I was active in classical music discussion forums from AOL days until about ten years ago. This recording was praised to high heaven. In 2010, I found a brilliant box called "The Symphonies" with 100 CDs for $80. It had things like the complete Shostakovich under Barshai. A. Fischer's Nimbus Haydn. and Blomstead's East German Beethoven cycle. The Mahler symphonies were a hodgepodge. There it was the Horenstein third. It was confusing to listen to it. This disconnect was one of the first things that got me to leave the online forums. The box was worth its meager cost. Best yet, it had Kuchar's Nielsen cycle and I was introduced to him as a conductor.
Mahler is favourite composer followed closely behind by Bruckner. Mahler's 3rd Symphony has that big ending with 2 timpanists pounding out those dominant chords at the very end. Simply epic indeed!
Dave, I’m glad you and I agree about this one. I’m in a Mahler appreciation group on Facebook and this recording gets praised ad nauseam. I don’t get it! It totally lacks volcanic activity in the first movement.
Dave, thanks very much for the excellent recommendation of Mahler’s seventh with Alexandre Bloch and the Lille forces. It truly embraces the weirdness and fun that is uniquely Mahler’s 7th. Wonderful playing, detailed sound!
I "imprinted" on this recording too, in 1974, the Unicorn LP with the Samuel Palmer sleeve painting. In those days I just asked for the work by composer and let the dealer in my local classical specialist shop make the choice of recording. Mostly he sold me Haitink or Solti for Mahler but this time he went for Horenstein. I loved the work and accepted the recording as the best available. It was decades later that I purchased the CD box sets of Haitink, Solti & Bernstein (Sony) and heard alternate recordings.
As someone who is just beginning my Mahler listening journey (at 54 years of age! But it's been worth the wait so far!), I really appreciate this focus on the mediocre. I believe it's helpful for me to be able to listen critically to various interpretations, and I'm hoping it will inform my musicality as a musician. I sort of intuitively know if a piece of music works, but it's helpful to be able to name the ailment when things don't quite get to the level of greatness.
Perhaps we need a "Top 10 recordings by" for Horenstein. (I miss those videos.) I know he's not high up there for you, but he is one of those cult-ish figures so there's interest and you've been moderately warm about a few of his recordings (Like the BBC Bruckner 5 just recently).
Dave, I went and got the Bernstein complete (Columbia) Mahler set because of your recommendation of Lenny's Mahler 3rd. I had "imprinted" with the Horenstein version (Nonesuch LPs) and wanted to compare. I was at first upset at the echoey recorded sound of the Bernstein NYPO--I was used to the rather "in your face" multi-miked sound that engineer Bob Auger had provided for Horenstein. That lasted for about the first movement. Then I listened to the rest of Bernstein's recording and was completely won over. Returning to the first movement of Bernstein, I was able to listen through the sonic soup and appreciate what was going on with the playing and interpretation. This points to the importance of audio engineering when judging recordings. It is true that the 1970 Horenstein recording has odd balances at times, but the big climatic moments pack quite a wallop when heard over a reasonably good playback system--more so than with the 1961 Bernstein recording. The dates are significant, as advances in audio engineering over that period started to change how producers and engineers approached recording big symphonic music. Over that nine year period, tape formulations improved and Dolby noise reduction was introduced, which improved the dynamic range of master tape recorders by about 15 decibels. LP disk cutting also improved, so some of that improved dynamic range could actually be heard by the consumer. I think there was a real attempt by the Unicorn production team to capture some of the dynamic impact of a live Mahler performance, whereas the 1961 Columbia recording seems very much like an effort to keep the vast sonics within the constraints of the stereo LP system. Add in over-reverberant acoustics (I think that is the Manhattan Center ballroom we are hearing) and the result is not ideal, from a sonic point of view--though good enough that we can still hear Bernstein's artistic achievement, which was exceptional.
I think Bernstein's recording is both more detailed and better balanced than Horenstein's, although the microphone pickup is more distantly balanced. But as you said, the ear adjusts.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I think you will change your mind with a real top notch audiophile system. The Bernstein recording is more compressed and made with multi-miking to the mediocre stereo systems in those days. Still a good recording in many ways but no match in dynamic range to the Horenstein. Sorry.
I prefer to say that I get the “bluntish protuberance” of this series. “Point” just sounds too much like taking sides. You’re obviously having fun and I, for one, am enjoying that. Thank you
Way back in 1974 I found this recording on LP on the Unicorn label in Record Bar (remember them?) I had read glowing reviews but had heard only one other Mahler 3 - the Bernstein/NYPO. When I listened to Horenstein I kept thinking "Well, that's not bad" or "Hey that's decent";my reaction to Bernstein was an unqualified "Wow, this is amazing". Horenstein reproduced the notes in the score; Bernstein presented a dynamic, superbly judged performance. This experience was one of my early ventures into true comparative listening.
Ditto Dave. Ist Mahler 3 was JH on Nonesuch. I thought it was a fine performance, had only heard it for the first time under Tilson Thomas at the Hollywood Bowl in '74. Was so puzzled when I heard the jota aragonesa (? used in Liszt's Spanish Rhapsody) from the euphonium (which may have been placed offstage). Isn't there a live JH recording of it too?
This recording was much admired in its day, and for most American collectors, the entry point for this work, due to its inexpensive issue on the Nonesuch label. While I can still admire the execution with the London Symphony, I must admit that the interpretation hasn't aged very well.
I tend to agree with your assessment of the Horenstein Mahler 3. It's a "pretty good" version, but Mahler 3 deserves better than "pretty good." This series has provoked two realizations. One is that I am very tolerant of "pretty good" recordings if the repertoire is rare or under-recorded, so that there is little or no competition. As a Baroque fan, I have persevered through many mediocre recordings over the years in order to discover obscure but notable works by great composers of that period, and masterpieces by virtually unknown composers. The other realization is more troubling. I am now aware that there are now far more mediocre recordings in my library than there were a decade or so ago. The reason is clear: I have acquired a whole lot of big sets and megaboxes devoted to particular artists whose stellar reputations are deserved but who nevertheless left us a a a certain quantity of mediocre recordings. Case iin point (among many): Sony's recently issued Ormandy stereo box, which contains, to be sure, a critical mass of superb recordings, but also a fair number of those which are only "OK" or "merely good." I will certainly return many times to the former, but will I ever return to the latter? And now, so many big boxes in the collection containing much that is "merely good" and thus forgettable.
@@poturbg8698 Yes, indeed, there are those not affected by "the curse of the megabox." Certain artists and ensembles were almost always at the top of their game. Oistrakh, Heifetz, I Musici, Emerson String Quartet, Toscanini (rarely mediocre, never dull), possibly Böhm and Jochum. Maybe even Bernstein/Sony (not Bernstein/DG). It would be interesting to compile a list of artists whose "megaboxes" contain few duds.
@@leestamm3187 Yes, even symphony cycles usually contain at least one "mediocre" performance. The "curse of the big box" though doesn't dissuade fanatical collectors (mea culpa).
I think a problem is that the Unicorn CD issue of Horenstein's Mahler 3 just sounds pale, irrespective of whether it's a new copy, or an older one getting 'cd rot' (Nimbus cd manufacturing plant). To me, the Nonesuch LP's - which is how I learned of his Horenstein's recording - sounds fuller and more vibrant, more 'in your face' than the Unicorn issue. HDTT is promising a new issue taken from a different set of microphones. We shall see.
The Horenstein Mahler 3 was good in its day. That was my first Mahler 3, having enjoyed it when I first heard it. As with many other things, it has since been surpassed. Such is life, and since we are not necrophiliacs (craving the dead and buried), we listen to new recordings to discover new revelations.
I think one of the reasons why this recording was seen as special by some was the product packaging itself. It was also issued on audio cassette around 1976, with a special box design, with Dolby NR and Chromium Dioxide tape, which was exceptional at the time, to convince those of us who were delusional enough to believe that the cassette was a hi-fi format and spent hundreds of dollars on the behemoth cassette decks that Sony, Pioneer and Akai were releasing in those days. We had to pretend the massive tape hiss wasn't there during the soft passages
Dave: I well imagine some of your viewers, especially in the UK, are going to take you to task over this video chat. I know dozens of us old geezers who first encountered the Mahler Third via the Horenstein version. Like you, I was one of them. I bought it when it was first released. I really thought the Horenstein was as good as it gets, that is until I encountered Haitink's version with the Concertgebouw and especially Bernstein's first version with the NYPO. Now I hardly take out the Horenstein unless I want to nostalgically remember the days of my youth. I only wish Horenstein's version were more urgent and exciting, but alas I'm afraid it's not, and I suspect if those UK devotees to this particular recording, if they were to be utterly objective, grudgingly will admit it as well. Opinions change over the decades, it's called "wisdom" for a reason, and that's a good thing as you enter the last act of your life. Thanks for telling it like it is Dave. Take care!
If this mild-mannered survey were reviewed by a certain well known publication, I can picture the likely verbiage: “tasteful, never vulgar, spiritual, a true sense of architecture.” 😆 Thanks Dave. Love your team at Classics Todays’ clear eyed criticism sans vagueness.
I don’t get the point reviewing these mediocre performances. Your videos that cover rather unknown music, like the tough symphonists series, I love the most. Especially when they contain a few sound clips, some explanation, your honest personal opinion and an invitation to listen for yourself. Getting to know new musical idioms is a very special experience in this hobby.
While this overall recording isn't great, I do think that Dennis Wick's trombone solo is one of, if not the best on record. I love that he played with an edge to his timbre that many modern trombonists seem to shy away from.
Urania is releasing a lot of his stuff recently. The most recent is a live recording from 1961 of the Mahler fifth with the Berliner. It’s so bad and the sound recording is atrocious.
me too horenstein was my first version that I got.....on nonesuch (by the way pay tribute to the musician theresa sterne for her involvement with nonesuch)....of course an everest box set that I had bought previously and which contained the 9 symphonies of Mahler whose performers were not identified for the 2nd 3rd 4th 6th and 7th symphonies had disappointed me with the horrible pressing and sound recording....especially the 3rd ( mitropoulos....?).... Horenstein on the other hand had a rather decent sound recording.....at the end of the day, my favorite version to date is Zubin Mehta with Los Angeles and....Maureen Forrester on Decca.
I was active in classical music discussion forums from AOL days until about ten years ago. This recording was praised to high heaven. In 2010, I found a brilliant box called "The Symphonies" with 100 CDs for $80. It had things like the complete Shostakovich under Barshai. A. Fischer's Nimbus Haydn. and Blomstead's East German Beethoven cycle. The Mahler symphonies were a hodgepodge. There it was the Horenstein third. It was confusing to listen to it. This disconnect was one of the first things that got me to leave the online forums. The box was worth its meager cost. Best yet, it had Kuchar's Nielsen cycle and I was introduced to him as a conductor.
Mahler is favourite composer followed closely behind by Bruckner. Mahler's 3rd Symphony has that big ending with 2 timpanists pounding out those dominant chords at the very end. Simply epic indeed!
Dave, I’m glad you and I agree about this one. I’m in a Mahler appreciation group on Facebook and this recording gets praised ad nauseam. I don’t get it! It totally lacks volcanic activity in the first movement.
Dave, thanks very much for the excellent recommendation of Mahler’s seventh with Alexandre Bloch and the Lille forces. It truly embraces the weirdness and fun that is uniquely Mahler’s 7th. Wonderful playing, detailed sound!
I "imprinted" on this recording too, in 1974, the Unicorn LP with the Samuel Palmer sleeve painting. In those days I just asked for the work by composer and let the dealer in my local classical specialist shop make the choice of recording. Mostly he sold me Haitink or Solti for Mahler but this time he went for Horenstein. I loved the work and accepted the recording as the best available. It was decades later that I purchased the CD box sets of Haitink, Solti & Bernstein (Sony) and heard alternate recordings.
As someone who is just beginning my Mahler listening journey (at 54 years of age! But it's been worth the wait so far!), I really appreciate this focus on the mediocre. I believe it's helpful for me to be able to listen critically to various interpretations, and I'm hoping it will inform my musicality as a musician. I sort of intuitively know if a piece of music works, but it's helpful to be able to name the ailment when things don't quite get to the level of greatness.
@@paxpaxart4740Why?
My first Mahler 3rd in those same early days was the Kubelik on DG.
Perhaps we need a "Top 10 recordings by" for Horenstein. (I miss those videos.) I know he's not high up there for you, but he is one of those cult-ish figures so there's interest and you've been moderately warm about a few of his recordings (Like the BBC Bruckner 5 just recently).
Dave, I went and got the Bernstein complete (Columbia) Mahler set because of your recommendation of Lenny's Mahler 3rd. I had "imprinted" with the Horenstein version (Nonesuch LPs) and wanted to compare. I was at first upset at the echoey recorded sound of the Bernstein NYPO--I was used to the rather "in your face" multi-miked sound that engineer Bob Auger had provided for Horenstein. That lasted for about the first movement. Then I listened to the rest of Bernstein's recording and was completely won over. Returning to the first movement of Bernstein, I was able to listen through the sonic soup and appreciate what was going on with the playing and interpretation.
This points to the importance of audio engineering when judging recordings. It is true that the 1970 Horenstein recording has odd balances at times, but the big climatic moments pack quite a wallop when heard over a reasonably good playback system--more so than with the 1961 Bernstein recording. The dates are significant, as advances in audio engineering over that period started to change how producers and engineers approached recording big symphonic music. Over that nine year period, tape formulations improved and Dolby noise reduction was introduced, which improved the dynamic range of master tape recorders by about 15 decibels. LP disk cutting also improved, so some of that improved dynamic range could actually be heard by the consumer. I think there was a real attempt by the Unicorn production team to capture some of the dynamic impact of a live Mahler performance, whereas the 1961 Columbia recording seems very much like an effort to keep the vast sonics within the constraints of the stereo LP system. Add in over-reverberant acoustics (I think that is the Manhattan Center ballroom we are hearing) and the result is not ideal, from a sonic point of view--though good enough that we can still hear Bernstein's artistic achievement, which was exceptional.
I think Bernstein's recording is both more detailed and better balanced than Horenstein's, although the microphone pickup is more distantly balanced. But as you said, the ear adjusts.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I think you will change your mind with a real top notch audiophile system. The Bernstein recording is more compressed and made with multi-miking to the mediocre stereo systems in those days. Still a good recording in many ways but no match in dynamic range to the Horenstein. Sorry.
I prefer to say that I get the “bluntish protuberance” of this series. “Point” just sounds too much like taking sides. You’re obviously having fun and I, for one, am enjoying that. Thank you
Simon Rattle did a very good Mediocre Mahler 3 with the CBSO.
Way back in 1974 I found this recording on LP on the Unicorn label in Record Bar (remember them?) I had read glowing reviews but had heard only one other Mahler 3 - the Bernstein/NYPO. When I listened to Horenstein I kept thinking "Well, that's not bad" or "Hey that's decent";my reaction to Bernstein was an unqualified "Wow, this is amazing". Horenstein reproduced the notes in the score; Bernstein presented a dynamic, superbly judged performance. This experience was one of my early ventures into true comparative listening.
IMO, Bernstein's early 60's NYPO recording is his best 3rd, by a good margin.
Ditto Dave. Ist Mahler 3 was JH on Nonesuch. I thought it was a fine performance, had only heard it for the first time under Tilson Thomas at the Hollywood Bowl in '74. Was so puzzled when I heard the jota aragonesa (? used in Liszt's Spanish Rhapsody) from the euphonium (which may have been placed offstage). Isn't there a live JH recording of it too?
It's not a euphonium. It's a post horn, usually played on a trumpet.
This recording was much admired in its day, and for most American collectors, the entry point for this work, due to its inexpensive issue on the Nonesuch label. While I can still admire the execution with the London Symphony, I must admit that the interpretation hasn't aged very well.
I tend to agree with your assessment of the Horenstein Mahler 3. It's a "pretty good" version, but Mahler 3 deserves better than "pretty good." This series has provoked two realizations. One is that I am very tolerant of "pretty good" recordings if the repertoire is rare or under-recorded, so that there is little or no competition. As a Baroque fan, I have persevered through many mediocre recordings over the years in order to discover obscure but notable works by great composers of that period, and masterpieces by virtually unknown composers. The other realization is more troubling. I am now aware that there are now far more mediocre recordings in my library than there were a decade or so ago. The reason is clear: I have acquired a whole lot of big sets and megaboxes devoted to particular artists whose stellar reputations are deserved but who nevertheless left us a a a certain quantity of mediocre recordings. Case iin point (among many): Sony's recently issued Ormandy stereo box, which contains, to be sure, a critical mass of superb recordings, but also a fair number of those which are only "OK" or "merely good." I will certainly return many times to the former, but will I ever return to the latter? And now, so many big boxes in the collection containing much that is "merely good" and thus forgettable.
You state precisely the reason why I never have invested in a big box of anything, including symphony cycles.
@@poturbg8698 Yes, indeed, there are those not affected by "the curse of the megabox." Certain artists and ensembles were almost always at the top of their game. Oistrakh, Heifetz, I Musici, Emerson String Quartet, Toscanini (rarely mediocre, never dull), possibly Böhm and Jochum. Maybe even Bernstein/Sony (not Bernstein/DG). It would be interesting to compile a list of artists whose "megaboxes" contain few duds.
@@leestamm3187 Yes, even symphony cycles usually contain at least one "mediocre" performance. The "curse of the big box" though doesn't dissuade fanatical collectors (mea culpa).
I think a problem is that the Unicorn CD issue of Horenstein's Mahler 3 just sounds pale, irrespective of whether it's a new copy, or an older one getting 'cd rot' (Nimbus cd manufacturing plant). To me, the Nonesuch LP's - which is how I learned of his Horenstein's recording - sounds fuller and more vibrant, more 'in your face' than the Unicorn issue. HDTT is promising a new issue taken from a different set of microphones. We shall see.
The Horenstein Mahler 3 was good in its day. That was my first Mahler 3, having enjoyed it when I first heard it. As with many other things, it has since been surpassed.
Such is life, and since we are not necrophiliacs (craving the dead and buried), we listen to new recordings to discover new revelations.
I think one of the reasons why this recording was seen as special by some was the product packaging itself. It was also issued on audio cassette around 1976, with a special box design, with Dolby NR and Chromium Dioxide tape, which was exceptional at the time, to convince those of us who were delusional enough to believe that the cassette was a hi-fi format and spent hundreds of dollars on the behemoth cassette decks that Sony, Pioneer and Akai were releasing in those days. We had to pretend the massive tape hiss wasn't there during the soft passages
Dave: I well imagine some of your viewers, especially in the UK, are going to take you to task over this video chat. I know dozens of us old geezers who first encountered the Mahler Third via the Horenstein version. Like you, I was one of them. I bought it when it was first released. I really thought the Horenstein was as good as it gets, that is until I encountered Haitink's version with the Concertgebouw and especially Bernstein's first version with the NYPO. Now I hardly take out the Horenstein unless I want to nostalgically remember the days of my youth. I only wish Horenstein's version were more urgent and exciting, but alas I'm afraid it's not, and I suspect if those UK devotees to this particular recording, if they were to be utterly objective, grudgingly will admit it as well. Opinions change over the decades, it's called "wisdom" for a reason, and that's a good thing as you enter the last act of your life. Thanks for telling it like it is Dave. Take care!
What about Horenstein's recording of Mahler's first?
What about it?
@@DavesClassicalGuide i always heard great things about it. Some people consider the best recording of the first, what is your opinion on it?
@@leo.oak_Check out Dave's Mahler surveys.
If this mild-mannered survey were reviewed by a certain well known publication, I can picture the likely verbiage: “tasteful, never vulgar, spiritual, a true sense of architecture.” 😆
Thanks Dave. Love your team at Classics Todays’ clear eyed criticism sans vagueness.
I think its really good that you point out mediocre Mahler, already had Abaddo, waiting for Dudamel and Rattle roast! Love u Dave, greetings
I don’t get the point reviewing these mediocre performances. Your videos that cover rather unknown music, like the tough symphonists series, I love the most. Especially when they contain a few sound clips, some explanation, your honest personal opinion and an invitation to listen for yourself. Getting to know new musical idioms is a very special experience in this hobby.
That's OK. Plenty of others do get the point.
I like seeing what rationale goes into the judgment of a critic, including when he goes against the grain a bit. I get it.
While this overall recording isn't great, I do think that Dennis Wick's trombone solo is one of, if not the best on record. I love that he played with an edge to his timbre that many modern trombonists seem to shy away from.
I still have Horenstein's Nonesuch lps of Mahler I and 3. I enjoy the Dennis Wick and William Lang solos in 3. I don't listen to them much.
Urania is releasing a lot of his stuff recently. The most recent is a live recording from 1961 of the Mahler fifth with the Berliner. It’s so bad and the sound recording is atrocious.
me too horenstein was my first version that I got.....on nonesuch (by the way pay tribute to the musician theresa sterne for her involvement with nonesuch)....of course an everest box set that I had bought previously and which contained the 9 symphonies of Mahler whose performers were not identified for the 2nd 3rd 4th 6th and 7th symphonies had disappointed me with the horrible pressing and sound recording....especially the 3rd ( mitropoulos....?).... Horenstein on the other hand had a rather decent sound recording.....at the end of the day, my favorite version to date is Zubin Mehta with Los Angeles and....Maureen Forrester on Decca.