# Mahler: Symphony #9



## science

While not as famous as some of Beethoven's symphonies, Mahler's ninth is still in the top rank of symphonies, especially among the kind of classical music listeners that consider themselves more "serious." As usual for such popular works, Wikipedia has a very good article about it, including a little analysis and a long list of recordings.

How about you? How do you feel about this work? If you love it, what about it pleases you so much?

Feel free, of course, to mention your favorite recordings!


----------



## starthrower

I love it! It's beautiful music to my ears. I usually listen to Bernstein/NYP, but I would like to try some modern recordings including Dudamel, or Chailly. I also have another Bernstein version in addition to Tennstedt, and Boulez.


----------



## Merl

I like it a lot (unlike the 8th). Giulini and Karajan's recordings do it for me but there are some other excellent 9ths


----------



## elgar's ghost

My favourite symphony along with the 2nd and 6th. Although it's been said that the 9th has a valedictory feel to it my overriding impression (rightly or wrongly) is that Mahler was perhaps ruminating over and reconciling himself to the end whenever it may come rather than him accepting that he was approaching the end itself.


----------



## pianoville

Probably my favorite symphony, and in my opinion one of the greatest symphonies of all time. Especially the ending. I don't get how anyone can create so beautiful music.


----------



## pianoville

Merl said:


> I like it a lot (unlike the 8th). Giulini and Karajan's recordings do it for me but there are some other excellent 9ths


What do you not like about the 8th? I think it's a magnificent piece.


----------



## MarkW

During the Mahler Revival of ther '60s I came to the symphonies in a random order based on the recordings our local library had. The "go to" Mahler Ninth of the time was Barbirolli's BPO account. I put it on, not knowing what to expect (as with each of the symphonies) and was blown away. That's still one of my favorite performances. The funny thing is: at that point, and up until today, the "sublime" last movement is my least favorite of the four. While I can listen closely to the first three, my mind sort of goes on auto-pilot for the finale. ?


----------



## Merl

pianoville said:


> What do you not like about the 8th? I think it's a magnificent piece.


I've never liked it, Pianoville, no matter how much I've persevered with it. I'm not enamoured with the 3rd either but it's listenable for me. No such probs with the rest of Mahler's symphonies.


----------



## R3PL4Y

To me the 9th is the greatest Mahler symphony, although if the 10th were completed by Mahler I would probably feel differently. I enjoy Karajan's studio recording.


----------



## Larkenfield

Marvelous symphony. For me, it represents the composer’s full life lived… and there was more to come with his 10th. My favorite recording is by Bruno Walter and the CSO, who in his youth personally knew Mahler. I found this recording deeply moving and it left an indelible impression.


----------



## Enthusiast

For me: the most perfect and profound of the symphonies (Mahler's that is). And - aren't we lucky? - it is subject to many really first rate recordings .. and many good ones that don't quite get there because the bar has been set so high.


----------



## Heck148

Mahler #9 one of the greatest of all symphonies, one of the greatest musical works of all time...

Tough to get it all right- 
Giulini/CSO comes closest - quite magnificent effort, Boulez/CSO also very, very fine, same with Walter/ColSO...which still stacks up very well...
Have heard it performed live 3 times - 
Abbado/BPO - superb conducting, Abbado had this down....
Levine/BSO
Salonen/CSO - just last spring - really great effort, best of the 3, all of which were superb.


----------



## Byron

Mahler's most profound and most cohesive symphonic work in my humble opinion.

Karajan's performances of the 9th are much admired, and for precision and beauty there's no doubt they are astonishing. But they have a kind of gloss and sterility that numb a lot of the conflict and drama in this music, in my opinion. My favorite 9ths are by Ancerl, Barbirolli, Maderna, Abbado and Walter. I know Bernstein's recording with the Concertgebouw is controversial, but I think it's wholly convincing in it's own way.


----------



## Larkenfield

Benjamin Zander's outstanding Mahler 9th on the Telarc label:
https://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-No-9-Gustav/dp/B00000I4E3

It's rarely mentioned and I would take it over the Barbirolli (too dark & depressing) and the HvK (not quite raw enough), and it's close to the Walter. Superior modern sound quality all the way.


----------



## Eramire156

I'm currently listening to Bruno Walter's wiener Philharmoniker recording for me no other recording can compete, perhaps it is the extramusical reasons that make me hold this recording so dear. It is a remnant of a world now gone, swept away by evil.


----------



## Rogerx

sorry, wrong thread


----------



## Leinster

I love the first five symphonies plus the ninth symphony. I don't like the sixth, seventh and eight symphonies.


----------



## Kiki

Before I heard the 10th, I had been puzzled by the ending on the 9th. After three movements of juxtaposition between positive and negative energy, in the Adagio, outcry turns into resignation, and everything dissolves into the oblivion. Was it acceptance of defeat? Was it a bit too easy? Was Maher doing a Tchaikovsky there? I find that rather negative. But the 10th shows that is not the end. It picks up where the 9th ends, and eventually love triumphs over death. I find that moving. The 9th is a great piece of art, and it stirs my emotion, but I cannot say I feel moved by it.


----------



## mbhaub

Kiki said:


> ...I cannot say I feel moved by it.


If you're as old as I am, you remember this book from way back when:








The Ninth had a certain cache when I was in college. Once it got under your skin it was deeply moving. My college roommate and I would sit on the porch, watching storms gather over the mountain, open a bottle of Jack Daniels, put on Bruno Walter's stereo recording and just enjoy life. The Ninth should not be a depressing, nihilistic thing like the Tchaikovsky Sixth with is all darkness, defiance and despair in the end. The Mahler is more bittersweet. Walter, Karajan, Maazel, Bertini...heck, they're all good.


----------



## Larkenfield

“The Ninth should not be a depressing, nihilistic thing like the Tchaikovsky Sixth with is all darkness, defiance and despair in the end...”

Bravo. Mahler had an emotional resilience and I equally enjoyed the Walter recording unlike, for instance, the Barbirolli Ninth that I found too dark. Performance can make all the difference in the world and I never felt that any of his symphonies were intended to leave one in depression or despair. Even the Tchaikovsky Sixth I believe was meant to be a catharsis of some kind rather than leaving one with a sense of hopelessness and despair, though it might seem like that on the surface. Such a tremendous outpouring of emotion where I believe he felt better after expressing it rather than holding it all in. I believe that’s the true power and calling of art, that even through the expression of despair one can feel better afterwards.


----------



## Kiki

mbhaub said:


> If you're as old as I am ......


"Bittersweet" is a great word for describing the 9th. Have to concede "doing a Tchaikovsky?" was exaggerated and not really fair, but I was once really struggling with the oblivion at the end. I had wanted to believe there would be more beyond the oblivion, and the 10th showed there was indeed more. After hearing the 10th, it was easier for me to come to terms with the ending of the 9th.

Sorry I have no idea about this book. If I may take one of the comments on Amazon out of context, "Thomas says that previously when listening to Mahler's Ninth he thought about death in a positive way, now he finds that it causes him to think about how nuclear war can destroy life on this planet." It sounds intriguing.

And it sounds like you had a brilliant college life! I wish I had done that!


----------



## Totenfeier

I finally overcame a little unfortunate prejudice I was having and settled in with the Dudamel/LA 9th, Quite well-rounded and enjoyable; I decided it might be the perfect "in" for a modern listener with little Mahler experience. And then I read a review that noted, in a positive way, that Dudamel gave us _macaws_ instead of _jackdaws_ in his performance. Priceless!


----------



## Merl

Totenfeier said:


> I finally overcame a little unfortunate prejudice I was having and settled in with the Dudamel/LA 9th, Quite well-rounded and enjoyable; I decided it might be the perfect "in" for a modern listener with little Mahler experience. And then I read a review that noted, in a positive way, that Dudamel gave us _macaws_ instead of _jackdaws_ in his performance. Priceless!


I rate the Dudamel highly. Good call.


----------



## DFlat

I love it. An incredible amount of beautiful melodies. Often haunting. I listen to Bernstein/Berlin live in 1979. There’s a moment where you can hear him humming/groaning along, and he stomps his foot down on the podium in what I always imagine is uncontrollable passion. Sometimes that moment gives me the chills.


----------



## Kiki

Totenfeier said:


> I finally overcame a little unfortunate prejudice I was having and settled in with the Dudamel/LA 9th, Quite well-rounded and enjoyable; I decided it might be the perfect "in" for a modern listener with little Mahler experience. And then I read a review that noted, in a positive way, that Dudamel gave us _macaws_ instead of _jackdaws_ in his performance. Priceless!


I salute your open mindedness. Dudamel's Mahler 9 has got spectacular sonics, transparent orchestral textures, and is full of thrilling moments. In fact it is pretty good, although being a spectacle could have undermined the message of the music, unfortunately.

For a modern recording, I would prefer Nott or Saraste, both less spectacular but emotionally more engaging IMHO, and I am eagerly waiting for Manfred Honeck's.


----------



## KenOC

Dudamel is a Mahler enthusiast. A few years back he conducted the entire cycle in a single season -- twice! The second time was with the LA Phil and the Simon Bolivar Orchestra, alternating, in Venezuela. Well, they all joined in for the Eighth.

And he never cracked a score, at least in the performances.


----------



## Malx

KenOC said:


> Dudamel is a Mahler enthusiast. A few years back he conducted the entire cycle in a single season -- twice! The second time was with the LA Phil and the Simon Bolivar Orchestra, alternating, in Venezuela. Well, they all joined in for the Eighth.
> 
> And he never cracked a score, at least in the performances.


Sorry Ken can you explain if "never cracked a score" is a good thing or bad.


----------



## KenOC

It's a good thing, unless you lose your place! There's a supposedly true story of Von Karajan conducting Wagner at Bayreuth in the late 1930s, with Hitler in attendance along with Winifred Wagner. HvK was conducting without a score and, in fact, lost his place. Hitler was very unhappy and said, that guy will never conduct in Bayreuth again as long as I'm alive. And he didn't.


----------



## Malx

KenOC said:


> It's a good thing, unless you lose your place! There's a supposedly true story of Von Karajan conducting Wagner at Bayreuth in the late 1930s, with Hitler in attendance along with Winifred Wagner. HvK was conducting without a score and, in fact, lost his place. Hitler was very unhappy and said, that guy will never conduct in Bayreuth again as long as I'm alive. And he didn't.


Thanks Ken, I was really struggling with what you meant by "cracked a score" but I now understand. Same language but there are evidently some differences from time to time!


----------



## Merl

I listened to this recording yesterday. The Japanese orchestras seem to enjoy playing Bruckner. Really good 9th. Lots of clout.


----------



## junha yang

My best is 6th, but 9th seems to have some kind of another level of style compared to 1~8. I can't forget the 1st movement in movie the "Birdman".


----------



## Over the Rainbow

A major work in music history
My preferred : Karajan/BP live 1982 and then Abbado/BP live 2002


----------



## Waehnen

Heck148 said:


> Mahler #9 one of the greatest of all symphonies, one of the greatest musical works of all time...
> 
> Tough to get it all right-
> Giulini/CSO comes closest - quite magnificent effort, Boulez/CSO also very, very fine, same with Walter/ColSO...which still stacks up very well...
> Have heard it performed live 3 times -
> Abbado/BPO - superb conducting, Abbado had this down....
> Levine/BSO
> Salonen/CSO - just last spring - really great effort, best of the 3, all of which were superb.


I was looking for the Solti/Chicago listed but it ain't there! What's the prob???  Listening to it for the first time now. At least the 1st Movement is excellently balanced and pronounced, not too romantic which often somehow results in a lazy atmosphere. Nothing lazy here, though.

Edit: Every moment of Solti/Chicago/M9 is gorgeous! What's not to like? My initial impression holds: not too romantic and it works. No need to exaggerate the obvious romanticism of the work itself.


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> I was looking for the Solti/Chicago listed but it ain't there! What's the prob???  Listening to it for the first time now. At least the 1st Movement is excellently balanced and pronounced, not too romantic which often somehow results in a lazy atmosphere. Nothing lazy here, though.
> 
> Edit: Every moment of Solti/Chicago/M9 is gorgeous! What's not to like? My initial impression holds: not too romantic and it works. No need to exaggerate the obvious romanticism of the work itself.


The problem with Solti's legacy seems to be that people love his work in opera and with colorful orchestral scores, but they don't associate him with the core German/Austrian repertoire. His Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner is often dismissed as abrasive, sensationalist and superficial. The myth of "Solti the butcher".

True or not, I got to confess that I don't like what I heard of Solti's Mahler so far. I don't know his 9th, but I hate his famous 8th with a passion. A performance full of gimmicks, Mahler in Barnum-Bailey style. The splendid singing kind of half-redeems it.

Though I fully agree that there should be room for a Mahler 9th that isn't all doom and gloom. And one that doesn't try to wring every teardrop out of the finale and stretch it to nearly half an hour, like Abbado did in his Lucerne recording. I wish today's conductors would listen to the old Walter/VPO and realize the finale can perfectly been done in under 20 minutes. Even intense, "romantic" performances like Barbirolli's or Ancerl's (the latter being a recent discovery - it's superb) need no more than 23 minutes.


----------



## DavidUK

Ben Zander with the Philharmonia Orchestra on Telarc is excellent and includes a bonus disc well over an hour in duration (therefore three discs in total) with Zander explaining in detail how to perform and listen to the symphony. NB. Interestingly, although I'm a huge fan of Mahler's symphonies, I agree with previous comments that the 8th doesn't do it for me at all.


----------



## RobertJTh

DavidUK said:


> Interestingly, although I'm a huge fan of Mahler's symphonies, I agree with previous comments that the 8th doesn't do it for me at all.


Well, I think it's still possible to turn the 8th into something transcendental and sublime, but it's a hard nut to crack and not many conductors reach the end without casualties. Though it's interesting to note that most 8ths fail because there's a weak link in the singing septet, the chorus doesn't cut it, the balances aren't right etc. It doesn't happen that often that it's the vision of the conductor which is at fault - and which is the case in Solti's recording, in my opinion. Too hyped-up, too sensationalist for a work that has many intimate, chamber music like pages, that prelude the soundscapes of DLvdE and the 9th and 10th.


----------



## Heck148

RobertJTh said:


> The problem with Solti's legacy seems to be that people love his work in opera and with colorful orchestral scores, but they don't associate him with the core German/Austrian repertoire. His Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner is often dismissed as abrasive, sensationalist and superficial.


Not so in my experience - Solti is highly regarded in his conducting of the Austro-German composers - his Beethoven, Brahms sets are highly regarded by many - with a lot of front runners in the output...
His Mahler, Bruckner and Wagner are top-notch, consistently among the best...I much prefer the Solti approach to the usual teutonic approach to Bruckner, which to me, is al too often logy, ponderous, episodic and deadly....yes, Solti is certainly a driver...he pushes the orchestra, strives for a huge dynamic range....his conducting has similarities with Mravinsky [that's a good thing]...he's always looking at the drama, the flow, where's it going, where are the climaxes, the relaxations, the buildups and come downs...

Donald Peck, long time principal flute of CSO described it well: 
"He [Solti] was a brilliant conductor who achieved a sound of great clarity from the orchestra with his incisive beat. He was therefore a perfect director for the likes of Mahler, Strauss, Bruckner and Wagner, whose music can sometimes sound a little thick". 
There are many music lovers who agree...


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> I was looking for the Solti/Chicago listed but it ain't there! What's the prob???  Listening to it for the first time now. At least the 1st Movement is excellently balanced and pronounced, not too romantic which often somehow results in a lazy atmosphere. Nothing lazy here, though.
> Edit: Every moment of Solti/Chicago/M9 is gorgeous! What's not to like? My initial impression holds: not too romantic and it works. No need to exaggerate the obvious romanticism of the work itself.


Solti's CSO Mahler #9 is very fine....probably the best Finale I've heard on recording.....overall I think I gave it an A-....very good overall - the recording sound quality is, to me, questionable...I suspect there was some Decca "knob-twiddling", esp in the first 2 mvts...I'll give it another spin...


----------



## EdwardBast

Not a fan. I find the Adagio hackneyed and tedious, especially the ubiquitous turn and leap figure.


----------



## mbhaub

Mahler 8: one reason it rates lowly for people is that they only know it through recordings. No recording, in any format, can replicate what this work sounds like performed live in a good hall. It's thrilling. It still may not be your favorite Mahler symphony but you'll get a better idea of the sensation it created when new. Find a live performance and go. You will not regret it.

Solti: his Mahler 8th was a great show-off work for hi-fi gear but nowadays it's patchwork creation is revealed clearly on CD especially with headphones. Not my favorite; Kubellk still takes that spot. But other than that, I like Solti's Mahler: it moves, it's exciting, always well-played and well recorded. I like his earlier London versions better than the Chicago remakes. But in general I like his Bruckner, Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann, Elgar, Mahler etc for the same basic reason: he does not want the listener to be bored.


----------



## Vasks

I have the M9 with Solti on LPs and Bernstein on CDs. I prefer the Solti especially in the Burleske movement.


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> Not a fan. I find the Adagio hackneyed and tedious, especially the ubiquitous turn and leap figure.


Ever tried the Solti version? For this symphony I find myself preferring a non-sentimental interpretation.


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> I was looking for the Solti/Chicago listed but it ain't there! What's the prob???  Listening to it for the first time now. At least the 1st Movement is excellently balanced and pronounced, not too romantic which often somehow results in a lazy atmosphere. Nothing lazy here, though.


Solti's recording with the London Symphony Orchestra is imo much better than his recording with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and overall my preferred interpretation of the work. Its funny but "better balanced, more pronounced and less lazy" is a good way to describe the London version compared to the Chicago version.


----------



## golfer72

My favorite part is the climax about 3 1/2 minutes into the first movement. I have the Inbal on Denon and I think he pulls this off really well.


----------



## Rogerx

golfer72 said:


> My favorite part is the climax about 3 1/2 minutes into the first movement. I have the Inbal on Denon and I think he pulls this off really well.


I agree, however the Solti is also very good. Thank goodness we can have interpretations as much as we can afford/ like. :angel:


----------



## Heck148

golfer72 said:


> My favorite part is the climax about 3 1/2 minutes into the first movement. I have the Inbal on Denon and I think he pulls this off really well.


It's the first of 4 climaxes (5 actually) that build in power and intensity to the 4th one....developing this long rising/falling action through the whole movement is the key to a great reading....Giulini does this with great success so do Walter and Boulez....Solti is very good, also.


----------



## mollig

Like most posters, I love Mahler's 9th, by far my favourite Mahler symphony and probably my favourite 9th by any composer (really the only competition is from Beethoven). I only own the Haitink recording and it works for me every time.

Too many favourite moments to mention. However I'm going to voice a heretical opinion and say that I find the 4th movement goes on way too long. The first 6-7 minutes are absolutely sublime but despite all the grandiose statements made about the final pages of the manuscript I just find it drags on and on and doesn't move me anything like the gorgeous opening. And in a concert hall I can't enjoy the close of the symphony at all because I just KNOW that when the music gets really quiet someone's mobile is going to ring or someone will sneeze really loudly.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I agree: Haitink's is a good one. I also rate those by Klemperer, Barbirolli, Boulez, Horenstein (Vienna Symphony) and Maderna. Of the 30 or so recordings I have these seem to be the ones that I listen to most.


----------



## Malx

Short notice but if you're interested and in the UK BBC Radio 3's Building a Library programme starting at 9.30 am today features Mahler's 9th.
I guess it will be available on the iplayer for a while.


----------



## dko22

Rattle won but _Enthusiast_'s list was represented by Horenstein, Boulez, Barbirolli and Haitink -- the two latter getting the runner up slots. Personally, I used not to like the symphony as much as a number of others by Mahler and it took Sanderling (and a concert with Blomstedt) to really convince me of its merits.


----------



## marlow

Please note this symphony is being reviewed atm on BBC Radio 3 Record Review.


----------



## marlow

KenOC said:


> It's a good thing, unless you lose your place! There's a supposedly true story of Von Karajan conducting Wagner at Bayreuth in the late 1930s, with Hitler in attendance along with Winifred Wagner. HvK was conducting without a score and, in fact, lost his place. Hitler was very unhappy and said, that guy will never conduct in Bayreuth again as long as I'm alive. And he didn't.


Just coming a bit late to put a historical correction in here. The alleged incident did not take place at Bayreuth but during a performance of The Mastersingers at Berlin Opera in 1939. Critics noticed that Karajan's fresh and flexible approach created difficulties for one of two of the older singers. It might have gone unnoticed but it was a State Gala and Hitler was in attendance when a singer called Bockelmann - allegedly rather the worse for drink - made a mistake from which Karajan, conducting without a score, temporarily failed to recover. As Hitler was a huge admirer of the singer he blamed Karajan, who forever after bore the consequences of the dictator's wrath. Goebbel's wrote in his diary in 1940, 'The Fuhrer has a very low opinion of Karajan and his conducting.'


----------



## Enthusiast

dko22 said:


> Rattle won but _Enthusiast_'s list was represented by Horenstein, Boulez, Barbirolli and Haitink -- the two latter getting the runner up slots. Personally, I used not to like the symphony as much as a number of others by Mahler and it took Sanderling (and a concert with Blomstedt) to really convince me of its merits.


And I think Horenstein and Boulez were both quite well received? Rattle? I haven't heard it but must seek it out to hear if I agree. Was it his Berlin recording or the Vienna one?


----------



## Malx

Enthusiast said:


> And I think Horenstein and Boulez were both quite well received? Rattle? I haven't heard it but must seek it out to hear if I agree. Was it his Berlin recording or the Vienna one?


They chose the Berlin - its much better, I've just done a recent comparitive listen and I agree. But of course that is just my opinion.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Thanks, Malx. I thought it would be Berlin because Rattle became a far more impressive conductor during his Berlin time. I never much cared for his earlier work.


----------



## Forster

The show had little negative to say about any of the interpretations. The only thing I can recall was that Walter's 1938 was significant, but suffered poor audio. I thought the reviewer was going to go for the Barbirolli, so much did we hear of it, so was a bit surprised at the final choice.

I've yet to get my head round this symphony...I might try the Rattle, see if it helps.


----------



## Heck148

Malx said:


> They chose the Berlin - its much better, I've just done a recent comparitive listen and I agree. But of course that is just my opinion.


I saw/heard Rattle/NPO perform M9 on PBS "Great Performances"....it was ok, not bad...not up with the best ones, but certainly a worthy effort....i really put PBS up for presenting this on prime time TV....it was a pleasure to see this...


----------



## Waehnen

I repeat myself but I really enjoy the Solti/Chicago for this symphony. More than any other version so far. This symphony is so heavy weight that if you over-interpret it in a most romantic way, it can be overwhelming, just too heavy. Solti keeps it nice and balanced and well articulated and not too thick. Like a good plate: not too much sauce or gravy or cheese to an excess, rather with a balanced dry white whine than very thick red wine.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> I repeat myself but I really enjoy the Solti/Chicago for this symphony.


It's definitely one of the best....Solti does the finale superbly, perhaps the best I've heard it done....Rondo is really good, too...

There is no reason that this symphony should sound thick or congested - Mahler's orchestration is superb - when done well, you can hear all the lines, inside parts, even in the fortissimos....but, of course, the conductor has to manage the balances skillfully...and the musicians have to be able to execute properly...


----------



## Enthusiast

Forster said:


> The show had little negative to say about any of the interpretations. The only thing I can recall was that Walter's 1938 was significant, but suffered poor audio. I thought the reviewer was going to go for the Barbirolli, so much did we hear of it, so was a bit surprised at the final choice.
> 
> I've yet to get my head round this symphony...I might try the Rattle, see if it helps.


I only heard small parts of the programme but I think they did go through a (partial?) list of recordings that they would not focus on so the implication was that all they considered were among their choices for "best". I also seemed to be hearing a lot of Barbirolli.


----------



## Becca

Rattle: It is interesting to note that Tony Duggan placed the Rattle/BPO recording amongst his top choices along with Walter, Klemperer, Horenstein, Barbirolli and Haitink.

Barbirolli: It was his 'calling card' for a while in the late 60's and I managed to attend one of those performances, in my case with the Los Angeles Philharmonic. I wish I remembered more of the details but the 9th was nowhere near the top of my list back then.


----------



## dko22

Forster said:


> The show had little negative to say about any of the interpretations. The only thing I can recall was that Walter's 1938 was significant, but suffered poor audio. I thought the reviewer was going to go for the Barbirolli, so much did we hear of it, so was a bit surprised at the final choice.
> 
> I've yet to get my head round this symphony...I might try the Rattle, see if it helps.


I don't think Gillian Moore is one of the brighter presenters on _Building a Library_ but there are more than there used to be who just seem to like everything which is not necessarily the best way to help you make a choice. Purely on the basis of what we heard, there was nothing from Rattle which stood out in my view but I've tended to find him often a rather nebulous conductor anyway.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Thanks, Malx. I thought it would be Berlin because Rattle became a far more impressive conductor during his Berlin time. I never much cared for his earlier work.


Funny, I'm the opposite - in general, I prefer Dennis' earlier work. Malx is right though, this BPO is much better than his earlier VPO, I would say.


----------



## wkasimer

dko22 said:


> Rattle won but _Enthusiast_'s list was represented by Horenstein, Boulez, Barbirolli and Haitink -- the two latter getting the runner up slots. Personally, I used not to like the symphony as much as a number of others by Mahler and it took Sanderling (and a concert with Blomstedt) to really convince me of its merits.


Which Haitink? Aren't there several?

And did they have anything to say about Karajan or Bernstein?


----------



## dko22

wkasimer said:


> Which Haitink? Aren't there several?
> 
> And did they have anything to say about Karajan or Bernstein?


Karajan was mentioned at the end in the "honourable rest" class. Bernstein did feature. Haitink was Berlin, as indeed were most of the recordings. She mentioned that the work seemed almost made for that orchestra.


----------



## marlow

dko22 said:


> Karajan was mentioned at the end in the "honourable rest" class. Bernstein did feature. Haitink was Berlin, as indeed were most of the recordings. She mentioned that the work seemed almost made for that orchestra.


I wonder whether these days the reviewer is just given a selection of recordings suggested by the BBC rather than makes their own. As (eg) the Karajan won multiple awards appears rather strange to hardly give it a mention.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My favs, in order:

Barbirolli/Torino RAI SO (1960)
Barbirolli/Berlin PO (1964)
Walter/Vienna PO (1938)
Karajan/Berlin PO (1982)
Klemperer/New Philharmonia Orch. (1967)
Horenstein/London SO (1966)
Kondrashin/Moscow PO (1964)
Ancerl/Czech PO (1966)
Bernstein/Berlin PO (1979)
Rattle/Berlin PO (2007)
Horenstein/Vienna SO (1953) 
Haitink/Concertgebouw Orch. (1969)
Walter/Columbia SO (1961)
Giulini/Chicago SO (1977)
Mitropoulos/Philharmonic SO (1960)
Rosbaud/SWR Symph. Baden-Baden (1954)

.


----------



## Malx

Building a Library presenters try and do a nigh on impossible job in selecting a 'favourite' recording in 45 minutes using a fair smattering of audio samples. With a work like Mahler's 9th where there are so many recordings it is obvious to me that many listeners choices will be overlooked.
It should be said that recordings NOT currently available to buy as a disc or download are not considered, for example today Bruno Maderna's was mentioned but then excluded. 
I do think a lot of listeners feel that the programme is trying to recommend a 'best' recording that is not the case, unless my understanding is wide of the mark, they select their 'favourite' so it is a totally subjective choice - for example today Gillian Moore did declare that the Haitink recording she rates highly was the one she remembers from home.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

The most poignant and rewarding performance for me is Barbirolli's with the Berlin Philharmonic.


----------



## Forster

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


----------



## Forster

sorry, inadvertent duplicate


----------



## dko22

Malx said:


> Building a Library presenters try and do a nigh on impossible job in selecting a 'favourite' recording in 45 minutes using a fair smattering of audio samples. With a work like Mahler's 9th where there are so many recordings it is obvious to me that many listeners choices will be overlooked.
> It should be said that recordings NOT currently available to buy as a disc or download are not considered, for example today Bruno Maderna's was mentioned but then excluded.
> I do think a lot of listeners feel that the programme is trying to recommend a 'best' recording that is not the case, unless my understanding is wide of the mark, they select their 'favourite' so it is a totally subjective choice - for example today Gillian Moore did declare that the Haitink recording she rates highly was the one she remembers from home.


Good points --I think it is important that only recordings which can currently be bought --even if only in download format -- can be included. Apart from that, I doubt the BBC themselves preselect anything though these days you can never be entirely sure. Of course there are current fashions. Last century Karajan could do no wrong and yet nowadays he is mentioned at the peril of the presenter (although the odd recording does get through). So called HIP performances are encouraged, as of course are those by women or minorities and yet I have often been surprised by how much of the lists are taken up by quite old recordings. Perhaps it is the case that there simply used to be more great conductors around.....


----------



## Enthusiast

Malx said:


> They chose the Berlin - its much better, I've just done a recent comparitive listen and I agree. But of course that is just my opinion.


Oh yes. I've just heard it. Tremendous. You know from the first bar that you are in for something special.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I'm thinking about Zander's Philharmonia 9th with the talk CD - anyone know it? Any views?


----------



## mbhaub

I have the Zander and frankly the discussion disk is more interesting than the performance. And it's not one of Telarc's better sounding disks either. They already had a superb recording from Cincinnati which is, for my taste, much better conducted - it's leaner and flows better.


----------



## Enthusiast

dko22 said:


> Karajan was mentioned at the end in the "honourable rest" class. Bernstein did feature. Haitink was Berlin, as indeed were most of the recordings. She mentioned that the work seemed almost made for that orchestra.


I think the Haitink they chose was with the Concertgebouw - the one coupled with his Das Lied with Janet Baker (also excellent) - that they chose. At least that is the one that Presto Classical has identified as an "also recommended" choice and it is also the one that I picked earlier! An excellent bargain, that "twofer".


----------



## RobertJTh

Enthusiast said:


> I think the Haitink they chose was with the Concertgebouw - the one coupled with his Das Lied with Janet Baker (also excellent) - that they chose. At least that is the one that Presto Classical has identified as an "also recommended" choice and it is also the one that I picked earlier! An excellent bargain, that "twofer".


There's also a great live 9th included in Haitink's "Christmas Matinees" box, which I prefer to his more famous studio recording.


----------



## dko22

Enthusiast said:


> I think the Haitink they chose was with the Concertgebouw - the one coupled with his Das Lied with Janet Baker (also excellent) - that they chose. At least that is the one that Presto Classical has identified as an "also recommended" choice and it is also the one that I picked earlier! An excellent bargain, that "twofer".


listened to this again as my wife wanted to hear it. The Haitink was indeed the Concergebouw -- I was perhaps confused by the dominance of the Berliners in the selection and the fact that Haitink has also done a Berlin recording. If I had to choose one from that list, it would likely be Horenstein.


----------



## Forster

dko22 said:


> I don't think Gillian Moore is one of the brighter presenters on _Building a Library_ but there are more than there used to be who just seem to like everything which is not necessarily the best way to help you make a choice. Purely on the basis of what we heard, there was nothing from Rattle which stood out in my view but I've tended to find him often a rather nebulous conductor anyway.


I'm not sure that 'brighter' is quite the right word. She was certainly hyperbolic in her praise as well as in her analysis of the symphony. If I'd just gone on her description of the symphony, I might never have listened - at least, not with any sharp implements to hand.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Malx said:


> Building a Library presenters try and do a nigh on impossible job in selecting a 'favourite' recording in 45 minutes using a fair smattering of audio samples. With a work like Mahler's 9th where there are so many recordings it is obvious to me that many listeners choices will be overlooked.
> It should be said that recordings NOT currently available to buy as a disc or download are not considered, for example today Bruno Maderna's was mentioned but then excluded.
> I do think a lot of listeners feel that the programme is trying to recommend a 'best' recording that is not the case, unless my understanding is wide of the mark, they select their 'favourite' so it is a totally subjective choice - for example today Gillian Moore did declare that the Haitink recording she rates highly was the one she remembers from home.


There are so many recordings of the 'major' works that it's impossible to survey all the available records. BBC R3 should revisit their terms of reference - still love the programme after all these years


----------



## dko22

Forster said:


> I'm not sure that 'brighter' is quite the right word. She was certainly hyperbolic in her praise as well as in her analysis of the symphony. If I'd just gone on her description of the symphony, I might never have listened - at least, not with any sharp implements to hand.


may not be the right word to describe - I was struggling a bit here. What I meant was that she focused on the "programme" and emotional content -- nothing wrong with that at all but she did tend to repeat herself ad nauseam and imo wasn't very clear in highlighting the differences. Also a) she never critisised anything which is a point already made and b) never played the same passage twice for comparison. I know that the time allocated is totally inadequate for a big symphony very frequently recorded but still. This is also a general impression from other Building a Libraries she's done. Today's "Messiah" with Jeremy Summerly was a better example of what can be done with this format but of course requires a different thread in case anyone wants to go into this one.


----------



## Waehnen

Esa-Pekka Salonen said in an interview that it was a common thing for composers to over-orchestrate so that after the first concert things could be easily toned down by deleting some doublings etc. He also said despite the possible over-orchestration in the 9th he dares not change Mahler’s orchestration but concentrated in balancing the orchestral sound through dynamics.

With the 9th Symphony I have often gotten the feeling that it could be in a more ”over-orchestrated state” than Mahler’s other symphonies. For example, Rattle/Berlin, a very rich combo in tone colours, is just magnificent in the 5th and 6th, but the 9th goes over the top very quickly.

That could be why I prefer strongly balancing conductors like Solti for this particular, excessive symphony.


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> With the 9th Symphony I have often gotten the feeling that it could be in a more ”over-orchestrated state” than Mahler’s other symphonies. For example, Rattle/Berlin, a very rich combo in tone colours, is just magnificent in the 5th and 6th, but the 9th goes over the top very quickly.


Can you specify some examples? I think the Rattle performance is rather good.

The 9th is really complicated, I think it requieres a lot of interpretation regarding balance of instruments, tempo changes, dynamics, structure. Solti had a great feeling for such things and perfection, what benefits his performances. But the LSO recording is really better than that in Chicago, which is not that special.

Really bloodless and disappointing is the Karajan live recording of 1982. Seems like he applied german bureaucracy to the work and refused to interpret.

Giulini is also unimpressive.

On the other hand Haitinks 1970 performance is really hot. He plays it like a heart attack. Its interessting, absolutely has something even tough it is overall probably not the best performance, because some beauty is missing. His 1987 performance is longer and more on the beautiful side. There is also a good performace with the LSO, which appears to be the best orchestra for the symphony. Haitink interprets the symphony very well.

Important is imo the intensity of the sound, passion and anger in the interpretation and the beauty of the orchestration. There are many lax and soft recordings which I don't like. Not so many good performances. Its a difficult work, easy to do wrong.

Maybe the best performance at least of the first movement did Horenstein with the LSO. It has the intensity, passion and beauty. The sound is great despite the technique. The middle movements are a bit too slow and soft tough, compared to Solti for example.

Beauty, passion and intensity has also the Chailly recording with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra.

And Rattle also did it rather good imo, compared to some others...


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> Esa-Pekka Salonen said in an interview that it was a common thing for composers to over-orchestrate so that after the first concert things could be easily toned down by deleting some doublings etc. He also said despite the possible over-orchestration in the 9th he dares not change Mahler’s orchestration but concentrated in balancing the orchestral sound through dynamics.


I heard Salonen conduct M9 with Chicago a few years back . Absolutely superb...The clarity and balance outstanding..the drama and flow were just right, this was a performance of the quality of the best recordings, Giulini, Boulez, Walter...the orchestration of M9 is exemplary... everything is clear and transparent...if the conductor is attentive to the balances. It all works.. the greatest performances all display the superb orchestration. M9 and DLvdE are Mahler’s orchestration at his best.



> That could be why I prefer strongly balancing conductors like Solti for this particular, excessive symphony.


Yes, Solti's CSO recording is very fine...the finale is really outstanding, perhaps best I've heard..


----------



## HenryPenfold

Aries said:


> Can you specify some examples? I think the Rattle performance is rather good.
> 
> Giulini is also unimpressive.
> 
> Beauty, passion and intensity has also the Chailly recording with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra.
> 
> And Rattle also did it rather good imo, compared to some others...


I listened to the Giulini yesterday and I thought it was excellent - seemingly undemonstrative, leading to incredibly poweful climaxes. Took me by surprise.

For some reason Chailly's Mahler 9 has a slight hollowness for me lately (despite being one of my gotos)

The rattle is excellent - one of the best things he's done - all in my opinion of course......


----------



## Aries

HenryPenfold said:


> I listened to the Giulini yesterday and I thought it was excellent - seemingly undemonstrative, leading to incredibly poweful climaxes. Took me by surprise.


There are lyrical qualities. He plays it in a mood of fascination. He plays it like a sunbath with delicate breaths of wind. But I think it is focused too much on beauty at the expense of furor.

The first two minutes of music have a cozy athmosphere, and then the athmosphere gets disturbed. But there is no change in the mood in the case of Giulini: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SxYgbVWco8&t=132s&ab_channel=cgoroo  I like a contrast in the mood. A quick change that changes everything and you don't even know what happened. As if the underlying subject is a dance on a razor blade.

In the case of other climaxes it is similar.

Giulini performance has lyrical tension and beauty, but other play it like it is the end of the world, giving it much more meaning. The climaxes, aren't they supposed to be played more like if a wild beast bites down and does not release? Furor, acceleration, massiveness, aggression, I think these things make it better.

Giulinis interpretation reminds me more of a fascinated inwardly recapitulation of things that happened. But the drama of feelings as it happened is missing.


----------



## Heck148

HenryPenfold said:


> I listened to the Giulini yesterday and I thought it was excellent - seemingly undemonstrative, leading to incredibly poweful climaxes. Took me by surprise.


Yes Giulini is really top level, he does the cosmic 1st mvt so well, with each climax building in power and intensity...wonderful clarity and virtuoso playing by CSO....Boulez and Walter come very close as well...


----------



## HenryPenfold

Aries said:


> There are lyrical qualities. He plays it in a mood of fascination. He plays it like a sunbath with delicate breaths of wind. But I think it is focused too much on beauty at the expense of furor.
> 
> The first two minutes of music have a cozy athmosphere, and then the athmosphere gets disturbed. But there is no change in the mood in the case of Giulini: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SxYgbVWco8&t=132s&ab_channel=cgoroo  I like a contrast in the mood. A quick change that changes everything and you don't even know what happened. As if the underlying subject is a dance on a razor blade.
> 
> In the case of other climaxes it is similar.
> 
> Giulini performance has lyrical tension and beauty, but other play it like it is the end of the world, giving it much more meaning. The climaxes, aren't they supposed to be played more like if a wild beast bites down and does not release? Furor, acceleration, massiveness, aggression, I think these things make it better.
> 
> Giulinis interpretation reminds me more of a fascinated inwardly recapitulation of things that happened. But the drama of feelings as it happened is missing.


Like you, I often enjoy my Mahler 9 like that, but not always.


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> There are lyrical qualities. He plays it in a mood of fascination. He plays it like a sunbath with delicate breaths of wind. But I think it is focused too much on beauty at the expense of furor.


Nonsense....Each climax builds under Guilini which is exactly right....the 4th biggest one is delivered with tremendous power, the "arrhythmia" motif delivered with absolutely shattering impact...no other recording matches it....Giulini also brings the level down between the climaxes, the contrast further enhancing the power of the movement.....it is definitely not light, sunny or delicate....the screaming trumpets on climax #3, the thundering low brass at climax #4 are anything but delicate..



> The first two minutes of music have a cozy athmosphere, and then the athmosphere gets disturbed. But there is no change in the mood with Giulini


Again, utter nonsense....the opening is indeed quiet mysterious, uncertain, but when Horn I enters (Clevenger) the mood changes dramatically...tension, direction - which lead to the first climax....Giulini brings this off better than any outher recording ive heard, the change in mood is quite dramatic....it happens throughout the movement as well, as Mahler shifts gears into the new sections...



> I like a contrast in the mood. A quick change that changes everything and you don't even know what happened. As if the underlying subject is a dance on a razor blade.


Giulini and Boulez do this so well.
Rattle is ok, decent, B or maybe B+...ok but not up with the ftont runners.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Heck148 said:


> Yes Giulini is really top level, he does the cosmic 1st mvt so well, with each climax building in power and intensity...wonderful clarity and virtuoso playing by CSO....Boulez and Walter come very close as well...


Yes, I should have commented on the orchestral playing. The Chicago is an excellent orchestra. Not just the brass, but the strings and woodwinds are also breathtaking on this recording......


----------



## Aries

Heck148 said:


> Nonsense....Each climax builds under Guilini which is exactly right....the 4th biggest one is delivered with tremendous power, the "arrhythmia" motif delivered with absolutely shattering impact...no other recording matches it....


The brass sounds good. A strength of the recording. But I think the prominent percussion in the Horenstein recording make it sound more brutal: Link



> it is definitely not light, sunny or delicate....the screaming trumpets on climax #3


He starts it tenderly, what raises a lot of question marks for me:Link

Thats not really "furious" and "deceisive" like the score says.



> Again, utter nonsense....the opening is indeed quiet mysterious, uncertain, but when Horn I enters (Clevenger) the mood changes dramatically...tension, direction - which lead to the first climax....Giulini brings this off better than any outher recording ive heard, the change in mood is quite dramatic....


I analyzed the tempi of some recordings and Giulini does not accelerate much:

The first 26 bars are rather cozy. The next 20 bars have a disturbed, furious athmosphere.

Giulini needs 2:12 for the first 26 bars and 1:33 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 9%.
Levine needs 2:05 for the first 26 bars and 1:19 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 22%.
Solti/LSO needs 1:53 for the first 26 bars and 1:13 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 19%.
Rattle needs 2:12 for the first 26 bars and 1:17 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 32%.
Horenstein needs 1:55 for the first 26 bars and 3:17 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 8%.
Chailly needs 2:19 for the first 26 bars and 1:27 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 23%.
Karajan/1982 needs 1:46 for the first 26 bars and 1:19 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 3%. 

So Giulinis acceleration is rather low.

Regarding other aspects lets go through it bar for bar:

Bars 27-28: Giulini: The horn lines up mood-wise with what was played before. In the case of Solti/LSO the horn immediately sounds dramatic: Link. In the case of Levine the horn sounds still calm, but the strings sound already upset: Link

Bar 29: The brass enters softly in the Giulini recording. In Levines case it enters dramatically.

Bars 31-33: Giulini case: Everything is calm, nothing has happened here. Other recordings have more of a restlessness here.

Bars 36-38: Giulini: calm and delicate. Horenstein: great sound, excitement: Link

Bar 39: Nice first climax from Giulini, but Levine for example shows that much more surprising emotional terror is possible here: Link

Bars 40-43: Still rather soft without much turbolence as if not much happens here in the Giulini case.

Bars 44-46: Giulinis climax is ok. Its sounds good, but much more is psossible regarding showing the beauty of the orchestration and intensity, like Solti shows it: Link


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> He starts it tenderly, what raises a lot of question marks for me...
> Thats not really "furious" and "deceisive" like the score says.....
> I analyzed the tempi of some recordings and Giulini does not accelerate much


your opinion....so what??



> Giulini needs 2:12 for the first 26 bars and 1:33 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 9%.
> Levine needs 2:05 for the first 26 bars and 1:19 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 22%....._and so forth_


Oh, please, are you kidding me - % ages????



> Regarding other aspects lets go through it bar for bar...


Let's not, it's quite meaningless...look at the big picture....you're not seeing the forest for the trees

I'm not really interested in your bar by bar opinions of Giulini's conducting... listen to the whole package - the flow, the drama, the rising/falling action....These guys are nailing it, big-time - individually, and collectively as an ensemble, pretty much unrivalled, ime...Walter does this very well, as does Boulez...
I don't know what your concept of this work might be, or what you expect to hear....but, if you go by the score - Giulini is certainly right on it, and his orchestra delivers 100%...[nowhere does it indicate that tempo should increase/decrease by xxx%]
I've heard this work performed live, 3 times - Abbado/BPO - superb conducting, CA really had it down, the orchestra had some serious issues in Boston Sym Hall, but it was a terrific concert; Levine/BSO - good, but Levine did not bring enough difference in the dynamic level - stayed too loud too much of the time....orchestra was good, weak trumpet[substitute], first horn [Gus Sebring] did well played softly on his first entrances, then everything after was loud, everything; Salonen/CSO - great - conducting was very reminiscent of Giulini - set up the climaxes beautifully - great dynamic contrast - beautiful balance in the orchestra, wonderful clarity....powerful climaxes....best of the 3, for sure...


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> He starts it tenderly, what raises a lot of question marks for me...
> Thats not really "furious" and "deceisive" like the score says.....
> I analyzed the tempi of some recordings and Giulini does not accelerate much


your opinion....so what??



> Giulini needs 2:12 for the first 26 bars and 1:33 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 9%.
> Levine needs 2:05 for the first 26 bars and 1:19 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 22%....._and so forth_


Oh, please, are you kidding me - % ages????



> Regarding other aspects lets go through it bar for bar...


Let's not, it's quite meaningless...look at the big picture....you're not seeing the forest for the trees

I'm not really interested in your bar by bar opinions of Giulini's conducting... listen to the whole package - the flow, the drama, the rising/falling action....These guys are nailing it, big-time - individually, and collectively as an ensemble, pretty much unrivalled, ime...Walter does this very well, as does Boulez...
I don't know what your concept of this work might be, or what you expect to hear....but, if you go by the score - Giulini is certainly right on it, and his orchestra delivers 100%...[nowhere does it indicate that tempo should increase/decrease by xxx%]

I've heard this work performed live, 3 times - Abbado/BPO - superb conducting, CA really had it down, the orchestra had some serious issues in Boston Sym Hall, but it was a terrific concert; Levine/BSO - good, but Levine did not bring enough difference in the dynamic level - stayed too loud too much of the time....orchestra was good, weak trumpet[substitute], first horn [Gus Sebring] did well played softly on his first entrances, then everything after was loud, everything; Salonen/CSO - great - conducting was very reminiscent of Giulini - set up the climaxes beautifully - great dynamic contrast - beautiful balance in the orchestra, wonderful clarity....powerful climaxes....best of the 3, for sure...


----------



## Aries

Heck148 said:


> your opinion....so what??


Ehm, what? Yes, that obviosly my opinion. And this is a forum to talk about classical music.



Heck148 said:


> Oh, please, are you kidding me - % ages????


Of course percentages.



Heck148 said:


> Let's not, it's quite meaningless...look at the big picture....you're not seeing the forest for the trees
> 
> I'm not really interested in your bar by bar opinions of Giulini's conducting... listen to the whole package - the flow, the drama, the rising/falling action....These guys are nailing it, big-time - individually, and collectively as an ensemble, pretty much unrivalled, ime...Walter does this very well, as does Boulez...
> I don't know what your concept of this work might be, or what you expect to hear....


The big picture is a viscous performance with a lot of tension, but yes, this not match my concept of the first movement. Fury and even utter chaos is part of that concept. There are wild, destructive forces behind this music that should not be subdued.



Heck148 said:


> but, if you go by the score - Giulini is certainly right on it, and his orchestra delivers 100%...


Nobody does that. 100%, this specific percentage. Especially in the case of such difficult music.



Heck148 said:


> [nowhere does it indicate that tempo should increase/decrease by xxx%]


I certainly did not say that a certain percentage is right. I just compared performances, to show that Giulini did not accelerate much there. Because you said he changed the mood there quite dramatically. Well, at least this "dramatic mood change" did not effect the tempo much there. (The dynamics even less imo.)


----------



## HenryPenfold

Aries said:


> The brass sounds good. A strength of the recording. But I think the prominent percussion in the Horenstein recording make it sound more brutal: Link
> 
> He starts it tenderly, what raises a lot of question marks for me:Link
> 
> Thats not really "furious" and "deceisive" like the score says.
> 
> 
> I analyzed the tempi of some recordings and Giulini does not accelerate much:
> 
> The first 26 bars are rather cozy. The next 20 bars have a disturbed, furious athmosphere.
> 
> Giulini needs 2:12 for the first 26 bars and 1:33 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 9%.
> Levine needs 2:05 for the first 26 bars and 1:19 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 22%.
> Solti/LSO needs 1:53 for the first 26 bars and 1:13 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 19%.
> Rattle needs 2:12 for the first 26 bars and 1:17 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 32%.
> Horenstein needs 1:55 for the first 26 bars and 3:17 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 8%.
> Chailly needs 2:19 for the first 26 bars and 1:27 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 23%.
> Karajan/1982 needs 1:46 for the first 26 bars and 1:19 for the next 20. That is an tempo increase of 3%.
> 
> So Giulinis acceleration is rather low.
> 
> Regarding other aspects lets go through it bar for bar:
> 
> Bars 27-28: Giulini: The horn lines up mood-wise with what was played before. In the case of Solti/LSO the horn immediately sounds dramatic: Link. In the case of Levine the horn sounds still calm, but the strings sound already upset: Link
> 
> Bar 29: The brass enters softly in the Giulini recording. In Levines case it enters dramatically.
> 
> Bars 31-33: Giulini case: Everything is calm, nothing has happened here. Other recordings have more of a restlessness here.
> 
> Bars 36-38: Giulini: calm and delicate. Horenstein: great sound, excitement: Link
> 
> Bar 39: Nice first climax from Giulini, but Levine for example shows that much more surprising emotional terror is possible here: Link
> 
> Bars 40-43: Still rather soft without much turbolence as if not much happens here in the Giulini case.
> 
> Bars 44-46: Giulinis climax is ok. Its sounds good, but much more is psossible regarding showing the beauty of the orchestration and intensity, like Solti shows it: Link


This is interesting and I thank you for taking the trouble. But measurements don't actually tell us that much about the actual music. You make some good observations about 'restlessness', 'excitement', 'terror' etc, but I think you and I may respond to music rather differently.


----------



## Aries

HenryPenfold said:


> This is interesting and I thank you for taking the trouble. But measurements will never tell us so much about the actual music.


We should not understand them as too important, but I think they can indicate something.



> You make some good observations about 'restlessness', 'excitement', 'terror' etc, but I think you and I may respond to music rather differently.


Possible, especially in the case of difficult music like Mahlers 9th. But talking about it may help to understand the music and to understand our understanding of the music more.

The Adagio might be a good example. For me Mahler makes peace with the world in this movement, and the movement can satisfies me deeply. But it is a positive movement for me. Not sure how others feel about it. I heard words like "heartbreaking", but for me it is rather like making peace with everything that was heartbreaking.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Aries said:


> We should not understand them as too important, but I think they can indicate something.
> 
> 
> Possible, especially in the case of difficult music like Mahlers 9th. But talking about it may help to understand the music and to understand our understanding of the music more.
> 
> The Adagio might be a good example. For me Mahler makes peace with the world in this movement, and the movement can satisfies me deeply. But it is a positive movement for me. Not sure how others feel about it. I heard words like "heartbreaking", but for me it is rather like making peace with everything that was heartbreaking.


I totally agree that talking about music may help understanding, especially when contrasting views can be exchanged. 

Your posts prompted me to spin Solti's Mahler 9 (I couldn't find my LSO version so I went for the Chicago). Your reflection on the finale is apposite. At this moment in time I find the emotional complexity of the finale singularly equivocal and I'm not sure what I personally take from it; reconciliation, desolation, catharsis? I look forward to many further listen en route to an answer!

For the record, I found this (Chicago Decca) superior to his earlier LSO (although I haven't listened to that one in a while).


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> {quote]Of course percentages.


Nowhere, nowhere, is there any absolute numerical standard for musical values in regards to tempo, dynamics or timings - ie -
Nowhere is it required that Andante must = 72 beats/min
Nowhere is it required that forte should = 75db
Nowhere is it established that any section of music should take exactly 3'30" to perform [Cage excepted 😉]...the premise that one of these features is above or below some fictitious absolute by a certain "percentage" is totally silly,


> The big picture is a viscous performance with a lot of tension, but yes, this not match my concept of the first movement.


Giulini viscous?? It's crystal clear, the clarity of texture is amazing, even in the wild fortissimos....you can hear all the lines.


> Fury and even utter chaos is part of that concept. There are wild, destructive forces behind this music that should not be subdued.


Agreed, and subdued performance has NO relevance to Giulini whatsoever...Rattle perhaps, that one is pretty gooey, muddy in places...simply doesn't generate the power in the climaxes...


> Nobody does that. 100%, this specific percentage. Especially in the case of such difficult music.


Agreed - M9 is very difficult, for both conductor and orchestra....but Giulini, Walter and Boulez get just about all of it....just look at the score....the parts are there, they are being played, to the hilt...


> I just compared performances, to show that Giulini did not accelerate much there.


?? so what??


> Because you said he changed the mood there quite dramatically..


He does, throughout the entire symphony, with great artistic skill.


----------



## Heck148

HenryPenfold said:


> This is interesting and I thank you for taking the trouble. But measurements don't actually tell us that much about the actual music.


Right - tempo, dynamics, duration must always be considered in relation to the big picture, the whole movement, the entire section...


> HP from post #90 -
> Yes, I should have commented on the orchestral playing. The Chicago is an excellent orchestra. Not just the brass, but the strings and woodwinds are also breathtaking on this recording...


Yes, absolutely, stunning throughout - a perfect example is at the conclusion of mvt II, the Landler - the chamber music setting with solo Flute, Bassoon, Contrabassoon, Horn, Viola is amazing - the intertwining, overlapping solo passages are executed superbly - great ensemble, perfect balance, dynamics, phrasing...the whole deal - I usually rewind and play this passage over a couple of times on listening - it is so magical...wonderful playing of exquisite orchestration.


----------



## Aries

Heck148 said:


> Nowhere, nowhere, is there any absolute numerical standard for musical values in regards to tempo, dynamics or timings - ie -
> Nowhere is it required that Andante must = 72 beats/min
> Nowhere is it required that forte should = 75db
> Nowhere is it established that any section of music should take exactly 3'30" to perform [Cage excepted 😉]...the premise that one of these features is above or below some fictitious absolute by a certain "percentage" is totally silly,


Nobody claimed that there is an absolute numerical standard, at least I didn't.

So I think it is silly to think, that I claimed that.

Percentages (relative values) are nonetheless useful to compare things.

As I stated Horenstein accelerated even less in this section than Giulini, and I recommend the Horenstein recording, so the tempo change is just one thing of many. But it is a thing that is actually objectively measurable, what makes talking about it easier than about things like clearness, viscosity, passion etc.



> Giulini viscous?? It's crystal clear, the clarity of texture is amazing, even in the wild fortissimos....you can hear all the lines.


"Crystal clear" yes I can agree to that. It is a pronounced strength of the recording. But for me it is not primary requirement for a performance of this symphony. The clearness does not touch me when I miss passion. And Giulini also has it, but for me other just have it more. But passion is not objectively measurable.



> ?? so what??


I disagree with you that he changed the mood much in this section. A tempo change has a good propability to go along with a mood change. You also had no interest in a discussion of other aspects of the section. So you just say "the mood changed", and I say "the mood did not change". We disagree. And that is the end of the story apparently.

But its interessting that this disagreement appears regarding this movement, because the music has imo something to do with unsolvable incompatibility. There is an unsolvable disgruntlement that I like to appear harsh and abrupt. But that opinions about how to handle such music differ is maybe not just a happenstance but due to the topic.


----------



## Waehnen

Aries said:


> Can you specify some examples? I think the Rattle performance is rather good.
> 
> The 9th is really complicated, I think it requieres a lot of interpretation regarding balance of instruments, tempo changes, dynamics, structure. Solti had a great feeling for such things and perfection, what benefits his performances. But the LSO recording is really better than that in Chicago, which is not that special.
> 
> Really bloodless and disappointing is the Karajan live recording of 1982. Seems like he applied german bureaucracy to the work and refused to interpret.
> 
> Giulini is also unimpressive.
> 
> On the other hand Haitinks 1970 performance is really hot. He plays it like a heart attack. Its interessting, absolutely has something even tough it is overall probably not the best performance, because some beauty is missing. His 1987 performance is longer and more on the beautiful side. There is also a good performace with the LSO, which appears to be the best orchestra for the symphony. Haitink interprets the symphony very well.
> 
> Important is imo the intensity of the sound, passion and anger in the interpretation and the beauty of the orchestration. There are many lax and soft recordings which I don't like. Not so many good performances. Its a difficult work, easy to do wrong.
> 
> Maybe the best performance at least of the first movement did Horenstein with the LSO. It has the intensity, passion and beauty. The sound is great despite the technique. The middle movements are a bit too slow and soft tough, compared to Solti for example.
> 
> Beauty, passion and intensity has also the Chailly recording with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra.
> 
> And Rattle also did it rather good imo, compared to some others...


I will get back to you on this. I need to get over my initial reactions to Rattle/Berlin/M9. As a listener I tend to have strong initial reactions.


----------



## Enthusiast

Waehnen said:


> I will get back to you on this. I need to get over my initial reactions to Rattle/Berlin/M9. As a listener I tend to have strong initial reactions.


I think you objection to Rattle/Berlin was that it was over the top? It certainly is a very rich sounding and pronounced reading but for me that goes well with Rattle's old tendency to be overly fussy. But I do have difficulties when a performance might be OTT. It is a quality that I can only separate in my mind from, say, "powerful" over time. Does it pall and come to seem vulgar or does it continue to inspire? I loved the Rattle on the one hearing I have given it but it would take a few more hearings for me to rule it out as OTT. I remember liking Wesler-Most's Mahler 4 when I first heard it ... but then, after a couple of listens, hearing it as greatly OTT.


----------



## Heck148

Aries said:


> .... the tempo change is just one thing of many. But it is a thing that is actually objectively measurable,


right, but does it have any great significance, taken just by itself?? tempo change, leading to what?? following what??



> "Crystal clear" yes I can agree to that. It is a pronounced strength of the recording. But for me it is not primary requirement for a performance of this symphony. The clearness does not touch me when I miss passion. And Giulini also has it, but for me other just have it more. But passion is not objectively measurable.


I want both, which is why I love the Giulini, Boulez and Walter - tons of passion and _espressivo, _but also great clarity...all of those complex, intertwining lines are, or should be audible, due to Mahler's great orchestration....when added together, sounding simultaneously, the effect is most dramatic and passionate.



> I disagree with you that he changed the mood much in this section...[--]....But its interessting that this disagreement appears regarding this movement, because the music has imo something to do with unsolvable incompatibility. There is an unsolvable disgruntlement that I like to appear harsh and abrupt.


I find that Giulini changes mood pretty constantly throughout the first mvt, the whole piece, actually...in mvt I, the changes from tranquility to agitation are marked out most effectively...and this is the key to the movement, for me...I don't see it as incompatibility so much, but rather a conflict between peaceful tranquility, and attack, stress, turmoil, and following the shattering blast at climax #4 [low brass], resignation, acceptance...yes, the attacks are harsh and abrupt, and it is the contrast between these and the peaceful interludes that makes the work so effective. 
When I heard this symphony live, Abbado presented the contrasts most effectively, but the orchestra really lacked to wallop, the oomph at the big climaxes....with Levine, the whole dynamic ewwas louder, but he didn't make the contrasts as effectively, he settled for too much mezzo-mezzo-forte stuff... Salonen got the contrasts right, and the orchestra delivered most effectively.


----------



## Heck148

2ble post, sorry, still trying to figure out edit/delete with new format...


----------



## Knorf

Mahler's Ninth has always been very dear to me, since my first listen. It blew me away, in fact. I heard it first on the LP set with the Sixth, Bernstein/NYPO, and in fact both symphonies did. I was 15. I didn't know music could be like that! Previously, I only knew the First, which I loved but didn't have that level of impact on me.

Mahler's music seemed like the God we all wish we had, a powerful, transcendent voice, as if to say: "your pain is real. Your feelings are valid." (Yes, I was one of those kind of teenagers. But in fairness I had gone through a lot, for someone growing up white and middle class in the U.S.)

Mahler's Ninth has done well on record. Bernstein/NYPO is one I love forever, but I might love the Concertgebuow recording even more. The live Bernstein/Berlin account I find rather overrated.

Others I adore for various reasons: Walter/Columbia, Karajan/Berlin (live), Abbado/Berlin, Boulez/Chicago, Kubelík/Bavarian Radio, Fischer/Budapest, Barbirolli/Berlin, Jansons/Bavarian Radio... I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Anyway, are there bad ones? I kinda doubt it.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> Mahler's Ninth has always been very dear to me, since my first listen. It blew me away, in fact. I heard it first on the LP set with the Sixth, Bernstein/NYPO, and in fact both symphonies did. I was 15. I didn't know music could be like that! Previously, I only knew the First, which I loved but didn't have that level of impact on me.
> 
> Mahler's music seemed like the God we all wish we had, a powerful, transcendent voice, as if to say: "your pain is real. Your feelings are valid." (Yes, I was one of those kind of teenagers. But in fairness I had gone through a lot, for someone growing up white and middle class in the U.S.)
> 
> Mahler's Ninth has done well on record. Bernstein/NYPO is one I love forever, but I might love the Concertgebuow recording even more. The live Bernstein/Berlin account I find rather overrated.
> 
> Others I adore for various reasons: Walter/Columbia, Karajan/Berlin (live), Abbado/Berlin, Boulez/Chicago, Kubelík/Bavarian Radio, Fischer/Budapest, Barbirolli/Berlin, Jansons/Bavarian Radio... I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Anyway, are there bad ones? I kinda doubt it.


Thanks for sharing that Knorf. I came tp classical music quite late (late 20s/early 30s) and the first time I heard the 9th was when I bought Barbirolli's BPO on EMI after reading so much about the work and this performance - the rest is history. 

I've attended many concert performances and always try to get a ticket whenever it's on in London. I agree that there this a profound transcendental integrant, but I'm not quite sure if it's man's spirit, or from the cosmos.

Lately I've been enjoying the less neurotic performances like Giulini and Haitink.


----------



## Malx

The ninth is one of those Symphonies that can benefit from various interpretations, I'm of the belief that there is not one correct way to play it - the recording I choose to play usually depends on my mood at the time.
Like Henry I came to CM in my late 20's and, I suspect Henry like I, was directed to Barbirolli (and others) by the Penguin Guide.
Rattle, Barbirolli, Klemperer, Walter, Bernstein, Solti, Giulini, Boulez, Ancerl and others all have their place in my affections.


----------



## Waehnen

Enthusiast said:


> I think you objection to Rattle/Berlin was that it was over the top? It certainly is a very rich sounding and pronounced reading but for me that goes well with Rattle's old tendency to be overly fussy. But I do have difficulties when a performance might be OTT. It is a quality that I can only separate in my mind from, say, "powerful" over time. Does it pall and come to seem vulgar or does it continue to inspire? I loved the Rattle on the one hearing I have given it but it would take a few more hearings for me to rule it out as OTT. I remember liking Wesler-Most's Mahler 4 when I first heard it ... but then, after a couple of listens, hearing it as greatly OTT.


My thoughts on the Rattle/Berlin/M9 have changed. It is not over the top although it is very colourful. Now it appears a true treasure, just like the 5th and the 6th with the same performers. I had just gotten used to certain enjoyable but toned down bursts of sound in the balancing hands of Solti. Rattle just used his balancing touch somewhere else but let the bursts of sound burst. I´m fine with it now.


----------



## Enthusiast

I was listening to the LSO Live Gergiev recording of Mahler 9 recently: one of the better ones, I thought.


----------



## Merl

The last 9th I listened to was the Salonen live one on Signum. For those who want a recording that's less gritty then this is a nice one. It's nowhere near a very top performance, for me, but it's got good rhythmic drive and the adagio is lovely.


----------



## Waehnen

Merl said:


> The last 9th I listened to was the Salonen live one on Signum. For those who want a recording that's less gritty then this is a nice one. It's nowhere near a very top performance, for me, but it's got good rhythmic drive and the adagio is lovely.


I have this one as well. Salonen´s take on Mahler´s 3rd on Sony is a really good one, but the 6th and the 9th on this Philharmonia label just lack the sound quality.


----------



## Merl

Waehnen said:


> I have this one as well. Salonen´s take on Mahler´s 3rd on Sony is a really good one, but the 6th and the 9th on this Philharmonia label just lack the sound quality.


Agreed about both the sound on the 9th and that very good 3rd. Nice to hear a different recording though.


----------



## Becca

If it's live from the Royal Festival Hall then the sound is no surprise. I recently watched a video from some weeks ago of the Tchaikovsky 2nd concerto and was underwhelmed by the sound quality.


----------



## PEJ

It’s my favorite symphony. I have all available recordings and have seen it live a half dozen times. I loved Honeck’s in Pittsburgh and will see it in London with Harding/Concertgebouw and Jurowski/LPO in the next few months. I‘ve heard few recordings that haven’t appealed in one way or another (still coming to terms with Rosbaud’s extremely zippy adagio and Moderna’s bonkers one in all 3 of his live recordings). My absolute faves are Tennstedt’s live 1982 Philadelphia and esp. his 1988 Carnegie Hall NYPO, both available from YSL. I‘ve loved that conductor since seeing his North American debut concerts in Toronto and saw him only 3 other times live, always a very special event. Pretty much ignore his studio recordings which are a very pale distortion of his best.


----------



## PEJ

HenryPenfold said:


> Thanks for sharing that Knorf. I came tp classical music quite late (late 20s/early 30s) and the first time I heard the 9th was when I bought Barbirolli's BPO on EMI after reading so much about the work and this performance - the rest is history.
> 
> I've attended many concert performances and always try to get a ticket whenever it's on in London. I agree that there this a profound transcendental integrant, but I'm not quite sure if it's man's spirit, or from the cosmos.
> 
> Lately I've been enjoying the less neurotic performances like Giulini and Haitink.


Of the 3 Bernstein’s I prefer the VPO dvd for passionate yet consistent playing and phrasing—no missing posaunen.


----------



## Rogerx

PEJ said:


> Of the 3 Bernstein’s I prefer the VPO dvd for passionate yet consistent playing and phrasing—no missing posaunen.



I completely agree with you , sitting in your own chair, good system and watching, perfect night in.


----------



## Waehnen

A good thing about the 9th is that I don´t really remember a bad recording of it! Which made me realise I have no bad experiences of this symphony at all, after I learned to accept the hopping and ironic I - V - I of the 2nd Movement.

I have at least: Bernstein (Berliner live), Haitink (Concertgebouw), Karajan (Berliner live), Rattle x 2, Barbirolli, Salonen and Solti.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> A good thing about the 9th is that I don´t really remember a bad recording of it! Which made me realise I have no bad experiences of this symphony at all,....


I don't know too many bad recordings of M9 -(Svetlanov- aaaaaagghh)...but there are lots of mediocre ones: B, B- rating for me....not terrible, they just miss a lot. M9 is very intense, there's little or no "fluff"...


----------



## Waehnen

What I especially like about the finale of the 9th: Mahler seems to have pushed away all the show off. The sincere sound waves follow each other without too much sophistication or elaboration. There is a lot of the double turns but somehow even that proves the authenticity of the expression. Neither can I sense any Wagnerian need to overwhelm -- there is nothing calculating, nothing egoistic and nothing arrogant here. The music resembles a lot the finale of the 3rd Symphony but Mahler is not even trying to hide it. And I appreciate it.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Knorf said:


> Mahler's music seemed like the God we all wish we had, a powerful, transcendent voice, as if to say: "your pain is real. Your feelings are valid."


That's a great description of Mahler's music.


----------

