01	Symphony No 38 "Prague" - Adagio - Allegro						19:29
	02	Symphony No 38 "Prague" - Andante						11:03
	03	Symphony No 38 "Prague" - Finale: Presto						08:00
	04	Symphony No 40 - Molto allegro						06:46
	05	Symphony No 40 - Andante						12:27
	06	Symphony No 40 - Menuetto: Alegretto, Trio						03:50
	07	Symphony No 40 - Allegro Assai						10:06

Concertgebouw Orchestra Amsterdam
Country Netherlands

Biography
This world-class orchestra takes its name and its origins from its home venue: the Concertgebouw (Concert Hall) located in the heart of Amsterdam. As part of the cultural renaissance that swept through the Netherlands in the 1880s, a group of wealthy Amsterdam businessmen decided that orchestral music should have a more prominent place in the city's artistic life and set about constructing a suitable concert hall. Completed in 1888, the Concertgebouw management engaged Willem Kes as conductor and hired musicians to fill this acoustically superb venue.
Kes took it upon himself to not only entertain, but to instruct. Much of the repertoire he chose consisted of important symphonic works, he programmed very little frivolous or contemporary music. He also insisted that his audiences adhere to the standard rules of concert etiquette, which was quite different from the raucous behavior common in Amsterdam's concert halls at that time. Although his rigidity was not initially well-received, when Kes moved on to conduct the Scottish Orchestra in 1895, he left a competent ensemble and a well-behaved, knowledgeable audience.

Following Kes was Willem Mengelberg, who conducted the Concertgebouw Orchestra for nearly 50 years and honed the group into a polished ensemble. Mengelberg's affinity for the music of Richard Strauss and Gustav Mahler and his reputation for adherence to the composer's intentions brought a wonderful sensitivity to the orchestra's performances. His rehearsal technique was musically demanding and highly disciplined, which allowed him to draw exciting and highly interpretive performances from the ensemble, thrilling Concertgebouw audiences. His energetic conducting style was widely acclaimed, and his insistence that the orchestra make recordings helped bring the ensemble to the world's attention. Although his interpretive approach sometimes overshadowed the orchestra's repertoire, Mengelberg made the Concertgebouw a "musical as well as architectural landmark."

After the war, management of the orchestra was taken over by the Dutch government and placed under the direction of Eduard van Beinum. His personable character and cooperative rehearsal technique brought out the best in the orchestra's members. This was most evident in the fluidity and inter-sectional sensitivity that characterized the Concertgebouw's postwar sound. Van Beinum also broadened the ensemble's repertoire to include contemporary works, especially those of Dutch composers, which not only brought new depth to orchestra's musical abilities, but also buoyed pride in the war-torn nation's native sons.

After the shock of Van Beinum's sudden death during a rehearsal in 1959, Bernard Haitink and Eugen Jochum shared the Concertgebouw podium until Haitink shouldered the full responsibility as chief conductor in 1964. Under Haitink's direction, it recorded and toured extensively. He established the Concertgebouw Orchestra Chorus, directed by Arthur Oldham, in 1980. He shared the podium with many distinguished guest conductors, such as Colin Davis, Antбl Dorati, and Kiril Kondrashin, who was the orchestra's co-conductor from 1979 until his death in 1981. Haitink also began a long-term collaboration with Baroque and Classical music specialist Niklaus Harnoncourt, which led to significant refinement in the Concertgebouw's performances of works from these periods. This was especially notable in the orchestra's annual performance of Bach's St. Matthew Passion each Easter Sunday; a tradition since 1899. In addition, Haitink presided over the ensemble's 100th anniversary celebration, which included six performances of Mahler's Symphony No. 8 that delighted audiences. Haitink stepped down from his long tenure as chief conductor at the end of the 1988 - 1989 season and was replaced by Riccardo Chailly, who was a frequent and well-loved Concertgebouw guest conductor during Haitink's reign.

Through a series of sensitive and creative conductors and with the consistent support of its appreciative audiences, the Concertgebouw Orchestra has earned its reputation as the Netherlands' most distinguished orchestra. -- Corie Stanton Root



Symphony No. 38 in D major ("Prague"), K. 504
Composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Genre Classical Period Symphony
Composition Date 1786

Description
On May 1, 1786, Mozart's new opera Le nozze di Figaro received its first performance at the Burgtheater in Vienna. Enthusiastically received by connoisseurs, the long and complex opera puzzled many of the general public and it received only eight performances. Early in December, Figaro was staged at the National Theater (today known as the Tyl Theater) in Prague, where it became such a triumphant success that Mozart was induced to visit the Bohemian capital to see the production for himself. When he and his wife Constanze arrived on January 11, 1787, he had with him a new symphony which had been completed early in December (it was entered in Mozart's thematic catalog on December 6). The symphony was included in the concert Mozart gave eight days later, resulting in the first performance of a work which would subsequently become irrevocably associated with the city in which the composer witnessed his greatest triumph in later years. A decade after the concert, the Prague schoolmaster Franz Niemetschek (who educated Mozart's son Carl after the composer's death in 1791) testified to the symphony's enduring popularity: "The symphonies he composed for this occasion are real masterpieces of instrumental composition. ... This applied particularly to the grand Symphony in D, which is always a favorite in Prague, although it has no doubt been heard a hundred times."
Such connections have led to the general assumption by Mozart's biographers that the "Prague" symphony was composed for his visit there, but this cannot be the case -- Mozart composed the work before he received the invitation to visit the city. Indeed, a letter of his father's (November 17, 1786) clearly shows that at the time of composition Mozart was planning a visit to England, a visit which never took place becase Leopold refused to look after the composer's two young children. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that the work was composed with Mozart's projected London visit in mind -- what we know as the "Prague" symphony might have become Mozart's "London" symphony had his plans come to fruition. An unusual feature of the symphony is that it is in only three movements; it is the only major symphonic work from the Classical period to lack the usual minuet and trio or scherzo movement. But there is nothing small-scale about the work; it amply justifies Niemetschek's epithet "grand." The opening movement, a broad, imposing Adagio introduction followed by a hugely powerful Allegro, is one of the most impressive of all Classical symphonic movements, with dramatic qualities that foreshadow Don Giovanni and a mastery of counterpoint hitherto restricted to Mozart's chamber works. The central Andante utterly transcends the easygoing implication of such a heading; it is a movement of profound, songful depth and contrapuntal skill. The final Presto also shares some of the demonic power of Don Giovanni, the opera Mozart would shortly compose for Prague, while at the same time inhabiting a world in which, for all the bright major-mode music, tragedy never seems too far away. -- Brian Robins



Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550
Composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Genre Classical Period Symphony
Composition Date 1788

Description
Mozart composed his final three symphonies during the summer of 1788. His entries in the thematic catalog he maintained suggest that all were written during the space of about two months. Much critical discussion has been devoted to the reasons for their composition, for it appeared that Mozart had no specific occasion in mind for their performance. The romantic notion that he composed them without practical purpose is now widely disregarded as being out of character with Mozart's known compositional procedures, and the scholar H. C. Robbins Landon has recently advanced convincing arguments to suggest that they were in fact written for a series of concerts he gave in the fall or Advent season of 1788. Robbins Landon's argument is largely based on an undated letter written by Mozart to his principal benefactor, his fellow Freemason Michael Puchberg. In this letter he refers to his concerts which will begin "next week," concerts which scholars formerly believed never to have taken place. Evidence also supports the idea (advanced by Neal Zaslaw) that Mozart took the three symphonies on the tour he made to Germany the following year, which would further undermine the long-held notion that the composer never heard three of the greatest works in the symphonic literature performed.
One aspect of the symphonies upon which commentators reach universal agreement is their extraordinary diversity of character; each has unique qualities which together utterly explode the myth that the extreme agitation and pathos of the G minor Symphony reflected the abject circumstances in which Mozart found himself at this period. The begging letters addressed to Puchberg during these months are indeed pitiful documents that might be cited as evidence of Mozart's state of mind at the time he was composing the G minor symphony. But they will hardly do for the mellow warmth, strength and humor of E flat Symphony or the elevated grandeur of the "Jupiter" Symphony. Neither should it be forgotten that the tragic qualities so often associated with the symphony today have not always been apparent to all. To Robert Schumann the symphony was a work of "Grecian lightness and grace," while for a later writer, Alfred Einstein, there are passages that "plunge to the abyss of the soul."

Such ambiguity is perhaps apt for one of the greatest works of a composer whose music so frequently defies adequate description. The symphony is cast in the usual four movements; the opening Molto allegro immediately announces something unusual by starting not with characteristic loud "call to attention," but with quietly spoken agitation. The uneasy passion of the main theme leads to conclusions that seem to protest rather than find any consolation. The movement's dominant feeling is urgency: upbeat after upbeat after upbeat occurs. Amid great instability and a questioning aura, we experience a peek into Don Giovanni's abyss. In the finale, the horns intrude with wild swatches of color. There is even an eerie twelve-note insertion after the double bar in the Allegro assai section.

There are two versions of the G minor symphony. The first is modestly scored for flute and pairs of oboes, horns, and strings, but at some point shortly after composition Mozart added parts for two clarinets, slightly altering the oboe parts to accommodate them. Such second thoughts surely also add credibility to the idea that Mozart led performances of the work -- he would hardly have bothered with such refinements if the symphony was not being used for practical purposes. -- Brian Robins