Submitted by Ben Meltzer, Sep 30, 2007 23:31

I do not understand what William Hon thinks he heard on that fateful day in May 2007, but Eschenbach most certainly did not follow the original dynamics of Mahler's second. That was part of my point. Mahler was for the most part quite clear in all of his scores - including his second - about dynamics, phrasing, and tempo. I wish that Eschenbach did indeed have "an understanding of the original dynamics of Mahler's Second," but I'm afraid he did not. In response to the somewhat horrific accusation that I am a long haired musical purist, I can only respond that I am not, and that I love and admire many interpretations that do not closely follow the original score. However, in this specific case, I feel that a purist take on the music would have been superior to Eschenbach's somewhat outlandish version of Mahler's masterpiece. I admit that I am a fan of Solti's version of Mahler's Second, in which the climax in the first movement is played at a nearly constant tempo, but I still believe that Eschenbach took way too much time. I might venture a guess that you are, like myself, a senior citizen who routinely goes to classical concerts. Now of course there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but too many of us are plagued with the idea that every concert we go to is top notch. We simply assume that a concert is good because everyone else seems to like it, rather than truly listening to the content of the concert. It is this which I had in mind when I entitled this response, and, sir, I would take it to heart.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.