Mahler: Symphony No. 1. Paavo Järvi, conductor; Tonhalle-Orchester Zürich. Alpha Classics ALPHA1166.
This recording is a classic mismatch between conductor and work. Paavo Järvi has a lot going for him: his intensity, earnestness, and first-rate ear for detail come immediately to mind. But he's a very specific kind of interpreter. Essentially he's a patchwork quilter who'll often craft a phrase or period in a fairly self-contained manner before moving on to the next one. Unfortunately he tends not to be interested in every phrase or period equally. This means that while there are often remarkable things happening from area to area, it's accompanied by a rather feebler grip of the long arc. Such an atomistic approach works well in music by Debussy or Stravinsky, but I find it uncongenial for Romantic repertoire that requires a certain narrative sweep. The result is a Mahler 1 that falls short as a complete experience despite its many attention-grabbing moments.
Like other reviewers, I was impressed at the start of my first listen. The beginning is suitably mysterious, notwithstanding distant trumpets I think could be more audible, and woodwind calls that sometimes come off over-articulated. But when the main theme ("Ging heut' morgen übers Feld") begins, it's admirably robust. A brisk and driving start is not a bad thing here. Then I suffered my first major jolt as the climactic point arrived. True to habit, Järvi belabors the tipping point. The whole stretch from shortly after Rehearsal 23 to the peroration beginning at measure 352 is over-milked and aesthetically inconsistent with the preceding pace of the movement. The burst of energy from there until the end gushes forth too quickly and incongruently; we lose some important details. (This isn't the first time I've heard Järvi conduct that way. His recent Mendelssohn symphonies I reviewed for Classical Candor see him similarly breathless in some of the rapid passages of Nos. 3-4.) It's an unfortunate quirk I'd wish he'd forego. A kind reviewer might compare this tendency to pent-up water bursting from a cracked dam. A cruder but more apt metaphor is constipation followed by diarrhea.
The second movement is better, though I wish Järvi would ease up in the trio a bit. Also, though he is not alone in doing so, he over-emphasizes the forte dynamic on the first note. Maybe Mahler wanted to establish a strong downbeat, but too many conductors (Bernstein included) traumatize this pitch with a treatment closer to sf or ff. This kind of kills the ländler feeling, especially when it takes a measure or two to establish a steady tempo afterward. And anyway, the initial dynamic is no different than the single fortes in the measures immediately following. We don't need it singled out.
I'll have to reuse the word "belabored" for the third movement. I can't think of a better one. Mahler's initial tempo direction specifically says "ohne zu schleppen" (WITHOUT DRAGGING). Dear readers, is this not among the slowest and draggiest beginnings that you can recall? Then there is the weirdly muted second section. This should be moonlit and magical; instead it feels like the conductor isn't comfortable with its frank sentiment. I haven't much more to say about the return of the A material. What stood out to me most here is Järvi (true to his quirk) rushing through the klezmer-like intrusion in a way that saps its effect.
Identifying everything I think is wrong with the finale performance could fill a dedicated essay. Instead I'll be as succinct as possible. This is where Järvi's lack of architecture and feeling for the epic hits most sorely. The opening salvo is slightly held back while moments of relative repose are sometimes overworked. Some of the string passagework at the beginning and elsewhere sounds almost mechanical. Some of the most passionate utterances feel somehow muffled. A good example is that Rehearsal 44, where the height of the emotional build is clipped and the overall payoff stunted. It just reinforces that the heart at the center of this thing isn't there.
A negative feature of this recording is its chopping up of the symphony's four movements across 16 tracks. Ostensibly this is to help the listener quickly go to "bookmark" moments in the work. But I found that this merely accentuates the tendencies I just discussed, and betrays how the conductor treats (or doesn't treat) the sections in their totalities. If this was Järvi's decision, it's extremely telling. If it wasn't, it might as well have been.
Verdict: Not Recommended
No comments:
Post a Comment