Dvorak Symphonies: Complete Sets & Singles

[Madiel]

And one of them is a whopping 70 minutes long!  I first heard it in the Stamitz Q set and it didn't really justify its Brucknerian length.

Possibly not helped by the Stamitz being the only people who manage to make it take longer than 70 minutes.

The Prague scrape in just under. The Panocha only take 56 minutes, through a combination of sheer zippiness and maybe they cut some repeats? The Zemlinsky quartet slash and burn it down to 35 minutes.

[DavidW]

The Zemlinsky quartet slash and burn it down to 35 minutes.

If I ever want to listen to that work again Zemlinsky will be the one then!

[Olias]

For me, the first six quartets are like the first three symphonies, nice, but a bit too long and more influenced by the style of Wagner or Bruckner.  He's not copying them but it doesn't feel like Dvorak being himself.  I'd love to like the early works more but they haven't grabbed me as much as the music he wrote beginning around the mid-1870s.  However, starting with SQ #7, there are still eight quartets that are among the best in the genre.

[Mirror Image]

For me, the first six quartets are like the first three symphonies, nice, but a bit too long and more influenced by the style of Wagner or Bruckner.  He's not copying them but it doesn't feel like Dvorak being himself.  I'd love to like the early works more but they haven't grabbed me as much as the music he wrote beginning around the mid-1870s.  However, starting with SQ #7, there are still eight quartets that are among the best in the genre.

I've gone on record here saying I love the 1st symphony and I stand by this opinion. I think it's a magnificent work despite whatever mud one wants to fling at it.

[Brahmsian]

I've gone on record here saying I love the 1st symphony and I stand by this opinion. I think it's a magnificent work despite whatever mud one wants to fling at it.

Ditto.

[Roasted Swan]

I've gone on record here saying I love the 1st symphony and I stand by this opinion. I think it's a magnificent work despite whatever mud one wants to fling at it.

yes absolutely - for a Symphony No.1 it is a remarkable acheivement and the positives far outway any longeurs that in all probability Dvorak would have removed had he had the opportunity to revise the work.....

[Olias]

I've gone on record here saying I love the 1st symphony and I stand by this opinion. I think it's a magnificent work despite whatever mud one wants to fling at it.

No mud flinging from me, just that it hasn't grabbed me as much as everything from the 4th onwards.  I didn't mean to infer that it is a poor work, in fact, it is actually a good work.  I merely contend that (for me), it represents a style of composing that existed before Dvorak evolved into the musical voice that gives me the most pleasure in listening to his works.  I have listened to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd many times and will continue to try and enjoy them more as time goes on.

[Mirror Image]

yes absolutely - for a Symphony No.1 it is a remarkable acheivement and the positives far outway any longeurs that in all probability Dvorak would have removed had he had the opportunity to revise the work.....

Indeed. We'd all be so lucky to compose a 1st symphony as good as this one.

No mud flinging from me, just that it hasn't grabbed me as much as everything from the 4th onwards.  I didn't mean to infer that it is a poor work, in fact, it is actually a good work.  I merely contend that (for me), it represents a style of composing that existed before Dvorak evolved into the musical voice that gives me the most pleasure in listening to his works.  I have listened to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd many times and will continue to try and enjoy them more as time goes on.

Oh, I never thought that you thought it was a poor work --- it simply doesn't resonate with you and that's fine. I was just interjecting my own opinion of it. I actually liked it on first-listen when I heard it so many years ago.

[Olias]

Oh, I never thought that you thought it was a poor work --- it simply doesn't resonate with you and that's fine. I was just interjecting my own opinion of it. I actually liked it on first-listen when I heard it so many years ago.

I really would like to do a score analysis on it soon.  Maybe it will rub off on me when I examine the nuts and bolts of it.  I'm in the middle of an analysis of the 6th Symphony right now so maybe after that I'll focus on the 1st.

[Mirror Image]

I really would like to do a score analysis on it soon.  Maybe it will rub off on me when I examine the nuts and bolts of it.  I'm in the middle of an analysis of the 6th Symphony right now so maybe after that I'll focus on the 1st.

Sounds like a plan, Mekel.

[Biffo]

Then I should add that my remarks above were based on a detailed inspection that I did some time ago, of a single track - Symphony No.6, 1st movt.
The 6th is to my ears the best-recorded of the Kertesz symphony set (I've never heard the Requiem), but even so it retains the characteristic soundscape - a rather steely sheen to the strings particularly - that characterised all these recordings.  The worst example being the 8th.
I compared:
1. my own needledrop from the original-issue Decca vinyl
2. CD - FLAC ripped on my PC from the Decca 4-5-6 twofer
3. 'CD' - that is, redbook FLAC downloaded from Presto, from the 2014 compilation
4a. The remastered compilation as 96/24 FLAC from Presto
4b. The same 96/24 FLAC resampled on my own PC to redbook FLAC (to be more comparable with 2 and 3)

I level-matched all five samples, although really there was no real need, the differences were all well under 0.5dB.
I compared these visually (looking at general waveforms etc), and using some software analysis, and listening.  I should say straight away that there was no significant difference either visually or audibly, between (2) and (3), nor between (4a) and (4b).  1 and 4 were visually and audibly very similar, apart of course from the higher ground noise level of the vinyl.  1 / 4 were visually different from 2 / 3, and audibly (but really only very subtly so).  From visual inspection, I would say that 4 has been processed, but (IMHO) in a good way.

I finally took the plunge and bought the 2014 set. So far I have listened to the first four symphonies. You describe the sound as bright, I found the 1st symphony worse that - I would describe the sound as coarse. After the 1st the sound improved, with the 3rd being the best. I have the 4th on LP but I haven't done a direct comparison.  Now looking forward to hearing the rest.

[DavidW]

I finally took the plunge and bought the 2014 set. So far I have listened to the first four symphonies. You describe the sound as bright, I found the 1st symphony worse that - I would describe the sound as coarse. After the 1st the sound improved, with the 3rd being the best. I have the 4th on LP but I haven't done a direct comparison.  Now looking forward to hearing the rest.

I listened to the 9th a few days ago and the sound was actually warm and not bright.  It might not be up to 2020s standards for sonics, but it sounded excellent.  Just keep in mind I listened on speakers and not headphones.  Things that might sound harsh on headphones usually don't as much after traveling 14 feet to my ears.

[aukhawk]

I finally took the plunge and bought the 2014 set. So far I have listened to the first four symphonies. You describe the sound as bright, I found the 1st symphony worse that - I would describe the sound as coarse. After the 1st the sound improved, with the 3rd being the best. I have the 4th on LP but I haven't done a direct comparison.  Now looking forward to hearing the rest.

The Kertesz cycle was recorded over a period of time - earliest Feb '63 was the 8th, and I find this a bit of a trial to listen to - latest Dec '66 the 1st and the 9th - by which time the LSO had already embarked on another complete Dvorak symphony cycle, with Rowicki conducting and recorded at a different venue.  Nos 2, 3 and 4 were also recorded in late '66, and nos. 5 and 6 (6 is my favourite sound-wise) in Dec '65, the 7th in Mar '64.

I'm happy with what I have, which is basically the Kertesz cycle backed by the very different Belohlavek cycle, and bolstered by Dohnanyi in nos.6-9.  I also have and like the Dorati 7/8 on Mercury Living Presence.  I've never yet found a 9th I really like 100%.
Out of curiosty I've recently dipped into two others praised here - Suitner and Anguelov.  Suitner (the 8th) was disappointing - the sound to my ears sharing many of the same characteristics of the Kertesz cycle, and the conducting similarly straight-ahead as well.  Anguelov (the 6th) I enjoyed very much - a slightly smaller, more transparent soundscape, and the conductor much more indulgent with tempo variations, helping me to stay interested.