Post by sgb March 15, 2007 (21 of 47)
|
|
Thanks for the interest in a review that might not heap the praise some would want to see. I think Seth has set the appropriate tone for this, although I think some might have mistaken my earlier comment about bandwidth and its effect on the operation of my subwoofers.
Speaking strictly as an audiophile, and dismissing the artistic merit of this recording, what I was actually referring to with that comment has everything to do with how an instrument will be recreated by an audio system. Having said that, it is important for those with an interest in trying to recreate the sound of the classical orchestra in their listening rooms to revisit the science of sound. As we all know, any given instrument will produce harmonics both above and below the principal sound it makes. The majority of home audio systems are incapable of reproducing those harmonics without inducing some distortion. The lower keys of a piano, for example, are capable of creating harmonics at least one full octave lower than the principle key.
How this relates to the Zinman, as I so poorly tried to explain, is that some of these harmonics don't appear to have been captured -- those of the cellos and brass, most specifically. I would not otherwise characterize the sound as being anything less than a very good sounding recording. I suppose the resulting sound is primarily due to the microphone placement that the engineers chose for the recording session. Perhaps the location is incapable of producing the kind of wide spectrum sound that many of us enjoy. I would say in defense of the sound that when the percussion is called for, it is delivered quite well.
I would add to my initial comments about the performance of this work that those who have suggested that it is just a little lackluster have identified its only weakness. There is certainly nothing to complain about the playing, nor could it be said that David Zinman hasn't turned in a quality performance. To the poster who has never heard the Horenstein, allow me to suggest that this is one disc worth seeking out.
|
|
|
Post by pip440 June 1, 2007 (22 of 47)
|
|
I was disappointed that this is only a 4-channel recording. I miss the centre channel that gives greater definition to orchestral perspective.
|
|
|
Post by jlaurson October 11, 2007 (23 of 47)
|
|
One of the reviewers points out that the Bruder Jacob part has been played better, yet, by the solo bass player.
That provokes a smile with me - because I specifically DON'T like that part to be played with utter perfection and ease. I wonder if there is anyone else out there who also wants to HEAR the panic with which the bass-players must have been struck when they had to play this... in the olden times. It's specifically scored to be in a completely uncomfortable region for the bassist... and I want him to teeter on the edge of disaster and horror... near-ghastly. Of course, today's bassists are too good and have practiced this too much... they can play it with ease. But should there not be some audible dread?
The score does not specify whether it is to be taken solo or tutti. In order to re-insert that dread, I'd have the entire section play it in "unison"... because that's a lot more difficult (counter intuitively, perhaps).
Is there any recording that you guys know of that does that, btw?
best,
jfl
|
|
|
|
|
|
jlaurson said:
The score does not specify whether it is to be taken solo or tutti.
Yes it does; the score says "solo" - if Mahler wanted the whole section, he would have marked it "soli" - regards PN
|
|
|
Post by jlaurson October 12, 2007 (25 of 47)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Yes it does; the score says "solo" - if Mahler wanted the whole section, he would have marked it "soli" - regards PN
My Dover score says "solo", too. But I was told (by an Abbado student who now conducts in Geneva) that the original score does not make an indication either way... I suppose we could find out for sure by asking the IMG? Do you know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page of notes (http://www.gustav-mahler.org/gesamtausgabe/druckfehler/errata1-2.html) to the CE of the symphony suggests that the whole section was desired by Mahler in the New York première of 1909. However since the CE was published in the early 1990's, few conductors (including both MTT and Abbado - who are both sticklers for the printed score) have chosen not to follow the conventional practice of a solo bass not section...
|
|
|
Post by Peter October 12, 2007 (27 of 47)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
This page of notes (http://www.gustav-mahler.org/gesamtausgabe/druckfehler/errata1-2.html) to the CE of the symphony suggests that the whole section was desired by Mahler in the New York première of 1909. However since the CE was published in the early 1990's, few conductors (including both MTT and Abbado - who are both sticklers for the printed score) have chosen to follow the conventional practice of a solo bass not section...
Some criticised aspects of Bernstein's performances and recordings not following the score are due to his checking Mahler's own alterations to the parts in the NYPO library and acting on them.
|
|
|
Post by jlaurson October 12, 2007 (28 of 47)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
This page of notes (http://www.gustav-mahler.org/gesamtausgabe/druckfehler/errata1-2.html) to the CE of the symphony suggests that the whole section was desired by Mahler in the New York première of 1909. However since the CE was published in the early 1990's, few conductors (including both MTT and Abbado - who are both sticklers for the printed score) have chosen not to follow the conventional practice of a solo bass not section...
Thanks for that -- indeed this suggests that the whole section should to play. Assuming the 'errata corrige' is Mahler's own. But then it is always worth distinguishing between Mahler the composer, Mahler the conductor, and Mahler the propagator of his own works... as all have different priorities.
And what does it mean to have the entire section, not just the principal, play in 1909 vs. doing that today? The NYPhil's solo bassist was hardly such a genius that he was playing it "too well"... so 'added dread' may not be what GM was going for. Then again, the note does not suggest that he wanted it like that NOW - but that he had always wanted it like that and that he thought that "solo" had simply been misunderstood and should have been considered the equivalent of "soli".
|
|
|
Post by Beagle October 12, 2007 (29 of 47)
|
|
A very interesting thread (and very interesting Mahler edits facsimile). If indeed it is Mahler writing then the errata
III. Satz, beginn: solo bedeutet, dass alle kontrabässe allein spielen
(Third movement, beginning: 'solo' MEANS that all contrabasses alone play)
is Mahler correcting an ambiguity which he himself inadvertently introduced. I read this as "the whole bass section plays like a soloist" which is quite different from 'solisti' which would involve multiple parts (as in SATB).
|
|
|
Post by mahlerei November 7, 2008 (30 of 47)
|
|
Hmm, can't say I agree with Polly about the Zinman Mahler 1. Admittedly it isn't the best of his cycle and I can live without Blumine but I still find the freshness of his approach most appealing. Sonically I didn't have any problems with it either.
Well worth hearing, in my view, but of course there are so many other fine versions, not to mention Levine's terrific LSO recording on RBCD.
|
|
