Satoshi Akima wrote:

>Tony Duggan wrote:
>
>>You can see my own preferences in my Mahler recordings survey with the 4th
>>to be found at:
>> http://www.musicweb.uk.net/Mahler/Mahler4.htm
>
>Firstly why is there no mention of Oskar Fried's Mahler 2nd at all in the
>review? I know that the recording is acoustic but it is an historically
>important document in that Fried conducted the work under Mahler's
>supervision.

Fair question.  I know and possess this recording and, on reflection,
maybe I should have mentioned its existence at least.  But I still think
I was correct not to include it in any detail.  The surveys are concerned
with mainstream recommendations of Mahler symphonies and I don't believe
the Fried recording could ever be regarded as that.  Leaving aside the
primitive recording, there's the fact that the score has been drastically
revised in order to accommodate the work into that primitive recording.
Listen to the bass tuba used to fill out the bass, for example.

>It also helps explain why Klemperer's and Walter's tempi for the opening
>movement are much faster than what one commonly hears today - listen to
>Rattle for example.

I think Walter's and Klemperer's tempi for the opening movement are quite
different.  In the 1962 studio recording Klemperer's overall timing is
19:03 and Walter's is 21:37.  By the way, in Klemperer's earliest recorded
performance, Sydney in 1950, the first movement clocks in at an amazing
16:43.  His last one in London is an equally amazing 25:26.  You are right,
however, in pointing to a general slowing down in Mahler performances as
the years have gone by and Rattle in 1987 was a good example.  But see
further down.

>Although I have not heard Scherchen in the 2nd, I get the impression that
>he too adopts a fast tempo for the opening movement, with menacing staccato
>interjections from the basses driving the movement along.

Scherchen's tempi are extreme in all directions.  His overall timing is
25:10, almost two minutes _slower_ than Rattle in his studio recording
of 1987.  However, in his London performance last Summer Rattle clocked
a first movement of 22:29 showing that he has tightened up since then.

>Also I must say I had been hoping to see a slightly more sympathetic review
>of Boulez's Cleveland 7th.

I like to think I'm among the unprejudiced ones regarding Boulez.  My
review of his new Mahler 4th can be found at:

   http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2000/may00/mahler4.htm

So far as his Seventh is concerned, I'm afraid it was just one of those
recordings that passed me by.  My Mahler recording surveys make no pretence
at being either definitive or exhaustive.  They're a personal selection
based on over thirty years of listening.  There also comes a point at which
you have to call a halt to the number of recordings included because, after
listening to between fifteen and twenty recordings of the same work in
succession over about two weeks, the critical faculties can start to get
blunted.  I plan the list very carefully before I start so that Mahler
fatigue doesn't set in.

>The problem with Solti is that with blinkers on he is too obsessed with
>applying the same uniformly narrow minded martellato to each passage which
>has the misfortune to come his way for him to really be able to step back
>and give us a view of the structure of the work as a whole.  Of this I feel
>Abbado does a better job in his live performance with the Berlin Phil

I'm preparing my survey of the Eighth at the moment and I have the Abbado
to hand to hear for the very first time.  I know that Deryk Barker has
some choice things to say about the organ in this recording.

You must try to hear Horenstein in the Eighth.

Tony Duggan, England.
Mahler recordings survey:
http://www.musicweb.force9.co.uk/music/Mahler/