|
|
|
At least he said he didn't know the piece.
|
|
|
Post by nickc March 30, 2004 (2 of 9)
|
|
peteyspambucket said:
At least he said he didn't know the piece.
ce?
|
|
|
Post by parisf September 14, 2007 (3 of 9)
|
|
It kills me when the reviewers say Mahler's 3rd is not "easy listening." To my ears, it is one of the most undemanding and most pleasurable of all the Mahler symphonies. What could be easier to listen to than the magnificent first and last movements? They both just carry the listener along effortlessly. Those movements are just pure joy. The last movement is ecstasy. Holy smokes, what were the reviewers thinking??? Now the sixth and the ninth, two of my favorites by the way, those are demanding works! But the first and third are just plain fun! I've always found the fourth kind of light weight, but worth a listen every now and then. The seventh requires a very special performance to hold it all together.
|
|
|
Post by seth September 15, 2007 (4 of 9)
|
|
parisf said:
It kills me when the reviewers say Mahler's 3rd is not "easy listening." To my ears, it is one of the most undemanding and most pleasurable of all the Mahler symphonies. What could be easier to listen to than the magnificent first and last movements? They both just carry the listener along effortlessly. Those movements are just pure joy. The last movement is ecstasy. Holy smokes, what were the reviewers thinking??? Now the sixth and the ninth, two of my favorites by the way, those are demanding works! But the first and third are just plain fun! I've always found the fourth kind of light weight, but worth a listen every now and then. The seventh requires a very special performance to hold it all together.
The third does lack a clear linear logic that are hallmarks of the Mahler symphonies, which I can understand making it difficult to make it through in one sitting.
|
|
|
Post by parisf July 3, 2013 (5 of 9)
|
|
seth said:
The third does lack a clear linear logic that are hallmarks of the Mahler symphonies, which I can understand making it difficult to make it through in one sitting.
This is one long symphony that I've never even been tempted to use more than one sitting to listen to it. I guess I'm just a Mahler man. Have been since 1957.
|
|
|
|
|
|
parisf said:
This is one long symphony that I've never even been tempted to use more than one sitting to listen to it. I guess I'm just a Mahler man. Have been since 1957.
My favourite when "done right" a la Chailly!
|
|
|
Post by Chris July 5, 2013 (7 of 9)
|
|
hiredfox said:
My favourite when "done right" a la Chailly!
I don't know if you have heard this one ? But imo it is not far behind Chailly.
Both as performance and recording it is very good indeed.
A bit more laid back and leaner and not as "well lit" ie not as multimiked as the Chailly. But also very transparent and three dimensional with lots of depth and pinpoint stability and position captured even in plain stereo. Very clear and realistic without resorting to obvious spotmiking and zooming in on things as is so common these days unfortunately. This is an early Telarc pure DSD recording from the wonderful acoustic of Walthamstow Hall that gives me a lot of joy.
Together with Gliere and Popov from Botstein this Mahler recording from Walthamstov is among the best I have heard from Telarc.
Compared to for example the historic Reiner discussed in another thread here they all have one important thing in common,there is no audible distortion/ congestion whatsoever even at full blast.
And what a wonderful symphony the third is,isn't it?
Strongly Recommended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris said:
And what a wonderful symphony the third is,isn't it?
Brings tears to my eyes every time, sentimental fool that I am!
|
|
|
Post by parisf July 17, 2013 (9 of 9)
|
|
Hmmm. I have the Chailly but only in stereo. I don't remember buying it and haven't listened to it in years. Will give it a try again.
|
|
