Tony Duggan wrote:

>I know the thrust of Jane's post was regarding the Symphony but it's worth
>pointing out that Barbirolli only tackled "In The South" at the very end
>of his life - in the final months, in fact - at the prompting of Michael
>Kennedy.

I thank Tony for this information.  I've always wondered why Barbirolli
didn't record In the South.  I figured it had to be in his repertoire:  he
just hadn't gotten around to putting it on disk.  Apparently that wasn't
the case.  Any idea why he stayed away from the piece? It seems a natural
for him, not just by heritage, but temperament.

>Surprising when you consider Sir John's Italian ancestry.  He
>played it as a "warm up" to a series of performances of Bruckner's 8th in
>Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and London in May of 1970 with the Halle, just
>a few weeks before his death.  ...

I got this recording from Berkshire Records for $3.  Sadly, I just got
the latest catalog, and most of the BBC Classics stuff was picked off,
including this one.  (Besides this, I bought an Elgar Violin Concerto with
Haendel/Pritchard, and a Rubbra Fourth with Handley.  I haven't heard the
Elgar, but the Rubbra is very good.) If you're interested, keep an eye on
their catalogs or their website.

As for the Bruckner under discussion, any admirer of Barbirolli should
have it.  It's typical of the conductor's work, very romantic in his unique
way, sometimes impulsive, but always interesting, human, heartfelt and
passionate.  It's also the only recording I know of Barbirolli conducting
Bruckner(Are there others?), and he does have a flair for it.  On the other
hand, Brucknerians who are not also ardently disposed toward Sir John need
not despair.  (I've heard it only twice so I don't want to imply this is
any kind of a datailed, considered review--just the way I see it now.) Much
as I like it, it's not a "must have" strictly for the sake of Bruckner.
Tony's right.  It is very well recorded, given it's an air check, but this
is not your "demonstration" recording, and there is some stridency in
the upper strings.  The biggest problem, though, is that it's a bit of a
clambake in the brass.  There are a lot of misses, some of them jarring,
though other times, particularly in the finale, the brass do quite well.
(It is a live performance with an audience.) The Halle carries out
Barbirolli's romantic wishes very well, but without the burnish of the
Vienna or Berlin Phils--or the Saarbrucken orchestra on Arte Nova--or the
clarity of Georg Tintner's lesser known orchestras.  I guess what I'm
saying is that if you missed this issue, it's no cause for jumping off
buildings.  Still, I'm glad I have it.  It's Barbirolli's last recording,
I think, and it is a fine, romantically robust interpretation.

I have another observation which is also a question.  I have always been a
great admirer of Barbirolli.  I have a ton of his recordings, many of which
I bought because they were his recordings.  But what comes to mind after
all that discussion of his problems in New York with the Philharmonic and
the critics, is that, much as I hate to admit it, though he conducted the
Halle for something like 26 years, it never developed into a real world
class orchestra.  (Admittedly, this is based solely on recordings.  I've
never heard the orchestra live.) This recording, I assume without splices,
makes me wonder more about this.  I'm not that familiar with Barbirolli's
career, but it seems to me that, great as he was as an interpreter, he was
not a great orchestra builder.  Am I right? I'd be interested in comments
on this.

Roger Hecht