Chicago Classical Music

Jim, I respect your views. In 30 years as a Mahler fanatic I have developed strong ideas about how his music should be played, but I would never claim that my preferences are more valid than anyone else's. Of course your message did not suggest otherwise, but I like to mention this because my goal is spirited conversation, not an attempt to win an argument.

In no particular order, a few observations:

For a fresh perspective on the First, try Karl Ancerl and the Czech Philharmonic. Ancerl conducts with characteristic vigor, and the x-ray clarity in this 1964 Supraphon recording exposes Mahler's counterpoint brilliantly. Meanwhile, the Czech Philharmonic in those years was brimming with character, especially from the woodwinds. (And if you like this performance, I'll also recommend an irresistible Dvorak "New World" Symphony with the same forces.)

When hearing unfamiliar performances, especially in concert, I try to keep an open mind, regardless of how long I've known a piece. This isn't always easy, but the performers deserve an opportunity to make their case. I avoid final judgments, if only because I have some cherished recordings that I disliked at first.

I also do not wish to be pedantic, but in Mahler's case, the instructions are so explicit that I tend to become annoyed when they are disregarded. Two examples: At the end of the Seventh, the brass are supposed to fade down in volume before the full orchestra's final "stinger." Some conductors play a crescendo before that last chord, and I think it ruins the joke. Then, near the end of the Ninth's second movement, the deliriously fast tempo is supposed to slow abruptly, but some conductors smooth out the change.

Two of my favorite Sixths lie at opposite ends of the tempo spectrum. In the first movement, I think the "ma non troppo" prescribes a more deliberate pace than is often taken. The Barbirolli recording on EMI lumbers along, while Rafael Kubelik on DG is among the most fleet. (Timings for the movement are about the same, but Kubelik includes the exposition repeat that Barbirolli omits.) Each performance is persuasive in its own way. One of the reasons I love to hear Kubelik recordings is that he tends to drag me outside my own orthodoxy.

Finally, I'll note that antiphonally divided violins pay real dividends in Mahler. While not a Barenboim fan, I did appreciate his use of the 19th century seating pattern, with the violins divided and the low strings on the left.

Thanks for listening!