Symphony No.6 (10/04/1955)

The presented performance before us takes place in the 10th, April 1955. The conductor on the podium is Dimitri Mitropoulos, under his arms the players of the New York Philharmonic.
I can't say how exited I was when I've heard this performance was finally released on single CD. I've been waiting to hear it for such a long time that I've almost forgot about it. But here it is, 56 years after it took place, coming out of the grave to play yet again Mahler sixth.

Mahler symphonies always hunted me, I was 11 years old when I've first noted to the music of Mahler and since then the fire haven't gone, in fact today I fill the fire within me has stretched. Yet, none other then Mahler sixth has fascinated me for such a long time that I always come back to it regularly. I find it sometimes questionable for the reason my soul always wanted to go back to that problematic work. Indeed this is a work that sometimes when I linger within it to much time I fill I touch something forbidden, a sense I also felt when hearing the terrible notes of Mahler unfinished Tenth Symphony. When you get to close to the fire you get burned, and I believe Mahler felt the same about his Sixth Symphony. A work of such grandiose power, that create chaos and then again try to dominate him and turn it into the classic from of symphony, but then again like the fate motive, crush it into chaos that end devastatingly.

Recently I've heard series of performances for that particular symphony. The last one was that of Mitropoulos which I must say was a breath of fresh air against the other performances. What I mean is not that it was optimistic reading, far from it, but in that there was something so naturally driven about the performance. It sometimes can be heard that conductors try to push the symphony structure and sound into a more personal view, therefore they create a symphony of their own. One can argue with that but I think Mahler score as such a depth in it and sometimes the music should speak for itself and not through the conductor cosmetic changes. Mitropoulos sees the work in a more honest way then some modern conductors. For instance one of the performances I've heard recently was that of Mariss Jansons Leading the London Symphony Orchestra. Though there are places in which I truly admire Jansons reading there is that feeling, particularly in the last and most problematic movement of the symphony that I fell he simply loose his grasp. You truly need a master conductor to perform the last movement, because he is such vast, so long and exhausting that the conductor and the orchestra need something special not to drop the tension and the drama that Mahler create. Indeed I believe most performances fell in the last movement notably for my taste Gunter Herbig with the Rundfunk-Sinfonieiorchester Saarbrucken. I admire Herbig reading in the first three movements, and I will regularly come back to his performance because I always fell that above most he bring Mahler lyric toungh out of the music. But in the last movement, for me, things just don't work. There is no driven force, no real drama and the orchestra simply doesn't stand against the NYP of 1955.

So what we have in Mitropoulos is maybe not the most colorful reading of the symphony but one that truly bring the music struggle in front of the listener, a reading that have such honesty, for instance you should really hear how the Andante is taken. In this performance the Andante is placed second as with Jansons. In today years most conductors prefers to place the scherzo second but I truly think both ways are welcome. After I've heard Jansons and Mitropoulos I firmly believe that there is a reason to think on the matter because there is something in my belief that drives the symphony more naturally (Andante-Scherzo). On the other hand there I've felt there is a more dramatic touch when you place the Andante before the Grand finale. As with the last movement Mitropoulos handling of the Andante is masterfully. I've already said that Mitropoulos do not sacrifice the music core of fire, the natural driven force that march the symphony, and the way he read the Andante is beautifully. The music never seems rush nor to slow and the magnetic power of the Mahler kaleidoscope seems to flow for within. The movement Climax as such a force and beauty, taking the music not too sentimentally yet not to cold as I feel many conductors approach. The playing of the NYP is unbelievable, and when I compare it to modern orchestras that also benefits from high quality engineering I can only say that I was truly in awe. Comparing again the last movement of Mitropoulos and Jansons I cannot but feel that not only The NYP sounds better than the LSO they also seems to have more commitment.

This is indeed an unbelievable performance, taken such a long time before today modern performances. The sound is old, and you can hear it was taken in a live performance. This is something I always feel missing in today live performances. You cant hear the presence of the audience, the presence of the live hall that surround you, today this things are taken out, and if it was never written on the booklet you would never guessed it was a live performance (ass with Jansons). So what we have here is not only a great performance but a documentary of time that as passed and one that will never live again. Like Mahler music, Like Mahler himself, time when music and art had such a close relationship with life and death that you could hear them struggle with each other, battling over the fate the watch above them silently, stretching his harms, pointing his fingers on the heart of the man that by himself, silently, whisper the song of life.