• Prague Conservatory: participating institution, orch
• MILDNER, Mořic: director of ensemble, conductor

The Dalibor 1/3/1861 review, signed ‘E’, reported that this first concert of the Conservatory’s annual season of concerts was conducted by the institute’s Professor of Violin, Mořic Mildner, owing to the illness of the usual conductor, J.F. Kittl. Mildner, according to the Dalibor correspondent ‘took the place [of Kittl] with dignity and demonstrated excellent control of the conductor’s baton. That the symphony was delivered with great precision and liveliness, and that the performance was distinguished by the most delicate nuances, was evidence that Professor Mildner had with great diligence rehearsed this symphony with the students. Particularly beautiful was the second movement; in the last movement the strings held their ground very bravely. For so excellent a performance the orchestra was applauded loudly after each movement, and at the end Professor Mildner was [curtain-]called. The second part [of the concert] was dedicated to the three soloists. Of these excelled far above all Jan Hřímalý (accepted [into the Conservatory] in 1855). Many times already we have mentioned this very talented young man, who has already awakened great wonderment. He demonstrated in this concert his great talent, his very quick development, and his assiduous study of performance. He performed the charming [Violin] Concerto in E [minor] by Mendelssohn and was himself [curtain-]called many times, finally with Mr Mildner. Josef Müller (accepted into the Conservatory in 1855) also obtained a fitting result. He [played] the Variations and Rondo for bassoon by Kalivoda with certainty and polish, and testified to be a worthy pupil of his master, Professor Groß.’

‘From the opera school appeared Miss Johanka Pecklová [Johanna Peklová] (accepted [into the Conservatory] in 1857), singing an aria from Donizetti’s opera Lucia di Lammermoor. This pupil has a pleasant voice, however her faults are too evident for us to keep silent about. To begin with, she must set her heart on correct vocalisation and clear speaking, which [are] only possible to attain with a master who himself knows how to express himself well in Czech or German. Further, it will be necessary to provide for settling the voice in all its registers, and finally, to steer clear of [producing] a nasal sound. If she succeeds in [banishing] her faults, her voice will excel and she can become a sturdy singer. The closing act was the Overture to Caesar by Schumann. Briefly we must also mention the [Conservatory’s] directorship, which for the first time this year also advertised this concert with... programmes [written in Czech]. Oh, that this celebrated institute would also consider equality in its internal organization, and not neglect the Czech language!’ This last point constituted an expression of disapproval by the Dalibor critic that teaching in the institute did not take place in Czech. The criticism of Miss Peklová’s singing constituted a thinly veiled attack on the Conservatory’s principal singing teacher, Gordigiani. Gordigiani incurred the displeasure of Czech patriotic factions in the Prague musical environment, including the editors of Dalibor, throughout the late 1850s and early 1860s by refusing to teach Czech song or even Czech declamation. In other event commentaries covering Conservatory performances, critics writing in both Dalibor and Lumír emphasized their view that Gordigiani had little or no knowledge of, or concern for the Czech language, and even displayed a faulty command of German declamation.

The unsigned Národní listy 27/2/1861 review of this concert expressed similar views to those of the correspondent writing in Dalibor 1/3/1861. The conducting, orchestral playing and the performance of the solo instrumentalists inspired positive comment; the least effective performance was considered to have been the singing of Peklová. Only in detail and emphasis rather than in critical reaction did the Národní listy report differ from that of the Dalibor text. The symphony by Haydn, for instance, while being submitted to only a brief contextual appraisal by Dalibor, was considered by the Národní listy critic to ‘contain so much that is exemplary and interesting... [that for the] present-day maturing musical youth... it offers an opportunity to understand an old symphonist and to note much that is lacking in new compositions.’ Of the two solo instrumentalists Národní listy intimated that Müller’s performance was the more impressive, relating that ‘from the instrument he produces a full and agreeable tone, is strong in all sorts of dare-devil leaps, and performs rapid runs cleanly.’ Of Hřímalý, although ‘his playing is marked by great freshness and substance, with solidity and fullness’, the critic considered that ‘in lyric[-quality] however he is less great and with a penetrating tone.’ In common with the Dalibor account, the review was disparaging of Peklová’s singing, similarly attributing faults of ‘inappropriate articulation’ and defective tone to the weak voice-training she received at the Conservatory. Concerning the reception of the audience to the programme, Národní listy reported that ‘The numerous audience was, except for the unhappy solo song, quite satisfied with the performances, and bestowed calls [i.e. back to the platform] following the solos on the violin and bassoon.’ The programme is reproduced in performance order according to the Národní listy 27/2/1861 report.