Talk:Cello Concerto (Dvořák)

Redundant
Is it not redundant to say "It is performed very frequently, and many recordings exist." and then later on "...regular performances and good recordings of this piece are relatively easy to seek out."? Hapless Hero

Changes
I am making quite some changes in this article:
 * the thesis that the cello concerto is his last major orchestral work goes quite far. In this case his symphonic poems would be triffles, so I take that out.
 * I guess the origin of the first concerto should be part of it as well.
 * Dvořák's attitude towards the cello as solo instrument.
 * the anecdote about the origin of the second concerto is longer and shows more insight in Dvořák's thinking process about the concerto (16-11-2005) Basboy


 * I would disagree about whether that was truly Dvořák's attitude towards the cello as solo instrument - his piano trios contain many solo parts, as do his quartets (last movement of the American, anyone?) and there are a handful of works&mdash;some original, some transcriptions&mdash;for cello & piano. I admit he may not have been conviced that the cello would make a succesful concerto subject though. Anyway, this is a piece that is deserving of a better arcticle and is on my Todo list. Lambyuk 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several sources that indicate Dvořák's attitude to composing for the cello. Wihan had asked for a Cello Concerto for quite some time, but Dvořák didn't want to comply at all. The other works that exist for cello and orchestra were written for the tour he made with Wihan and Lachner, performing his Dumky Trio. It was obvious that both gentlemen should have some show pieces, preferably from Dvořák's own hand. He had written enough works for the violin, but none for cello solo, except the Polonaise, and I think there is some reason for it not having an opus number nor even an autograph. I've played the cello part in the American Quartet, and you are right that he really does an outstanding job there, writing a beautiful solo in high register.  Still it is only one of many instruments in the quartet, mingling with the others, rather than a solo, and if compared to Borodin's second quartet it's more of a trifle.  Don't get me wrong here, I love Dvořák, but he kept using this excuse on and on ...Basboy 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After reading some more on this issue, I begin to change my thoughts a bit. To analyse this I just like to build a timeline, and maybe that timeline could be used in the article as well:
 * early cello sonata : destroyed (I keep feeling annoyed about what happened to the cello part after Sourek's analysis).
 * Polonaise (1879). Luckily Neruda copied it, Dvořák lost the original (ditched it?) He reused themes two years later in his 11th String Quartet, Op.61. Why did he never ask Neruda for it?
 * December 1891 Saying goodbye tour through Bohemia, as I stated above. He needed show-off pieces for the cello, so he wrote the rondo, Op.94 and arranged Klid and two dances from op.46.
 * June 1893 he started a sketch for a Cello Sonata, B.419 with three idea's
 * 1 used between June and August 1893 for allegro vivo of the american quintet, op.97
 * 2 used between November 1894 and Februari 1895 for the allegro moderato of the Cello Concerto as Jan Smaczny, points out
 * 3 used in 1900 for the theme of Rusalka, in Rusalka, op.114
 * November 1893, while composing the sonatina, op.100 he also made sketches for a sonatina for cello and piano B.428.
 * November 1895 Interesting is the fact that while making the piano arrangement of the orchestra part of the cello concerto he drafted an adagio for cello and piano, but this didn't come to something.


 * So maybe his reaction to Kovarik (slapping him the moment the trombones sound in Herberts 2nd cello concerto) and his embracement of Herbert himself after the concert in March 1894 were reactions of relief because he was now able to make a decision he was for quite some time toying with.Basboy (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Approximate times
I changed the approx. times to 13/10/11=35, based on the 1937 Casals/Szell recording, which is "something of a 'gold standard' as far as approaches to tempo are concerned". -Dvořák Cello Concerto by Jan Smaczny, Cambridge 1999. DevastatorIIC 11:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the change, I just wanted to add that those times seem rather fast. The Rostropovich recordings are about 15/12/12 and they are magnificent.--Swattie 18:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Victor Herbert
I need to look up an appropriate reference for this, but the story I've heard several times is that Dvorak apparently was so impressed when he heard Victor Herbert's 2nd cello concerto when he was in New York (something about the cello cutting through the sound of trombones/low brass without sounding forced) that he was inspired to write his own cello concerto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.245.148 (talk • contribs)

can someone...
...find a better use for this source? I found it irrelevant to where it was used before, and also kind of POVish. Thanks, Ansh666 (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That book is already cited for something else anyway. And really, do we have the authority to say to Jan Smaczny "Tsk, tsk, tsk, you're so POVed?" Who the heck are we? Our best representative is someone who supposedly plays the piano yet knows next to nothing about music. Jan Smaczny, on the other hand, is a musician and a musicologist who has extensively studied Slavic music. If someone has earned the right to a POV on topics musical, it's him. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that since it's POVish, should it be used at all? Ansh666 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to side with Willi here. There's often a sentence or two in the lede of an article like this stating that the work is popular or "at the summit of the repertoire" or both.  The statement was there, you added a fact tag, he added an easy-to-find quote from a musicologist and now you are complaining?  No one wants POV-stuff to take over the article, but a sentence or two in the lede and/or a "Critical reception" section is quite common here... even expected.DavidRF (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you looked at what it was citing...whatever, it's not even there anymore. Ansh666 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What kind of a discussion is this? Its not there anymore because you just removed it.  :-)  Is your objection that Smaczny is not qualified to have an opinion or that the footnote gushed too much and should have been stopped after the first sentence.  "Few works dominate their genre the way Dvořák's Cello Concerto does" would have been plenty. Actually, I'm just double-checking the reference and its not Smacnzy at all.  That quote is from David Hurwitz.  Hurwitz is a reviewer and not a musicologist and he likes to lay it on a bit thick sometimes.  I haven't seen many Hurwitz quotes used at wikipedia.
 * Superlatives are not hard to find, though. "it remains the most beautiful one  we have"  "On his next American visit he composed what is still the greatest cello concerto we have"  "greatest cello concerto of all time" "the greatest cello concerto ever written"


 * And that's just a simple google book search. If any of those are worth adding, feel free.  Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is neither, but instead that...do I even have a point? All I said was that I found it useless and removed it because it had an opinion, and I was wondering if anyone could find a use for it since I removed it. I didn't and don't want to start a dispute about something that isn't applicable. Ansh666 (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV means neutral point of view, it doesn't mean "no point of view". There's nothing wrong with an opinion, particularly if it's one virtually universally shared by the cello cognoscenti.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is to acknowledge I made a mistake. The quote was from David Hurwitz, not Jan Smaczny. Still, David Hurwitz' credentials should be more than enough for a general knowledge reference (like Wikipedia) even if they fall short for the Grove dictionary. Willi Gers07 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal
Cello Concerto (Dvořák) is a misleading title. It suggests that Dvořák wrote only one cello concerto, but we know this is not the case (see Cello Concerto in A major (Dvořák)).

It's in the same class as talking about "Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto" or "Bruch's Violin Concerto".

I propose it be moved to Cello Concerto in B minor (Dvořák). --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No interest? OK, time to get this done.  See Requested move below.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move per Septentrionalis, this is clearly the primary meaning, a move would give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to the unpublished work Salix (talk): 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cello Concerto (Dvořák) → Cello Concerto in B minor (Dvořák) —

Cello Concerto (Dvořák) is a misleading title. It suggests that Dvořák wrote only one cello concerto, but we know this is not the case (see Cello Concerto in A major (Dvořák)). It's in the same class as talking about "Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto" or "Bruch's Violin Concerto". --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - what is stopping you from moving this yourself? Green Giant (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs a person with admin-like powers to do this, but I am not an admin. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   01:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After consideration, Oppose. If Dvorak had finished, orchestrated, or published the Concerto in A major, it would be customary to distinguish them; but he did not. This is the Dvorak Cello Concerto, and primary usage; follow the sources, which say such things as
 * Avins clears up a Brahms myth regarding his friendship with the Czech composer Antonin Dvorak. On hearing Dvorak's Cello Concerto (the greatest of all Cello Concertos), Brahms is reported to have said, "And how come no one has shown me such a cello concerto was possible?"
 * It is not helpful to set puzzles for the ordinary reader. Even in the article on Dvorak himself, Grove's calls them "the Cello Concerto" and "the A major  Cello Concerto". So do our sources. Let's follow them. (I would be less opposed to Cello Concerto No. 2 (Dvorak), but I don't see the point.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above arguments.--Kotniski (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move proposal: revisited
I don't normally do this, but I still see a problem. It’s a problem in places like List of compositions for cello and orchestra, where we list both the Dvořák concertos. The issue is that the concertos are never numbered as No. 1 and No. 2, and Wikipedia isn’t the place to arbitrarily assign such numbers to them (even though it could be argued that’s exactly what they are; it could also be argued that the B minor shouldn’t take any number because it was the only one Dvořák finished – which leaves open the question of just how to refer to the one in A major).

In the List article, the early one is probably best called Cello Concerto in A major; and the well-known one can be called Cello Concerto in B minor. That requires a piped link. Easy enough to do, but the question of principle remains. If we accept that the one in A major was a cello concerto by Dvořák (however incomplete he may have left it), then how can it be simultaneously argued that the one in B minor should be named as if it were the only one he wrote? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction
What is the reader to make of the following apparent contradiction?: ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "...the composer steadfastly rejected all but minor changes, including the cadenza, largely for personal reasons.""
 * "Dvořák's original score, before it was altered with Wihan's suggested changes, has been described as "much more musical", and this version has been performed from time to time."


 * Yes, there is a contradiction. But read the relevant passage from Hanuš Wihan (with my highlights):
 * Wihan made various suggestions for improvement, some of which Dvořák accepted. But he would not accept Wihan's suggested cadenza for the final movement as it clashed with his idea of the movement as a tribute to his seriously ill sister-in-law.[6] ... Dvořák's original score, before it was altered with Wihan's suggested changes, has been described as "much more musical", and this version has been performed from time to time.[7]


 * So, some of Wihan's ideas were indeed accepted by the composer, and that's the version we usually hear. But Dvořák's original score, before it was altered with Wihan's suggested changes, has also apparently been given an airing.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jack for clearing that up. I invite you to edit the article to make it just as clear. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a go. I think it's clearer now.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why Wihan did not premiere
The article at the moment lists 5 "theories." For the first three no references are given but for the third I plan to supply one (Clapham, 1979) that rather clearly supports it. For the fourth and fifth references are given but they seem to be dead links. Marlindale (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

How many recordings of Elgar's concerto were by British orchestras?
It seems fine to me to delete those numbers. Many recordings of Dvořák pieces are by Czech ensembles, which also is not worth enumerating. Marlindale (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cello Concerto (Dvořák). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029212110/http://www.cellist.nl/database/showcellist.asp?id=682 to http://www.cellist.nl/database/showcellist.asp?id=682

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)