Search - Gustav Mahler, Georg Solti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra :: Mahler: Symphony No. 1

Solti/ Chicago play Mahler's First

127 | Michigan | 11/11/2000

(4 out of 5 stars)

"I've had mixed success with the combination of Solti and the Chicago Symphony playing Mahler. The biggest criticism, usually, is balance problems, namely overdone brass. That doesn't happen here, and this may be the finest Mahler that I've heard from the Chicago Symphony on record or in person.Balance, first of all, is excellent. What impressed me first was the effect of the trumpets in the first movement, sounding as though they are placed at oppopsite ends of the stage, or even off stage. There is a real effect of distance from the ensemble, which makes the trumpet calls more effective as the signals they are supposed to be. Intonation and ensemble throughout the first movement are fine, and percussion is an integral part of the group.The second movement has a true dance rhythm to it and I think that Solti does a great job of bringing that out. It's supposed to be a peasant dance, not a stiff waltz, and the reading has a lot of spirit. The final two movements don't disappoint, either. Tempo transitions, especially in III, are smooth and the percussion blend in and out excellently. I noticed a little of what sounded like either tape hiss or background noise. I can't tell if this is a live recording or not, but either way it's only a minor distraction.This is a well performed and enjoyable Mahler 1st. Chicago has a reputation for playing Mahler with overly loud brass, but that doesn't happen here. I wouldn't recommend every CSO Mahler recording, but I do recommend this one."

Under-rated Solti

Jeffrey A. Fong | Tacoma, WA, USA | 04/10/2004

(5 out of 5 stars)

"It seems somewhat fashionable to regard Solti's collaboration with the CSO in a negative light. In this case, his interpretation and the CSO's performance rises to the occasion. The engineering is superb, the orchestra fosters a most pleasing balance between articulation and passion. I really don't think Kubelik's interpretation warrants such kudos when clearly there are more deserving alternatives. This recording really deserves more attention."

One of my Favorite CDs

Michael R. Leghorn | Evanston, IL USA | 04/23/2004

(5 out of 5 stars)

"This is one of the best engineered recordings I have on CD. I hear the dry, yet spacious sound of the hall. The placement of the instruments is well balanced, and there's a good balance between the sound of the orchestra and the hall acoustics. The recording was made a few years after recording engineers discovered that Orchestra Hall yielded much better sounding recordings than the two other halls the CSO was using since the infamous renovation of Orchestra Hall in the 60's. (The other two halls were Krannert Center @ U of I, and Medinah Temple.)I've heard the peformance criticised for lacking depth when compared to Kubelik's. I disagree. I believe that much of the "lack of depth" people hear is a result of the hands-off technique of the recording engineers, the dry sound of the hall, and the technical brilliance of the orchestra. While I like Kubelik's interpretation, the orchestra sounds markedly inferior to the CSO, and the recording is very compressed and has a lot of balance problems."