2

In the west Eduard Frantsevich Nápravník (1839–1916) is arguably one of the least well known among the major musical figures of Tsarist Russia. Although a prolific composer, prominent conductor and excellent pianist, he made his largest contribution as chief conductor of the Russian opera at the Mariinsky Theatre in St Petersburg (then the Russian capital), a post he held for a little over half a century, and it is for his performances of both European and Russian operas and symphonic repertoire that he is best remembered.

Although the English-language literature on Nápravník is scarce (there is no biography other than in Russian), there are a number of Russian-language sources, which include biographies, published selections of his letters, memoirs and notebooks. Nápravník was a prolific correspondent, exchanging over 12,000 letters with over 500 of the prominent personalities of his day. Among his Russian correspondents were Pyotr and Modest Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Balakirev, Glazunov, Musorgsky, Anton and Nikolay Rubinstein, Glinka’s sister Ludmila Shestakova, the famous Russian singers Fyodor Chaliapin, Fyodor Stravinsky (father of Igor) and Ivan Melnikov and many others. His international correspondents included Joachim, Mahler, Nikisch, Saint-Saëns and Weingartner, to name only a few. Not only did Nápravník meticulously preserve these letters; most helpfully for the historian, he often drafted his replies on the backs of the letters or envelopes, which makes it possible to establish the content of his responses when they do not survive. Although some of these letters have been published in various Russian-language sources, the majority remain in the Russian

EDUARD NÁPRAVNÍK, FORGOTTEN CZECH-RUSSIAN MASTER by Anastasia Belina

3

archives.1 From 1863 Nápravník kept a diary, in which he recounted daily events, both personal and, of course, professional. Finally, he also dictated his memoirs to his children, who posed questions which he then answered. These texts contain first-hand accounts of major events in his life. It is thanks to the painstaking work of Nápravník’s son Vladimir and his daughter Varvara that many of these documents not only survived but were properly catalogued and kept safe. Vladimir Nápravník left Russia in 1917 for Finland, finally settling safely in Belgium, and his sister Varvara posted to him copies of the documents so that he could complete his work on his father’s biography. Published only in 1991, it remains the best source of this kind on the composer – but, of course, it is accessible only to those who can read Russian.2 Varvara’s fate turned out very differently: she died during the blockade of Leningrad in 1942, the city in which her father chose to spend the larger part of his life.

Nápravník was born in the Bohemian town of Býšť on 12 August (24 August Old Style), into a family of modest means. His father, Franz Nápravník, was a school-teacher and church regent who barely made enough to support the family. Young Eduard showed musical talent at a young age, and was taught piano, organ and music theory. This early education literally meant survival: Nápravník’s mother died of consumption when he was in his eleventh year, and his father followed her to the grave three years later, in 1853, leaving Nápravník to fend for himself.

Nápravník’s paternal uncle was regent in a church in Pardubice, and so was able to arrange for his nephew a position of organist, which came with full board and accommodation. He held the post until the following year, deciding to continue his music education at the Prague Organ School under Jan Bedřich Kittl. He also took piano lessons with a renowned pedagogue by the name of Maidel (the available sources do not reveal his first name), at the Prague Institute of Music, where soon after he was offered a position as a piano teacher. 1 The archive in which the originals are kept include The Russian State Archive of Literature and Arts (RGALI, or РГАЛИ), Russian National Library (RNB, or РНБ), P. Tchaikovsky State House-Museum (GDMTch, or ГДМЧ), Russian National Museum of Music (GTsMMK, or ГЦММК), and A. A. Bachrushin State Central Theatre Museum (GTsTM, or ГЦТМ).2 Vladimir Nápravník, Eduard Frantsovich Nápravník i ego sovremenniki (‘Eduard Frantsovich Nápravník and his Contemporaries’), Muzyka, Leningrad, 1991.

4

In 1861 Nápravník accepted a new position, this time in Russia. He became the director of a private orchestra in the palace of Prince Yusupov in St Petersburg, whose family would later acquire notoriety for assisting in the assassination of Rasputin. In addition to his work there, Nápravník was also active as a chamber pianist and piano-teacher.

St Petersburg offered him a glittering array of musical experiences, from church music to opera performances. He eagerly took in what the capital had to offer, particularly delighting in discovering Russian music, and attending church services in order to listen to the bassi profundi, a sound he found captivating. But it was Glinka’s operas A Life for the Tsar and Ruslan and Ludmila that created the strongest impressions, eventually encouraging Nápravník to try his hand at the composition of opera.

Although he was to become such an integral figure of the Russian operatic scene, Nápravník’s first professional experience at the Mariinsky came about by accident. A frequent member of the audience, he was known to the musicians in the orchestra and singers as a good pianist and a fantastic sight-reader. Settling down in his seat to enjoy his favourite opera, Ruslan and Ludmila, one evening in 1863, Nápravník noticed some disarray in the orchestra, with the despondent conductor, Konstantin Lyadov (the father of the composer Anatoly Lyadov), obviously delaying the start of the performance. It transpired that the orchestral pianist had not turned up (the piano has a prominent role in the score), causing Lyadov to look nervously around. The concert-master saw Nápravník in the audience and pleaded for his help. Nápravník sight-read the part brilliantly and was soon invited to join the theatre staff as assistant Kapellmeister and organist – although the contract stipulated that he should meet his own expenses, and be paid only for those performances in which he played the organ. A year later, he signed a permanent contract, receiving a salary for assisting the répétiteur of the chorus, helping singers learn new operas and standing in for the conductor during his absences. Because of Lyadov’s poor health, he conducted often (including a successful performance of A Life for the Tsar without a rehearsal); in 1867 he was promoted to the post of second Kapellmeister, and in May 1869 he became the chief conductor of the Russian opera. He held this post until his death in 1916, his final tally reaching over 4,000 operatic

5

performances, among which were the premieres of such operas as Tchaikovsky’s Queen of Spades, Mazeppa and The Maid of Orleans, Musorgsky’s Boris Godunov, many operas by Rimsky-Korsakov and operas by Anton Rubinstein; he conducted Glinka’s A Life for the Tsar over 500 times.

Much can be said about Nápravník’s work with the Russian opera, and of his efforts to improve the conditions of the orchestra and chorus. He campaigned for an increase in their salaries and for the award to them of half of the income from a yearly benefit performance, although he achieved this goal only in 1873. In 1876 he even considered resigning because his continued demands for a further increase in the salaries of the musicians were not met – but when the directors of the theatres were faced with the possibility of Nápravník’s resignation, they not only increased the salaries but also granted the full income from the benefit performances to the chorus and orchestra. Benefit performances were common in the theatres of the day, but full income usually went to a star singer. By insisting that the meagre incomes of the orchestra and chorus be supplemented by a full benefit performance once a year, Nápravník contributed to a considerable improvement in their situations and earned the respect and support of his colleagues.

As chief conductor, he was known and respected for his punctuality and meticulous preparation for performances. Always fully prepared himself (which meant that from the very first rehearsal he knew by heart not only the score but also every singer’s part), he did not tolerate lack of preparation from his singers and orchestra. He revolutionised the rehearsal schedule, instilling in the orchestral musicians and singers the same punctuality and solid preparation that he always displayed himself. He never arrived late to a rehearsal or a performance.

His unshakable sense of rhythm and the ability to hear wrong notes or imperfect tuning were legendary: he knew exactly not only what instrument but also which player had made an error, enabling him to correct the parts or the playing quickly and efficiently. Some wondered if he were capable of feeling fatigue: his rehearsals took place every working day, and he often carried on for five or six hours without a break – particularly impressive when one remembers that the post of chief conductor of Russian opera was only one of his artistic activities, as he also conducted the concerts of the Russian Music

6

Society, and performed in numerous concerts besides. But the strenuous rehearsal schedule meant that operas which were in the repertoire of the theatre were often given without rehearsal, once they had been learned and prepared for performance.

Nápravník’s repertoire contained many works by his contemporaries, both Russian and European. These composers included Tchaikovsky (eight operas, six of which were premieres), Musorgsky, Anton Rubinstein (six operas), Rimsky-Korsakov (nine), Bizet, Smetana, Saint-Saëns, Gounod and, of course, Wagner. He was highly esteemed as a conductor not only by his Russian colleagues but also by such eminent visiting artists as Mahler and Hans von Bülow, both of whom admired him very much; some even argued that he was their equal as a conductor.

Twice, in 1876 and 1891, Nápravník was invited to become Director of the St Petersburg Conservatoire. He declined on both occasions, even though the second invitation was made on the initiative of the Emperor, Alexander III, himself: he believed that the two posts were incompatible and physically impossible to fulfil, although he did request that, if he were to consider the post, the Conservatoire should be made a public institution and not private, as it then was – a change that was too radical for its time.

Nápravník had many admirers but he was by no means universally liked. He was also notorious for imposing cuts on new operas, particularly those by Russians, a habit which, hardly surprisingly, could enrage the composers, Rimsky-Korsakov and Taneyev among them. Although Rimsky-Korsakov managed to keep his relationship with Nápravník civil, especially because so many of his operas were in the repertoire, Taneyev did not, and he withdrew his one and only opera, Oresteia, after only a handful of performances in protest against the cuts Nápravník had made. Rimsky-Korsakov privately nursed a grudge because of his cuts, but he managed to admit that it was thanks to Nápravník, whose work he observed closely during opera rehearsals, that he became a half-decent conductor himself. Even so, that did not stop him from writing a scathing review of Nápravník’s own opera, Nizhegorodtzy (‘The Men of Nizhny Novgorod’), written in 1867 (it was staged the following year), in which he made it clear that that was not how historical operas should be composed. Tchaikovsky and Musorgsky, by contrast, trusted that Nápravník’s cuts were made for a reason, and even thanked him for making their

7

operas work better on stage. Perhaps they understood that Nápravník was guided by his awareness of scenic action and drama; and so, if the music was too long and diluted the impact of the drama, cuts indeed had to be made. Tchaikovsky wrote to Nápravník in October 1890, thanking him for his work on The Queen of Spades, and adding that he trusted him completely if anything in the vocal parts needed changing. He even approved any small cuts that Nápravník might deem necessary, although, of course, expressing his wish that the opera be kept as complete as possible.

In 1874, Tchaikovsky’s opera Oprichnik (‘The Guardsman’) was being prepared at the Mariinsky, and Nápravník’s particularly sensitive treatment of the work showed the composer that the conductor had thoroughly understood it. From then on, the two men shared a friendship that also encompassed their families, and lasted until Tchaikovsky’s death. The composer dedicated his opera The Maid of Orleans to Nápravník. On 25 November 1878 Nápravník delivered a triumphal performance of Tchaikovsky’s Fourth Symphony in St Petersburg; thanks to his painstaking preparation and a powerful performance, it was recognised as a masterpiece.

On 6 November 1893 Nápravník conducted Tchaikovsky’s memorial concert, which included the Sixth Symphony, the Pathétique. Only a week before the composer’s death it had been received without much enthusiasm; now, under Nápravník’s baton and its effect amplified by the composer’s untimely death and accompanied by mysterious rumours, the Symphony made an impression that elevated it to the rank of Tchaikovsky’s greatest works and began its status in legend. The two friends shared more than mutual respect: it is said that Nápravník’s funeral, which took place in November 1916, was the first that, in its huge attendance and splendour, matched that of Tchaikovsky.

Nápravník is not widely known as a composer, although his works were performed and even highly regarded in his lifetime. He composed four operas (including Dubrovsky, to a libretto by Modest Tchaikovsky, adapted from Pushkin’s eponymous story), four symphonies and many other orchestral works, two concertante pieces for piano and two for violin, chamber music, including three string quartets, one string quintet, a piano quartet, works for violin and piano, many works for solo piano and incidental music:

8

over 200 works, in 77 opus numbers and including almost every genre. Everything up to Op. 13 was composed when Nápravník was still in Prague and is often considered by Russian musicologists to be of no interest. Future performances and recordings might yet tell another tale.

From his early years, he felt a strong pull towards composition, and dedicated much time and effort to this work despite his busy schedule – but his conducting, although in one respect being very useful, also had an adverse effect: he believed that spending his days intensively working on other composers’ music and hearing it in his head invariably impacted on what he himself wrote. It is a criticism that can be often read in Russian-language reviews of his works, which find echoes of those of other composers, his contemporaries. But composers are not islands: even Tchaikovsky said of his own compositions that there are undoubtedly influences from the music he knew and liked, but that he welcomed it, and accepted it simply as fertilising soil for his creative seeds.

Nápravník’s works were performed by the leading conductors and soloists of the day, both in Russia and abroad: the conductor (and composer) Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov, the pianist-conductors Vasily Safonov and Alexander Siloti, the pianists Matvey Pressman and Vera Timanova, and Tchaikovsky himself, to name only a few. When the Russian violinist Leopold Auer visited Liszt in Weimar in the late 1870s and Liszt asked him to play something by a Russian composer, Auer chose Nápravník’s Fantaisie sur de thèmes russes, Op. 30, written only in 1878. Liszt accompanied Auer and was apparently very pleased with the work. Tchaikovsky certainly admired Nápravník as a composer, one of his favourite works being the Fantasy on Russian Themes, Op. 39 (1881), for piano and orchestra, which he conducted in Moscow on 6 November 1891, with Siloti as soloist. Tchaikovsky wrote to Nápravník that he hoped to perform it again in America, having just received an invitation to go there, as composer and conductor. Siloti also held this work in high regard, and performed it repeatedly in concerts in Russia and continental Europe. In fact, Tchaikovsky liked many of Nápravník’s compositions, playing them through in order to get to know them; he particularly enjoyed the

9

three-act ‘dramatic poem’ Don Juan, Op. 54 (1891), Symphony No. 3, Op. 18, subtitled The Demon (after Lermontov), and the Dances for orchestra.3

Violin Sonata in G major, Op. 52 (1890)In August 1890 Tchaikovsky sent Nápravník a lengthy letter detailing his own travel and work plans, in which he also asked if Nápravník was writing anything that summer. Nápravník replied a few days later, saying that he had indeed ‘sinned’, having written two works, one of which was a sonata for violin and piano. Tchaikovsky’s reply expressed his interest in getting to know it, and that he would work on arranging its performance alongside one of his own compositions. On 3 April 1891 the Sonata was successfully premiered by Maria Benois (its dedicatee) and Yevgeny Abrecht at the tenth gathering of the St Petersburg Chamber Music Society, but Nápravník’s initial hopes of getting it published were dashed soon after by the death of his publisher, D. Rahter; instead, it was published in 1892 by Jurgenson.

Although the Sonata received several subsequent performances in the following seasons, the critics stayed curiously silent, despite the obvious popularity of the work with the audiences. But that was a common occurrence with Nápravník’s works in general: if they were not reviewed unfavourably, they were largely ignored, and eventually Nápravník taught himself ‘Don’t ask’. Tchaikovsky was sympathetic, lamenting that Nápravník was indeed ignored by the critics, who should know better and be paying their dues to his talent and mastery.4

But the Sonata was noticed by those who mattered: Siloti, for one, liked it and aimed to programme it in his concerts in Weimar and Leipzig. The work shows Nápravník’s musical heritage and his musical inspirations and influences: it is written in an obviously western European tradition, with a nod to his Russian colleagues – Tchaikovsky and Borodin, perhaps. Clearly, it is conceived symphonically, even operatically, and its scope

3 Nápravník wrote two suites of orchestral Folk Dances, each containing three movements: Suite No. 1, Op. 20 (1875), and Suite No. 2, Op. 23 (1876). Tchaikovsky did not indicate whether he had one or both of these works in mind. (There is also a Suite de danses, Op. 57 (1893), for solo piano.)4 In a letter dated 17 February 1892, published in E. F. Nápravník: Avtobiograficheskie, tvorcheskie materialy, dokumenty, pisʹma (‘Autobiographical and Work-related Materials, Documents and Letters’), ed. Y. Keldysh, GosMuzIzdat, Leningrad, 1959, p. 180.

10

almost goes beyond the boundaries of the genre in its four-movement construction. The substantial, sonata-form first movement 1 begins with an Andante sostenuto introduction leading to an Allegro that ends like an opera or a Beethoven symphony, dramatically and on a grand scale. An unmistakable peal of Russian church bells, omnipresent in the music of Russian composers, pays homage to his adopted homeland. The opening theme reappears at the end, unifyng and rounding off the movement as a whole. The second movement 2 is arranged in three contrasting sections, with a playful and energetic beginning, Vivace, a melodious Meno mosso with long phrases, and a traditional Scherzo in the guise of a robust peasant dance, Tempo di Scherzo, which contrasts with the following Andantino doloroso 3 , where Nápravník shows his lyrical voice: lucid, clear and without hysterical outbursts. The grand finale, which inhabits a healthy, uncomplicated emotional world, is an assured and virtuosic Allegro con fuoco 4 , constructed mainly from a couple of themes developed and presented in various guises, giving musical unity to the structure.

Overall, this work displays a variety of colours and moods, skilfully deployed. Although the music is not overtly emotional, it is often pensive and observational: one gets a sense of the composer watching, rather than participating in, what is going on around him, with a kind of Germanic restraint of feeling. The piano writing is unmistakably orchestral, and the piano itself appears as an equal virtuosic partner to the violin, almost as if Nápravník were imagining the supportive colours of an orchestra.

Suite for Violin and Piano, Op. 60 (1896)Originally written as a suite for violin and orchestra, this Suite was later transcribed for violin and piano, probably by Nápravník himself. Given that he often complained that his ears were full of other composers’ music, which undoubtedly found its way into some of his own compositions, it is difficult in this instance not to reflect on the possible links with Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto; indeed, in view not only of their close friendship but also of Tchaikovsky’s standing in Russian music at the time, it is perhaps not all that surprising. What is also obvious is the sincerity of Nápravník’s musical ideas:

11

the flow of his creative inspiration is genuine, and is far from any copy or imitation. It shows perhaps the best of European musical tradition and, as with the Sonata, hardly betrays its composer’s adopted nationality.

The first movement opens Molto moderato 5 , with sombre steps in the piano, above which the violin begins a long lyrical melody disarming in its simplicity, which eventually leads to a lighter Allegro moderato section. The Scherzo 6 begins, Allegro vivo, with a fanfare-like call to action, unfolding in a spirited, relentless drive. There is an interplay of lyricism and passion throughout the movement, which is demanding for both performers despite its relative brevity. The third movement, an ‘Elegie’ marked Molto moderato 7 , is conversational, with the violin and piano engaging in a dialogue, first in subdued tones but slowly increasing in volume to reach expressive, impassionate moments of beautiful lyrical writing. In the spirited and self-assured Tarantella, Vivace 8 , the violin gets another chance to show off, in sparkling displays of virtuoso writing, with the piano providing support and rhythmical grounding.

Four Pieces for Violin and Piano, Op. 64 (1898)This characterful set of four contrasting pieces shows Nápravník’s excellent musical craftsmanship and his mastery of instrumental writing. Piano and violin are equal partners in this undertaking, working together to bring out the simplicity of lines and colourful characteristics of each piece.

The opening ‘Nocturne’ 9 bears a strong musical resemblance to a brooding Russian romance in its opening section, where the lower register of the violin is supported by a luscious piano accompaniment. In the middle part the flowing melodic lines soar freely and effortlessly, before the violin plunges (although in a restrained and dignified manner) into a characterful and spirited outburst. In its clarity of lines and light mood, there is nothing ‘nocturnal’ about this charming piece. The ‘Valse-caprice’ 10 likewise shows Nápravník’s preference for the lower register of the violin, with the lilting piano line beneath. This atmospheric piece maintains its observational aesthetic even in its ‘capricious’ and ‘playful’ character. The ‘Mélodie russe’ 11 does what it says in the title: Nápravník enlists Russian folk-like melody to form the basis of a lyrical and pensive

12

short piece. Finally, the ‘Scherzo espagnol’ 12 captures the spirit of the European south in the virtuosic violin writing, soulful lyricism and lively abandon.

Dr Anastasia Belina was formerly Principal Lecturer in Music and Classical Pathway Leader at Leeds College of Music and Assistant Head of Undergraduate Programmes at the Royal College of Music in London; she now works in concert management. She was awarded a Ph.D. in musicology from the University of Leeds for her dissertation on Sergey Taneyev and his opera Oresteia. She also has a degree in piano performance from the Shebalin Conservatoire of Music in Omsk, Russia. She writes and talks on Russian nineteenth-century music, opera and female composers, and frequently contributes to BBC radio broadcasts on these subjects. She is the editor of A Musician Divided: André Tchaikowsky in his Own Words, Toccata Press, London, 2013.

Since her debut with the Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra under Valery Gergiev in 2012, performing Prokofiev’s Violin Concerto No. 1, Lana Trotovšek has appeared with some of the world’s finest orchestras. In 2014 she toured with the Moscow Soloists and Yuri Bashmet and in 2016 she performed with the London Symphony Orchestra under Gianandrea Noseda. Her recent schedule included recording Venus Blazing, a violin concerto by Deirdre Gribbin for the BBC 3 ‘New Music Show’ with the Ulster Orchestra in Belfast, the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra under Raphael Payare, the Mendelssohn E minor Concerto with the RTS Symphony Orchestra (from Belgrade) in the Shanghai Oriental Arts Centre and an evening recital in the Wigmore Hall, which The Strad described as ‘remarkable’. Over the past few years she has collaborated with Tan Dun and the Orchestra Teatro Verdi and the Shanghai and Slovenian Philharmonics, as well as with Uroš Lajovic and the Sarajevo Philharmonic Orchestra, the RTV Slovenia under George Pehlivanian, and with the Kalamazoo Symphony Orchestra and the

13

Chamber Orchestra of Philadelphia, where The Philadelphia Inquirer flagged her as ‘an emerging voice to watch’. In 2016–18 she performed double violin concertos with Sergey Krylov and the Lithuanian Chamber Orchestra on a number of occasions, including the Al Bustan Festival in Lebanon. In summer 2017 she toured with John Malkovich and I Solisti Aquilani, performing Bach’s A minor Violin Concerto in festivals in Emilia Romagna, Ljubljana and Mittelfest. She is marking the 250th anniversary of Beethoven in 2020 with performances of the complete sonatas for violin and piano with Maria Canyigueral in Belgium, Slovenia, Spain and the UK.

She has performed at some of the world’s most prestigious venues, among them the Konzerthaus in Vienna, Teatro la Fenice in Venice, the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam and the Muziekgebouw in Eindhoven. Outside Europe, as well as China, she has been heard in Japan, the UAE, Canada and the USA. The festivals at which she has appeared include those at Aix-en-Provence, Aldeburgh, Bad Kissingen, Dubrovnik, Rheingau, the St Magnus on Orkney, Santander and Shanghai.

Lana Trotovšek was born in Ljubljana, Slovenia, into a family of musicians. At the age of four, she began playing the violin under the guidance of Majda Jamšek. When she was seventeen, her talent was recognised by Ruggiero Ricci, who mentored her at the Academy Mozarteum in Salzburg. During this period, she continued her studies at the Academy of Music of the University of Ljubljana with Volodja Balzalorsky and Primož Novšak. In 2005, her passion and skill were rewarded with the Prešeren Award, the highest university award for arts in Slovenia, following her performance of the Khachaturian Violin Concerto with the Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra under George Pehlivanian.

Between 2006 and 2011 she was a member of the Greenwich Piano Trio, with the cellist Stjepan Hauser and pianist Yoko Misumi. They won the Solti Foundation Award, the Tunnell Trust Award and other first prizes in chamber-music competitions across Europe. They were guided by Bernard Greenhouse and Menahem Pressler, the cellist and pianist of the Beaux Arts Trio, as well as by Stephen Kovacevich. She continued her studies at Trinity College of Music with Vasko Vassilev, Boris Brovtsyn and Rivka Golani, and at the Royal College of Music with Itzhak Rashkovsky, winning many prizes. Between 2011 and 2013, she was the first violinist of the Badke String Quartet, winners of the Melbourne International Chamber Music Competition.

Lana Trotovšek lives in London and is a Professor at the Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance. She maintains close ties to her home country, where she performs frequently, and is a visiting Professor at the Academy of Music in Ljubljana. She plays a 1750 Pietro Antonio dalla Costa violin.

14

Born in Varna, Bulgaria, Ludmil Angelov graduated from the Pancho Vladigerov State Music Academy in Sofia. His teachers were Viktoria Spassova, Ludmila Stoyanova and the phenomenal pianist and pedagogue Konstantin Stankovich, former assistant of Pancho Vladigerov in his piano classes. He won prizes and diplomas at international competitions, including the Senigallia (Italy, 1976), Fryderyk Chopin (Poland, 1985), Palm Beach (USA, 1990), Piano Masters (Monte Carlo, 1994) and World Piano Masters Tour (France, 1997).

Ludmil Angelov has performed in major concert halls, among them the Philharmonie in Berlin, Musikverein in Vienna, Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, the Salles Pleyel and Gaveau in Paris, Teatro alla Scala in Milan, Lincoln Centre in New York, Alte Oper in Frankfurt, Herkulessaal in Munich, KKL in Lucerne, Zürich Opera, Salle Garnier in Monte-Carlo, the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels, Brucknerhaus in Linz, Auditorio Nacional in Madrid, Auditori in Barcelona, Palau de la Música in Valencia, the concert halls of the Moscow and Milan Conservatoires, the National Philharmonic Hall and Polish National Opera in Warsaw and KBS Hall in Seoul.

The music of Chopin has been a constant of his performing career. During the 1987–88 season he performed the complete solo-piano works by Chopin in a cycle of twelve recitals, a unique event for which he received the prize of ‘Young Musician of the Year in Bulgaria’. He has also participated in some of the most significant Chopin festivals in Europe, including the ‘Chopin and his Europe’ Festival in Warsaw. In 1999 he presented, in a cycle of recitals, the complete works of Chopin in Madrid and other Spanish cities; ten years later, in the 2009–10 season, he again performed the complete Chopin in Spain and Bulgaria. His recording of Chopin’s rondos and variations was awarded a Grand Prix du Disque Chopin by the National Chopin Institute in Warsaw.

The labels for which Ludmil Angelov has recorded include Danacord, Gega New, Hyperion, Non Profit Music, Pentatone, RCA, Toccata Classics, Vela Records and Virginia Records. In June 2015 with the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra he made the first recording of the recently discovered early piano concerto of Moritz Moszkowski for Hyperion.

15

Ludmil Angelov teaches at the New Bulgarian University in Sofia, where he has been Honorary Professor since 2013. He gives master-classes all over the world and has served as a jury member at many international competitions, including the Chopin Competition in Warsaw, in 2010, 2015 and 2020. In November 2011 he was awarded the Gloria Artis medal by the Polish Ministry of Culture for his contribution to the international promotion of Polish music.

He is a member of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of Toledo, Spain, where for 21 years he directed the Toledo International Music Festival. He is also the founder of the Piano Extravaganza and Cameralia festivals in Sofia.

Recorded on 11 and 12 November 2017 in Union Hall, Partizanska, Maribor, SloveniaProducer-engineer: Boris Bizjak, Hedone Records

Booklet text: Anastasia BelinaCover: lithograph portrait of Eduard Nápravník by Pyotr Borel (1829–98), courtesy of The Hermitage Museum, St PetersburgCover design: David M. Baker (david@notneverknow.com)Typesetting and lay-out: Kerrypress, St Albans

Executive Producer: Martin Anderson

© Toccata Classics, London, 2020 ℗ Toccata Classics, London, 2020

16

EDUARD NÁPRAVNÍK Chamber Music, Volume OneViolin Sonata in G major, Op. 52 (1890) 35:101 I Andante sostenuto – Allegro 10:35 2 II Scherzo: Vivace – Meno mosso – Tempo di Scherzo 8:353 III Andantino doloroso 6:024 IV Allegro con fuoco 9:58

Suite for Violin and Piano, Op. 60 (1896) 31:245 I Molto moderato – Allegro moderato 9:10 6 II Scherzo. Allegro vivo 5:407 III Elegie. Molto moderato 9:008 IV Tarantella. Vivace 7:34Four Pieces for Violin and Piano, Op. 64 (1898) 19:519 No. 1 Nocturne 5:46

10 No. 2 Valse-caprice 4:5111 No. 3 Mélodie russe 5:1312 No. 4 Scherzo espagnol 4:02

Lana Trotovšek, violinLudmil Angelov, piano

TT 86:28

FIRST RECORDINGS