John Barbirolli´s recordings.

[oscar]

Dear List,

I am interested in having your opinion on the best recordings of J.Barbirolli, both Mahler and the other repertoire he did.

best regards,

Oscar.

[John Kim]

I like his Sibelius cycle on EMI and symphony no. 2 on Chesky.

I don't appreciate his Mahler in general though.

Regards,

John,

[barry guerrero]

I would not recommend the Sibelius cycle with the Halle Orch. If you want to hear him in Sibelius, I would get the S2 on Chesky, which is with the Philharmonia. For historical Sibelius, I strongly urge you to hear Beecham instead. EMI just recently reissued Beecham's S7/tone poems on to their "G.R. of the Cnty." series, and it's terrific.

As for "Sir John's" Mahler, the 5th is a no-brainer. Also, EMI is about to re-re-re-reissue his powerful M6 on to their "Great Recordings Of The Century" series. Grab it! His Berlin M9 is oddly proportioned, and a bit too soft edged for my taste. However, it is very "pretty" to listen to (not something I'm looking for with M9). As for the rest, they're all pretty much pirated from live sources, and do not show Barbirolli at his best. The English claque will disagree with me on this, but I think that his M3 on BBC Legends is not at all competitive. It is interesting for tempo relationships, and that's about it. Barbirolli himself did not approve it for release (something the Barbirolli buffs strongly deny).

In general, I would urge you to stick with Barbirolli's EMI recordings with the Philharmonia, as they show him in the best possible light.

[Dave H]

Hey Barry--I think the Chesky Sibelius 2 is Royal Phil, not Philharmonia (I'm not home to check). Here's a short list of "the best of Barbirolli," aside from the titles Barry mentioned, all on EMI;

English String Music (Elgar and RVW--a truly great recording)
Elgar Symphony No. 1
Elgar: The Dream of Gerontius (if you can stand it)
Mahler Songs (with Janet Baker)
Vaughan Williams: Symphony No. 5
Puccini: Madame Butterfly (with Scotto, who's fabulous)
English Tone Poems (Bax Tinagel, Ireland A London Overture, etc)
Sibelius: Karelia Suite and other tone poems
...and a few others, mostly of British music.

Barbirolli was one of those artists who was "beloved," which means that partisans, mostly in the UK but some elsewhere, are willing to excuse any amount of sloppiness and technical failings, all of which are credited to "spontaneity" or something similarly silly. He was, indeed, a spontaneous sort of artist, but he was also a terrible orchestral trainer and he needed to be in front of a very good ensemble so that he could shape the performance as he liked and let many of the details of ensemble and balance more or less take care of themselves. His live recordings show just how perilous a day with Sir John could be. At his best, though, he was a wonderful artist, and his studio recordings often bear this out.

Dave H

[John Kim]

I would not recommend the Sibelius cycle with the Halle Orch. If you want to hear him in Sibelius, I would get the S2 on Chesky, which is with the Philharmonia. For historical Sibelius, I strongly urge you to hear Beecham instead. EMI just recently reissued Beecham's S7/tone poems on to their "G.R. of the Cnty." series, and it's terrific.

Barry, but his S1 with Halle Orch. on EMI is really great, isn't it? Naver heard S1 more powerful, done better than this one.

John,

[barry guerrero]

My bad: it's the RPO on the S2.

John, the S1 is pretty good, as you say. However, there are moments in that cycle that leave a lot to be desired. The Halle just wasn't that great in those days, regardless of folks wanting to cheer for the underdog. That's just my opinion.

[Polarius T]

Barbirolli was one of those artists who was "beloved," which means that partisans, mostly in the UK but some elsewhere, are willing to excuse any amount of sloppiness and technical failings, all of which are credited to "spontaneity" or something similarly silly. He was, indeed, a spontaneous sort of artist...

The reference point being provided by... ?

What would you say, honestly, of the following rephrase, I'm wondering:

"[A certain standard Reference Artiste of yours, on either CBS/Sony or DG] was one of those artists who was 'beloved,' which means that partisans, mostly in the US but some elsewhere, are willing to excuse any amount of licence and self-centered schmaltz, all of which are credited to 'expression' or something similarly silly. He was, indeed, a spontaneous sort of artist... [etc.]"

You really like typecasting people, but apart from the parody built in much of it, I'm also just seriously trying to figure out what the possible consistency behind those strong claims is that you cultivate, if any, as I'm really having hard time seeing it. Said Reference Artiste of yours by the way also wasn't noted for any special loyalty to the text, nor for his note perfection to be sure, so you can't really hold on to that criterion too tight. We could talk about many other examples as well.

So why's one fine and the other one not? I know there are many other ways we evaluate our music as well (like certainly your Reference Artiste had more of the flamboyance traditionally favored by the American public), but could it be also ... your own personal taste and (I hesitate putting it this way but you yourself mentioned something to that same effect -- though negatively, about "the British" -- when you set up your site, didn't you?) ... national loyalties? 

Or Barbirolli's admirers have just been wrong all this time (until now that they've been told)?   

Also, nuthin' wrong per se in being knighted, methinks. Ask your own Sir Charles*; I myself quote another in my motto.



A recent DVD reissue by Sir Charles.

* * *

Just wondering.

-PT

*Who incidentally is no Briton, either, but a U.S.-born national of Oz.

[Dave H]

John:

I think that Sibelius 1 in EMI is a mess. Powerful? No way! Sloppily conducted, heavy, and pretty poorly played. I'm thinking particularly of the climax of the first movement, where the brass and cymbals do their best impression of a multi-car collision on an interstate highway. If you want power, try some of these for starters:

Karajan (EMI)
Bernstein (Sony)
Ashkenazy (Decca)
Segerstam (Ondine)
Davis/BSO (Philips)
Ormandy (Sony)

If you've heard Barbirolli's Halle recordings from the 50s, you can tell quite clearly just how badly both he and they had deterioriated by the time he came to do the complete Sibelius cycle towards the end of his career.

Please understand--I'm not trying to tell you what you should or should not like, but there's a lot of really terrific Sibelius out there and it seems to me that many other performances have all of Baribirolli's positive qualities with none of the drawbacks.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

Timo,

With all due (do?) respect, it's not really a question of Barbirolli's worth as a conductor. The issue at hand is simply what recordings represent his best efforts. And for some of us - David and myself among them - questions of orchestral execution and sound quality DO enter into the equation. It is true, however, that one could pick up a few interpretive insights on most any recording, even ones with poor playing and poor sound. But does that, in and of itself, warrant making these first recommendations to people? I really have to agree with David on this particular issue: Barbirolli's Halle Sibelius cycle has some truly messy playing that gets in the way. I simple can't heartily recommend it to others. It's not terrible, but neither is it competitive with the best, in my estimation.

I really don't think that this has ANYTHING to do with British bashing. Frankly, I get tired of David being accused of this when he has recommended TONS of British music that most - so called - classical music aficionados have simply ignored. When we were both much younger, David VERY ENTHUSIASTICLY dragged me and my girlfriend (at that time) to see Tippet's "The Midsummer Marriage" at the S.F. Opera. He also played tons of Lyrita recordings of less known British classical music. So I ask, how is that hating on the British?    .      .       .   

[John Kim]

John:

I think that Sibelius 1 in EMI is a mess. Powerful? No way! Sloppily conducted, heavy, and pretty poorly played. I'm thinking particularly of the climax of the first movement, where the brass and cymbals do their best impression of a multi-car collision on an interstate highway.

Uhmm....we must be talking about two different recordings then

John,

[Amphissa]

Barbirolli's Sibelius was the first cycle by a single conductor/orchestra that I bought, because it was praised in the classical press. At the time, I thought it was good, but lacking in tension. I've since acquired several sets, as well as many singles, and have not listened to the Barbirolli in quite some time. I'm not fixated on tempo. For me, the secret of Sibelius is tension, which can be achieved at faster or slower tempi. Without it, the music (to me) is just sort of "there" -- not going anywhere, even boring. With it, the music is sublime. So, I like Vanska/Lahti, Segerstam/Helsinki, and (urp, dare I admit it) even much of the Maazel/Vienna cycle. I also like listening to Bernstein's cycle at times, but need to be in the right mood for that.

Actually, I've been digging around in corners of my brain to think of recordings by Barbirroli that I do like. Because I don't really much like his Mahler or his Bruckner. I got rid of all of my Barbirolli/Bruckner and have only his M5 and M9 now. I'm not sure why I kept those. I haven't listened to them in quite some time.

The classic Barbirolli, of course, is the recording(s) he made with Jacqueline du Pre of the Elgar Cello Concerto. Both recordings. The studio recording with LSO, is the common first choice. But I also like even more the live recording with the BBCSO. He also recorded the Brahms Piano Concertos with Barenboim, which I've considered better than most, although not first choices against some very stuff competition.
 

[barry guerrero]

"The classic Barbirolli, of course, is the recording(s) he made with Jacqueline du Pre of the Elgar Cello Concerto. Both recordings."

I think that his EMI recordings of both Elgar symphonies are terrific. I also really agree with your picks for Sibelius cycles: Vanska; Segerstam; Maazel/VPO. I like Bernstein/VPO very much on S1 and S7 - less so on S2 and S5. I like Berglund's latest efforts too.

[akiralx]

Dear List,

I am interested in having your opinion on the best recordings of J.Barbirolli, both Mahler and the other repertoire he did.

best regards,

Oscar.

I'm a fan of Barbirolli as a dedicated musician but I don't find too many of his recordings competitive now, particularly Mahler - though I may pick up his 'new' M6 as I've never heard it before, I just hope they correctly master it A/S.

I think Barry's advice about sticking to the Philharmonia recordings rather than the Hallé is pretty sound, though there are one or two good recordings with the latter.  My picks:

Vaughan Williams: Sym 2 'London' - this is perhaps his best recording, from 1958.
Vaughan Williams: Sym 6 - on Orfeo, live with the Stuttgart RSO (c/w a rather slow Brahms 2) - this is buried treasure, a superb performance.
English String Music - a classic, as has been mentioned.
Puccini: Madama Butterfly - very fine if not quite as good as Karajan or Sinopoli.

[Polarius T]

...it's not really a question of Barbirolli's worth as a conductor. The issue at hand is simply what recordings represent his best efforts. And for some of us - David and myself among them - questions of orchestral execution and sound quality DO enter into the equation.

They enter into the equation for most of us, big time. The question is about standards and the consistency in their application: I guess I would reject most of the recordings by said Referece Artiste on grounds that are not that dissimilar from those just evoked against Barbirolli (except that Barbirolli opted to become the first person in world history to snub a fat New World deal offered him, including a U.S. citizenship, and make his transatlantic journey in the reverse direction, from New York to Manchester, thereby losing the possession of a top-flight orchestra and the ability to do with it what said Reference Artiste for example soon thereafter could). On the whole, I think, the general point made by Amphissa and Akiralx is valid: recordings "age," meaning playing styles get updated and playing skills improve, all the time, and thereby our ears, too, along with our expectations. But that goes for most of the stuff that's been around for a long time, including recordings by said Reference Artiste and people like Reiner, Szell, Ormandy, Ancerl...

...one could pick up a few interpretive insights on most any recording, even ones with poor playing and poor sound. But does that, in and of itself, warrant making these first recommendations to people?

That's why I'd certainly not recommend any of the recordings by, for instance, said Reference Artiste as anyone's first choice, either. Besides, their "interpretative insights" are mostly just licence. But that's another matter.

I really don't think that this has ANYTHING to do with British bashing.

You said it, not me. But wasn't it the point at least at the time to stand up and have the guts (to borrow DH's words...) to tell the world that the ideas propagated in the European and in particular the British press about their own musical values were just, like, so wrong? (The same way it was necessary to tell the Berliners that their Philharmonic has "no business playing Mahler" and whom they should be listening to instead.)

-PT

[Dave H]

To Akiralx:

Seconded on the VW London from '58. A terrific performance. Also the live RVW 6th. He always did that symphony with great fervor. There was also a live priate Boston VW6 and Elgar 2 on Music and Arts that was available for about 10 minutes that was pretty exciting (the added tam-tam at the climax of the Sixth's second movement didn't hurt).

Dave H