British review on our Janáček

In an article, writer Leslie Wright delivers a very comprehensive and insightful comparison of various recordings of Janáček’s choral symphony works. We have selected passages from the piece mainly touching on interpretation.

(...) Nonetheless, I don't think any of these differences make one edition preferable to the others. They are all valid and can only add to one's appreciation of the mass.

None of this would matter if Netopil's new recording were not as good as it is. Even if he were using a different score, I would rank this new recording near the top of preferred versions. First of all, he has a wonderfully idiomatic choir and orchestra to work with and they are recorded in spacious, clear sound. The recording is a bit more distant than some others, especially the classic Ančerl, and needs the volume to be raised to achieve the maximum effect. The soloists are all good, particularly the soprano in the Slava and Svet movements. The tenor, who has the other important role, is fine, if rather rough at times, compared to Ančerl'sBenoBlachut or Leoš Svárovský's Vladimir Doležal. The contralto and bass are more than satisfactory, even if the bass becomes blustery in the AgnečeBožij. Aleš Bárta does yeoman work in the difficult organ parts. His solo movement is as clear and powerful as I've heard it. Sometimes it comes over as a blur, but not here. That exciting Intrada is taken at a perfect tempo, not as fast as some, but with tremendous bite. The brass and timpani bring the work to its rousing conclusion. In fact the brass playing throughout may have just set a new standard for the Glagolitic Mass. There is one place in the Slava movement that is puzzling, however. This concerns the timpani solo from 2:22-2:30. As the part descends, the timpani sound either like they are playing different notes from the other versions of the work with which I am familiar or that the timpani are going out of tune. There is no mention of this change in any discussion of the 1927 edition of the mass I have read. In any case, it sounds wrong to me. If it was a case of tuning, it should have been retaken. That's the only cavil I have with this new account and it is not fatal by any means.

What makes this disc even more attractive is the inclusion of the more rarely performed cantata, The Eternal Gospel. (...) There are three recordings of this piece that I have heard and this new one trumps the other two. One is Svárovský's account, accompanying his Glagolitic Mass (originally Ultraphon, now Arco Diva); the other is IlanVolkov's with the BBC Scottish Symphony (Hyperion). Svárovský's is idiomatic and very good, but Netopil is even better. Volkov, whose orchestra and chorus are fine, is let down by his vibrato-laden soloists. The soprano and tenor soloists on Netopil's recording are, if anything, better than their counterparts in the Glagolitic Mass on his disc. They leave little to be desired, and the orchestra and chorus perform superbly.

While the pairing of these choral works makes this disc inviting, it is this new version of the Glagolitic Mass that makes it mandatory for anyone who loves Janáček. For the standard, published version there is always Ančerl'sSupraphon account, which is showing its age both as to sound and orchestral execution, or Svárovský's more recent one, which is very well played and recorded. If one is in the market for the standard version, as amended by Zahrádka, then Sir Charles Mackerras's 1984 recording with the Czech Philharmonic (Supraphon) likely comes closest. He reinstates the fourteen bars missing near the end of the Svet, but otherwise follows the standard score. His account stands the test of time in the vibrancy of the performance. For the Wingfield edition, I would go for Mackerras either in his opulent Chandos recording with the Danish orchestra and chorus - it adheres to the Wingfield score in the minutest detail - or the later DVD with the Czech Philharmonic that remains my favourite of that version. Interestingly, Netopil in the disc's booklet conversation finds his approach to Janáček closest to Mackerras's by not watering down or refining the musical language. His interpretations here of both the mass and cantata bear this out.