# What do you think of Barbirolli’s Mahler?



## Allegro Con Brio

I may as well join in on the fun and add another edition of this TC favorite series!

In terms of prolific Mahlerian conductors, Sir John seems to be somewhat polarizing. I’ve seen people criticize him for his level of deviation from the score (especially in his infamously slow 6th), the occasionally subpar level of playing from his orchestras, and for treating Mahler’s music too “darkly” (whatever that really means). Conversely he also has plenty of admirers, earning admiration from those who cite the raw passion and pathos of his readings, his expressive phrasing, and the elemental “unpolished” wildness of his conceptions. Personally I fall for the most part in the latter camp. Barbirolli certainly takes very personal views of the music he conducts, and sometimes goes for broke even if the results are not totally convincing. But I just love the sense of uninihibited risk and psychological determination that he puts into his Mahler. He truly does make every symphony a monumental event, plunging into the soul of Mahler’s conceptions. Sure, some of the orchestral playing can be rough (like in the 1st and live 9th) but I gladly accept it as a byproduct of Barbirolli's raw commitment. I know others won’t agree though. As far as I know he has recordings of all of the nine except the 7th and 8th. I have heard all of them except the 2nd and 3rd which do not appear on streaming or YouTube. His 4th and 9th are particular favorites of mine. The only one I’m more lukewarm on is his 5th, where I don’t really hear the epic “darkness to light” narrative as convincingly as others even if he does turn in a magnificent Adagietto. Also, why haven’t all his available Mahler recordings been released as a set? You’d think with a conductor of his stature that would be inevitable at some point.

So what do you Mahlerians think?


----------



## Becca

A) They aren't a set by any means, coming from many disparate sources who aren't likely to get together!
B) He only did studio recordings of 1, 5, 6 & 9, the rest - 2, 3, 4, 7 are from broadcasts.
C) Yes there is a 7th but it is a mono-only presumably captured from a broadcast so not very good sound. (FWIW, he was scheduled to record the 7th with the BPO in 1971 but died the previous year.)


----------



## Becca

If I am to pick my top 3 of each symphony, Barbirolli would be in 6 of them - 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 9 which is more than any other conductor. That is not to say that he would be the top pick in each.


----------



## flamencosketches

I’m down with Barbirolli’s Mahler, mostly his great Lieder recordings with Janet Baker. I need to hear more of the symphonies but the Berlin 9th is great. He definitely presents Mahler’s music as dark (somewhat like Horenstein) but also very passionate and with deep feeling. I like it. Again I need to hear more before I can comment further.


----------



## MarkW

His Berlin Ninth was the first Ninth I heard and it still stays with me (whoever assembled the record collection at my local public library proved time and again that he/she knew what he was doing. Later on I heard his fifth and sixth, both of which I thought dragged at the time -- but that was years ago and I need to hear again with fresh ears.

(Interestingly, the BPO actually "learned" the Ninth with Sir John, and requested of EMI that they record it. And I found that a umber of inflections from those performances stuck and were apparent in subsequent BPO recordings by Karajan and Abbado.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The best.

My favorite versions of Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 9. Close to favorite for Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7. Too bad there was no 8th.


----------



## mbhaub

His 6th (EMI) is still one the best, his grunting and singing notwithstanding. The tempo in the first movement just seems right - has the ominous, heavy feel that's needed. The recorded sound is fantastic even 50 years after it was made. 

The 5th and 9th are also very good, he sees the big picture and doesn't get mired in details. And, he keeps the music moving. Sometimes they feel "light" and missing the truly epic nature of the works. The back story about the 5th with a missing horn part in the original release is quite interesting. 

I wish he had more time to work on 2 and 7, I never got the feeling he was really comfortable with either.


----------



## flamencosketches

Who did he record the second with?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> Who did he record the second with?


The most readily available is 1965 BPO on Testament, but the one to get is his 1970 Stuttgart on various labels. I own this issue:


----------



## Knorf

I love Barbirolli's Mahler 9, one of the finest out there.

His Sixth I could not live with. The first movement is marked "Allegro energico, ma non troppo." There is nothing Allegro nor energico in this performance. A kind of grinding inexorability, perhaps, but it messes up the tempo balances and relationships through the movement. Also I cannot forgive skipping the exposition repeat. There are other problems but I think I need not belabor the point: I'm glad I heard it, but, as I said, I couldn't live with it, so I donated my copy to a library. 

I've not heard the others; after being so badly disappointed by the Sixth, I lost interest in Barbirolli's Mahler.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> I love Barbirolli's Mahler 9, one of the finest out there.
> 
> His Sixth I could not live with. The first movement is marked "Allegro energico, ma non troppo." There is nothing Allegro nor energico in this performance. A kind of grinding inexorability, perhaps, but it messes up the tempo balances and relationships through the movement. Also I cannot forgive skipping the exposition repeat. There are other problems but I think I need not belabor the point: I'm glad I heard it, but, as I said, I couldn't live with it, so I donated my copy to a library.
> 
> I've not heard the others; after being so badly disappointed by the Sixth, I lost interest in Barbirolli's Mahler.


Lol. It's only one of the four greatest Mahler recordings in existence, the others being his live 9th, Horenstein's 8th, and the Ferrier/Walter Das Lied. But no one has to like Barbirolli's Mahler if they don't want to.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The first movement tempo in the 6th seems so wrong to me, but I still love it. When I want to experience Mahler at his most unforgiving it's what I turn to. I do think, though, that it messes up the structure such that it seems we're already mired in unescapable tragedy from the get-go when the final blow shouldn't come until the finale IMO. It starts to get a little grating. And yes, the only exposition repeat in all of Mahler's music should be observed. I view that recording as a sort of perverse indulgence - not to say Mahler wouldn't have approved (he probably would have actually) but it doesn't totally convince me. T. Sanderling, Kubelik, and Vanska are my usual go-tos for the "Tragic," but I haven't done that much comparing of versions since it's not a symphony I can take in large quantities.

Becca, thanks for correcting me on the info. My wish for a set is totally platonic, but I still wish it could somehow happen. That mono 7th might be an interesting one to check out, even though I have a pretty low tolerance for old sound in Mahler. I _really_ need to hear that 3rd - I haven't been totally converted on that symphony yet even though Bernstein/NY took me a step closer.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Lol.


Laugh all you want, horn boy. It doesn't work for me. As for the rest, well, like, that's just your opinion, man.


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> And yes, the only exposition repeat in all of Mahler's music should be observed.


There's one in the First as well.

I agree with your other points.


----------



## Becca

Knorf said:


> I've not heard the others; after being so badly disappointed by the Sixth, I lost interest in Barbirolli's Mahler.


Given one 'finest' 9th, and even with the 6th (where you should listen to the live performance), surely others deserve a listen.

Regarding his 3rd with the Halle from a BBC broadcast, Tony Duggan had this to say in his survey of recordings of the 3rd...

_"A couple of months after Sir John's death the Mahler expert Deryck Cooke declared this "one of the finest Mahler performances I have ever heard" and I certainly concur with that. A sentiment confirmed by an international jury of critics at the Mahlerwoche in Toblach in 2000 when they gave the recording the award for best stereo Mahler recording of 1999. It's quite a close-in sound especially made for broadcast, almost a conductor's balance with every detail clear. Some may find the reproduction of the brass troublesome but with good remastering it comes over bold, brassy and exuberant like the symphony itself and Sir John's interpretation which more than makes up for any shortcomings in the Hallé's playing. They are some way from the finest but you would have to have a heart of stone and a pair of ears to match to let occasional lapses in ensemble and fluffed notes bother you very much. There is poetry here, there is drama, and there is a performance that reflects a world of feeling now gone. "_

It is certainly at the top of my list, even over Horenstein.


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> Given one 'finest' 9th, and even with the 6th (where you should listen to the live performance), surely others deserve a listen.


That's a fair point.


----------



## Enthusiast

His 5th was my introduction to Mahler and the first record to enable me to convert my father to something (he became fanatical about Mahler as a result) - a wonderful performance if a little spoiled by a Finale which seems a little hard work (and greatly helped by Nick Busch's unsurpassed obbligato horn in the scherzo). The sixth was initially a little disappointing (even though it was the first recording of the work I had heard) by the rather trudging speed but it is a powerful performance (and the live one = also the New Philharmonia - is perhaps even a little better). His 9th is great, of course, and I also love his 2nd (the live Stuttgart one), which is one of my favourites. Did he ever record Das Lied?


----------



## Merl

Hit and miss for me. I collect Mahler 1sts (don't get me started on listing them) so I have the Halle and Czech PO 1sts and enjoy both a great deal. The Czech PO disc has a better orchestra but I love the sound of the brass on the Halle recording. I've also heard the 1959 live 1st with the NYPO but that is a dreary performance, in poor sound and where he is a little deliberate in his other 2 recordings he's just grinding here. The 2nd movement really does drag. I enjoy his live 2nd a great deal (Stuttgart? - not looked) but havent played it for a while. The 3rd is not a symphony I love and I have got the Testament BPO disc but it's not a performance I enjoy and to say it's broad would be an understatement. I have the BBC Legends 4th and that is a really enjoyable performance until Heather Harper buggers up the last movement just by being wrongly cast. I have the classic New Philharmonia 5th and unlike you, ACB, really enjoy it (it was also my first Mahler 5th so maybe I just have a soft spot for it). I have 2 of his 6ths. The classic one and a live BPO on Testament. I picked the live one up in a batch of CDs I got from a private seller (who lives around the corner) and tbh I'm glad it only cost me the equivalent of 70p because it's a dire performance in which the BPO sound like a bunch of strangers (terrible ensemble). The classic 'controversial' 6th is one I used to really like but over the years I've cooled so much that I can barely play it again. I did try a while back but took it off and listened to someone else instead. Haven't got or heard his 7th. I have his 9th but it's not a favourite of mine until the final movement, where he really grabs my attention. I listened to his Torino 9th on Spotify last week and that left me with a similar feeling.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

There is a radio recording of his Das Lied with Ferrier. Very good but dreadful sound.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is a radio recording of his Das Lied with Ferrier. Very good but dreadful sound.


It's such a pity so many of Barbirolli's recordings are in poor sound and sometimes with scrappy or under-rehearsed orchestras. He wasn't given opportunities commensurate with his talent and skill.


----------



## Totenfeier

The best way to express my feelings about Barbirolli's Mahler (his 3rd, 4th, 6th and 9th are favorites) - I say, the best way to express my feelings about him is that he is the Anti-Karajan. You who know what I mean will know what I mean.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> It's such a pity so many of Barbirolli's recordings are in poor sound and sometimes with scrappy or under-rehearsed orchestras. He wasn't given opportunities commensurate with his talent and skill.


The 6th blasts my speakers. The first movement is cataclysmic.


----------



## flamencosketches

I ordered the 5th, making it my sixth 5th. Excited to spend time with it. Now just need to track down the 6th... for some reason the GROC reissue is kind of expensive.


----------



## Heck148

Barbirolli's M9 with BPO was my first exposure to this great symphony...I got it when it first came out on LP, soooooo many moons ago...it was ok, but then I heard Walter/ColSO and it totally blew Sir John away...Walter is still one of my favorite 9ths...
I heard Barbirolli's #5, but it was a long time ago, I don't really remember much (I'll have to look it up on YouTube)..
For #6, I just can't get past the first mvt: it...is....just....too.....slow...
I don't know what he was thinking....certainly an interesting and idiosyncratic effort, but it just doesn't work for me.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148, we agree on something!  

Just kidding, we agree on lots of stuff. I actually prefer the Walter Ninth over Barbirolli's, too, but for me blown away would be overstating things substantially. For me it's a narrow preference. But you can see I agree with you about the Barbirolli Sixth.


----------



## Becca

Heck148 said:


> For #6, I just can't get past the first mvt: it...is....just....too.....slow...
> I don't know what he was thinking....certainly an interesting and idiosyncratic effort, but it just doesn't work for me.


As I have pointed out many times, the studio recording of the 6th is very much different from his live performance of a few days earlier (same orchestra.) He started off slowly but picked up the tempo so that the movement is over 2 minutes faster (19.08 vs 21.24). Maybe he was having an 'off' day in the studio!


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> As I have pointed out many times, the studio recording of the 6th is very much different from his live performance of a few days earlier (same orchestra.) He started off slowly but picked up the tempo so that the movement is over 2 minutes faster (19.08 vs 21.24). Maybe he was having an 'off' day in the studio!


It still seems weird to me, sorry.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> Maybe he was having an 'off' day in the studio!


I think he improved it. Immensely more powerful, and I've heard both. There's no other recording like it. Only Bernstein comes close to the same impact in this work. Of course his tempo was much faster in movement 1. But tempo is not the point. It's the utter conviction.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> It still seems weird to me, sorry.


I'm guessing then you're not a fan of Klemp's 7th?


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm guessing then you're not a fan of Klemp's 7th?


Not as such, no. The Philharmonia 2nd, very much yes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Not as such, no. The Philharmonia 2nd, very much yes.


Klemp's 7th is considered to be insanely slow by most, but I absolutely love it. Not only my favorite 7th but one of my favorite of all Mahler recordings. Not because of the tempo per se, but the utter conviction and resolve.


----------



## flamencosketches

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Klemp's 7th is considered to be insanely slow by most, but I absolutely love it. Not only my favorite 7th but one of my favorite of all Mahler recordings. Not because of the tempo per se, but the utter conviction and resolve.


I'm going to listen to Klemperer's 7th straight through sometime soon (whenever I decide it's time to get back to the 7th-I haven't heard it in about 6 months). I listen to individual movements from it sometimes and I think the finale is really well done, but never taken on the whole thing.

As for Barbirolli I ordered his 5th, which sounded quite good from samples, and for the 6th, I've heard the live recording which Becca has been praising, and enjoyed it, but found the sound was past my threshold for fully appreciating a Mahler symphony. Going to seek out the studio 6th. I've heard the infamous first movement of it, which is extremely slow indeed... but fascinating in a way. What other 6ths skip the expo repeat? Levi/Atlanta, no? Any others?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> .....Only Bernstein comes close to the same impact in this work. Of course his tempo was much faster in movement 1. But tempo is not the point. It's the utter conviction.


Solti, crushing in its savage brutality....beautiful Andante, tho, but the finale is totally devastating...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think Bernstein (I favor the DG) vs Barbirolli in the 6th 1st movement is highly illustrative. They are not alike at all in terms of tempo, but for me the impact is the same. Tempo is not in itself as important as the passion and commitment. Just as illustrative is that Barbirolli chose such a drastically slower tempo mere days after performing it faster live. I've heard a famous conductor once say he didn't think about tempo until the moment he began the downbeat. It was whatever felt right in the moment. That type of mindset is exactly what results in passionate, committed, unforgettable performances. IMO the studio recording is better than the live performance regardless of the tempo. It was more inspired.

Furtwangler detested recordings. He detested the idea that a "perfect" rendition is frozen in time, which is an impossible notion, This is why all his live performances sound so different. Great music is a product of the instant in time in which it is performed. In fact one of his greatest studio performances, one of the few on the same level as is live ones, was the Schumann 4th where he did it all in one take.

So circling back to Barbirolli. When I say his studio 6th is my favorite recording of the 6th, it is not because this is the most "perfect" way to play it. It is because that particular performance is the most impactful one I have ever heard on record. Whatever Barbirolli decided to do in that moment, he sold it to my ears. THAT is the way I look at recordings, not as something which must fit some stringent criteria, which to me is nonsensical in a discussion of art.


----------



## Enthusiast

Merl said:


> I have the BBC Legends 4th and that is a really enjoyable performance until Heather Harper buggers up the last movement just by being wrongly cast.


I listened to this one again, today. You are right, of course, that Harper's voice was not right for the work. But I personally forgive her as she does sing as beautifully as I have heard from her. It is a really fine 4th.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> I listened to this one again, today. You are right, of course, that Harper's voice was not right for the work. But I personally forgive her as she does sing as beautifully as I have heard from her. It is a really fine 4th.


It's a fantastic 4th, and the final movement is quite beautiful regardless of her tone quality.


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> As for Barbirolli ... for the 6th, I've heard the live recording which Becca has been praising, and enjoyed it, but found the sound was past my threshold for fully appreciating a Mahler symphony.


I have been wondering how (or where) you heard the Stuttgart Mahler 2 (finding the sound poor) as it has always seemed to me to have good sound (excellent for a live recording of its age) ... . I can certainly get the desire/need for good sound in Mahler (although there are exceptions - like Walter's 9th from the 1930s) but I do wonder if you sourced this one from a dodgy source? It is a very great recording - up there with the classic live Klemperer - so I thought this worth checking out.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> I have been wondering how (or where) you heard the Stuttgart Mahler 2 (finding the sound poor) as it has always seemed to me to have good sound (excellent for a live recording of its age) ... . I can certainly get the desire/need for good sound in Mahler (although there are exceptions - like Walter's 9th from the 1930s) but I do wonder if you sourced this one from a dodgy source? It is a very great recording - up there with the classic live Klemperer - so I thought this worth checking out.


I haven't heard any Mahler 2 from Barbirolli. My comment about suboptimal sound was with regard to the live Mahler 6 with the New Philharmonia from the 1967 BBC Proms, on Testament. I suspect you might agree with me that the sound on that recording leaves something to be desired, especially given the time in which it was recorded (when so many of my favorites, sound-wise, date from the same era).


----------



## ZeR0

I think Barbirolli can be considered one of the greatest proponents of Mahler in the 20th century. Although I don't always agree with his specific decisions, the overall musical result of his recordings is tremendous. While he might not be my top pick for any of the symphonies, he is most certainly always a pick.


----------



## Knorf

ZeR0 said:


> I think Barbirolli can be considered one of the greatest proponents of Mahler in the 20th century. Although I don't always agree with his specific decisions, the overall musical result of his recordings is tremendous. While he might not be my top pick for any of the symphonies, he is most certainly always a pick.


I can't argue with that!


----------



## Gray Bean

Still one of my favorites: Mahler 5 on EMI


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> I haven't heard any Mahler 2 from Barbirolli. My comment about suboptimal sound was with regard to the live Mahler 6 with the New Philharmonia from the 1967 BBC Proms, on Testament. I suspect you might agree with me that the sound on that recording leaves something to be desired, especially given the time in which it was recorded (when so many of my favorites, sound-wise, date from the same era).


Ah. I don't find the sound on that one to be too bad but I don't personally feel it adds much as an interpretation to the (much better recorded) studio one. Trudging start but devastating.


----------



## Merl

As a Mancunian, I grew up with Barbirolli at the head of Manchester's orchestra and he was famous and lauded for reviving the orchestra post-war but tbf the orchestra was in a good state after Harty's tenure and all that was needed was to replace members killed in the war. 
I was too young to see him live. When I did start attending the Halle, in the 80s, I used talk to the odd person (and they usually were odd if they'd talk to a long-haired rocker like me), many of who had seen Barbirolli conduct. They always said the same thing - when he was good he was breathtaking but when he was bad (or drunk - he liked his whisky) his conducting was shambolic and the orchestra carried him. He did a good job with the Halle early on but he left them in quite a lot of debt. James Loughran got to grips with the business side of the orchestra far better, arguably improved them again and got them back on a financially more secure path (he was also a fine conductor). Skrowaczewski improved the orchestra markedly but didn't have the persona and led the Halle in it's worst financial period when it was hopelessly underfunded. 
*My school mate's dad played in the Halle under Baribirolli and always said the same thing "funny bloke but not a nice man". I always wondered what he meant by this. He never did explain.

*Edit: I'm off to ask him now. My old school mate is still on my FB friends. I'l ping him a message.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Reading of Barbirolli as a drinker reminds me of his Halle Sibelius 7 where his treatment of the trombone theme always sounds to me like a drunk singing. I wonder if that is what Sibelius - even more of a drinker - intended.


----------



## geralmar

I remember criticism of his EMI/Angel recording of the Mahler sixth included the microphone's pickup from the podium of Barbirolli's snuffling and labored breathing. When I had the L.P.s I experimented with a faux quadraphonic sound by hooking up two back speakers and wiring them out of phase. As I listened to the recording late one night I became aware of strange, nonmusical sounds emanating from the rear speakers. As I listened closely, I suddenly realized that what I was hearing behind me was the heavy, tortured breathing of a man long dead. Unnerved, I turned off the stereo and went to bed. Other than that, I like the recording.


----------



## Heck148

I had a friend who played violin in Houston under Barbirolli....He liked him overall, and said that the other musicians generally liked him...
Many musicians who played under him were greatly amused at his linguistic versatility, and ability to change dialects instantaneously:
Sir John was born in England of an Italian father and French mother, tho he always condsidered himself a cockney. Thru his education he was fluent in the King's English, and could speak most eloquently and graciously. He could also apeak fluent Italian...
In front of the orchestra, he would use proper English, or resort to Italian for musicial terms....however, when he got frustrated, or impatient, he would instantly resort to Cockney, and to the delight of the musicians, spew forth the most flagrant, colorful and outrageous cockney insults imaginable!! Quickly venting his anger, he would magically revert to the proper King's English, and reheasal would proceed!!
Of course, another funny story is his experience with the Irish Sergeant-Major, when Sir John had joined the British Army in 1918, the final year of the Great War....apparently this tough non-com decided that Sir John's name was "Bob O'Reilly" [Barbirolli = Bob O'Reilly :lol:] and relished the fact that he had a fellow Irishman in his unit - as in <<O'Reilly, get over here>>, <<O'Reilly, front and center!!>>, <<O'Reilly, fall in!!>> and so forth....lol!!
Some of Barbirolli's buddies went to the Sergeant-Major and tried to correct his misconception of the subject's proper name - the Sergeant-Major exploded, in disbelief!! <<What do you mean his name isn't O'Reilly??!! O'Reilly, get over here, these blokes are trying to say your name isn't "O''Reilly"!! - what are they nuts??!!...Nonsense!!...O'Reilly, carry on....>>
Sir John remained "Bob O'Reilly" for the duration....:lol:


----------



## Knorf

Heck148, that's hilarious! I hadn't the "O'Reilly" anecdote before. :lol:


----------



## Becca

The 1965 BBC documentary about JB (start at 5:13)...


----------



## Merl

I got a very long and wordy message back on FB from my old school mate, Tony. He's given me permision to share it here. Obviously I've left out the niceitties and general chit-chat but this is what he wrote. He's not a classical fan but has picked up a lot coming from a family that all played CM. He was a semi-pro rock guitarist btw,

_.....dad played with the Halle from the mid-sixties off and on right up to retiring. He played under Barbirolli lots of times. The "funny bloke but not a very nice guy" was probably a bit hard but dad said it was because he could be a proper witty, sarcastic bloke but equally arrogant and even though he was always saying he looked after the orchestra, he didn't. He often negotiated a good deal for himself but the Halle players were on a lot less than many other orchestras by then. They would get bookings and lucrative deals talked about and then JB would pull the plug on them with no explanation but it was usually because he'd had a better offer to jet off somewhere warmer than Manc. Dad always said JB held the Halle back and was too old-fashioned. Saying that, dad always said he got on fine with him, personally, but it used to annoy a lot of them that he wouldn't play any newer music and they had to stick with the old standards season after season. "Music died with Elgar", he used to tell them. He liked dissing George Szell too. I don't know what the beef was there. 
Dad had loads of stories about JB. Maybe I should write a book with all of my dad's anecdotes. His mate, Roy had some great stories too. He'd played under Klemperer, Karajan and a host of the top conductors. When he came round they used to si there trading stories all night. I also picked up a lot of stuff because I got a job at the FTH when I left school and ended up staying till the death of the Free Trade Hall. He said that 'Godawful John', as many of the string section sarcastically referred to him, could be a total pain in the ****. He'd have them doing massive rehearsals for pieces where he changed the score beyond recognition. They'd practise like mad then he'd change it again at the last minute. Dad said it didn't help that the orchestra was very factioned when he joined between a few of the old guard, Barbirolli sycophants and then the rest of them and some members weren't up to the job. Most of the time he didn't like playing under Barbirolli much and couldn't wait till Loughran took over. They all knew he was going to get the job after JB. When they did Mahler under Loughran he said it was a pleasure but with JB it was a task. Jimmy L was such a nice guy and was always really nice to me but he was too nice to get rid of some poor players that Barbirolli had employed. 
Dad used to tell a funny story about how Barbirolli made them rehearse a Bruckner symphony for days then changed the score and they had to practise like mad to try the get the revised version right which meant tons of extra rehearsal time. To **** him off one of the string section posted a clipping of a really good review of one of Szell's performances on the podium and when he saw the newspaper clipping he went nuts and stormed out. At the performance, the next day Barbirolli had clearly been on the sauce and the orchestra had to play through the whole symphony with hardly any direction as he was three sheets to the wind. When they finished playing he was still gesticulating and the audience were applauding. I loved it at the FTH. I only left when they vacated the building. Lots of great stories about Barbirolli from Jimmy L and those who'd been at the FTH since the 60s, dad used to share them with me. His favourite conductor was Herbert Blomstedt. He said everyone loved playing for him. I met him a few times and he was a lovely bloke but so was Simon Rattle. He had loads of patience. Stan the Man was great too but the Council had given up on the FTH by then. Dad rated him really highly. "A proper conductor". To answer your other question, dad did play on Jimmy L's Beethoven set. I've still got the box set here......_


----------



## Becca

^^I think that Simon Rattle got it right both with the CBSO & BPO in that he knew when it was a good time for the orchestra for him to leave, go out on a 'high note'.

On a related note, I wonder what the general feeling is about Mark Elder. He certainly seems to have done good things with the Halle.


----------



## Merl

Becca said:


> ^^I think that Simon Rattle got it right both with the CBSO & BPO in that he knew when it was a good time for the orchestra for him to leave, go out on a 'high note'.
> 
> On a related note, I wonder what the general feeling is about Mark Elder. He certainly seems to have done good things with the Halle.


Elder is a big hit in Manchester. The locals love him and reckon he's done a great job with the orchestra and modernising it. He's cheaper than Nagano was too. As regards Barbirolli tbf he was in poor health in the latter half of the 60s and he'd took his foot off the gas. Loughran's work was so appreciated because there were rumours the orchestra could go under. In a year he'd quadrupled the size of the Friends of Halle, got more bums on seats and had started to get interest from younger members. By the time he left the average age of those attending gigs had gone down by about 20 years. Must be a thankless task trying to run any orchestra, especially these days, but conductors and management are getting much more innovative.

Incidentally, a lot of the old filming from that Barbirolli documentary was of Openshaw, Beswick (where City's ground is) and Ancoats, all classed as slums in 60s. The Manchester I grew up in is nothing like today's cosmopolitan city. It was dump well into the 80s and beyond.

One glaring anomaly of that documentary was its inaccuracy with where Barbirolli lived. It stated that he lived in Salford and made it out that he lived in an old back-to-back house. What utter rubbish. Couldn't be further from the truth. For all his time in Manchester, he lived rent-free in the Grade II listed Appleby Lodge (now student flats), on Wilmslow Road (just further up from Curry Mile). Back then that was a well posh place to live and only 5 minutes from the City Centre.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Great comments from your friend, Merl! It’s an unfortunate fact that many geniuses throughout history are not the kind of people one would normally regard as considerate or pleasant. Obviously he had to do a lot of “breaking in” for his orchestras to achieve the sort of elemental, sensual, purposefully unpolished sound he often sought. I think everyone would agree that even if he misfired on occasion or if one does not personally enjoy his approach, his results are usually, at the very least, quite interesting to hear.


----------



## Simplicissimus

This thread is eye-opening for me because I have long held a negative view of Sir John Barbirolli, which has caused me not to know his work at all. It’s time I correct that imbalance, I think. A possibly interesting story:

I lived and worked in England in the mid and late 1980s, and many of my colleagues were serious CM enthusiasts (as was I). We chatted about CM a lot. We listened to BBC Radio 3 as well as to our own music collections (LPs!) and attended concerts when we could. Anyway, among these CM friends there was an anti-Barbirolli group who seemed to be affiliated with a sort of nation-wide anti-Barbirolli mafia. I had heard of Barbirolli but knew nothing about him, and as a foreigner, I tended just to listen passively when discussions became a little heated regarding what I considered primarily English concerns. The anti-Barbirolli voices were strong and the best anyone else said about him was that he was not all bad. I heard a lot of negative stories about him. They actually “rubbished” him comprehensively. Repeating all the stories and arguments is not really my thing, but I’ll say that in all these 30 years since then, during which I have acquired my CD collection, I have avoided Barbirolli. Now here come numerous well-informed and sophisticated TC voices to praise Barbirolli’s Mahler. Very interesting.


----------



## Becca

Simplicissimus said:


> This thread is eye-opening for me because I have long held a negative view of Sir John Barbirolli, which has caused me not to know his work at all. It's time I correct that imbalance, I think. A possibly interesting story:
> 
> I lived and worked in England in the mid and late 1980s, and many of my colleagues were serious CM enthusiasts (as was I). We chatted about CM a lot. We listened to BBC Radio 3 as well as to our own music collections (LPs!) and attended concerts when we could. Anyway, among these CM friends there was an anti-Barbirolli group who seemed to be affiliated with a sort of nation-wide anti-Barbirolli mafia. I had heard of Barbirolli but knew nothing about him, and as a foreigner, I tended just to listen passively when discussions became a little heated regarding what I considered primarily English concerns. The anti-Barbirolli voices were strong and the best anyone else said about him was that he was not all bad. I heard a lot of negative stories about him. They actually "rubbished" him comprehensively. Repeating all the stories and arguments is not really my thing, but I'll say that in all these 30 years since then, during which I have acquired my CD collection, I have avoided Barbirolli. Now here come numerous well-informed and sophisticated TC voices to praise Barbirolli's Mahler. Very interesting.


It is a bit off-topic but here are suggestions of places to start:
Sibelius - Symphony #2 / Royal Philharmonic
Vaughan Williams - Symphony #6 / Bavarian Radio Symphony
Vaughan Williams - Tallis Fantasia / Sinfonia of London
Mahler - Symphony #2 / Stuttgart RSO
Mahler - Symphony #9 / Berlin PO
Beethoven - Symphony #3 / BBCSO


----------



## Knorf

I like Barbirolli's Brahms with Vienna, too.


----------



## Becca

Ohh, and the Bruckner 8th


----------



## Knorf

I assume Barbirolli fans are aware of the following, due to be released in a month or so:
https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8786824--sir-john-barbirolli-the-complete-warner-recordings


----------



## Becca

I don't believe in cycles of works let alone monster boxes like that!


----------



## Merl

Like most conductors, I like some of what Barbirolli did (his live Dvorak 7, etc). All conductors have their detractors. There are those that trash all Barbirolli recordings (eg. DR. David Wright) but others loved him. 
As always I say listen with your own ears and don't be swayed by what others say. If you like what you hear then all is fine. If not you're free not to listen again. The reason I posted the communication from my friend Tony is I used to knock about with him at school and knew his dad was a Halle member. It wasn't to trash Glorious John. He genuinely quite liked JBvs humour, he just didn't rate his as a conductor.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Merl said:


> Like most conductors, I like some of what Barbirolli did (his live Dvorak 7, etc). All conductors have their detractors. There are those that trash all Barbirolli recordings (eg. DR. David Wright) but others loved him.
> As always I say listen with your own ears and don't be swayed by what others say. If you like what you hear then all is fine. If not you're free not to listen again. The reason I posted the communication from my friend Tony is I used to knock about with him at school and knew his dad was a Halle member. It wasn't to trash Glorious John. He genuinely quite liked JBvs humour, he just didn't rate his as a conductor.


Indeed. My hat is off to all the younger CM enthusiasts who listen with their own ears. I was fully 50 years old before I really started to do that. It's easy to surrender one's ears to music critics and opinionated friends, harder to put in the time and effort (mostly enjoyable) needed in order to make really thoughtful and satisfactory choices in music.


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> I don't believe in cycles of works let alone monster boxes like that!


I understand. The big Barbirolli box is not for me; I am not remotely enough into his conducting to want so much of it!

The big Skrowaczewski box is just about the only large overview of a single conductor that I have. But that one I love!



Merl said:


> ...As always I say listen with your own ears and don't be swayed by what others say. If you like what you hear then all is fine. If not you're free not to listen again...


Well said, my friend!

It bears repeating: in great music, no one performer or conductor can ever have all of the answers.



Simplicissimus said:


> It's easy to surrender one's ears to music critics and opinionated friends, harder to put in the time and effort (mostly enjoyable) needed in order to make really thoughtful and satisfactory choices in music.


Agreed! I think we're pretty much on the same page.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I consider Barbirolli the reference in Mahler (especially 2, 5, 6, 9), but beyond Mahler my favorites of his recordings include:

- Dvořák 8th, 1957 EMI
- Elgar Enigma variations, 1957 EMI
- Vaughan Williams/Elgar “English string music” EMI
- Vaughan Williams, London symphony, 1957 Dutton/EMI (must have been a good year for Big John)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

His RPO Sibelius 2 just might be the greatest individual Sibelius recording I’ve ever heard, and I’m a Sib symphony nut. The Koussevitsky 7th comes close though


----------



## Merl

Barbirolli's intense dislike for Szell explained. I was wondering where that came from.

https://slippedisc.com/2018/02/when-george-szell-and-john-barbirolli-chased-the-same-wife/


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Just noticed this bizarre coincidence: Szell died on July 30, 1970, exactly one day after Barbirolli. I guess he wanted to chase him into the afterlife.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just noticed this bizarre coincidence: Szell died on July 30, 1970, exactly one day after Barbirolli. I guess he wanted to chase him into the afterlife.


Wow, that really is a weird coincidence.


----------



## Gray Bean

His EMI recording of the 5th is my all time favorite. I let a friend hear it.. He simply said it was too slow. Oh, well.
Still...I adore it. Fantastic!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Gray Bean said:


> His EMI recording of the 5th is my all time favorite. I let a friend hear it.. He simply said it was too slow. Oh, well.
> Still...I adore it. Fantastic!


I'm with you, GB! Some people only hear the outer shell and not everything else that's going on.

Same with the 6th. I heard David Hurwitz describe the first movement as dull because of the slow tempo. Are you kidding me? This is one of the most devastating, earth-shattering recordings of anything I know. But all he notices is the tempo?


----------



## realdealblues

I dislike getting into these threads because too many people can't respect other opinions and take it as personal attack on their sacred cow...

My Mahler recording collection is second only to my Beethoven collection, but Mahler is the composer I associate most with. I have hundreds of Mahler recordings and I have spent years internalizing them, pouring over scores, reading dozens of books, letters, etc. on Mahler's life and work for over 20 years. 

Do I consider myself an authority? Not by a long shot. 
Do I consider myself a deeply effected fan of his music? Yes.

Because I am passionate about Mahler and his music and hold it in such high regard and with such respect, I will only comment as far as Barbirolli's recordings of Mahler go, I would not put any of his Mahler recordings on any list of favorites or recommendable or need to hear.


----------



## Gray Bean

That’s fair enough. I have so much Mahler I’ve given up counting. The listening is the thing. The adventure is exploring new recordings while also living with the tried and true old friends. I love Barbirolli and Bernstein and Tennstedt and Walter and many, many more but I am continually listening to and collecting new ones and reissues. I have been collecting and enjoying the Fischer/Weimar set recently as well as Gabriel Feltz. Great fun!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I consider Barbirolli the reference in Mahler (especially 2, 5, 6, 9), but beyond Mahler my favorites of his recordings include:
> 
> - Dvořák 8th, 1957 EMI
> - Elgar Enigma variations, 1957 EMI
> - Vaughan Williams/Elgar "English string music" EMI
> - Vaughan Williams, London symphony, 1957 Dutton/EMI (must have been a good year for Big John)


Very nice selections, especially that wonderful Barbirolli/Dvorak Eighth


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Whenever I hear Barbirolli’s 9th, I have a tough time envisioning how music-making can be more personal, more passionate. The Adagio is the most heart-rending rendition I know.


----------



## Simon23

Top "Mahlerian" conductor. 5, 6, 9 - one of the best records. Songs with J. Baker is great too. 

I really want to hear his 3th on BBC Legends.


----------



## Superflumina

His 5th is excellent, can't remember if I heard other Mahler recordings by him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> Because I am passionate about Mahler and his music and hold it in such high regard and with such respect, I will only comment as far as Barbirolli's recordings of Mahler go, I would not put any of his Mahler recordings on any list of favorites or recommendable or need to hear.


So what is it you hear in Barbirolli's Mahler that you dislike so much?


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So what is it you hear in Barbirolli's Mahler that you dislike so much?


Mahler was both composer and conductor. He gave more detailed notes in his scores as to how to perform his works than probably anyone. Many of these notes and directions were written down to create a desired effects. When you ignore those directions and notes you lose a lot of what Mahler intended you to hear.

I have too much going on in my world right now to go into some huge discussion about it but I'll try to summarize:

If you take something as simple as say a Strauss Waltz that was written for no other reason than for bunch of people to dance to at a ball and you make it undanceable by any number of means, you lose Strauss's desired effect. Can in be interesting played that way? Sure. Are folks allowed to change it's desired effect? Sure. Is it the best representation of what Strauss intended? No. Why? Because it has lost it's desired effect.

I feel the same way about Barbirolli's Mahler. It most frequently doesn't represent what Mahler's desired intensions/effects were based upon his notes in his scores as to how his works should be performed, which is why I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, other than the song collections with Janet Baker. I would recommend those to anyone wishing to hear the songs as there is less for Barbirolli to distort, but as far as the symphony recordings while I can see why someone might find them interesting to hear, I don't find them the best representation of what Mahler wanted you to hear. And it has nothing to do with following the score down to the letter, it has to do with the overall picture and using the notes and directions left by Mahler to create an overall vision still within Mahler's vision and I find Barbirolli lacking in that department.

That's all I have to say on the subject. Others can disagree and that's fine. It makes no difference to me as they can view Mahler in any light they wish, but for me personally it doesn't work.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So it’s not whether you like or dislike what you hear, but it’s more that you think it is incorrect?


----------



## Becca

OK, we all have our own views on what works and what doesn't but when I consider the WIDE variety of interpretations by Mengelberg, Walter, Klemperer and Adler, all of who had connections with Mahler and so knew his intent, I can't believe that Mahler would object to some freedom of interpretation. It isn't as if conductors such as Barbirolli took many liberties, I would say a lot less than many well-regarded conductors and certainly no more than any of the aforementioned conductors.


----------



## realdealblues

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So it's not whether you like or dislike what you hear, but it's more that you think it is incorrect?





Becca said:


> OK, we all have our own views on what works and what doesn't but when I consider the WIDE variety of interpretations by Mengelberg, Walter, Klemperer and Adler, all of who had connections with Mahler and so knew his intent, I can't believe that Mahler would object to some freedom of interpretation. It isn't as if conductors such as Barbirolli took many liberties, I would say a lot less than many well-regarded conductors and certainly no more than any of the aforementioned conductors.


To the first question. It's honestly both. I don't like what I hear but there is a good deal of it that is because I feel it changes the desired impact Mahler often intended the work to have as a complete "whole" conception and I feel other recordings bring out that aspect better.

To the second. I don't think Mahler objected to some freedom of interpretation at all, in fact I think there is a fairly decent range of interpretation in Mahler, but as to how much other conductors took vs what I feel Barbirolli often takes is where we differ and it's not necessarily that he misses every note and detail and the others don't, it's often the overall vision of the work where he makes it feel "lopsided" for lack of a better description instead of a cohesive vision in my opinion.

As I said, it's simply my feelings and maybe one day I can expound on it more but I have so many things on my plate right now that I just don't have time to go into great details. I've tried to give a simple answer as I won't be back on for a while, if you can somewhat understand where I am coming from great. If not, sorry, it is what it is.

I was told I had been asked a direct question, I got on for a few minutes to give a simplified direct answer as to why I feel the way I do. You guys enjoy Barbirolli's vision, that's great, listen and enjoy. I know many others who share my feeling, so what? Why should anyone care what I think anyway? I'm out...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

realdealblues said:


> To the first question. It's honestly both. I don't like what I hear but there is a good deal of it that is because I feel it changes the desired impact Mahler often intended the work to have as a complete "whole" conception and *I feel other recordings bring out that aspect better*.


That's more what I was looking for, thanks.

As long as you don't mind my loving Barbirolli's Mahler, I don't mind your not liking it. Everyone has different taste.


----------



## Junkner

I came late to this post, but Barbirolli was the first Mahler Fifth and Ninth Symphony I ever heard. I am not near the expert most of you guys are, but I try to research either by reviews or by listening before I buy anything. I have many other recordings of the Fifth and the ninth, but I still love Barbirolli, and I expect nothing will come along to displace them. Not to say I do not like other recordings as much or more, but I will still find shelf room for JB. Also especially true for English music like Vaughan Williams and Elgar. 
Not to go off-road, but I love Bruckner as well. Klemperer was the first Bruckner Fourth I listened to, so I will always have soft spot for that recording, and all Klemperer Bruckner recordings.


----------



## Becca

Strange that I was unaware of this but I just came across this M3 by Barbirolli and the Berlin Philharmonic from 1969 (so late Barbirolli). I haven't listened to all of it yet so won't comment but will post it for others...






P.S. Typical of YouTube ... I was searching for Sibelius!!


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> Strange that I was unaware of this but I just came across this M3 by Barbirolli and the Berlin Philharmonic from 1969 (so late Barbirolli). I haven't listened to all of it yet so won't comment but will post it for others...


Wow! I didn't know about this, either. Saving for later.


----------



## wkasimer

Becca said:


> Strange that I was unaware of this but I just came across this M3 by Barbirolli and the Berlin Philharmonic from 1969 (so late Barbirolli). I haven't listened to all of it yet so won't comment but will post it for others...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Typical of YouTube ... I was searching for Sibelius!!


I assume that this is the same performance issued on Testament:


----------



## Becca

^^Yes it is..........


----------



## Neo Romanza

I think of Barbirolli as a fine Mahlerian. I wish he had recorded the complete symphonies for EMI. Those Testament recordings don't sound that great to me.

I bought this remastered set not too long ago and have been rather pleased with it:


----------

