Donald Satz wrote:

>I don't think I have any Mehta recordings.  This isn't a goal of mine;
>it just hasn't happened.  I'd like to become familiar with his
>interpretations.  Any recording recommendations?

And Steve Schwartz also wrote:

>This ill-will comes from his rather unremarkable tenure with the NY
>Phil, after a smashing success with Los Angeles.  I find him a very fine
>opera conductor.  He's also made superior recordings of Schmidt, Bruckner,
>Tchaikovsky, and Strauss, done early in his career.  Other than that, I
>think he generally coasts and has for at least twenty years.

I agree with the general tenor of this. It's right on.

As for specific recordings:

I can't be sure of all of them, but most of the LA Phil Strauss is very
good.  Great sound.  His Enigma Variations are straightforward and nice.
I remember liking the Schoenberg Chamber Symphony.  Mahler 3 I recall as a
bit square, but good.  Mahler 5, too.  Great sound with both.  I would say
the same about Mehta's Vienna Phil recordings from the LP era.  All of
these are at least good, and there is a fascinating, very slow Bruckner 9.
Also Schumann Symphonies (big performances) Brahms 1.  And again, great
sound and playing.  And that Schmidt Symphony is quite good.

I would also recommend the Turandot with Sutherland and the Il Trovatore.
There may be a few other good ones from this era that I'm forgetting.

There are some I do not care for from this period.  Petrouchka, the LA Phil
Bruckner come to mind.  I don't think the Nielson 4 was that great, but
it's been a long time.

I don't know the Tchaikovsky.

Overall, some large-scale romantic performances with great sound.  None
may be definitive, but I've been able to enjoy the good ones.  And it's
surprising how Straussian he could get the LA Phil to play.  It's a sound
I never associated that orchestra with, then or now.

Roger Hecht