1st Recording of Mahler 2

[Uncle Monty]

I don't know, you tell us!!

Good point! Just about every writer on Mahler stresses that while Mahler himself was almost insanely finicky about every detail of a work when he was rehearsing and conducting it, he also made it clear that every other conductor, while getting the notes and instructions correct, had the right and the duty to come up with an original and personal interpretation.

So all you have to do is find the conductor who complies with these two conflicting precepts, and that's the one who best represents Mahler's spirit. Simples.

Seriously, most conductors who tackle Mahler seriously seem to know what they're doing, know what's required. It's hard to think of a Mahler on disc that takes any sort of perversely anti-Mahler line. (You could discuss the Norrington and Herreweghe types of delivery, I suppose.) After that, it's just a matter of whether it comes off on a particular day. I have favourites, on disc and video, but they're probably not always the most "correct" or even necessarily the best-played. Things grab us for all sorts of reasons, I suppose. It's not a worry

[StephenO]

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.

Can't agree about Rattle, although he certainly got far more from the CBSO (both in the concert hall and on CD) than he seems to be doing with the Berlin Phil. Definitely agree about the Barbirolli, though - a first rate performance with more than acceptable sound quality. Having listened to it many, many times I've never detected any hint of roughness.

[makropulos]

I agree very much with Cellini here - and I'd much rather have a performance that was truly involving rather than one that's merely polished.

As for rough or scrappy playing, there's plenty of that in many live performances of the past (and present) and surely most intelligent collectors expect less "perfection" in the execution than you might get from a studio recording. So I'm not sure it's always necessary to point out the obvious - especially when the playing might also be electrifying. To take just two examples, Beecham's BBCSO Sibelius 2 from the Festival Hall and Bruno Walter's Orchestre National Brahms 2 from the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées are both thrilling. I don't personally find them "let down" by their moments of less than ideal playing.

[mathias broucek]

I don't think anyone here is necessarily rejecting recordings that include "less than ideal playing". I have many cherished recordings where that's true.

What grabbed my interest was the reluctance of many British reviewers to even mention imperfections that would surely upset at least some potential purchasers.

[Cellini]

Very intersting comments and some very good insights and knowledge.

For me Mahler has generally to be recognisably Viennese, which I don't get with some conductors, even normally good ones like Jansens. I thought Barbirrolli was very Viennese, and you really hear the glissandos that Mahler asked for, plus one or two extra from Barbirolli's inspiration. I love Bruno Walter and Klemplerer too. Even Abbado's not bad in his old age!

[Uncle Monty]

Even Abbado's not bad in his old age!

Yes, those Lucerne performances seem to get better year on year, don't they?

[Tapiola]

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.

What???

[Mandryka]

What???

OK, I'm getting the original Bayreuth bells: that's what I get from Muck that I can't get from Karajan/Solti.

[Tapiola]

What about the far superior singing, greater sense of internal pulse and flow, more sensitive passages of transition, finer architectural sense...?

Karajan also tampers with the score.

[Mandryka]

What about the far superior singing, greater sense of internal pulse and flow, more sensitive passages of transition, finer architectural sense...?

Karajan also tampers with the score.

Maybe he does, but he's hardly alone in that, is he? I don't think any conductor has achieved 'total objectivity' in performance; and it's arguably not something anyone should aspire to.

[Tapiola]

So, just because Karajan is not the only one who alters notes that Wagner wrote, that makes it all right?

And altering a score is not the same as interpretative choice.

I don't know many people (or even any) who would argue that the great Wagnerian singers of the 1920s have ever been equalled on record. But I am open to persuasion.

[Mandryka]

So, just because Karajan is not the only one who alters notes that Wagner wrote, that makes it all right?

And altering a score is not the same as interpretative choice.

I don't know many people (or even any) who would argue that the great Wagnerian singers of the 1920s have ever been equalled on record. But I am open to persuasion.

I'm not a purist. Karajan's (live) recording of Die Frau Ohne Schatten even changes the order of the scenes......still love it, even though it's not the 'only' version I would want to have.

No, there never has ben (probably never will be) a voice like Melchior's and the casting of full-length Wagner opera recordings has been compromised as a result. But the 50s, in particular, was blessed with some very powerful Wagnerians and I even like Placido Domingo's Italianiate approach to singing those roles.