As I noted recently in my review of Colin Davis' less than wonderful Elgar First Symphony on the LSO's house label, the ambitious attempts by various orchestras, both foreign and domestic, to get into the record business raise the interesting question of whether or not the inmates can really run the asylum. I suspect that when all is said and done, we will emerge from this experiment with heightened respect for the great producers of old, men such as John Culshaw or Walter Legge who weren't afraid to say to a major artist, "Sorry, this isn't very good. Try it again," or "You really ought not to record this repertoire, it doesn't suit you." Who at the San Francisco Symphony will tell Michael Tilson Thomas that his Mahler isn't fabulous, and that his talents would best be spent on contemporary (particularly American) music that he plays better than anyone and that desperately needs the advocacy of someone of his ability?

 

There's no question that conductor and orchestra enjoy a good working chemistry. The playing on offer here is mostly world-class, particularly from the brass and strings. To hear the horns really pour out the tone in the first-movement coda or in the finale's numerous climaxes is itself a thrilling experience. Interpretively, however, the performance suffers from its conductor's mannerisms, the most annoying of which is his imposition of momentum-stopping ritards just when the music needs to press forward. Examples of this nasty habit abound. In the first movement, the cowbell interlude at its center nearly comes to a dead halt, and by telescoping his punches Thomas renders the subsequent return to the march music predictable rather than surprising. The same thing happens at the recapitulation of the second subject (the so-called "Alma" theme), where the stop-and-start tempos prevent the section's climax from achieving its full impact. And so despite marvelous playing, including strings that really bite and a wonderful coda, the movement comes across as somewhat static and lacking in energy.

 

The same problem afflicts the scherzo: very good outer sections, and trios that sport great attention both to dynamics and accents yet nevertheless fail to maintain momentum. Notice how, by leaning heavily on the upbeats, Thomas actually alters the rhythm of those little five-note wind arabesques in the lead back to the scherzo proper--a mistake, since this motive returns to significant effect in the finale and so should not be distorted. The movement's climax also would have benefited from a little more presence from the percussion section, though the final pages sound truly tragicomic. That's what makes this performance so frustrating: interesting details but little sense of the long line or of the music's dramatic syntax.

 

The third movement Andante moderato is simply too slow: it meanders rather than flows. In terms of rhythmic steadiness, Thomas is at his absolute worst. It's worth noting that aside from a single marked ritard in measures 26 and 27, Mahler's sole injunction for the first 97 bars (out of a total of 201) with respect to tempo is "Nicht schleppen!" (Don't drag!)--and boy is this a Schlepp! In other words, for fully half the movement, until the end of the "alpine meadow" episode with cowbells, Mahler demands a steadily flowing moderate speed. Despite the wealth of phrasing and dynamic indications, Mahler clearly intended the music to give the impression of simplicity and naturalness, even innocence, and Thomas' inability to play these passages (and the similar music of the various cowbell episodes in the outer movements) the way Mahler indicates represents a serious lack of sympathy with the composer's idiom. In comparison, Bernstein, who certainly was no slouch in the overt expressiveness department, always knew when to intervene and when to leave the music alone. In passages such as these, he often would indicate an intial tempo, then drop his hands and simply listen, letting the musicians play on their own.

 

The finale has impressive power in its march sections, but once again it disappoints whenever the music isn't loud and fast. The introduction lacks atmosphere and a sense of terror, the result of excessive slowness. Note how Thomas holds back the lead-in to the last big cymbal crash before the Allegro energico, destroying Mahler's intended accelerando to the new tempo. Predictably, the next dead spot occurs in the cowbell episode before the first hammer blow. From there on, it's smooth sailing through both hammer blows until the return of the introduction, where the double basses and plucked harp aren't together, and once again the music simply plods. The recapitulation begins thrillingly, but at figure 158 (measure 684) Thomas slams on the brakes before the second appearance of the "fate" motive in timpani and bass drum, just when the music needs to really push onward, and he never quite recovers his momentum. As a result, the final collapse lacks the ultimate cumulative power, though as in the first two movements the coda itself is impressively sustained.

 

Sonically, as with so many recordings taken from live concerts, the need to keep out audience noise results in very close microphone placement, and a consequent dryness and lack of dynamic range. Timpani often find themselves under-recorded save for the loudest passages, and there's little sense of a coherent ensemble playing in a large acoustic space. That said, the engineers present Mahler's textures with great transparency, allowing you to hear every detail of the mostly exceptional playing. In the final analysis though, it's the conductor whose mannered predictability and unwillingness to simply get on with it and play the darn thing prevents this performance from achieving greatness. I have no doubt that Thomas can deliver an excellent performance of this work, but as I noted above, who at the SFSO is going to tell him when he fails to deliver the goods? And more significantly, who will make the argument for spending the orchestra's valuable time, money, and resources on recordings of more deserving repertoire, better tailored to MTT's particular gifts?

--David Hurwitz