1st Recording of Mahler 2

[Guest]

Saw this in a charity shop today, but didn't buy it:

http://http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pr...AG0BXMG64SN6V5

What put me off was the (no doubt) fearful sound quality: and the fact that I'd probably only play it once out of curiosity, then never again. Is anyone familiar with thsi performance?

This got me thinking about how intolerant I've become lately of recordings with seriously compromised sound: and I think recording Mahler 2 acoustically is about as 'compromised' as you could get. Even listening to Karl Muck's Parsifal recordings last night, I got the feeling I wasn't gettting anything I can't get just as well from Karajan/Solti et al, but in much better sound.

And this led to think about the element of inverted snobbery that's crept into some reviews of 'historical' recordings: this idea that something recorded in mono in the 30s/40s is automatically 'better' than something recorded last week (yes, Michael Tanner, I'm looking at YOU!).

[Bryn]

What's it supposed to be linking to? Who are the performers? What label?

This perhaps?

[Roehre]

What's it supposed to be linking to? Who are the performers? What label?

This perhaps?

That's the very first recording of any Mahler symphony (if we don't count Mahler's piano-rolls of the finale 4 and 1st mvt 5)

[Petrushka]

Saw this in a charity shop today, but didn't buy it:

http://http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pr...AG0BXMG64SN6V5

What put me off was the (no doubt) fearful sound quality: and the fact that I'd probably only play it once out of curiosity, then never again. Is anyone familiar with thsi performance?

This got me thinking about how intolerant I've become lately of recordings with seriously compromised sound: and I think recording Mahler 2 acoustically is about as 'compromised' as you could get. Even listening to Karl Muck's Parsifal recordings last night, I got the feeling I wasn't gettting anything I can't get just as well from Karajan/Solti et al, but in much better sound.

And this led to think about the element of inverted snobbery that's crepti into some reviews of 'historical' recordings: this idea that something recorded in mono in the 30s/40s is automatically 'better' than something recorded last week (yes, Michael Tanner, I'm looking at YOU!).

I think you mean this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahler-Symph...6256794&sr=1-2

You do not need the 'http' twice! I still do cut and paste in the same way we did on the old boards, I find it easier.

As for the Oskar Fried Mahler 2 I'm afraid you're right. I have this as the completist in me had to have it but the sound is predictably dire. However, it is of great documentary value.

Your last paragraph in interesting. Some recordings from the 1930's/'40's are better than some modern issues. For instance, Elgar's own recording of his 1st Symphony may not be the most polished but all the limitations of the 1930 sound are as nothing compared to the power of the performance. Much the same can be said about Bruno Walter's 1938 Vienna Mahler 9 and the Mengelberg Mahler 4. I would not be without any of them.

[rauschwerk]

The value of documents like this is, surely, chiefly to present-day interpreters. I seem to remember that Simon Rattle consulted this amogst other recordings when preparing his own. Just because it's the earliest recording, though, we should beware of thinking of it as any more authentic than those of Walter and Klemperer, two other conductors who knew and worked with Mahler.

[Mandryka]

I think you mean this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahler-Symph...6256794&sr=1-2

You do not need the 'http' twice! I still do cut and paste in the same way we did on the old boards, I find it easier.

As for the Oskar Fried Mahler 2 I'm afraid you're right. I have this as the completist in me had to have it but the sound is predictably dire. However, it is of great documentary value.

Your last paragraph in interesting. Some recordings from the 1930's/'40's are better than some modern issues. For instance, Elgar's own recording of his 1st Symphony may not be the most polishd but all the limitations of the 1930 sound are as nothing compared to the power of the performance. Much the same can be said abeout Bruno Walter's 1938 Vienna Mahler 9 and the Mengelberg Mahler 4. I would not be without any of them.

Thos are both essential recordings, petrushka, and there are many more I'd add to that list. What I was inveighing against was the attitude of critics who think that compromised sound is almost a badge of quality and who make ridiculous accommodations of bad/scrappy orchestral playing just because the conductor is a dead legend. For a good example of what I mean, go to either of Furtwangler's Ring recordings: no one would deny that WF's interpretation is incredible, but the sound quality on the La Scala recording is shockingly bad, as is much of the playing. Yet you'll rarely hear this mentioned in reviews....

[mathias broucek]

Yet you'll rarely hear this mentioned in reviews....

I strongly agree. I'm amazed how seldom reviewers pay the reader the courtesy of pointing out (however subtly) that although the performance may be historically important / moving / etc, the playing is really rather scrappy.

For example, I enjoy Barbirolli's Mahler but the playing of the BPO in his recording of the 9th is pretty rough compared to what they later achieved with Abbado or Karajan. Yet reviewers (expecially in the UK) rarely point this out.

[Mandryka]

I strongly agree. I'm amazed how seldom reviewers pay the reader the courtesy of pointing out (however subtly) that although the performance may be historically important / moving / etc, the playing is really rather scrappy.

For example, I enjoy Barbirolli's Mahler but the playing of the BPO in his recording of the 9th is pretty rough compared to what they later achieved with Abbado or Karajan. Yet reviewers (expecially in the UK) rarely point this out.

I admire Barbirolli as much as anyone, but there does seem to be a widespread reluctance to criticise anything that he put his name to. As for his Mahler 9: is it the case that the BPO hadn't played this symphony much prior to recording it with JB?

[Cellini]

For example, I enjoy Barbirolli's Mahler but the playing of the BPO in his recording of the 9th is pretty rough compared to what they later achieved with Abbado or Karajan. Yet reviewers (expecially in the UK) rarely point this out.

I have that recording and I don't find it rough at all, in fact some great playing under Barbirollis leadership.

In my opinion, there is a terrible desire to have everything manicured these days, so you get a good recording quality with passable playing and no interpretation from conductors like Rattle.

[Dave2002]

I have that recording and I don't find it rough at all, in fact some great playing under Barbirollis leadership.

In my opinion, there is a terrible desire to have everything manicured these days, so you get a good recording quality with passable playing and no interpretation from conductors like Rattle.

At the Barbican the other day I found myself wondering about interpretation - Dudamel - Los Angeles. Acceptable sound quality, but in the Beethoven symphony Dudamel didn't seem to be able to work out whether it was his interpretation or the players. He allowed some really good moments, for example by the flute and oboe, but it's no good doing that for every member of the orchestra. Ensemble was (IMO) a bit iffy at times, and tempi inconsistent. For me it didn't compare with recent Beethoven symphony performances by the Budapest Festival Orchestra (Fischer) or the N German Chamber Orchestra from Bremen (Paavo Jarvi).

Of of the best orchestral performances I ever heard was Jochum in Brahms 1. He made the orchestra (LPO?) play so hard that it "broke" in places - stupendous effect - definitely not manicured - nor politely polished, though I'm pretty sure he managed a very solid and lovely sound when it mattered. I'm not sure if I'm ever going to hear anything that good again.

Having said that, I have enjoyed some of Rattle's performances, though perhaps not so many in recent years.

[Uncle Monty]

I don't know that I'd put it down to snobbery, inverted or otherwise, but I do feel that listening to "compromised" (euphemism for "bloody awful" ) sound on very early recordings, when you know that orchestras in the flesh just don't sound like that, is often a dispiriting experience. It takes a big effort of imagination to "hear" the performance lurking in the sound.

I do have (or the completist in me does) all the available historical recordings of the composers I particularly admire, but I don't listen to them for a musical experience. Even a mediocre modern performance is less distracting and unsatisfactory, to me at any rate.

[mathias broucek]

Glad to hear a plug for Jochum's LPO Brahms 1. My absolute favourite, although Celibidache runs it close.

His LSO Beethoven cycle from the same period is pretty good, too. But unavailable at present, I believe

[Roehre]

The value of documents like this is, surely, chiefly to present-day interpreters. I seem to remember that Simon Rattle consulted this amogst other recordings when preparing his own. Just because it's the earliest recording, though, we should beware of thinking of it as any more authentic than those of Walter and Klemperer, two other conductors who knew and worked with Mahler.

And who realised very different approaches to the music: who is really representing Mahler's spirit in their recordings?

[Cellini]

And who realised very different approaches to the music: who is really representing Mahler's spirit in their recordings?

I don't know, you tell us!!

[Roehre]

I don't know, you tell us!!

I'll stay with one example, Mahler 7.

Unfortunately Mahler himself did not leave any timings regarding to the Seventh. This doesn't mean however, that we are completely lost in that respect, thanks to Mengelberg.

Mengelberg had the habit to write down rough timings in his Mahler(and many other, e.g. Richard Strauss)-scores. By chance the score (Gemeentemuseum Den Haag) as well as the performing material (Concertgebouw archive) of the Seventh at its Dutch premiere have survived. This is the more important as that is the very same material which Mahler used for his presentation of the work for the first time to the Dutch public, the Hague October 2nd 1909 and Amsterdam October 3rd and 7th 1909 (Mahler's last public appearance as conductor in the Netherlands).

Chailly used that same material and studied Mengelberg's score and comes very close (within seconds) to Mengelberg's timings:
24'53" / 16'19" / 10'31" / 13'39" / 18'59".
Klemperer's tempi in his 1969 recording (New Philharmonia):
27'47" / 22'08" / 10'28" / 15'42" / 24'15".

Which timings are the more genuine ones, Mengelberg's or Klemperer's?
Btw, re 9 and Das Lied von der Erde: it was Walter who premiered them, and prepared them for publication.
A Mahlerian tradition? They have discussed the works, that's all in this case.