Customer Reviews

Mahler: Symphony No. 9 (Bernstein Century)

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

 

 

Since all three of Bernstein's Mahler Ninths have been reviewed on Amazon as the "best," I thought I'd sit down and compare them side by side. The two commercially recorded versions are with the New York Phil. from 1965 (Sony) and a live Concertgebouw concert from 1985 (DG). The third account is a radio broadcast of a live concert with the Berlin Phil. on DG from 1979. As other reviewers have detailed, this version was released posthumously; it commemorates Bernstein's only appeaarance with the Berlin Philharmonic--I think he had stayed off Karajan's turf by mutual agreement, although no doubt there were anti-Nazi feelings as well.

Timings: Although Bernstein's tempos grew slower with age, his Mahler Ninth was never one of the faster ones. The first movement takes 28 min. in NY, speeds up to 27 min. in Berlin, then reaches 29 min. in Amsterdam. (By comparison, Abbado takes 25 min. in his recent Berlin Phil. reading on DG.) In the second movement Scherzo NY and Berlin are around 15 min. (the same as Abbado), and again the Concertgebouw performance is notably slower, 17 min. All these vresions, along with Abbado, take roughly 12 min. for the third movement Rondo-Bulreske. The biggest change in tempo occurs in the fourth movement Adagio, where NY is 23 min., Berlin 26 min., and Amsterdam a very prolonged 29+ min., compared to Abbado's 25 min. or Boulez's brisk 21 min. Bernstein always permitted himself expressive freedom, and a case can be made for all three tempos, including the agonized farewell from Amsterdam.

Sound: The NY recording never sounded all that clear or detailed on LP, but the Sony remastering is very good. It is warm in the string tone, and there is a good orchestral blend. One doesn't feel that individual mikes are highlighting various solos. The Berlin recording is bright, somewhat thin, and considerably more aggressive. The balance keeps strings and winds a bit far back, while at times the brass and percusison leap out. Through earphones one can detect a low-level buzz, but overall this is good sound if you can accept Bernstein's podium noises and some intrusive coughing in exposed soft passages. With the Amsterdam recording we are back to higher standards, but not as good as in New York; the orchestra sounds thinner and consierably more distant. The Sony remastering is a clear winner here.

Orchestras: The New York Phil. plays very well but without any particular Mahler sound, and there isn't a great deal of personality in the phrasing. The Berlin Phil. is more distinctive, alert, and quite diverse in phrasing; the string section is sweeter as well. (The Amazon reviewer who says that the orchestra learned the Mahler Ninth under Bernstein has forgotten the excellent Barbirolli recording they made for EMI in 1964, admittedly 15 years earlier. The further claim that Karajan piggy-backed on Bernstein's tutelage is silly.) The Concertgebouw sounds very fine but not distinctive; the overall feeling is mellow and not extremely detailed, but they are certainly premier in their own right. All three orchestras are, and only the sonics let down Berlin.

Interpretation: Considering that Bernstein was considered a Mahlerian firebrand, his NY Ninth struck me as a bit bland on its initial release, but now it sounds very musical and balanced. For anyone who wants Bernstein without excessive personality, emoitonal underlining, and over-dramatizing, this is the version for you. In Berlin the interpretation is more intense but still controlled; the sense of a great orchestra giving its all is palpable. There are many new insights not heard in NY, and Bernstein has found a sense of mystery and dramatic suspense that must have kept hte audience on the edge of their seats. In Amsterdam this special ambience isn't present. Despite the long drawn-out finale, Bernstein is not at an expressive extreme here. He doesn't have a hysterical approach to this work in any of his three readings, but I'd say the Concertgebouw performance comes in third, with Berlin first and NY second.

Overall, I feel drawn into Mahler's world with all three readings, yet that feeling is most intense in Berlin. In Amsterdam Bernstein sounds autumnal, weary and resigned, and in the last movement he holds on to every note of farewell for dear life. But one msut remember always that this is Bernstein--these three readings rise to a very high level of artistic expression, and if the NY and Amsterdam versionss were the only two that existed, they would be in the front rank of Mahler Ninth recordings.

Never heard Mahler's 9th Symphony before? This is an excellent place to start. Bernstein's Mahler expertise really shines in this, his first of three recordings of the piece. What I like about this particular recording is the strait forward manner in which it is played, giving the listener a good feel for the score. Lenny, being his usual self adds a lot of his own personality to the performace, contributing to the experience. However, I personally feel that the Berlin Philharmonic's "sound" is better suited to this piece. Their playing has a certain glow to it that works well with Mahler's 9th. Bernstein's later recording with the BPO in the late 70s is a good example. In addition, there are two Herbert von Karajan recordings of Mahler's 9th with the Berliners which took place in the early 80s. The second version (also on DG costing $30+) is stunning. The two DG performances while very nice are also very costly, and if you've never heard the piece, this recording will serve you very well as an intro. Happy listening.

This recording of Mahler's Ninth is supreme above most recordings of this work. It matches only another of Bernstein's recordings, that with the Berlin Philharmonic in the late 1970's, in quality. In fact the Berlin recording was an amazing event: there was talk that the Bernstein and the orchestra's main conductor, Herbert von Karajan were in a bit of a feud. Their styles were extremely different and their attitudes toward each other were quite hostile, it seems. Of course, their terms with their respective orchestras were for the most part during a time of "coldness" between Germany and the United States. So it was a one-time event that Leonard Bernstein was invited to conduct the Berlin. Anyhow, getting back to the Mahler, it seems that this recording (that I'm actually supposed to be reviewing) with the New York Philharmonic was one of Bernstein's own favorites. Bernstein himself was one of the greatest conductors of all time; he was able to excite his orchestra into really playing from their hearts and keeping the large orchestral form structured so that the listener could make something out of it. All in all this is a great recording that should be taken very seriously.

I have to say that I am a Lenny fan. His Mahler is unique, full of passion, fire-like passion. This one could n't be an exception. The NYPO make marvellous sounds and surprisingly enough the transfer is very good (the big problem with the NYPO cycle would be the sound). Having it in one CD it makes a top recommendation although if you are into Mahler or Bernstein the account with the BPO (2CDs) may give you something more (One and only time did Lenny conducted Karajan's Orchestra - you can imagine the result...)

Bernstein's first recording of Mahler's 9th, made with the New York Philharmonic on December 16, 1965, was one of the significant milestones in the symphony's recorded history, in a decade that was exceptionally favorable to the composition, with the versions of Bruno Walter (1961 - he had made the premiere recording, live in Vienna, in 1938), Barbirolli and Kondrashin (1964), Karel Ancerl (1966), Klemperer and Solti (1967), Haitink (1969) to mention only the best (see the comments section for the product links). DG later published three more recordings by Bernstein, made live, one on DVD, from 1971 with the Vienna Philharmonic (Mahler - Symphonies 9 and 10, Das Lied von der Erde / Leonard Bernstein, Christa Ludwig, Rene Kollo, Wiener Philharmoniker, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra), the next from 1979 documenting his only encounter with the Berlin Philharmonic (it was released only in 1992, Mahler: Symphony No. 9), and the last one in 1985 with the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra, part of DG's complete Bernstein/Mahler set (Mahler: Symphony No.9).

But already in 1965 Bernstein has a fine grasp over the symphony's variegated moods, and with a few exceptions pays close adherence to Mahler's myriad indications of tempo, articulation and dynamics. Columbia's recording is detailed and lets you hear the various strands of Mahler's complex polyphonic texture, although I would have liked more stereo separation between first and second violins in the first movement, essential with Mahler's intricate antiphonal writing. On the other hand the presence and impact of the cellos is phenomenal, bringing heart-rending lyricism to their counter-melodies in the first movement. However, on the early 1986 remastering, which is the version I had (Symphonies 7, 9 & ,10 " Adagio "), the transfer was cut at a low level which required cranking up the volume a lot. Furthermore, a comparison with Walter's recording from four years before, even in CBS' early 1985 remastering, Mahler: Symphony No. 9, revealed how much more vivid and pungent sonics Columbia had afforded the older maestro, and listening to Bernstein's three later recordings on DG made matters even worse: although it wasn't something that struck me when I listened only to the New York version in that early transfer, jumping from New York to Berlin made me painfully aware how much got lost due to the comparative dullness of Bernstein's sonics in 1965. I had skipped this later Bernstein Century reissue as well as the Bernstein Royal Edition (oh those water colors of Prince Charles!). But the sonic deficiencies of the older CD transfer were so bad and so detrimental to a full appreciation of Bernstein's recording, that I decided to go ahead and invest in the recent "Carnegie Hall" remastering, "first-time remixed and mastered from original multi-track analog tapes" (Mahler: Complete Symphonies (Carnegie Hall Presents). Well, friends of Bernstein's Mahler, that is the version you must get. Indeed it represents a major sonic improvement over the 1986 transfer and even, from all the comments I have read, the subsequents one. Finally Bernstein's Mahler 9th can be compared with the other versions on its own musical terms, instead of being heavily handicaped by its dulled sonics.

In the first movement, unlike Walter in 1961 or Klemperer two years later, Bernstein doesn't downplay the contrasts of tempos and moods; but tempo changes are expertly shaped, and he never overdoes them either (which is a pitfall that Barbirolli and Kondrashin didn't always avoid, to great dramatic impact but at the cost of some loss of structural integrity). Listen for instance to Bernstein's acceleration to the first climax: the "fliessend" at 5:47 is flowing but not gushing, and you can feel that he keeps a lot in reserve - this is only the beginning of the movement after all. Likewise, his ensuing Allegro, at 6:32, moves forward but is not rushed. Or jump further: at 10:49, his 6-bar acceleration to the "mit Wut" (with fury) section of measure 174 in kept somewhat reined in - here, one of the minor but perceptible evolutions in Bernstein's interpretive conception will occur: in his Vienna and Berlin recordings he is more unleashed; the effect in more dramatic but also slightly less organic. But consequently, his later "mit Wut" are more furious than in 1965 - although one abiding characteristing of Bernstein's interpretation of that passage is that he doesn't maintain the fury throughout, but instead, through expressive rubati, substituted spots of expansive grandeur. Likewise, his two bars of "stringendo" before the big crash at 18:44 aren't quite the race to the abyss that Kondrashin had made them the year before, or Bernstein himself in 1971 and 1979 - and truth is, his crash isn't either as devastatingly blasting as Walter's, or his own with Berlin in 1979, and nobody has come even remotely close to Ancerl and Solti in the ensuing timpani thwacks. Nonetheless, the Carnegie transfer lends his much more impact than it had before. Bernstein's relative reining in of tempo in those build-ups to the great climaxes may come at the cost of a small loss in immediate dramatic thrust, but its value is that the gear shifts sound more organic and not as abrupt as they later became. So the only spot where I'd want to take exception with Bernstein's shaping of those accelerations in the first movement is in the unnotated and conspicuous cranking up at 21:47 (measure 365), the intensely passionate passage abruptly cut off by the wonderful dialogue of oboe-english horn-flute: I can see Bernstein's point here, to heighten the passion and play up the abrupt contrast with the ensuing serenading mood, but I find that it needlessly spotlights what is already naturally in the notes. He maintained that personal touch in the later versions.

Conversely, while Bernstein's "fast" is never too fast, his "slow" is slow, but always deeply felt. Just listen at how he has the New York violins sing the aching phrases of the beginning, enhanced by the great, outpouring countermelodies of cellos (same thing when the passage returns modified at 20:30, measure 347). Vienna here is very similar; in Berlin Bernstein brings even more aching lyricism to these beautiful opening violin phrases - but less soaring cello counter-melodies. Listen also how, like Walter, he markedly slows down for Mahler's "plötzlich sehr mässig und zurückhaltend" at 8:05 (suddenly very measured and held-back, measure 130). Here, Bernstein the composer even adds his own invention, namely the marvellously eerie 2nd violin sul ponticello starting at 8:42 (measure 138); Bernstein must have thought that, if Mahler had lived to perform his symphony, he would have made that correction - and I agree. But go to the 1971 Vienna DVD and even more the 1979 live Berlin version and hear how much more snarling the effect is there and then; and that's something the Carnegie remastering hasn't changed: it was simply part of Bernstein's conception in 1965, that he expounded things that he would only later develop much further. Likewise, in '71 and '79 Bernstein extended that sul ponticello effect to the return of the figure measure 255: in 1965 he didn't dare (15:32). In general, a comparison between New York and Berlin shows how much more instrumental pungency there is in 1979; as another illustration, try the stopped horn "growl" at 5:26 in New York and beginning of track 2 in Berlin: it is (was in the 1986 transfer and remains in the Carnegie remastering) sepia vs wide-screen technicolor (I wouldn't be surprised however if some listeners found Berlin garish and over-the-top). But the funeral fanfares (14:38, 15:11, passage starting at 19:09) have all the weight of Mahler's "schwerer Kondukt" (heavy funeral procession) and intone their sarcastic laughs like death invisibly mocking the living. Independent of its spots of softened instrumental bite, this must be, with Solti's, the best-balanced and architectured "Andante comodo" recorded until the late 1970s (I haven't yet heard Haitink's).

In the Ländler the improvement brought by the Carnegie remastering is jaw-dropping. It's the difference between banging on a can and banging on a can covered by a thick layer of foam. Like Barbirolli and Ancerl, Bernstein provides a welcome and valid alternative to Horenstein's and Walter's more pedestrian gait (to say nothing of Klemperer's hippopotamic - but also uniquely characterful and fun - approach three years later), and one that I think realizes better the relationships between Mahler's three basic tempos. Bernstein's brisker opening tempo conveys less a sense of good-natured bonhomie and more impertinent braggadocio, and the second violins on their first entry at 0:16 have more biting energy than true clumsiness ("schwerfällig") (of that entry heard on the 1986 transfer I first wrote that it had "earthy robustness"). Tempo II at 2:26 is powerfully vigorous ("powerfully" added to describe the effect of the Carnegie transfer) without being rushed, which conforms exactly to Mahler's instruction, "POCO più mosso subito" (Walter adopts the same Tempo II, but because of his slower Tempo I the effect is not so "poco"). Again Bernstein is true to score on his hectic acceleration at 4:30 (measure 198, "flott"), which by contrast brings great sentimental charm to his ensuing Tempo III, "ganz langsam" (very slow), at 4:59. Bernstein is very consistent in his choice of these three basic tempos in his 1971 and 1979 performances. Those three finely-judged tempi allow him to observe with exactitude almost all of Mahler's ensuing, constant tempo changes - and, more important still than exactitude, always with a feeling of evidence and naturalness. But Bernstein isn't Harnoncourt, and obviously not one to sacrifice expression to architectural rigor: listen how he returns "subito" to Tempo I at 12:35, measure 523, for the coda, at a far slower pace than his opening one - Walter's tempo, in fact. Other versions from that decade were more consistent here.

This is what I first wrote of the 1986 transfer: "All that is fine, but Bernstein's vision is also marred a certain lack of instrumental pungency, and the Columbia engineers have really let him down in their pick-up of the horns especially, which badly lack presence. This may seem like a petty detail, but given Mahler's instrumental writing, it is essential. For instance, right at the beginning, the "keck" (saucy) solo horn at 0:23 is barely audible, which really ruins it all. Just go to Walter in these opening bars and compare. In fact, one needs only to go to Walter, Klemperer or Solti (to say nothing of Bernstein in Berlin) and compare at any point to realize, their great sonics helping, how much more character they have throughout, and not just through their choices of tempi. With Mahler, instrumental pungency isn't just a seasoning, it is the essence. Go to Vienna and even more to Berlin, and the difference jumps at you, especially in the faster Tempo II sections. They are taken at a slightly more deliberate pace, but with huge vigor, making New York sound in comparison dynamic, but leightweight". Well, one thing the Carnegie remastering hasn't been able to help is the covered "keck" horn at the beginning and each time the same figure reappears: it is almost inaudible (just compare with Walter and especially Solti). For the rest, I am happy to report that it has now made the previous observations invalid. The sonic advantage remains in favor of Walter and Solti, but only very marginally, and it is perceptible only on A-B comparison. As for Bernstein's 1979 Berlin recording, despite its "kecker" horns, I am not so convinced anymore of its superiority in this movement, sonic or interpretive. Comparing with the Carnegie remastering, I now hear that its sound is somewhat cavernous and over-reverberant, that its approach is immensely powerful but slightly thick and heavy in the faster sections, and that New York has more vivid and characterful woodwinds, especially felicitous in the mocking serenades, at 5:29 (measure 230) and at the end, from the entrance of the ostinto cellos and basses measure 569 (14:03). My last comment about the Länder does remain valid, though: "And, ooops! for the anecdote, one New York clarinet enters one bar too soon at 1:56 (bar 71)". This is engraved for eternity.

Bernstein takes his Rondo-Burleske at a very balanced tempo, again very similar to Barbirolli's, Solti's or Ancerl's, and somewhere in between the mad rush of Leopold Ludwig (the first stereo version, from 1959, and an unjustly neglected one, Symphony 9) and the very deliberate one of Klemperer, and brings plenty of defiance ("sehr trotzig", indicates Mahler) and instrumental nastiness to the outer sections - although, when compared to Solti, he seems mellow and lacking bite. But his coda is hair-raising, and he whips his Newyorkers to heights of frenzy in the passage's double acceleration ("più stretto", then "presto"). In the middle section however I find that he sacrifices too much tempo coherence and structural integrity to the needs of instant expressivity: he slows down markedly for the "mit grosser Empfindung" passage (with great feeling) at 7:08 (measure 394), to great lyricism undoubtedly, but so much so that he needs to brutally speed up at 8:02 (measure 424) where Mahler gives no such indication, and from there he constantly shifts tempo to accommodate for changes in expression, sometimes even within two bars (for instance 460 and 462, 8:46 and 8:49). Sure, none of this is unmusical, and without a score no one is likely to notice. But other versions (Walter 1, Horenstein, Ludwig, Walter 2 to mention only those before Bernstein, and Solti just after) have proven that you don't need to play accordion with Mahler's tempos to get the varied moods just right, and that expressing Mahler's paroxysmal emotions musn't be at the expense of discipline. The problem with letting your heart pour down on your sleeve is getting it back in its original place afterwards, and to me Bernstein's constant shifts of pacing only show that there is something he didn't get right about his basic tempo here. While there can be great validity in the interpreter bringing his own twists and doing more than the composer wrote (and here, there certainly is), to me the greatest versions are those that make sense, music and expression OF exactly what the composer wrote. Not just freedom of interpretation: freedom AND discipline, freedom based on discipline, and Bernstein is not quite there. Add to that that, even in the Carnegie remastering, Bernstein's New York Phil has less presence and pungency than Walter's Columbia Symphony Orchestra from four years before - to say nothing of Solti in London two years later. In fact, surprisingly, the Carnegie remastering does bring a touch of added clarity and vividness, but the improvement over the 1986 transfer isn't as dramatic as in the other movements. Still, here again, I'm not so convinced any more that Berlin 1979 is sonically superior to New York 1965: the A-B comparison reveals here too that the Berlin sonics are somewhat cavernous and over-reverberant. Interpretively though, where Bernstein's tempo in 1965 was middle-of-the-road, in 1979 he comes closer to the mad rush of Ludwig. But that's nothing in comparison to Vienna in 1971: it is helter-skelter.

Heard on his own, Bernstein plays the finale with passion and intensity, and also refinement in the softer moments, at a tempo that, given one's expectations with him, is surprisingly flowing - although this is arguably closer to Mahler's intentions than Levine's (very beautiful) time-at-a-standstill approach in 1979 (Mahler: Symphony No. 9) or Bernstein's in Amsterdam in 1985. The Carnegie remastering brings it more intensity (with slightly more aggressive trebble), where the 1986 transfer sounds softer and sweeter in comparison. I do think there was scope for more of an adagio feeling at the beginning and especially at the end than what Bernstein brings to it in 1965; more broadly paced, the finales in 1971 and 1979 did catch that feeling. Compare the final page, the farewell-infused, other-worldly "adagissimo": 2:56 in New York, 4:08 in Vienna, and 4:51 in Berlin. Possibly due to that relatively flowing tempo he adopts at the beginning, Bernstein in 1965 is only minimally responsive to Mahler's various indications to play "straffer im tempo" (tighter) at 1:57, "fliessend" / flowing (3:07), "etwas drängend" / somewhat pressing (3:41). But he wasn't more in 1971 and 1979, and there it had clearly to do with a desire to keep things agonizing and slow. He is also - again - not very consistent in his tempi, and when the opening tempo returns at 4:03, he is faster.

Then there are the tiny details that make a world's difference. Why am I moved so much more and deeply by Barbirolli in the desolate section with tolling harp (opening measure 88, Barbirolli's 12:14, Bernstein's 11:53)? Not a matter of pacing since, remarkably, the full section has exactly the same duration with both conductors, 1:33. I had to go back and forth a number of times to try and analyse why. Tiny details: harp more vivid and resounding with Barbirolli (with Bernstein it is almost covered by the clarinet ostinato) and tempo held-back a breath more at the beginning, giving more the sense of a death knell, string tone more desolate. But while this is really subtle, there is no question that on the surge of passion that interrupts that section, measure 107 (Bernstein's 13:26, Barbirolli's 13:47), Barbirolli's is incomparably more passionate, which has to do with better defined string tone, more fff outburst ("breaking out violently", wrote Mahler), and faster tempo, in conformity with Mahler's instruction ("fliessender doch nicht durchaus eilig", more flowing though not throughout rushed), where Bernstein keeps it steady. And the Carnegie remastering has changed nothing to Bernstein's disappointingly weak and indifferent string attack here.

And then, turn to Bernstein in Vienna in 1971 and even more in Berlin in 1979, and what you thought was "passion and intensity" in New York is suddenly revealed, for reasons that have to do even more with sheer intensity of playing than with sonics, to be 3 or 4 on a scale of 10... Of the versions from the 1960s, Solti's is also more intensely passionate than Bernstein's here (to the point that some listeners find it "impatient" - see the reviews under Mahler: Symphony No. 9 / Wagner: Siegfried Idyll ~ Solti - but not me).

Overall then, as good and significant as it was in its time and for years after, Bernstein's first recording was not without flaws. It was badly betrayed by its sonics, even in comparison with the recordings of that decade, at least as documented in the 1986 transfer, but I've read that things weren't so much better on LP. In that respect, the Carnegie remastering is a true revelation. To think that during all these years Bernstein fans have loved this version like Michelangelo fans loved the frescoes of the Sistine chapel: heard (seen), or rather blurred through a thick crust of patina. Yet, interpretively, the first two movements are great, the last two, when you consider the finer details, more problematic. Of all the recordings from that decade which I've heard so far, Solti's is for me, unhesitantly, the best; all the others have their shortcomings, and I've rated Walter, Barbirolli, Kondrashin, Ancerl and Klemperer (that's going by chronological order) four stars. My three stars to Bernstein here are motivated by the debilitating sonic shortcomings of the previous transfer(s), and the fact that Bernstein's conception is much more fully and convincingly realized in Berlin in 1979. But it gets four stars in the Carnegie remastering.

In many aspects Bernstein's 1979 concert performance it very close interpretively to the New York version, especially in the first two movements, only the conception is realized with significantly more instrumental pungency, at least in the andante comodo (with the Carnegie remastering I'd rather give the edge to the New York Ländler); and, where it differs, in the last two, it is marginally (in the Rondo-Burleske) or markedly (in the finale) more thrilling and intense. Berlin too has its flaws, which have made it subject to much bashing by the anti-BBBs (as in "Bernstein-Berlin Beckmessers). It is a live performance and comes with various glitches, the most menial being various audience and stage noises including Lenny's grunts, and the most glaring a terrible slip from the trombones who inexplicably forget to enter at the apex of the finale's climax. Notwithstanding, it is a phenomenal performance, of harrowing intensity and breathtaking sonic presence. In consideration of that recording, the previous 1965 New York version, even in its Carnegie remastering, can be considered only as the blueprint of better things to come, things that will be presented already in a developped form with the Vienna Philharmonic in 1971 but that will be carried out to the full only in Berlin in 1979.

This recording of Mahler's Ninth is supreme above most recordings of this work. It matches only another of Bernstein's recordings, that with the Berlin Philharmonic in the late 1970's, in quality. In fact the Berlin recording was an amazing event- that it actually happened! There was talk that the Bernstein and the orchestra's main conductor, Herbert von Karajan were in a bit of a feud. Their styles were extremely different and their attitudes toward each other were quite hostile, it seems. Of course, their terms with their respective orchestras were for the most part during a time of "coldness" between Germany and the United States. So it was a one-time event that Leonard Bernstein was invited to conduct the Berlin. Anyhow, getting back to the Mahler, it seems that this recording (that I'm actually supposed to be reviewing) with the New York Philharmonic was one of Bernstein's own favorites. Bernstein himself was one of the greatest conductors of all time; he was able to excite his orchestra into really playing from their hearts and keeping the large orchestral form structured so that the listener could make something out of it. All in all this is a great recording that should be taken very seriously.

I feel a huge connection with both of them, and this recording is one of the most beautiful coming together of these two characters. I must agree with my friend in the previous review that the recording of Bernstein conducting the Berlin Philharmonic is also one of the greats (better). Bernstein once said that the final moments of the first movement is the closest music has ever gotten to depicting death. He called it terrifying. (that's not true, he was talking about the last movement). I discovered, while following the score that two or three beats are skipped in the last bars of the (first) movement. Could this be because Bernstien was too scared? Get the Berlin one instead, but this was my first recording and it will always have a place in my heart. (revised July 2001)