Deryk Barker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Although he is more variable, Mehta's Mahler is better than Maazel's.
>The latter's 4 is very good (despite Kathleen Battle) but the rest of his
>cycle (or what I've heard of it) is distinctly sub-par.

The only Maazel Mahler I have (or heard) (come to think of it, this may be
the only Maazel I have of anything), is the #9 on CBS (probably Sony now;
although I'm not sure if there isn't a new one.  The one i got is with VSO
and digital).

This one is not bad, although it's not competitive with the best.  It's
certainly worth the shelf-space it occupies (which is nowadays my criterion
for keeping CDs).  Besides, the orchestral playing and sound recording
quality are both very high.

Ulvi
[log in to unmask]