# Maazel's New Mahler Cycle



## World Violist

Apparently Lorin Maazel is leaving New York with a bang; a cycle of the Mahler symphonies (without the eighth, and only the adagio of the tenth) in MP3-only format. It's really bizarre; I don't think I've ever seen such obscenely distended tempi anywhere. For example, a sixth symphony with an opening movement that runs to 25 minutes and a finale that makes it to 33; a tenth symphony adagio that somehow has a timing of nearly a half an hour; and the first movement of the ninth symphony, which is--would you believe it--over 32 minutes long.

However, there are some shorter movements; Urlicht from the second symphony is a mere four and a half minutes long.

I'm really tempted to sample some of this, but at the same time I'm somewhat intimidated by how bad I've known Lorin Maazel to sometimes be. I'll just have to wait for some reviews to go around...


----------



## World Violist

Although on further research on these recordings, they are live performances from 2003-2009 which were in general very well received. There are several online reviews from the NY Times about the actual performances from which the recordings were taken, and they were generally highly complimentary. Here are timings for the whole cycle (minus, of course, the 8th, which is to be released on August 25th since it was performed at the end of this last concert season):

Symphony No. 1
I- 15:43
II- 8:07
III- 11:06
IV- 19:46
TT- 54:41

Symphony No. 2
I- 22:42
II- 10:13
III- 10:51
IV- 4:38
V- 36:04
TT- 1:24:25

Symphony No. 3
I- 36:51
II- 10:34
III- 17:14
IV- 9:02
V- 4:21
VI- 25:44
TT- 1:43:46

Symphony No. 4
I- 18:02
II- 10:07
III- 24:53 (!)
IV- 10:32
TT- 54:41

Symphony No. 5
I- 13:32
II- 14:56
III- 17:39
IV- 10:56
V- 15:22
TT- 1:12:23

Symphony No. 6
I- 25:11
II(S)- 18:03
III(A)- 13:02
IV- 33:09
TT- 1:29:25

Symphony No. 7
I- 26:22 (!)
II- 17:29
III- 9:38
IV- 14:45
V- 20:30
TT- 1:28:44

Symphony No. 9
I- 32:19 (!!!)
II- 15:39
III- 14:17
IV- 27:30
TT- 1:29:45

Symphony No. 10
29:42

It's very strange to see just how many of these have total times close to a full hour and a half... 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 are quite long by any standards. Yikes.


----------



## Mirror Image

I'm not impressed with Maazel's conducting, especially his Mahler.


----------



## maestro267

Why no Eighth, I wonder?

Have you heard Otto Klemperer's Seventh? Over 100 minutes long!


----------



## World Violist

maestro267 said:


> Why no Eighth, I wonder?
> 
> Have you heard Otto Klemperer's Seventh? Over 100 minutes long!


The 8th is coming toward the end of the month. The performances concluded this season.


----------



## tahnak

World Violist said:


> I'm really tempted to sample some of this, but at the same time I'm somewhat intimidated by how bad I've known Lorin Maazel to sometimes be. I'll just have to wait for some reviews to go around...


Please don't bring Maazel to 'bad' category. He is extra-ordinarily talented. I have not heard a single Mahler symphony done by him but by instinct, I can say that it would be average at best but not 'bad'.

As a testimonial to his efforts, let me say that there are magnificent readings by him of 
1. Complete Tchaikovsky symphonies.
2. Tchaikovsky - Manfred symphony
3. His cycle of Sibelius symphonies with the Wiener is the one to beat.
4. His reading of Stravinsky's Firebird ballet is best by L'ORTF.


----------



## tahnak

World Violist said:


> It's very strange to see just how many of these have total times close to a full hour and a half... 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 are quite long by any standards. Yikes.


You are going by minutes and not the content. Very few conductors can make the statement broad and spacious and the language sounds deep and effective. Take for example the readings of Bruckner's symphonies by Sergiu Celibidache.


----------



## Mirror Image

tahnak said:


> Please don't bring Maazel to 'bad' category. He is extra-ordinarily talented. I have not heard a single Mahler symphony done by him but by instinct, I can say that it would be average at best but not 'bad'.
> 
> As a testimonial to his efforts, let me say that there are magnificent readings by him of
> 1. Complete Tchaikovsky symphonies.
> 2. Tchaikovsky - Manfred symphony
> 3. His cycle of Sibelius symphonies with the Wiener is the one to beat.
> 4. His reading of Stravinsky's Firebird ballet is best by L'ORTF.


Nope, I disagree. The only Maazel recordings I have and like are his readings of Respighi's "Roman Triology" and Prokofiev's "Romeo And Juliet." Other than that, he's a mediocre conductor.

By the way, his Sibelius cycle is terrible. One of the worst I've heard, so I strongly disagree with you there. His Mahler is also just terrible, he doesn't really have a firm understanding of Mahler's music.


----------



## World Violist

Mirror Image said:


> His Mahler is also just terrible, he doesn't really have a firm understanding of Mahler's music.


I listened to his Mahler 8th on Youtube, and it is actually very nice; the broad tempi are actually a good thing with this symphony if they're done musically, and Maazel does everything quite musically, even though you have to be in a good frame of mind to really get into it. Maybe he's gotten his Mahlerian act together in the last 30 or so years...

His Sibelius, I'll agree straight away, is the worst I've ever heard... except for the 2nd, which is mind-boggling. The rest is heartless, seemingly.


----------



## Bard

I recently came across Maazel's new Mahler cycle with the NY Phil when browsing iTunes for Mahler albums (though I eventually decided to purchase from Amazon, instead). So far, I've bought *Mahler 9*, *Mahler 6*, *Mahler 1*, *Mahler 7*, and *Mahler 10* (in that order) of the cycle, and intend to buy the rest. I generally enjoyed his *Mahler 9*, though as some have said, it drags along; Maazel's tempi throughout these works can get to be a bit tiresome and may take some getting used to. For instance, in the first movement of *Mahler 7*, numerous sections are slowed down considerably, to the point that the music sounds entirely different from most other interpretations. I recently saw a video interview with Maazel in which he admitted he never liked Mahler as a youth; Mahler's music only began to grow on him as life progressed.

Sometimes, I wonder if Maazel still doesn't 'get' Mahler, because there are frequent occasions on which he shamelessly turns the composer's music into something completely different than what may have been intended; it becomes more of a 'Maazel symphony' than a 'Mahler symphony.' And then there's that possible wrong note played by (whom I believe to be) principal horn Philip Myers in the first few minutes of *Mahler 9*...

However, I am still intensely enjoying these recordings; *Mahler 1* in this cycle is especially good, in my opinion, and while Maazel noticeably slows the tempo down in the work's closing moments just in time for the epic horn feature, it actually works quite well. I'll be checking out the other recordings in this cycle.

Regardless of Maazel's interesting (in an often slow, boring way) and unorthodox interpretations, the orchestra is in top form, and the quality of recording is _excellent_, with crystal clear sound. And the works still hold ample amounts of Mahlerian emotion, for which this cycle is to commended.


----------



## RichardF

Mirror Image said:



> By the way, his Sibelius cycle is terrible. One of the worst I've heard, so I strongly disagree with you there. His Mahler is also just terrible, he doesn't really have a firm understanding of Mahler's music.


I concur with t hat. I didn't think to much of his Mahler cycle from Vienna, either, from the two examples that I heard (3 & 5).


----------



## christmashtn

Next to Reiner, both his Decca/London Cleveland and Sony Pittsburgh Respighi "Pines/Fountains of Rome" are second to none. He made a magnificent Debussy "Nocturnes", "Iberia", and "Jeux" LP for Decca/London in the 1970's which to this day, has never seen the light of day on CD. This is really worth checking out, a true sleeper if there ever was one. I agree totally with the Tchaikovsky "Manfred" which he made with the Vienna Phil, simply astounding it most certainly is. Noone has ever made the Tchaikovsky 3rd "Polish" symphony sound more sparkling and alive than Maazel, also with the Vienna Phil. (some ten years earlier approximately, from the "Manfred".)


----------



## tahnak

I am very happy to note that you respect Lorin Maazel for his achievements. There are many people on this forum who dismiss him outright saying that his are the worst renditions that they have come across.
I have heard his Manfred as well as Polish with the Wiener Philharmoniker and there is only one word that is 'Sparkling' as you have described. I have the same opinion about his Sibelius symphonic cycle with the Wiener Philharmoniker on London and people booh it out. 
I am waiting to hear his Mahler. The complaint is that it is slow and without feeling. Well, I am one who finds depth in Maazel's readings and I think he has earned enough to make me give him a blank chit as a great director.
Yes, there is one recording with the Berlin that I found average and that was Also Sprach Zarathustra. He missed out on the closing passages with the lack in intensity.


----------



## sputrespi

Thanks so much for sharing the post.


----------



## angsucclo

Thanks a lot. I think it's funny too.
Works great! Thank you for posting this.


----------



## World Violist

So I'm listening to the 7th symphony of this cycle right now, and I must say that the first movement isn't usual in the slightest. Compared to MTT in San Francisco, this rendition is much heavier, much fuller-sounding, darker (not least because of the lower tones that naturally come out a bit more in the acoustic space). The interpretation is extremely musical, and I feel that it unfolds very naturally the way Maazel allows the second subject to come out of the first, unlike some (MTT included) who feel it best to burst forth with the second theme when in fact the two are quite similar. Actually, Maazel emphasizes rhythmic constancy (the rhythmic cell at the beginning being constant throughout the whole movement), making it incredibly organic. Being at more or less similar tempo throughout the movement helps to achieve this motivic unity that really is impressive. By the end of the movement, the slow tempo has also paid dividends in the form of cumulative tension that is released only at the very last note.

The first Nachtmusik is unremittingly creepy, and also keeps a lot of continuity with the first movement. This is right about the point where I start wondering if this is a really great Mahler 7th. The rhythms are very articulate, bringing out the uncanny similarities with the first movement. And I like the march tempo Maazel gives later on. It has considerable heft, though not too much to make it sound agressive or dragging. The orchestration after this becomes really transparent, and the Philharmonic play it for all it's worth, textures flitting all over the place, and all that sort of stuff. In this movement, there are a few moments in which the famous major-minor phrase from his 6th symphony returns, and here they are given an almost hallucinatory cast, never real enough to pose any threat. Just like some creepy reminder of what has already passed.

The Scherzo is nothing short of superb, faster than MTT by about a whole minute and benefiting enormously therefrom. The New York Philharmonic strings dash about like fire-cast shadows, the muted brass snarl and bite, and the waltzing bits have real swagger. The NYPO own this movement and boy do they know it.

The second Nachtmusik is very good indeed, but this is the movement I don't know as well. There is some wonderfully sweeping phrasing going on here, and Glenn Dicterow makes some quite good solo work at the beginning.

The last movement opens spectacularly, drums pounding and the brass playing their hearts out on the first theme. The low brass are particularly powerful when the score calls for it, providing an excellently strong bass for the magnificent brass chorales. The solo string quartet, of course, are magnificent; they have a very fine sense of where to put the portamenti and how to time the whole thing. It's very charming, actually. Actually, all the numerous ornamentations in this movement are pulled off with a very fine sense of timing and placement. The transition into the material from the first movement is very subtle, but effective. Just as I had expected from the outset, the end is immensely powerful, and the leading-into the final statement of the main theme (and of course the statement itself!) is truly monumental. The little joke phrase at the end is pulled off without a hitch, and the tumultuous applause that follows the last chord only contributes to the excitement.

I think I'll go for the 9th and 10th adagio next... this series so far is absolutely stunning.


----------



## handlebar

I have never heard a Maazel Mahler work I've liked. He just does nothing for me. Leaves me cold.

Jim


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Well, he is too showy. He tampers with compositions. How on earth can Rite Of Spring become almost an hour long. 

His conducting is really great if you are listening to a work for the first time, but when you have heard the work buy several conductors, you realize that he is trying to be dramatic. He works with music as if the composer doesn't matter. Karajan made things polished, but Maazel makes them long and dramatic. 

He really tries to make everything sound like a John Williams soundtrack. 
If it wasn't for how out of wack his tempos can be, I would love his work. 

I feel like he is doing the same thing Stokowski did on the Fantasia soundtrack (I love him, but that was a kick in the face for music lovers.) 

If I wasn't absolutely in awe of my Solti-Mahler box set, I would look at other performances, but Solti's box set has everything, amazing sound, great conducting, and the true essence of Mahler. Paired with my Rattle Mahler 10, it is the perfect set.


----------

