Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: His Mahler 2nd was my first. posted by firstname.lastname@example.org on April 13, 2017 at 07:31:07
That's because Bernstein is too busy gilding the lily and over-emphasizing that organ entrance! ;-)
BTW, as you may remember, I've heard YOUR very copy of the Bernstein Resurrection Symphony (a bit of it anyway) when we were over at Robert C. Lang's house with Jared Sacks in 2010. (Wow - has it been that long?)
Also BTW, what is "folksy pair-bonding fun" and what does it have to do with the Mahler Second? ;-)
No no no. : ) Bernstein gilds the lily too much in the 1st mov't. As for the choral finale, Mahler saved so many surprises from his toy box for the end, why rush it? We've got:
"Langsam" at fig. 46, later the directive is "somewhat" pressing, then somewhat cautious right before fig 47. "More motion" at fig 47. A four measure ritard before fig 48 and the Pesante indication, and, significantly: a great *unfolding* of power. We're also back to 4/4 from 2/2; symbolic?
Personally, I think Bernstein is more in the ball park than Solti, and others who take the finale at a relatively breezy tempo. Mahler doesn't warn the conductor about dragging, unless I missed the indication.
The Finale is a risk that pays-off, IMHO. He keeps it going with carefully graded crescendi. Gets me every time, and that's a rarity these days.
As for pair-bonding fun, the 2nd mov't is a landler after all.
But one thing that does strike me whenever I listen to symphonic works with a score is how often various conductors will ignore various indications (dynamics, speed adjustments, articulation specifications, etc.). Chamber and solo performances seem to me to be more scrupulous in this regard.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: