new cpo releases in September 2026

[emi122]

[Justin]

Happy to see the Borowicz Alfven CPO series is continuing with Symphony No. 5. It was recorded June 2-4, 2025.

[Jonathan]

Excellent, hopefully a series of Czerny symphonies!

[terry martyn]

There are two works called "Symphony No 2"  - one recorded (twice), and the other -  unavailable on CD ,conducted by Botstein.

[eschiss1]

and both in D major but in their movement order clearly different pieces (also the scherzo of one is in D major and the scherzo of the other in D minor.) BTW it's not true: one of the D majors has been -miscalled, by several websites, out of confusion with the other D major, "no.2". (because, Czerny in D major)*, but it's actually no.0, written before all the others.

hopefully cpo will eventually (without emphasis on "eventually") give us all 7 Czerny symphonies, including nos. 3 and 4 as yet unheard by us... well, I can hope!
The works by Stefania Turkevych (1898-1977) seem according to Earsense all to have been composed after 1930 (violin sonata, 1935; string trio, 1940; piano quintet, 1960-70). Curious how they sound, though.

*Not... entirely unlike how I request Busch's symphony in E minor Op.39 from the interloan system and they get me in, after awhile, a symphony in E minor Op.39! Yay! Except, erm, it's Sibelius'.

[terry martyn]

So, presumably we are getting a third recording of the non-Botstein  No 2?

[Ilja]

It's a bit of a continuing point of frustration, but since there isn't really an established Czerny numbering system, why not go from No. 1 (D major of 1812) to No. 7 (G minor of 1854)? It's bad enough that we have so many moronic numbering (number "00"?... Separating "study symphonies" from "non-study" ones?... Please don't) conventions without introducing more.

</rant>

[eschiss1]

He published two works, though I think he did number them 1 and 2 (but I have no objection to -re-numbering them 2 and 3, chronologically, assuming none of the others were written earlier besides the D major of 1812.) "The non-Botstein no.2" makes no sense, it's the 2nd to be published (and no.3 in D would be fine. Though cpo would be off to a bad start...) The "Botstein no.2" makes even less sense, as no one refers to it as no.2, except for websites like Amazon; it's the D major of 1812. (If Botstein also refers to it so we should make an effort to explain why someone got their wires crossed.)

[Mark Thomas]

Cpo seem to have made a good job clarifying the sequence of Potter and Hiller symphonies, so I'm hopeful that they've done a similar job with Czerny.