Haydn SQ Blind Listening Impressions, Spoilers

[DavidW]

When you've decided what you think of the samples, and their rankings, please post your impressions here instead of on the main thread, which I would prefer to be spoiler free.  It's easier than changing font colors/sizes.

[Madiel]

*Raises hand*

Is it okay to talk about impressions before we've got to the ranking stage? I've got some general thoughts formulating just on my first listen, which I can talk about without throwing any numbers in.

[DavidW]

Yeah of course.  Just post it here.

[Madiel]

Right-oh!

I wanted to do that partly because (1) I think there is nothing ever quite like hearing a piece of music for the first time ever (or 11 times for the first time ever?? maybe it applies to some degree for each individual recording when dealing with classical music), and (2) I've not quite done something like this before. 

First off, the difference between tempo and energy is palpable.  A faster speed certainly contributes something to a sense of energy, but at the same time a slower piece of music (or performance) can use other ways to make you feel like the music is alive and animated.  And two performances at basically the same pace can feel quite different in terms of energy. I already suspected this, but it's still interesting to have such direct comparisons.

And I really like my Haydn to have energy. A particular kind of energy, if my first listen is any guide. Personally I want a sense of sparkle.  There's something light and bouncy to it without being frivolous.  And not overly dramatic or uncontrolled.

Secondly, the acoustic of a recording really can make a big difference.  I seem to like the quartet to feel like they're close to me.  This probably is partly to do with the fact I was listening in headphones, and I do that a lot. I like the sense of the music being right there in my head.  Some of the recordings put me further away, and one in particular gave me a very specific sense of being in the middle of a concert hall rather than right up close.  It took away a sense of immediacy and involvement from a performance that I think I otherwise liked.

For both these things, other people might have quite different personal preferences, and as a result rate the performances very differently.

Another thing I noticed was the difference in pitch for some performances.  I have extremely good relative pitch, so my brain registered in milliseconds when there was a change.  But I don't have absolute pitch so the difference wouldn't bother me in normal listening.

I'm glad that with this short-term comparison at least, the idea that "the first one you hear will always be the one you take as correct" didn't hold true.  My likes and dislikes were spread through the random order my iPhone delivered. But then I may have been comparing the first recording I heard (on shuffle) with my existing Haydn collection, such as the op.76 quartets I've had for 20 years. 

While I don't think my responses were purely a function of listening order, I do know that the human brain is naturally inclined to measure change and relative values rather than absolute values.  So it's possible that a performance which felt slow wouldn't feel as slow if it hadn't, by sheer chance, followed a faster performance.  Another listen, another random shuffle might help sort that out.

Finally (at the end of this long ramble), I do already have a fair idea of ranking after just one listen per recording.  I've got a likely top rank, a couple of other contenders, a clear bottom rank and a somewhat more nebulous middle that has a couple of tiers in it, but where I feel the luck of the draw might have played some part.  I instinctively know my aesthetic values even when I can't articulate them fully in words, and the responses were pretty quick, especially after the first couple of recordings had given me information about the notes and the basic structure of the piece.  Give me a Haydn allegro in a sonata form, and my brain knows what it wants to get from the experience. Your brain may vary! 

[DavidW]

Thanks for that post.  I defn. agree that Haydn requires the right kind of tempo to be neither too dirge like nor too rushed.

[Gurn Blanston]

Since I didn't participate in earlier versions of this game, I'm not sure what the protocol is; just post a ranking, or include a rationale for it too?

So, I will just post my ranking for now and reserve comments for later.    

As David mentioned, I supplied a couple of these clips for the game, but unlike some folks, I never take versions of things that I have and line them up end to end for comparison purposes, so I have never heard all these openings like this before. I found it quite illuminating, actually. I also made no attempt to match up clips to performers, but to be fair, I couldn't help but recognize some of them. It's not my fault! 

So, here is my ranking of Group A;

   
• 2
• 4
• 6
• 7
• 11
• 9
• 10
• 8
• 12
• 5
• 3

Curious to see what y'all's are.

[fridden]

I have listened through the samples a couple of times and I think it really is fascinating.

I want my Haydn to be dramatic but not too have and serious. It needs a good tempo but should not be too rushed. I like performances that have good dynamics in the playing. The sound quality is another factor but in these samples the sound quality was never a problem for me.

I will list the entries in ranking order, with my initial comments and the grades  i gave them. It's not really easy to rank them!

EDIT: This is the ranking for Group A

11. Quick. Closed miked. Big dynamics in playing. Great drama. Tempo and attack feels just right for me. +++++

7. A Bit muffled sound, but yet reverberant in big acoustic. Swift, with pointed notes. Good attack and drama. ++++

4. Quick, but not rushed. Reverberant acoustic.  Perhaps a little older recording. Good dynamics in the playing. +++

10. Quick, somewhat muffled sound. good dynamics in the playing and nice drama. +++

8. Good sound, pretty straightforward in Kodaly style. In fact I think this is Kodaly SQ. Ok reading, but a little too plain ++

2. Straight forward. Ok warm sound. Nice string tone. A little like Kodaly. It's nice and ok but.. ++

6. Somewhat quick. The notes more defined, jagged. string tone slightly thin. Would like some more dynamics in the playing ++

9. Very quick. Close recording. Good dynamics. Dramatic reading but it feels rushed. ++

3. Quick. Too quick? More reverberant. Closer to the instrument. Dramatic. There is a bite and raw feeling to the string tone. But feeling rushed ++

5. bigger acoustics. The repeated notes more blurred out, not so jagged. Pretty straight forward and for me it feels a little lifeless. +

12. Slow. Big open acoustic. Best sound. Somewhat slow, and tired. For me it never take off. +

[Madiel]

Right, here goes for an actual ranking...

4 - I totally love this. Warm tone, close acoustic which I like.  It sparkles. It sings. It's a total delight for 3 minutes and I'm terribly disappointed when it cuts off.

9 - Very close between 2nd and 3rd. This appears to be one of the period performances (different pitch and a slightly thinner tone), and I think the playing approach suits the sound of the instruments. It's got a good level of energy to it, very lithe. It very, very occasionally sounds like it might rush, but for me the sensation was only momentary.

11 - Another strong contender, which is fast and energetic but in control. It seems to bring out the drama and excitement rather than the sparkle, in a slightly Beethoven-ish way, but it works.

10 - A nice performance with a good level of energy. However, I found the breathing on this one quite distracting. It was very strange to hear big noticeable breaths at the same time as having a slightly resonant acoustic.

7 - A nice peformance that, for me, is let down by the acoustic of the recording.  This is the one that makes me feel like I'm halfway back in a big concert hall.  Which just doesn't seem right for chamber music, and it severely blunts the impact of the playing. I feel far less involved in the music.

6 - A reasonable performance with a little bit of bounce to it, but again I think the performance is let down a little by the recording, which makes the strings sound rather thin.  Also, they completely fail to make anything of the prominent cadential chords at the end of the first group. In general there's not quite as much being done with the music compared to the better performances.

12 - Nice warm tone. Has that 'singing' quality that I respond to. Lots of nice little touches of interest and dynamics.  However, it's simply too slow to work as well as the performances at the top of my list.

5 - Again too slow. However, this is at the very least an interesting performance. There are stylistic touches that are different and which seem to fit the chosen tempo - it aims for smooth and flowing rather than bouncy or dramatic.

2 - The second of the period performances, if pitch is any guide.  And... that's about it. Ladies and gentleman, here are the notes. It's all very competent, but I simply didn't feel like they were doing anything with those notes to get my attention. It seemed bland and, while, I didn't actively dislike it, I also didn't find myself responding to it either. I also didn't like the string tone in this one, unlike no.9 where the thinner tone seemed to suit.

8 - This probably isn't actually the slowest performance, but it's the one that feels rather plodding.  Or rather, it simply doesn't feel like an allegro, but a very competent moderato.  Which isn't what Haydn asked for. It very much feels as if they are asking me to luxuriate in every note, which is nice but it doesn't work. In particular, the triplets don't register as triplets but as individual notes, without a real sense of pulse.

3 - Fast, but out-of-control fast. The repeated notes and some other passages gave me the urge to shout "LOOK OUT FOR THE CLIFF!" because that's where I thought we were heading. It's hard to enjoy yourself when you're not confident you're going to get to the other end in one piece.

[DavidW]

Gurn is yours greatest to least?

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn is yours greatest to least?

Oh, yes; #1 is my favorite, etc...

[mc ukrneal]

Group A
Ranked in order: 4, 10, 7, 8, 11, 6, 9, 3, 12, 5, 2. I re-listened to the top 6 to double-check results.

Comment
2 – Bright sounding. Don't like the sound of the top violin at all. I find the sound they produce distracts from decent playing, though not inspired. The only read dud. Ranking: 11
3 - Sounds better, but they change speeds too much at the very start– and it sometimes sounds rushed. But they seem more impassioned than the first. Once past the opening, quite enjoyable. Ranking: 8
4 – Cello opening softer. I liked this more muted approach. Nice balance. This isn't perfect, and yet it is the only one that really dives into my soul.  Ranking: 1
5 – Muddy sounding cello at the start. Is violin out of tune at times? Didn't like the overall sound, but better than #1. Also, this was a bit top heavy at times. Ranking: 10
6 – Cello more of a pulse, which I liked. There are times when they seem to want to speed up. When another instrument enter, they then settle down, but is minus for me. Could also be that they are just not together all the time. Ranking: 6
7 – Less legato start than some. Quite good. I like the way the repeated note is given strength and then then it is allowed to reduce naturally. I like the way they do crescendos and diminuendos.  Ranking 3
8 – Puls-ish start. Perhaps too isolated? This one seems to lack a bit of energy for me. But I like the transparency of the interpretation. It's a great strength to have (and I have ranked it higher because of it, which I suspect will be higher than most others will rank it). Ranking: 4
9 – Fleet. And I liked that. Yet at times it has a muddiness (could be the sound as well). Perhaps this is because of the extreme clarity of #8. I like the individuality, but this just didn't do it for me. Ranking: 7
10 – Nearly ideal. There is a tendency (throughout all of them) to want to vary the tempo in the opening. Nice clarity. And yet only #4 has given me goose bumps so far. Ranking: 2
11 – Cello a bit tentative. The others rush in their entrances sometimes – a shame. They seem to allow a variation in the tempo. Sound is good. More intensity here. I like that, but they hit the peaks too early, so that they have nowhere to go when they need to give more. Ranking: 5
12 – Slower start. Too slow and fussy. And we're back to that muddy feeling repeated note. Ranking: 9

[mc ukrneal]

So, here is my ranking of Group A;

   
• 2

Curious to see what y'all's are.

Oh my. Oh my oh my oh my. I can say that I have not heard any of these performances before (and I wish we had this before I bought the Tatrai Op 50, which I recently bought but is put to the side with the other Haydn Quartets for the moment, so I did not even check to see which one it is, if it is one of the choices). I did not co-exist well with the one you liked most of all. Oh my. I hope I'll be allowed back into the Haus! I also hope you will eventually post your comments.

[Madiel]

Oh my. Oh my oh my oh my. I can say that I have not heard any of these performances before (and I wish we had this before I bought the Tatrai Op 50, which I recently bought but is put to the side with the other Haydn Quartets for the moment, so I did not even check to see which one it is, if it is one of the choices). I did not co-exist well with the one you liked most of all. Oh my. I hope I'll be allowed back into the Haus! I also hope you will eventually post your comments.

The way things are going, there'd be a few people thrown out of the Haus if dislike of no.2 was the criterion...

It's really interesting to see already that certain performances are regularly appearing towards the top, and certain other ones are regularly appearing near the bottom, and a few are ranging all over the place.  I suppose that's typically what happens, but this is the first time I've been here to witness it in action.

[Gurn Blanston]

Hell, I don't mind in the least! I have been saying since Day 1 that all my recs are strictly what appeals to me. Of course, I've heard the entire piece, not just the intro, so that colors my choice a bit...

[mc ukrneal]

This time Group B:

My rankings: 5, 3, 10, 11, 6, 7, 12, 9, 4, 8, 2. But this doesn't really tell the whole story. It's more like 5,3,10,11  <gap>  6,7,12,9,4,8   <enormous gap>  2. Places 5-11 are generally quite close and somewhat interchangeable. I really did not like #2. I generally liked a smoother style, less clipped and more legato. I generally preferred when they seemed to float above the waves (if that makes any sense).

Group B:
2 – Harsh sounding and really unpleasant on the ear. Didn't have a sense of continuity within the movement. Rank: 11
3 – Slower, but much better interpretively. Very stylish and attractive playing. Rank: 2
4 – Style-wise, it feels like a mix between #2 & 3. I still prefer 3, though I like how this version shows more pianissimo at moments (and better use of dynamics in general). Rank: 9
5 – Liked this one a lot. The solo violin makes their part a bit more exaggerated compared to #3. Otherwise, they are quite similar in many ways, though this has a nice lilting quality. I like the faster speed in the middle of the clip. Rank: 1
6 – Nice, though I think the phrasing of the lead violin lets them down at times. Rank 5
7 – Clipped sounding violin at the start (phrasing issue). Don't like this interpretative decision. Otherwise, mostly fine. Rank: 6
8 – Another one where I don't like the lead violin. Rank: 10.
9 – Slower and clipped, so the effect is more pronounced. But I like the balance here and they have a certain elegance about them. 8
10 – I like this one a bit more with the more lilting approach. Rank 3
11 – This one and #10 are very similar. Rank: 4
12 – Ok. Didn't generally like the phrasing. Could have been more dynamic in the quieter moments – oddly static. Rank: 7

[fridden]

I found this round much more difficult to rank. I have listened through them several times before being able to finalize my ranking.
My verdict of the group B recordings:

4 Pretty close but good sound. Nice tempo with a bit more dancelike feeling. Gentle and lightfooted in the middle. Good dynamics. ++++

10 Muffled sound in an open acoustic. More dancelike and emotional. Middle section more relaxed. Good dynamics in the playing +++(+)

12 Reverberant sound. Quick and lightfooted. Middle section swift but not rushed. Little bit more of a raw string tone. +++(+)

7 More reverberant and open sound. Tempo ok, more quick than slow. Middle part nice and gentle. Overall nice dynamics in playing. +++

5 Somewhat muffled sound but with nice air around the instruments and good presence. Quicker with more "swung" in the beat, giving it more life. Middle section quite quick. Feel a bit rushed. +++

8 Dryer sound. More confined space. More edge and rawer sounding strings. A little quick. Rather quick in the middle section.  ++(+)

11 Clear open sound. Pretty straightforward. Too straight? Not bad, but ... ++(+)

3 Close with a little reverberant sound. Somewhat slow. Brings out a feeling of melancholy. Middle section more pointed. Good dynamics. ++ 

2 Close and clean sound. Nice tempo but I find the performance a bit bland. Middle section swift. I want more dynamic in the playing. ++

6 Older recording? But sound is ok. Somewhat quick. More of a jerky beat. Doesn't really take off for me. +(+)

9 Slower. Clean sound. Too straight and no feeling. For me an uninspired reading. +

[madaboutmahler]

Group A impressions:

2 – Very warm, beautiful tone. Not always so sure I like the articulations, tempo fine.
3 – Not quite sure that the drastic 'pushing forward' works that well at the beginning! And I find the tempo too be a tad on the too-fast side anyway!
4 – I much prefer the articulation in this performance. A wonderful timbre, with a fine, steady tempo. Very good!
5 – Articulations fine. Perhaps a little too slow. Not as warm a sound as the other performances. Not bad.
6 – Unsteady cello at the beginning to my ears... it feels to me as if they are pushing forward too much.  Rather thin sounding strings. And again, to my ears, too little contrast, the forte cadences not strong enough.
7 – Enjoying this far more. A wonderful, warm tone. Articulations perfect to me. Very expressive with an excellent feel for the dynamics.
8 – hmmmm... rather straight-forward sounding to me. Does not 'draw me in' as much as some of the other performances did.
9 – Sounds a tad rushed to me. And the sound is a little thin too. And sometimes, as in no.6, the quavers sound uneven in places.
10 – The perfect tempo to me. Balance doesn't always seem perfect, but not to an extent that it makes it a bad performance! In fact, I thoroughly enjoyed this performance!
11- Excellent dynamics, wonderful sound. A rather fast tempo, which I enjoy, and it is very well controlled. Very good indeed. Excellent actually. I have a feeling that this may be my favourite!
12 -  Too slow for me. Erm... not much else to say! It did seem straight-forward too.

So, my vote, in order, 1 being the highest:

1) 11
2) 7
3) 4
4) 10
5) 2
6) 5
7) 8
8 ) 12
9) 9
10) 6
11) 3

Thank you, David! I really enjoyed that, and look forward to seeing the results.
12)

[Madiel]

Having my first round of Group B listening right now. Gosh it's interesting. The first performance I heard, purely on random shuffle, made me think that I might have found a bit of Haydn that I don't particularly like. Subsequent performances have reassured me that it's not bad! 

But it's quirky. And some of them are underplaying the quirkiness and some, I think, are probably OVERplaying it for my tastes. Hmm.

[Madiel]

Group B

Okay, a couple of general observations before the ranking. Like others, I found this group harder to rank. There isn't much between my top 3 for instance.

How much was made of the music became a factor in certain ways.  I decided to go and look at the score on IMSLP, and was fascinated to discover that - on that version at least - the first 3 snaps in the 1st violin part are not the same as the following ones. The first 3 have no rest written between them, and the ones after that do.  Some quartets gave me that difference, others didn't give any sign of it.  Now, I suppose I don't know if all versions of the score show that, but I tended to favour those quartets that gave this added character to the music.

I also liked it if a quartet gave some kind of separation between the menuet and the trio, given that they're in the same key. Some had a noticeable change of tempo, others just gave a nice little hesitation before moving on.  Lesser groups just plowed straight on.


12 - Over multiple listens I found this one growing on me, simply because it seemed to be the one that successfully kept the dance character of the movement intact.

5 - Also really like this one. For one thing, it was the one that REALLY made something of the difference in those first 3 snaps. I also think the approach to the trio works well.

10 - The menuet has a slightly more 'aristocratic' character. Lots of effort to create interest here. However, I think the trio is lacking something in comparison.

6 - A nice performance, and in particular I think the string tone matches the approach taken - relatively athletic.

11 - Also nice, with subtle touches that I like but perhaps a bit understated in comparison to the performances at the top of my list.

7 - The performers are good, but they really ought to sue their recording team. I honestly think a lot of good work is being destroyed by this acoustic. You can't make a dance movement crisp and light in this environment. There are spots where it's really working against what the quartet is trying to do.

2 - Competent, but also somewhat lacking character. A bit bland.

4 - I have really mixed feelings about this one. Characterful? Certainly. But at the end of the day it felt to me like the quirky side of the music, the snaps and the silences, was being emphasised just a bit too much at the expense of the dance side of it. It wouldn't surprise me if others really liked this, but it wasn't quite to my interpretative tastes.

8 - I didn't like the string tone here. While it did give the lower parts a chance to make a rustic 'drone' effect, overall it was a bit unpleasant. And the performance, while having some character, didn't have enough in the end to compensate.

9 - To my ears this was a little disjointed and heavy-handed.

3 - For the first few seconds of each listen I would like this. Nice warm string tone. But after that I would always find my enjoyment diminishing as I realised how goddamn slow it was. I kept having the urge to kick one of the players just to make sure they were still awake. I might react differently to this in isolation, but when subject to a direct comparison the speed became a real problem.

[Que]

I guess better late than never....

Group A

2. Traditional, straight forward. Might be a Central European ensemble.

3. At least it's a bit up tempo, but the ensemble sound is thin and razor sharp, the playing overly brilliant and dramatised.

4. Better, a nicely gruff cello and sweet violins. A "classic" sounding ensemble, very polite but classy. Old School but another step into the right direction. An old recording, but never mind.

5. A "thicker", warmer sounding ensemble. I'm sure some of you will fall for this. But not for me, the sound may be pleasing on the ear, I don't hear much distinction in the approach. A bit bland with energy slowly seeping away. Nice, middle of the road.

6. Another quick one!  Like the sound: characterful sounding instruments: gruff and woody but distinctive. A strong pulse and nice interplay. The best so far, I would say.

7.  Dark and brooding, "classic" sound. Old fashioned playing, but in a very nice way. Smooth sailing from start to finish.

8. Straight forward, OK. Some accents thrown in here and there, but still not very distinctive. Kodaly?

9. The fastest so far - too fast, actually. I don't like the sound of the ensemble either. Interplay is downright messy and it goes from bad to worse....

10. No problem with up-tempo, but this is too hard pressed. Stop an go for dramatic effect. Not a bad try, but no thank you.

11. Sounds like an Old School German ensemble with that strong, beefy sound. They take it straight, grand and polished. But does not sound particularly witty to me. Where oh where is that Haydnesque wit?

12. I had to repeat this one a few times. Maybe because it came last but I did wonder what to think of it... This one keeps a low profile with safe choices - slow and not very eventful.

Favourites are: no. 4, no. 6, no. 7. And upon re-hearing: in that order, though 4 & 6 are close. Than follows no. 11. The really bad ones are nos. 3 and 9, the rest is in between.

Q

PS Can I have another day to do group B? 0:)