Jonathon Ellis asks:

>Now, all you Mahler addicts out there: is Chailly's version so different
>to those I may have heard in the past? Is it so superior as to convince me
>of the quality of the music? Or is it just that Mahler appeals more to
>somebody who has just past fifty than to somebody a lot younger? And where
>do I go from here? To "Das Lied"? To other symphonies? Tell me - I am
>thirsting for more.....

I don't know how "different" Chailly's Mahler is from the more "standard"
recommendations.  His Fifth got a mixed-bag review when it was released,
and since I am well-enough stocked with Fifths (hold it down, you in the
peanut gallery!!) I haven't picked up the Chailly.

That said, welcome to the club!  Now, I started on Mahler at a tender age
- my first exposure being a rough-and-ready reading of the First by the MSU
orchestra when I was 18.  It was the "Funeral March" that got me; I thought
"Anyone who can write music this sarcastic has GOT to have more to say",
and I've never looked back.  (Bruckner was far more difficult to achieve
that "click!" with inner light bulb, but that's another story....)

This may not be the right approach for you, although I'd wager that most
Mahler-philes of the last 20 or so years owe *their* first exposure to the
(overly?) well-known Adagietto of the Fifth.  But after that? I would NOT
recommend the Ninth as a follow-on, unless you are inherently brooding with
tendencies to the melancholic alternating with manic fits.  (Does anyone
else find Lewis Thomas's "Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler's
Ninth" both horribly precious and hopelessly narcissistic??)

My (personal, subjective, not-to-be-relied-upon) suggestion: Try the
Fourth next.

Mark
[log in to unmask]