Its sought of like asking whats your recommendation for a red wine. Everyones going to have their own prefetences.
There are different interpretation of the same thing, a music score. However, every musical decision can be justified and eventually some justifications can be better than others. So yes, if you take fidelity to the writen music as the goal, there are better interpretations than others. Try to find some awful recordings of Mahler's symphonies, which are many, and you'll instantly notice that something is wrong, when compared to Boulez, Rattle or Haitink, to name a few. Boulez expresses it very well: when music becomes philosophy. When this happens, the interpretation is good. And a philosophical statement must be coherent to itself, al least, not everything is valid.The artistic criteria can be assimilated to the choice of a good wine it is true because it is often subjective, but the technical criteria of qualities of catch of sound are them objective.
But if you then select a few, and try to find differences, for sure you can argue why your favorite is better in musical terms, and that constitute a position which can be defended against others. You may be able to convince others or vice versa. What I mean is that I strongly believe that there are performances than can be solidly argued to be better than others. I don't think it's a matter of taste at all, I believe there is some truth there.Well, those versions and many more, including my favourite by Litton, are all on qobuz
Sample as many wines as you want....
But if you then select a few, and try to find differences, for sure you can argue why your favorite is better in musical terms, and that constitute a position which can be defended against others. You may be able to convince others or vice versa. What I mean is that I strongly believe that there are performances than can be solidly argued to be better than others. I don't think it's a matter of taste at all, I believe there is some truth there.
Welcome aboard, don't go back to just lurkingI'm fond of Simon Rattle's version with the CBSO. I registered with ASR to tell you this because I love this recording so much. This is the one with Arleen Auger and Dame Janet Baker.
Thanks Jim. I haven't been able to find the Boulez or Abbado downloadable, at least not on HDtracks or ProStudioMasters. I did spot the Jansons recording, though. Any thought about the Otto Klemperer 1963 version?Pierre Boulez conducting the Berlin Staatskapelle is notable, particularly because it features Diana Damrau. The Mariss Jansons recording with the Concertgebou is fairly good. Unfortunately, I love Mahler, and pay more attention to the performance than I do the recording quality. I'm bad that way. Sorry.
Abbado has several Mahler works recorded, and Abbado is fantastic. He's done the 2nd (Chicago Symphony Orchestra), 3rd, 4th and 5th. Horenstein has several Mahler recordings that are good audio quality, but I don't like Horenstein. Stokowski is too fast, and Horenstein is too slow.
I truly regret that I couldn't help you more. I firmly believe that if you cut a swath through Mahler, Beethoven, Bruckner and Mussorgsky, you'll be as close to heaven as you can get. Jim Taylor
Anybody have any recommendations for Mahler's 2nd sym? Preferably ones that are very good performances and also well recorded. I only have Sym. No. 9 currently, and would like to add few more works by him.
This is sort-of why I was seeking recommendations. I've found that often, with Classical music, that the first version you listen to can color your judgement for subsequent interpretations. So I figure it's best to start with a solid work. Sound-wise, a bad recording can kill a great performance, however a great recording won't save a bad performance.There are different interpretation of the same thing, a music score. However, every musical decision can be justified and eventually some justifications can be better than others. So yes, if you take fidelity to the writen music as the goal, there are better interpretations than others. Try to find some awful recordings of Mahler's symphonies, which are many, and you'll instantly notice that something is wrong, when compared to Boulez, Rattle or Haitink, to name a few. Boulez expresses it very well: when music becomes philosophy. When this happens, the interpretation is good. And a philosophical statement must be coherent to itself, al least, not everything is valid.
Yes, that's the one. HDtracks shows the release date as '63I've heard several versions; the 2nd was a staple for Klemperer. I don't have the 1963 version, and I'm not sure I've heard it. Are you sure we're not discussing the 1962 release with Elizabeth Schwarzkopf? Jim
I second or third or fourth, the Boulez recommendations.I wouldn't recommend anything but Boulez. Have a look at his prologue in Bruno Walter's book on Mahler. His capacity of being objective with Mahler's music unleashes all its power and significance. One the best, and easy to listen, examples is the 4th's first movement. He fully succeeds in exposing all the ambiguity that makes this music eternal, just taking everything to the maximum, without adding nor subtracting anything, just the music. In my book, Boulez's Mahler integral it's on the top of most relevant contributions to music ever.