Tony Duggan wrote:

>David Harbin wrote:
>
>> ... review of the Barbirolli Mahler 9:
>>
>> It was a relief to read it as I bought the CD and disliked it so much
>> I took it back within days.
>
>On the other hand, you might care to read my own review, for Music Web,
>of this Barbirolli recording which differs quite considerably from that
>of Mr. Hurwtiz.  ...

I own the earlier EMI release...  So I went back to listen well.
Then I read the Hurwitz review and then Tony Duggan's.  Apart from "de
gustibus...", I don't understand how Hurwitz could have written his
review with any degree of thoughtfulness or responsibility.

Admittedly, I am partial to Barbirolli (especially in Mahler and Sibelius).
However, I have to defend this recording against Hurwitz's statement
that it is bettered by (and here he mentions practically every available
version) and continues on to say "It is neither particularly well played
nor insightfully interpreted."

His review does not provide any insight into interpretation -- whether
Barbirolli's or his own ideas on it -- just outward first impressions
based on preconceived ideas (or caricatures) of what Mahler 9th is
supposed to sound like (as in "the first Landler lacks cloddishness,
while the waltz fails to capture any sense of frenzy.") Tony Duggan's
review gives us a level-headed look at a historic recording, with insight
into where Sir John's interpretation was coming from.

The bottom line is whether you like what you hear.  The problem I have
is that the Hurwitz review seems off-hand, shallow and, well, just plain
mean.  I don't know, but it seems that he doesn't *like* Barbirolli,
and listened to the CD through that filter.  It seems irresponsible to
pontificate with such prejudice, especially to those who look to reviews
for help in buying CM CDs.

Miguel Muelle
[log in to unmask]
http://mmuelle.home.mindspring.com