So I downloaded two versions, Simon Rattle at BSO w/Baker and Otto Klemperer at Philharmonia w/Schwarzkopf. I listened to Rattle last night and Klemperer today. I will say I liked the Klemperer version better. The Simon Rattle wasn't bad, the sound was better, but after hearing Klemperer, it seemed, well.... a little robotic. Klemperer was a more human. That the best way for me to describe my initial impression. I'd like to get at third just flush things out more and was considering the Jansons RCO, since it sounds like it was well recorded. Also, considering Boulez, Abbado-Lucerne and Jurowski-LSO (saw some good reviews for this) but, I don't currently have a cd/dvd burner and I've only found these available on CD. Also spotted an Ashkenazy at Sydney version, but only see an iTunes availability. I love some of Askenazy's work. He's Rachmaninov-Isle of the Dead and Shostakovich Sym. No. 5 w/RPO are fantastic. Anyone heard his Mahler?
Agreed. IMHO, it is Rattle's early one with the CBSO that is most interesting, albeit still not at Klemperer's level.
Klemperer rushes too much, not letting the music to breath. Just compare the first 2 minutes carefully with Rattle or Tilson Thomas versions. Klemperer's version seems to miss a lot, there is much more than he exposes. Klemperer's version is a bit old, in the sense that still carries this tradition of regarding Mahler as a romantic, and not fully understanding all that his music contains. Rattle or Tilson Thomas versions are more modern and way better in that respect, not caring about interpretation tradition and trying to analyze this music from starch and extracting all it has.
Of course, Boulez's is the most accurate and balanced one
. Specially in the control of tempo, which is super human. Just listen how much tension, intensity and depth he is able to create
here (listen up to 14:40). It reminds me of
this passage. There is also another characteristic in Boulez version: its sharpness. Compare again the first 2 minutes with the others. In general, on could say that Boulez presents us the crude reality, the facts, without judging them beforehand, without prejudices.
About robot or not robotic, this is not romantic music, although is difficult to classify, it belongs more to a realistic interpretation of facts, more existential, despite its root being folkloric. Traditionally it has been interpreted in this fashion, like if it were Brahms, but I think that the more modern approach is more accurate, and this realistic characteristic is what Berg and Schoenberg liked about it, as an alternative to Romanticism, a true step forward. As an exercise, try listening to Schoenberg's violin concerto, and then go back to Mahler.
In summary, of these mentioned versions, if ones intentions are understand this music and what Mahler is trying to tell us, his philosophical points of view, I would recommend Boulez, Rattle and Tilson Thomas, but not Klemperer.
I haven't listened to Ashkenazy's version. However, In general I would say Ashkenazy is a great creator, this leads to interesting versions, which we can like or not, but very personal and less objective, I would say. This is not a bad thing, just a different approach.