Double Double.

Although long-time readers probably get tired of reading this little explanation each issue, there may occasionally be readers new to our magazine who might appreciate a brief word of explanation, so for you folks, here it is: in Double Double, Tom Lyle and I compare two recordings of the same piece without consulting with each other other than in choosing which recordings we plan to compare for each issue. This time around, we have set quite a task for ourselves, comparing two recent recordings of Mahler's monumental 9th Symphony, which at a duration around 80 minutes is nearly four times the length of Respighi's Pines of Rome, the work we considered in our previous column.

As you may have deduced from reading our Staff Picks from the last issue, however, Tom and I are both big fans of Mahler, and although comparing two recordings of the 9th took quite a bit of time and effort, it was surely in many ways a rewarding labor of love. The two recordings we compared are the 1998 DG release by Pierre Boulez and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (Deutsche Grammophon 289 457 5812) and the 1997 Telarc release featuring Jesus Lopez-Cobos and the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra (Telarc 2CD-80426). Because Tom gets the last word in odd-numbered issues, I'll venture forth first and then let Tom wrap things up.

KWN: When I reviewed the Telarc recording back in Issue 65, I wrote: "I'm not going to beat around the bush. The Mahler 9th is a great piece of music, and this recording is the best combination of sound and performance I have ever heard." Less than a year later, the Boulez/ Chicago recording was released on DG, and I was so excited to hear it that I could barely wait to get home and slap it into my CD player. On hearing it for the first time, my thoughts were along the lines of, "Man, what a great piece of music, and what a great performance and recording -- right up there with the Telarc. Which one will I actually wind up liking better?" Now here it is, time to write out my considered thoughts on these two recordings for Issue 73, and this time I am going to beat around the bush -- at least a little.

One problem I encountered in preparing my comments for this issue is that I found it more difficult than usual to take notes while listening during those sessions where I tried to capture some of my thoughts on paper while switching back and forth between the two recordings. The music was so engrossing, the sound quality so captivating, and the performances so magnificent in both versions that all I could do was sit and listen in a glorious reverie of pure musical enjoyment. As a result, even though the work we are comparing is longer and more complex than works we have compared previously, and even though I probably spent more time than ever before listening carefully to both recordings, I wound up with a much shorter set of notes than I usually do, and will accordingly wind up comparing the two recordings in more general terms than usual.

Listening to the first few minutes of both versions, in fact, gives the listener a sense of what the overall differences are going to be. The Boulez sounds a bit brighter, with individual parts, particularly in the woodwinds, seeming to stand out a bit more prominently in the mix. Control and clarity are paramount, but the interpretation never strikes the listener as fussy or overly analytic. The Lopez-Cobos version seems warm, tender, but never overly romantic. The recorded sound is slightly more distant, a bit warmer, and utterly breathtaking in its evocation of the concert hall, even in a mere two channels. One thing that really surprised me was that the Boulez performance seems perceptibly faster in the first movement than the Lopez-Cobos performance, but when I checked the timings, the Boulez performance actually is slower (29:17 v. 28:24).

As the two recordings unfold, the differences I have described above pretty well characterize them throughout. The Telarc sound is slightly warmer, more "homogenized," and more like a real concert hall than the DG sound. But the DG sound is in its own way truly excellent -- clear, lively, and with especially good articulation in the lower strings. The timings in the second movement are within three seconds of each other, but to listen to the two performances, you would think that Boulez is faster. And so in the third movement, the lively RondoBurleske that is probably the most formally disciplined movement that Mahler ever wrote, but which still seems infused with wild abandon just awaiting to erupt. Both performances are tight and disciplined in their playing, yet both crackle with power and expression.

In the final Adagio, Lopez-Cobos truly does slow things down in comparison, taking nearly 28 minutes compared to the 21:25 spent by Boulez. Because of this longer timing, the Telarc recording had to be spread over two discs, which sell for the price of one, with the first two movements on disc 1 and the remaining two movements on disc 2.

It is time, I guess, to stop beating around the bush. Let me summarize my thoughts and recommendations on these two recordings. First, let me say that both are magnificent, simply magnificent. The performances are incredible, and the sound quality is glorious. The DG disc is a sparkling example of clarity and precision in terms of both sound and performance. It lets you hear every little detail of the score, but never sounds exaggeratedly analytical. It sounds like the world's greatest "studio recording" of the Mahler 9th, and is certainly the best Mahler 9th I have ever heard on one disc. I cherish this recording and will play it often in future years. The Telarc, on the other hand, has a warmer sound that sounds more like a live performance. Although I may regret being so bold in my statement, I find it the greatest combination of performance and sound that I have ever heard on CD, and the fact that such a combination would come in service of as great a work as the Mahler 9th makes this disc even more wonderful. It is the greatest orchestral recording I have ever heard, and I recommend it with fervent, heartfelt enthusiasm.

TL: When I first started listening to these CDs as part of our Double Double, I thought it might be too difficult a task. How am I supposed to choose between two versions of such a monumental work, one that many books and theses have been written about? Some musicologists have spent a good part of their lives in its analysis, and I am supposed to come up with good reasons as to which performance is better than the other? But I'm not going to tell you which one is better than the other, I'm just going to attempt to explain which one I prefer. Not that that is such an easy job either, because Pierre Boulez conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Jesus Lopez-Cobos conducting the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra in Mahler's 9th are two of the best versions I have ever heard of this symphony.

They are also two very different versions of the 9th Symphony. I have heard innumerable renditions of this piece. I have come to believe that there are two broad categories that an interpretation of the 9th can fall into if it is well played: the more straightforward and analytical, or the more heartfelt and passionate. I realize that this is an oversimplification, but the two performances we are examining in this Double Double fall somewhere within those categories.

Boulez's version is the more straightforward and analytical. It is similar to many of his recent recordings for Deutsche Grammophon, not only is his conducting style detailed, but the recording is very detailed as well. It is a superb recording that enables me to hear every nuance of the score and every instrument in the huge ensemble. Whether it is the scraping of the bows on the lower strings, the snap and ring of the percussion, the blat of the horns, or the thunder of the bass drum -- all are very present. Yet they don't seem overblown or sound forced. Even during the quiet passages there are sonic qualities to marvel at. I find it thrilling that in a piece that I must have heard a thousand times, I hear details that I never noticed before. It is a very admirable performance by both Pierre Boulez and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

Lopez-Cobos's performance is the more heartfelt and passionate. It is much more of an emotional reading. It is not an excessive, "heart-on-one's-sleeve" performance as some consider the accounts of Mahler by Leonard Bernstein. Yet if one listens to the old recordings of this symphony from the late Mahlerite Bruno Walter, Lopez-Cobos comes closer to capturing the same feeling. His is not only a more expressive reading than Boulez's, but because it has many similarities to Waiter's version that I am tempted to state that it is the more "correct" reading of the two. He seems to be very careful in which passages he emphasizes and which he does not. That doesn't mean that he is holding anything back, but he seems to have a more profound connection, and a greater understanding of the score.

Comparing the playing of the two orchestras gets a little tricky. The more up-front sounding recording of the DG comes somewhat into play, which makes the soloists in the Chicago sound a bit more polished than those in the Cincinnati, maybe because I can here more nuance in their playing. But the Cincinnati sounds excellent, even when the score gets extremely complex, such as in parts of the third movement, where there are many overlapping lines. I've heard versions with some pretty well-known orchestras fall apart during this and other intricate sections of the piece. Compared to the Chicago, however, their strings are not as refined sounding, and the ensemble as a whole is not as tight. But I may be nitpicking. Still, it's easy to hear that the Cincinnati plays the piece very well, and seems to respond to Lopez-Cobos remarkably well.

So when it comes down to it, which one do I prefer? Am I copping out by not choosing one? I don't think so. It just depends on what mood I may be in as to which of these I prefer at the time. This is a very complex work, and these are two very complex (and excellent) interpretations of the work. It might not be as simple as saying that the Boulez is for the audiophile in me, and the Lopez-Cobos for the music lover in me. There is too much overlap between the two -- the Boulez has myriad qualities that appeal to the Mahler fan in me, and the Lopez-Cobos is an excellent recording that shows off my system to very good effect.

That' s the best I can do. Take your pick. Or get both.