements. It was in this form that he performed the work a couple of times.
There's a third form that most conductors choose: adding the 1880 first movement to the revised movements 2 and 3, creating a hybrid version. That's not what Mahler had in mind, and it mercilessly exposes the weaknesses of the first movement: it's way too long, bare-textured and repetitious. The shorter revised version is the best way to enjoy the work - one doesn't miss the first movement much.


----------



## starthrower

Thanks, Robert! Looking around on YouTube I see several of the 3 movement versions. But Haitink recorded the 1898 edition published by Mahler.


----------



## Enthusiast

I think most seasoned Mahler listeners now know that Boulez was an excellent (a great, even) Mahler conductor. What is interesting is that 10 years ago very few did and you could be accused of all sorts of crimes if you confessed to liking it. I suppose you could say that he has consistently inspired strong views.


----------



## Waehnen

I swore I wouldn´t buy any more Mahler recordings for I have quite a few already... But I am intrigued about this Boulez cycle. Next I will go and try to find some representative examples from youtube. The way the 1st movements of the 3rd, 5th, 6th and the 7th is conducted tells a lot about a conductor...


----------



## Monsalvat

I would at least try Boulez. I think it isn't fair to accuse him of being "cold" in Mahler, as others have done. His performances are expressive and emotional, but his head is always there in addition to his heart. I'm still recovering a bit after listening to Barbirolli's Mahler Sixth last night; Boulez won't hit me over the head in the same way that Barbirolli did, but he doesn't leave me feeling dry, either. I'm certainly happy to have his recordings of Mahler. FLAC download of his complete Mahler cycle is currently on sale at Presto: (link)


----------



## Waehnen

Monsalvat said:


> I would at least try Boulez. I think it isn't fair to accuse him of being "cold" in Mahler, as others have done. His performances are expressive and emotional, but his head is always there in addition to his heart. I'm still recovering a bit after listening to Barbirolli's Mahler Sixth last night; Boulez won't hit me over the head in the same way that Barbirolli did, but he doesn't leave me feeling dry, either. I'm certainly happy to have his recordings of Mahler. FLAC download of his complete Mahler cycle is currently on sale at Presto: (link)


The 7th at least sounds very balanced and crystal clear -- also the structure and the form. As you may have noticed, it is vital for me that there is a direction to music and every gesture means something. Otherwise it is just babble. And there sure is a direction here, and nothing sounds mediocre. That is a very good sign.

The first movement sounds as though Boulez is conscioucly directing our attention to other things than the movement being a march. At least for me there is wonderful tone colours, textures and playing on which to concentrate, and not just the dotted rhythm repeated all over and over.

Tat-ta-taa, tat-ta-taa, tat-ta-taa
Tat-ta-taa, tat-ta-taa, tat-ta-taa

None of that quality! Damn this is good!


----------



## Neo Romanza

Boulez is outstanding Mahler. One of my favorite cycles. He brings his x-ray goggles to the podium per usual, but there is a heart in the performances, which some listeners don't always associate with his conducting. There's a lot to admire in his more cool headed approach.


----------



## Waehnen

Neo Romanza said:


> Boulez is outstanding Mahler. One of my favorite cycles. He brings his x-ray goggles to the podium per usual, but there is a heart in the performances, which some listeners don't always associate with his conducting. There's a lot to admire in his more cool headed approach.


What also needs to be realised, in my opinion, is that there is enough of emotion written inside the Mahler passages anyway! One does not need to exaggerate it even further. The conductor does not have to be shaking under the weight of every passage. The symphonies are immense, emotional and heavy weight enough even if it was Paavo Berglund conducting them with his very restrained and cool northern approach.

What I expect from the conductor is solving the challenges of balance so that everything can be heard, connecting the musical elements to each other, having a direction with the music, shaping the form and structure without losing the sight of the whole; not jumping around aimlessly from one "holy and emotional passage" to another "holy and emotional passage"; and guiding the listener through it all while creating a meaningful journey.

In that regard Boulez seems to be similar to Haitink and Solti. Which is good.


----------



## Monsalvat

Neo Romanza said:


> Boulez is outstanding Mahler. One of my favorite cycles. He brings his x-ray goggles to the podium per usual, but there is a heart in the performances, which some listeners don't always associate with his conducting. There's a lot to admire in his more cool headed approach.


I saw on another thread you recently purchased Kirill Petrenko's Mahler Seventh, and the reviews I've read of that sounded exactly like what you've written about Boulez. I should do a side-by-side comparison of Petrenko and Boulez. Those were both outstanding performances (Petrenko's Mahler Seventh with the Bayerisches Staatsorchester, and Boulez's Mahler Seventh with the Cleveland Orchestra).


----------



## Neo Romanza

Monsalvat said:


> I saw on another thread you recently purchased Kirill Petrenko's Mahler Seventh, and the reviews I've read of that sounded exactly like what you've written about Boulez. I should do a side-by-side comparison of Petrenko and Boulez. Those were both outstanding performances (Petrenko's Mahler Seventh with the Bayerisches Staatsorchester, and Boulez's Mahler Seventh with the Cleveland Orchestra).


I haven't heard Petrenko's 7th yet, but since you enjoyed it so much, I'll have to see if I can squeeze it into my listening for today (perhaps later on tonight). As I was telling @Becca, I have such a large backlog of new purchases and not to mention older ones that I need to get around to at some point.


----------



## Lisztianwagner

I appreciate very much Boulez' clarity and meticulousness to handle the trimbric and orchestral textures of Mahler's symphonies, as well as the fullness of sounds of his interpretations; though I think his dry, analytical approach doesn't perfectly fit those works, because it sometimes lacks those energy and passion which are necessary to a sort of music so personal (both about the inner feelings of the composer and his view of the world), intense and overwhelming like Mahler's; in my opinion, Boulez' style better fits the Second Viennese School, Bartók, Stravinsky, Ravel and Debussy. Anyway the Boulez mahlerian recordings I've listened to are extremely fine, and in particular I remember I was positively surprised about what great suggestive power his performance of Mahler 8th expressed.


----------



## Enthusiast

Boulez had a unique, clear and precise vision of Mahler. Mahler needs performances that have true character (to me that is the number one requirement of a decent Mahler performance) and this character must go through every bar. Boulez satisfied that requirement greatly. So, often, does (for example) Bernstein. Both give us great Mahler and the two could hardly be more different. To me this is an example of how there is no right way with great music as far as the audience is concerned.


----------

