Jim Tobin said:

>Certainly for the earlier period I would put Boston ahead of the London
>orchestras (I will never forget a London review of many years ago which
>found the touring Boston Symphony just too perfect in comparison with
>the home team which had a character he liked even with the imperfections
>in their playing.  Sorry I can't give a name or a date.) For today I
>would be inclined to add the Kirov to the list. "

I do think I remember this.  Around mid 1960's? The review was discussed
in Boston.  I believe it was one of Leinsdorf's tours with the orchestra.
Leinsdorf was not popular.  I believe he added extra rehearsals and was
a strong task master.  His predecessor was Munch, who often cancelled
rehearsals and relied on spontaneity.  Quite unlike Leinsdorf.  During
this time Michael Steinberg was music critic for the Boston Globe and
discussed these issues; the flexible interpretation and that which did not
vary from one performance to another.  For me, Leinsdorf certainly expanded
my horizons.  Mahler, Mozart, Berg.......  But, his approach created morale
problems, and apparently ended his music directorship career.  I think he
remained a guest conductor after that.  It may have been Steinberg who
mentioned the London review in an article.  I'm not certain but I do
remember it being discussed.  I enjoyed Leinsdorf's conducting, but thought
at times it could seem sterile.  Still haven't heard anything like those
phenomenal Munch concerts, though.

Regards,

Tom Connor