|
While the performance was good, it wasn't up to some of classics (e.g., Bernstein & Karajan with the same orchestra) that make for a truly rewarding Mahler 9. I listened while following with the score, and found many details that I was seeing on the page inaudible in this performance. I'll give it another try, and you should too.but ignore the hype. I bought this because of the hype surrounding this recording/performance. Though not a huge fan of the conductor, I listened with an open mind.
Impeded flow, I don't think so, but I understand how that reputation was earned. The earlier generation: Walter, Barbirolli and Klemperer in particular, put out excellent versions. Worrying every note.
This recording with the Berliner Philharmoniker on EMI is simply the best. But Rattle here has it all together. Hands down.
Rattle has a reputation for being persnickety. These were before he got that over-engineered reputation.That reputation may no longer fit. If you are going to own just one Mahler 9, this is it.
Personally, I like most of Rattle's work. His Mahler 2 and 6 with the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, both EMI, are among my favorite versions.
than either the recording by Zander or by Rattle/Wiener Philharmoniker.I very much like the way in which Sir Simon Rattle in this performance 'moulds' the orchestral lines into a beautiful 'organic whole'. (Well, so much for personal tastes; I hope the reader is not too much offended by mine, which may be a bit eclectic ;-)The following are my thoughts about this recording after listening to it for the first one or two times (and also taking into account the remarks by other reviewers, and testing them to what I have heard myself). Rattle and the Berliner Philharmoniker sound, not so much 'emotionally detached', as more 'well-behaved' and 'held in check'. But I am also in favour of the wild abandon and 'gigantic' sound of Sir Simon Rattle's first commercial recording with Wiener Philharmoniker, however 'askew' (rather deep, resonant bass, and on the whole sounding rather distantly recorded) the balances may be.
(But what does 'comfort' mean with this music, when the effect of this music on the listener is surely meant to be absolutely uncomfortable most of the time). The power is, to my ears at least, rather 'contained' by the strong will of a conductor keeping tight rein on the proceedings. Ultimately, one might want to go for more abandon in this music, but there are recordings for that as well. Anyhow, one could of course never do with just one recording of this music. Everyone has her or his own personal favorite recordings of Mahler's Ninth Symphony, stemming from expectations of how the music 'should' be played or what 'emotions' one should experience when listening to this music (even aside from the matter of staying as 'true to the score' as possible). I, for one, am very much in favour of a great deal of raw emotionality with this music, even if that means that sometimes the balances are becoming 'askew' as a result. I, unlike other reviewers, am personally not much discomforted by the more balanced sound of the climax of the first movement - it does fit within the conception/sound of this performance as a whole, I believe: the low brass and the tam-tam are evenly balanced with the rest of the instruments, so that when they are played with the greatest possible force, the effect of the forces combined is more of a 'wave of sound' (and a rather 'refined', not too overwhelming soundwave at that) than of an 'attack': the 'edge' is taken off somewhat. Zander creates more tension with his tasteful rubato and legato (and also the result of a greater range between fortissimos and pianissimos), and therefore - to the ears of this particular listener - more room for emotions, Mr.
But where Mr. The conductor at the same time takes delicate care that all the orchestral lines can be ascertained within the whole gigantic structure, thanks to a fine balancing of the instruments and instrument groups. Although this recording does not in itself set an 'ideal standard' (which Zander in its own unique way maybe does), it is comparable to other great recordings of this work, if only because of the great virtuosity of playing, balance and ensemble. The power is not as raw or as fiercely intense as some might maybe wish sometimes. In that sense, to my ears there is a resemblance between Sir Simon Rattle's and Michael Tilson Thomas' stance to this music: they both take, I believe, a (small) step back from the 'raw emotionality' of the music that other conductors sometimes like to stress, lifting it somewhat above the direct emotionality and and adding to it an air of nobility. If there is not the greatest amount of tension (compared with, for example, Benjamin Zander and the Philharmonia Orchestra) there certainly is grace, nobility and power.
But of course the balances don't have to be askew to get raw emotionality: I personally love Benjamin Zander's fantastically 'lean' and fresh but deeply inspired (and deeply inspiring) recording for Telarc, which is balanced in such a way as to subtely accentuate all of the different instrument groups. But that could also have to do with the recorded sound, which is more evenly balanced and close (is that why the violas in the coda sound 'too loud'). The same effect is taken to the best possible result, I believe, by Benjamin Zander with the Philharmonia Orchestra on Telarc. This new recording of Mahler's Ninth Symphony is, to my ears, characterized by finely balanced playing and recorded sound, exquisitely virtuosic, generally more 'comfortable' to the ears than Sir Simon Rattle's recording with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. (Some would feel this as 'emotionally detached', maybe).When listening to this particular performance, I find I am especially drawn into listening to the detailed and virtuoso playing of all the orchestra members, sounding indeed like a band of soloists playing together - as Mahler surely must have intended, witnessing the infinately varied, virtuosic instrumentation, where different instrumensts are often playing their own wi(l)dely different tunes.
Recordings can't help but shrink the stupendous virtuosity and dynamic range of the Berlin Phil. One isns't hit with a wall of sound but rather a mosaic of sensitive solo playing. Lamentable as that may be, it's a given, so this EMI CD doesn't capture the overwhelming impact of the Berliners' Mahler Ninth broadast this winter from Carnegie Hall. In terms of sound quality and execution, his Mahler Ninth isn't all that different from Abbado's -- both are ultra-detailed, technically assured, and controlled.
The Adagio finale is executed with astonishing finesse -- the closing pianissimos rival Karajan's ability to call upon dynamic extremes -- yet I miss the thrust of heartfelt emotion. If you want to hear the utmost variety of color and nuance, both Abbado and Rattle will do very well. Should a volcano be attached to a control valve. For me to feel devastated, Rattle must feel it first.In the end, like the preceding reviewer, I find myself fence-sitting. Rattle really captures the two inner movements with exceptional edge -- he said in a Gramophone interview that these two movements represent "everything Mahler hated about the country followed by everything he hated about the city." But the opening movement feels fussed over, the same flaw I find with Tilson Thomas and Benjamin Zander; its spasmodic eruptions sound manageable rather than abandoned. as experienced in concert.
But I'm not sure about the overall emotional result. I will keep listenig to Rattle's Ninth along with the classic versions and let time decide the matter. Rattle must follow in the wake of earlier, world-class recordings of this symphony from Berlin, including two by Karajan, a live account under Bernstein that many consider unrivaled, as well as estimable versions from Abbado and Barbirolli -- the latter introduced the Ninth to Berlin in the late Sixties, I believe.How does Rattle stack up. Compared to the Karajan era, the Berliners sound more flexible and emotionally alert.
And let's not forget an old favorite: the Barbirolli M9 from the middle 60's (it always struck me as a bit too soft-edged for this particular work, but it's fine none the less). For me, a wee sense of tedium sets in just before the central episode comes to its rescue. That said, I too noticed the same exact drawbacks as Mr. Hurwitz did. As for EMI, I simply can't understand why they didn't want to hold off issuing their Simon Rattle complete Mahler symphonies box set, in order to include this obviously superior performance and recording. As for specific drawbacks, I see mainly two.In the first movement, as Hurwitz points out, the main climax needs stronger low brass, as well as a stronger whack on the big gong.
I've been teetering as to whether this rate this 4 or 5 stars. Then again, I'm rarely thrilled with the sound on these Rattle/Berlin ventures. But more bothersome to my ears, is the fact that Rattle's initial tempo for the R-B isn't that much quicker. Coming back to the big picture, here's the bottom line: if you're strongly curious, get it - EMI priced it as one disc. These are small points, to be sure - but noticeable. In this case, the sound strikes me as being a bit better than usual from this team. What pushed me on to five stars, was the simple fact that EMI is selling this as a "twofer" - two discs for the price of one. Sorry to base it upon such a practical issue, but I'm afraid that it really did come down to that for me.
The Abbado one is perfectly fine for those who prefer their Mahler 9th to fit on one disc. Perhaps that was Rattle's point from the start, I don't know. In other words, there isn't a lot of contrast - tempo wise - between the main body, and the much need respite of that central interlude. If you already own one of the Berlin Phil.'s many fine recordings of the Mahler 9th - the one Mahler symphony that they ALWAYS do very well - you really don't need to jump ship. Other than that, Rattle's first movement strikes me as being far superior to his earlier Vienna one - a badly balanced recording in general.
But Rattle is better in a number of smaller details, in spite of the negative ones pointed out. Go figure. I think that Karajan does a better job of nailing the major climaxes in the two outer movements. As for the performance itself, my feelings lie somewhere between Tony Duggan's "stand up and cheer" rave review at The Mahler-list, and Dave Hurwitz's 7/7 dismissal at Classicstoday.com. Regardless, I certainly have no complaints about the string playing in the finale, made better by Rattle's natural flow for the bulk of it.That said, I too noticed the two very same small shortcomings that Hurwitz points out: the violas are a tad too loud with their final triplet figure near the end of the symphony, and Rattle begins to fade before the harmony is fully resolved at the end.
My other complaint has to do with the Rondo-Burlesque.As Hurwitz again pointed out, the R-B's contrasting central episode is quick to the point of rushing. I just don't feel that these shortcomings are severe enough to denigrate the recording as whole. Karajan gets the gong part right (as well as the "flames of hell" rising from the dissonant low "A" in the ((french)) horns), while Giulini gets his Chicago low brass to hammer the movement's main rhythmic motif with the greatest possible force - just as Mahler indicates.
|
