Mahler 5 - LSO/Gergiev

[Petrushka]

Just listened to this and it has to be the worst Mahler 5 recording I've ever heard.

I had to lift the volume up to a stupidly high level to bring the sound into any kind of focus. Did the strings forget to turn up or are half the microphones switched off? I had to check to see if my left speaker was still working. The woodwind fare equally badly with a very distant oboe and a total lack of bite elsewhere while the timps are similarly conspicuous by their absence. The overall impression is hearing it from the Barbican foyer. However, the trombones, tuba and bass drum are prominent enough. Haitink once said that you must be able to hear the strings in Mahler even at the loudest climaxes and by that yardstick this disc is a failure.

I do wonder if my CD player is having problems in playing SACD's because otherwise this is simply a botched job. I note that I've had similar concerns when playing Gergiev's Mariinsky label discs significantly made by the same team.

One to file away unplayed again I think. Anyone else heard it?

[Ferretfancy]

I haven't heard the Mahler 5, but recordings in the Barbican can be pretty dire, and not just on large scale works. I recently bought what seemed a possible bargain, an EMI recording of Kissin in Mozart concertos. I wasn't sure what to expect, as I'm usually wary of this pianist, but in fact it was unfair to judge the playing because the balance on the piano was so distant, and the orchestral sound so stodgy. Next on my listening list is the Colin Davis Nielsen 5,on LSO Live. I just hope it sounds better.

[Curalach]

Next on my listening list is the Colin Davis Nielsen 5,on LSO Live. I just hope it sounds better.

I have only heard the Colin Davis Nielsen 4/5 disc in surround and was hugely impressed. The sound seems very acceptable and the vigorous performances could have come from a twenty year old rather than an eighty-something conductor.
I have heard the Mahler 5 in stereo and would agree that the recording balance is not ideal. Also, like the rest of his series, Gergiev's Mahler, while interesting, would not be a first choice.

On the subject of LSO Live, The M5 is the first disc of the series to come without the wasteful cardboard slip cover, which is a good thing. All their discs require you to extract the booklet and open it to get to the detailed track listing which ought be on the back tray.
A triumph of design over common sense.

[Ferretfancy]

Thank you, Curalach, I'll be listening to the Davis disc today, and hope to book for his later concerts in the Nielsen series. How do you feel about the gatefold cardboard sleeves that some companies produce with the notes in an inside pocket? I rather like them,as they take up less room, but they are not popular with shops because they get grubby from customer browsing.
Those brittle jewel cases need a re-design, but I doubt if it will happen at this stage, still I'd rather have a recognisable object to play than some digits in my Mac.

[silvestrione]

Hmm...this is the disc very enthusiastically reviewed recently in IRR by one of their reviewers about whom doubts have been raised on these boards...

[Curalach]

How do you feel about the gatefold cardboard sleeves that some companies produce with the notes in an inside pocket?

Hi Ferret, Actually I don't much like them. I've yet to get one in which the cardboard hasn't been torn at the point where the booklet slips into the retaining pocket. There's really no solution to that other than sticky tape which is unsightly. The plastic jewel cases get maligned but they are entirely replaceable if damaged. I keep a supply of empties for that purpose.
That was the only use I ever had for the Gramophone cover disc of recent memory! Like you, I prefer to have the physical CDs.

I'll be interested to hear your view of the Davis Nielsen disc.

[Bryn]

Hi Ferret, Actually I don't much like them. I've yet to get one in which the cardboard hasn't been torn at the point where the booklet slips into the retaining pocket. There's really no solution to that other than sticky tape which is unsightly. The plastic jewel cases get maligned but they are entirely replaceable if damaged.

Quite agree, Curalach. Whoever came up with the concept was no engineer, that's for sure. Old style gatefolds, where the booklet, or at least its back cover page, slips into the pocket via the left side of the open gatefold, are fine by me though. The gatefolds I really hate are those without a spindle/clamp, and which are oversized for the CD, which in turn falls out all too easily. I resolve that problem by using an additional paper/plastic film sleeve, trimmed to fit, but why should I need to?

[Chris Newman]

Hi Curalach and Ferretfancy.
The CD cover/box issue is one which vexes me no end.

The jewel-box is technically a disaster: it is made with the wrong plastic (polystyrene) which is too brittle and structurally not up to the job. At least one in five records bought comes with a cracked clear case. One in seven has a broken hinge and needs replacing immediately. Then the spindle/sprockets that hold the CDs in the box are either already broken before purchase or only survive a few plays and toss the CD on the floor when you open the box. On many CDs you cannot get the booklet back in without ripping it: far better when the book sits inside the flap. It needs a total redesign. Unfortunately, like the un-Green Jiffy-Pak used by drink package makers it has the biggest foot in the door.

The cardboard gate-folds used by Harmonia-Mundi and Linn last longer. As any bookbinder can tell you a wide flexible card hinge will last longer than a minute polystyrene tab with its concentrated stresses. The book slips easily in and out of its pocket: with opera sets a libretto can drop into a flap as in the jewel-case. The central spindle/sprocket to hold the CD is of a better design that withstands more usage (four wide tabs rather than six narrow ones), though one or two companies use a softer plastic that lasts even longer. The complaint about wear/scratching of the cardboard could easily be solved by a clear film.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Erm, back to the Mahler 5... I've just given the first movement a listen and it's no worse than many I've heard, and better than many as well. When I get a chance later I'll play it with the phase inverted and see what happens....

[Curalach]

Chris, I still think that the jewel case is the best solution so far. Quite the worst packaging I have is on the Melodiya 3 disc set of Sibelius Symphonies with Rozhdestvensky. It is a four part gatefold as you describe but there is no pocket for the booklet which falls out as the set is removed from the shelf. I also defy anyone to remove the discs from the "4 tab" spindles without fear of damaging the discs or fingernails!
I do recognise that the quality of jewel cases has declined over the years. Discs from the 80s for example have much sturdier cases than most today. I'm perfectly happy with cardboard boxes for multidisc sets provided that they are a sensible size. I find that some of them don't fit my shelves which were designed specifically for jewel cases.
Iain

[Bryn]

Just received two discs in the post. Both are housed in card gatefolds with polystyrene tray glued to the inside of the front 'cover'. One (Arthur Schoonderwoerd's Gruber keyboard concertos) has its booklet opposite the disc, with its back cover page glued to the inside of the bak 'cover' of the gatefold. The other (Gary Cooper's Beethoven Diabellis SACD) has its booklet tucked in to one of those horrble slot affairs. So far the edge of the slot has not torn, but I don't hold out much hope for its longevity. I'm sure polypropylene would serve better than polystyrene, but would much prefer a minature version of the old LP gatefold design, replete with paper and platic film inner sleeve to slip into the double layered card sleeve's 'covers' witht he booklet slippin in the other. Both disc cases that arrived today have but a single layer of card. No 'envelope' feature.

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

Hmm...this is the disc very enthusiastically reviewed recently in IRR by one of their reviewers about whom doubts have been raised on these boards...

Ho hum. I think Petrushka was actually referring to the quality of the recorded sound rather than the performance. I happen to disagree with him - I find the orchestral sound quite thrilling with the caveat that you need to wrench the volume up. I don't have a problem with matters of instrumental balance; the brass do cut through the orchestra at climaxes - thrillingly - but the strings are perfectly audible. I think a lot depends on the equipment you listen on, the format - I'm listening on an SACD player in 5.1 surround - and the volume setting.

As to the performance, I've had mixed feelings about Gergiev's cycle so far; some disappointments and some considerable successes. This is as good as any of the cycle so far. I think it's significant that this No.5 was not taken from Gergiev's cycle when he first took over the LSO, but was taped last autumn, indicating, to me at least, that he was unhappy with the previous recording and programmed another 'go' at the work (as, indeed, he has with No.9 this spring).

[Alison]

Fairly positive review from Secko in the new Gramophone.

No mention whatever of recording issues. I was slightly surprised by

Petrushka's weakly balanced timpani observation. It seems to have been

a regular feature of the LSO Live series that said instruments emerge very well.

I haven't heard this disc.

Still think that was a very poorly conceived review in IRR.

[Petrushka]

I was slightly surprised by

Petrushka's weakly balanced timpani observation.

I see that Nigel Thomas isn't on timps for this one. Perhaps it could be a problem playing SACD's on my CD player. I thought it was shockingly dreadful.

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Well, Nigel Thomas is no shrinking violet but I too am surprised by the weak balance observation. Having given the disc, the 1st movement at least, another whirl, I stand by what I said in message 9 above. It's perfectly audible, strings 'n' all.