• Prague Conservatory: participating institution
• KITTL, Jan Bedřich: director of institute, conductor

The Tagesprogramm daily almanac of social and musical events published by Bohemia 25/3/1863 noted: ‘7 o’clock evening: in the Royal Estates Theatre: Conservatory Concert.’

Prager Morgenpost 27/3/1863 published a substantial review, signed ‘-ý.’, of this concert. The correspondent related: ‘Music. Wednesday took place in the Estates theatre the third concert of the Conservatory (the last of this season). This time the most substantial pleasure was undisputably Beethoven’s „Eighth Symphony“: Content and Performance united in the most beautiful combination, The second movement had to be encored.’ The critic then embarked upon a lengthy monologue enthusing upon how the impact of Beethoven’s creative style was effected by his rigorous motivic development of themes. ‘The performance of the Symphony under the leadership of the Director [of the Conservatory] Mr Kittl was in all respects excellent. The same was true for the Overture to „Anakreon“ [Anacreon] by Cherubini; which formed the close of the concert. The vocal pieces comprised „der Graf von Habsburg“ by Vogl, sung by Mr Krolop. and an aria of „Jessonda“ from Spohr’s opera of the same name, performed by Miss Louise Horina. Mr Krolop has a very appealing voice, that with still further proper schooling will not fall short of the desired outcome. In Miss Horina we became acquainted with a talented artiste who already exhibits the most beautiful promise. Of the instrumentalists Ludwig Peer of all the pupils was most deserving of recognition, performing a Fantasie for ’cello with a purity and elegance unusual for his age. Also the two pupils Kozel and Siřinek were deserving of all praise, performing a Concerto for two clarinets by Späth. The tone of both was beautiful and noble, the playing of both was expressive and sure. (The two instruments were from the repository of Mr Horák and wanted for nothing in melodiousness and sonority). The [instrumental soloists] concluded with Sergei Vasileff, who played a Rondo-Papageno for the violin by Ernst. Despite the most choice technical difficulties that the composition contains, his playing was for the most part pleasant and solid. The aforementioned young artists were with their teachers applauded. The Theatre was well attended.’ 

The unsigned Dalibor 1/4/1863 review of this concert praised the performance of the Beethoven symphony, noting that the ‘Performance under the direction of Mr Director Kittl was very good.’ The correspondent, signed ‘bl.’, who wrote in Národní listy 30/3/1863 described the event in detail and was not wholly positive in praise: ‘Third concert of the Prague Music Conservatory. This year, as usual, the third annual concert of the Conservatory again took place in the Royal Estates Theatre to the attendance of a large audience. The first part contained the Eighth Symphony of Beethoven, which always enraptures with so much beauty, so much witty and charming humour. It seems that also in this, as in the Pastoral Symphony, Beethoven turned to the inspirational subject of country life. All of the main themes have an inherent character of popularity, that is instinctively reminiscent of songs of folk [na zpěv lidu]. The performance of this symphony was in terms of the notes accurate, and in terms of more modest criteria, successful. But whosoever contemplates deeply the spirit of Beethoven’s composition, avowed, that many places could have been more poetically presented as, for example, the Trio of the Menuett with more femininity and delicacy, as well as the more powerful moments could have been invested with greater energy. The whole performance was more realistic than ideal, which in the [interpretation of the] instrumental compositions of Beethoven is a great fault. In these compositions it is necessary to eliminate and put aside all objectivity, in order that the listener hears nothing but instinctive sounds that are to them as if descending as a separate entity from another realm. In these compositions the listener must not be aware of an instrument from which sounds emanate, but to be made aware of the sound of each instrument as an individual entity from within the varied sounds of the whole ensemble. Whether such an ideal impression and rendition from the young pupils of the Conservatory is possible to achieve, is of course a question to which it is possible to reply both negatively and positively. If such a performance requires only good discipline, then there is not in all of Prague an institution from which better discipline could be obtained amongst the members of its orchestra than the Prague Conservatory – for where the members of the orchestra have to listen and conform to the will of the director it is possible to expect quite an other rendition of an artistic work than where the director does not have so much authority over the members of the orchestra or chorus.’ Thus the correspondent effectively criticized the direction of the concert, suggesting that although authority and respect were present in the student orchestra the performance lacked adequate expression and understanding. The director Kittl was at this time under pressure as leader of the Conservatory due to ill health and problems involving drink.

The Národní listy review then went on to describe the second half of the concert: ‘In the second part of the concert came forward solo song and instrumental pupils; most excellent were the ’cellist Peer and the violinist S. Vasiliev, who already aquired have splendid ability on their instruments; clarinetists Kozel and Siřinek added another two to the considerable number of pupils from the school of Prof. Pisařovic; they sparred courageously between themselves in the Concerto for two clarinets by Späth...‘ 

The Dalibor critic did not rank as equal the abilities of the two string soloists. Peer ‘testified to be a talented ’cellist; his intonation is very clean, his playing in harmonics is faultless and certain, his technical ability is astonishing and his execution studied and refined.’ The ’cellist was said to be assured an excellent future if he continued in the same vein. Conversely, the performance by Vasiliev, a ‘talented’ pupil of the Conservatory’s Professor of violin, Mořic Mildner, was deemed to be less perfect. Ernst’s Papageno rondo was a ‘too difficult’ exercise of Vasiliev’s capabilities, ‘it was therefore not to be wondered, that so many passages failed, or that he missed some notes, nevertheless Vasiliev proved to have a significant technical knowledge, a pretty tone and good effort, which shows that in time he will be a solid virtuoso.’ The clarinettists Vojtěch Siřinek and Václav Kozel, both pupils of Julius Pisařovic, were noted by the Dalibor critic to possess ‘pretty, full and rounded tone, great technical ability’. The performance by Miss Aloisie Horynová [Horinová] of an aria from Jessonda was considered adequate, yet the reviewer thought that her singing suffered from some unspecified ‘internal difficulty’ that did not allow her voice to develop. Finally, Fr.A. Vogl’s ballad Der Graf von Habsburg apparently did not receive an adequate performance. The work ‘requires a perfect artist, and Mr Krolop is a beginner, his bass is sufficiently sonorous, yet he lacks refinement and considerable strength.’

A detailed review, signed ‘a-a’, of this Conservatory concert was also published by Lumír 2/4/1863. This review noted that the attendance was ‘quite numerous’, the institute displaying to the public its ‘full strength[...] Notwithstanding that solo numbers were not performed quite spotlessly, which happened either because the pupils were overestimating their own strengths or from insufficient energy on the part of the teachers, we still encountered musically cultured youngsters for whom we are able to prophesy a favourable future if they will painstakingly and with great diligence persevere on their way. That the Prague Conservatory has already educated plenty of stalwart artists in whom we are able to take pride is well known, as also that many musical talents have developed there through the endeavours of the excellent teachers.’ The critic praised the three concerts given by the Conservatory during the course of the season, remarking that these productions were evidence of the good progress of the scholars, and adding that ‘If we were contented with the first concerts[...] the third concert satisfied us even more. The programme had greater artistic value than [those] of the first concerts. The first part, which is usually filled by some orchestral work, in order that the audience becomes acquainted with the playing together of the students, was dedicated to Beethoven’s Eighth Symphony. We gratefully welcomed the content of this first part, for hitherto in this year’s concerts we have not heard such a masterly orchestral work. A more agreeable and altogether so genial composition is not known to us that could more worthily take the place of this work.’ Following an enthusiastic eulogy of the symphony, during the course of which the Lumír critic pointed out a perceived similarity between the theme of the ‘Adagio’ and the Czech national song Kdybych já věděl, že letos umru [If I knew that this year I shall die], the reviewer noted that the work was given a ‘dignified performance, although many delicate parts were [too] powerfully performed by the orchestra, this happened only from the youthful enthusiasm of the students, who yield more to feeling than to real consideration.’ The Allegretto second movement, ‘the true pearl of the symphony’, was encored.

The second part of the concert also inspired detailed comment from the Lumír correspondent ‘In the second part some more advanced pupils performed a variety of the most worthless compositions. Of pupils of opera singing we heard two, Miss Aloisie Horinová and J.F. Krolop, admitted [to the Conservatory] in 1861. [Krolop] performed Jungmann’s ballad Hrabě Habsburg [Der Graf von Habsburg] which Professor F[r.A.] Vogl set to music. This work is entirely without elevation, being put together purely from phrases of recitative. The orchestration characterises the commonplace manner of the text setting. Besides this the composer is guilty of anachronism, mingling into his composition a fragment from Haydn’s Emperor hymn. [Krolop] sang this work accurately but without enthusiasm[...] His voice has a large compass, is fairly strong but less sonorous, particularly in the higher register. The audience curtain-called him alongside Professor Vogl. The second soloist, Ludvík Peer, one of the most skilful pupils of the Conservatory played[...] very accurately and to universal applause. His fairly strong tone, which he always projects cleanly and surely, clear leading of the strings, fairly great technique and in places his well considered performance earnt him loud applause.’ The movement from Späth’s Concerto for two clarinets, ‘although in itself poor in mature ideas, offered both [Kozel and Siřinek] the opportunity to display their precise technique; the second in particular surprised us with his powerful and sure tone.’ Concerning the singer Horinová, the Lumír critic noted that he had already heard her perform several times, but that an opportunity for him to comment upon her singing had not previously arisen. ‘We can assure the young lady, that with all possible care to do her utmost to refine her singing, one day she will benefit from stepping in to a position of first dramatic singer. Her voice is sonorous, has a large compass, is strong and in the middle register sounds pleasant, yet in higher notes it sounds pungent, which in time assiduous practise will even out. The lower notes are insufficiently rounded and are less sonorous. In intonation the young lady is not entirely certain; the enunciation and execution are also not pure[...] That all pupils of Prof. Gordigiani suffer from unclear vocalisation and faulty or non-existent execution, is not really their fault. Miss Horinová was curtain-called several times. Finally, we heard the solid violinist Sergie [Sergej] Vasiliev. He played the Papageno Rondo by Ernst, a composition in which are to be found whole heaps of difficulties, and [Vasiliev] astonished the audience with his technique, with pretty harmonics and lightness of bowing. However, it is disagreeable for us to mention that his strengths were overestimated for this work, and just in his struggle with the tiresome technicalities he frequently let loose wrong notes. The orchestra accompanied almost all the solo numbers strongly and securely. The concert closed with the Overture to the opera Anacreon by Cherubini[...] The young orchestra played more accurately than in the first concerts, and held out bravely under the prudent conducting of director Kittl, who at the end was loudly called for. All the soloists with their professors were summoned. The outcome of the concert was splendid.’