# What to look for in Mahler's 9th



## Bayreuth

What makes a recording of Mahler's 9th symphony a great recording? In other words, what do you look for when you listen to a performance of this symphony? Do you look for intensity/passion? Clarity? Precission? Expression? Something else?

Which performances or conductors have given you what you looked for in this symphony??


----------



## dsphipps100

At the risk of sounding like a "Beckmesser", the first thing I look for is an accurate performance - no (major) gaffs by the orchestra (like the trombone section taking a vacation during the symphony's penultimate climax), nothing overly "weird" on the part of the conductor (like Klemperer inexplicably taking the Mahler 7th ca. 30% slower than most typical performances).

Next, the conductor and the orchestra need to sound as if they are actually enjoying and getting into the music. If they're bored about what they're doing, then so will be the listener(s).

And then, (and this is simply a personal preference on my part, not everybody will agree with this, and that's perfectly OK) the sound/engineering needs to be good quality. What constitutes "good" is very subjective, of course. Basically, the recording needs to be capable of accommodating the full, massive dynamic range of a Mahler symphony, and it needs to have enough clarity that all the parts in Mahler's mind-blowingly complex polyphonic writing can be heard (assuming the orchestra and conductor are also doing their part to make those parts audible).

Another thing in particular about the 9th Symphony is that the conductor must take care not to get too involved or interventionist with the performance. Mahler had reached a point by this time in his life where his lifelong struggle with death (progressively portrayed for all to see/hear in his symphonies) had reached a point of resigned, (somewhat) peaceful acceptance. The ending section of Das Lied von der Erde's "Der Abschied", written only about a year or so before the 9th, concludes with a statement that the Earth, nature, and life in general will go on even after the proverbial poet has passed on, something that previous symphonies did not portray with such confidence (except, perhaps, the 8th). It is important for this to be kept in mind while interpreting the 9th. The 9th is not about an ongoing philosophical/theological struggle. It's about a _resolution_ of that struggle.

Mahler looks back over his world with all of its endless, ongoing death, its landler parodies, and its rondo satire, and he's OK with it. He can accept it.

The concluding Adagio, surely one of the most towering adagios in the history of music, could very easily be taken so slowly by the conductor, in an attempt to wring every possible ounce of angst from its pages, that it collapses thematically, and becomes a lethargic dirge.

However, Mahler wrote it in such a way that, if the performers will simply follow Mahler's highly detailed markings/instructions in the score, and not try to make more of it than is there on the page, then the 9th's "message" will come through with unmistakable clarity and power.

So to sum up, I suppose I would say what I look for in a great Mahler 9th is something I would describe as "objective passion". As I mentioned earlier, this is assuming, of course, that the various sub-components are also in place, the orchestra doing a world-class job, the conductor not doing anything to make it his/her 9th instead of letting it be Mahler's 9th, and the sound/engineering being of sufficient quality to allow the listener to fully enjoy the complete totality of the whole experience.

Karajan and Berlin recorded the 9th twice, a studio, analogue recording in 1979, and then a live, digital recording in 1982. Both are excellent, but the 1982 DDD is usually considered the better of the two.

When the 1982 DDD Karajan-Berlin recording appeared on the market, here's what Gramophone Magazine had to say about it:

_"Karajan's reading and the Berliners' playing of it is one of the seven wonders of the modern musical world. Schwalbe _(Berlin's concertmaster at the time)_ and his men really did play the work from first note to last with a degree of technical address which, by normal standards of human perfectibility, was well-nigh incredible."_

Folks, you don't get comments like that from Gramophone Magazine - ever. They're a British publication and also one of the most respected classical review publications in the world, but they don't even say things like that about British orchestras, let alone a German orchestra like the Berliner Philharmoniker.

After 30+ years of listening to that recording again and again, I can only agree with Gramophone. If somebody were to ask me to nominate a single outstanding-Mahler-recording-of-all-time, I would most certainly name this one immediately. It has to be heard to be believed, especially when one remembers that it's a _live performance_, without the benefit of studio multiple takes and editing. This is how the Berliners sounded in person that day! Absolutely astonishing.










Something else about this recording: If you get this Karajan-Berlin recording, try to get the version in the "Karajan Gold" series. (Notice the little "Karajan Gold" icon in the lower left corner of the photo.) That's a re-mastered version with better quality sound than the original release had. It's a noticeable difference that's well worth it.

Here it is from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-No-9-Gustav/dp/B000001GK9/

...or you can also purchase an instant FLAC lossless download from Britain's "Presto Classical" right here:
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/DG/4745372

(Presto Classical's version displays a different cover for some Gramophone Magazine awards that this recording very justly won, but it's the same "Karajan Gold" mastering with better sound. If you get this and want the original cover/artwork, let me know, and I can transmit you a copy.)

(This recording is broken up into multiple tracks for each movement [a total of 30 tracks on the whole album], so whatever you do, don't purchase a download version in mp3 format, because every new track will cause a blip in the sound. That's just the way mp3 works. FLAC tracks, however, will transition seamlessly, just as smoothly as the physical CD would sound.)

If you do a search on Amazon, you'll find the Bernstein-Berlin recording near the top of any search for Mahler's 9th. Let me caution you, that was a live performance recorded by a Berlin radio station who later sold the recording to Deutsche Grammophone to be released, no doubt with Deutsche Grammophone seeing Deutschmarks bounding before their eyes at the idea of being able to market the only time Bernstein ever conducted the Berlin Philharmonic. Tragically, the performance is littered with technical slips by the Berlin Philharmonic, including a particularly infamous and notorious gaff where, at the climax of the last movement (so it's also pretty much the climax of the whole symphony), the entire trombone section completely missed their entrance. Rumor has it that a gentleman nearby in the audience (keep in mind, Berlin's concert hall uses a surround seating setup) had apparently collapsed of a heart attack or something similar, so the trombones were so concerned for him that they missed their entrance. But anyway, the Bernstein-Berlin recording cannot be considered properly representative of what the piece should correctly sound like, so just keep that caution in mind. If you want the Berlin Philharmonic doing Mahler's 9th, just get either of the Karajan versions, and you'll be in good shape. (Claudio Abbado and Simon Rattle also recorded Mahler's 9th with the Berlin Philhamonic, but neither is as good as the Karajan versions.)

Riccardo Chailly/Amsterdam is also very good, as is the earlier Haitink/Amsterdam, and the Tilson Thomas/San Francisco recording is another excellent version, as is, additionally, the Solti-Chicago version.

(If you want Bernstein doing the 9th, his 1960s NY Phil recording would probably be the best option. I've already mentioned the problems with his Berlin version, plus his DDD recording on Deutsche Grammophon with Amsterdam is a very good example of the conductor doing exactly what I cautioned against earlier in this post, getting too involved. Bernstein slams on the brakes during the closing section of the Adagio to the point that it collapses. I understand what he was trying to do, and there are other examples where he pulled it off (i.e. Tchaikovsky 6, Barber Adagio for Strings), but his Amsterdam Mahler 9th is unfortunately an instance where it didn't work.

And just so you know that I certainly do not have anything against Bernstein doing Mahler, his DGG Mahler 3rd with the NY Phil and his DGG Mahler 6th with the Vienna Philharmonic are the finest recordings of those two pieces that I have ever heard. I even posted a thread a while back about Bernstein's DGG Mahler 3rd.)

I hope this helps. Happy listening.


----------



## Bayreuth

dsphipps100 said:


> (You didn't ask for any performer recommendations, so I have not made any, but if you are interested, just say so and I'm always happy to spout off my opinion on that subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Please do!


----------



## dsphipps100

My mistake, actually, on looking closer, I see where you did, in fact, ask for performer recommendations. Please accept my apologies. I edited my post to include some further information on those lines. I hope it's of some help.


----------



## Enthusiast

My favourites in this work will demonstrate that I do not have a particular way I like 9 to be played. I love the Boulez recording - both for its typical Boulezian clarity and accuracy and because he really gives it some wellie. I also agree that Karajan is exceptionally satisfying in this work (his only Mahler recordings that I rate highly). Then there is the extraordinary live BBC recording under Bruno Maderna. More recently I have been very impressed by Fischer's recording and not at all impressed by Alan Gilbert's, which I find rather superficial. Klemperer's recording is a typical example of his interpretive style - and a great success.


----------



## dsphipps100

Enthusiast said:


> I have been very impressed by Fischer's recording


The Fischer has been very highly spoken of by a number of sources.









Out of curiosity, were you able to listen to the surround sound layer on the SACD?


----------



## Avey

Foremost, dsphipps, I like reading your posts. You put a lot of effort into every post, which I appreciate. So please don't (ever ever ever) read into my posts certain disgust, or disdain, or antipathy. I just want to share my opinion -- whether it is _simpatico_ or in conflict. Well then!:



dsphipps100 said:


> ....What constitutes "good" is very subjective, of course. ...
> 
> So to sum up, I suppose I would say what I look for in a great Mahler 9th is something I would describe as "objective passion". ... the orchestra doing a world-class job, the conductor not doing anything to make it his/her 9th instead of letting it be Mahler's 9th, and the sound/engineering being of sufficient quality to allow the listener to fully enjoy the complete totality of the whole experience.


Yeah, just to clarify: there is no "objective passion." That is incomprehensible. You either feel it yourself, or you don't. You can't "_not _feel personally" the "passion" in the music. Huge logical knot here.



dsphipps100 said:


> ...Mahler had reached a point by this time in his life where his lifelong struggle with death (progressively portrayed for all to see/hear in his symphonies) had reached a point of resigned, (somewhat) peaceful acceptance. The ending section of Das Lied von der Erde's "Der Abschied", written only about a year or so before the 9th, concludes with a statement that the Earth, nature, and life in general will go on even after the proverbial poet has passed on, something that previous symphonies did not portray with such confidence (except, perhaps, the 8th). It is important for this to be kept in mind while interpreting the 9th. The 9th is not about an ongoing philosophical/theological struggle. It's about a _resolution_ of that struggle.


Wholly disagree. If you have resigned, or "accept" your death, or are finished, etc etc, well then, you don't write the Ninth Symphony! Hell, you don't write the Tenth! That doesn't happen. Down with this resignation crap.



dsphipps100 said:


> However, Mahler wrote it in such a way that, if the performers will simply follow Mahler's highly detailed markings/instructions in the score, and not try to make more of it than is there on the page, then the 9th's "message" will come through with unmistakable clarity and power.


Yet, you -- the listener -- are obliged to decipher a "message," as it were, as aforementioned. But god forbid a conductor take liberty in the interpretation to produce music.



dsphipps100 said:


> ...here's what Gramophone Magazine had to say about it:
> 
> _"Karajan's reading and the Berliners' playing of it is one of the seven wonders of the modern musical world. Schwalbe _(Berlin's concertmaster at the time)_ and his men really did play the work from first note to last with a degree of technical address which, by normal standards of human perfectibility, was well-nigh incredible."_
> Folks, you don't get comments like that from Gramophone Magazine - ever. ...


I routinely pick up Gramophone from a local store, and two things:

(1) YOU ALWAYS GET EXAGGERATED CRAP LIKE THIS
(2) I find Karajan's Ninth (or any Mahler, e.g.) rather disappointing, to put it mildly.



dsphipps100 said:


> ... Rumor has it that a gentleman nearby in the audience (keep in mind, Berlin's concert hall uses a surround seating setup) had apparently collapsed of a heart attack or something similar, so the trombones were so concerned for him that they missed their entrance.


That is concerning for the gentleman, but what a wonderful little note re the performance. My favorite performance of all time was one _Missa Solemnis_. There, during the final Agnus Dei movement, when the chorus is chanting _pacem, pacem_ for the penultimate time, a woman in the chorus fainted.

I was not far off.



dsphipps100 said:


> (Claudio Abbado and Simon Rattle also recorded Mahler's 9th with the Berlin Philhamonic, but neither is as good as the Karajan versions.)Riccardo Chailly/Amsterdam is also very good


Specifically disagree. I think both of those recordings are great, with the latter's (Rattle) literal _sound quality_ quite intense -- loud loud loud, as it were.

And Chailly with Concertgebouw -- get that DVD, simply for the 1-on-1 between Chailly and LeGrange. Worth the purchase. 15 minutes of just, yeah, Mahler heat. Straight shooters, like minds -- BANG!


----------



## dsphipps100

. .


----------



## Autocrat

If you want to see how good Mahler 9 can be as well as hear it, I recommend the Bluray version of Abbado/Lucerne Festival Orchestra.

Really very good.


----------



## Pugg

May I be so bold to suggest the Bernstein with the New York Ph.


----------



## dsphipps100

Pugg said:


> May I be so bold to suggest the Bernstein with the New York Ph.


That is probably the best of Bernstein's 3 recordings of it.


----------



## Pugg

dsphipps100 said:


> That is probably the best of Bernstein's 3 recordings of it.


Spot on :tiphat:


----------



## realdealblues

I look for a combination of things I guess but it's not just Mahler, it's for most everything. Yes I look for orchestral precision to a certain degree. It doesn't need to be perfect but I'm not going to listen to sour woodwinds for an hour either. I look for momentum (Can the conductor carry forward the momentum straight through to the end?), cohesiveness (Does the Symphony feel whole? Do the tempos flow naturally or does it seem choppy?). For Mahler though how closely are Mahler's notations cared for? I allow a certain amount of freedom but Mahler being conductor and composer left a lot of notes on how he wanted things to go. More personally I ask myself whether the performance stirs something in me? There's lots of things I go through in my head but I can't tell you everything.

As for performances that satisfy me the most and lets say 10 I would not want to be without off the top of my head...

Karel Ancerl/Czech Philharmonic
Bruno Walter/Columbia Symphony Orchestra
Otto Klemperer/New Philharmonia Orchestra
Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic
Herbert Von Karajan/Berlin Philharmonic (Both Studio & Live Recordings)
James Levine/Philadelphia Orchestra
Riccardo Chailly/Concertgebouw Orchestra
Kurt Sanderling/Berlin Symphony
Georg Solti/London Symphony Orchestra

There are others I love Rafael Kubelik is another example who could easily go in place of Solti or Sanderling, etc. But Ancerl, Klemperer, Walter, Bernstein, Karajan, Chailly would probably be my absolute tops.


----------



## Becca

Whether it was intentional or not, Mahler's symphonies can be seen as a number of large scale cycles. The first 4 (Wunderhorn) symphonies would be one. I look at the 5th & 6th as being another. If Mahler had died after the 6th, it would be easy to see that symphony as being a form of completion for him, and yet along comes his 7th and he starts a new cycle. If you listen closely to the various performing versions of the 10th, one can see that the 9th is not some form of musical self-requiem, rather it is the completion of yet another cycle. Given that view (which I am sure will be disputed!) any performance of the 9th that looks at being a farewell is doing Mahler a disservice.

P.S. I have the same view of the unfinished Bruckner 9th, it isn't a farewell either.


----------



## WaterRat

Becca said:


> If you listen closely to the various performing versions of the 10th, one can see that the 9th is not some form of musical self-requiem, rather it is the completion of yet another cycle. Given that view (which I am sure will be disputed!) any performance of the 9th that looks at being a farewell is doing Mahler a disservice.


Leonard Bernstein was particularly attached to the notion of the 9th being a farewell to life. I believe this was the reason he never performed a 'completed' version of the 10th.


----------



## Becca

WaterRat said:


> Leonard Bernstein was particularly attached to the notion of the 9th being a farewell to life. I believe this was the reason he never performed a 'completed' version of the 10th.


Perhaps because the reality conflicted with his fantasy? The extent to which Mahler had completed the work was very well known when Bernstein was involved with Mahler and Cooke's first version had already been performed in Philadelphia. I have some intellectual difficulty accepting conductor's who make a big show about respecting Mahler and not performing the completed 10th and yet still doing the adagio movement. Taking that movement out of context completely destroys what Mahler was building. Imagine if you only ever heard the first movement of the 5th, what would you think of it compared to what you know of it?


----------



## joen_cph

Generally I like very passioned Mahler recordings, but for the 9th symphony (which can at times be felt oppressively depressive, depending on one´s mood), I often like the more traditionally balanced, somehow "classicist" version with Kondrashin. 

I´ve got 10 recordings & can´t say that I know them all by heart (Kondrashin, Scherchen/orfeo, Karajan I-II, Tennstedt, Bernstein NYPO, Barbirolli, Kubelik, Walter I-II), but have often returned to the early, very engaged 1938 Walter mono too. This may be partly simply be a habit, however.


----------



## dsphipps100

WaterRat said:


> Leonard Bernstein was particularly attached to the notion of the 9th being a farewell to life.


This is precisely why he stretched the ending of his Amsterdam recording beyond the bounds of what the music can endure.









As Pugg suggested earlier, if you want Bernstein doing the 9th, his NY Phil recording is probably the most representative of the piece.

I still recommend the Karajan-Berlin 1982 DDD recording as just about the best you're likely to find.

(Others here have expressed a negative opinion of the Karajan for some reason, but without mentioning anything specifically wrong with the performance, so I'm not sure what problem anybody could be hearing. Maybe Mahlerian or somebody else can clear it up for me.)


----------



## WaterRat

Becca said:


> Perhaps because the reality conflicted with his fantasy? The extent to which Mahler had completed the work was very well known when Bernstein was involved with Mahler and Cooke's first version had already been performed in Philadelphia. I have some intellectual difficulty accepting conductor's who make a big show about respecting Mahler and not performing the completed 10th and yet still doing the adagio movement.


I agree, though maybe 'fantasy' is a tad harsh. Let's just say he really liked his own theory, palpitating heartbeats and all.


----------



## WaterRat

dsphipps100 said:


> This is precisely why he stretched the ending of his Amsterdam recording beyond the bounds of what the music can endure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Pugg suggested earlier, if you want Bernstein doing the 9th, his NY Phil recording is probably the most representative of the piece.
> 
> I still recommend the Karajan-Berlin 1982 DDD recording as just about the best you're likely to find.
> 
> (Others here have expressed a negative opinion of the Karajan for some reason, but without mentioning anything specifically wrong with the performance, so I'm not sure what problem anybody could be hearing. Maybe Mahlerian or somebody else can clear it up for me.)


Bernstein's recording with the NY Phil is my favourite recording of the 9th.

I have the Karajan '82 recording, too. It's great and powerful, but somehow slightly too surgical. Maybe Karajan's Apollo needed a touch of Lenny's Dionysus.


----------



## Barbebleu

WaterRat said:


> Leonard Bernstein was particularly attached to the notion of the 9th being a farewell to life. I believe this was the reason he never performed a 'completed' version of the 10th.


Some artists, like Bernstein for example, could be a bit precious about stuff like that. Given that Mahler had quite a bit of his tenth written I don't think he saw his ninth as being his last word on the symphony.


----------



## Mahlerian

Barbebleu said:


> Some artists, like Bernstein for example, could be a bit precious about stuff like that. Given that Mahler had quite a bit of his tenth written I don't think he saw his ninth as being his last word on the symphony.


As a structure, the Tenth is entirely complete. It just wasn't orchestrated and some details were missing.


----------



## Barbebleu

Mahlerian said:


> As a structure, the Tenth is entirely complete. It just wasn't orchestrated and some details were missing.


I knew that the whole thing was sketched and , I believe, the first movement was completely orchestrated. Happy to stand corrected if I have that wrong.


----------



## Mahlerian

Barbebleu said:


> I knew that the whole thing was sketched and , I believe, the first movement was completely orchestrated. Happy to stand corrected if I have that wrong.


Yes, the first movement and parts of the second and third. The other movements have occasional indications of orchestration (this line in the flute, this line to the violas, etc.).

But people who consider the work "unfinished" in the sense of, say, Schubert's Eighth or Beethoven's Tenth are wrong. The work is more complete than Bartok's Viola Concerto, for instance. From what we know of Mahler's working process, not a single bar of the structure of the symphony would have changed at the point it reached. It was, for all intents and purposes, a complete work in outline, if not in detail.


----------



## Becca

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, the first movement and parts of the second and third. The other movements have occasional indications of orchestration (this line in the flute, this line to the violas, etc.).
> 
> But people who consider the work "unfinished" in the sense of, say, Schubert's Eighth or Beethoven's Tenth are wrong. The work is more complete than Bartok's Viola Concerto, for instance. From what we know of Mahler's working process, not a single bar of the structure of the symphony would have changed at the point it reached. It was, for all intents and purposes, a complete work in outline, if not in detail.


As evidence of Mahlerian's statement try listening to the Carpenter*, Wheeler and Cooke performing editions and see just how close they are to each other EVEN THOUGH they all did their work without knowledge of the other. That didn't happen by random chance.

*Taking into account that Carpenter willfully added some bits from other Mahler symphonies.


----------



## hpowders

OP: Nobody can accurately articulate this. It's all subjective, if I understand the meaning of your query. Nothing is harder than attempting to explain music with words-the reason musical appreciation courses are complete failures.

The first thing is get a performance of the symphony that is highly rated, like Bernstein/Concertgebouw, Karajan or Boulez, and learn the music inside out.

Then do some comparative listening.

Compare one of the Bernstein recordings (the Concertgebouw performance is my favorite) to the Karajan and/or Boulez performances, for example.

Nobody can tell you what makes a performance better than any other or what to look for. It is all purely subjective.

But, the first thing you need to do is get a recording and play it so many times, you really know the music, inside and out.

Then you can compare it to a different recording. You, yourself should then be able to articulate which performance you like and why.


----------



## dsphipps100

Becca said:


> I have the same view of the unfinished Bruckner 9th, it isn't a farewell either.


Sorry, I just noticed this or I would've replied earlier. Out of curiosity, have you heard the "completed" Bruckner 9th finale? There are some very respectable recordings of it, including no less than Simon Rattle and the Berliner Philharmoniker.

Sorry for the aside.


----------



## dsphipps100

WaterRat said:


> I have the Karajan '82 recording, too. It's great and powerful, but somehow slightly too surgical. Maybe Karajan's Apollo needed a touch of Lenny's Dionysus.


OK, I promise I'm not going to be argumentative about this, and whatever other people's stance is regarding their preference for or against a particular recording, I completely respect that.

But I have to ask, for those of you who do not care for the Karajan, what is it about the Karajan that turns you off? I've spent over 30 years in absolute awe of that recording, but I've spent that whole time also seeing comments from people who don't care for it, which I've never understood - but I _want_ to understand, even if I still (respectfully) disagree.

Can somebody here help me clear this up a little?


----------



## Becca

dsphipps100 said:


> Sorry, I just noticed this or I would've replied earlier. Out of curiosity, have you heard the "completed" Bruckner 9th finale? There are some very respectable recordings of it, including no less than Simon Rattle and the Berliner Philharmoniker.
> 
> Sorry for the aside.


Ohh most definitely, both the recording and the DCH performance of the Samale/Mazzuca/Phillips/Cohrs completion. I am sure that Bruckner would have tweaked it some but I think that it works.


----------



## dsphipps100

dsphipps100 said:


> OK, I promise I'm not going to be argumentative about this, and whatever other people's stance is regarding their preference for or against a particular recording, I completely respect that.
> 
> But I have to ask, for those of you who do not care for the Karajan, what is it about the Karajan that turns you off? I've spent over 30 years in absolute awe of that recording, but I've spent that whole time also seeing comments from people who don't care for it, which I've never understood - but I _want_ to understand, even if I still (respectfully) disagree.
> 
> Can somebody here help me clear this up a little?


If I was a suspicious sort of person, then I might begin to suspect that the reason nobody has answered this (yet) is because nobody can think of any actual musical problems with Karajan's Mahler 9th, and that the negative views have to do with something other than what's coming out of the speakers....

I sincerely hope I would be wrong _if_ I harbored such a suspicion....


----------



## Becca

I have heard Barbirolli, Klemperer & Walter but not Karajan so cannot comment.


----------



## WaterRat

dsphipps100 said:


> But I have to ask, for those of you who do not care for the Karajan, what is it about the Karajan that turns you off?


There is nothing wrong with it. The first time I heard it I remember thinking how superior it was to the Abbado recording of the 9th I had (I don't recall the particulars of the Abbado recording). IMO the first movement of the '82 Karajan has never been bettered, especially in the build-up to the coda.

However, I did find it relatively surgical in the final movement compared to other interpretations, but that's purely subjective. Compared to the luminous interpretation of Haitink in '69, Karajan's adagio felt detached.

So, nothing beats Karajan '82 in the first movement, and ditto for Haitink's adagio, but overall Bernstein's NY Phil is the best compromise for the symphony as a whole, IMO.

It's nice to appreciate the attributes of all three.


----------



## dieter

dsphipps100 said:


> This is precisely why he stretched the ending of his Amsterdam recording beyond the bounds of what the music can endure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Pugg suggested earlier, if you want Bernstein doing the 9th, his NY Phil recording is probably the most representative of the piece.
> 
> I still recommend the Karajan-Berlin 1982 DDD recording as just about the best you're likely to find.
> 
> (Others here have expressed a negative opinion of the Karajan for some reason, but without mentioning anything specifically wrong with the performance, so I'm not sure what problem anybody could be hearing. Maybe Mahlerian or somebody else can clear it up for me.)


Why do you think Lenny stretched the Concertgebouw 9th to limits it couldn't endure?


----------

