Customer Reviews

Mahler: Symphony No.5

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The search for an ideal Mahler 5 isn't easy, despite the abundance of recordings: Karajan's , like Walter's, contains a couple of mistakes, Barbirolli's is interestingly different but the tempi don't always work, and others fail to inspire. Abbado's interpretation isn't radical, but its very musical and well thought out.The Adagio is relatively swift at less than 10 minutes, but this is now accepted as Mahler's likely speed, and works very well. This live recording contains a few chair squeaks, and the accompaniment to the first violin melody is a tiny bit too quiet, but these hardly marr a brilliant performance, in excellent digital sound.

Claudio Abbado's live recording of Mahler's 5th Symphony with the Berlin Philharmonic is still regarded as among the best. While Mahler fans may prefer other recordings by the likes of Bernstein, Rattle, Barbirolli, and Levine for their emotionally stirring interpretations, Abbado's most recent account has much to recommend it, not only for its excellent sound quality. His interpretation strikes a fine balance between a radical emotional reading and a more clinical approach, emphasizing the lyrical qualities of Mahler's score. I agree with a previous reviewer who finds Abbado's interpretation as one that is well thought out, even if some may find the tempi a bit too brisk.

I don't think any orchestra can play Mahler with more individuality than the Berlin Philharmonic. They've been gifted with great Mahlerians, Abbado and now the present day Rattle. This Mahler 5th is played with stunning power, with the Berliners giving their all. This was recorded just a few years after Abbado's takeover at Berlin, but Abbado's mark has already been left. Abbado's Berlin plays with more freedom of expression than with Karajan. (That's not necessarily to say that Karajan's Berlin is inferior to Abbado's; Karajan boasted visionary gifts and could achieve supernatural concentration.) Yet Abbado doesn't just let things roll by or become infatuated with the sound to his orchestra to the point of letting it become an end in itself. Abbado doesn't let a minute pass by without placing a firm stamp of individuality on the music.

Abbado's orchestra was lighter and fleeter in texture than either Karajan's or Rattle's. This could have worked against Abbado when he interpreted the composer who demands such power and depth. But it didn't, as Abbado used his Berliners' new-found freedom of playing to unleash his own personality and vision. The Berliners set the music on fire, making for a dazzling display of orchestral virtuosity. Clarity is present to the highest degree, with every note and phrase being articulated with astonishing agility. One of Abbado's greatest strengths as a musician is that he rarely struggles with overstatement, which means that even when he's at his most inspired the music will never become bombastic or overblown. (One can't say the same thing about Karajan.) When he's caught full of ideas, like on this disc, the music making is wonderfully infectious. Under his direction the Berliners play with marvelous beauty of tone, enabling them to deliver the ravishing melodies Mahler incorporated into his score without a care in the world. This is pure music making with no fluff.

Comparing this to Rattle's later recording of this piece with the same orchestra, Abbado comes out on top, as he allows himself to be entirely taken up with the music, whereas Rattle can sound more mannered. DG's sonics for Abbado are wonderful, but EMI was still getting adjusted to the Philharmonie's acoustics when they recorded the Rattle. For those trying to decide between the two, Abbado is the better choice, although the Rattle is certainly a success.

In closing, this is a phenomenal disc that showcases a wonderful conductor and orchestra at the height of their powers. Please buy it and enjoy.

Claudio Abbado has a special affinity for the music of Gustav Mahler. This performance of the Fifth is certainly representative of his approach to Mahler's music. The tempos, particularly in the Scherzo, are thoughtfully considered, attempting to bring out the atmosphere of the music and paying attention to the silences. With this recording, there is the feeling of searching out the subtle nuances of the music. I read a comment in the Gramophone review of this performance that Abbado was "eliminating the barlines" of the score. This was also said about Mahler himself in his approach to creating a performance.

The Adagietto is taken at an excellent tempo that does not turn the music into a romantic dirge. Many performances stretch the tempo out to over 11 or 12 minutes when Mahler himself preferred a far faster tempo. Abbado's timing of 8:58 works very well giving the music space and depth of feeling. The only (minor) drawback were the muffled percussion in the Scherzo. There probably are other recordings of the Mahler Fifth that bring a bit more excitement to the orchestral climaxes (particularly in the second and fifth movements) but as a reading, this one ranks very high.

The sound quality is very good with an excellent balance. This was a live performance but there is no audience noise until brief applause at the conclusion.

When I first thought about comparing these two recordings, I thought it was going to be a breeze to listen to some good Mahler and then dash off a few paragraphs of pompous purple prose comparing the approaches of these two very different conductors: the Frenchman Boulez, widely regarded as cold and analytical in his conducting, and the Italian Abbado, by stereotypical default a more passionate conductor, and in this instance recorded in a live concert venue. Surely, I thought, these would be widely varying interpretations, and there would be no problem in comparing them. But as Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson once sang, "Nothing is easy..."

First off, let me say that both of these CDs are excellent recordings. I have owned many recordings of the 5th, and the Abbado was the best I had ever owned--excellent in both performance and sound. In fact, it was good enough to finally replace the Sinopoli recording from my collection. Sinopoli's performance was very good, but the sound was a bit bright in the old DG tradition. The "4D" process embraced by DG made a remarkable improvement in the sonic quality of their recordings, and both the Abbado and the Boulez are superb sonically.

When I first brought home the Boulez and fired it up on my "reference system" (sorry, but from time to time I have to force myself to use the politically correct audiophile jargon. I usually just call it my "stereo"), I was impressed that it was a wonderful performance in excellent sound, and marveled that DG could already have two first-rate 4D recordings of this work competing with each other on record-store shelves. I also began to wonder which version would wind up being my preferred one.

In the first movement, I found that I very slightly preferred the sound quality of the Boulez recording; however, it was hard to tell how much of the sonic difference was attributable engineering and how much to the performances themselves. The "Boulez sound" seemed slightly warmer, with more layers to the soundstage and better articulation. My guess is that the majority of this difference is attributable to the performance. Countering this slight advantage to Boulez and the Vienna musicians, however, was the more palpable sense of excitement in the performance by Abbado and his Berliners (the musicians, not the pastries). Based on the first movement, this is going to be a tough choice.

In the vehement second movement, I found the sound and the performance of the Boulez recording significantly clearer. There seemed to be some slurring and blurring of lines in the Abbado that I had never really paid any attention to until I heard the outstanding precision of the Boulez.

In the third movement, a scherzo, again there was more clarity in the Boulez recording. This time, however, I felt the difference was more attributable to engineering than to performance. Again, I must stress that both versions were excellent, but I did prefer the slightly more focused sound of the Boulez version. Boulez is starting to edge ahead.

On to the famous Adagietto, a meltingly beautiful piece of music that for many listeners is the highlight of this symphony. From the stereotypes, one would expect Abbado to play this movement slowly and emotionally and Boulez to dispatch it with quick, clinical precision. If so, one would be half right. Amazingly enough, it is Boulez who times out much slower, a mere second below eleven minutes, while Abbado gets through the movement just a mere second above nine minutes. Although the Boulez has great clarity, it is the "singing" quality of the Abbado that makes the stronger impression. This is the movement that brings out the greatest contrast between the two recordings, and for me at least, was the one movement where Abbado was clearly preferable.

The final movement was again very close for me, but in the end, the slightly greater clarity of sound and precision of performance in the Boulez version gave the Frenchman's recording a narrow advantage.

Overall, then, I have slight preference for Boulez/Vienna. But I will definitely keep both recordings, because the Abbado/Berlin is also quite excellent, and has a better Adagietto. You can't go wrong with either recording.

This, Abbado's recording with the Berlin Philharmonic of Mahler's 5th symphony, is one of my favorite recordings of all time. I've listened to it way more than I thought I would, because the performance is so compelling. It is extremely lyrical, the tempos are just right to "milk" the emotion out of the piece yet not make you impatient (it doesn't drag), and the audio engineering is stellar. (I've rarely heard such a realistic, clear, full, deep orchestral sound on a recording. They got the stereo imaging, and the mix between dry sound and ambiance, just right.) Mahler's 5th and Rachmaninoff's 2nd are symphonies I can listen to over and over. With the Rachmaninoff, just about any recording will do, though I have my favorites. But with the Mahler, it is only effective (and I will only listen to it over and over again) if it's played just right. The quality of the playing makes all the difference (the tempos, the blend, how well the musicians are in sync with one another, the color, the dynamic contrast, the mood changes, other expressive contrast, and so forth). This one sounds natural--not forced--and flows smoothly. Abbado holds back at the right moments and "lets go" at the right moments for full emotional impact. It is one of those performances that "transports" you, that makes you forget about the musicians or any other distractions, and just allows you to focus on the music itself and the feelings and images the music produces within you. This record is a great work of art! I very highly recommend it. I don't write many CD reviews, but this is one I had to do because I am so enthusiastic about this album.

A terribly similar performance as Bernstein, Boulez, Barenboim and Solti but Abbado does not get quite the lustrous, gorgeous string playing from his musicians as the others.

This is the best Rendition of # 5 that I have heard.

Not much to my surprise Abbado does a superb job

interpreting Mahler's #5. If you are really into

Mahler, Abbado's is a must have. If you have heard

of Mahler and want to listen to one of his works,

then this CD is the one. Abbado surpasses all "modern"

conductors in all of Mahler's symphonies. The only

exception is Bruno Walter, who does the best job

of interpreting Mahler, but the problem with Walter's

CDs is the sound quality. This is why I stated "Modern".

After you read enough Mahler reviews, you start to get tired of seeing all the recordings described by comparison with other recordings you haven't heard and probably don't wish to spend the time or money to buy. "Though not as sanguine as von Willenbrand's early recording, it is a good deal more pointed than Peyronie's performance," etc. Unfortunately, there comes a point where the best way to describe one recording is with reference to another recording.

There are better recordings than this one. There's nothing really "wrong" with this one. The performance is technically precise, and the sound is very good. On the other hand, it's lacking something, and it's difficult to say what. Maestro Abbado has given us some thrilling Mahler recordings - his recording of the first is fantastic, and both of his sevenths are very well done. This fifth, though, fails to make the journey from depths of despair to heights of jubilation. Some might call it emotionally detached, but emotional overload is the point with Mahler. For emotional detachment, I can listen to Haydn.

You can hear it in the audience's response - at the end of the Mahler first, the audience explodes into enthusiastic applause and cheers, and rightly so. Here, the applause is more tepid, as though those present said to themselves, "Oh, they're done? I guess we'd better acknowledge."

Though I cannot claim a comprehensive knowledge of all the "essential" Mahler 5ths out there, I would recommend instead Bernstein with the VPO (especially the first two movements), Solti's digital performance with the CSO, or Levine with Philadelphia (sadly, out of print - what a great recording).

I have listened to many different versions of Mahler's 5th recently, trying to decide which one to buy to replace this one, which just doesn't do it for me. There is no questioning Abbado's credentials or the quality of the BP, but for whatever reason, this recording just doesn't have the "oomph" that I hear in other recordings. I haven't heard the Barbirolli recording yet, but I would rank Chailly, Karajan, Bernstein and Kubelik all well ahead of this one. Chailly is probably my favorite--a great performance combined with a top-notch digital recording.