Denis Fodor wrote:

>[Zagrosek's] Mahler 9 was better--yet with a second movement and final
>movement of such splendor he couldn't really miss.  The accomplishment
>did, however, take him 105 minutes.

105 minutes for Mahler 9? Did he accidentally play two movements twice?
Bruno Walter's 1938 Vienna recording takes it in under 70!  Here's a link
to timings of various M9's; unfortunately, the original compiler did not
add the various movements to come up with a total:

   http://listserv.uh.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9902B&L=mahler-list&P=R6444

Mitch Friedfeld

 [Oh, this is a simple problem to solve.  I grabbed the text, put it in
 a spreadsheet, totalled the timings, and saved as a web page.  The
 results can be found here:

   http://www.classical.net/music/mahler9.html

 The timings range from Levine/Philadelphia at 91:37 down to Walter/Vienna
 at 69:36.  You're welcome.:-)  -Dave]