Classical Music Forum banner

Mahler Symphony 3

70K views 388 replies 55 participants last post by  damianjb1 
#1 ·
This enormous work has become a favourite of many.

Your favoured recordings?
 
#175 ·
Can the OP please rename this thread "Recommend Brahms Recordings"? All this Mahler talk is really getting in the way... :p

Just kidding. I didn't really get on with Karajan's Brahms symphonies, though I love his German Requiem in Berlin (DG, w/ Waechter and Janowski); ditto Bernstein's Brahms, but I owe both another chance. That Bernstein/Vienna Brahms 3 is considered quite controversial. I guess people might think it's too slow?
 
#178 · (Edited)
I will admit I have a difficult time with Karajan. Many legendary recordings, many more glossy, performances made practically on an assembly line. Though I have not given his Brahms a chance, and will definitely check them out. He will probably deliver, Brahms was German after all. Bernstein isn't always my favorite either but he makes very bold choices, especially late in his career. That Pathetique!

Also: I am sorry for de-railing the Mahler thread. I do love all the suggestions though!
 
#180 ·
Having finished the Roth Mahler 3 (I'm assuming this thread is about Mahler 3?;)) I can give some overall impressions. My initial enthusiasm for the first movement was definitely tempered by the rest of it. That element of capricious, fairy-tale fantasy that I found so excellent in the first movement became more of a "play it safe" approach in the rest of the symphony with little interpretive risk-taking. The second movement comes out very well and is certainly highly enchanting. Things started to lose direction, I thought, in the scherzo where the woodwinds just didn't sound quite up to par and the posthorn trio was just lazy (I can't think of any other word to describe it). Sara Mingardo does have a nice voice for the vocal movements, but then the Adagio just let the whole thing down. Soooo straightforward and unimaginative and the quality of the playing started to taper off too. Even Boulez sounds much more noble and warm-hearted compared to this. So I guess I shouldn't have got my hopes up with a modern performance like this, but I really did like the special narrative quality of the first movement and it almost seemed like Roth put all his imagination into it while waving off the rest. A worthwhile performance, but not essential IMO.

Honestly I think I'm a bit burnt out on M3. I would like to give the Boulez another try and maybe the Adler, but for now I'm content that I've finally found some favorites for this long-neglected (by me) symphony and have come to see the work as on an equal footing with my favorite Mahler symphonies - the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 9th. Also, since I was on vacation in the mountains this week, it was nice to take the opportunity to listen to the symphony a lot and get a taste of the natural inspirations that filled Mahler's mind when he was writing it:)
 
#181 ·
I mostly agree, although I actually liked the third movement. After that it did become more traditional and that was mildly disappointing. He definitely tried to enhance the hymn quality of the final section though. While I personally believe it robs it of some of its lyrical power, and I prefer more flowing adaptations, it does give the symphony a different split into first 3 and second 3 that I enjoy. This was the first performance I heard where I would suggest the conductor split it between the third and fourth movements. If he coaxes this performance out of a live ensemble for a concert, I think an intermission there would balance the two three-part sections. Leave the fairies in the forest and then dissect man and god in the second half.

I do appreciate the very different sounding morning bells. Or mourning belles, in this case.
 
#190 ·
I certainly agree. And also in the 8th! Boulez's Mahler 8 is an incredibly exciting and transcendent recording. It's another good blind listen selection: the coda of the 1st movement of this recording in particular provokes in me greater frisson than any other recording I've heard, the number of which is not few.

I've not been sure about the Boulez 7th, with Cleveland, but perhaps I should revisit it, just as with the Fifth..
 
#199 ·
It's so interesting how that emotional stepwise motion in the 3rd's finale isn't always resolved in the same way. It often jumps slightly higher or drops back down. Although it does reprise exactly a few times as well.

It seems Mahler wrote a Farewell to end the 9th named Das Lied, and then another love letter to eternal love in the 9th 9th, you know, just in case.
 
#201 · (Edited)
Just want to put it out here, after a first listening through Inbal's 3rd Mahler cycle with Tokyo Metropolitan Symphony Orchestra, I think this really is a great set and well worth listening to for seasoned Mahlerians.

These live recordings (superbly recorded by Exton) are spacetious, warm, colorful, wonderfully spontaneous, and idiomatic, just what you would expect from a devout Mahler specialist. Full of insights and touching moments. TMSO might be second rate but they sure can play and are espectially responsive to the Maestro. Their orchestral color is full-bodied and rich.

For anyone looking for a fresh cycle with superior sonics that isn't analytical (such as the ongoing Vanska cycle), I highly recommend this set.
 
#202 · (Edited)
I rarely enjoy Exton releases. The mixing is very wet, and you lose a lot of the distinction you get in a full concert hall. Maybe it is too much reverb. I am not sure. But the Honeck/Pittsburgh recordings don't sound great to me. And neither did Hisaishi's Rite of Spring. I am willing to continue to give them a try though.

I am more of a mono, early stero kind of guy. I personally think Mercury Living Presence is the best we have ever done, and may ever do. Too bad there is not much Mahler there.
 
#207 ·
These days it seems to me that there are almost too many very good - I feel "exceptional" would be appropriate when I am listening to one of them but then there seem to be others as good that demand to be called exceptional as well - accounts of most of the Mahler symphonies. Of course, there are also many that don't quite get there. I just listened to the 6th conducted by Leinsdorf. I bought it during a busy time, noticed that it was good but then forgot it: it is actually very good indeed. I can think of at least five Mahler 2s that are really great (and many more quite famous ones that are pretty good, too), a similar number of 3s, several 5s and 6s and at least five 9s that are really great.
 
#208 ·
I also have so many recordings I like of almost every symphony at this point. So far on the list of 3rds that meet my sensibilities best, I have Horenstein, Kubelik, Bernstein, Barbirolli, Bychkov, two different Boulez, and Adler.

Not that there aren't many others that I enjoy very much, but those are my current top tier. I have not heard the Telarc cycle, which I have heard great things about. I also haven't heard either Fischer. So there is much much more exploring to do.

Since hearing the Roth, I am putting some space between another listen so it can smack me again, maybe I will like it more. It has piqued my interest to find another 'fairy ballet.' That was the first time I heard that. I would love to hear more conductors tap into that side of this symphony.

It's given me a new side-quest with this symphony.
 
#224 ·
As a professional at least you get paid something when you have to perform stuff you do not care for.

As an amateur you still have to play it. Since I am volunteering I insist that at least some of the music I play is appealing to me. There are some groups that have tried to recruit me that play nothing but poorly arranged popular dreg. Such groups really freak-out and get defensive when I tell them that I would not play for them because I do not care for their programing. I usually make up an excuse.

It really infuriates me when I play with a group I am volunteering to play with that refuses to play anything that I like. I eventually quit those groups.
 
#227 ·
Knorf - Well, I hope you can derive MORE inspiration/motivation from the concerts that you'll play in the future. Well, the "Pops arrangements" are some of the "tickets" that musical organizations try to use, to get MORE people, interested in classical music. We have such "Pops" motivations, even in ol' Louisville, and probably, in other cities. Also, there's NO question that certain conductors are overpaid; as for CEOs, they ... by-and-large ... are GROSSLY-overpaid, esp. in a relation to their workers - no? IN any case, it's fine to know that you DO love playing ol' Gustav M, and maybe, many of his works. This, young, Viennese man was certainly a transitional figure (let's say) in the progressions of classical music ... and he had a fine career (from what I've gleaned) in his career, as a conductor. There's some angst, some "redemption", some-or-many moments of LYRICISM, and many moments of extending his orchestral works, into a finalized ... yet, not, trivialized ... form, in their many moments & PROGRESSIONS, to a certain end. The great HOPEFULNESS of his 4th, parts of the 5th, and others ... are some of the "signposts" of how 20th Century compositions, even in ... "Viennese hands" .. maybe we could say, and in the ERA that could include, or lead-to Stravinsky, Sibelius, Copland and others, are still so-remarkable, and still such as those, that still involve the HEART, after all. Opinions only, of course.
 
#229 · (Edited)
It's a myth that that pops concerts make money or convert people to classical music.

First of all, pops concerts are often extremely expensive. Almost all of the music is copyrighted and the star performers are very expensive, more than all but the top classical stars. They also commonly require large orchestras or extra equipment of various types. This is mitigated somewhat by requiring fewer rehearsals, but the latter is commonly a compromise to help offset the cost of extra players, which can be numerous. Some pops programs are actually wicked hard. In general, more often than not, pops concerts cost more money to put on than they generate in ticket sales, just like classical.

Second of all, it's not necessarily true that pops concerts outsell classical. Certain ones often do, like Xmas pops, which are usually a blend of classical and pops to be fair, but many more do not. Not everyone is André Rieu. Those that probably will outsell a subscription classical concert, say a live orchestra with a Star Wars movie, are also extremely expensive and ultimately cost a lot of money because ticket sales typically are not enough to make up the difference.

Third of all, building a pops audience is not generally correlated with building a larger classical audience. These are two different audiences, with different expectations, and in general there is not a lot of overlap except in smaller, regional orchestras. There are decades of data to back this up: you can build a pops audience, or you can build a classical audience, or both separately, but they are not usually symbiotic.

Of course I am always happy to get work. But it is also not always true that pops concerts are unrewarding work. Some of them are a blast! Pops concerts in general are lower stress and often very fun (and yes, there are some that are crazy hard, but that can be fun, too). And some classical programs are a grind. I share Heck148's disapprobation of Rachmaninoff, except for one or two pieces like the Symphonic Dances.

Andrew Lloyd Webber is the opposite of fun, at least for me.
 
#232 ·
His Requiem is a disaster. I do occasionally listen to a cast album of his, but those are basically well-produced albums, not in any way replications of live experiences. Having seen some of those, I can say that the music is not well-written or orchestrated in the extreme.

Also, he needs better lyricists. He should have continued picking through dead English poets.
 
#233 ·
It's true that "Pops" audiences do not necessarily cross over to classical concert audiences...an orchestra I played with for many years actually built up 2 distinguishable audiences for each genre....the longtime conductor built a very solid classical base, but he did not esp enjoy pops programming...he did it because the orchestra needed the $$....his successor, kind of a pretentious dude, isn't particularly good at classical repertoire, but his pops programming is very creative and outstanding. They draw big audiences...the orchestra presents 6 xmas pops programs, and virtually all of them sell out....they are expensive tho, lots of guest artists, large orchestras, smaller featured groups...there is some crossover of audience, to be sure, but the core is different...
 
#234 ·
It is inevitable, but unfortunately it will be the end of live classical music. Especially after the pandemic. We will get film scores performed live and symphonies of Final Fantasy music. It's what audiences want. Eventually the other stuff won't be programmed anymore. The classical concerts in Pittsburgh are rarely full, but John Williams sold out. Not that there is anything wrong with Williams but eventually that is as far back as some of these concerts will go. Even Beethoven is fading, and I once thought people would never tire of that.
 
Top