Dvorak's Den

Started by hornteacher, April 07, 2007, 06:41:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brian

While we're talking about early works with different versions, does anybody know the story about the alternative version of Symphony No. 2 which Witold Rowicki recorded?

Daverz

Quote from: Maestro267 on January 28, 2022, 07:29:01 AM
Is the thematic material for Quartet No. 3 worth 65+ minutes of it? Nobody bar the most eccentric of composers has even attempted anything remotely on that scale in the string quartet realm.

Bloch's String Quartet No 1 is nearly an hour.  It sustains the length easily.

Symphonic Addict

Quote from: Brian on January 28, 2022, 05:12:40 PM
While we're talking about early works with different versions, does anybody know the story about the alternative version of Symphony No. 2 which Witold Rowicki recorded?

No, please, tell us!
Part of the tragedy of the Palestinians is that they have essentially no international support for a good reason: they've no wealth, they've no power, so they've no rights.

Noam Chomsky

Madiel

Quote from: Brian on January 28, 2022, 05:12:40 PM
While we're talking about early works with different versions, does anybody know the story about the alternative version of Symphony No. 2 which Witold Rowicki recorded?

The only reason I know about that recording being different is because of you mentioning it. I didn't find much more information other than the fact that the good Dvorak website does say the work was revised.

http://www.antonin-dvorak.cz/en/symphony2

It's not clear from that whether the original version survives. I guess maybe it does? Similar to how both versions of string quartet no.1 survive, even though most people don't touch the early one. So maybe Rowicki went for the original of the 2nd symphony.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Maestro267

Quote from: Daverz on January 28, 2022, 06:02:47 PM
Bloch's String Quartet No 1 is nearly an hour.  It sustains the length easily.

As is Schubert's Quartet No. 15. But we all know he was the master of heavenly length. But they never reach over 70 minutes like Dvorak SQ3 does.

Roasted Swan

Quote from: Madiel on January 28, 2022, 07:30:50 PM
The only reason I know about that recording being different is because of you mentioning it. I didn't find much more information other than the fact that the good Dvorak website does say the work was revised.

http://www.antonin-dvorak.cz/en/symphony2

It's not clear from that whether the original version survives. I guess maybe it does? Similar to how both versions of string quartet no.1 survive, even though most people don't touch the early one. So maybe Rowicki went for the original of the 2nd symphony.

I would be exceptionally surprised if Rowicki recorded an "original" version of Symphony No.2 for several reasons - 1) as far as I know/am aware the original version does not exist in a performing edition - the Supraphon critical editions of these scores reign supreme. 2) at the time Rowicki recorded these scores any version of the early symphonies were a rarity - the idea of recording a rarer version of an already rare work seems highly unlikely.  3) Again at the time of this recording there was little or no tradition/expectation of "urtext" editions being created or musicological research into a composer's original intentions.  4) nowhere on any version of this recording do I recall anything to the effect of "1st version". 5) The criticism levelled at Symphony 1 is that it needed revision and if Dvorak hadn't lost it he would certainly have revised it - that being the case why would he keep an original version of No.2 - again I have no sense of Dvorak being a compulsive reviser a la Bruckner.

All that said - if it does exist as a different version I'd love to hear it.  I've a copy of the critical edition of the score so I'm going to follow it with the Rowicki recording to see if any differences do jump out......

Madiel

#686
While I agree with many of your thoughts about Rowicki's time of recording , the fact is Dvorak did revise a lot of his early works, including symphonies 2 through 5. All of them were revised in much the same period in around 1887.

And I've already said the original version of string quartet no.1 survives (also revised around then), so no, by the time that Dvorak was going through this process he was no longer inclined to destroy earlier versions.

The Cypresses songs were also revised, twice, they just aren't known by that name in their later incarnation. Dvorak went back to his early works quite a lot. He revised 3 of his operas, and in one case he wrote an entire new opera to the same libretto.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Roasted Swan

Quote from: Madiel on January 29, 2022, 03:34:21 AM
While I agree with many of your thoughts about Rowicki's time of recording , the fact is Dvorak did revise a lot of his early works, including symphonies 2 through 5. All of them were revised in much the same period in around 1887.

And I've already said the original version of string quartet no.1 survives (also revised around then), so no, by the time that Dvorak was going through this process he was no longer inclined to destroy earlier versions.

The Cypresses songs were also revised, twice, they just aren't known by that name in their later incarnation. Dvorak went back to his early works quite a lot. He revised 3 of his operas, and in one case he wrote an entire new opera to the same libretto.

Apologies - I wasn't clear.  I know that Dvorak did revise works.  The criticism levelled at Symphony No.1 is simply because he never had the opportunity to revise it.  My point was that the critical/current performing editions are of the later/final revisions and there is no tradition now - let alone in the 1960's - of performing earlier versions of these works.  The only scenario I can imagine something like that happening is where a 1st publication of a set of orchestral parts has been used but again in the 60's I would imagine this as more accident than design.  No doubt at some point someone will record the 1st versions and make claims for them being "better", "fresher" in an attempt to boost sales.....

Madiel

#688
Quite possibly. Meanwhile, the Prague Quartet did the original qt no.1 in 1976 and made a point of saying they were presenting uncut versions from the Supraphon critical edition. But I gather that the critical edition was in the midst of publication. For one quartet they got it straight from Burghauser because there wasn't a publication yet.

Imagine if Rowicki knew Burghauser. Because Burghauser was already doing his work in the 1960s.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Roasted Swan

Quote from: Madiel on January 29, 2022, 03:34:21 AM
While I agree with many of your thoughts about Rowicki's time of recording , the fact is Dvorak did revise a lot of his early works, including symphonies 2 through 5. All of them were revised in much the same period in around 1887.

And I've already said the original version of string quartet no.1 survives (also revised around then), so no, by the time that Dvorak was going through this process he was no longer inclined to destroy earlier versions.

The Cypresses songs were also revised, twice, they just aren't known by that name in their later incarnation. Dvorak went back to his early works quite a lot. He revised 3 of his operas, and in one case he wrote an entire new opera to the same libretto.

Here is a note I found online regarding the Exton/Macal/Czech PO recording of Symphony No.2;

"He composed this Second Symphony between August and early October 1865, and revised it shortly afterwards, though at that stage without any prospect of it being played. In 1887, by which time he had achieved a position of eminence in Czech musical life, he reworked it again, making numerous changes of detail and some cuts, in the hope of persuading his publisher Simrock to issue it. In this he was unsuccessful: the work was to reach print only in 1959, as part of the Dvořák complete edition. But he did secure a performance, in a concert conducted by Adolf Čech in the Rudolfinum in Prague in March 1888 – for which event he made yet more changes, including further cuts apparently pencilled into the score during rehearsals. These, marked as optional in the complete edition, are observed in this recording (and the long exposition repeat in the first movement is omitted)."

My guess is that Rowicki simply plays the work complete without the optional cuts which I assume Macal did make in this recording (which I do not know and have not heard).  Here are some timings for comparisons sake (an inexact science I know);

Rowicki:     15:06 / 15:12 / 11:36 / 10:13
Kertesz:     16:26 / 14:11 / 12:34 / 11:19
Belohlavek: 12:41 / 15:32 / 12:08 / 11:20
Suitner:      12:11 / 11:21 / 11:53 / 9:56
Kubelik:      13:04 / 15:31 / 13:27 / 11:44
Neumann:   12:33 / 12:54 / 12:59 / 11:20

Madiel

Quote from: Roasted Swan on January 30, 2022, 05:30:43 AM
My guess is that Rowicki simply plays the work complete without the optional cuts which I assume Macal did make in this recording (which I do not know and have not heard). 

Seems like a very reasonable guess.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

aukhawk

#691
Struck by the similarity in timings between Kertesz and Rowicki in that table - both recording with the same orchestra at around the same time - led me to tabulate the recording dates for each cycle:

       Kertesz/LSO   Rowicki/LSO
Sym 1  1966-12-03    1970-08-19
Sym 2  1966-11-30    1970-08-21
Sym 3  1966-10-12    1971-11-29
Sym 4  1966-10-17    1970-08-25
Sym 5  1965-12-10    1967-02-03
Sym 6  1965-12-08    1965-01-07
Sym 7  1964-03-06    1971-11-29
Sym 8  1963-02-26    1969-01-18
Sym 9  1966-12-03    1969-01-18
      Kingsway Hall   Wembley Town Hall


So Decca first recorded the 8th, and then a year later the 7th, with Kertesz/LSO, 10 months after that Philips recorded the 6th with Rowicki/LSO, after which Decca recorded the same symphony with Kertesz and finished their cycle rather rapidly over the next 12 months.  Just two months after that Philips resumed their cycle with Rowicki (resuming with the 5th) and completed it over about 4 years.

Madiel

Currently becoming obsessed with non-symphonic orchestral works, and the relative lack of recordings of some of them.

The first rhapsody was written after Symphony No.4. It ought to turn up more. You'd be hard pressed to know in some quarters that there are four orchestral rhapsodies.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Brian

Quote from: Roasted Swan on January 30, 2022, 05:30:43 AM
Here is a note I found online regarding the Exton/Macal/Czech PO recording of Symphony No.2;

"He composed this Second Symphony between August and early October 1865, and revised it shortly afterwards, though at that stage without any prospect of it being played. In 1887, by which time he had achieved a position of eminence in Czech musical life, he reworked it again, making numerous changes of detail and some cuts, in the hope of persuading his publisher Simrock to issue it. In this he was unsuccessful: the work was to reach print only in 1959, as part of the Dvořák complete edition. But he did secure a performance, in a concert conducted by Adolf Čech in the Rudolfinum in Prague in March 1888 – for which event he made yet more changes, including further cuts apparently pencilled into the score during rehearsals. These, marked as optional in the complete edition, are observed in this recording (and the long exposition repeat in the first movement is omitted)."

My guess is that Rowicki simply plays the work complete without the optional cuts which I assume Macal did make in this recording (which I do not know and have not heard).  Here are some timings for comparisons sake (an inexact science I know);

Rowicki:     15:06 / 15:12 / 11:36 / 10:13
Kertesz:     16:26 / 14:11 / 12:34 / 11:19
Belohlavek: 12:41 / 15:32 / 12:08 / 11:20
Suitner:      12:11 / 11:21 / 11:53 / 9:56
Kubelik:      13:04 / 15:31 / 13:27 / 11:44
Neumann:   12:33 / 12:54 / 12:59 / 11:20
Thank you! This appears to solve the mystery! I am listening to the Macal recording now and it is clearly a third edition of the score. There is a tiny cut in the first movement recap which is not present in any other recording.

So:
1865ish unpublished original version - by process of elimination, this must be what Rowicki has.
1887 version published 1959 - used by everybody except for Rowicki and Macal.
1888 version for live concert - Macal recording

Incidentally, the Macal performance is not great, glossing over the excessive rhythmic detail which Dvorak wrote into the violas, cellos, winds etc. Excessive detail, but greatly helps to propel the music forward and give it life, rather than sounding static or unengaged.

Madiel

Brian, I don't think that is entirely consistent with what was stated above, either, but no matter. Short of buying myself a copy of a critical edition I'm comfortable knowing that for earlier Dvorak symphonies there are likely to be variations.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Brian

Quote from: Madiel on February 01, 2022, 12:23:52 PM
Brian, I don't think that is entirely consistent with what was stated above, either, but no matter. Short of buying myself a copy of a critical edition I'm comfortable knowing that for earlier Dvorak symphonies there are likely to be variations.
My post is speculation/conjecture, but do you have any suggestions?

Madiel

Quote from: Brian on February 01, 2022, 02:10:41 PM
My post is speculation/conjecture, but do you have any suggestions?

Just that the Macal quote links both 1887 and 1888 versions to the same edition published in 1959.
I am now working on a discography of the works of Vagn Holmboe. Please visit and also contribute!

Roasted Swan

Quote from: Madiel on February 01, 2022, 03:03:37 PM
Just that the Macal quote links both 1887 and 1888 versions to the same edition published in 1959.

That would be my interpretation too.  If the critical edition was relatively new in the 1960's why would a conductor coming to an already little known work decide to chase off after a different version - especially at a time when the listening public was not particularly interested in the idea of earlier editions/original versions etc etc.  It seems like making more work for yourself for no reason.  I'm going to follow my copy of the critical edition and see exactly what Rowicki does (or does not!)

Brahmsian

Just happened to notice something that I hadn't before.

There is a lovely recurring theme in the Mazurek for violin and piano, Op. 49 that is also present in the Trio section of the Molto Vivace 3rd movement of the String Quartet No. 13,Op.106.

I don't know about you but I really enjoy discovering things like that.  :D

Roasted Swan

Quote from: OrchestralNut on March 01, 2022, 10:05:33 AM
Just happened to notice something that I hadn't before.

There is a lovely recurring theme in the Mazurek for violin and piano, Op. 49 that is also present in the Trio section of the Molto Vivace 3rd movement of the String Quartet No. 13,Op.106.

I don't know about you but I really enjoy discovering things like that.  :D

Absolutely - but what amazes me with someone like Dvorak is how many different great melodies he was able to write in his life.  I'd have been happy to come up with just one good one - he wrote hundreds!