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]