> Mahler Symphony 5 Rattle [TD] [MB]: Classical CD Reviews- Nov 2002 MusicWeb(UK)

One of the most grown-up review sites around

54,416 reviews
and more.. and still writing ...

Search MusicWeb Here



International mailing

Founder: Len Mullenger                                    Editor in Chief:John Quinn             

Gustav MAHLER (1860-1911)
Symphony No.5 in C sharp minor (1901-1904)
Berliner Philharmoniker/Sir Simon Rattle
Recorded live in the Philharmonie, Berlin 7th-10tth September 2002
Full Price
EMI CLASSICS 7243 5 57385 2 [69’04]


Crotchet   AmazonUK   AmazonUS

Years ago I silenced a roomful of theatrical folk when I announced that I didn’t share most people’s opinion of Laurence Olivier’s performances on film of Shakespeare. After the sound of pins dropping and what I swear was tumbleweed blowing across the carpet I was asked how I could possibly hold such a bizarre opinion, not least express it in the company of those who regarded "Dear Larry" as blessed by the shade of Shakespeare himself. My reply was that in the young Olivier’s performances of Shakespeare "I can see the wheels going round" which is also, to bring myself to the matter in hand, my feeling about Simon Rattle’s Mahler. For me Rattle conducts Mahler like the young Olivier plays Shakespeare: with every word considered and interpreted; every glance, every gesture, every movement and resonance calculated – micro-managed, you could say, to an almost obsessive degree. Substitute notes, bars, motifs, themes, rhythms and tempi and you should see what I mean about Simon Rattle’s "micro-managed" Mahler. Of course, like Olivier’s Shakespeare, Rattle’s Mahler can be deeply impressive and frequently illuminating, an antidote to so many routine and lacklustre Mahler recordings and performances that come by down the years. Give me Rattle’s penetrating vision over those every time. However, in the end and especially over time, which is the acid test in recordings, I think it the kind of approach to Mahler that can, at its most inappropriate, take attention away from the work being performed placing it on the interpretation and how that interpretation is achieved. I suppose what Rattle in Mahler and Olivier in Shakespeare lack is what I can best describe as "the art that conceals the art". No matter how good they are, and they are both very good, you shouldn’t really be aware of how a conductor or an actor achieves what they do, and the problem with them is that you can most of the time. It all should just happen in front of you; the means employed to do it concealed from the audience. You should come out of the concert hall, or the theatre, without any impression that it has taken any effort at all. You should not, as I put it to my outraged theatrical friends regarding Olivier, and do so now regarding Rattle, be aware of "the wheels going round".

The scherzo third movement of Mahler’s Fifth, as played on this new recording, is as good a case in point of this "flaw", if I can call it that, in Rattle’s Mahler. Remember firstly what should make this whole symphony work. The Fifth dramatises in music the concept of change and contrast. It is a supreme test for conductor and orchestra because it challenges them to explore extremes of expression whilst maintaining a unity of purpose that ultimately leads to satisfaction. Do anything else and it doesn’t cohere since this symphony travels the greatest emotional distance of all Mahler’s works. It’s a tall order to cover all the bases and some conductors don’t even come close. Most are good at the dramatic/tragic/dark end of the work, but fewer appreciate the need to bring out the fantastic/joyful/lighter end that balances the piece across the whole range. Even less can balance the two perfectly. The third movement is the point at which you know if the conductor has succeeded in catching the protean nature of the work by switching completely the mood of the first two movements to reflect the breadth of Mahler’s conception. I don’t think Rattle does that sufficiently here and certainly not to the same degree as Rudolf Barshai (Laurel Record Laurel-905), Rudolf Schwarz (Everest EVC 9032), Sir John Barbirolli (EMI 5 66910 2) and Benjamin Zander (Telarc 2CD-80569), to name just four. The problem lies in this "micro management" by Rattle of every moment in the score that I referred to earlier. It has the effect on repeated listening of "straitjacketing" music that must be allowed to breathe and develop almost unaided. Rattle really does need to learn that sometimes "less is more" and that he doesn’t have to be heard to be doing something, anything, to every moment of the music. The horn-led trios are especially lacking in earthy spontaneity. This in spite of the fact that the superb horn soloist Stefan Dohr was brought to the front of the orchestra at the concerts to play them. I don’t think this frees up the soloist’s performance at all. Quite the contrary, I think it’s another example of Rattle trying to control every response in the audience. Certainly Rattle has come a long way from his dreadful Proms performance of this work five years ago when he barely skated over the surface in what was the quickest performance of the piece I have ever heard, as well as the most superficial and unfeeling. But I think he still has some way to go on the evidence of the way he treats the scherzo now. What emerges is a very sophisticated, calculated reading of the movement: the metropolitan man going into the countryside but armed with his digital camera and his mobile phone.

I said that most conductors are good at the dramatic/tragic/dark end of the work and Rattle is certainly among these. The first movement delivers a dark, almost brutal opening to the funeral march which is unsettling in its violence with the march proper veiled and studied and the first trio especially distinguished by the trumpet riding the rest of the orchestra magnificently as we are pitched forwards with great attack. It is in movements like this that Rattle’s "control freakery" in Mahler pays the most dividends with all the tragedy and despair you could wish for but making the fact that he will ultimately fail to clear it from your mind later in the third movement that much more regrettable. The second movement is deeply impressive here too. The conductor must bring out a constantly changing, vividly bipolar, helter-skelter experience teetering on the edge of disintegration. Few conductors can bring it off completely but Rattle is certainly among them. I do feel, however, that, as was the case in the Proms performance five years ago, Rattle doesn’t quite understand the structural imperative behind the climax to this movement. Remember that the chorale theme that will eventually bring triumph to the whole symphony at the end of the last movement is predicted here. Under Rattle the passage sounds too much like the climax of the work itself. There should always be something left in reserve for the end of the symphony and, as we shall see, this proves not to be the case when the end does at last come. However, this second movement compliments the first very well in the Rattle scheme of this symphony.

By the time we reach the fourth movement, the famous Adagietto for strings and harp, we should have passed through a crucially transforming third movement and be in another world of feeling altogether. But, as I have said, I don’t think Rattle’s way with Mahler suits the third movement and, so at the arrival of the Adagietto, I think the performance is already flawed. In a radio interview Rattle talked of rehearsing the Berlin Philharmonic and referring to the old "Death In Venice" tradition of playing this movement far too slowly which happily now seems to be losing its grip with conductors at last playing it more with the kind of tempo Mahler used. "Nobody died!" is what Rattle told the Berliners at this point. However I mentioned earlier that Rattle gave what I considered a very poor reading of this symphony at the Proms five years ago. Whilst it is the case that he has deepened his view of the work since, which has meant broader tempi, it was his reading of the Adagietto five years ago that was the only illuminating part of his performance. On that occasion he played the Adagietto just as it should be: a beautifully wistful "song without words", timed in my notes on the night at 8:15. Here in Berlin Rattle has increased his timing to 9:33 and so seems to be contradicting his own strictures about the tempo for this movement by going slower. You could argue that his new slowing down is proportionate with the way he has broadened in all the other movements. The problem is that I believe the earlier performance’s tempo about right and that it would have worked beautifully this time with the broader last movement if only Rattle had done it. I would have also allowed the reprises of the Adagietto in the last movement to sound like the first time we heard it, so knitting the movements together. If you want to hear how the Adagietto should be done listen to Rudolf Schwarz’s recording. His 7:31 Adagietto is wonderful, especially when run together with his 16:48 last movement. Rattle is only twenty seconds or so faster than Barbirolli, but since Sir John’s last movement is one of the broadest on record even he manages to knit the last two movements together in the way Rattle fails to. Rudolf Barshai also pulls off the Adagietto/last movement connection well, of course. In his interview Rattle seems also to have fallen under a school of thought that has gained currency in recent years that maintains the Adagietto is a musical "love letter" from Mahler to his wife Alma, reported at second hand by Mengelberg. So we seem now to have gone from "Death In Venice" to "Love Story" in one jump and not, I believe, to the music’s benefit. Thank heavens Rattle didn’t quote from the mawkish trash that Mengelberg maintained was the "poem" that can be sung to the Adagietto or all would have been lost. The movement is beautifully played by Rattle and the Berliners but in the scheme of the symphony I think another example of his Mahler style failing to serve the music appropriately.

The last movement itself goes along at a terrific lick but I think that Rattle’s determination to control of every last detail lets him down again. There really needs to be a degree more wit and humour to carry us away and counterbalance the effect of the first two movements. Excitement and drive are important but there is more in this wonderful music than that. The orchestra plays it all superbly and it must have been a terrific, white-knuckle ride to be in the hall and hear it. But I was left wanting more and needed to turn to Barshai, Schwarz and Barbirolli whose slightly broader, earthier and more characterful accounts win the day for me. These men may not have orchestras to compare technically with the fabulous Berlin Philharmonic which, under Rattle, look poised to start a new and exciting era, but they more than make up for that in spontaneity and depth of feeling. An acquaintance in the audience at the London performance of this symphony a month or so after those in Berlin put it very well when he said the Berliners play "like an obedient new bride trying every trick to keep the new young master happy".

The sound on this new issue is sharp and quite close. I thought the high strings had a bit of an edge and the brass could be rather noisy, but the detailing and perspectives are excellent and what is captured gives a wonderful impression of a "live" occasion even though this is a compilation from a number of performances.

I mentioned at the outset that Rattle’s "micro management" in Mahler, so much in evidence in this work, does not serve this music well over time whereas in some other Mahler works under him it can prove more satisfying. The Tenth Symphony, for example, gains from it superbly. There, where nerve ends need to be exposed, the approach is perfect. Passages of the Second, Sixth and Seventh are likewise well served by the Rattle manner. The Fourth, however, suffers greatly from Rattle’s mannerisms. Maybe he is best heard in the Fifth Symphony "live" once or twice. For all of its virtues, for me this recording cannot compete with Barshai, Schwarz, Barbirolli, Kubelik and Bernstein among older versions and Zander and Gatti (BMG Conifer 75605 51318 2) among more recent ones. I recommend them to you first with Rattle as a fascinating alternative.

I have reviewed Rudolf Barshai’s version as well as Rudolf Schwarz’s and Benjamin Zander’s and I also warmly recommend Barbirolli’s recording that I deal with in my Mahler recording survey , though be aware that this recording has been reissued with another number on EMI Great Recordings of the Century (EMI 5 66910 2). It still offers a unique experience, as do Rudolf Schwarz and most especially Rudolf Barshai.

Simon Rattle’s admirers, of whom I am one, will need no prompting to buy this. As a souvenir from a remarkable set of occasions this recording of Rattle’s Mahler Fifth is still one for the collection. But it is not the "killer" version of Mahler’s Fifth that many may have hoped for.

Tony Duggan


Marc Bridle has also listened to this recording

Rattle has conspicuously avoided performing Mahler’s Fifth as often as some other Mahler symphonies and this, his first recording of the work, is by no means a total success. It is certainly a weightier performance – both in terms of tempi and playing – than a notorious CBSO concert performance some years ago which clocked in almost 7 minutes faster than this live Berlin one. All movements gain in timing, although the first two struck me in Berlin as somewhat leaden, an impression the CD confirms, and perhaps even exacerbates on repeated listening.

That leadenness is almost misleading given the erratic tempo with which Rattle opens the symphony; catharsis is suggested, but, as it turns out, only suggested. The very opening of the work produces some undisciplined dynamics from the trumpet (there is almost no distinction made between the p triplets and sf half-note) and even less of an effort is made to make the rests actually mean anything (notably, Rattle also conducts the Prelude to Tristan with a similar ignorance of rest marks whereas Bernstein understands exactly what is demanded in both works). Only by the time we reach the fig.1 Pesante marking does the performance seem to begin to settle dynamically and approach anything like Mahler’s opening marking of ‘strict’, ‘like a cortege’. There is certainly no wont of passion during the movement’s first march but it is during the Trio where the movement embraces its first true failure. Pulling back inordinately, with some untypically Mahlerian rubato, Rattle comes dangerously close to letting the tension slacken so much as to divide the movement. The effect is to nail a wedge between its intended development.

The stormy second movement fares better, although again Rattle’s tendency is towards broad tempi. Other conductors, such as Sinopoli, both in his studio recording and in an even better broadcast performance from the Royal Festival Hall in 1995, expose the vehemence of the opening much more dramatically; his basses play with an altogether sleeker, more sinister ostinato than Rattle’s more measured Berliners. EMI’s slightly reticent recording attenuates the Berliners normally broad tone, although in the Philharmonie itself the effect was marginally more dramatic than this recording suggests. It is, however, still underwhelming when the impression should be anything but underwhelming.

Some uncharacteristically scrappy playing opens the Scherzo: bassoons and clarinets are rather unfocussed, and certainly not ‘Nicht eilen’ as Mahler marks in the score. Yet, Rattle gives this movement – Mahler’s longest scherzo – a beguiling radiance which the strings, in particular, cultivate to even greater effect in the adagietto. The opening subject of the symphony, given to the principal horn, is almost steely in its beauty although I find the Berliner’s soloist, Stefan Dohr, rather detached emotionally. His playing, whilst undoubtedly refined, seems bland beside that of David Pyatt in a very recent London Symphony Orchestra performance under Pierre Boulez. Boulez’s less spacious tempo made the moments of pianissimo horn playing all the more entrancing, almost as if the notes were suspended in time. With Rattle one often feels that the only suspension is one of disbelief. Some of his conducting throughout this performance is shockingly prosaic.

What EMI have successfully achieved in this movement is the balance given to the obbligato horn. Heard live the effect was specious, yet over-projected, especially with this soloist’s tendency towards loudness. The recording barely suggests the horn is at the front of the stage at all which in part begs the question why this should be done at all – except for the visual spectacle which on a CD is a superfluous exercise.

Rattle’s view of the adagietto has changed markedly since that Birmingham performance. Much broader than he was (now he turns in a performance at 9’32") there is a greater element of dreaminess to the movement, even if the overall impression is that the performance lacks sufficient expressivity. There are still problems with dynamics (the harp’s arpeggios at bars 31 and 32 are neither as flowing nor as held back as in some performances) and in the strings, notably at bar 44 where the crescendo is almost sublimated completely, there is too much of a willingness to ignore the stresses Mahler wrote. However, the playing of the Berlin strings is sumptuous – and where they do manage to get the dynamics right the effect is seductive.

The wind are much better at the opening of the Rondo-Finale than they were at the opening of the Scherzo. Indeed, in many ways this is the most successful movement of the entire performance. The Wunderhorn theme is lyrically intense – almost vocal in its delivery – and the accelerando which leads into the first brass chorale is evocatively done. Rattle is neither as blistering nor as inexhaustively imaginative as some conductors in this movement (Boulez, Bernstein and Karajan spring to mind as conductors who somehow manage to achieve both of those virtues in the finale) yet he gives it an inexorable forward momentum which is often thrilling: at the close, the playing of the Berlin brass is imperious and the staccato woodwind trills are extremely well articulated, for example, and one does at least feel that Rattle reaches some kind of apotheosis at the work’s conclusion.

It is an apotheosis that is reached via a somewhat erratic journey, however. As a whole this performance lacks the visionary impact of Claudio Abbado with this same orchestra at the 1995 Amsterdam Mahlerfest, or, indeed, a number of other conductors, and the playing, whilst generally magnificent, is all too often vulnerable. Rattle neither veers towards a Bernstein-like demonism, nor towards a Barbirolliesque affectedness, but at the same time fails to offer a mainstream alternative to either of those interpreters. If occasionally there are inspired moments of reflectiveness, or fleeting moments of spontaneity, they are too infrequent to make this a recommendable version. Too often Rattle is led by a wilful use of rubato which negates both. Whereas the ever-observant Abbado gives this symphony an unrivalled sense of fantasy and humanity, Rattle somehow conjures up a performance which is infuriating for the possibilities it suggests.

EMI’s recording is fine, but far too reserved for this symphony; too often, the balance is congested, or, worse, overly bright. In fact, it flickers like a burning candle so regularly as to be slightly problematic. The timings EMI give are incorrect, and the notes make absolutely no reference whatsoever to the revised performing edition Rattle opted to use for this performance. With a little more time on their hands EMI might have corrected both these faults.

Ignore the hype and instead opt for a great performance of Mahler’s Fifth. For that, you need to turn to Abbado on DG, recorded in 1993, or Bernstein, also on DG, and recorded in 1987. Both leave Rattle standing at the altar.
Marc Bridle

Return to Index

Untitled Document

Reviews from previous months
Join the mailing list and receive a hyperlinked weekly update on the discs reviewed. details
We welcome feedback on our reviews. Please use the Bulletin Board
Please paste in the first line of your comments the URL of the review to which you refer.