Customer Reviews

RCA Victor Basic 100, Volume 74 - Mahler: Symphony No. 5

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

 

 

My ears have had the delight of hearing a version of Mahlers 5th that works. This orchestra was at the top of its game and Maestro Leinsdorf was in a mood to make some magic. Maestro Leinsdorf brings out the tragedy and intensity of the first movement to the forefront meanwhile sustaining a tempo that doesn't drag. You are at the march to the cemetary and the feelings that go along with the experience are intact. The second movement begins with a vicious rage and MAESTRO Leinsdorf never lets the momentum fall flat. The fury and despair of this movement are a perfect marriage in Leinsdorfs hands. The scherzo is performed with spirit and inspiration. You are placed in this world of carnival where the lights gleam and the clowns dance to this infectious melody. A grand time is presented to all. The famous adagietto for strings and harp is not dreamy like Karajans but is extremely romantic with the strings providing a lot of portamento(vibrato/feeling) culminating in a compelling display of emotion. The rondo finale is the joy of victory displayed thru music and the BOSTON ensemble provides all of the glorious fireworks with playing that resembles the methodic roar of a freight train. This interpretation really works and with the Boston orchestra providing the goods...you can't go wrong. Go for it!

This is a classic perfromance -- and recording -- in the best sense of the word. Nothing is exagerated, nor is anything left to chance. The arch form is revealed with stunning clarity, and the central, huge scherzo has the sparkle and verve of Strauss at his best. Mahler and Strauss were mutually respectful colleagues. It was Mahler's opinion above all that Strauss valued before releasing SALOME to the world.

The adagietto does not drag, praise the Lord! In timing it comes close to Bruno Walter's recording, which I find ideal. Beginning with Bernstein, perhaps, and continuing from Barbirolli, the adagietto has become more of an adagio approaching a largo, reeking a sentimentality that is not there. This performance is a refreshing reminder that Mahler's music is not all agony and despair, and there is more to soul-searching than wearing one's heart on one's sleeve.

The Boston Symphony is stunning from beginning to end. Leinsdorf was still new to the orchestra and the critics in Boston, and at this time he seemed to have the magic touch. This recording -- RCA had quit the Dynagroove nonsense, finally -- received glowing reviews and trumped the Bernstein recording with the NY Phil. issued around the same time. It was better recorded, and the '4th side' was more interesting: Music from Berg's WOZZECK.

Sadly, the later Leinsdorf/BSO recording of Mahler 6 was panned. Leinsdorf elected not to take the exposition repeat in the first movement, and he was not forgiven for this -- as Barbirolli and Szell were forgiven, in recordings that came out later. I would like to see that recording re-issued on CD, to join the 1st and 3rd Symphonies, and a new issue of this 5th.

My copy is the Silver Seal edition, with different cover art.

I grew up with this version, it was one of my favorite records when I was in college in the 60's. To me it is the reference Mahler 5th. The sonics were great for the time, and better than many today. I was a local Hi-Fi expert, and when friends would ask me to evaluate their systems, I would bring this record and listen to the opening bars. I can't help but think of the Tuba Mirum sections of the famous requiems when I hear the opening trumpet; if a trumpet were announcing the last judgement it would sound more like this than any requiem's trumpet. The trumpet call is brilliantly played and recorded here, better than any other version I am aware of. It attacks you viscerally, and then you are hit with the whole orchestra emphasizing the theme. One peculiarity of this recording is that he takes a note early in the orchestra an octave lower than any other version I am aware of. I presume he has documentary justification, but don't know it. It may be that I was imbued with it before I heard another version, but I prefer the lower note, it maintains a sense of portentiousness through the first movement with is diminished by the higher note.
The performance of the remaining movements here is fine. The third movement is considered the centerpiece of this symphony by critics, but my own taste is for the first movement, possibly because of the brilliant performance here. If you have no recording of this symphony, this is a fine one at a low price; if you already do I would recommend it just for its unique and spectacular first movement.

The striking feature of Leinsdorf's 5th, recorded in November 1963, is how close it is to Bruno Walter's 1947 premiere recording (Mahler: Symphony No.5). I would even venture to say that it is simply too close to be the effect of just looking at the score; I wouldn't be surprised if Leinsdorf had learned "his" Mahler 5th as much from Walter's recording as from the score (if so, how ironic in view of the fact that Leinsdorf so strongly advised young conductors against learning a score from recordings). I wonder if those who shoot down Leinsdorf's recording into flames but have only praise for Walter's are entirely aware of that similitude: see Santa Fe Listener's comment under Howard G Brown's review, drawing a long list of ALL the versions he prefers to Leinsdorf's, and including even the one from "that guy across the street". But give credit to SFL: given the double-tongued nature of his sneer, and considering that he mentions Walter only in 11th position in his list of preferred versions, maybe we're supposed to understand that he ranks him almost as low as Leinsdorf (and just a little above Barbirolli, Jansons and Rattle, so at least Leinsdorf would be in excellent company, with that guy across the street. But then, there's also the option that his list is ordered in rising and not decreasing order of preference, which would make Walter his 4th favorite...

So I invite SFL and the Leinsdorf-bashers (any others?) to take a look at the timings. For reference I'll give also the timings of Bernstein, which SFL mentions exactly at the center of his list, so I'm playing safe. And since I don't know which version of Bernstein he' referring to - presumably, both, from New York in 1963, Mahler: Symphony No. 5, and Vienna from 1987, Mahler: Symphony No. 5 - I'll give the timings of both; as they clearly show, both versions are very different in conception from each other:

Leinsdorf-----------(1) 11:32 (2) 12:59 (3) 17:22 (4) 8:29 (5) 14:04
Walter--------------(1) 11:46 (2) 12:40 (3) 15:15 (4) 7:42 (5) 14:08

Bernstein NY--------(1) 12:25 (2) 14:13 (3) 17:34 (4) 11:00 (5) 13:43
Bernstein Vienna--(1) 14:30 (2) 14:56 (3 18:58 (4) 11:11 (5) 14:57

So, what jumps immediately to the eye is that, timing-wise, other than the Scherzo where Leinsdorf is in fact very close to the timing of the early Bernstein (or to Levine's and Sinopoli's, to mention two other names on SFL's list, Mahler: Symphony No. 5 and Mahler: Symphony No. 5), Leinsdorf and Walter belong exactly to the same family. Other than in the Scherzo, it is in the Adagietto that their respective timing may seem the furthest apart, but anybody who knows just a few things about the Adagietto knows that one in 8:29 belongs, like Walter's, to the "fast" ones, those who approach the movement as Mahler conceived it, not some sort of "Death in Venice" autumnal meditation on the passing of things and anticipation of the finale of Mahler's 9th Symphony, but a tender and passionate declaration of love to Alma.

Of course, with Mahler, overall timings don't give the complete picture, because of the sectional or collage-like nature of his symphonic construction. Two versions in a slow-fast-slow construction (like the first movement of the 5th) can clock the same TT and be radically different, because one takes slow very fast and fast very slow and the other the opposite. In every section of the first movement, second and last movement, slow and fast, Leinsdorf is very close to Walter's timings. He takes 13 seconds more than Walter in the 4:40 to 4:54 opening march and consequently lends it more of a feeling of burdened plight, where Walter marches on implacably. Where he diverges most is in the ensuing fast episode ("passionately" and "wild" are Mahler's additional markings here), which he takes at a "normal" fast pace, where Walter kept it unexpectedly reined in: there's a difference of 25 seconds in that section (Walter takes it in 1:47, Leinsdorf in 1:32). But if SFL wishes to take exception with that, saying something to the effect that (I'm just trying to guess - not easy to play "being SFL") by artificially stepping up the contrast of tempo Leinsdorf shows his total lack of sense of organic architecture, then what does SFL have to say about Karajan (Mahler: Symphony No. 5 / Karajan, Berliner Philharmoniker) or Levine (which he includes in his list of versions preferred to Leinsdorf's), who adopt here a tempo very similar to Leinsdorf's (K 1:36, L 1:35), but in the context of a MUCH slower opening tempo (K 5:25 in the first section, L 5:21 to Leinsdorf's 4:54), thus conveying much more an impression of contrast and sectionality. But back to Leinsdorf vs Walter: in the first slow section of the second movement, at 1:18 (Walter's 1:19), Leinsdorf is 15 seconds more spacious than Walter, over a time span of 1:41 to 1:56 minutes. Consequently, and the great RCA sonics helping, he develops an added warmth in that section (the Boston cello desk is fab). As hard as I try playing "being SFL", I cannot imagine any argument for not being full of admiration for Leinsdorf and Boston here - except, of course, not listening, and nobody can imagine that SFL would be so scorning to Leinsdorf without giving him at least a hearing. He's not Judge Roy Bean after all: "I see in the statute book that every musician deserves a fair hearing, but I see nothing that says that Leinsdorf deserves one". Not only in overall timing but section by section, it is jaw-dropping how much Leinsdorf's finale is a carbon copy from Walter's.

In the Scherzo, as I said, Leinsdorf's choices of tempo are very similar to those of Bernstein in New York, Levine and Sinopoli. The difference at the end is of 20 seconds (on a total of circa 17 and a half), with Sinopoli the fastest (17:14), Bernstein the slowest (17:34) and Leinsdorf in between (17:22). Their opening tempo is the same, they take the first section between 2:29 and 2:31, Sinopoli a hair faster at 2:26, the difference is perceptible only by the watch. In the slower section between measure 308 ("molto moderato") and 490 (return to Tempo I), Bernstein and Levine are a touch slower and Leinsdorf a touch faster, with Sinopoli in between, but the difference is not extremely significant: 17 seconds on a section of 4:05 to 4:22 duration. Tempo is not what distinguishes these versions between each other, not as much as between them and Walter (TT 15:15) or Bernstein in Vienna (18:38).

Naturally (might say SFL), there is more to an interpretation than its timings. Well, sure. There are RCA's stupendous 1963 sonics as opposed to Walter's 1947 78rmp recording, as good as it is for its vintage. For my money and ears, 1963 RCA analog sounds better than 2011 digital. There are all those myriad details that show Leinsdorf's careful attention to the score and his great shaping of the orchestra. I can't start describing them, but just listen to the great orchestral staccato on the triplets at 0:35 track 1. Sure, it is such details that contribute to the impression of brilliance and bite. One may take exception with them in the name of another conception of the 5th. But one cannot say that Leinsdorf is a slack and perfunctory conductor - he's exactly the opposite. Or listen again to the warmth of the cello counter-melody from 1:17 to 1:50. Or again, not wishing to cause SFL the unbearable pain of having to go through Leinsdorf's complete performance again, I advise him just to listen to the very beginning of the second movement, the crispness of the cello and bass attack, where it is muddy and over-reverberant in so many other recordings. Just try again Bernstein, both in New York and in Vienna.

And in case SFL would be tempted to call Leinsdorf a mere inflexible metronomic time beater (doesn't that sound like hammering a nail down the head?), I encourage him to listen again into the first movement at 5:40, to the slowing down rubato applied here by Leinsdorf. Making it a principle to listen to recordings without the score, he may not be aware that Mahler indicates nothing of the kind here. So Leinsdorf is all but "inflexible" here. And were SFL tempted again to take exception with that ("ah, see, Leinsdorf is incapable of keeping a tempo! Such needless and vulgar spotlighting of what is already naturally in the music!"), suffice to say that it is an interpretive tradition that can be traced back to Walter, and Bernstein does exactly the same here. For a "straight" and true-to-score approach to that passage, listen to Vaclav Neumann in Leipzig in 1966 (Mahler: Symphony No. 5), Mehta in LA in 1976 (Symphony 5) or Mackerras in Liverpool in 1990 (Symphony 5). Of course, I cannot even start describing all the moments where Leinsdorf's subtle, marked or unmarked, flexibility of tempo with the surges and recesses of the music's tension shows that it is no mere time-beater at work here, and I can't imagine that it is TOO subtle for SFL to hear it.

Is it to say that there are no small details which I think could have been better? Of course not. For instance, and to limit myself to the first movement, I feel that the Boston solo trumpet's tone is slightly too brilliant for a "genuine" Mahler sound. Or Leinsdorf's "klagend" (plaintive) climax at 10:14 in the first movement lacks a touch of despaired violence - but to be entirely honest, no one was entirely up to it until (among the versions I've heard) Karajan in 1973. But those are small details that have little importance in the overall picture. Also, in that same kind of approach, Solti in 1970 (another version on SFL's list, Mahler: Symphony No. 5) is everywhere one touch better, more biting, more powerful, more vividly recorded, than Leinsdorf. And Metha in 1976 is pretty outstanding too. But it is not because "even better" eventually came about that Leinsdorf isn't great in his own right - within that conception, of course, a conception which goes back to Walter.

But, in opposing Walter and Leinsdorf, maybe SFL is under the impression, or memory, that Walter's version, all matters of tempo aside, is easy-going and mellow, with something like (I'm just guessing) softened accents, warm brass and sweet chirping woodwinds, where Leinsdorf's would be pure outward brilliance with "no depth" (whatever that means). Walter's grand-fatherly figure can easily lead to that impression, and I remember another review of SFL (can't remember which, it was some time ago) where he claimed, in contradiction with the facts, that Walter's finale in the 5th was slow - it is in fact one of the fastest in the discography. But if SFL thinks anything like what I have guessed he might be thinking to give the accolades to Walter and dismiss Leinsdorf, I invite him to listen again, erasing Walter's grand-fatherly figure from his memory and listening. It is a version of unique bite and urgency, rage even at times.

Did I say "unique"? No, let me take that back, since, in three out of five movements at least, Leinsdorf emulated him, with the sonic impact to boot. In fact, Walter's approach only heralded a family of similar interpretations, including (for those I've heard) Leinsdorf and those already mentioned of Neumann, Solti (my favorite in that category. I'm surprised that he's on SFL's list; Walter is meek compared to that powerhouse) and Mehta.

I would not imagine taking SFL to task for disliking the Leinsdorf approach. On the contrary, I would very easily understand how a Mahler listener grown on the interpretatioh of Bernstein in New York, and even more on his even more burdened and brooding approach in Vienna in 1987, would hear only superficial brilliance and lack of depth in Leinsdorf. He'd be wrong, confusing drive, bite and even rage at times, for superficial brilliance, but I'd understand very well what he was hearing that led him to such a confusion. It's all a matter of which filter you apply to your listening, or expectation with which you approach the music. If you think Mahler's 5th should be burdened and brooding, that it should sound something like the plight of the Jewish people ever fleeing the persecutions and pogroms, then you're likely to hear only superficial brilliance in Leinsdorf. If you hear in those funeral marches something like the ghosts of the fallen soldiers of all wars returning to compel the living to put an end to all wars (and we know, from his conversation with Freud, that Mahler had that twisted relation to military marches, which seems to have had little to do with the plight of the Jewish people), if you hear in the violent outbursts of the second movement a scathing ridicule of the good Viennese society in the manner of the Rondo-Burleske of the 9th... or if simply your listen just to the music with no pre-conception of what it is supposed to "mean", then Leinsdorf has great bite and rage.

But where I do challenge SFL's dismissal of Leinsdorf is on the total inconsistency of doing so, and at the same time giving the accolades to Walter and Solti. They are, essentially and substantially, the same approach. It is incoherent to dislike one and not the others, and the other way around. So either SFL needs to listen again to Walter and to Solti and confim that he hates them and believes they are "hacks" and "drudges", or listen to Leinsdorf again, but listen to the recording and interpretation, not the reputation of a hack and drudge he associates to the conductor ("It's Leinsdorf? It can't be good, don't even need to listen"), and tell us that he loves it as much as Walter but with the better sound. In one case or the other, we'll be relieved that he doesn't have a double-tongued ear, or double standards of judgment depending on whose name is tagged on the CD cover.

At the time of writing this same performance can be found for much cheaper under its other entry, ASIN B000003F1A (I'm out of authorized product links).

Recorded at 63, this is one of the essential recordings of the symphony. Forget the Barbirolli's famous(!) 5 on EMI. Leinsdorf's flexible reading, right tempi deserve much praises. SOund is excellent.
I admire especially the Scherzo. This is a best interpretation I ever heard. Thrilling, full of sadness and joy and delirium. Incredible. (But trombone is lost just at the end like so many recordings). 1,2,3,5..perfect. adaigetto has nothing extraordinary but wellplayed.
ABsolutely wonderful.