I didn't ask to review EPS conducting Mahler's Third. My editor assigned me the job and I didn't object. But I wasn't looking forward to it. The last time I heard the Third, MTT was conducting and I castigated myself afterwards for having subjected myself to an hour and a half of tedious undifferentiated sludge.
But I equipped myself with a score from the library - wasn't going to cover a work like this without one - and braced myself to my duty. As I was sitting there waiting for the start, my colleague Lisa of the Iron Tongue came by and expressed surprise to see me there, knowing my take on Mahler. I explained my duty. What she did not say was that she was reviewing it for the Chronicle, though I was hardly surprised to find it there later. She's been writing for them about once a week for a month now, and the more she steps into Kosman's retired shoes the happier I'll be. (It's an important and necessary job, but not one I'd want to undertake myself.)
Anyway, we basically agreed on EPS's approach; the difference was that I was even happier with it. I've heard occasional successful Mahler performances before, but this one took the cake. I wonder if, as with the saying "There are no bad dogs, only bad owners," that there are no bad composers (at least among the big names), only bad conductors. As with the realization I had about the hideous Anton Webern the time I heard him played to sound tender and attractive, I wonder if the reason I normally loathe Mahler so much is because most people insist on playing him so badly.
At least with his earlier work: I find even sympathetic performances of his later symphonies to be impenetrable. There's room for contemplation here.
Kalimac's corner: a journal by DB
I know much less than one percent of what you do about Mahler or classical music, but my impression, usually when I'm driving and turn on the local classical radio station in the middle of some performance and only learn afterward that what I've been hearing is Mahler, has been that there are some lovely parts, but they don't fit together. (It is possible that my own opinions have been influenced by what you've written!) However, your review has inspired me to make my first new post in nearly 18 years:
ReplyDeletehttps://brigandage.blogspot.com/2024/07/mahler-and-sousa.html
Thank you for the kind words. Regarding "badly", I'd consider this a matter of the listener's taste rather than good or bad. That Salonen's major concern is the logic of the works is fine, but there is plenty of room for approaches that emphasize the wildness and emotional content of the works. My preference overall is for a less cool approach than Salonen's.
ReplyDeleteI think I've mentioned to you that my reference Mahler set is Gary Bertini's. It is very beautifully recorded, with a great orchestra, and interpretively straightforward. I listened to a couple of recordings of the Third in June and right now I'm planning to pick up Rafael Kubelik's set. His Third really wowed me.
You will notice that in my professional review I was entirely neutral and descriptive in discussing the differences between EPS's and MTT's styles. But here in my own blog I get to say what's merely interestingly different and what is actively bad. That's what I hear, and I'm going to say it.
DeleteBut why be neutral? Music reviews are combination of factual information (date, location, who played, the violinist was out of tune, the orchestra and piano soloist weren't in sync during the X section of the last movement) and opinion. I read reviews mostly for the opinions; I want to know the reviewer's opinion and their reasoning..
DeleteThat you have a preference for one conductor over other, and can provide reasons, is perfect reasonable to include in a review. It's your opinion! If you don't want to go as far as saying a particular interpretation is bad is your choice, but making a comparison is fine.
You should read the review. After neutrally describing the differences, I mildly added "I prefer Salonen’s perspective." Here in this blog is where I get to say it's because MTT plays Mahler BADLY, and I hold by that.
DeleteOh, I read it, back when it was published. I just don't understand your reticence about saying all of what you think in the review.
DeleteI get enough grief from you when I speak bluntly here in my blog. I'm not going to go out of my way to invite abuse from random strangers who read SFCV. It happens enough anyway. I was once roundly slammed for having suggested that Kronos should have put an intermission in a two-hour concert.
Delete