CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
Mahler 9 Walter
Posted by Ian Peake on January 22, 2025, 7:47 pm
Mahler 9.Bruno Walter. Mr Moore ..dear Sir Many thanks for you considered comments on the Bruno Walters 1961 recording of Mahler Symphony number nine,now technically refurbished. I vividly remember the release in Sydney Australia. It was the first studio recording in stereo that I bought of the symphony and listened to it perhaps far too much. Your comments prompted a re-listen after many years and the many other performances on record and live that have been experienced. Initially I was disappointed with the sound on my CD version but after a little more volume was added the sound picture “clicked in“. I listened to the Pristine edition track available on their site with Bowers& Wilkens earphones but there seemed to me or as you say ..”to these ears” I found the sound was a bit boomy around the double basses . True more detail was available but I am happy with the Sony/CBS sound…perhaps my ears being older than yours…I assume…so thanks again for your always instructive comments. As for a favourite performance there are so many that are truly excellent and are incredibly moving also superbly played so the symphony is almost impossible not to affect audiences,as does,at least for me the Tenth performing version of Deryck Cooke I confess do have very high regard for the Barbirolli recording The tenths extraordinary first movement,to me ,runs a very close second with the ninths first movement that you and others have praised so highly. Ian Peake
Re: Mahler 9 Walter
Posted by Ralph Moore on January 22, 2025, 9:44 pm, in reply to "Mahler 9 Walter"
Many thanks for your comments, Ian - I am coming up 70 myself and am conscious that as one ages, one's hearing can be impaired, so I recently took a test and found that I have been fortunate to retain the hearing of a younger person - but there is still always some element of subjectivity, I find, when responding to new remasterings of an old, favourite recording, especially if one is to some degree imprinted with the sound of its first, original incarnation. Anyway, I am glad that your own Sony/CBS recording still does it for you. I generally like very much what Andrew Rose does and have demurred at very few of his issues. I know what you mean about the Barbirolli recording; when reviewing one of Sanderling's versions I mentioned it thus in passing: "...some might prefer more of the emotional charge and even indulgence in phrasing of the kind Barbirolli secures in his wonderful recording with the BPO, made in the Jesus-Christus-Kirche, Berlin, in 1964" - and yes, Cooke's performing edition of the Tenth is almost as intense. In my review of Gamzou's own version of that I remarked, "We already have a plethora of excellent recordings of Deryck Cooke’s version from such as Ormandy, Inbal, Levine, Rattle and Sanderling, and a more recent release conducted by Thomas Dausgaard has received plaudits; meanwhile, Barshai has given us his own slightly eccentric and joyous adaptation of Cooke’s score and Andrew Litton has made an estimable recording of Clinton Carpenter’s reconstruction, which some find too interventionist." We are spoilt for choice.
All the best, Ralph
Previous Message
Mahler 9.Bruno Walter. Mr Moore ..dear Sir Many thanks for you considered comments on the Bruno Walters 1961 recording of Mahler Symphony number nine,now technically refurbished. I vividly remember the release in Sydney Australia. It was the first studio recording in stereo that I bought of the symphony and listened to it perhaps far too much. Your comments prompted a re-listen after many years and the many other performances on record and live that have been experienced. Initially I was disappointed with the sound on my CD version but after a little more volume was added the sound picture “clicked in“. I listened to the Pristine edition track available on their site with Bowers& Wilkens earphones but there seemed to me or as you say ..”to these ears” I found the sound was a bit boomy around the double basses . True more detail was available but I am happy with the Sony/CBS sound…perhaps my ears being older than yours…I assume…so thanks again for your always instructive comments. As for a favour
Re: Mahler 9 Walter
Posted by Steve Luciani on January 28, 2025, 7:42 pm, in reply to "Re: Mahler 9 Walter"
Ralph, I'm curious if you had a chance to compare the HDTT and Pristine versions to the 2019 Sony remaster, currently streaming on Apple Music and Spotify. To my ears, that one seems more balanced than the Pristine restoration, which, like Mr. Peake, I also find a bit bass heavy. Best, /steve
Previous Message
Many thanks for your comments, Ian - I am coming up 70 myself and am conscious that as one ages, one's hearing can be impaired, so I recently took a test and found that I have been fortunate to retain the hearing of a younger person - but there is still always some element of subjectivity, I find, when responding to new remasterings of an old, favourite recording, especially if one is to some degree imprinted with the sound of its first, original incarnation. Anyway, I am glad that your own Sony/CBS recording still does it for you. I generally like very much what Andrew Rose does and have demurred at very few of his issues. I know what you mean about the Barbirolli recording; when reviewing one of Sanderling's versions I mentioned it thus in passing: "...some might prefer more of the emotional charge and even indulgence in phrasing of the kind Barbirolli secures in his wonderful recording with the BPO, made in the Jesus-Christus-Kirche, Berlin, in 1964" - and yes, Cooke's performing edition of the Tenth is almost as intense. In my review of Gamzou's own version of that I remarked, "We already have a plethora of excellent recordings of Deryck Cooke’s version from such as Ormandy, Inbal, Levine, Rattle and Sanderling, and a more recent release conducted by Thomas Dausgaard has received plaudits; meanwhile, Barshai has given us his own slightly eccentric and joyous adaptation of Cooke’s score and Andrew Litton has made an estimable recording of Clinton Carpenter’s reconstruction, which some find too interventionist." We are spoilt for choice.
All the best, Ralph
Previous Message
Mahler 9.Bruno Walter. Mr Moore ..dear Sir Many thanks for you considered comments on the Bruno Walters 1961 recording of Mahler Symphony number nine,now technically refurbished. I vividly remember the release in Sydney Australia. It was the first studio recording in stereo that I bought of the symphony and listened to it perhaps far too much. Your comments prompted a re-listen after many years and the many other performances on record and live that have been experienced. Initially I was disappointed with the sound on my CD version but after a little more volume was added the sound picture “clicked in“. I listened to the Pristine edition track available on their site with Bowers& Wilkens earphones but there seemed to me or as you say ..”to these ears” I found the sound was a bit boomy around the double basses . True more detail was available but I am happy with the Sony/CBS sound…perhaps my ears being older than yours…I assume…so thanks again for your always instructive comments. As for a favour
Re: Mahler 9 Walter
Posted by Ralph Moore on January 29, 2025, 12:16 pm, in reply to "Re: Mahler 9 Walter"
Yes; I see what you mean. The big bonuses in the Pristine remastering are the complete absence of hiss and a richer, rounder sound which somehow has more "air" around the aural perspective - but there is element of "boominess" about the bass which is absent in the Sony transfer. Andrew Rose has this to say about his treatment of it for the Pristine issue: "I would point the listener first to the brass to hear what dramatic sound improvements have been made. Gone is the dim, veiled sound of even the most recent "official" Sony CD issues, to be replaced by an openness and clarity that lets these instruments shine through as never before. Suddenly the whole sound of the original recordings sounds cluttered and constricted by comparison.
Listen next to the very low end, the depths of bass which underpin the orchestra, the growling rumbled of double basses and low percussion that seem almost absent in the original - they were there all along, just waiting to be found and returned to audibility. A monumental work such as the Ninth requires a monumental sound - and now this monumental recording has it."
In the end, I guess this is a question of taste. I think they are all very listenable but I prefer the additional depth and presence in the bass the Pristine remastering offers.
Previous Message
Ralph, I'm curious if you had a chance to compare the HDTT and Pristine versions to the 2019 Sony remaster, currently streaming on Apple Music and Spotify. To my ears, that one seems more balanced than the Pristine restoration, which, like Mr. Peake, I also find a bit bass heavy. Best, /steve
Previous Message
Many thanks for your comments, Ian - I am coming up 70 myself and am conscious that as one ages, one's hearing can be impaired, so I recently took a test and found that I have been fortunate to retain the hearing of a younger person - but there is still always some element of subjectivity, I find, when responding to new remasterings of an old, favourite recording, especially if one is to some degree imprinted with the sound of its first, original incarnation. Anyway, I am glad that your own Sony/CBS recording still does it for you. I generally like very much what Andrew Rose does and have demurred at very few of his issues. I know what you mean about the Barbirolli recording; when reviewing one of San
Re: Mahler 9 Walter
Posted by Steve Luciani on January 30, 2025, 2:37 pm, in reply to "Re: Mahler 9 Walter"
Ralph, curious what you think of the sound of the historic live 1938 Walter 9th, specifically the version available on the Private Reserve channel on YouTube. I just listened to it again, and if you told me it was recorded in 1961, I wouldn't doubt you.
Previous Message
Yes; I see what you mean. The big bonuses in the Pristine remastering are the complete absence of hiss and a richer, rounder sound which somehow has more "air" around the aural perspective - but there is element of "boominess" about the bass which is absent in the Sony transfer. Andrew Rose has this to say about his treatment of it for the Pristine issue: "I would point the listener first to the brass to hear what dramatic sound improvements have been made. Gone is the dim, veiled sound of even the most recent "official" Sony CD issues, to be replaced by an openness and clarity that lets these instruments shine through as never before. Suddenly the whole sound of the original recordings sounds cluttered and constricted by comparison.
Listen next to the very low end, the depths of bass which underpin the orchestra, the growling rumbled of double basses and low percussion that seem almost absent in the original - they were there all along, just waiting to be found and returned to audibility. A monumental work such as the Ninth requires a monumental sound - and now this monumental recording has it."
In the end, I guess this is a question of taste. I think they are all very listenable but I prefer the additional depth and presence in the bass the Pristine remastering offers.
Previous Message
Ralph, I'm curious if you had a chance to compare the HDTT and Pristine versions to the 2019 Sony remaster, currently streaming on Apple Music and Spotify. To my ears, that one seems more balanced than the Pristine restoration, which, like Mr. Peake, I also find a bit bass heavy. Best, /steve
Previous Message
Many thanks for your comments, Ian - I am coming up 70 myself and am conscious that as one ages, one's hearing can be impaired, so I recently took a test and found that I have been fortunate to retain the hearing of a younger person - but there is still always some element of subjectivity, I find, when responding to new remasterings of an old, favourite recording, especially if one is to some degree imprinted with the sound of its first, original incarnation. Anyway, I am glad that your own Sony/CBS recording still does it for you. I generally like very much what Andrew Rose does and have demurred at very few of his issues. I know what you mean about the Barbirolli recording; when reviewing one of San
Re: Mahler 9 Walter
Posted by Ralph Moore on January 30, 2025, 3:28 pm, in reply to "Re: Mahler 9 Walter"
It is indeed remarkably well restored - and the original 78s must have been pretty good to begin with. OK - it's a little boomy and screechy but as you say, some live, mono recordings from the early 60s are little better. I'm not sure I'd want to listen to it very often in preference to a good, modern recording but the fact that it exists at all - and in such good condition - makes it valuable. It's crazy to think how much close it was Mahler's own time than it is to us. It also gives the lie to the idea that there is vibrato-free, "period" Mahler waiting to be rediscovered.
Previous Message
Ralph, curious what you think of the sound of the historic live 1938 Walter 9th, specifically the version available on the Private Reserve channel on YouTube. I just listened to it again, and if you told me it was recorded in 1961, I wouldn't doubt you.
Previous Message
Yes; I see what you mean. The big bonuses in the Pristine remastering are the complete absence of hiss and a richer, rounder sound which somehow has more "air" around the aural perspective - but there is element of "boominess" about the bass which is absent in the Sony transfer. Andrew Rose has this to say about his treatment of it for the Pristine issue: "I would point the listener first to the brass to hear what dramatic sound improvements have been made. Gone is the dim, veiled sound of even the most recent "official" Sony CD issues, to be replaced by an openness and clarity that lets these instruments shine through as never before. Suddenly the whole sound of the original recordings sounds cluttered and constricted by comparison.
Previous Message