Steve Schwartz wrote:

>Karl Miller responds to various posters:
>
>>I like both of them, but think the Second is a masterpiece.
>
>Why do you think Barber withdrew it?  I think it quite fine as well (in
>Simpson's book on the symphony, Peter Jona Korn calls Barber's first a
>masterpiece and dumps on the second, except for the second movement -
>but Korn has other eccentric judgments as well).

The story I heard, or pehaps read in one of the Barber bios was that he
and his publisher were having dinner one evening and during the discussion
Barber supposedly expressed his frustration that the piece was too
dissonant.  As the story goes, the next day they went to the warehouse
and destroyed the conductor's score and parts.  As I recall, on that
same day, other scores suffered the same fate.  My guess is that he was
probably frustrated that the work had not been performed as often as the
First.

In many respects, it was an empty gesture, as the score had already been
published in a study score format.  My memory also includes a reference
that a set of parts was found in England, perhaps those which were used
when Barber had recorded the piece.  I find it interesting listening
to Barber's own reading of the work, that he seemed to smooth over the
dissonances.  His tempo is slow when compared to other performances,
especially Koussevitzky's.  The piece had been revised after the
Koussevitzky performances.  My listening to the Koussevitzky performance
(still my favorite), I can understand the rationale for most of the
changes.

For me, the one remaining curiosity is a 1950 performance Barber gave
with the Boston Symphony.  During that time, the BSO would broadcast
it's rehearsals only.  A good friend and THE BSO authority tells me that
a copy of that rehearsal survives.  It would be wonderful to hear what
Barber might have done with the piece at that time, especially since I
would assume the sound of Koussevitzky's reading would have stayed in
Barber's mind.

While I find a few weak spots, I consider it one of Barber's best works.
I have the Koussevitzky (in decent sound-I processed a tape of some lousy
transfers done for a radio series-used CEDAR on it), a broadcast with
Alsop and Minnesota (pretty good); the Naxos issue (not as strong to my
ears); the Schenck (spirited playing and a pioneering recording, the
first after Barber's) and the Jarvi (which I like primarily for the sound
and the way he handles the climax at the end of the first movement...however,
I would like a bit more ritard and a bit more timpani) On the other hand,
I don't find his vision of the final movement to be most convincing.  I
rarely listen to Barber's version.  Perhaps a better transfer of the
original tapes might give me a better perspective on his recording.

Sorry to carry on about the piece, but it happens to be on my mind lately.
We just discussed it in the class I teach on American Music.  I had
forgotten how compelling I find the work.

Karl