# Mahler and other "un-recordable" composers



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Unfortunately, I've never seen a Mahler symphony live. Maybe some of you can share your experience of hearing Mahler live vs. a "good" recording.

Of course, even the best sound engineers won't be able to capture many aspects of a live performance -- especially ones that involve large orchestras. But I notice these limits particularly with Mahler. For any given symphony, e.g., Sym. 5, the total "projection" coming out of my loudspeakers or headphones varies (sometimes significantly) recording to recording.
One of my favorite performances of Sy. 5 is Mehta/LA Phil/1976/Decca. The recording is good on some levels but completely misses the boat on others. For example, Mahler uses isolated instruments to produce "echoes" (Mvt 2), and 1976 Decca misses a lot of those (too few mikes??). And cymbal crashes are muted and puny on the 1976 Decca 

Disregarding performance, it's hard to find an ideal Mahler recording. Especially, before the 2000s. The 2004 Lucerne/Abbado (sy. 5) and various BBC Proms concerts seem to be better. But none of the modern performances of Mahler have impressed me much.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

This has been the story of my record collecting career - always hoping that the next new technology will bring recordings closer and closer to live performance. From the lowly LP then to open-reel tape, Quadraphonic sound, CX Lps (anyone remember those?) then came digital LPs, finally CDs, HDCD, SACD, Blu Ray and some others. Although no technology can replace live sound, it can come awfully close if you have an excellent playback system. The other end, the recording process, is much more complex. Multi-microphones allows engineers to spotlight to make sure some details are not lost, but it can produce unnatural sounds, too. On many recordings some details are lost - exactly like any and every live performance I've ever heard! Mahler's orchestration is so complex and detailed that it simply isn't possible to hear it in concert, with any orchestra, conductor or hall. Not even the conductor hears everything as they usually are overwhelmed with a big string sound being so close. I can't remember the number of times I've listened to recording - not just Mahler - hearing details I never noticed before, and that's because those details are often lost in concert. It's just the way acoustics and orchestration work. In some ways, a recording has more impact and vibrancy than a live concert.

I have heard all of Mahler's works live in concert with Big Name orchestras and conductors. Not even Claudio Abbado with the Vienna Philharmonic in Carnegie Hall doing the First Symphony could bring out all the detail. Mahler live is a real occasion - at least for me - and I still enjoy it, but some recordings can be quite superb. Some of the Hi-Fi best that you might want to try are the Pittsburgh recordings with Manfred Honeck on the Exton label. Ivan Fischer on Channel Classics is fine. The Sixth from Eschenbach with Philadelphia. Also, RCA did some great work with James Levine on his incomplete Mahler set. And another mixed set that has great sound beginning to end comes from Telarc (oh, I miss them!). The Atlanta recordings in particular are spectacularly well recorded. Too bad Telarc never did a Das Lied.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

I'm not a composer so I can't comment on this but I wonder how much a pre-recording-era composer wrote for a certain hall (or type of hall)? 
For Mozart and Haydn, would there be an excuse to build a hall today that is a fax of a hall late 18th century Vienna?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

My first experience of Mahler 3 was a live performance. The difference between that and a recording? It wasn't practical to escape for thirty minutes. A recording I could have turned off. 

Heard Mahler 4 conducted by Ivan Fischer, who was a last minute replacement due to illness. Brilliant! Wonderful nuanced performance. 

I've heard 1, 5, 6, and 9 live too. I always prefer a live performance to a recording.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I've heard symphony 5 live and Kindertotenlieder. Symphony 5 was good live. I also have that Mehta recording you mentioned, plus one by Haitink on Philips which is also good. The live vs recording are just different. It's an experience hearing Mahler brass live, but the trumpets sound better in the recording.

I have been directed by Becca to recordings of Mahler by Barbirolli which are very nuanced. I don't believe any composer (writing fairly conventionally for an orchestra) is unrecordable. That's how foolish mythologies start.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

If the live vs. recorded debate wasn't inconclusive enough, add VIDEO to that mix!

A *well-directed* video --or well-edited -- with the screen showing the highlighted sections (_per the composition_) is ideal. No wonder why top rock and pop arenas have huge video screens.

A good example of a well-directed video is that 2004 Lucerne Mahler 5/Abbado. E.g., at this CYMBAL CRASH!! ... quickly followed by an efficient edit to trumpet and then French horns. Exciting!


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

I admit that my favourite Mahler performances (my Tennstedt collection) suffer from poor recording quality even in the 1980s. I dislike Mahler mono recordings although it's a pity to miss Mitropoulos, but what I don't agree with is that I would enjoy sitting in a live performance more than an audio recording.

I think we are very lucky to count with great Mahler performers (and companies willing to keep recording him) into the 21st century with much better technologies than those that served the master conductors. I hope they keep remastering cycles like the Kubelík one. But I'm not going to talk here about the recordings of the decade I like the most...

I was in a Mahler 3 concert in Málaga and liked the experience although the concert went downhill after a marvellous Kräftig. But it was unconfortable to sit there for so much time. Instead, I enjoy Mahler Symphonies a lot when I'm walking and playing them on my phone. More than Bruckner. It's like the music transcends and evolves, mutating and skipping footpaths. Bruckner is more expansive for me and I enjoy him a lot when I look through a window during any Adagio.

Now that you set the topic, I was seeing there's a Mahler 9 in Valencia conducted by Adam Fischer with his Düsselforfer Symphoniker. Maybe I buy one entrance.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Granate said:


> Instead, I enjoy Mahler Symphonies a lot when I'm walking and playing them on my phone.


Yes, a good portable player (phone, DAP, iPod) with equally-good IEMs (in-ear monitors) is a must on my daily beach-side bike rides.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

This past summer I was hiking part of the Arizona Trail in the White Mountains with Mahler 4 and Schmidt 3. Wondrous experience.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I heard a tour concert with Solti/CSO within about a year of their first Mahler 5 recording -- and it was remarkable how much one sounded like the other.

I've heard the 3rd, 4th, and 6th live -- all superb performances -- half of them later recorded, and can't say any of them blew me away more than a good recording.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

MarkW said:


> I heard a tour concert with Solti/CSO within about a year of their first Mahler 5 recording -- and it was remarkable how much one sounded like the other.
> .


The 1970 Solti/CSO recording is quite "spotty" and loud. The acclaimed Decca engineers were still experimenting with their craft. A few years later, the Decca boys would record the 5th again with Mehta/LAPhil (see my OP). The spottiness was eliminated but that recording has other issues (see my OP).
BTW: Recording aside, that 1970 performance is a good one!
BTW2: The Decca engineers used all sorts of tricks including adding amplified reinforcement speakers to the recording stage. Hey, they work for electric guitars -- why not a full symphony orch.?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I have and have heard many studio recordings of all Mahler symphonies
I have attended many performances of them by such diverse conductors as Abbado, Rattle, Barbirolli, Boulez, Mehta, Giulini, Solti etc.
The former only gives a generalized impression of what the latter was really like.
Nowadays, wherever possible I prefer to look for recordings made at concerts. What is lost in studio control is more than made up for in inspiration of the moment.

Examples:
Klemperer's 2nd with the BRSO
Barbirolli's 3rd with the Halle
Rattle's 4th with the BPO
Barbirolli's 6th with the New Philharmonia (Proms)
Rattle's 8th with the NYOGB (Proms)

As to the recording technology, I believe that over time, the carrier (vinyl, tape, CD, etc.) has become less a concern in the performance than the microphone technology to capture the performance (and what the producer does with it afterwards!)


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I’ve heard them all live at least once, and Das Lied as well. I am not sure what the OP, back in 2016, meant by “unrecordable”.
Live performances will always top a recording, and yes, Mahler did embrace spatial effects, such as offstage ensembles meant to be heard in the background, the posthorn in the Third, and others. However there are many recordings that do a reasonable job of conveying these effects, even without Surround Sound


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Becca said:


> ...
> As to the recording technology, I believe that over time, the carrier (vinyl, tape, CD, etc.) has become less a concern in the performance than the microphone technology to capture the performance (and what the producer does with it afterwards!)


I like the 1976 Mehta / Symp 5 enough to contemplate fixing it in "post-production". There are pro software suites (often used by TV/film composers) that allow a composer to add *real instrument* from plug-in libraries. 
Some examples are: Spitfire Audio and Vienna Symphonic Library.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

13hm13 said:


> I like the 1976 Mehta / Symp 5 enough to contemplate fixing it in "post-production". There are pro software suites (often used by TV/film composers) that allow a composer to add *real instrument* from plug-in libraries.
> Some examples are: Spitfire Audio and Vienna Symphonic Library.


Then why not start from scratch and create your own performance?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

This thread is quite delusional.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Becca said:


> Then why not start from scratch and create your own performance?


Not mine ... but someone that created the following may just do that one day ....


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It's rare that I've ever considered anything unrecordable. But I do think that some composers can sometimes compose a muddy orchestration that can make the recording process seem to be at fault. Some of Rachmaninoff's orchestrations, one of my favorite composers, such as in his 2nd Symphony and in his memorably melodic 2nd Piano Concerto, sometimes have a very thick orchestration in the lower mid-range and bass register, and I do not think this records well, no matter whatever the recording means are used.

So I rarely blamed the problem on the engineering or the recording process; I think it was the kind of richness and thickness of texture that Rachmaninoff liked that doesn't always quite work and reveal its details, and in his Concerto the sound of the piano can sometimes be lost in the background of the orchestration. But the Zimerman/Ozawa BSO studio recording of the Concerto, the problem is solved by isolating the piano from the orchestra background in the recording process. The piano is never lost in the background because of it and I believe this is one of the reasons why this recording is a favorite among certain listeners:






With Mahler, his orchestrations weren't as thick and I never noticed a problem. Even his 8th Symphony, which requires enormous forces, has been recorded extremely well with Dudamel and the Simon Bolivar Orchestra, and both the quality of the performance and the quality of sound should not be missed-the best of both worlds of that monumental Symphony that I've heard, even among the immortal conductors of previous generations. Consequently, I feel there's very little that cannot be captured well in sound.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I heard Solti/CSO perform Mahler 5 in Carnegie Hall , 3/70....an amazing concert that had gained a well-deserved "legendary" status...it was truly temarksble,, and no sound recording could reproduce the whole. sonic experience. recordings can be really excellent. and can bring out details to be sure....I tend to dislike spot-miking, as it can produce some really unnatural balances and effects....live music is best....


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

I've heard many audiophiles (with high-end systems) say that large-scale works (e.g., symph. orchestra) are better presented on an all-analog system (vinyl, open-reel tape) -- all else held equal.

I actually have a "high-end" turntable/cart. system. And, yes, there is lots of analog goodness to be had. But so damn inconvenient -- manual effort, maintenance, etc. Indeed, the proclaimed attribute that analog sound "pulls you in" is shot down when you find yourself flipping the Lp after 20min ... ruining "the moment" 

Sorry to get off track! Getting back on ...

Too bad the BBC Proms concerts are not offered on high-rez formats. Despite YouTube's 128kbit audio, BBC Mahlers are some of best recordings (=engineering) I've heard. I can only imagine their sound at 24bit/96k


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> But the Zimerman/Ozawa BSO studio recording of the Concerto, the problem is solved by isolating the piano from the orchestra background in the recording process. The piano is never lost in the background because of it and I believe this is one of the reasons why this recording is a favorite among certain listeners:


The Zimmerman recording sounds as if the orch. is INSIDE the piano. It's a good recording. I've heard better performances tho'.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I totally disagree with the OP. I have a stack of Mahler recordings i love and which sound great to my ancient ears (Honeck, Walter, Karajan, Stenz, Jansons, Nezet-Seguin, etc). Ive slso seen Mahler symphonies live and whilst there's nothing that quite matches the thrill of being there (if it's a good or better performance), a faithful recording can convey the excitement you feel, especially turned up loud. No music is 'unrecordable'.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Recordings can sound OK. You might hear some things you miss live depending on the mic spotlighting.
But nothing quite matches live concerts. I've heard them all live too; various orchestras, with Solti, Tennstedt, Sinopoli, Levine, Dutoit, Chailly, Rattle, Ashkenazy, De Waart, Elder, etc.
And I've played in live performances of 1, 4, 5.
Nothing beats live.
Graeme


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

And


13hm13 said:


> The Zimmerman recording sounds as if the orch. is INSIDE the piano. It's a good recording. I've heard better performances tho'.


Listen again. Readily apparent through headphones-that's their value. It sounds like the piano is in a separate recording booth from the orchestra and that's why it's never lost in the relatively dense background orchestration. They always remain somewhat separate from each other though there is an overlay of one with the other. This can be clearly heard or it wouldn't have been worth mentioning. This is the difference between a live performance and a studio recording, and it's a good learning experience. All one has to do is compare this studio performance with any live performance to hear the difference between the two where the piano is sometimes overwhelmed by the background, such as the Anna Fedorova live performance (which actually is quite good). One reviewer said of the Zimerman recording, "Surprisingly, there are times when the material in the piano should be subordinate to the material in the orchestra but is not." Exactly. That's what I'm referring to and DG isn't telling anyone how it was recorded, which is also why the recording can sound somewhat artificial though extremely well played. Rachmaninoff probably liked rich foods too.


----------

