Dvorak: Symphonies

[BBMmk2]

I have only found a thread of the 7th Symphony. I am thinking about getting the Kubelik cycle, as I have another Kubelik and Kertesz box as well. What you mighty Forum members think?

[Dave2002]

I have only found a thread of the 7th Symphony. I am thinking about getting the Kubelik cycle, as I have another Kubelik and Kertesz box as well. What you mighty Forum members think?

There are several good sets of Dvořák's symphonies. The top recommendation for a long while has been Kertész, though others are also worth hearing. Do you really want a complete set?

If not, there are many good versions of the individual symphonies. Rowicki and Davis have done some good ones. For individual symphonies I have enjoyed Bruno Walter in 8, and Jansons in some of the earlier ones, and Monteux and Carlos Païta in number 7.

[johnb]

I have great affection for Dvorak and would also very much like to build up an "ideal" cycle which has decent sound (yes, I know that "ideal" is a silly word to use - but you get the idea).

I love the Kertesz performances but really dislike the transfers which (to me) are very bright indeed and are tiring to listen to - a great pity. IMO they badly need remastering. I also have the Suitner set, the sound of which is the opposite - rather dull.

(By the way, I was listening to the Chung/VPO recording of No3 the other day - utterly delightful.)

[BBMmk2]

I have great affection for Dvorak and would also very much like to build up an "ideal" cycle which has decent sound (yes, I know that "ideal" is a silly word to use - but you get the idea).

I love the Kertesz performances but really dislike the transfers which (to me) are very bright indeed and are tiring to listen to - a great pity. IMO they badly need remastering. I also have the Suitner set, the sound of which is the opposite - rather dull.

(By the way, I was listening to the Chung/VPO recording of No3 the other day - utterly delightful.)

Yes certainly No.3 and the earlier ones be4fore No.6. be great to hear about other members views.

[Beef Oven!]

Yes certainly No.3 and the earlier ones be4fore No.6. be great to hear about other members views.

I cut my teeth with Vaclav Neuman's Czech Phil symphonies on Supraphon, 3-9. Then picked up on 1 & 2 on Naxos. I later checked out Karajan on EMI & Deutsche Grammophon. Wonderful.

As people are saying, all the recordings are fine and you can't go wrong with any of them.

[pastoralguy]

The recent set from the Czech Philharmonic under George Whitehead (aka Belohlavek!) on Decca is superb on both musical and sound quality terms. You also get a wonderful performance of the 'cello concerto with Alicia Weilerstein.

And... The (R)SNO under Jarvi on Chandos is pretty good too.

[Pabmusic]

Yes certainly No.3 and the earlier ones be4fore No.6. be great to hear about other members views.

The only one I have any problems with is no. 1, which really needs to be more concise (I know Dvorak never got the chance). 4 is really good, except that the 'rum-ti-tum' rhythm in the last movement is overdone (the slow movt has a great pre-echo of Elgar's The Kingdom).

[richardfinegold]

Dvorak tried to suppress his first 4 Symphonies. I believe that his instincts were correct and see no necessity for a complete Cycle.
I like the Szell/Cleveland set of the last 3, and in 6 I prefer Karel Ancerl and the Czech PO. 5 is well served by Kertesz. I really don't have an opinion on the 1-4.

[Barbirollians]

Barbirolli's 7-9 are superb especially No 8.

[gurnemanz]

Dvorak tried to suppress his first 4 Symphonies. I believe that his instincts were correct and see no necessity for a complete Cycle.
I like the Szell/Cleveland set of the last 3, and in 6 I prefer Karel Ancerl and the Czech PO. 5 is well served by Kertesz. I really don't have an opinion on the 1-4.

Over the years I have never bothered with 1-4 without actually knowing he tried to suppressed them. I also don't know 5 and this may well be a gap to fill. I like Pesek and Czech Phil in 6.

[Barbirollians]

I do not know 1-4 either . The Fifth is a lovely work . There was a cracking version with Mariss Jansons as I recall

[Pabmusic]

Dvorak tried to suppress his first 4 Symphonies...

Not so, Richard. On the autograph full score of the New World he listed all the symphonies except for No. 1, which was lost. In 1887 he revised No. 2 (which dates from 1865). He submitted Nos. 3 & 4 in a competition, for which he won 400 gulden.

The fact is that Simrock chose to publish what we now know as No. 6 first - as 'No. 1' - followed by 7 as 'No. 2', 5 as 'No. 3' (with a false, later, opus number - Dvorak colluding in this), 8 as 'No. 4' and 9 as 'No. 5'. The real No. 4 was published in 1912. The real No. 1 turned up in 1923. 2 and 3 were first published in the 1950s. No suppression, just circumstances and machinations.

[Nick Armstrong]

I am thinking about getting the Kubelik cycle

I wouldn't.

Last year was Dvorak Symphonies year for me, and quite exhaustive testing led to the revelation of the year for me, Rowicki's set with the LSO (as mentioned by Dave2002 above):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dvorak-Symphonies-Decca-Collectors-Edition/dp/B0033KR5Z2

Our esteemed fellow Forumite Tony is playing in at least one of them, I recall.

The performances and recordings have a life, a warmth, a depth and an energy which for me set them apart from others.

If I had to pick the single one which "changed my life", it would be the Fourth Symphony, as singled out by pabs above - an intoxicating piece and performance in that box.

[Pabmusic]

...If I had to pick the single one which "changed my life", it would be the Fourth Symphony, as singled out by pabs above - an intoxicating piece and performance in that box.

And this encouraged me to play it through again (Jarvi/SNO). Wonderful. I even take back some of my criticism of the last movement. It's clearly a young man's work (he was barely 30) - with all the 'faults' that implies. But what faults! A fine first movement with an unforgettable (and very Czech) second subject. A really beautiful slow movement (Wagnerian of Tannhauser - but Elgar's The Kingdom too). Catchy scherzo that's not at all like a Slavonic dance. And a finale that, though garrulous, can be forgiven for the pleasure of its company - and it has an excellent, soaring second subject

There's more for the cymbal player to do than the single very quiet note in the New World!

[Roehre]

...The fact is that Simrock chose to publish what we now know as No. 6 first - as 'No. 1' - followed by 7 as 'No. 2', 5 as 'No. 3' (with a false, later, opus number - Dvorak colluding in this), 8 as 'No. 4' and 9 as 'No. 5'. The real No. 4 was published in 1912. The real No. 1 turned up in 1923. 2 and 3 were first published in the 1950s. No suppression, just circumstances and machinations.

The symphony in F , now no.5, has got two opus numbers: 24 and 76, and even the "Bells of Zlonice" (no.1) was given one: opus 3. Using the original opus numbers (or their Burghauser equivalents) the chronological order appears automatically.
Using opus 76 for the fifth reconstructs the numbering within the series of the "complete 5" symphonies.