• Corpus ID: 193716077

Representations of Antonín Dvořák: A Study of his Music through the Lens of Late Nineteenth-century Czech Criticism

@inproceedings{Branda2014RepresentationsOA,
  title={Representations of Anton{\'i}n Dvoř{\'a}k: A Study of his Music through the Lens of Late Nineteenth-century Czech Criticism},
  author={Eva Branda},
  year={2014}
}

• E. Branda
• Published 18 July 2014
• Art

realms proved to be a stumbling block for the reception of his works in other genres. Karin Stöckl-Steinebrunner observes that certain Viennese critics were reluctant to accept Dvořák’s symphonic poems because they felt that Dvořák had abandoned their cause. Dvořák also struggled on more than one occasion to break through in the realm of opera, as is evident by the aborted plans for performances of Vanda (1875) and Rusalka (1901) at the Vienna Hofoper. The 1885 production of Dvořák’s The Cunning Peasant (Šelma Sedlák, 1877) at that venue, to be considered in Chapter Three, created an uproar with the audience and gave rise to invidious reviews. The reasons for its poor reception were many; however, the notion that opera was not Dvořák’s domain was definitely part of the equation. In the aftermath of the event, Czech critics were convinced that the disastrous showing might have been prevented if a stronger specimen of Czech opera composition, preferably a work by Smetana, had been selected. That Dvořák was pigeonholed as an abstract instrumental music composer ultimately created a lopsided view of him in parts of German-speaking Europe and elsewhere, which has only recently started to be questioned and refined. echter Musiker, um mit Notenköpfen malen zu wollen; er bindet die Phantasie des Hörers an kein poetisches Programm, er verschmäht sogar (zu unserer unverhohlenen Befriedigung) einzelne Überschriften;” Eduard Hanslick, Concerte, Componisten und Virtuosen der letzten fünfzehn Jahre, 1870–1885 (Berlin: Allgemeiner Verein für Deutsche Litteratur, 1886), 339; the original review appeared in Neue Freie Presse (November 28, 1882). 50 Karin Stöckl-Steinebrunner, “Der unbequeme Dvořák: Reaktionen der Musikkritik auf die ersten Aufführungen der Sinfonischen Dichtungen im deutschsprachigen Raum,” in Dvořák-Studien, eds. Klaus Döge and Peter Jost (Mainz: Schott, 1994), 190–196; Karin Stöckl-Steinebrunner, “The ‘Uncomfortable’ Dvořák: Critical Reactions to the First Performances of his Symphonic Poems in German-Speaking Lands,” in Rethinking Dvořák: Views from Five Countries, ed. David R. Beveridge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 201–210. Brodbeck notes that Hanslick’s disappointment at Dvořák’s betrayal is evident in a review of The Water Goblin (Vodník, 1896); Brodbeck, “Dvořák’s Reception in Liberal Vienna,” 120. 51 Alan Houtchens, “The Proposed Performances of Vanda and Rusalka in Vienna,” in Musical Dramatic Works by Antonín Dvořák: Papers from an International Musicological Conference, Prague 19–21 May 1983, eds. Markéta Hallová, Zuzana Petrášková, and Jarmila Tauerová-Veverková (Prague: Česká hudební společnost, 1989), 173–181; Alan Houtchens, “From Vistula to the Danube by Way of Vltava: Dvořák’s Vanda in Vienna,” in Rethinking Dvořák: Views from Five Countries, ed. David R. Beveridge (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 257–264. 52 Milan Kuna, “Dvořák und Mahler: Über die in Wien nicht stattgefundene Inszenierung der Rusalka,” in Dvořák-Studien, eds. Klaus Döge and Peter Jost (Mainz: Schott, 1994), 197–203, esp. 203. 53 Scholars are attempting to dispel this image. Much work has been done on Dvořák’s operas; Henry Alan Houtchens, “A Critical Study of Antonín Dvořák’s Vanda,” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara,