Venue: Žofín Island (Žofín Hall)
Event type: Art music culture
Date: 06/04/1862
Season: Lent
According to the unsigned Dalibor 20/4/1862 review, this concert ‘found particular favour with a numerous audience and met with a very propitious and meritorious success. [. . .] The programme was diverse, well chosen although we would have been glad to have seen Czech composers better represented.’ Of the singing of the choir, the review remarked that ‘From the performances of all the compositions, it was clearly evident that Hlahol spent sufficient time in rehearsal in order that the works were presented to us with refinement and spirit. But the principal superiority of Hlahol consists especially in that works are always performed with appropriate expression, and that above all in this [respect] attention is given to the spirit of the composition presented to us, never „dead“ [i.e. expressionless] notes.’
The report published by Národní listy 8/4/1862 of this concert noted only that the programme was particularly interesting on account of including Fr.A. Vogl’s chorus Cikání (Gypsy chorus). A substantial review, signed ‘ilz.’, then appeared in Národní listy 10/4/1862. In the latter, after noting that the concert contained a variety of works by young and older Slavonic composers for one voice, for vocal quartet and for chorus, the critic observed that ‘the quality of the performed compositions was variable’. However, the reviewer agreed with the decision of Hlahol to programme ‘pieces of lesser quality,’ asserting that the public performance of such works by aspiring young composers presented those artists with the opportunity to gain valuable experience for their next compositions. In this way Hlahol could be ‘of great service’ to the cause of Czech music. The review also noted that the ‘performances of all the pieces were accurate, animated.’ Vogl’s ‘fresh and lively’ chorus Cikání was encored, the solo part in particular being given a ‘masterly’ rendition by the director of Hlahol, Jan Ludevít Lukes. The ‘numerous’ audience was noted to have been moved especially by the works by Jenko Davorin, Karel Bendl and J.L. Procházka, although they maintained the same ‘lively attention’ throughout the whole of the programme.