Critic’s Notebook: Budapest Festival Orchestra's Brahms Festival in Vienna

Also reviewed for Die Presse: Iván Fischers Budapester Brahms begeistert im Konzerthaus

J.Brahms, The Symphonies Fischer Iván / BFO Channel Classics

J.Brahms, The Symphonies G¨nter Wand / NDRSO RCA

J.Brahms, The Hungarian Dances Fischer Iván / BFO Philips

The Delight of Sheer Craftsmanship

The Budapest Festival Orchestra has a little Brahms Festival going on at the Konzerthaus in Vienna, where they play(ed) all four Symphonies, the major concertos, and a little stuffing and garnish around it all. On this, the third of four concerts last Thursday, they presented the Third Symphony and the Violin Concerto, embedded in two Hungarian Dances. It was a triumph of craftsmanship over showmanship.

In their unassuming way, the two Hungarian Dances, Nos. 17 (orchestrated by Dvořák) and 3 (by Brahms himself), almost stole the show. Relaxed and matter-of-factly on the outside, but lovingly painted in with all the Echt-faux Hungarian/Gypsy vibe, that Brahms so lovingly imbued it with. The orchestra produced that color in spades, with real fiddling, twirping, cooing, lively and colorful, and with lots of transparency amid the large orchestral apparatus. The third Dance wasn’t so much played, it was downright danced – all with a coy, knowing little smile around the orchestra’s collective lips.

Then there was Nikolaj Szeps-Znaider (he’s not going the full Stephen Bishop-Kovacevic on us, he’s merely restored his full last name to his artist’s biography, having felt bad dropping the first part out of career-considerations many years ago). Happily, he was playing the violin, not conducting. He played along with the tuttis before his entry – and when it came, it was as if notes simply poured forth from his instrument, in a nice, leathery tone. Fischer and Znaider both went for a nicely unsentimental, none-too-sweet tone yet for plenty romantic freedom: Flexible phrasing, liberal portamenti, all building on the dark sound of the orchestra. More buoyant than energetic, more flexible than suspenseful. Even the oboe, gifted the finest melody of the work, didn’t indulge and went for clear lyricism instead of schmaltz. After the imposing first movement, a part of the Viennese audience applauded. Shocking, I know. More shocking still: This was the third time this week this happened (all after movements that clearly demand applause, that is), and already the second time that the Vigilant Applause Police^™ did not hiss them down. Might things be changing for the better?

In the rhythmically tricky Third Symphony of Brahms, the Orchestra under Fischer Iván showed full command over the score. Without much of a fuss, they started in the Allegro con brio. The shifted pulse, that the second violins answer the first violins with, came to the fore beautifully – helped by the antiphonal seating, with the violins facing each other on either side of the orchestra. The double basses were happily plucking away amid the swinging rhythm or, when called upon, drove their colleagues on with furious strokes. Everything worked like clockwork, everything was solidly put together. There was no show, no smoke and mirrors. No radical tempi, no aggressively accentuated subsidiary melodic lines… but when a brass chorale entered, it did so on point, nicely blended in, and in nearly Wagnerian splendor. The fourth movement, before it comes to its relatively quiet close, built up such force, that the experience became a visceral, physical one – almost oppressively so. Finally a choral encore, as Fischer likes to do: A Brahms serenade (Abendständchen op.42/1) from the entire orchestra-as-amateur-choir. A lovely gesture about making music together – and touching, to boot.


Follow @ClassicalCritic

Slowly Awakes the Beauty of Mahler Iván Fischer Conducts the NSO in the Third Symphony

Our thanks to guest critic Robert R. Reilly for contributing this review of the NSO's Mahler.

Thursday night, Iván Fischer embarked on his official duties as the principal conductor of the National Symphony Orchestra (for a two-year stint until Christoph Eschenbach takes over) with a performance of the Mahler Third Symphony. Anyone who had heard his performance last April of the Mahler Second with the NSO would not have been surprised at his interpretive choices – with their respective merits and demerits.

At that time, I described him as the master of pianissimo, and so he remains. (In case anyone did not know that the NSO can play like this, they can.) I also said that his perspective was the polar opposite of Bernstein’s hyper-angst tendencies. Fischer’s Mahler, in contrast, is solidly sane, and that is how he plays the music. This works particularly well in the Third because it is one of Mahler’s symphonies with the least amount of underlying anxiety.

Mahler, Symphony No.2, Fischer / Budapest Festival Orchestra / Milne Bach, Mahler, Symphony No.6, Fischer / Budapest Festival Orchestra

However, as dreamy as the Third may be in places, Pan is supposed to awaken from his dream in the first movement. Fischer captured the somnolence of Pan in a very special way, or what Mahler called “Nature’s inertia.” I am not being sarcastic; I mean it. Others, like Klaus Tennstedt in his LSO recording, caught a minatory and threatening aspect to the music at the beginning of the first movement. Fischer actually shows us someone waking up and slowly throwing off slumber. Perhaps too slowly.

Yet, I recalled that Fischer likes to take his time laying in each musical strand with care and attention. He does not rush; he takes an chamber music-like approach to the delicate textures of Mahler’s quieter moments. But Fischer also knows how to build a climax, and he delivered the full punch of the first big climax.

The first movement – with 35 minutes on the broad side – was neither emotionally indulgent, nor was it given to any sense of wild Dionysian abandon. One gets the sense from Fischer that he is not only conducting the music, but listening to it at the same time. In other, words, he is in it ­and seeing it from the outside which gives his approach an ‘objective’ character.

Fischer’s approach came into its own in the remaining movements in which objectivity surrendered to beauty. The playing here was gorgeous. The charm of “what the flowers in the meadow tell me” was exquisite. In the middle of the third movement, Mahler called for playing “in the manner of a posthorn,” with a background of soft strings played “as if listening.” The NSO caught this magic to perfection. Special plaudits must go to posthorn player Steven Hendrickson.

Other Reviews: Anne Midgette, Full-Blown Mahler (Washington Post, October 17) Charles T. Downey, DCist Goes to the Symphony (DCist, October 17) Tim Smith, Ivan Fischer Leads NSO in Majestic Mahler Concert (Clef Notes, October 20)

Contralto Birgit Remmert, in her NSO debut, gave as moving a rendition of the Nietzsche text in the fourth movement as I have ever heard live. There is a kind of smoky richness to her voice that is perfect for this, especially when matched with the expressivity she conveyed. The University of Maryland Concert Choir and the Children’s Choir of Washington were admirable in the fifth movement’s expression of a kind of Christmas joy in the Wunderhorn text.

The strings of the NSO shone throughout, as did the timpani (playing true pianissimo when required) and winds. The brass, aside from a few flubs, came through in the big moments.

In sum: Seldom did one feel in the grip of anything inexorable, and one might have wished for a stronger interpretive stance, but so what? One could surrender to the sheer beauty of it. Which, if that is what Fischer wanted, he achieved.

The concert repeats on Friday, October 17 and Saturday, October 18.

Iván Fischer: Master of Pianissimo

Our thanks to guest critic Robert R. Reilly for contributing this review of the NSO's Mahler. You can read his latest column on New American Music at CRISIS / Inside Catholic.com
Charles' review of tonight's performance will follow up on this as part of our in-depth Mahler coverage.

If you arrived at the Kennedy Center for Thursday evening’s performance of Gustav Mahler’s Second Symphony expecting a sonic spectacle or an orchestral wallow, you were in the wrong place. That is not what the National Symphony Orchestra and the Master Chorale of Washington, with soloists, under conductor Iván Fischer delivered. It was, rather, the Resurrection without the Apocalypse. I cannot imagine a performance further removed from Leonard Bernstein’s high-wire neurotic portrayals of Mahler than this one. I admit that this was my first exposure to Fischer’s conducting. A friend who had listened to, and liked, Fischer’s recent recording of the Second, used the term “understatement” to describe his approach. Yes, that is it. If you came for the thrills, you could have found the first four movements a bit enervating – until Fischer pulled out all the stops at the finale.

Mahler, Symphony No.2, Fischer / Budapest Festival Orchestra / Milne Bach, Mahler, Symphony No.6, Fischer / Budapest Festival Orchestra

If you are open to his approach, however, there were many rewards. It was evident from the beginning of the first movement that Fischer was not attuned to the hyper-dramatic, but was aiming at refinement of expression, transparency and inner balance. Nothing was stretched; nothing was pulled. By keeping things in their right relationship to each other, Fischer did not have to exaggerate. There was nothing wild or willful. Fischer trusted the music.

With the NSO, he achieved an orchestral pianissimo resembling vapor rising from the ground that touched the listener like mist. It was breathtaking in its delicacy. I have never heard finer from the NSO. If Mahler had had a pin drop as part of his orchestration, you could have heard it in this performance. The visual spectacle of the huge orchestral and choral forces on stage belied by the sonorities that reached me in row EE. It was more like listening to an extraordinarily fine chamber orchestra.

However, beauty can have a price – in a sense of lessened drama from a lack of underlying tension that threatens to burst forth at any moment (Bernstein’s trademark). The first movement seemed more of a pastoral excursion than a Totenfeier, or funeral rite. Things seemed more magical than terrifying. Here was an interpretation that made Mahler’s request for a 5-minute pause before the start of the Andante movement, with its charming minuet, unnecessary. It did not seem that death was so bad to begin with. In this interpretation, the transition was not, as Mahler feared, at all jarring.

One may consider this an interpretive mistake, but Fischer held to it consistently and it revealed much about the inner workings of the music and many often overlooked beauties. Mahler said that a symphony contains a whole world, and he certainly brought one forth in this work. For the most part, Fisher showed it to us from the outside, as one might better observe its finely jeweled movements. The level of emotional involvement comported with this perspective, until a change occurred in the latter part of the last movement.

With the entry of the chorus, I felt myself for the first time inside the music. It was another masterpiece of pianissimo. How many times have I ever heard something of such hushed beauty? It was worth the entire evening. The Master Chorale was magnificent. Then, with the radiant entry of soprano Juliane Banse, the tears began to well. From there, I was pretty much lost in the spiritual moment that Mahler intended to express in this work – so much so that I turned to my son when it was over and asked, “Do you think that is what it will be like?”

If it is, I will know that the NSO and Fischer brought me there first.

-

Other Mahler reviews on ionarts.

Iván Fischer at the Helm of the NSO. (For Now)

Earlier today, the National Symphony Orchestra has announced that, effective the 2008-2009 season, Iván Fischer will be Principal Conductor of the NSO. For "the 2008-9 season – formerly the third year of his contract as Principal Guest Conductor – Maestro Fischer will spend eight weeks with the NSO, including five weeks on the Orchestra’s classical subscription series. The following season he will spend seven weeks with the NSO, six of which will be on the subscription season. In addition, during those two years, he will lead the American Residencies and any other potential tours. He will also advise the Orchestra on overall artistic issues."

"The National Symphony’s fifth music director, Leonard Slatkin, will step down at the end of the 2007-8 season. Maestro Fischer’s term as Principal Conductor runs through the 2009-10 season. During that time the music director search will be ongoing."

This is doubly wonderful news, because it means that Mr. Fischer, a boon to the NSO, will be more involved with the orchestra -- while the NSO has a comfortable amount of time to look for a new Music Director that fits the job perfectly. It is an approach that Chicago has chosen, too (with Haitink and Boulez as the über-qualified place-holders for - presumably - David Robertson [Ed.: Riccardo Muti) and the NSO has ingeniously bought itself the necessary time to find the conductor that will lead the NSO to the next level. As a luxury-interim solution, they could hardly have done better than Fischer... and we have two more years for delicious speculation who might be the next NSO MD.

Iván Fischer in Mendelssohn

Iván Fischer returned to D.C. for the second of three* times in his first season as Principal Guest Conductor (there are rumors he might become more than that, although my bets and hopes are still on James Conlon) of the National Symphony Orchestra and further displayed his indelible ways with romantic Central European repertoire that orchestras all over the world (have to) play anyway, but don’t always do with the flair and passion a maestro like Mr. Fischer can elicit.

Mendelssohn is the composer for this run of concerts (there are repeat performances of this program on Friday 7PM and Saturday 8PM) and this most precocious of composers is represented with two early works to prove it. Symphony No.1, rarely played – but not for lack of beauty – was created when Mendelssohn was 15 years old. A Midsummer Night’s Dream when he was 17 – expanded, seamlessly, from the overture with the incidental music 16 years later, when he was only five years away from his early demise at 38.

Mendelssohn did most everything wrong he could do wrong to be a ‘good’ romantic composer. He was well-mannered, clean, undisturbed, and emotionally balanced. He was financially secure, had no split personality; was neither deaf nor syphilitic. He composed music in a rather classical manner and wasn’t prone to scandals. These deficiencies for the desired romantic stereotype of a composer cannot even be made up by having died sufficiently young. And even that early death is not seen as too tragic (compared to, say, Schubert!) because Mendelssohn’s greatest masterpieces were written when he was still a wee lad (Octet, Midsummer Night’s Dream).

Other Reviews: Tim Page, NSO and Ivan Fischer Make The Most of Mendelssohn (Washington Post, February 9)

The lighthearted, graceful and ‘touched’ work that is the Shakespeare-influenced overture and incidental music (which actually incorporates parts of the Octet and forms a sort of one-in-all greatest-hit work) was on fine display under Fischer’s precise, puckish command. He never allowed it to trod or be weighed down by the size of the large orchestral forces. Alas, the all-important spark that turns this music from ‘nice’, ‘pleasant’, and ‘lovely’ into something genuinely exciting was sadly missing in a consummate but tame – almost timid – performance. The horns, in particularly, played gingerly, as if under-rehearsed, the strings were wheezing on several occasions. With soprano Carolyn Betty as the first fairy it was a bit difficult to make out what she was singing – nor was she particularly fairy-like with her dense, dark-hued voice. Judith Norton kindly stepped in as the second fairy to replace the indisposed Kelley O’Connor. The “Women of the University of Maryland Concert Choir” (could they not change their name to “Singin’ Terrapinettes”?) provided the remaining fairies for the faultless chorus.

The First Symphony enjoyed a happy-go-lucky first movement but never sat firmly in the saddle, either – a deliberate and regal flow in the Andante ensured that the music’s charm came across, but not much more. Perhaps even higher expectations from maestro Fischer contributed to the perception of this performance being curiously lackluster.

Iván Fischer Shines in Brahms and Everything Else

Iván Fischer’s tenure as the National Symphony Orchestra’s Principal Guest Conductor started with style this Thursday when he conducted his first concert in his new position. With a first half of musical fun and games (much of it in ¾) and Brahms Second Symphony after intermission, it was a promising beginning of a hopefully fruitful relationship.

Robert Henderson’s “Einstein’s Violin” was first on the program – chosen by Iván Fischer as a nod to Leonard Slatkin’s long championing of American (Anglo-American, in this case) contemporary music. The seven year old work’s title came about when Henderson tinkered with ideas about “Brownian Motions, the random collisions of molecules impended in a liquid or gas, which is the subject of one of Einstein’s famous papers.” So far, so vague – but even more of a stretch is the following explanation:

I was ruminating on the developmental parallel between the atomic bomb and dissonance in 20th-century (musical) harmony. I see a similar destructive and resoluble development in the 20th-century music. […] The parallel is in the manipulation of dissonance. Dissonance had formerly been a device used in music to create tension followed by resolution, but many composers in the 20th century released it to form a harmonic language of its own—so much that by mid-century they had alienated most of their audiences. In Einstein’s Violin, I’ve attempted to […] diminish the destructive impact of 20th-century dissonance.

This is borderline offensive – and not just because I do not share Henderson’s aesthetic predisposition toward 20th-century music (Second Viennese School, Darmstadt School et al.). There is of course the silliness of the claim that even the most ‘antagonistic’ music of the 20th-century was “destructive” rather than an essential element that led to the variety of classical music styles of our day (the irony of a cul de sac that opened more new lanes of musical expression than any other musical development in over 300 years before it). That aside, nuclear weapons, in their very real destructiveness, have melted the flesh of scores of very real people… and even when mute have caused them very real dread and fear. Comparing that to the mere alienation a few listeners may have experienced due to accidental Boulez-, Stockhausen-, or Cage-exposure is off the mark.

If this sentiment of Henderson’s elicits disagreement on my part (there may well be those who agree with his sentiments more than I do), the music of Einstein’s Violin deserves nothing but praise: It opens like a wildly moving, strong shock of hair amid shimmering violins and percussion (prominent the Glockenspiel), then followed by a lament courtesy of the oboe. Colorful, rich sonorities, the musical winding along the gentle outer reaches of tonality (easy on the ears), and hectic violin section run-ups with releases of percussion thuds all made for an orchestral showpiece very worthy of being premiered by the NSO.

Other Reviews: Daniel Ginsberg, Off to a Refreshing Start (Washington Post, December 1) Related Content: Interview with Iván Fischer (WGMS/ionarts October 2006)

The pp in Sibelius’ Valse triste, op.44, no.1 (sounds like Johann Strauss on snowshoes) was excellent and delicate; the work gently played and well shaped. In Dvořák’s seventh Slavonic Dance he was really in his element (he has one of the finest recordings of the Dances to his name): Love, feistiness, ebullience, joy, and tenderness were present in spades and he elicited a succulent sound from the NSO: alert, responsive, detailed. It was as enjoyable as it was short. Richard Strauss’ Rosenkavalier Waltz mélange had broad elegance to it – with the tubas trying to undermine that very elegance, Baron Ochs-like. The broad sweep and successfully (faux-) Viennese tone of this music reminded why the Rosenkavalier became Strauss’ most popular opera. Zoltán Kodály, with his 1933 Dances of Galánta, is a composer especially dear to Fischer’s heart (who met the composer through his parents, when he was a little boy) and the work in its five contrasting sections (increasing in rhythmic vitality and ending in a rollicking mood not unlike the Slavonic Dance) was a welcome dose of this neglected Hungarian composer who is usually – if at all – heard only through his Háry János Suite or the Peacock Variations. Although a contemporary, friend, and colleague of Bartók’s, Kodály’s music sounds very different and reminds me, if anything, more like that of (early) Blacher, Braunfels, or even Elgar… although no such comparison does Kodály’s uniqueness justice.

Brahms’ Second, for a second time in two nights – courtesy of a WPAS/NSO administrative SNAFU – is less than ideal a situation for the avid concertgoer (although still more appealing than just about any other Second Symphony played twice in a row), but it also offered an illuminating comparison between the London Philharmonic under Kurt Masur and Iván Fischer with the NSO. With a softer, clearer, and more caring rendition, the NSO scored more points in every detail of the work and emerged the clear winner. A much finer string sound, a better balance between brass and the other orchestral sections (set up in Fischer’s preferred style – antiphonal violins, basses centre-back, horns left, other brass right), and generally more loving treatment (rough brass moments not withstanding), this was well worth hearing even (or especially?) for those who had attended Wednesday’s Masur-led performance. The third movement tip-toed with its light gait, then became languid and relaxed. The fourth movement came out in all its splendor – a true Allegro and rock-steady in its beat.

The performance, repeated today, Friday, at 7PM, and tomorrow, Saturday, at 8PM, was a treat – and leaves us with our hopes high for future Fischer appearances.

Interview with Ivan Fischer

Iván Fischer (Photo © Marco Borggreve, lifted with implied permission from the Konzerthaus Berlin's website)

G.Mahler, Sy.1, I.Fischer / BFO Channel UK | DE | FR G.Mahler, Sy.2, I.Fischer / BFO Channel UK | DE | FR G.Mahler, Sy.4, I.Fischer / BFO Channel UK | DE | FR G.Mahler, Sy.5, I.Fischer / BFO Channel UK | DE | FR G.Mahler, Sy.#6, I.Fischer / BFO Channel UK | DE | FR G.Mahler, Sy.#9, I.Fischer / BFO Channel UK | DE | FR

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to interview Ivan Fischer, the new principal guest conductor of the NSO for WGMS and their internet radio station VivaLaVoce.com. The occasion coincided with the release of his new Mahler recording – the Second (“Resurrection”) Symphony for Channel Classics.

Ivan Fischer is an ardent fan of Mahler (“one of the greatest Geniuses of music history – on the same level as Bach or Beethoven”) and the founder of the Hungarian Mahler Society. I suggest that to firmly establish Mahler on the musical menu in Budapest might have been more difficult than in, say, Germany or the United States – but apparently I am wrong. Not the audience which loves Mahler, Fischer says, had to be convinced, but the musicians. After a superb recording of the Sixth Symphony (which I reviewed in November and will feature prominently on my upcoming Mahler overview), his second Mahler recording raises the prospect of a Mahler cycle with the Budapest Festival Orchestra – but Mr. Fischer immediately waves off. Not a fan of complete cycles, he’d rather only conduct those works that he has a truly deep connection with and leave the others to other conductors. He admits straightaway that there are already so many full cycles that there is no point in just doing another one. The symphony of Mahler’s that he is less fond of than the others is – not surprising for a ‘Mahlerian’ - the pompous glory-feast (my words, not his) that is the Eight Symphony. This very complicated, complex, monumental work (his words, not mine) is “not his cup of tea”.

Getting excited talking about Mahler, he reveals that far beyond just sharing the Austro-Hungarian cultural background, his connections to Mahler are deeper, still. His and Mahler’s family started as Jewish shopkeepers in the Tartas Tatras Mountains and went on to transfer their spiritual drive from religion to music. Fischer sees a nearly-religious devotion to music still very much present in his part of the world… and speaking of quasi-religious musical devotion, the conversation is back to Mahler and the curious phenomenon that Mahler either inspires the fiercest of fervor and zeal (my own Mahler CD collection – well over 100 in number – could well exemplify the obsession) in the listener or does not move him or her at all. A “paradox” to Fischer, he attributes this to the modernity of Mahler’s music… a modernity he does not hear in the harmonic language of Mahler but his ‘collage approach’ to composing; the juxtaposition and combination of very disparate elements: folk music, military and marching band noise, nature’s sounds, etc. As such he sees Mahler much more in the light of those composers that came after him than he sees similarities with Bruckner, for example.

Other Reviews: Tim Page, Fischer and Co. Provide A First-Rate Account of Mahler's 2nd (Washington Post, October 8)

While the programs for this season’s concerts of Ivan Fischer are already set (all-Mendelssohn on February 8, 9, 10, a Children’s Concert on February 11th and Brahms’ Second Symphony in his first appearance as PGC on November 30th – surrounded with smaller works by Sibelius, Kodaly, Henderson, Richard Strauss, and Dvořák) – but Mahler in one of the future seasons is not only a possibility but would be a “wonderful thing to do”. Mahler fans in the area would surely be as delighted as Fischer purports to be about the idea. His opening concert, meanwhile, opens with a tribute to the NSO and Maestro Slatkin in the form of the new American work, Robert Henderson’s “Einstein’s Violin”.

Fischer responds candidly to the suggestion that there is – the neo-romantic return of composing notwithstanding – still an air of suspicion among concertgoers to everything that sounds ‘too beautiful’ at first hearing. He sees this as the separation of two different appeals: one to shallow- and one to ‘deep’ listening. Great music, he argues, is the one that combines the two. Even more intriguing his candor when asked whether conductors, to be great, need to be particularly aware of their weaknesses or think of themselves as not having any. It was a question that Marin Alsop navigated with all her PR savvy earlier this year. Fischer disarmingly went to the point: Conducting can easily inflate the ego – so he keeps in mind that the conductor is the servant of the music and the composer. In doing so, Fischer says, he is very aware that he does not posses the key to certain pieces and composers and therefore doesn't try to open them.

For the full interview go to WGMS’ internet radio station VivaLaVoce’s website.
Click here for a mp3 download, here for a Windows Media Player download.

Follow @ClassicalCritic

Fischer’s Mahler 6th

G.Mahler, Symphony No. 6, I.Fischer / BFO Channel Classics SACD

The ticker has barely come in with news of Iván Fischer‘s appointment as Principal Guest Conductor of the National Symphony Orchestra, when Fischer issues the first Mahler recording of his career. It almost feels as though Fischer is flirting with me. Doesn’t he know that nothing makes me so gentle like a lamb and weak in the knees as does good Mahler? Ten years studying, preparing and playing Mahler finally led him to the courage to record the Austrian giant’s sixth symphony - Mahler’s harshest one in many ways... but also one that, once you are acquainted with it, is an endless source of delight. It comes close on the heels of Abbado’s live 6th with the Berlin Philharmonic, and it is only natural to compare the two. Additionally, I ran it against other modern versions: Pierre Boulez (DG), Charles Mackerras (BBC Music Magazine disc 251), Benjamin Zander (Telarc), and Mariss Jansons (LSO live). Just to remind myself what it is not I also blew the dust off Barbirolli (EMI Rouge et Noire / EMI double forte), Karajan (DG Originals), Mitropoulos (EMI Great Conductors of the Century), and Kubelik (DG), most of which I wrote about in my Abbado review.

Conductor	Allegro	Scherzo	Andante	Finale	Total
Mitropoulos 59	18:51	11:40	14:30	29:38	74:42
Barbirolli 67	21:14	13:53 (*)	15:51	32:43	83:53
Kubelik 69	21:07	11:41	14:39	26:37	74:16
Karajan 74	22:09	13:16	17:03	30:00	82:54
Boulez 94	23:06	12:19	14:47	29:10	79:22
Zander 01	25:27	12:29	16:23	31:59	86:18
Mackerras 02	18:36	12:01*	14:10	30:02	74:52
Jansons 02	23:01	12:55*	15:13	30:43	81:52
Abbado 04	22:48	12:43*	13:57	29:44	79:13
Fischer 05	22:23	12:52*	13:43	29:23	78:49

The timings put Fischer close to Abbado’s most recent - and the recordings have been said to be alike. There is certainly some truth to that… both are more or less ‘well-behaved’ readings that don’t overdo the dark and brooding nature of this symphony. Both take the Andante first and neither include the "Essen-Version" third hammer-blow. Both are smooth and superbly executed. The Channel recording has a distinct advantage on the sound (in both, regular or SACD version—the acoustic of the Budapest National Concert Hall, opened in March of 2005, makes this the best-sounding Fischer recording on Channel Classics) and in emotional vibrancy, too. I find Fischer more charged, taut... slightly less patrician, less floating. The latter two qualities can make for some of the greatest Mahler - just not, in my opinion, in the sixth. (The current edition of the American Record Guide takes the Abbado recording to task for that very reason: "This is the most benign and effete Mahler 6 I have have ever heard. I [...] can’t imagine one less fiery and energetic than this. For a moment, I wondered if it was a deliberate send-up of the symphony" (Nov/Dec 05). Harsh, but essentially my feelings, too. Abbado’s Mahler 6 is too shy, friendly, apologetic. The 6th is better at being nasty and a hyena. It doesn’t have to be (Fischer proves that point, and so does Karajan) - but it surely ought not be Nemo, the friendly clown fish.

As always in the sixth, the question as to which inner movement to place first comes up. Should the conductor go with Mahler the Composer’s plan of having the Scherzo first, hammering away right after the very similar Allegro... or should he follow Mahler the Conductor, who ultimately placed the Adagio before the Scherzo? The last couple of years conductors seem to have preferred the latter - in years before, conductors almost uniformly placed the Scherzo first. (Barbirolli is the exception - in his EMI recording he decided that the Andante should come first. In the first re-issue (or perhaps already in the orginal) a well-meaning editor reversed the order... perhaps to conform to standard practice. In the latest reissue on the EMI double forte the original sequence has been restored.)

Fischer does not pretend that this is a clear-cut matter. I quote from his comments in the liner notes:

Putting the scientific arguments aside I have been fascinated by the question of what Mahler’s doubts felt like when he suddenly abandoned his beautifully constructed original symphonic plan. To relive this experience we took the sixth symphony on a long European tour and changed the order of the middle movements every single concert. In the Scherzo-Andante peformances the transitions from one movement to the next felt wonderful, the whole architecture made sense but I felt a clear unease about the size and weight of the Scherzo after the first movement. In the Andante-Scherzo concerts there was a fantastic balance and variety. I became convinced that Mahler’s abrupt decision was a stroke of genius.

I’ve said before: Who am I to differ with luminary conductors who know more about Mahler than I ever shall. Alas, from my level of understanding I respectfully disagree. The left-right double blow does not concern me much in a symphony that is supposed to be devastating, anyway. In fact, I like it. Nor does the similarity of the Allegro and Scherzo disturb my listening pleasure. And the transitions make much more sense in the original order... listening and reading the symphony, there can be no doubt that it definitely was composed in and for the original order. Performance practices (or compromises) concern me less. The fact that Fischer’s shift from Allegro to Andante is less than smooth (not nearly as organic as Mackerras, who chose the same order) does not help his cause, either. (It should be said, though, that this moment is about the only performance-related quibble I have with the CD.)

And then of course there is the issue of two vs. three hammerblows. Fischer feels the following way about it:

Even if Alma Mahler was right and it was Mahler’s superstition that made him erase the fatal deathblow from the final version I feel there must have been another reason, too. I am convinced that the muted climax near the end is better. It is less theatrical and with its modest sound it balances beautifully with the final desperate outburst. This great finale is better with two hammer blows.

Again, I disagree. First of all I am not sure if "less theatrical" is really something desireable to aim for in a Mahler symphony... or ‘modesty’ for that matter. And I simply don’t find the third hammerblow cheap or crude... I find it utterly devastating, heart- and neck-breaking. The third hammerblow, striking a few bars later than one would expect, is the death sentence. The ‘hero’ is felled like a tree. In the version sans hammerblow - with the slightly reduced orchestration around these bars - the hero receives something more akin to a slap on the ass. It may be enough to make him tumble... but it lacks the compelling drama I love in the 6th.

For all these choices, Fischer’s 6th is still one of the finest I have heard in quite a while. I don’t agree with some of the high praise heaped on Jansons’ LSO live recording, which I find distinctly blasé, even unengaging and boring. That, Fischer is never. Boulez, too, isn’t unlike Fischer - only that Boulez is meaner, more taut at a few places and his recording is - next to Zander - one of the last to put the Scherzo first. Fischer’s strength is that he manages fluidity and a wonderful lyrical approach without emasculating the symphony too much. I find Zander’s sixth exceptional - but especially those who complain about an erratic quality and pulled tempi in Zander should find the Fischer to be near ideal. At least on non-high-end systems, the sound of the Fischer is a good deal better than Abbado, because of increased presence and audibility of the soft parts. The Abbado recording may not be bad, despite its low levels... but what is the point if it only sounds impressive on a high-end system that has Wilson Watt Puppies as rear (!) speakers. This is the first recording of any kind in the Palace of Arts in Budapest (which houses the Concert Hall), and it promises many a great sounding recording to come.

Follow @ClassicalCritic

An ionarts interview with Fischer Iván, in which he talks about Mahler, can be found here.

Channel Classics CCS SA 22905

Topping the Rostrum

As can be read here and in an article by Tim Page here, the NSO board has appointed Iván Fischer, founder of the Budapest Festival Orchestra, as the Principal Guest Conductor of the National Symphony Orchestra for the 2006/07, 07/08, and 08/09 season. That means between a fortnight and three weeks of Fischer in Washington per annum - and this is excellent news! Iván Fischer, Adam Fischer's little brother, is a splendid conductor. If the orchestra liked him the last two times he was here, it is also a splendid choice. We may look forward to exquisite performances of Bartók, Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky, Dvořák, and much, much more.

A principal guest conductorship may or may not lead to the position of Music Director, but whether Fischer succeeds Slatkin or not, Washington is very much the richer for his arrival. Ionarts recommends you whet your appetite and get your ears into gear by listening to some of the recordings listed below. You'll understand why 'tis a happy day. (By the way, when looking for recordings, Iván is not to be mistaken with the redoubtable brother, Adam - also a very fine conductor... it was the latter who did the impressive complete Haydn symphonies for Nimbus [now also a complete set on Brilliant] and an equally complete set of Bartók's orchestral works. Both have recorded Blaubart's Burg. To add just a little confusion, Hungaroton recordings will list the younger brother as "István Fischer.")

S. Rachmaninov, Symphony No. 2, Vocalise, I. Fischer/BFO	B. Bartók, The Miraculous Mandarin, Rumanian Folk Dances, Hungarian Peasant Songs, I. Fischer/BFO
J. Brahms, Hungarian Dances, I. Fischer/BFO	F. Liszt, Hungarian Rhapsodies, I. Fischer/BFO