DVORAK. Symphony No. 6 in D major, Op. 60. Carnival Overture, Op. 92. London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Istvan Kertesz. Decca Q LXT6253 Q SXL6253 (12 in., 32s. 3d. plus 5s. 9d. PT).

Symphony No. 6—comparisons:

Czech PO, Sejna (4/58) (1/65) (R) Q SUA10007 LSO, Rowicki (9/66) Q AL3570 0 SAL3570

This new Decca disc proves a strong competitor for the Philips issue with the same orchestra released in September. It was recorded about a year ago and not— as one might have expected—at the time of this year's Prom performance by Kertesz. First to detail some obvious points in favour of the new issue over the Philips. To start with there is a fill-up, the Carnival Overture, as exhilaratingly played as ever I remember and very brilliant in recording quality. In the symphony too the Decca recording quality outshines that of Philips with extra immediacy, brilliance and clarity. It is amazing how much more one can hear of Dvoi-ak's inner detail, often extremely beautiful, and the fairly wide separation of the stereo underlines many of Dvofak's striking antiphonal effects.

On performance the contrast is fairly clear with Kertesz a degree or two less romantic and less deliberately 'affectionate' in phrasing than Rowicki. It will be very much a personal matter of taste which in general One prefers, but there is no doubt that Kertesz's very alert opening catches the ear much more effectively from the start than Rowicki's rather subdued, slacker opening. To allay any fears after Kertesz's failure to observe the exposition repeat in his Prom performance, let me mention that he does so here just as Rowicki did—a most important point when the lead-in to the repeat is so long.

In the slow movement the contrast is extreme. As I pointed out in my review of the Philips version, Rowicki takes a very brisk view of that adagio marking, and Kertesz takes a much more relaxed and I think sensible view. Rowicki redeems the fast speed by drawing really sensitive phrasing from his players, but the same orchestra under Kertesz is, if possible, even more sympathetic. The timings alone give some idea of the difference: Kertesz just under 11i minutes; Rowicki just under 9i minutes—an enormous discrepancy as any habitual movement-timer will realize.

The Furiant is very well done in both, but in the finale Rowicki tends to push his players forward a little in places. It is almost as though he wanted them to play faster than his basic tempo, yet can't quite make them do it, while Kertesz chooses a fractionally slower speed and keeps to it without ever sounding any less tense and exciting.

My own preference for the Kertesz is clear, though let me emphasize again how good the Rowicki is too, and one could quite legitimately prefer it for the more romantic view of the first movement and the brisker-flowing view of the slow movement. E.G.