Customer Reviews

Mahler: Symphony No. 5

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

It's simply the best Mahler's 5th I've ever heard. Solti had in his hands the best brass section in the world (in the 70's in particular) and you can admire them in this powerful and exciting recording.

To make things slightly more simple than they are, the interpretations of Mahler's symphonies (but I could extend that to the interpretation of ANY composition) fall within two broad categories: slow or fast. Now, don't laugh, I am aware how naïve such apparently over-simplified categories may seem, but this is the synthesis of innumerable observations based on hours of comparative listening. Of course, things are more complex than that. "Fast" usually comes with associated interpretive parameters, like "biting" or "snappy", and while "slow" always runs the risk of falling into "plodding", "sluggish" or "ponderous", it doesn't when it comes with "mass" and "power". And "slow" can also be "biting" (that's one of my criteria for great, "slow" conductors) and "fast" can come with "mellow" and "lacking crispness and bite" (that's one of my criteria for mediocre "fast" interpretations).

Also, an interpreter isn't always consistent throughout. This movement can be fast and the next one slow (a good example would be Karajan's famous 1963 Beethoven Eroica: three quarts of Toscanini and one quart of Furtwängler, in the funeral march). In music as sectional as Mahler's, the conductor can be fast in one section of one movement and slow in the next one; he can take the fast passage slowly and the slow passage fast - and the way conductors shape the opening movement of the 5th provides good illustrations, whether they favor strong contrast or a sense of organic unity.

And, of course, these categories are "ideal-types". Some performers are neither "fast" nor "slow", but somewhere in a snug "in between".

Overall, no such subtleties are called for in relation to Solti's Mahler's 5th - his first recording, made in the studio in March 1970 - although in the finer details, they do apply. As you can expect, he is true to his cliché: fast, biting like a Pït Bull, explosive - a powerhouse. Not that the approach, in 1970, was anything new. In fact, as far as tempi are concerned, Solti follows here a tradition established by - as surprising as it may seem, given the huge difference of temperaments between both conductors - Bruno Walter in his premiere recording from 1947 (Mahler: Symphony No. 5), and subsequently followed by Leinsdorf (1963, Symphony 5) and Neumann (1966, Mahler: Symphony No. 5), and later by Abravanel (1974, Symphony 5) and Mehta (1976, Mahler: Symphony 5). Other approaches, other traditions were established by Bernstein in 1963 (Mahler: Symphony No. 5), and even more radically by Barbirolli in 1969 (Mahler: Symphony No. 5 / New Philharmonia / Sir John Barbirolli (EMI)). Although, with compositions as sectional as Mahler's Symphonies, the overall timings don't tell the complete story, still they do tell the beginning of a story:

Walter--------------(1) 11:46 (2) 12:40 (3) 15:15 (4) 7:42 (5) 14:08
Leinsdorf-----------(1) 11:32 (2) 12:59 (3) 17:22 (4) 8:29 (5) 14:04
Solti-----------------(1) 11:52 (2) 13:45 (3) 16:35 (4) 9:51 (5) 13:36

Bernstein NY------(1) 12:25 (2) 14:13 (3) 17:34 (4) 11:00 (5) 13:43
Barbirolli-----------(1) 13:39 (2) 15:08 (3) 17:58 (4) 9:50 (5) 17:22

But in that approach, Solti is the best (even compared to those who came after). It has to do, first, with Decca's stupendous sonics. Those afforded by RCA to Leinsdorf were already great, but this goes a step further, and in fact I'm not sure this was ever bettered. I can't start describing all the orchestral details, usually blurred, that jump at your ears, from the celli and double-basses to in the intricacies of the brass writing.

But the Decca sonics serve only to highlight what Solti does with the orchestra. In the first movement's march Solti never lets you forget the military behind the funeral - and, with Mahler, the two are intimately intertwined. Solti's march marches on powerfully, implacably, ferociously almost: there is nothing of the burdened plight of Bernstein in Vienna in 1987 (Mahler: Symphony No. 5), Solti's march is grim, tight-jawed, dogged. He doesn't slow down in the "gehaltener" passages (1:02 and 2:40), the change of mood comes from phrasing and dynamics, not pace. Likewise the final section, at 9:15, with its ghostly and nostalgic strings, has wonderful atmosphere. His fast section, at 4:52 (for comparison, Walter reached it at 4:44, Leinsdorf at 4:54, Bernstein at 5:09 and Barbirolli at 5:50), is not, in itself, particularly fast (Solti takes the section in 1:46, the same as Bernstein and Barbirolli, to be compared with Leinsdorf's 1:32), but it explodes violently and gushes forth with great vehemence from trumpet and violins.

And that's nothing compared to the second movement. "Mit grösster Vehemenz" indicates Mahler, and Solti whips his Chicagoans to plenty of that. The first celli and double-bass attack lacks crispness (Bernstein here is even worse, but Leinsdorf's Bostonians are incomparable), but it is amply made up by the biting brass (see my pitbull comparison) and Solti's frienzied speed. And he keeps that bite in the first phrases of the woodwinds that open the second, slow section at 1:13, letting the strings assume the passage's lyricism and atmosphere, with its reminiscence of the first movement funeral march. And those recurring slow passages develop indeed great atmosphere, with huge tone ("grosser ton" writes Mahler) and romantic sweep from the violins, and with Solti shaping with a great sense of drama but also of organic unfolding the imperceptible shifts of tempo between the moments of tension and repose. If Solti is more than a minute longer than Walter in that movement, it is because he is more spacious in these slow passages, and likewise in the Scherzo - that is where matters are more subtle than just uniformly "fast".

Indeed the Scherzo is launched into with the urgency of Walter rather than the more leisurely and insouciant approach of Bernstein or, here, Leinsdorf, but, under Solti - vivid, close-up sonics helping -, it comes, unsurprisingly, with more powerful muscularity than Walter, exuding less a feeling of juvenile joy than, again, of an almost anxious exuberance. Not that it is devoid of charm: Solti's waltzes (at 2:21, 6:26, 9:29) are unaffected and affectionate, and the conductor expertly stages, in the first and third, an acceleration into the giddiness of dance. And clearly it is an interpretation that spotlights the movement's wild raging. Mahler marked in one of the autograph pages of the score of the 9th Symphony's Rondo-Burleske "to my brothers in Apollo", but this Scherzo (indeed a harbinger of the Rondo-Burleske), under Solti, is Dyonisos unleashed, developing scorching intensity in the climaxes - and making it a movement of many climaxes (circa 3:30 to 5:00, circa 9:45 to 10:30 , circa 11:45 to 14:15, the coda at 15:53).

At 9:51, Solti's Adagietto strikes a middle ground between the "fast" approaches of Walter (7:42) and Leinsdorf (8:29), and slow one of Bernstein (11:00). It is beautiful, never exaggerated, the melody flows gently without giving the impression of being dragged on and milked, the Chicago strings play with a soft and tender tone and rise up to the passion of the more animated and passionate moments. The finale is back to Solti's youthful exuberance verging onto cockiness. Significantly, the conductor doesn't observe Mahler's instruction to play the opening oboe and clarinet themes (at 0:18 and 0:29), respectively, "hesitantly" and "somewhat slower", and he doesn't relax his tempo on the charming little "grazioso" passage at 1:53, as if he wanted nothing to get in the way of sheer, exuberant joy and drive, even Mahler's mock sentimentalism. Bernstein was already very fast here (13:43 to Walter's - also brisk - 14:04), but Solti shaves off another few seconds from Bernstein, and leads it to a thrilling, hair-raising coda.

Certainly, because it plays up Mahler's urgency and biting rage rather than (like Barbirolli and Bernstein in his 1987 remake did so well) its burdened plight, this is not a Mahler for all tastes. Within its own interpretive options it is certainly extreme, and will sound excessive to many listeners. It seems quite fitting that Solti's recording came chronologically immediately after Barbirolli's, because, both at an opposite pole, they were and remain among the most extreme interpretations of Mahler's 5th - Barbirolli all deliberation and mass, Solti a powerhouse of unrelenting intensity. Somehow deliberation and mass must be easier to take than unrelenting intensity, because while Barbirolli's recording seems universally admired, I see that a number of reviewers pan this version, although many seem to do so less on account of the intepretation as because of the "garish, overly bright sonics". I think they are great, and I love hearing all those biting instrumental details that go lost is so many other recordings, made before or after. But those who feel that "Solti's tendency to relentlessly pressure the music forward instead of letting it breathe naturally significantly submerges its darker and more reflective qualities", have simply let their hearing be ovewhelmed by those moments (admittedly numerous) of biting rage. Things are more subtle than that, and what makes Solti's version a great one is also that, precisely, while the biting rage may seem overwhelming, it does NOT come at the expense of the music's darker and more reflective qualities - witness, in the second and third movements, his more spacious pacing of the moments of repose than Walter's. But, sure enough: this ain't a Mahler 5th for sissies.

Mahler's 5th was "the" showpiece for Solti and the CSO in the sixties, seventies and eighties. There are two major commercial albums available (this studio version and a later live recording) with this conductor and orchestra. I prefer the power, brisk tempi and unforgettable Adagietto of this album to the more restrained and somewhat muffled sound quality of the later version. This was the Solti in his prime with the CSO.

I am a huge fan of the CSO but this resording is very disappointing, not because of the orchestra. The brass section gets terrible reputation for playing too loud, but when it sounds like everyone has a microphone stuck up their bell it is hard to say that this is a good representation of the CSO sound. I think that London is to blame for bad mic placement and setting levels too high. Most of the things recorded by Chicago on London have a brightness to them, but when you listen to the Abbado Mahler 5 on DG (and pretty much any other CSO recording on DG) the sound is magnificently better.

None of the reviewers below, who rightly scorn the 1970 Solti Mahler Fifth for its garish, overly bright sonics, has mentioned that there is a remedy. Solti remade the Mahler Fifth in gorgeous sound under live concert conditions in Veinna. That recording, also on Decca (# 433 329), is from 1990--it features Solti on the cover standing against a stormy sky.

It's also a less driven reading. Solti's Mahler became more natural and easy (at least for him) toward the end of his career. He isn't a sentimentalist by any means, but if you crave the CSO at its stupendous best, the remake is a real thrill.

This recording of Mahler 5 can compare to no other. This recording is one that CSO is noted for. The brass parts in Mahler 5 are very important and extremely difficult. With legandary brass players Dale Clevenger, Bud Hershoff, Jay Friedman, and Arnold Jacobs playing at their best, this recording should be on every musician's shelf.

To those of us fortunate enough to have been able to hear the Chicago Symphony Orchestra play live under the able baton of Barenboim or an often equally distinguished guest conductor, it is clear that this recording is a poor one. It has its moments where the musicianship of the players, particularly wind soloists, all but forces you to love it. However, thanks to the record producers, it doesn't happen often. Each instrument seems individually recorded, and as a result the volume is often suddenly turned down! A perfect example is the climax of the 2nd movement. (To hear what I'm referring to, go to about 10:30 in Track 2.) The trumpets and trombones enter, and as soon as the timpani strikes on the downbeat of the next measure, the volume of the whole orchestra is suddenly softer. Inventive interpretation by Solti? Not quite. This kind of thing happens on several occasions throughout this brilliant Symphony. I'm not sure if the live recording (also by London) is any better, but I would hope so.

Jay Friedman, principal trombone with the CSO for 40 years and counting, himself comments, "London Records was never interested in capturing the natural sound of the CSO. They had a pre-conceived sound with they were determined to force on the orchestra that focused on hard, edgy sonics in a boomy, over reverberant space. ... I remember the horn section was placed 50 feet or more from the trumpets and trombones in order to get a gimmicky stereo effect. The results of these sessons produced a raucous, rough, hard-edged sound that in no way represents the CSO, especially the brass section. ... Solti was a great conductor... I do remember his unhappiness with the sound of the first Mahler 5th recording. He wanted to cancel the recording, but it was too late."

I'm sorry but I would think that the music should come first, not some producer wanting to make money by selling a recording bent to the will of some 70's record producer who thought louder was better and thought that the CSO and the music-listening public shared his opinion. Too bad he ruined a great performance.

As other reviewers have said, this is an extremely flawed recording. The London engineers have obviously very thoroughly operated on it.

However, that said, if you know what to expect, and know the symphony, you can tell that this was a truly great performance. Bud Herseth (Principal Trumpet) delivers the definitive trumpet solo in the Trauermarsch, and the orchestra plays with a passion, and with blend and flair, which are uncommon even in their exalted history of recordings. In essense, this is a miraculous performance...but a heinous recording.

There is one interesting side effect to the perversions of the engineers: some colors come through which are usually rather masked by heavy orchestration. Every instrument is audible. As a study recording for those who are very familiar with the symphony, it is invaluable.

None of this changes the fact that this recording is almost impossible to listen to casually. The engineers jerk the volume around so much that I get seasick. For overall listening pleasure I recommend the 1991 CSO/Solti live recording (although the performance is not quite as good, the recording quality averages it out; it's a good disc overall).

This is a very short review, for I have nothing bad to say about this recording. It's the best Mahler 5 out there and that's that.

This is a very dynamic perfomance, aided and abetted by the virtuoso playing of the Chicago Symphony, particularly its famous brass section. Arguably, it was a breakthrough performance for this work at the time of its release in 1970, at least in the United States, as Bernstein's recording from his 1960's cycle was the arguably the weakest, certainly not comparable to his performances of the 3rd, 6th and 7th symphonies, and other recordings, apart from the historic one by Bruno Walter and an early stereo on Everest by a non-name conductor, did not exist (I do not recall seeing the near contemporary Barbirolli recording at that time; in any case it did not receive anywhere near the exposure of the Solti).
However, since that time, the proliferation of recordings of Mahler in the succeeding decades, a number with comparable levels of orchestral execution, have made the limitations of this interpretation more apparent, namely in spite of its positive attributes, Solti's tendency to relentlessly pressure the music forward instead of letting it breathe naturally significantly submerges its darker and more reflective qualities. Furthermore, the recording quality is lacking by the best modern standards. More specifically, it is just too bright and upfront to create a realistic perspective and also has a particular roughness in the string tone, although, in my opinion, a remastering with current oversampling techniques would ameliorate these limitations.