I need to buy a complete box set for a friend's birthday.
String quartet is his favourite genre but he doesn't very well XXth century composers.
Your recommandations?
Quote from: quintett op.57 on May 13, 2007, 10:23:17 AM
I need to buy a complete box set for a friend's birthday.
String quartet is his favourite genre but he doesn't very well XXth century composers.
Your recommandations?
Danel (complete)
or
Borodin (1-13) on Chandos
Quote from: George on May 13, 2007, 10:24:53 AM
Borodin (1-13) on Chandos
I was thinking about this one, I have 5 Shosta's quartets by them and they're all fine.
thank you
Quote from: quintett op.57 on May 13, 2007, 10:27:06 AM
I was thinking about this one, I have 5 Shosta's quartets by them and they're all fine.
Just be aware that they have had personnel changes over the years. I prefer the older lineup on Chandos.
George's recommendation for the Danel sounds appropriate, especially if your friend isn't into the angst of these works. The Rasumovsky cycle on Oehms would also fit into the "kinder" category occupied by the Danel.
Quote from: quintett op.57 on May 13, 2007, 10:27:06 AM
I was thinking about this one, I have 5 Shosta's quartets by them and they're all fine.
thank you
No problem. :)
I'm very happy with my Emerson box set, but it's the only one I've heard, so take that into consideration.
What I can say is that I sometimes find the Emersons a bit on the slick side in Haydn, but in Shostakovich I don't get that impression at all. Just great live music making.
If you go for Emerson you might as well try to get hold of the half price reissue that was released for the 100th anniversary: http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/product//4757407.htm. It seems like DG is reverting the set to full price again.
Quote from: George on May 13, 2007, 10:24:53 AM
Danel (complete)
or
Borodin (1-13) on Chandos
Nice ;)
Quote from: Don on May 13, 2007, 10:30:30 AM
George's recommendation for the Danel sounds appropriate, especially if your friend isn't into the angst of these works. The Rasumovsky cycle on Oehms would also fit into the "kinder" category occupied by the Danel.
Would agree, The Danel are superbly recorded and a great ensemble, but do fall short in the pathos dept. Particularly in comparison to the Borodins who can be ferocious in these works but they contrast nicely.
Have been acquiring the Beethoven Quartet on Melodiya and can confirm they are very deep, penetrating performances that
do inject the right amount of pathos. Sound isn't amazing but quite servicable.
There's so much competition in this arena though; Emerson Qt, Shostakovich Qt, Brodsky Qt, Rubio Qt, Eder Qt, St. Petersburg Qt, Taneyev Qt...The list goes on
The Borodin's complete cycle has been reissued in Europe, and is a fine first choice. The Danel and Emerson make fine alternatives, though my overall opinion of the latter in this repertoire has diminished somewhat after hearing them play the first nine in concert. Hopefully the last six will be better. (The tickets to those concerts arrived yesterday.)
Quote from: SimonGodders on May 13, 2007, 10:42:34 AM
Nice ;)
Would agree, The Danel are superbly recorded and a great ensemble, but do fall short in the pathos dept. Particularly in comparison to the Borodins who can be ferocious in these works but they contrast nicely.
Have been acquiring the Beethoven Quartet on Melodiya and can confirm they are very deep, penetrating performances that do inject the right amount of pathos. Sound isn't amazing but quite servicable.
There's so much competition in this arena though; Emerson Qt, Shostakovich Qt, Brodsky Qt, Rubio Qt, Eder Qt, St. Petersburg Qt, Taneyev Qt...The list goes on
The only 'complete cycle' that I have is that of the
Shostakovich Quartet mentioned above on Regis - not sure if the set is still available (packaged as 5 CDs in 3 jewel boxes) - also have the
Borodin SQ in 5 of these works, and wanted a second box, so was contemplating just buying this group's complete cycle (the issue that George raised concerning personnel changes is an important consideration) - will be interested to see what others have prefer in this repertoire. :)
(http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/images/records/regisrrc5001.jpg)
Yes, definitely available, seen it around. What are your impressions of the set?
Quote from: SonicMan on May 13, 2007, 11:26:42 AM
will be interested to see what others have prefer in this repertoire. :)
The Fitzwilliams. That's my only set so I can't make any comparisons though. The price was neat when I got them :)
How much do you want to spend? The Rubio's cycle on Brilliant is quite good, and quite cheap. I love the Fitzwilliam and the old Borodin but there is a real possibility the Shostakovich is going to be my preferred set eventually (I've only heard a few quartets so far but was blown away).
Sarge
Quote from: quintett op.57 on May 13, 2007, 10:23:17 AM
I need to buy a complete box set for a friend's birthday.
String quartet is his favourite genre but he doesn't very well XXth century composers.
Your recommandations?
Fitzwilliam or Shostakovich.
Quote from: BorisG on May 13, 2007, 02:10:16 PM
Fitzwilliam or Shostakovich.
Well, just listened to the first 2 discs of the
Shostakovich SQ cycle - really excellent & a keeper for me!
I was planning on adding the
Borodin SQ set, but the
Fitzwilliam SQ seems to be 'emerging' as a favorite - hmmm, will be interested in further comments - 8)
All of these are 'older' recordings (e.g. Shostakovich SQ recordings are from late '70s into mid-80s) - are the more 'recent' offerings, such as the
Emersons even in the competition? :)
(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41KCNCQZHTL._AA240_.jpg)
Borodin, not just for the pathos they have, but also for the outright weirdness that they find in Shosty's soundworld. Sort of like a circus inside and insane asylum.
Danel - because 'angst' only scratches the surface of what these works are about.
I also own the Emerson set and the Shostakovich set, as well as various Borodin discs.
Still prefer the Danel. Masters of insight, they shed a beaming light into Shostakovich's musical thicket.
The superb sound is a nice bonus.
Quote from: Tyson on May 13, 2007, 04:39:46 PM
Borodin, not just for the pathos they have, but also for the outright weirdness that they find in Shosty's soundworld. Sort of like a circus inside and insane asylum.
I like that description, there is something 'manic' in their interpretations that literally leaves me feeling quite anxious at times. Very powerful.
Quote from: donwyn on May 13, 2007, 08:58:45 PM
Danel - because 'angst' only scratches the surface of what these works are about.
The superb sound is a nice bonus.
Agree, the focus is narrow. I also enjoy the more intellectualised view from the Danel's. I was reading the accompanying booklet in the set this morning and they certainly had some impressive tutelage supporting them in performing and recording the cycle.
The Rubio on Brilliant is cheap, and very good.
I am going through it now, and are amazed how well they perform and how well it is recorded.
I agree, but found it a little bit on the fashionably "poker-faced" modern side.
The Emerson Quartet indeed do a great job, and their boy is comparatively cheap, too.
I obtained the recent re-release of the Melodya box, and if you want your Shostakovich "authentically" Russian, including sound quality, there's no better set than this:
(http://www.jpc.de/image/cover/front/0/8025670.jpg)
Thomas
A couple positive mentions about the Rubio set makes me have to blurt out: it's too smoothed over! The set is OK, but it just doesn't ignite.
Quote from: Todd on May 14, 2007, 04:56:23 AM
A couple positive mentions about the Rubio set makes me have to blurt out: it's too smoothed over! The set is OK, but it just doesn't ignite.
Well for me it does, but maybe I am easily satisfied! :)
Quote from: Todd on May 14, 2007, 04:56:23 AM
A couple positive mentions about the Rubio set makes me have to blurt out: it's too smoothed over!
It's smoother than some, true. But, some people prefer Maxim Shostakovich and Jansons rather than Kondrashin and Mravinsky in the symphonies; same with Rubio vs Borodin: some might prefer the smoother ride. It's nice we have a choice.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 14, 2007, 05:15:54 AMIt's smoother than some, true.
Some? Who's smoother? And don't say the Manhattan - they're just more boring.
I certainly agree with the benefits of choice; my personal first choice is the Danel.
Quote from: Todd on May 14, 2007, 05:26:46 AM
Some? Who's smoother? And don't say the Manhattan - they're just more boring.
Okay...no one is smoother. Happy? Why don't you just tell us which version to buy, Todd. Then we can simply end this thread and move on to your next recommendation.
Sarge
Nobody plays it smoother . . . makes me feel sad for the rest . . . .
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 14, 2007, 05:40:57 AMWhy don't you just tell us which version to buy, Todd.
I already made my recommendations - in my first post I believe.
Quote from: Valentino on May 13, 2007, 10:36:19 AM
I'm very happy with my Emerson box set, but it's the only one I've heard, so take that into consideration.
I'm very happy with the
Emerson box, too. I've also heard the
Borodin's complete set, and like that no less than the
Emerson's.
Quote from: SimonGodders on May 13, 2007, 10:42:34 AM
Nice ;)Have been acquiring the Beethoven Quartet on Melodiya and can confirm they are very deep, penetrating performances that do inject the right amount of pathos. Sound isn't amazing but quite servicable.
Does this mean that the rumor of reissue on Melodiya is true? If so, and if the sound improves even marginally on the harsh transfers of the older Consonance CD releases, I MUST acquire them. Thanks for the heads-up. As I know I've mentioned before on this board, the Beethoven Qt. recording of #8 on an old mono MK vinyl pressing is what first convinced me that Shostakovich's quartets were masterworks...and I still pick up every recording of theirs that I can find. (There simply aren't enough of them out there!)
My most satisfying set of the Shostakovichon CD is the older Borodin (Chandos), who give the Beethoven serious competition in some works. Of course, I still haven't heard the Danel...someday, perhaps.
Dirk
Quote from: dirkronk on May 14, 2007, 06:23:28 AM
Does this mean that the rumor of reissue on Melodiya is true? If so, and if the sound improves even marginally on the harsh transfers of the older Consonance CD releases, I MUST acquire them. Thanks for the heads-up. As I know I've mentioned before on this board, the Beethoven Qt. recording of #8 on an old mono MK vinyl pressing is what first convinced me that Shostakovich's quartets were masterworks...and I still pick up every recording of theirs that I can find. (There simply aren't enough of them out there!)
Dirk
Here they are at MDT Dirk:
http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/pages/search/searchresults.asp
I've got all that are available, but can't seem to find anyone with the full cycle, if indeed it was a full cycle recorded. The sound is 'of it's time' and seems to vary between quartets (dates range from early 60's to mid 70's IIRC) but I'm more than happy with it and certainly wouldn't call them harsh transfers, so perhaps they have been re, re-mastererd to previous incarnations
:)
Quote from: SimonGodders on May 14, 2007, 06:34:32 AM
(1) I've got all that are available, but can't seem to find anyone with the full cycle, if indeed it was a full cycle recorded.
(2) The sound is 'of it's time' and seems to vary between quartets (dates range from early 60's to mid 70's IIRC) but I'm more than happy with it and certainly wouldn't call them harsh transfers, so perhaps they have been re, re-mastererd to previous incarnations
(1) IIRC, there was one--perhaps two, but certainly one--of the middle quartets that did NOT appear on the Consonance Beethoven Quartet issues...and the group may simply never have played it. However, I'm not at home where I have a reference that would remind me which one's missing.
(2) I have no complaints about the Melodiya and Angel/Melodiya items I have, mono or stereo, since the sound might not be audiophile quality, but at least strings sound pretty much like strings. But the couple of Consonance CDs I own are truly shrill in comparison with the analog LP originals. Thus I presume poor transfers...and hold out hope for better work from the Melodiya folks this time around.
Thanks for the link!
Dirk
Fitzwilliam - I find this the best cycle overall for consistent home listening. Since these quartets are among my most listened-to pieces, it's my natural first choice.
For comparison, I've heard part or all of the Borodin, Emerson, Shostakovich, & Eder cycles.
I have not listened to this music at all, and I consider this complete set from the Borodin quartet on Melodiya. Does anyone know how it compares to their incomplete Chandos set? And which string quartet do you think would be the best introduction to this music for a novice (they have some single CD's of the Chandos Borodin set at the library)?
(http://www.mdt.co.uk/public/pictures/products/standard/MELCD1001077.jpg)
I checked out the Fitzwilliam set at the library and have been really enjoying them. Great, crisp performances. And really nice pieces, none of which I was familiar with before! :o
Mostly scary (and desperate and depressed) rather than nice I should think?
Like calling Pettersons 7th a cheerful romp! ;D
Quote from: rubio on May 19, 2007, 09:50:18 AM
I have not listened to this music at all, and I consider this complete set from the Borodin quartet on Melodiya. Does anyone know how it compares to their incomplete Chandos set? And which string quartet do you think would be the best introduction to this music for a novice (they have some single CD's of the Chandos Borodin set at the library)?
(http://www.mdt.co.uk/public/pictures/products/standard/MELCD1001077.jpg)
Taken from "Classcal Music the Listener's Companion":
The Melodiya has two violinists that were not in the earlier Chandos set. As a result, the old abrasiveness is largely gone, and the ensemble sounds more technically assured, warmer, more refined in tone- more of a single minded unit, yet without losing any of their former intensity and drive. Tempos are usually slower, but their dynamic range has increased dramatically. Not only that, they play far more expressively; the brooding passages are bleaker than before...decent sound. Me, I like the abrasiveness of the earlier and have not sought out the second complete set. I can recommend the Chandos without reservation. :)
Quote from: George on May 19, 2007, 03:22:14 PM
Me, I like the abrasiveness of the earlier and have not sought out the second complete set. I can recommend the Chandos without reservation. :)
Hi George,
Which string quartet from the Borodin Chandos set would you advice me to sample first from the library? I see they have 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 15 on individual discs.
Try the 8th - normally scares the shit out of me! The Borodin's are excellent with this...
Quote from: rubio on May 20, 2007, 01:41:33 AM
Hi George,
Which string quartet from the Borodin Chandos set would you advice me to sample first from the library? I see they have 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 15 on individual discs.
The Chandos doesn't include 14 or 15. That's got to be the Melodiya. :-\
I have the Fitzwilliam and a recently acquired Borodin. Both are exceptionally good, but the Fitzwilliam may be overall less expensive.
Quote from: George on May 20, 2007, 06:23:23 AM
The Chandos doesn't include 14 or 15. That's got to be the Melodiya. :-\
My mistake. I see it's on EMI (Melodiya). Is your favourite also the 8th?
Quote from: Haffner on May 20, 2007, 07:17:04 AM
I have the Fitzwilliam and a recently acquired Borodin. Both are exceptionally good, but the Fitzwilliam may be overall less expensive.
Chandos or Melodiya?
Quote from: rubio on May 20, 2007, 07:27:55 AM
My mistake. I see it's on EMI (Melodiya). Is your favourite also the 8th?
I don't really have a favorite, I enjoy them all. :)
Quote from: George on May 20, 2007, 07:29:21 AM
I don't really have a favorite, I enjoy them all. :)
George, I share your sentiments on this. All of the usual powerhouses seem to fare pretty well with these SQ's that its hard to have a favourite. Of course, my introduction to these works was Emerson, so If I had to make a choice... ;)
I'm happy with both of my sets, the Fitzwilliam and the earlier Borodin. I'd be hard pressed to choose between them. Glad I don't have to.
I've listened to the Emerson, Borodin, and now Fitzwilliam sets. So far, hands down, I prefer the Fitzwilliam recordings.
I would like to listen to the Rubio SQ recording, before deciding on the set I'll purchase. Are there others worth looking out for? Perhaps the Beethoven SQ recording?
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 21, 2008, 07:30:34 AM
I've listened to the Emerson, Borodin, and now Fitzwilliam sets. So far, hands down, I prefer the Fitzwilliam recordings.
I would like to listen to the Rubio SQ recording, before deciding on the set I'll purchase. Are there others worth looking out for? Perhaps the Beethoven SQ recording?
Well, perhaps. The Beethovens were reissued complete on Doremi but the sound, by most reports, will certainly NOT be what you've enjoyed with the Fitzwilliams. The artistry of the players and their devotion to the music, however, may provide exceptional insights. I am a longtime fan of the Beethoven Quartet's Shostakovich (on mostly vinyl but some CD issues), so I'm hardly an objective voice, but would urge you to listen if you can. I do think they're very special. Here's a link to the box:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000J3FBJS/sr=8-1/qid=1224606851/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1224606851&sr=8-1&seller=
Cheers,
Dirk
Quote from: ChamberNut on October 21, 2008, 07:30:34 AM
I've listened to the Emerson, Borodin, and now Fitzwilliam sets. So far, hands down, I prefer the Fitzwilliam recordings.
I would like to listen to the Rubio SQ recording, before deciding on the set I'll purchase. Are there others worth looking out for? Perhaps the Beethoven SQ recording?
Ray - I now have currently two sets,
Rubio & Shostakovich Quartets (and about half of the
Borodin recordings) - both are excellent; if interested, check out this Comparative Review (http://www.dschjournal.com/reviews/rvs24quartets.htm) of many sets of the DS SQs, including 'blow by blow' comparisions of each quartet - Dave :D
I'd heard much praise for the Danel String Quartet's performances, so I acquired these a couple of years ago. There's some strong playing in the set - I particularly liked their way with the Second String Quartet. Yet, for reasons I can't explain, I return most often to the Rubio String Quartet's complete traversal. Yes, the recorded sound is somewhat brighter and more 'in-yer-face' than that of the Danel set, but I find this works well given the intensity of Shostakovich's writing, especially in the Eighth String Quartet.
FK
Quote from: SonicMan on October 21, 2008, 09:50:54 AM
Ray - I now have currently two sets, Rubio & Shostakovich Quartets (and about half of the Borodin recordings) - both are excellent; if interested, check out this Comparative Review (http://www.dschjournal.com/reviews/rvs24quartets.htm) of many sets of the DS SQs, including 'blow by blow' comparisions of each quartet - Dave :D
Thanks very much for this link Dave! :)
Quote from: Kuhlau on October 21, 2008, 12:17:05 PM
I'd heard much praise for the Danel String Quartet's performances, so I acquired these a couple of years ago. There's some strong playing in the set - I particularly liked their way with the Second String Quartet.
The first disc of the Danel Quartets Weinberg quartet cycle is one of my discs of the year, and I'm eagerly waiting for disc 2 which is just around the corner. In view of Weinbergs closeness to Shostakovich, I hope you'll forgive my little off-topic post.
Borodin for me.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 29, 2008, 07:15:03 AM
Borodin for me.
Same here! This is one of the best purchases I have made recently. It's been mentioned before. It bears repeating, again, and again and again ::)! :
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51N942KMX7L._SS500_.jpg)
marvin
I am looking to buy a set of the Shostakovich String Quartets and have narrowed my choice down to 2 contenders:
The well-known Fitzwilliam set and the set by the Sorrel Quartet on Chandos - Price is a consideration and I can get either for a good deal on Amazon but the Sorrel set is a bit of an unknown quantity? Anyone own or have an opinion on the Sorrel set? Thanks for any replies :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414ya48vD-L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Quote from: Conor71 on September 22, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
I am looking to buy a set of the Shostakovich String Quartets and have narrowed my choice down to 2 contenders:
The well-known Fitzwilliam set and the set by the Sorrel Quartet on Chandos - Price is a consideration and I can get either for a good deal on Amazon but the Sorrel set is a bit of an unknown quantity? Anyone own or have an opinion on the Sorrel set? Thanks for any replies :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414ya48vD-L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Yes, I see you are a newbi, ;D well this set was erroneously sold for 10 euro's by JPC de, I told everyone in the Super bargain thread, until they corrected the mistake the following Monday, its now 19,95.
I think the Sorel's have a magic on there own, created in a very lucid way of playing, and a little as walking on air, without loosing its structural body. Fine bowing throughout, and a sense for building up the climaxes in a very even way. Well recorded too.
Quote from: Harry on September 22, 2009, 11:08:18 PM
Yes, I see you are a newbi, ;D well this set was erroneously sold for 10 euro's by JPC de, I told everyone in the Super bargain thread, until they corrected the mistake the following Monday, its now 19,95.
This is a sure sign this will be available on Brilliant very soon, the Beethoven trios on Chandos were on sale very cheap a couple of months ago, and presto - now they are available even cheaper on Brilliants new release listings.
Quote from: erato on September 22, 2009, 11:11:16 PM
This is a sure sign this will be available on Brilliant very soon, the Beethoven trios on Chandos were on sale very cheap a couple of months ago, and presto - now they are available even cheaper on Brilliants new release listings.
Sure Erato, but cheaper as the 10,20 I paid it will not be. :)
Quote from: Harry on September 22, 2009, 11:16:02 PM
Sure Erato, but cheaper as the 10,20 I paid it will not be. :)
No it won't, and if I didn't already have 3 complete cycles I probably would have pounced.
Quote from: Conor71 on September 22, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
I am looking to buy a set of the Shostakovich String Quartets and have narrowed my choice down to 2 contenders:
The well-known Fitzwilliam set and the set by the Sorrel Quartet on Chandos - Price is a consideration and I can get either for a good deal on Amazon but the Sorrel set is a bit of an unknown quantity? Anyone own or have an opinion on the Sorrel set? Thanks for any replies :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414ya48vD-L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
The Fitzwilliam is an old classic that benefits much from the cozy memories from when that was one of only two, three sets available.
The Sorrel is nothing short of competent--and at the price that I recently saw it (10,- Euros) it's a fine, fair choice. That said, I'd not
necessarily recommend it to someone who wanted to add something to a collection already well stocked with DSCH SQ4ts because it'd
not really show new paths or display unknown brilliance.
I understand cost is a consideration, but if you must buy a complete set (they are better discovered on individual discs, actually!) do
try to make it the Borodin Quartet--either the 2nd or 1st cycle of them. The latter, recorded before the last two quartets had been
composed and thus "pre-complete", is on Chandos Historical and can be had for about $21,-, E25,- or 12 quid (link US (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00008WQB4?ie=UTF8&tag=goodmusicguide-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00008WQB4), link Germany (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B00008WQB4?ie=UTF8&tag=jlaurson-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=19454&creativeASIN=B00008WQB4), link UK (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00008WQB4?ie=UTF8&tag=ionarts-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B00008WQB4)).
The complete cycle (BMG, EMI, Melodiya, but not to be mistaken with their recordings from the 90s) contains the Quintet with S.Richter
(!) and the two pieces for String Octet. 25,- Euros is a super bargain for that set (nice packaging, too). (German link (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B000HXE5BK?ie=UTF8&tag=jlaurson-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=19454&creativeASIN=B000HXE5BK), UK link (http://"http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000HXE5BK?ie=UTF8&tag=ionarts-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B000HXE5BK), US link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HXE5BK?ie=UTF8&tag=goodmusicguide-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000HXE5BK)).
It's simply not worth saving $10 or $20 on DSCH Quartets and not ending up with the Borodin's 2nd cycle.
The Fitzwilliams Quartet cycle is darned good and usually cheap. The Borodin Q recordings (both cycles) are good but a little overhyped, and honestly I liked the Fitzwilliam Q recordings better than the Borodin. I like a more modernist, transparent playing (and in better sound) and I love (so many don't though) the Emerson Quartet for these works. They really made those SQs sing by dumping romanticized affections that are found in so many other recordings such as the Borodin Q and Fitzwilliam Q. >:D
Quote from: Conor71 on September 22, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
I am looking to buy a set of the Shostakovich String Quartets and have narrowed my choice down to 2 contenders:
The well-known Fitzwilliam set and the set by the Sorrel Quartet on Chandos - Price is a consideration and I can get either for a good deal on Amazon but the Sorrel set is a bit of an unknown quantity? Anyone own or have an opinion on the Sorrel set? Thanks for any replies :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414ya48vD-L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
I can't comment on the Sorrel Qt set, as I haven't heard it. The four sets I have heard are: Fitzwilliam, Borodin, Emerson and Eder Quartets.
Usually I am highly enthusiastic about the Emerson SQ, but this one is an exception. I did not connect with their Shostakovich, nor did I connect with the 'Untouchable' Borodin Qt (gasp! Arrest this man :o).
My breakthrough with Shostakovich SQs came through the Fitzwilliams. Outstanding! I also love the only set I actually own (Eder on Naxos), another affordable set. Their set has also received a lot of praise.
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 23, 2009, 04:49:47 AM
I can't comment on the Sorrel Qt set, as I haven't heard it. The four sets I have heard are: Fitzwilliam, Borodin, Emerson and Eder Quartets.
Usually I am highly enthusiastic about the Emerson SQ, but this one is an exception. I did not connect with their Shostakovich, nor did I connect with the 'Untouchable' Borodin Qt (gasp! Arrest this man :o).
My breakthrough with Shostakovich SQs came through the Fitzwilliams. Outstanding! I also love the only set I actually own (Eder on Naxos), another affordable set. Their set has also received a lot of praise.
I agree with the Emerson's DSCH. Impressive
Fail. My favorite--apart from Borodin, which I "get"--is the Jerusalem Quartet (not yet a complete cycle). Also like what the Mandelring are doing on Audite (SACD). There's a bunch more in my collection (Fitz, Sorrel, and whatnot), but Jerusalem, Mandelring, and Borodin are the ones I'd usually go to when I feel like listening to DSCH or when I need to compare for a review.
P.S. Must not forget Hagen Quartett. Very interesting, indeed. Like the Emerson in some ways, except enjoyable.
Quote from: jlaurson on September 23, 2009, 05:00:28 AM
I agree with the Emerson's DSCH. Impressive Fail. My favorite--apart from Borodin, which I "get"--is the Jerusalem Quartet (not yet a complete cycle). Also like what the Mandelring are doing on Audite (SACD). There's a bunch more in my collection (Fitz, Sorrel, and whatnot), but Jerusalem, Mandelring, and Borodin are the ones I'd usually go to when I feel like listening to DSCH or when I need to compare for a review.
P.S. Must not forget Hagen Quartett. Very interesting, indeed. Like the Emerson in some ways, except enjoyable.
Looking at some of the recordings available, I'm impressed at just how many recordings there are of DSCH's quartets! There are A LOT, which obviously speaks volumes about the quality of these magnificent works. I hear Rubio is also terrific? Perhaps we should go to the thread that specifically discusses Shostakovich quartets?
Quote from: Brian on September 23, 2009, 05:04:04 AM
ChamberNut recommends Eder quite a bit, they're likely worth a look, although their cycle is not, as far as I know, available in a box, so you might end up paying $42-54 to pick up all 6 CDs.
True, I don't think they are available in a set, to my knowledge. I got them at $6.99 CDN per disc. Still pretty good, although perhaps more expensive than some of the complete sets available.
Bump! :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 23, 2009, 05:07:16 AMI got them at $6.99 CDN per disc.
$7 Canadian is what ... a buck and a half? ;) ;D
Quote from: Brian on September 23, 2009, 05:18:23 AM
$7 Canadian is what ... a buck and a half? ;) ;D
Hey, our loonie was actually worth more than your greenback for about 5 seconds! :D
Quote from: DavidW on September 23, 2009, 04:04:36 AMThe Fitzwilliams Quartet cycle is darned good and usually cheap. The Borodin Q recordings (both cycles) are good but a little overhyped, and honestly I liked the Fitzwilliam Q recordings better than the Borodin.
I've come to appreciate the Borodin cycle on Chandos Historical, and now wouldn't be caught without either set now. Borodin embrace Shostakovich's dissonance in a way that few quartets do. OTOH, they fall flat on some of the bigger, more theatrical music when compared to the Fitzwilliam cycle, like in the 3rd quartet.
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 23, 2009, 05:04:46 AMLooking at some of the recordings available, I'm impressed at just how many recordings there are of DSCH's quartets! There are A LOT, which obviously speaks volumes about the quality of these magnificent works.
You know, it's odd - this statement would appear to be true, but I still don't see them programmed on many concerts yet. I think I've heard only one of his quartets live in the past five years. Compare that with how many Beethovens, Schuberts, Mozarts, or even Haydns. And that's still saying nothing about the popularity of his symphonies - I'm preparing to perform his 5th symphony in a few weeks for the third time in about 5 years.
Quote from: Conor71 on September 22, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
I am looking to buy a set of the Shostakovich String Quartets and have narrowed my choice down to 2 contenders:
The well-known Fitzwilliam set and the set by the Sorrel Quartet on Chandos - Price is a consideration and I can get either for a good deal on Amazon but the Sorrel set is a bit of an unknown quantity? Anyone own or have an opinion on the Sorrel set? Thanks for any replies :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414ya48vD-L._SL500_AA240_.jpg) (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4146AGKTB7L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Well, as usual w/ a popular set of works, there will be plenty of 'other' recommendations! And I have yet another 'inexpensive' consideration - :D
The
Rubio Quartet on Brilliant (pic inserted above) - the Shosty SQs offerings are discussed thoroughly on the 'DSCH Journal' - unfortunately, the website seems 'down' at the moment; their favorite sets were the Rubio Quartet, Shostokovich SQ (on Regis - the other set that I own), and the Borodins, I believe (can't verify that @ the moment); I had about half of the Borodin performances and culled them out of my collection after obtaining the other two sets mentioned.
Now, could I go for a third set? Of course! I'm sure that you'll get more posts on this topic - and welcome! :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 23, 2009, 05:19:44 AM
Hey, our loonie was actually worth more than your greenback for about 5 seconds! :D
Oooh, I remember that; the guys on Royal Canadian Air Farce went just about insane when that happened. ;D
Thanks for the helpful replies all :) - leaning towards the Fitzwilliam set now as the Sorrel set has gone up in price (pity as it sounded interesting!). I am going to check out the other sets folks have mentioned, cheers! 8)
Thanks for bumping this thread up ChamberNut, will have a read-through now 0:)
Quote from: Conor71 on September 22, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
I am looking to buy a set of the Shostakovich String Quartets and have narrowed my choice down to 2 contenders:
The well-known Fitzwilliam set and the set by the Sorrel Quartet on Chandos - Price is a consideration
Why? The Danel Qt set is available new for $45 from a reliable Amazon marketplace seller.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 23, 2009, 09:03:21 AM
Why? The Danel Qt set is available new for $45 from a reliable Amazon marketplace seller.
Why what David? :) What are you questioning exactly: choice of ensemble, or price consideration? Are you saying Danel is the best set available?
Ray, I'm asking why he has narrowed the choice to those two offerings. When the Danel set was released everyone here went ga-ga over it. I'm surprised that it no longer seems to be a consensus favorite. I don't know if it's "the best," but think it's a darned good one well worth consideration. And the St. Petersburg Qt's spikier approach for hyperion might still be available dirt cheap from BRO. Plus all of the usual suspects. So I'm curious how/why he narrowed his options down to those two right out of the gate.
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 23, 2009, 09:33:30 AM
Ray, I'm asking why he has narrowed the choice to those two offerings. When the Danel set was released everyone here went ga-ga over it. I'm surprised that it no longer seems to be a consensus favorite. I don't know if it's "the best," but think it's a darned good one well worth consideration. And the St. Petersburg Qt's spikier approach for hyperion might still be available dirt cheap from BRO. Plus all of the usual suspects. So I'm curious how/why he narrowed his options down to those two right out of the gate.
OK, that's what I thought, just wanted clarification on your 'why'. :)
+1 on the St Petersburg Quartet. Spectacular! :)
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 23, 2009, 09:33:30 AM
When the Danel set was released everyone here went ga-ga over it. I'm surprised that it no longer seems to be a consensus favorite.
well, that happens a lot, doesn't it?
Quote from: DavidW on September 23, 2009, 12:48:22 PM+1 on the St Petersburg Quartet. Spectacular! :)
Is this like an RPG? Can anyone play?
Quote from: Dana on September 23, 2009, 01:56:08 PM
Is this like an RPG? Can anyone play?
Let's roll and see... no sorry. :'(
;D
Quote from: DavidRoss on September 23, 2009, 09:33:30 AM
Ray, I'm asking why he has narrowed the choice to those two offerings. When the Danel set was released everyone here went ga-ga over it. I'm surprised that it no longer seems to be a consensus favorite. I don't know if it's "the best," but think it's a darned good one well worth consideration. And the St. Petersburg Qt's spikier approach for hyperion might still be available dirt cheap from BRO. Plus all of the usual suspects. So I'm curious how/why he narrowed his options down to those two right out of the gate.
Hi David: I narrowed down my choice based mainly on price as the Fitzwilliam set can be bought new from as little as $16 US on Amazon, that works out at only about $30 AUS which is a great deal and I dont have a whole lot of money available for buying classical the next few months :) - That plus the Fitzwilliam set had quite a few favourable reviews and was mentioned as a good set for starting out with these works. At the time I posted the Sorrel set was available at a good price too but it has since gone up and I was attracted to this set as it was released on Chandos whose recordings I normally like.
Its not set in stone though and I was still interested to see what sets folk would recommend :).
Quote from: Conor71 on September 23, 2009, 06:59:39 PM
Hi David: I narrowed down my choice based mainly on price as the Fitzwilliam set can be bought new from as little as $16 US on Amazon, that works out at only about $30 AUS which is a great deal and I dont have a whole lot of money available for buying classical the next few months :) - That plus the Fitzwilliam set had quite a few favourable reviews and was mentioned as a good set for starting out with these works.
I just picked up used Fitzwilliam/Decca set at Amazon sellers $11.50..........
Quote from: jlaurson on September 23, 2009, 01:50:42 AM
..... if you must buy a complete set .....do try to make it the Borodin Quartet--either the 2nd or 1st cycle of them. The latter, recorded before the last two quartets had been
composed and thus "pre-complete", is on Chandos Historical and can be had for about $21,-, E25,- or 12 quid (link US (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00008WQB4?ie=UTF8&tag=goodmusicguide-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00008WQB4), link Germany (http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B00008WQB4?ie=UTF8&tag=jlaurson-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=19454&creativeASIN=B00008WQB4), link UK (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00008WQB4?ie=UTF8&tag=ionarts-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B00008WQB4)).
It's simply not worth saving $10 or $20 on DSCH Quartets and not ending up with the Borodin's 2nd cycle.
Seconded on all counts! :)
Quote from: DavidW on September 23, 2009, 02:05:48 PMLet's roll and see... no sorry. :'(
;D
My Spirit Druid casts
Curse! The likelihood of your opinion being bad is now increased by 45%.
Quote from: marvinbrown on October 29, 2008, 07:23:57 AM
Same here! This is one of the best purchases I have made recently. It's been mentioned before. It bears repeating, again, and again and again ::)! :
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51N942KMX7L._SS500_.jpg)
marvin
Is this another recording then the other borodin set available (recorded in the 80s) as shown below?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51M20ZHF5SL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
The upper (Cubistic cover pic) is the 1 - 15 recording made around 1980, with Kopelman on 1st violin. As I reported years ago, I think that recording is preferable in the last four or five quartets. In the earlier recording, on Chandos, one hears the more recent works haven't yet fully settled in (apart from the fact that this box lacks the last two quartets. The Borodin recordings for Virgin / Teldec should be avoided IMHO.
Besides Borodin and Beethoven SQ, there are other Russian recordings of Shosta.SQ. I've one for the Glinka SQ, another by the Leningrad-Taneyev SQ, and a rarity: No.3 by an ad-hoc ensamble:Julian Sitkovetsky, A,Sharoyev, Rudolph Barshai and Yakov Slobotnik.
Quote from: Herman on September 24, 2009, 05:41:36 AM
The upper (Cubistic cover pic) is the 1 - 15 recording made around 1980, with Kopelman on 1st violin. As I reported years ago, I think that recording is preferable in the last four or five quartets. In the earlier recording, on Chandos, one hears the more recent works haven't yet fully settled in (apart from the fact that this box lacks the last two quartets. The Borodin recordings for Virgin / Teldec should be avoided IMHO.
Well, the last quartets
included on that disc may not have settled... the very last two quartets hadn't even been written. So the set is
pre-complete. (As opposed to incomplete.) :-)
Agree that the Virgin recordings don't live up to the previous reached quality at all.
Quote from: Herman on September 24, 2009, 05:41:36 AMThe Borodin recordings for Virgin / Teldec should be avoided IMHO.
Yeah. They're not bad, but the competition is much better.
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 23, 2009, 05:19:44 AM
Hey, our loonie was actually worth more than your greenback for about 5 seconds! :D
I think it was an entire weekend . . . .
(Say, where was Bernie Madoff that weekend? . . .)
If the Emerson recording of the Shostakovich quartets is a failure, the musical world could do with more failure, and lots of it.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 24, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
If the Emerson recording of the Shostakovich quartets is a failure, the musical world could do with more failure, and lots of it.
Well said, Karl! :) Even though I am not enthusiastic about that set, but pretty much everything else I've heard from ESQ.
I acknowledge that on an overall basis, their recordings of DSCH quartets are one of the most highly regarded.
I actually quite liked the Manhattan SQ for the earlier SQs, up to about 10-11. I think they have the absolute best 4-5 that I have heard.
The Shostakovich SQ on Olympia was my go to.
The old Borodin/EMI for the later SQs...
And the Emerson wasn't so bad. They were all recorded live, which is commendable. Compare their 4-5 with the Manhattan and you will see how I feel about the Manhattan here.
I never liked SQs 2-3, or No.8.
Quote from: ChamberNut on September 24, 2009, 07:46:10 AM
Well said, Karl! :) Even though I am not enthusiastic about that set, but pretty much everything else I've heard from ESQ.
I acknowledge that on an overall basis, their recordings of DSCH quartets are one of the most highly regarded.
Anyway, dismissals of the
Emerson Quartet generally begin, "Although their performance is technically flawless . . ." which sounds to me
a bit like, "
Other quartets play it somewhat like the Orange County Chamber Society . . . ."
Je-je-je >:D
Manhattan String Quartet
Quote from: LapsangS on September 24, 2009, 09:36:38 AM
Manhattan String Quartet
Can you compare those in style to other well known sets................
You were right on the money with you Mozart piano concerto call, what a great find that was!
I'll just say that the Manhattan SQ's recordings are very crisp and present, and that they are able to convey the requisite brutality (and beauty), but in such a way as not to be grinding to the ear (perhaps this is also due to the very well managed recording, again).
I do not say that there is any thinness in the performance or recording, but the textures have very pencil-like clarity that works wonders on 2-5, Like I said, I have not heard a recording yet (Borodin, Shostakovich, Fitzwilliam, Naxos, St. Petersberg/SONY, Emerson, Beethoven, bRODSKY etc...) that matches this recorded performance, in terms of sonic beauty, quartets 4-5; and I dooo consider these two quartets Shosty's masterpieces of the earlier quartets (anyone care to argue the point?). Also, No.6 gets sterling treatment.
i MAY HAVE TO PUT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE BACK ON MY LIST. i SUGGEST anyone OUT THERE TO GET THE mANHATTAN'S dsch 4-5 (ugh, caps again...).
I will extend their kudos to 7-10, No.9 being a standout (obviously, you can take whom you want in No.8!).
I give no indication in the Late Quartets, since everyone has at least five versions anyway. They are as fine as the rest of the series, but I'm one of those who would recommend you try a few different versions of these SQs (Shostakovich on Olympia is my first choice for 12-14).
No.15 is special to me. I'm currently contemplating Ma, Kremer, and co. on Sony, though I fear it will have that claustrophobic sound. I also enjoyed the issue "Endgames" by the Brodskys, where they pair the last SQs by Beethoven and Shostakovich. That's an interesting read. Are there any other single issues of this one? (I know there's another Kremer version on ECM, is there not?... oh, no, that 13-14, right?)
I do wish I had taken notes back then, but I can tell you that I ended up with the Shostakovich/Olympia, the Manhattans, and the Brodskys (and, of course, the Borodin inb the background reference). After that, I ended up with the Emerson for a few years, just to have somethging to listen to, but I can't recommend any single particular SQ from them, though they, of course, do the "brutal" thing great (7,8,9,10,11,15).
I know I cracked open every new Shosty SQ issue when it came out, back in the day, but I can't think of any others that I remember.
Whew! ;)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 25, 2009, 01:32:17 PM
No.15 is special to me. I'm currently contemplating Ma, Kremer, and co. on Sony, though I fear it will have that claustrophobic sound. I also enjoyed the issue "Endgames" by the Brodskys, where they pair the last SQs by Beethoven and Shostakovich. That's an interesting read. Are there any other single issues of this one? (I know there's another Kremer version on ECM, is there not?... oh, no, that 13-14, right?)
The usual Yo-Yo-Ma crowd in DSCH 15? I think I could live without that one.
As I recall the Borodin Qt used to perform a pretty lugubrious program back in the eighties, early nineties, consisting of LvB 132 and DSCH 15. They'd have a big candle stand on the stage, and exstinguish the flames at the end of the Shostakovich piece (also as a way to forestall applause, I guess).
Snyprrr & Lampsang
Thanks for the heads up for Manhatten SQ, the single Cds are extremely cheap at Amazon USA most under $2 so I ordered
3 Cds and if they work out well I shall obtain the balance
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VY4XF273L._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
Like many here I like the Borodin SQ for the authentic Russian feel they present, just like for the symphonies hard for western
conductors to match Mravinsky, Kondrashin etc
Cool! Let me know what you think! :D
Quote from: DavidW on September 23, 2009, 04:04:36 AM
The Fitzwilliams Quartet cycle is darned good and usually cheap. The Borodin Q recordings (both cycles) are good but a little overhyped, and honestly I liked the Fitzwilliam Q recordings better than the Borodin. I like a more modernist, transparent playing (and in better sound) and I love (so many don't though) the Emerson Quartet for these works. They really made those SQs sing by dumping romanticized affections that are found in so many other recordings such as the Borodin Q and Fitzwilliam Q. >:D
(* pounds the table *)
I am thinking lukewarmish thoughts of bringing in a third cycle, hence my revisitation of this slumbering thread.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2012, 02:06:52 AM
I am thinking lukewarmish thoughts of bringing in a third cycle, hence my revisitation of this slumbering thread.
"Gordon" is very bullish on this one
[asin]B004C4IK8O[/asin]
Jens would probably say these guys (although the full cycle seems at the moment to be priced very dearly)
[asin]B00008WQB4[/asin]
and I like
[asin]B004OWN868[/asin]
Although 1) the other two I have are Fitzwilliam and Emerson, and 2)I don't particularly care for the Fitzwilliams.
ETA: Spurred on by this, I just ordered the Shostakovich Qt. Not quite an impulse buy, since it's been sitting on my wishlist for quite some time.
Re: Mr. Smith
True, Borodin II is probably my no.1 recommendation. But there's an embarrassment of riches for DSCH Quartet cycles... and the DSCH Quartet is certainly one of the top choices for the slightly gruff, Russian-Russian DSCH.
For a good recommendation for Karl, it'd be helpful to know what you, K.H. already have. I wouldn't add DSCH-Quartet to Borodin II (and possibly not even vice versa); nor Mandelring to a set of non-Russian cycles (Fitz & Emerson, for example). But I would add Mandelring to Borodin or DSCH...
Borodin II can be had for a reasonable price, actually... (if you're not too spoiled with Mega-Budget releases.
-
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000HXE5BK.01.L.jpg)
D. Shostakovich,
SQ4ts, PQ5t, 2 Pieces, Octet
Borodin Quartet, S.Richter et al.
Melodiya
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HXE5BK/goodmusicguide-20)
German link (http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HXE5BK/goodmusicguide-21) - UK link (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HXE5BK/goodmusicguide-21)
Best deal: French link (http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HXE5BK/goodmusicguidefr-21)
Quote from: jlaurson on November 28, 2012, 11:35:33 AM
For a good recommendation for Karl, it'd be helpful to know what you, K.H. already have.
Emersons & the Borodin set you've linked. Thanks!
Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2012, 11:40:32 AM
Emersons & the Borodin set you've linked. Thanks!
May I suggest as a third set,
Karl - The Fitzwilliam Qt or Eder Qt? :)
I've been sampling some recordings by Aviv SQ, they've recording three discs-worth of the quartets and have performed the complete Shostakovich cycle at the 2007 Verbier Festival.
They are pretty good.
I'm listening to #8 from this
[asin]B004LB5WTS[/asin]
Quote from: ChamberNut on November 28, 2012, 11:41:38 AM
May I suggest as a third set, Karl - The Fitzwilliam Qt or Eder Qt? :)
Thanks, mon ami . . . I actually did an (unscientific) comparison earlier, listening to samples from each of the Fitzwilliam and Shostakovich quartets.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2012, 11:51:54 AM
Thanks, mon ami . . . I actually did an (unscientific) comparison earlier, listening to samples from each of the Fitzwilliam and Shostakovich quartets.
Tres bien! Unfortunately, I haven't yet heard the Shostakovich Quartet's performances.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 28, 2012, 11:40:32 AM
Emersons & the Borodin set you've linked. Thanks!
Hmm... ok. I hate the Emerson set (probably one of the few DSCH-cycles I actively dislike)... but that's neither here nor there. How do YOU like their approach?
It's certainly a good stylistic spread. And yes (re: Chambernut), the Fitzies (Decca (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B0000042HV/goodmusicguide-20)) are an alternative that comes to mind as complimentary to those two. They're a superb bargain right now... only issue is that then you might be a bit on the dated-sound spectrum in your collection. (Although I wouldn't let that count as an argument against Borodin II, if you had Emerson & Fitzies instead, so never mind. :-) )
The Pacifica Quartet cycle-in-the-making has much promise (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B005J59IV8/goodmusicguide-20), and great added boni (Weinberg and Prokofiev et al.), but isn't out as a cycle yet.
The Jerusalem Quartet, from who I'd actively want a new cycle, have only recorded two discs to date. (But better slow and good than rushed!!) On the upside, HMU has JUST put them together and released them as a mid-price 2-CD set. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B009AXXGKO/goodmusicguide-20)
Brodsky (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B0000CBHYW/goodmusicguide-20) and Sorrel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B000K97MPM%20/goodmusicguide-20)are very fine, both, but maybe not knock-your-socks-off category. Rubio (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B000K97MPM%20/goodmusicguide-20)is not so hot. St.Petersburg (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B000CETZF0/goodmusicguide-20)is quite good... but their cycle is OOP and would be competitive only at a budget price.
That leaves the Danel Quartet (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B000BYMHR4/goodmusicguide-20) as a modern alternative, since the other one I know and love is another Russian oldie, the Beethoven (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN//B000J3FBJS/goodmusicguide-20) Quartet.
Eder (Naxos, not issued as a box), Manhattan, and what ever else is out there I don't know. The bits of Hagen I have I love; a kind of "Emerson ++" version. DSCH with green lasers.
,
Thank you, both!
I am leaning to the Fitzwilliams. I like the Emersons very well in these, Jens.
I believe the Alexander Quartet has recorded a complete cycle - and judging from their Beethoven cycle, it should be very good. I will be listening to it after I finish with the Aviv SQ discs.
[asin]B000GUJGV8[/asin] [asin]B000V1ULIY[/asin]
I also decided to pick up a 3rd set of Shosty's SQs recently, and have the one below 'in the mail' from across the pond (MDT) - my other two sets are the DSCH & Rubio - now, I have the Alexander SQ in the Beethoven works and will follow the reviews closely - :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lm-r10F-L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Quote from: SonicMan46 on November 28, 2012, 01:58:01 PM
I also decided to pick up a 3rd set of Shosty's SQs recently, and have the one below 'in the mail' from across the pond (MDT) - my other two sets are the DSCH & Rubio - now, I have the Alexander SQ in the Beethoven works and will follow the reviews closely - :)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lm-r10F-L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
I really like the Manderling set. For starters, the sound, especially on a multi-channel system, is just stunning. I had read a review or two that stated they were a bit too "polite" at times, which made me hesitate, but I eventually bought it. Mmm...maybe a little relaxed here and there, but when the music really heats up, such as the 2nd movement of the 8th or 10th Quartet, they are plenty vicious!
Quote from: jlaurson on November 28, 2012, 11:35:33 AM
Borodin II can be had for a reasonable price, actually... (if you're not too spoiled with Mega-Budget releases.
-
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000HXE5BK.01.L.jpg)
D. Shostakovich,
SQ4ts, PQ5t, 2 Pieces, Octet
Borodin Quartet, S.Richter et al.
Melodiya
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HXE5BK/goodmusicguide-20)
German link (http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HXE5BK/goodmusicguide-21) - UK link (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HXE5BK/goodmusicguide-21)
Best deal: French link (http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000HXE5BK/goodmusicguidefr-21)
I think this will be my 3rd set that I go with. I was not overly impressed years ago with the Chandos Historical Borodin 1-13 (although I am ga-ga over their Tchaikovsky recordings including Souvenir de Florence).
I'd love to sample the Borodin II before buying, but I might just dive in. "It had me at cow on the CD cover!" :D 8) :)
Thank you, Jens. Amazon France's shipping charge was not nearly as high as some of the other European Amazons, so I ordered the Borodin II there. So now I'll have five DSCH quartet cycles, plus what's been issued by the Jerusalem and Pacifica Quartets, and two-fers by the Juillard and the Borodins (recorded after the Borodin II, and not the same exact members, IIRC). Among the complete cycles, my preference remains the Emersons, although Mandelring nips at their heels.
Any word on when the next installment of the Pacifica cycle will be out?
I should mention that some individual CDs from the St. Petersburg SQ cycle have shown up from time to time on Hyperion's "Please buy me!" page: http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/o.asp?o=1016&vw=al
For me, it doesn't get much better than these two sets:
(http://0.tqn.com/d/classicalmusic/1/0/c/4/shostakovich-the-string-quartets.jpg)
(http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/6613/b00008wqb401ss500sclzzzzzzzv1115753240mh6.jpg)
Everybody has their favorites, but, like DavidW and Karl, I like more Modern readings of Shostakovich that dilute Romantic leanings.
I'm still partial to the Danel set, despite owning both the Emerson and Shostakovich sets, as well as various Borodin recordings.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517vvlViQFL._SS400_.jpg)
Since there is a lot of interest in Shostakovich quartets buzzing lately, I thought I'd paste this link that SonicMan pasted about 4 years ago.
There are comparative reviews for complete sets, single quartets, and other Shostakovich works as well.
http://dschjournal.com/reviews/review_master_index.html (http://dschjournal.com/reviews/review_master_index.html)
Quote from: ChamberNut on November 29, 2012, 03:40:52 PM
Since there is a lot of interest in Shostakovich quartets buzzing lately, I thought I'd paste this link that SonicMan pasted about 4 years ago.
There are comparative reviews for complete sets, single quartets, and other Shostakovich works as well.
http://dschjournal.com/reviews/review_master_index.html (http://dschjournal.com/reviews/review_master_index.html)
Hi
Ray - BOY, not sure that I've been to that site since, BUT it is a great collection of comparative reviews! :)
Today, my
Mandelring SQ set arrived from across the pond - will be my listening activity over the weekend - Dave
I've been so mesmerized by the Emersons here, it's some years since I listened at all to the Borodins. So that will be one of my listening agenda items to-day.
Oh, and I pulled the trigger on the Fitzwilliam set. December could be Shostakovich string quartet month....
Quote from: karlhenning on November 30, 2012, 03:00:37 AM
Oh, and I pulled the trigger on the Fitzwilliam set. December could be Shostakovich string quartet month....
Ditto. I'll be doing quartet by quartet comparison of the Fitz, Eder and Borodin II once my Borodin set arrives! :)
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 28, 2012, 07:09:53 PM
I'm still partial to the Danel set, despite owning both the Emerson and Shostakovich sets, as well as various Borodin recordings.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517vvlViQFL._SS400_.jpg)
You and
Jens are strong advocates here....
This is the Borodin SQ (1-15) set I have
[asin]B000001HDU[/asin]
I also have this individual disc with #2 and #12
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21RWQHTXY4L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
I never thought they were different recordings. Is the 1-15 set above the same as this one:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41TJP1%2BcBCL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Quote from: sanantonio on November 30, 2012, 05:23:27 AM
Is the 1-15 set above the same as this one:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41TJP1%2BcBCL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Yes, the same. The 1978-83 recordings, the Borodin's second traversal.
Sarge
Quote from: karlhenning on November 30, 2012, 03:20:47 AMYou and Jens are strong advocates here....
The Danel is my preferred digital cycle. Only the Borodin and Beethoven Quartets may be better overall.
Quote from: Todd on November 30, 2012, 06:46:51 AM
The Danel is my preferred digital cycle. Only the Borodin and Beethoven Quartets may be better overall.
Are you collecting the ongoing Pacifica? I have the Borodin (Melodiya) and what the Pacifica's done so far. Listened to the Danel's #8 on NML and was very impressed.
Quote from: Brian on November 30, 2012, 06:55:42 AMAre you collecting the ongoing Pacifica?
No, I'll probably wait and buy when they are done. If their Carter and Mendelssohn offer any indication of quality, I rather assume their DSCH will be of above average quality.
Quote from: Todd on November 30, 2012, 07:08:08 AM
No, I'll probably wait and buy when they are done. If their Carter and Mendelssohn offer any indication of quality, I rather assume their DSCH will be of above average quality.
I've heard their first installment, via streaming, and it is very good. Edgy and taut; their 8th is furious and they play it with confidence. By contrast, the
Alexander seems relaxed, but their continuing cycle has other attributes, e.g. the sound of the ensemble. The
Aviv Quartet is nearly as good as the Pacifica, but sound a bit overwhelmed at times during the 8th.
Here's a thought, toss it in the rubbish bin, if you like . . .
A good c minor Quartet, I should not take as guaranty of a good cycle overall; it's the best-known of the 15, and any decent quartet ought to be able to pitch themselves up to a fair-to-good realization.
I worry about a quartet who do not make their best effort for the Op.110, though.
Which, BTW, reminds me how ratty the Kronos account of the piece strikes me, now that I am better familiar with it.
Quote from: Todd on November 30, 2012, 06:46:51 AM
The Danel is my preferred digital cycle. Only the Borodin and Beethoven Quartets may be better overall.
Thanks, Todd.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 30, 2012, 07:28:37 AM
Here's a thought, toss it in the rubbish bin, if you like . . .
A good c minor Quartet, I should not take as guaranty of a good cycle overall; it's the best-known of the 15, and any decent quartet ought to be able to pitch themselves up to a fair-to-good realization.
I worry about a quartet who do not make their best effort for the Op.110, though.
Which, BTW, reminds me how ratty the Kronos account of the piece strikes me, now that I am better familiar with it.
You're right, but I always begin my listening with the 8th, thinking that if they do well with a difficult work it is a good sign for more to come however, if as you say, they don't do well, then I don't expect much down the road.
Of course "doing well" is in the ear of the behearer, so to speak.
:)
Of the newer recordings, the
Pacifica and
Jerusalem (in progress) show the most promise, and
Borodin II (complete) is my "reference" set - but the
Emerson is the one I find myself listening to most and it is none to shabby. I've got the
Fitzwilliam and
Shostakovich sets, but hardly ever listen to them. The
Danel will be the next set I dig into. It is on Spotify or MOG and I will listen before buying, if.
Once I get the 'cow' Borodin set in my hands, I'd like to do a movement by movement comparison of the Eder, Fitzwilliam and Borodin.
I'll randomly select a different quartet each day, and listen to each quartet by each of the 3 ensembles twice:
Yes, December will be indeed 'Shostakovich quartet month'. :) 8)
Quote from: ChamberNut on November 30, 2012, 10:14:53 AM
Once I get the 'cow' Borodin set in my hands . . . .
And is that . . . Darth Vader way back behind the cow? Kewl!
Quote from: ChamberNut on November 30, 2012, 10:14:53 AM
Once I get the 'cow' Borodin set in my hands, I'd like to do a movement by movement comparison of the Eder, Fitzwilliam and Borodin.
I'll randomly select a different quartet each day, and listen to each quartet by each of the 3 ensembles twice:
Yes, December will be indeed 'Shostakovich quartet month'. :) 8)
I ordered it across la mer, from Amazon France. I'll be lucky to get mine by the end of December.
The Shostakovich Quartet set, however, should be here in reasonably short time, although I-deals does not seem to have shipped it yet.
Quote from: ChamberNut on November 30, 2012, 10:14:53 AM
Yes, December will be indeed 'Shostakovich quartet month'. :) 8)
I'm in,
Ray!
Quote from: karlhenning on November 30, 2012, 03:20:47 AM
You and Jens are strong advocates here....
It's a thrilling set for me anyway. I like how the Danel bring their own voice to these works, sounding fresh and vital with a tangible sense of the exploratory.
They're a bit antithetical next to some of the Russians (Borodin, Shostakovich) in that they take a more "inside-out" approach to the music - with some wonderfully exotic effects - as opposed to building the music in "blocks", with a more granitic center (nothing wrong with that, of course). IOW, a quality opposing viewpoint.
Great sound, too boot, a few sniffs aside.
Thanks, If Santa keeps true to form, there will be an Amazon gift card in my stocking, and the Danels have elbowed their way to the top of the queue . . . .
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 30, 2012, 08:15:53 PM
Great sound, too boot, a few sniffs aside.
I noticed when listening to the Aviv Quartet recording that there was some noise in the background in a couple a spots (the 8th) - it sounded like a bow hitting a music stand, or a chair moving - something like that. Hardly noticeable except when using earphones, and even then a minor thing, but worth mentioning.
Mandelring SQ - just finishing my 'first' listen this Sunday morning; I guess that in part a preference for a 'style' of performance of these works will depend on whether one wants to feel/hear the composer's anger & suppressed emotions under the Soviet regime, which in my mind often brings out an edgier, strident, and rawer approach to the playing - I prefer a more subdued performance which this group provides; NOW, there are plenty of moments of tension & angst here and the dynamics and recorded sounded is phenomenal, IMO.
Of course, I need multiple re-listens to this set and want to compare the recordings to those that I own w/ the Shosty SQ, which are more 'Russian' from the comments made in this thread and in reviews; I suspect that a collection needs both types of performances for these widely varied and emotional works? My only other set (Rubio) is a notch down and I'll be looking at the the Alexander SQ (if these are boxed up @ a reduced price) & the Pacifica which I do enjoy in their other offerings.
For those still deciding or just getting started, the link that Ray (ChamberNut) gave not too long ago in this thread is an excellent start; some other reviews that I found discussing the Mandelring SQ more recently are listed below:
Jens - Volumes 1-3 (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2008/05/shostakovich-with-mandelring-quartett.html) & Vol. 5 (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=282730)
Scott Morrison - Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Shostakovich-Complete-Quartets-Mandelring-Quartet/dp/B004OWN868/ref=sr_1_12?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1354462524&sr=1-12&keywords=shostakovich+string+quartets) - 5* rating.
Hurwitz - ClassicsToday (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=557664) - 10/10 rating.
(http://giradman.smugmug.com/Other/Classical-Music/i-z7T7zfk/0/O/shostySQsMandelring.jpg) (http://giradman.smugmug.com/Other/Classical-Music/i-kct9xBB/0/O/MandelringSQ.jpg)
All right, then (and understanding that they are both right worthy): if a body had to choose one from between the Mandelrings and the Danel, which, and why?
Thank you in advance, any of you, who elect to participate in the question : )
I think Jens may be the only member who is familiar with both Danel and Mandelring.
Sarge
Thanks! I should have guessed ahead of the question, that there might be few to tackle it!
It's a tough 'un, for the Mandelrings have ardent fans in yourself, Sarge, and Jens. And the Danels, their no less passionate enthusiasts.
Quote from: Tyson on May 13, 2007, 04:39:46 PM
Borodin, not just for the pathos they have, but also for the outright weirdness that they find in Shosty's soundworld. Sort of like a circus inside and insane asylum.
Great description. Their sound is so raw and jarring at times, I love it.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 02, 2012, 08:21:51 AM
Thanks! I should have guessed ahead of the question, that there might be few to tackle it!
It's a tough 'un, for the Mandelrings have ardent fans in yourself, Sarge, and Jens. And the Danels, their no less passionate enthusiasts.
I like the Mandelrings too. Sensuous playing. They don't sound like fiery Russian music, but the world is large and there is room enough for more than one type of interpretation.
Quote from: SonicMan46 on December 02, 2012, 08:04:30 AM
Mandelring SQ - just finishing my 'first' listen this Sunday morning;...
...some other reviews that I found discussing the Mandelring SQ:
Also, from live performances of a DSCH cycle of the Mandelring Quartet (Salzburg, 2011):
Notes from the 2011 Salzburg Festival ( 18 ) - Shostakovich Cycle (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/09/notes-from-2011-salzburg-festival-18.html)
As per Danel vs. Mandelrings... well, they're different. Danels are much more tenacious, sinewy, brawny... so if you want to move
further away from the interpretative line that Borodin II already offers, then I would go with Mandelring. If someone wavered between the two sets (and only those) as a FIRST set, then I would go against the Mandelrings (although I am emotionally indebted to them) and recommend Danel over them. I'd feel bad, but I'd also know that it'd be the right choice. Does that make sense?
Quote from: jlaurson on December 02, 2012, 03:49:43 PM
Also, from live performances of a DSCH cycle of the Mandelring Quartet (Salzburg, 2011):
Notes from the 2011 Salzburg Festival ( 18 ) - Shostakovich Cycle (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/09/notes-from-2011-salzburg-festival-18.html)
Hi
Jens - glad that you 'chimed in' to this thread - and thanks for the link; below just a quote from your review which I think better reflects what I was trying to say in my post.
I do have a question for those of us who may own more that one set of these works, e.g. a 'Russian oriented one' vs. another (for me the Shosty SQ vs. the Mandelrings); i.e. which of the quartets if you had just several to pick, would best show these 'differences' that seem to draw one's interest from one mode of performance to another? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated - TIA! Dave :)
QuoteThe Mandelring Quartett offers more beauty and less gore in Shostakovich than one would expect if the only reference were the performances of the (all-Russian) "Borodin", "Beethoven", or "Shostakovich" Quartets. They accentuate surfaces more than spikes and corners; their rhythmic beat is propulsive but rarely maniacal. They are DSCH-seducers, not DSCH-enforcers... which is not to say that they can't work up an awesome storm.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 02, 2012, 03:49:43 PM
As per Danel vs. Mandelrings... well, they're different. Danels are much more tenacious, sinewy, brawny... so if you want to move further away from the interpretative line that Borodin II already offers, then I would go with Mandelring. If someone wavered between the two sets (and only those) as a FIRST set, then I would go against the Mandelrings (although I am emotionally indebted to them) and recommend Danel over them. I'd feel bad, but I'd also know that it'd be the right choice. Does that make sense?
I think so, and appreciate your answer. Thank you.
Hey, since so many people are keen on making December "Shosty quartet month," why don't we start a discussion club thread and those of us who decide to listen throughout December can have a nice long chat about what we're hearing. I'd be very happy to join the party, with the proviso that I would probably be one of those unimaginative people who starts with #1 and works forward. I've only heard 5 or 6 of the quartets but have the complete Borodin (Melodiya), the ongoing Pacifica, and one CD of Fitzwilliam (#s 8 and 9)...
Quote from: sanantonio on December 01, 2012, 02:42:55 PM
I noticed when listening to the Aviv Quartet recording that there was some noise in the background in a couple a spots (the 8th) - it sounded like a bow hitting a music stand, or a chair moving - something like that. Hardly noticeable except when using earphones, and even then a minor thing, but worth mentioning.
Yeah, and more along those lines, just the other day I experienced probably the worst instance of noise intruding on a recording when pianist X while playing Mozart's hushed, mellow Adagio in B minor for solo piano sniffed so often the piece became nearly drowned in his aspirations.
And this while driving in my car! :o
I don't usually do 'complete' sets, but inspired by this thread, I went against the habit of a lifetime and sprung for a complete Quartets (plus Quintet) by the Sorrel Quartet, less than £20 from Classical Shop.
(I have to say, in passing, that the Classical Shop experience is not really recommendable - I had problems with the payment process, and more problems with the download process, and the files when downloaded need a lot of attention, renaming and re-tagging. However a big plus side is that these particular files came down as 24-bit, which I was not expecting and which was very welcome. Anyhow, on with the music ...)
Today I listened to No.8 (of course), 11, and the quintet which is a particular favourite.
No.8 is simply sensational. I'm comparing it with my other two versions, the Borodins and the Eders. I've simply never heard chamber music playing like this before. Maybe 'visceral' is the word. And I've never heard such a good chamber music recording before - in fact this is one of the best recordings I've ever heard.
The transition from movt.1 to movt.2 is spectacular. In movt.4, the staccato chords pin me to my seat while simultaneously the keening, suspended note somewhere down near the threshold of audibility, holds my attention. Just gripping. I won't be going back to the Borodins or the Eders after this!
11 was recorded at a different, earlier, session. Here I have the Borodins and the Brodskys for comparison. The Sorrels and the Brodskys seem fairly much on a par, to me, both very enjoyable. The Sorrels recording still takes the prize but it's not as spectacular as in the (later recording) 8th.
The Quintet, again I have two to compare, the Borodins/Richter, and the St Petersburgs, which I like a lot. (I also have a memory of a recording with the composer at the piano - maybe taped off the radio - which was by some margin the best of all.) In this case the Sorrels don't really displace the other two versions. To me, the piano is a bit too forward, and the strings a bit inhibited compared with the above two quartets. The best movement is the 4th and it's no coincidence that this is a strings-led movement.
Quote from: aukhawk on December 03, 2012, 03:04:51 PM
I don't usually do 'complete' sets, but inspired by this thread, I went against the habit of a lifetime and sprung for a complete Quartets (plus Quintet) by the Sorrel Quartet, less than £20 from Classical Shop.
(I have to say, in passing, that the Classical Shop experience is not really recommendable - I had problems with the payment process, and more problems with the download process, and the files when downloaded need a lot of attention, renaming and re-tagging. However a big plus side is that these particular files came down as 24-bit, which I was not expecting and which was very welcome. Anyhow, on with the music ...)
Today I listened to No.8 (of course), 11, and the quintet which is a particular favourite.
No.8 is simply sensational. I'm comparing it with my other two versions, the Borodins and the Eders. I've simply never heard chamber music playing like this before. Maybe 'visceral' is the word. And I've never heard such a good chamber music recording before - in fact this is one of the best recordings I've ever heard.
The transition from movt.1 to movt.2 is spectacular. In movt.4, the staccato chords pin me to my seat while simultaneously the keening, suspended note somewhere down near the threshold of audibility, holds my attention. Just gripping. I won't be going back to the Borodins or the Eders after this!
11 was recorded at a different, earlier, session. Here I have the Borodins and the Brodskys for comparison. The Sorrels and the Brodskys seem fairly much on a par, to me, both very enjoyable. The Sorrels recording still takes the prize but it's not as spectacular as in the (later recording) 8th.
The Quintet, again I have two to compare, the Borodins/Richter, and the St Petersburgs, which I like a lot. (I also have a memory of a recording with the composer at the piano - maybe taped off the radio - which was by some margin the best of all.) In this case the Sorrels don't really displace the other two versions. To me, the piano is a bit too forward, and the strings a bit inhibited compared with the above two quartets. The best movement is the 4th and it's no coincidence that this is a strings-led movement.
Very interesting. Thanks for joining the party!
I'm looking forward to hearing some more - I'll probably try 5 and 15 next - but I do find, with string quartets in general and with Shostakovich (and Bartok) in particular, that a little goes a long way! ;)
I have to sooth the spirit with plenty of Bach in between ...
Nothing at all wrong with mixing things up, keeping the palate clear, so to say....
Interested in purchasing a complete set of Shostakovich quartets, I searched the forum and found this thread. Inspired by the comments, I ordered the Fitzwilliam set on Amazon for about $17 USD including shipping. The Borodin set is a bit hard to come by, however, there is an iTunes download available for $59.99. My trigger finger is itching...
Quote from: NJ Joe on December 14, 2013, 05:46:27 PM
Interested in purchasing a complete set of Shostakovich quartets, I searched the forum and found this thread. Inspired by the comments, I ordered the Fitzwilliam set on Amazon for about $17 USD including shipping. The Borodin set is a bit hard to come by, however, there is an iTunes download available for $59.99. My trigger finger is itching...
Joe, that is a great set. I hope you will really enjoy it, as I do. I also have the Borodin (cow and violin) set, and the complete Eder Quartet set on Naxos. Wouldn't want to be without any of these 3 sets.
:)
Quote from: ChamberNut on December 14, 2013, 05:53:08 PM
Joe, that is a great set. I hope you will really enjoy it, as I do. I also have the Borodin (cow and violin) set, and the complete Eder Quartet set on Naxos. Wouldn't want to be without any of these 3 sets.
:)
Thank you, I'm really looking forward to it!
The Pacifica Quartet!
Quote from: NJ Joe on December 14, 2013, 05:46:27 PM
Interested in purchasing a complete set of Shostakovich quartets, I searched the forum and found this thread. Inspired by the comments, I ordered the Fitzwilliam set on Amazon for about $17 USD including shipping. The Borodin set is a bit hard to come by, however, there is an iTunes download available for $59.99. My trigger finger is itching...
Borodin II+
Mandelring and/or
Pacifica
Quote from: jlaurson on December 15, 2013, 08:25:26 AM
Borodin II
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51N942KMX7L._SY300_.jpg)
This is the one pictured on iTunes. It also includes Two Pieces For String Octet, and a Piano Quintet. I'm guessing it's the correct one?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 14, 2013, 06:00:08 PM
The Pacifica Quartet!
Well, I've been keeping my 'eyes' on the
Pacifica Quartet recordings - just took a look on Amazon USA - four separate 2-CD sets available; just added up the least expensive route using both Prime & the MP - $58 and no space saving? Is a 'box' forthcoming soon?
The
Mandelring Quartett is my current favorite; also own the
Rubio Quartet on Brilliant - Dave :)
Quote from: SonicMan46 on December 15, 2013, 09:41:58 AM
Well, I've been keeping my 'eyes' on the Pacifica Quartet recordings - just took a look on Amazon USA - four separate 2-CD sets available; just added up the least expensive route using both Prime & the MP - $58 and no space saving? Is a 'box' forthcoming soon?
The Mandelring Quartett is my current favorite; also own the Rubio Quartet on Brilliant - Dave :)
ArkivMusic has each individual cd on sale for $12.99. Adding the cost of shipping, the full set can be had for $58.29. So now I must decide: Borodin II or Pacifica...
Quote from: NJ Joe on December 15, 2013, 09:31:50 AM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51N942KMX7L._SY300_.jpg)
This is the one pictured on iTunes. It also includes Two Pieces For String Octet, and a Piano Quintet. I'm guessing it's the correct one?
That's the one. Complete, with boni, and best remastering yet.
Quote from: NJ Joe on December 15, 2013, 10:10:17 AM
ArkivMusic has each individual cd on sale for $12.99. Adding the cost of shipping, the full set can be had for $58.29. So now I must decide: Borodin II or Pacifica...
Both of them!
I know you want a complete set, but Borodin 1 (a fantastic set) might be purchased for $25.98.
[asin]B00008WQB4[/asin]
After all Borodin 1 was a complete set when it was released. :)
Quote from: Gordo on December 15, 2013, 10:34:29 AM
Both of them!
+1
I do actually prefer Borodin 2, but Pacifica has the advantage of being DSCH Plus--with one quartet in each of the four volumes being from a Soviet contemporary to the Shostakovich music it's coupled with (plus interesting cover art--a series of Soviet propaganda poster, all more or less contemporary with the works therein).
BTW, the pianist on the Borodin Quintet is Richter.
I bought the Borodin 1 in the LP age (the 70ies) and supplanted the late quartets with Fitzwilliams. In the CD age I have owned the complete Fitzwilliams and have been very content with that, though buying and playing through the complete Borodin 2 in the remastering shown above. So I have never been a great collector of cycles. But I have been collecting the Pacifica and now have them all, and have been pretty bowled over by their quality.
Saturday I ordered the Fitzwilliams from Amazon, and yesterday I downloaded Borodin II from iTunes, and purchased the four individual Pacifica discs from ArkivMusic. It's all a blur...
Quote from: NJ Joe on December 16, 2013, 03:24:42 AM
. . . It's all a blur...
I dunno, you've selected three quite distinct profiles :)
Quote from: NJ Joe on December 16, 2013, 03:24:42 AM
Saturday I ordered the Fitzwilliams from Amazon, and yesterday I downloaded Borodin II from iTunes, and purchased the four individual Pacifica discs from ArkivMusic. It's all a blur...
Good man. Few posts, but strong will.
Quote from: The new erato on December 16, 2013, 06:13:05 AM
Good man. Few posts, but strong will.
Ha ha, thank you! So far I've listened to the first six quartets of Borodin II. I'm really enjoying them, particularly the slower passages which I find to be mysterious, powerful, and moving.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2013, 04:01:51 AM
I dunno, you've selected three quite distinct profiles :)
Yes, but I went over budget!
I think, as you listen to them, you will not consider the budget excessive ;)
I currently own nine complete sets of the quartets--Borodin, Brodsky, Danel, Emerson, Fitzwilliam, Manhattan, Rubio, St Petersburg, and the Shostakovich Quartet.
Of these, the Borodin are undoubtedly the best performances, but the sound is not very good. Almost as good a set of performances, with infinitely better sound, and therefore winner of my Total Aesthetic Value Award, is the St. Petersburg, and CD1 of the 6 CDs also contains the Piano Trio and the Piano Quintet. For some reason, they've never put them in a box; but all 6 volumes are available separately.
If I had to pick a third choice, it would be the Manhattan Quartet set. I have also ordered the Manderling Quartet set, and I'd like to get the Sorrel set, too. I hadn't paid much attention to the Pacifica Quartet performances, because they are available only with the works of other composers, but if Karl Henning likes them, there must be something to them. Maybe I'll give them a whirl, too.
Quote from: RebLem on December 17, 2013, 02:05:30 PM
I currently own nine complete sets of the quartets--Borodin, Brodsky, Danel, Emerson, Fitzwilliam, Manhattan, Rubio, St Petersburg, and the Shostakovich Quartet.
Of these, the Borodin are undoubtedly the best performances, but the sound is not very good. Almost as good a set of performances, with infinitely better sound, and therefore winner of my Total Aesthetic Value Award, is the St. Petersburg, and CD1 of the 6 CDs also contains the Piano Trio and the Piano Quintet. For some reason, they've never put them in a box; but all 6 volumes are available separately.
If I had to pick a third choice, it would be the Manhattan Quartet set. I have also ordered the Manderling Quartet set, and I'd like to get the Sorrel set, too. I hadn't paid much attention to the Pacifica Quartet performances, because they are available only with the works of other composers, but if Karl Henning likes them, there must be something to them. Maybe I'll give them a whirl, too.
Hi Reb, I'll make a pitch for the Eder Quartet on Naxos. Really good performances. Not to be dismissed, just because of the Naxos label. :)
Hard for me to pick an outright favourite set. I have three (Borodin II, Fitzwilliam, and Eder). Many favourites dispersed across these three sets. Perhaps, if I could only take one with me to an island, I'd end up with the Borodin set, but I'd sobbing that I had to leave the other two behind. ;D
Quote from: RebLem on December 17, 2013, 02:05:30 PM
I currently own nine complete sets of the quartets--Borodin, Brodsky, Danel, Emerson, Fitzwilliam, Manhattan, Rubio, St Petersburg, and the Shostakovich Quartet.
Of these, the Borodin are undoubtedly the best performances, but the sound is not very good. Almost as good a set of performances, with infinitely better sound, and therefore winner of my Total Aesthetic Value Award, is the St. Petersburg, and CD1 of the 6 CDs also contains the Piano Trio and the Piano Quintet. For some reason, they've never put them in a box; but all 6 volumes are available separately.
If I had to pick a third choice, it would be the Manhattan Quartet set. I have also ordered the Manderling Quartet set, and I'd like to get the Sorrel set, too. I hadn't paid much attention to the Pacifica Quartet performances, because they are available only with the works of other composers, but if Karl Henning likes them, there must be something to them. Maybe I'll give them a whirl, too.
Danel: Not up there, for you, among these??
St.Petersburg: Not in a box?
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0001/116/MI0001116321.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
The have, but it's oop now. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CETZF0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000CETZF0&linkCode=as2&tag=goodmusicguide-20)
Reasonable prices for used sets (better than buying individually, at least) at Amazon.com and at Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000CETZF0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B000CETZF0&linkCode=as2&tag=goodmusicguideuk-21).
Quote from: RebLem on December 17, 2013, 02:05:30 PM
If I had to pick a third choice, it would be the Manhattan Quartet set. I have also ordered the Manderling Quartet set, and I'd like to get the Sorrel set, too. I hadn't paid much attention to the Pacifica Quartet performances, because they are available only with the works of other composers, but if Karl Henning likes them, there must be something to them. Maybe I'll give them a whirl, too.
Last night I dreamt I went to Manderling again. (Mandelring) ;)
I have Borodin I, II, Brodsky, Danel, Emerson, St. Petersburg, Shostakovich Quartet, Sorrel, Mandelring, and as of yesterday the complete Pacifica... Borodin II and Danel, Mandelring and Pacifica being the ones that get the most instinctive grab when I listen to them. Emerson I might as well not have.
Some of the individual CDs from the St. Petersburg Quartet pop up on Hyperion's "Please buy me" page from time to time. Don't know if you can get the complete cycle that way if you're patient enough.....
Current Personal Ranking, now that I have the last installment of Pacifica
Borodin II
****
Emerson
Shostakovich
Mandelring /Pacifica (about equal)
Fitzwilliam
**** represents the 2CDs recorded by the Jerusalem Quartet
The Fitzwilliams left me deeply unimpressed; I don't seem to hear what other people hear in their performances. And in complement, I seem to hear things in the Emersons that most people don't.....
The Pacifica cycle, for me, is valuable mostly for the non-DSCH works included. For instance (and it is true that while I've obviously heard DSCH's 13-15 a number of times, and never heard the Schnittke before today) it was the Schnittke Third Quartet that seemed the best part of Pacifica's fourth installment when I gave it a first listen today.
Yesterday I finished my first traversal of Borodin II. I was barely able to "put down" these gripping performances, and hardly listened to anything else all week. My immediate instinct is to start again from the beginning and listen through a second time. And now I have Fitzwilliam and Pacifica sitting on my desk, unopened. Maybe I'll give the Pacifica a shot. Decisions, decisions...
Quote from: NJ Joe on December 22, 2013, 08:24:17 AM
Yesterday I finished my first traversal of Borodin II. I was barely able to "put down" these gripping performances, and hardly listened to anything else all week. My immediate instinct is to start again from the beginning and listen through a second time. And now I have Fitzwilliam and Pacifica sitting on my desk, unopened. Maybe I'll give the Pacifica a shot. Decisions, decisions...
I typically like to have the residuals from a particular performance (or in this case
performances) out of my memory before I begin anew with an alternate version of the same work. I fear it might downgrade the experience into a "performance competition" rather than simple listening. Sometimes I've found that false conclusions arise. Dunno...just thinking out loud...ignore me. :)
Quote from: NJ Joe on December 22, 2013, 08:24:17 AM
Yesterday I finished my first traversal of Borodin II. I was barely able to "put down" these gripping performances, and hardly listened to anything else all week. My immediate instinct is to start again from the beginning and listen through a second time. And now I have Fitzwilliam and Pacifica sitting on my desk, unopened. Maybe I'll give the Pacifica a shot. Decisions, decisions...
Hi Joe, very happy to hear you are enjoying the Borodin II set! :)
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on December 22, 2013, 08:40:21 AM
I typically like to have the residuals from a particular performance (or in this case performances) out of my memory before I begin anew with an alternate version of the same work. I fear it might downgrade the experience into a "performance competition" rather than simple listening. Sometimes I've found that false conclusions arise. Dunno...just thinking out loud...ignore me. :)
Good point, and I agree. It's happened to me as well.
Quote from: ChamberNut on December 22, 2013, 08:45:59 AM
Hi Joe, very happy to hear you are enjoying the Borodin II set! :)
Immensely!
Well, I'm still debating on obtaining another set of these Shosty SQs - I'm really leaning toward the Pacifica Quartet and willing to buy the four 2-CD sets - I owned previously the Borodins (first set before completion) - did not like the dated sound - so for those who have listened to both the Borodin II w/ all works vs. the Pacifica performances (and not wanting to buy both), what are the recommendations - of course, I know they will be mixed, but I want modern sound. Thanks - Dave
Quote from: SonicMan46 on December 22, 2013, 07:00:11 PM
Well, I'm still debating on obtaining another set of these Shosty SQs - I'm really leaning toward the Pacifica Quartet and willing to buy the four 2-CD sets - I owned previously the Borodins (first set before completion) - did not like the dated sound - so for those who have listened to both the Borodin II w/ all works vs. the Pacifica performances (and not wanting to buy both), what are the recommendations - of course, I know they will be mixed, but I want modern sound. Thanks - Dave
Borodin II, unless you're interested in the non Shostakovich works included in the Pacifica set. On the Borodin side, a recording of the Piano Quintet is included, with a guy name Richter tickling the ivories. Does a decent job, too. ;D I had no quarrel with the sonics.
to quote myself from a few days ago:
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 18, 2013, 08:32:14 PM
The Pacifica cycle, for me, is valuable mostly for the non-DSCH works included. For instance (and it is true that while I've obviously heard DSCH's 13-15 a number of times, and never heard the Schnittke before today) it was the Schnittke Third Quartet that seemed the best part of Pacifica's fourth installment when I gave it a first listen today.
Quote from: SonicMan46 on December 22, 2013, 07:00:11 PM
Well, I'm still debating on obtaining another set of these Shosty SQs - I'm really leaning toward the Pacifica Quartet and willing to buy the four 2-CD sets - I owned previously the Borodins (first set before completion) - did not like the dated sound - so for those who have listened to both the Borodin II w/ all works vs. the Pacifica performances (and not wanting to buy both), what are the recommendations - of course, I know they will be mixed, but I want modern sound. Thanks - Dave
Uffda. If Borodin I doesn't do it for you, and even though Borodin II has improved sonics that don't bother me at all (I've come to expect a little grit from that end in many of my DSCH recordings, perversely), it's still not a modern sound... And then I suppose the rational thing is to recommend Pacifica. Well, Jerusalem, if they were working on their cycle, which I am not sure they are (at least not on HMU). But Pacifica you will not have any qualms about the sound and if you want Borodin-style, you've got that or had that... and now you have a slightly more secure and cleaner (but not as polished---to a fault, perhaps---as Mandelring) set of renditions, but still heartfelt and with guts and gore.
Quote from: The new erato on December 23, 2013, 01:03:33 AM
As a Norwegian I can relate to that.
Ja, det kanne du. :) God jul og Godt Nyttar til deg.
Quote from: North Star on December 23, 2013, 02:07:25 AM
Ska vi skriva på Svenska här, eller hur?
Var kan vi reportera dåliga grammatik?
Men jeg kan ikke skrive svensk. Og jeg viller ikke. Etter tre Ar in Oslo, jeg kan bare leser "Lille Larven aldri mett". :-(
Det samme til deg!
Ska vi skriva på Svenska här, eller hur?
Var kan vi reportera dåliga grammatik?
En gramatikklagare (aka Grammar Grumble)?
Quote from: jlaurson on December 23, 2013, 01:02:00 AM
... And then I suppose the rational thing is to recommend Pacifica.
Completely rational, and (in my case, anyway) just a shade of sentiment.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 18, 2013, 09:02:24 AM
Danel: Not up there, for you, among these??
+1
QuoteLast night I dreamt I went to Manderling again. (Mandelring) ;)
Maybe a name change would help straighten all this out. ;D
Might help CD Universe. (http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Manderling+Quartet/a/albums.htm)
Quote from: jlaurson on December 23, 2013, 01:02:00 AM
Uffda. If Borodin I doesn't do it for you, and even though Borodin II has improved sonics that don't bother me at all (I've come to expect a little grit from that end in many of my DSCH recordings, perversely), it's still not a modern sound...
My knowledge of Russian is only slightly better than my knowledge of Norwegian (ie, non existent), but my copies of both the Kondrashin symphony cycle and the Borodin II cycle clearly give a copyright date of 2012, and no other, with copyright belonging to the Shostakovich estate and Melodiya. Is it possible they've been remastered?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 23, 2013, 05:54:46 PM
My knowledge of Russian is only slightly better than my knowledge of Norwegian (ie, non existent), but my copies of both the Kondrashin symphony cycle and the Borodin II cycle clearly give a copyright date of 2012, and no other, with copyright belonging to the Shostakovich estate and Melodiya. Is it possible they've been remastered?
Well All! Despite not understanding the
jibberish in a number of the recent posts - ;) I went ahead and ordered Borodin II from Amazon MP - there were two offerings but I went w/ the Melodiya recordings (which seemed to have escalated in price after my order!) - hope that this was a good choice - :)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 23, 2013, 05:54:46 PM
My knowledge of Russian is only slightly better than my knowledge of Norwegian (ie, non existent), but my copies of both the Kondrashin symphony cycle and the Borodin II cycle clearly give a copyright date of 2012, and no other, with copyright belonging to the Shostakovich estate and Melodiya. Is it possible they've been remastered?
They are AFAIK.
I have had the Borodin I and Borodin II for a long time.
I may consider the Pacifica at some point, just to hear another interp.
Not for the "sound". As far as I can hear the Borodin II was recorded at a point in time that is in no way inferior to our current time.
It's just four fiddles. Late analogue is a perfect medium.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 15, 2013, 07:22:27 PM
BTW, the pianist on the Borodin Quintet is Richter.
I bypassed the Quintet on my first round of listening to the complete quartets, however, I played it last night during my second round and was blown away! What a gem. Now I can't get past it without hitting repeat.
Quote from: NJ Joe on January 01, 2014, 04:40:42 PM
I bypassed the Quintet on my first round of listening to the complete quartets, however, I played it last night during my second round and was blown away! What a gem. Now I can't get past it without hitting repeat.
I'm joining you Joe, and breaking out the
Bovine!! :)
Shostakovich
Two pieces for Strings Octet, Op. 11Borodin Quartet and Prokofiev Quartet
Piano Quintet in G minor, Op. 57Borodin Quartet
Richter, piano
[asin]B000HXE5BK[/asin]
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0L4bEI_z8xE/UrhB6JCcPhI/AAAAAAAAHZE/v9cR9pw-cAU/s1600/Best_Recordings_of_2013_laurson_600.jpg)
Best Recordings of 2013 (#7)
Shostakovich, Mendelssohn
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2014/01/best-recordings-of-2013-7.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2014/01/best-recordings-of-2013-7.html)
It's been too long since I listened to all the Shostakovich string quartets. So, I will spend the next week or so listening (from a variety of cycles) to all of the works.
Right now, No. 1 (a good place to start :) )
(http://cdn.naxosmusiclibrary.com/sharedfiles/images/cds/others/Audite92.526.gif)
Mandelring Quartet
Hello DSCH (s)experts,
If I said I was looking for a Shostakovich quartet cycle played by the London Haydn Quartet, what would you direct me to buy? I'm not sure Borodin, Emerson or Fitzwilliam is really my "thing" (though I haven't sampled the newer Borodin set with 14 & 15 and the Quintet, it predates the Kopelman/Aharonian switcheroo so I doubt it'll be interpretively very different). St Petersburg is somewhat intriguing but doesn't seem to be talked about much.
My votes go to the Borodin, Fitzwilliam and Eder Quartet sets. I'm not a particular fan of the Emersons for their Shostakovich cycle (even though I like the Emersons in most other recordings).
Many people will suggest these (but I haven't heard them): Rubio, Sorrel, Mandelring and the on-going Pacifica.
There are many others I'm sure people will recommend. :D
Quote from: amw on June 03, 2014, 10:37:35 PM
Hello DSCH (s)experts,
If I said I was looking for a Shostakovich quartet cycle played by the London Haydn Quartet, ...
Say no more. You need this:
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2008/05/shostakovich-with-mandelring-quartett.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2008/05/shostakovich-with-mandelring-quartett.html)
Cheers & best,
Jens
I do love that Mandelring set.
Quote from: amw on June 03, 2014, 10:37:35 PM
Hello DSCH (s)experts,
If I said I was looking for a Shostakovich quartet cycle played by the London Haydn Quartet, what would you direct me to buy? I'm not sure Borodin, Emerson or Fitzwilliam is really my "thing" (though I haven't sampled the newer Borodin set with 14 & 15 and the Quintet, it predates the Kopelman/Aharonian switcheroo so I doubt it'll be interpretively very different). St Petersburg is somewhat intriguing but doesn't seem to be talked about much.
Hmmm. Borodin II is my top set, Fitzwilliam my least favorite set, in large part because I like the Borodin approach and do not like the Fitzwilliam approach, and find them different enough to impact my opinion.he Emersons are most like Fitzwilliams, but edgier, so I like them much more. Of my other cycles, Pacifica and Shostakovich (on Alto...the ensemble is named after the composer) are Borodinish, Mandelring less so. There is also the partial cycle from the Jerusalem Quartet and a doubleCD of the late quartets by the Juilliards worth looking at.
I have been exploring these quartets on and off for the past several weeks now, and have completely fallen under their spell. Since I subscribe to a music streaming service, I've been able to compare several versions (since they do not have the Borodin sets that everyone raves about, I recently bought that the more recent one, though haven't had much time with it yet). So far, my favorite (among the Shostakovich, Pacifica, Emerson, and Danel quartets) is the Mandelring Quartet. They bring out more delicacy, fragility, and mysteriousness in the music than any of the other quartets, without losing the required intensity (IMHO, or course). Now I'm debating between ordering the Mandelring set on individual SACDs--though I have yet to buy a great SACD player, I may do so at some point--or the much less expensive CD box.
Quote from: jlaurson on June 04, 2014, 04:12:27 AM
Say no more. You need this:
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2008/05/shostakovich-with-mandelring-quartett.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2008/05/shostakovich-with-mandelring-quartett.html)
Hmm. I'm co-testing them (via spotify) with Borodin II, St Petersburg and Shostakovich (the ones my library had copies of).
Mandelring checklist- Real
sfffz at the end of 13 - close, but could be better
- 12/ii - interesting. Plenty of weirdness but no hysterics. Could stand to hear more of this. Definitely prefer it to Borodin
- Articulation of the diggydum-diggydum rhythms - somewhat legato-ized as a rule
- 3/iii - steak
- 3/v - Hey, an optimistic finale. That's a rarity. Manages to be nicely ambiguous by approaching the ambiguity from the opposite direction (vs. "lost innocence" from the St Petersburg/Borodin approach).
- Pizzicati - very solid
- misc - they seem really loud. Maybe it's just spotify and its 128kbps MP3s? I'm not hearing very many true "pianissimos".
St Petersburg checklist- Library didn't have 12 or 13
- Articulation - on the short/brusque side
- 3/iii - sawblades
- 3/v - very soft w/excellent dynamic control; ensemble doesn't have the bloom to make the climax truly climactic, but wind-down is the best of the lot
- Pizzicati - could be better
- misc - I guess this is the Real Russian approach—they picked up the trick of varying the vibrato from the Borodins, but at the same time don't go overboard with romanticisms the way the Borodins do. I'm sounding like snyprrr amn't I? :(
Borodin checklist- Real sfffz at the end of 13 - close, could be better, but probably the best I'm likely to get
- 12/ii - a little shrill; plays up the wackiness a
bit too much for my tastes
- Articulation - variable, often tenuto with vibrato, but not quite as bad as the Fitzwilliams
- 3/iii - steak covered in sawblades
- 3/v - hmm, I see why people like this. A bit too Romantic/extroverted at times for me, but powerful. Ending lacks that last touch of ambiguity imo.
- Pizzicati - don't stand out as much, but i can live with that
- misc - Weirdly, though the playing is better (and the ensemble sounds fuller in spite of dated sonics), and I know this is "objectively" the best cycle, I think I'd pick St Petersburg over this if I wanted this kind of approach
Shostakovich checklist- Library didn't have 12 or 13
- Articulation - tenuti, but not Fitzwilliam-sized tenuti
- 3/iii - very dance-like, interesting
- 3/v - I'm not sure, this is sort of like Borodin but not as good. Their pps aren't soft enough.
- Pizzicati - nothing special
Borodin 7 vs. Shostakovich 7 vs. Mandelring 7 vs. Hagen 7 vs. Taneyev 7—Taneyev is untouchable here, even by Borodin (maybe Beethoven would be on the same level), but Hagen offers enough of a contrasting view... those being the two I already had. I'm not sure I really need a third one. Unless it does something
really different.
Actually, come to think of it I should try to find the Taneyev complete cycle. I like everything else they've ever done well enough. Predictably, it is OOP.
(When is there going to be a Taneyev Quartet mega box set? I would buy the
fuck out of a Taneyev Quartet mega box set)
Anyway... I think I like Mandelring and St Petersburg the most, and of course Hagen (but they have no complete cycle, nor does it seem likely they'll record one). I think Mandelring may be at their best in the late quartets, actually, though the 1st movement of 15 needs a more "viol-like" sound than they give it imo... More spotifying I guess.
So today, after neglecting the c minor quartet for too long a time, I listened to the Mandelring Quartet, the Emersons, the Borodins, and the Pacifica Quartet.
Of these lot, I prefer the Pacifica by a fair margin.
Quote from: amw on June 03, 2014, 10:37:35 PM
Hello DSCH (s)experts,
If I said I was looking for a Shostakovich quartet cycle played by the London Haydn Quartet, what would you direct me to buy?
Brodsky or Manhattan
that's right
Brodsky or Manhattan
I hear what you're saying. For the Manhattan, try my AllTimePersonalFav 4/5. If you don't like that you won't like them. The Brodsky were pretty well... you maaay like them,... check some samples. ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2014, 11:27:05 AM
So today, after neglecting the c minor quartet for too long a time, I listened to the Mandelring Quartet, the Emersons, the Borodins, and the Pacifica Quartet.
Of these lot, I prefer the Pacifica by a fair margin.
I listened to Borodin, Fitzwilliam, Mandelring, Emerson and Rubio. Borodin "won" followed by Fitzwilliam. Earlier today I listened to samples of the Pacifica...liked what I heard. I ordered 1-8. Nice to see you think highly of 8. My purchase has not been in vein 8)
Sarge
I bought and played the Pacifica cycle as it appeared and am mightily impressed.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 30, 2014, 11:27:05 AM
So today, after neglecting the c minor quartet for too long a time, I listened to the Mandelring Quartet, the Emersons, the Borodins, and the Pacifica Quartet.
Of these lot, I prefer the Pacifica by a fair margin.
Hi
Karl - I've been eyeing those
Pacifica Quartet offerings; now being listing in the Amazon MP for about $10 per each 2-CD volume - how are these packaged, i.e. foldout wallet or jewel boxes? Thanks for any clarification - Dave :)
Single width jewel box pr double CD.
I rate the Hagen Quartet most highly in 8. Predictably, the Beethoven Quartet is also pretty good, seeing as they gave the premiere and everything.
Other personal preferences -
2 - Taneyev
3 - St Petersburg / Hagen
7 - Taneyev
9 - Mandelring
12 - Mandelring
13 - St Petersburg
15 - Borodin
I listened to the Pacificas' 13 but the lack of sufficient sfffz proved, as usual, the deal-breaker. >.>
Quote from: snyprrr on July 30, 2014, 12:43:06 PM
Brodsky or Manhattan
that's right
Brodsky or Manhattan
I hear what you're saying. For the Manhattan, try my AllTimePersonalFav 4/5. If you don't like that you won't like them. The Brodsky were pretty well... you maaay like them,... check some samples. ;)
Having found a snyprrr post I understand I felt the urge to quote it.
I like the Brodsky. They are more like Boulez would be if, god help us, he and his clones formed a quartet: slightly cooler and very precise.
Quote from: The new erato on July 30, 2014, 01:59:09 PM
Single width jewel box pr double CD.
Thanks - NOW, I'm even tempted further! :) Dave
ADDENDUM: Well, I 'bit the bullet' and just ordered all 4 volumes from the Amazon MP - $10 each per 2-disc set w/ the usual $4 handling - basically, $5 per CD before S/H - fine w/ me! Dave
The 8th played by the Sorrel Quartet is just simply the best single chamber music recording I own.
Quote from: SonicMan46 on July 30, 2014, 01:37:55 PM
Hi Karl - I've been eyeing those Pacifica Quartet offerings; now being listing in the Amazon MP for about $10 per each 2-CD volume - how are these packaged, i.e. foldout wallet or jewel boxes? Thanks for any clarification - Dave :)
Slender two-fer jewel boxes,
Dave.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 30, 2014, 01:26:32 PM
I listened to Borodin, Fitzwilliam, Mandelring, Emerson and Rubio. Borodin "won" followed by Fitzwilliam. Earlier today I listened to samples of the Pacifica...liked what I heard. I ordered 1-8. Nice to see you think highly of 8. My purchase has not been in vein 8)
Sarge
I know our preferences diverge a bit here, but then, why not? :) Hope you do enjoy these.
Quote from: SonicMan46 on July 30, 2014, 05:24:52 PM
Thanks - NOW, I'm even tempted further! :) Dave
ADDENDUM: Well, I 'bit the bullet' and just ordered all 4 volumes from the Amazon MP - $10 each per 2-disc set w/ the usual $4 handling - basically, $5 per CD before S/H - fine w/ me! Dave
I think you will find the
Shostakovich set well done, and there is the bonus of the singleton
Prokofiev,
Weinberg,
Myaskovsky &
Schnittke quartets.
Quote from: aukhawk on July 31, 2014, 12:34:34 AM
The 8th played by the Sorrel Quartet is just simply the best single chamber music recording I own.
One thing I look for, and prefer in the 8th is a slowish Allegretto...the Sorrel delivers. Their cycle is only €26...hmmmm....
Sarge
The set includes a pretty slow rendition of the Piano Quintet, too. (Apart from the Scherzo which is suitably manic.)
8th reviewed here (http://dschjournal.com/reviews/cd_reviews/rvs16op117.htm)
Quote from: aukhawk on July 31, 2014, 04:17:15 AM
The set includes a pretty slow rendition of the Piano Quintet, too. (Apart from the Scherzo which is suitably manic.)
8th reviewed here (http://dschjournal.com/reviews/cd_reviews/rvs16op117.htm)
Thanks for the link 8)
Sarge
Quote from: karlhenning on July 31, 2014, 03:49:31 AM
Slender two-fer jewel boxes, Dave.
Thanks
Karl - put in an order last night for all 4 volumes - Dave :)
Is there a separate PQ Thread? Otherwise, I was raised on the Borodin Trio (Chandos) and the Beaux Arts (Philips; which I still have in front of me)... and maybe the Fitzwillam?...
I liked the Argerich samples (EMI), but, there's a LOT more to choose from now than in (ca.)1993, so, I'd be open to any well recorded and played performance. Odd couplings always get bonus points- or, you can just tell me who you like in the PT2 (again, I only have Beaux to go on).
I think the PQ is one of the most difficult balancing acts (sonically) in the whole repertoire? (sometimes the opening strings and/or piano intro can be quite jarring due to balance issues/acoustics)
Quote from: Ken B on July 30, 2014, 05:06:44 PM
Having found a snyprrr post I understand I felt the urge to quote it.
I like the Brodsky. They are more like Boulez would be if, god help us, he and his clones formed a quartet: slightly cooler and very precise.
I'm touched! ;) 0:) :laugh:
"Let me be... perfectly clear" The Manhattan are very sharp, and have a dry acoustic to match. If I remember, I liked them through 10 or 11. The Late SQs need their own particular profile. But, again, I thought their playing, coupled with their engineering, produced the best sounding 4 and 5 to my ears (these two particularly, and 6, suffer with less than sweet sound (because the are so delicate and precise)). The disc with 9 and 10 might be a second choice. I don't even think the Borodin recorded No.5 (or was it 4?).
The Brodskys have, of course, that wonderful Teldec sound, and are a more satisfying whole than the Manhattan, though I am certainly not one who thinks that you should ever get a whole set... sort of... uh... you know? "He who does No.1 perfectly screws up No.13",... or something like that.
The set that I researched most thoroughly at the time,... and not mentioned yet in these updates... is the
Shostakovich on Olympia. At the time, I thought they had the measure of 12-15, and worked the wacky ones- 7-11,... I'm thinking their 4 and 5 fell to the Manhattan, and their 6 fell to the Brodsky (beauty of sound issues). Still, no one has stated a comparison with this group yet- are they not considered in the Top3-5 any more?? Karl? Sarge?hmm?
Quote from: snyprrr on July 31, 2014, 11:03:05 AM
I think the PQ is one of the most difficult balancing acts (sonically) in the whole repertoire? (sometimes the opening strings and/or piano intro can be quite jarring due to balance issues/acoustics)
I think you're right. I've always thought that piano and violin is a slightly unhappy combination, due to tuning issues - there's a lot of potential for conflict, perhaps Shostakovich chose to exploit that aspect of things rather than try to gloss over it. See also, his very fine Cello Sonata (Gabetta is good, coupled with Cello Concerto 2) - to stray even further off topic, sorry! :-\
I got the St Petersburg set on Hyperion which includes the Quintet and Trio as well. Along with listening through the Mandelring set that pretty much satiated my desire for Shostakovich chamber music. (Of course I remain a reasonably big believer in new repertoire rather than new performances, in spite of the 60 Schubert Quintets and 1000 Kreislerianas I've accumulated over the past six months or so)
The other performance of those two everyone (who likes Shostakovich) should hear is this one
[asin]B00005YOX9[/asin]
Yes, OK, the sound is bad, even by 1945 standards. But no one even tries to play them like this nowadays
Quote from: snyprrr on July 31, 2014, 11:03:05 AM
I'd be open to any well recorded and played performance.
(http://s16.postimg.org/424uoy81x/MI0001133551.jpg)
It was also available as reissue on Elatus and on Ultima (that was 2 CDs with some quartets)
Quote from: amw on August 01, 2014, 12:27:35 AM
I got the St Petersburg set on Hyperion which includes the Quintet and Trio as well. Along with listening through the Mandelring set that pretty much satiated my desire for Shostakovich chamber music. (Of course I remain a reasonably big believer in new repertoire rather than new performances, in spite of the 60 Schubert Quintets and 1000 Kreislerianas I've accumulated over the past six months or so)
???
Now that is quite a lot...
I should never have guessed there were that many!
That many performances, sure, but so many documents? I am staggered!
Quote from: jlaurson on December 23, 2013, 01:32:20 AM
Ja, det kanne du. :) God jul og Godt Nyttar til deg.
Men jeg kan ikke skrive svensk. Og jeg viller ikke. Etter tre Ar in Oslo, jeg kan bare leser "Lille Larven aldri mett". :-(
Hey Svenska- I was wondering if you would do a spot compare of SQ 4 for me (you ARE The Man here!). When it comes to Nos. 1, 4, 5, & 6, and especially 4 (and 5) I muuust have the Most Perfect Beauty. Obviously, any older set is automatically excluded- and of course I'm mainly concerned with the Danel-St.P-Pacifica-Hagen-Manderling-Sorrel-?!?-Challenge, or whatever other 4 (the Jerusalem were supposedly weak here?) that might be considered TheOne.
I have always hailed the Manhattan's 4-5 as a Singularly Perfect Record, but I was particularly hearing good things about the Sorrel in 4. No.4's opening MUST HAVE That Particular Feeling, and I felt that the Manhattan pulled it off in a most smooth way (and I have read how someone did not like their approach, I think compared to the Fitzies more aggressive approach), but a lot of the current samples say that most all modern groups understand that this is a most Classical piece. (I think 5 is his most
experimental(Perfect, but not experimental...)- whatdaya think?- and- yes, I know it's not, buuut...)
And 6 needs the Most Wonderful Treatment (always liked Brodsky here)
SQ 4
No.4 has one of the most notoriously difficult openings to pull off without grating the ear with unwanted sawdust. It's slightly harder to underplay, but that has also happened. I have to lift up 4 as one of the Most Perfect SQs- I mean, it's Classical in shape, and exhibits a high degree of Composition- it's quite abstract even though it has the nickname 'Jewish', which it certainly is, relating to the Piano Trio.
If you're like me, then your SQs 1,4,5,6 need to be played somewhat differently than the others, mmm? But 4 and 5 especially are very special creatures (especially 5) and need to be thought of outside the context of a 'Set' or 'Cycle'. Only the very best overall performance and recording will do. The Hagen and the Sorrel have some pretty good samples here... what do you think?
SQ 5
I always thought that the Manhattan recording of 4 and 5 together was overwhelming. The two together, like 9 and 10 together (8 & 9) contain so much good stuff that they seem like two halves of a Symphony almost. 5, especially, is so unique, reminding me of a mining expedition into a cavern ravine, where one is swept up on a journey of sorts. 5 needs to have the absolutely most dedicated playing coupled with the greatest sound. The fact that we're somewhat in Symphony 10 territory is palpable in 5's overall atmosphere of tense exploration.
SQ 6
This one just needs to be... always liked Brodskys, not Emerson, none of the Oldies will do, I want Perfection in Every Deparment.
I am going to listen to the Danel set again. It's been awhile.
Quote from: George on August 02, 2014, 05:13:12 PM
I am going to listen to the Danel set again. It's been awhile.
Please. I mean, I like the Danel, but I find them such a tight little Arditti-like crew, I just didn't think they'd be a fit for 'normal' music. huh
Quote from: North Star on August 01, 2014, 04:18:03 AM
???
Now that is quite a lot...
It's more like 10 (Kempff, Anda, Argerich, Schuch, Perahia, Le Sage, Lonquich, Schiff... more I'm forgetting) but that doesn't sound as impressive... I'm not planning a
Kreisleriana blind comp, I'm just trying to learn the damn thing. >.>
I can't remember anything about Shostakovich 5, if the Taneyev Quartet couldn't make me like it probably no one will, but I'll give StP's version a listen at some point. Haven't really touched that CD yet (5 + 7 + 9) since 7 is Taneyev's territory and 9, being 12's little brother, is where the Mandelrings shine.
Quote from: amw on August 02, 2014, 10:17:43 PMI'm not planning a Kreisleriana blind comp, I'm just trying to learn the damn thing.
Hey, 2015 will need some blind comparisons. ;D I'm planning on doing a small-scale one for Beethoven's Op. 59 No. 3 quartet - maybe just 8-10 recordings.
Quote from: Brian on August 03, 2014, 05:42:33 AM
Hey, 2015 will need some blind comparisons. ;D I'm planning on doing a small-scale one for Beethoven's Op. 59 No. 3 quartet - maybe just 8-10 recordings.
Mmm, that is one dandy,
Brian!
Can anyone say a word about the St. Petersburg group's original duo of discs for SONY? (1,2,4 & 3,5,7)
THE LAST TIME I HAD A CYCLE
it ended with a smattering of Late Quartets by the Borodin, Beethoven, and Shostakovich, the earlier ones kept in check by either the Emerson, Brodsky, or Manhattan. Then I was left with only the Emerson- not a Cycle I would want to have by itself- and grew apart from the DSCH15. Then I sold the Emerson.
Now I'm here again.
I'm most interested in 4-5 (I still like the Manhattan here), 1/6 (for Haydn's sake)m and then 7-11. Right now I couldn't care less about the Death Quartets 12-15.
IT'S OBVIOUS that 7/8 and 9/10 form a unity (maybe with 11 at the end) and it's so hard to get them all together without getting stuff you don't want. The Borodin BMG issue has 8-10, which seems quite perfect- should I go here or go DDD? I'm torn between authenticity and sound, not that I don't actually like the Borodin's dry acoustic (that I hear has been opened up by BMG).
But the Sorrel's samples have impressed me mightily, and I'm sure if I got the Borodin that I'd be craving a DDD set... ahhh, the trauma. ::)
The Pacifica aggravate me no end with their outlay. I'm just dismissing them out-of-hand for their programming... aye. >:D
The St.Petersburg on Hyperion have that really odd, London String Quartet sound,... HIP DSCH?? I mean, it's a bit disconcerting, no? Some parts sounded really nice, but the sound dimension seemed to draw attention to itself, or something...
The Mandelring are just too expensive singly, and the box, though quite reasonable, is still not in my budget. I like their programming, though.
Still waiting to hear some word on St.Petersburg/SONY.
And the Razumovsky>?
How's that Danel traversal coming?????????
I'm soirry, I know this post sucked...... fuuuu..... I just want my stiuff NOOOW!!!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on August 05, 2014, 08:43:22 AM
How's that Danel traversal coming?????????
I still don't like that set. Too emotionally cool for me, sent me running back to the superb, intense set (1-13) by Borodin on Chandos.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 05, 2014, 08:43:22 AM
The Pacifica aggravate me no end with their outlay. I'm just dismissing them out-of-hand for their programming... aye. >:D
Well despite
Snyprr's outright rejection of the
Pacifica Quartet's performances, I just had all four volumes delivered by mail today - the covers are fabulously, the booklets thorough (only in English), the recordings recent/modern, and the performances excellent (starting w/ V. II which has the first 4 Shoshty SQs + No. 2 by Prokofiev) - yes, these could have been put on a lesser number of discs but indifferent to the addition of the 'other' SQs - Dave :)
(http://giradman.smugmug.com/Other/Classical-Music/i-66h9x77/0/O/Shostakovich_SQs_Pacifica_I.jpg) (http://giradman.smugmug.com/Other/Classical-Music/i-GTSVSGB/0/O/Shostakovich_SQs_Pacifica_II.jpg)
(http://giradman.smugmug.com/Other/Classical-Music/i-WnfQX3Q/0/O/Shostakovich_SQs_Pacifica_III.jpg) (http://giradman.smugmug.com/Other/Classical-Music/i-2wDhFGF/0/O/Shostakovich_SQs_Pacifica_IV.jpg)
Quote from: George on August 05, 2014, 08:57:38 AM
I still don't like that set. Too emotionally cool for me, sent me running back to the superb, intense set (1-13) by Borodin on Chandos.
Uh oh- everyone's gonna be on yo case! ??? But they did sound a bit cool to me too- playing it cool is just not cool in this case- must have fever- angst-
I like how someone said that the Borodin aren't afraid to make an ugly sound, or go all gypsy. The only thing they don't have (at least in the 2nd Cycle) is state of the art sound, but, most of the SQs benefit from ancient sound. (6, for instance, does NOT!- or 4 or 5)
ok, I'm sure you'll all be disappointed, but here's what I ended up getting:
4-5 Manhattan (had before)
6, 10, 14 Brodsky (had before)
6, 7, 10 Sorrel
8, 9, 13 Sorrel
The Sorrel just seemed to have the nicest acoustic- at least a bigger one than some- and seemed to be an update of the Brodsky approach. The Pacifica and Mandelring were either too expensive, or something, and the Hyperion discs seem to have that odd Hyperion sound picture (a la London Haydn Quartet). Still I've heard nothing of their SONY efforts (which surely don't have that Hyperion sound issue).
No 1-3 at all?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 07, 2014, 08:22:51 AM
No 1-3 at all?
No.1 should be on a disc of, say, 4 Russian Quartets, including Myaskovsky's 13th... I don't know the other two. Or, and I just haven't seen it, I think it should be on a 1, 4, 6 disc, perhaps- all the most 'normal' DSCH SQs. But, eh, I don't want it mixed in with other SQs- I mean, who really wants 1. 8. 15? I'd rather have 1 all by itself or something (Kopelman?)- Ravel? or Francaix?
Nos.2-3 have always been my least favoured DSCH SQs, and I think they belong together anyhow- Borodin or St.P there- but, eh, I think they're scrappy- and I'm sure I mean that in a good way- maybe they'd do better for me if they were by Britten? :-[ Anyhow... I'm sure I'll come around. But I prefer the phase started in 7-11, and I'm kind of not feeling like hearing the Death Quartets just now. It's 4-11 for me, with 6 as the odd duck out.
Volger in 11? anyone?
String Quartet No.12
String Quartet No.13
String Quartet No.14
Can you tell which one you may like better, and why? For me, these are the most difficult, but that may all be in my head. In a way, they are all quite dreary (well, they're not exactly chipper!) and demand the utmost from the listener... maybe again I'm being overblown? I just don't seem to care for them, routinely get them mixed-up, and would like to come to terms. What do you think? They're all different, yet similar... what's your favourite section, and so on...
Quote from: snyprrr on August 12, 2014, 06:20:32 AM
String Quartet No.12
String Quartet No.13
String Quartet No.14
Can you tell which one you may like better, and why? For me, these are the most difficult, but that may all be in my head. In a way, they are all quite dreary (well, they're not exactly chipper!) and demand the utmost from the listener... maybe again I'm being overblown? I just don't seem to care for them, routinely get them mixed-up, and would like to come to terms. What do you think? They're all different, yet similar... what's your favourite section, and so on...
Synprrr, can't you just ever listen to works and enjoy? You know you don't need 100 recommendations for each piece, I hope? :o ;)
12 - Hardly dreary. Shostakovich's true Chamber Symphony here, full of energy and wacky 12-tone hijinks. Some performances admittedly do sag in the middle of that 20 minute Allegretto, I remember losing interest in the Brodskys when I streamed them. This is the high point of the Mandelring cycle for me, but whoever you pick should have that sort of big, quasi-orchestral sound
13 - The Post-Apocalyptic Quartet in a cycle that pitches itself on the edge of nuclear war. In my head it's played entirely without vibrato, cold as ice. You need Russians here, no one else (except the Mandelrings again) takes that sfffz marking seriously.
14 - Meh
(Hagen Qt can sell it if anyone can)
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 12, 2014, 06:58:21 AM
Synprrr, can't you just ever listen to works and enjoy? You know you don't need 100 recommendations for each piece, I hope? :o ;)
I wasn't looking for recommends, just your personal thoughts on the music. They ARE somewhat difficult, no? I mean, I don't usuuually go and choose them for listening, and, in my latest go around I have been avoiding them as much as possible, though I've now piggy backed 13 and 14. Now look, "amw" answered my question - what's wrong Ray, do you need a hug? :-*
If I haaad to pick a recommends for these pieces, I agree with amway, and I'd probably go Beethoven 12-14, though they all seem pretty good (Beethoven, Borodin, Shostakovich).
Quote from: amw on August 12, 2014, 07:09:41 AM
12 - Hardly dreary. Shostakovich's true Chamber Symphony here, full of energy and wacky 12-tone hijinks. Some performances admittedly do sag in the middle of that 20 minute Allegretto, I remember losing interest in the Brodskys when I streamed them. This is the high point of the Mandelring cycle for me, but whoever you pick should have that sort of big, quasi-orchestral sound
13 - The Post-Apocalyptic Quartet in a cycle that pitches itself on the edge of nuclear war. In my head it's played entirely without vibrato, cold as ice. You need Russians here, no one else (except the Mandelrings again) takes that sfffz marking seriously.
14 - Meh
(Hagen Qt can sell it if anyone can)
See? I think my point of asking was because I couldn't remember which one it was that I was kind of tired of- it is most likely 14. I will soon put myself through 13 (Sorrel), and yes, I expect miracles of the macabre. I'll have to find a 12...
Compared SQ 6 with the Sorrel and Brodsky. The Brodsky are perhaps the very quickest of many here, taking the 'Moderato con moto' perhaps just a touch fast, whereas most others come in about a half minute later. Also, their 'Largo' is the quickest, and their last movement wastes no time either.
By contrast, the Sorrel may be the slowest on record. Most everyone's 'Allegretto' opening runs to about 7 minutes, the Sorrel included. However, right from the get go the Sorrels have a much deeper and richer recording environment as compared to the Brodsky's TELDEC Studio (not that their recording is anything but crisp and clear and clean). They take the 2nd movement at the pace I am more used to, but in the 'Lento' they are very slow and mellow. By now I had grown just a little weary of the Brodsky's extrovert nature, but the Sorrel are a much more introspective group. There is somewhat of a veil over the Sorrel's performance, and noble gentleness and deepness; the Brodskys, good as they are, seem just a tad rushed by comparison; both are in the extremes of interpretation, but the Sorrel leave a deeper impression.
I also listened to the Sorrel Op.110, and, as much as we all know how much we can loathe this piece, here I AM convinced of its greatness and Masterpiece status. The Sorrel play it like one wants to hear it, and the deep, rich recording captures the proceedings in a deep red light. I know someone else was raving about this, but I have to agree, it's the best 8th I've heard so far (though, admittedly, it's not a piece I've cared to compare-to-death).
The Sorrel sure do have the acoustic i like, and the engineering, and they make a nice, thick corporate sound, biting away at all the red meat. They can be quiet, but then they always come back and lay on the grit. And they seem to uniformly have the slowest timings overall, though I've not yet found any willfull acts of damage yet. Everything sounds fine.
And the 13, again, was deep and rich... and, in this case, deliciously creepy! Love the jazzy bit!
Quote from: snyprrr on August 12, 2014, 06:20:32 AM
String Quartet No.12
I agree with amw's assessment above. A big, beefy, dramatic work, marked by bold atonal slashes.
QuoteString Quartet No.13
This one is special to me. It's the only piece of music that has ever caused me to have a nightmare. The night after hearing it for the first time, I saw myself wandering through subterranean dungeons, scared and disoriented. It's that crazy. Apparently written when DSCH was strung out on medications for his various illnesses.
QuoteString Quartet No.14
An elusive piece that I can't get a handle on. I like it though. The highlight is the Webernesque
Klangfarbenmelodie in the finale.
Quote from: Velimir on August 12, 2014, 07:28:16 PM
This one is special to me. It's the only piece of music that has ever caused me to have a nightmare. The night after hearing it for the first time, I saw myself wandering through subterranean dungeons, scared and disoriented. It's that crazy. Apparently written when DSCH was strung out on medications for his various illnesses.
No 13 is probably the scariest piece of music I know. Your assessment is 100% accurate.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 12, 2014, 06:00:56 PM
I also listened to the Sorrel Op.110, ... I know someone else was raving about this, but I have to agree, it's the best 8th I've heard so far (though, admittedly, it's not a piece I've cared to compare-to-death).
Well yes I wrote:
Quote from: aukhawk on July 31, 2014, 12:34:34 AM
The 8th played by the Sorrel Quartet is just simply the best single chamber music recording I own.
It is a piece I've always liked anyway, but this recording, with the wick turned well up, is sensational especially in that 'key Largo'. The rounded Chandos sound works against the grittiness we expect in Shostakovich quartets - it shouldn't sound right, but it does, there's a sort of synergy created.
I was checking the samples of Kremer's Lockenhaus Edition 4/5, and the 13th and 14th sound awesomely "dead". The timing on 13 is like 22 and a half minutes, but I can imagine there is some applause at the end (though, 22 and a half would be pretty wild!).
And 14 has an 11 and a half minute slow movement! Can anyone confirm of deny the awesomeness of these performances? The samples make it seem like Kremer's taking the 'death' thing seriously, and producing two ghoulish documents.
Quote from: Velimir on August 12, 2014, 07:28:16 PM
An elusive piece [ the F# Quartet Op.142 ] that I can't get a handle on. I like it though.
The
Allegretto starts out as simply
cheerful, doesn't it? It
is rather elusive . . . and the (equally elusive)
Tristan allusions in the
Adagio.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 12, 2014, 06:20:32 AM
String Quartet No.12
String Quartet No.13
String Quartet No.14
Can you tell which one you may like better, and why? For me, these are the most difficult, but that may all be in my head. In a way, they are all quite dreary (well, they're not exactly chipper!) and demand the utmost from the listener... maybe again I'm being overblown? I just don't seem to care for them, routinely get them mixed-up, and would like to come to terms. What do you think? They're all different, yet similar... what's your favourite section, and so on...
My answer is perhaps predictable, but I like them all. I am not sure if I can be of any help to you, as I do not find them at all difficult. Even if they do demand, well, is it much? All they demand is one's full attention; but that is amply rewarded.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 13, 2014, 11:12:00 AM
My answer is perhaps predictable, but I like them all. I am not sure if I can be of any help to you, as I do not find them at all difficult. Even if they do demand, well, is it much? All they demand is one's full attention; but that is amply rewarded.
Yes, yes... buuut, for a Ultra-Late Romantic String Quartet, No.14 IS... c'mon... just a little chewy, eh? I mean, I just came back to it yesterday, - listened to all samples and then put on the Brodsky (I could tell it wasn't their best)- and, all I could hear was BERG! It's a three movement, French Existentialist - Serio-Expressioni a la Berg?- I know, I know... but...
The Brodsky take the first movement way too fast, so all I could think of was what I was missing,- and here's the rub- it's the kind of music that changes character depending on who's playing (more so than others?), so, I really don't know what I heard (I heard the Brodskys determined to play it quick, which robbed the music somewhat).
I WANT to hear this music dead,- played as slow as possible with the creepy factor built into the rosen- a Sanderling version!!! The Kremer samples hinted at that. I want to hear that 11 1/2 minute slow movement. I mean, generally, the Sorrel have consistently the slowest timings of all Moderns but are not in the 14th.
I don't know Karl, with the 14th I need A Special Advocacy. If I recall, the Shostakovich group won the last Death Match (about 15 years ago), or Borodin2. Neither the Manhattan nor the Brodsky could displace the Masters. (I think the Beethoven just had the worst sound?) But the Masters hadn't become self-conscious yet- that was to come with Manhattan, Brodsky, Emerson, Hagen, Kremer, the 'Second Wave of DSCH Cycles'- and now we have an excess of not-quite-gelled psychological approaches- I guess it's between the Hagen and Kremer in the 14th? Obviously both will have quite individual things to say. But I'd think the Hagen would sound too 'alive' whereas those Kremer samples sounded so 'dead'. eh?
eh
You know how much I love it when the dark horse trots in from left field!
I mean, I'd like to hear the 14th butchered!
(I liked the Sorrel just fine in 13- where's that sssZZZffff - is that in the middle, or the last note? Still, Kremer's 22 1/2 here... tantalizing?)
When I cut my teeth on the DSCHSQs, the Manhattan and the Brodsky were the main sets, supplimented with the Borodin2, Shostakovich, and Beethoven, all in the Later Quatets. The two former simply had the better sound for the more delicate Earlier Quartets (up to 6). But, eventually, their weaknesses showed through. In the end, the Manhattan solidly took 4 and 5, maybe 6, and, I think the Brodsky only took 10, maybe 6. The Shostakovich took most of the 'Hot' Quartets.
Anyhow, this go around I've already met the Sorrel and they seem to handily best the whole Brodsky 'thing'. But I will give the Brodskys some personal credit, and they do have very good Teldec sound, so, all is not lost for them (they always maintain at least a certain level of 'stuff').
So I just had to get the Manhattan 4/5 again just to hear. And here it is, AND IT'S TRUE! This is the perfect single CD presentation (the only) of 4 and 5 together (the Emerson add 6 on their set). The opening of 4 is handled just so, no unintended grating on the ear. The opening movement of 5 takes 12 minutes! blessedly this is a wonderfully correct tempo, as the opening hits just the right degree of back and forth.
I think I tried a lot of 4s and 5s back in the day, and always came back to this CD. Yes, yes, perhaps there are issues in places with ensemble or intonation (could that be the music? EVERYONE sounds grating in these two SQs!!), but, well, ok... so, the Sorrel samples sound really really good here and I really wish they had done 4/5/6.
MANHATTAN vs BRODSKY
So, the Sorrel have probably dethroned any shred at a First Choice the Brodsky might have ever had, but until I hear them in 4/5, I'm enjoying the Manhattan right now. Karl, can you imagine how happy I was back in the early '90s when I first heard this 4 and 5? ahhhh...
btw- the Manhattan, I believe, also did well in 6 and maybe 7 and maybe 1, BUT, because of their particular recording style, which favoured the more melodious SQs, all of the HardCore Late SQs are a little thin, up front and in your face (though still well recorded). And they just couldn't match the Masters. So, except for 4/5, and maybe 6/7/8 (9/10 suffers from the thinness), the Manhattan, too, have come and gone.
RIP Manhattan & Brodsky- you served your purpose well, go in peace!
Beethoven
Glinka
Borodin1 (inc.)
Borodin2
Borodin3 (inc.)
Shostakovich
Taneyev
Fitzwilliam
Are we in agreement that the Taneyev have a little something extra, eh?!! They are so IMPOSSIBLE to find, aye. Can anyone comment about some highlights? And, what's a Fitzwilliam highlight? Are there any other Early Cycles in the 'First Wave of DSCHSQs'? (we're well into the Third by now)
Quote from: snyprrr on August 13, 2014, 05:09:06 PM
Beethoven
Glinka
Borodin1 (inc.)
Borodin2
Borodin3 (inc.)
Shostakovich
Taneyev
Fitzwilliam
Are we in agreement that the Taneyev have a little something extra, eh?!! They are so IMPOSSIBLE to find, aye. Can anyone comment about some highlights? And, what's a Fitzwilliam highlight? Are there any other Early Cycles in the 'First Wave of DSCHSQs'? (we're well into the Third by now)
Get the cow and the fiddle 'Borodin'. Fitzwilliam is another favourite, but very different than the Borodin's.
I love the Eder Quartet on Naxos too. Best 4th I've heard.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 13, 2014, 04:44:30 PM
(I liked the Sorrel just fine in 13- where's that sssZZZffff - is that in the middle, or the last note? Still, Kremer's 22 1/2 here... tantalizing?)
Last note. This is how it should be done IMO (recommended: listen on headphones, with the volume turned way up—you should be able to hear Alexei Koptev's breathing)
[audio]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32084883/08.mp3[/audio]
A 22' 13th is, indeed, intriguing. I'm also intrigued by the Taneyev Quartet's 13th which is only 15 minutes—bearing in mind that they were the second group ever to play the piece, and Shostakovich himself likely heard that interpretation. Sadly the Taneyev cycle, like almost everything else they did, is long since OOP.
(I've only heard one disc, with 5, 6 & 7, and their 7th beats the Borodin's 7th in my estimation hands down. Their 5th wasn't as special. I suppose the full cycle is going to be a bit hit-and-miss, though Vladimir Ovcharek's consistently at the top of his violin-playing game)
Listening to:
String Quartet No. 3 in F major, Op. 73
String Quartet No. 4 in D major, Op.83 (the one with the sneaky, Pink Panther like 3rd movement Allegretto - quite different from other performances!)
*Oh Dmitri, why couldn't you have made all four movements of the 4th Allegretto?! :D
[asin]B0000042HV[/asin]
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 13, 2014, 07:05:21 PM
Listening to:
String Quartet No. 3 in F major, Op. 73
String Quartet No. 4 in D major, Op.83 (the one with the sneaky, Pink Panther like 3rd movement Allegretto - quite different from other performances!)
*Oh Dmitri, why couldn't you have made all four movements of the 4th Allegretto?! :D
[asin]B0000042HV[/asin]
A day late, but I'll join
Ray for this
Op.83
Brodsky had long been my default but I have been leaning to the Pacifica's last disk which, as a bonus, contains a great reading of Schnittke's 3rd
Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2014, 11:42:11 AM
A day late, but I'll join Ray for this Op.83
Excellent,
Karl! I'm now listening to Op. 92, 101 and 108, by the Fitzzies!
Quote from: bwv 1080 on August 14, 2014, 01:44:19 PM
Brodsky had long been my default but I have been leaning to the Pacifica's last disk which, as a bonus, contains a great reading of Schnittke's 3rd
I think the Brodsky 10 may be in the Top3. I really have to give them the nod in comparison to the Sorrel. When the Brodsky were on, the really WERE ON! They really dig into the 10th, all scratching and clawing, but in perfect sound, with a very tight ensemble. I think, when I made the compare, they might have beaten out the Masters even. Anyhow, the Brodsky 10 is a keeper. Must reacquire 7/8/9.
(they really could scratch and claw when required-
SQ 10- 'Allegro furioso'I was actually somewhat shocked by the Sorrels' apparent restraint here. I just knew I could hear more vehemence elsewhere. When i put the Brodsky on, I remembered: theirs'(?) is quite 'daemonic' (maybe not totally, but much much more than the Sorrel) whereas the Sorrel really felt like they were holding the last bit of hysteria back. And after their searing 8th, I couldn't believe it. I mean, it's big and sumptuous, just not hysterical. Anyhow, the Brodsky won this handily.
I believe, back in the day, I also held the BorodinEMI 10th up very hightly- maybe even the Shostakovich too. (the BorodinEMI with the 10th was the last one of their's that I let go, so, i'm assuming I liked it).
Quote from: amw on August 13, 2014, 06:37:09 PM
Last note. This is how it should be done IMO (recommended: listen on headphones, with the volume turned way up—you should be able to hear Alexei Koptev's breathing)
[audio]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32084883/08.mp3[/audio]
A 22' 13th is, indeed, intriguing. I'm also intrigued by the Taneyev Quartet's 13th which is only 15 minutes—bearing in mind that they were the second group ever to play the piece, and Shostakovich himself likely heard that interpretation. Sadly the Taneyev cycle, like almost everything else they did, is long since OOP.
(I've only heard one disc, with 5, 6 & 7, and their 7th beats the Borodin's 7th in my estimation hands down. Their 5th wasn't as special. I suppose the full cycle is going to be a bit hit-and-miss, though Vladimir Ovcharek's consistently at the top of his violin-playing game)
Yea, the Sorrel clipped that last note a bit, on purpose, I suppose, to be different. I saw nothing wrong there (they totally got nasty with the middle, so it was ok that they changed up the ending, I thought).
I can't remember my experience with the Taneyev/DSCH, but the few samples I heard recently (14th?) almost sounded like Schubert playing, so refined and delicate and yummy was the ensemble.
Again- I will explicity ask, you- and all- Should I go ahead and give Kremer a shot at 13-14? Those timings- especially the 11 1/2 14th 'Adagio' and that 13th- they are so beyond everyone else.
And yes, a 15 minute 13th sounds outrageous, especially if they sound like they do in the other samples.
For 11-15 I'm more than happy going with the more totally outrageous interpretations. And the creepiness- I'm not hearing too many players play to the grotesquerie all that much
For 15, all I have is Kremer/Ma/KashKashian/Daniels (CBS). I frankly don't know how to place it, but it's as good as one would want. (it's 'live')
can't think straight- need nap....zzzZZ
SQ# 10 is one of my favourites. Especially the opening two contrasting movements. Gotta love that 'Allegretto Furioso'. It's pure evil, in a good way! :)
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 16, 2014, 03:31:53 PM
SQ# 10 is one of my favourites. Especially the opening two contrasting movements. Gotta love that 'Allegretto Furioso'. It's pure evil, in a good way! :)
SQ 9
No.9 is really the big, meaty one... if we count 7-8 and 9-10. The thing that struck me about No.10 is how Perfect, and Classical it is. It's really a counterweight to No.6 in that regard.
I almost wanted to disregard the superficial similarity between 8 and 9 both having five movements, but they do actually seem to be - it does seem like he looked back to 8 when written 9, just in the whole feel of it. I'm starting to wonder WHICH SQ I'm listening to between these three: that 'William Tell' gallop is all over the place, the Motto Theme has taken over and everthingy is "bum bum bum". The 'DSCH' theme turns into other 'motto' like themes- so many similarities.
I was listening to the Sorrel again, but, again, I wondered if the last ounce of hysteria might not be missing from these beautifully crafted performances. I just want to hear more grit (like the Brodsky usually do) and 'ugly' sounds, - not that they don't give you some good stuff, but i always want more until I hear Perfection.
I do particularly like the uneasy sound of the first movenment, the paranoid looking over your shoulder sound- the first movement really has such a mood to it- I think I'm just really enjoying 7-8 and 9-10, this is a particular place in the DSCH-Stylography- this is different stuff than before, and much different from what was to come.
Iconic snypsss: looking for that last ounce of hysteria . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on August 18, 2014, 03:50:12 AM
Iconic snypsss: looking for that last ounce of hysteria . . . .
the digging, the grating, the portamento, nasal
If you'll notice, these are elements of DSCH that you won't really find in 1-6. But, starting (slightly) with 7, but of course in 8, Shosty started this "angry cat clawing" sound in his 'Allegros' that seems to appear in most of the subsequent SQs- but mostly in 8-9-10... 11... maybe 12...
I mean, really Karl, - how can one hear the respective 'Allegros' of 8 or 9 or 10 without the EXTRA added attraction of hearing the vicious slapping of the bow, the grating of the strings- one can almost see a dust of rosin filling the air! The Sorrel seem to just shy away from real nastiness-
Just compare one of these 'Allegros'- Sorrel vs Brodsky- to hear. The lead violinist of the Brodsky keeps it up the whole time- the Sorrel just sound 'badass', but the Brodsky sound almost hysterical- though- I would maybe even seek out more.
But, I think the Brodskys won out before- even over the Borodin and maybe the Shostakovich- when it can to the rabid, feral quality THAT WE NEED TO HAVE in these movements. I think when Shosty copped this new way of doing 'Allegros' I must think that he would be pleased with a really gut-out performance.
I DID like the Sorrel's 8, but was shocked when their 9 and 10 (in the 'Allegros') didn't dig in.to.every.single.note.
anyhow...
Op.101
SQ No.6 is SO Haydnesque, so 'normal, so Classical, one wonders where to place it. It's not in the 'jeweish' vein of 4-5, it's not in the 'New Style' of 7-11, it's more like a companion to 'little-ole-left-out' No.1.
But, it's deceptively easy listening. Going back over it, I was surprised by how dark it could get- only to flit back into the light- but then only to go back,... and forth. The first and last movements, though, benefit - wait-
1) Let's get this out of the way: the slow movement,- it doesn't seem to matter how fast or slow one takes it- this movement speaks for itself and is never a problem.
2) Moderato con moto- seems to work better slower than faster
HERE'S MY PROBLEM:
The Brodsky, for instance, in the first movement, seem to be playing in a clipped, Modern Style that just seems at odds with the Haydnesque aspects. When I listened to the samples of the Taneyev and the Borodin, I heard that GOOD OLD FASHIONED playing when the endings of the notes weren't clipped, and the legato line went from one note to the other in a seamless line, whereas the Brodskys sounded like they were playing one-note-after-another with no sense of the whole line of the thing.
As if players today just CAN'T play like 'they' used to. WHAT I NEED IN NO.6 is a "Classical String Quartet" to play it, like the Taneyev or Borodin, but, of course, with proper sound and such.
Anyhow, i need your input on the whole No.6 anyway- for a Haydn SQ it sure is rich-
(sorry, I'm getting tired, losing brain cells by the second)
(btw- the Fitzies have QUITE a dark No.6!!)- Borodin1 and 2 and Taneyev sound very old fashioned here- the Beethoven...?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 18, 2014, 03:50:12 AM
Iconic snypsss: looking for that last ounce of hysteria . . . .
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/Def_Leppard_-_Hysteria_(vinyl_version).jpg)
Step inside, walk this way...
No. 4 Op.83
I've always loved this from the moment I heard the Manhattan recording. There's no analysis, it's just a great piece of wonderfully gay music, touched by a twinge of sadness. The opening swell of euphonious D-ness is thoroughly enveloping, leading to another one of his hidden gem slow movements, and followed by a quite long walk through a field after a fresh spring rain. Fiddler on the roof, indeed!
In searching for an alternative to the Manhattan, I've run in to quite a few that pleased me NOT! (Emerson, Brodsky, most of the analogues). I'm currently considering either the Sorrel, or the Hagen here, and have the Moyzes on order, but I'm always interested in what you think here. It's some of my favourite all-around music, and I think I can find one that builds on the Manhattan (they have their eh-moments, but, they're just moments).
No.5 Op.92
This may be my single favourite Shosty work at the moment, and it can tower over other Chamber Works like no one's business. Again, from the moment I heard the Manhattan, I was hooked, and have searched in vain for a compare (Emerson, NOT!). With 4-6 I have a problem with some of the analogue recordings, since these pieces cry out for Perfect Sound (since they are so delicate and musical), so, I prefer to cull from the digital era here. Sorrel, St. Petersburg, and Manderling have so far impressed me with samples.
No.5's opening movement juxtaposes two alternate themes that unite in tremendous power and slippery movement. There is a vastness to the mastery here, I can't say in words yet- but overwhelming impact- which leads straight into a slow movement unlike any other, so peaceful- with very low and very high notes, simulating a mining expedition to an uncharted Garden of Eden- which is picked up by the concluding 'Moderato'- no where else does Shostakovich wallow for so long in an atmosphere of serene, idyllic contemplation and repose. 4 and 5 together make one intense hour of wonderfully thought provoking music- with the ending of 5 leaving a total satisfaction- as if one can now go to bed in peace.
I don't know the story of 5, but I want to look into it- what's going through a man's mind here? Is he anticipating Stalin's death, or did it just happen (1952- not yet right?). Anyhow...
Quote from: snyprrr on August 18, 2014, 04:58:03 PM
I don't know the story of 5, but I want to look into it- what's going through a man's mind here?
Dude, you've got to offset the natural wish to know more about the great artist's person, by the fact that you'll never do more than speculate on this question you ask.
We review the facts:
Shostakovich was reticent by nature, atop which fact, external circumstances made him more cautious still.
He wrote the music, so that you would listen to the music;
not to those voices . . . .
Quote from: snyprrr on August 18, 2014, 04:58:03 PM
No. 4 Op.83
I've always loved this from the moment I heard the Manhattan recording. There's no analysis, it's just a great piece of wonderfully gay music, touched by a twinge of sadness. The opening swell of euphonious D-ness is thoroughly enveloping, leading to another one of his hidden gem slow movements, and followed by a quite long walk through a field after a fresh spring rain. Fiddler on the roof, indeed!
In searching for an alternative to the Manhattan, I've run in to quite a few that pleased me NOT! (Emerson, Brodsky, most of the analogues). I'm currently considering either the Sorrel, or the Hagen here, and have the Moyzes on order, but I'm always interested in what you think here. It's some of my favourite all-around music, and I think I can find one that builds on the Manhattan (they have their eh-moments, but, they're just moments).
Eder Quartet, Bovine Borodin and for a quite different take on the 3rd Allegretto movement, the
Fitzzies! :D
Quote from: karlhenning on August 19, 2014, 01:49:27 AM
Dude, you've got to offset the natural wish to know more about the great artist's person, by the fact that you'll never do more than speculate on this question you ask.
We review the facts: Shostakovich was reticent by nature, atop which fact, external circumstances made him more cautious still.
He wrote the music, so that you would listen to the music; not to those voices . . . .
Words of wisdom.
Good day,
Karl! 8)
Cheers, Ray!
Quote from: karlhenning on August 19, 2014, 01:49:27 AM
Dude, you've got to offset the natural wish to know more about the great artist's person, by the fact that you'll never do more than speculate on this question you ask.
We review the facts: Shostakovich was reticent by nature, atop which fact, external circumstances made him more cautious still.
He wrote the music, so that you would listen to the music; not to those voices . . . .
ok ok... uncle uncle
But the music HAS voices!! waaah!!
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 19, 2014, 06:28:46 AM
Words of wisdom.
Good day, Karl! 8)
I'm not understanding your "cow + Borodin" thing. (sorry, Quoted the wrong Post)
Yes, the Fitzzies have a unique take on Shosty, I will surely try them out at a later date. And the Eder ALWAYS got pretty high marks (overall I feel them almost like the Shostakovich)- their No.5 is the quickest on record I see. The only thing about their No.4 was the acoustic, which, on the samples, sounded kind of small. What do you think is the best Eder?
I finally found the sample for the Brodsky 4 and 5, aaand, hmm... their 5 has the looongest slow moment by far, and the first movement sounded up to snuff. I don't think I ever heard their 5, but it may very well displace the Manhattan in my heart. Hagen sound good too...
I think I'm just going to get that $3 Brodsky set and be done with it. (as a base Cycle) I know they're not-this not-that but they have a baseline quality that I like. Maybe that will force me into the Analogues. (sure wish the Taneyev was available)
waiting on mailman
Quote from: snyprrr on August 19, 2014, 06:59:35 AM
I'm not understanding your "cow + Borodin" thing. (sorry, Quoted the wrong Post)
Because it is a reference to the cow (bovine), the cow and the fiddle cover art. It is the Borodin set on Melodiya label.
[asin]B000HXE5BK[/asin]
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 19, 2014, 08:07:36 AM
Because it is a reference to the cow (bovine), the cow and the fiddle cover art. It is the Borodin set on Melodiya label.
[asin]B000HXE5BK[/asin]
Did you have either the old EMI or the newer BMG releases before this one?- is there a remastering 'difference'? I recall the EMI having an interestingly 'dead' sound that suited the later SQs perfectly. (I mean, it was "good Melodiya")
I'm not to keen on their Chandos sound, and I've heard that the Virgin set has some kind of metallic twinge to it, but the samples there sound fine.
Are there one or two extra special Borodin renditions that you think beat out everyone else? (do you also have Beethoven and Shostakovich? Taneyev?)
questions questions
Quote from: snyprrr on August 19, 2014, 05:17:41 PM
Did you have either the old EMI or the newer BMG releases before this one?- is there a remastering 'difference'? I recall the EMI having an interestingly 'dead' sound that suited the later SQs perfectly. (I mean, it was "good Melodiya")
I'm not to keen on their Chandos sound, and I've heard that the Virgin set has some kind of metallic twinge to it, but the samples there sound fine.
Are there one or two extra special Borodin renditions that you think beat out everyone else? (do you also have Beethoven and Shostakovich? Taneyev?)
questions questions
I don't have the Beethoven SQ, Shostakovich SQ or Taneyev SQ recordings (though I love the Taneyev SQ for both their Taneyev and Miaskovsky cycles)
I've heard the Chandos Borodin set (which doesn't included #14 and #15), but didn't particularly warm up to it. I think I'm an exception, and several GMGers love this set.
For the Borodin Melodiya Bovine set? Not sure that any quartet in particular stands out over the others. I just find the whole set exquisite!
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 20, 2014, 07:49:05 AM
I don't have the Beethoven SQ, Shostakovich SQ or Taneyev SQ recordings (though I love the Taneyev SQ for both their Taneyev and Miaskovsky cycles)
I've heard the Chandos Borodin set (which doesn't included #14 and #15), but didn't particularly warm up to it. I think I'm an exception, and several GMGers love this set.
For the Borodin Melodiya Bovine set? Not sure that any quartet in particular stands out over the others. I just find the whole set exquisite!
But, so, you didn't have the Bovine in the earlier EMI or BMG issues- to compare the transfer with the new remaster? You know, the Shostakovich on Regis is about $15 on Amazon. As I recall from years ago, the Bovine and the Shostakovich were pretty evenly matched, even in sound- maybe the Shostakovich seemed to have an edge in the essential 12-14, 11, 15. I'm still quite wary of all of them in 1, 4-6 in terms of sound (Fitzzies included)- for these earlier ones I don't feel that it is demanded that the band be Russian- 12-14 more than likely- anyhow -
BOVINE- the reason I keep asking is because, as I recall, when they were on EMI, the Penguin Guide made a point to declare that not all the recordings were in the same blah or on what date blah, I don't remember, but, perhaps they said the Quintet's sound suffered? or some of the recordings (5?) depending on where they were recorded (they're not all 'live' are they? I did hear some coughing in one sample I don't remember). So, that's why I'm wondering if the new mastering is better or what not.
tHE QUESTION STANDS:
What are the differences in sound in the Borodin 2.0 in regards to the EMI, BMG, and 'Newest'Box issues?
Quote from: snyprrr on August 20, 2014, 08:07:35 AM
But, so, you didn't have the Bovine in the earlier EMI or BMG issues- to compare the transfer with the new remaster? You know, the Shostakovich on Regis is about $15 on Amazon. As I recall from years ago, the Bovine and the Shostakovich were pretty evenly matched, even in sound- maybe the Shostakovich seemed to have an edge in the essential 12-14, 11, 15. I'm still quite wary of all of them in 1, 4-6 in terms of sound (Fitzzies included)- for these earlier ones I don't feel that it is demanded that the band be Russian- 12-14 more than likely- anyhow -
BOVINE- the reason I keep asking is because, as I recall, when they were on EMI, the Penguin Guide made a point to declare that not all the recordings were in the same blah or on what date blah, I don't remember, but, perhaps they said the Quintet's sound suffered? or some of the recordings (5?) depending on where they were recorded (they're not all 'live' are they? I did hear some coughing in one sample I don't remember). So, that's why I'm wondering if the new mastering is better or what not.
tHE QUESTION STANDS:
What are the differences in sound in the Borodin 2.0 in regards to the EMI, BMG, and 'Newest'Box issues?
I don't know. I cry 'Uncle' :D I don't remember any coughing in the Bovine reissue?
He's got me curious to listen afresh to the Virgin two-fer, on which I certainly remember nothing of [any] kind of metallic twinge . . . .
The Virgin duo is a different recording from the full set.
But for me the Bovine set is so good that sonics do not matter.
And, while I know it might be against Snyp's principles, he needs to listen to the Jerusalem Quartet. Yeah, they are Israelis, but that's his problem not mine.
That's the recording where the occult message "eat gefilte fish!" is back-masked in the final Largo of the Op.110, right?
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 20, 2014, 06:21:51 PM
The Virgin duo is a different recording from the full set.
But for me the Bovine set is so good that sonics do not matter.
And, while I know it might be against Snyp's principles, he needs to listen to the Jerusalem Quartet. Yeah, they are Israelis, but that's his problem not mine.
Yes, yes... even though I
Boycott
Sanction
Divest, I fully admit that the beubelahs have a very unique way with DSCH. They seem a little more 'folk' flavoured than all the other 'Chromium Steele' interpretations. Frankly, I'd give up my seat at the Inquisition (Torquemada was a tribester, btw!!) for this set, but the mercantiles at amazon still want full price (even the originals) - who says I didn't inherit a penny pinching gene or two?
Asian Lady: "Is this good price?"
Me: "I don't know lady, but these strawberries look like shit!"
DSCHMANIA
I was here once before, endlessly comparing Shostakovich String Quartets- though, the pickins' were slimmer then. Now we're at a crucial juncture,- if you don't get in now you risk a few more Cycles coming out and then you'll be lost not knowing where to begin. Right now it's barely manageable.
I tend to believe that only people OF Shostakovich can play this music (obviously, No.1 can be played by anyone)- The Masters- I don't know if the Fitzzies should have even been allowed to record their Cycle, but then, surely, the Kremlin's influence over London should be clear. hmm The Only Problem with The Masters is... of course... the sound. But, that has improved (and I never thought Borodin/EMI that I heard sounded bad). However, the Taneyev languish in obscurity, and the Beethoven I can take or leave... anyhow, I left the scene when those Beethoven/Consonance discs came out (I'm sure I got the 12-14), technology was right around the corner (sorry, I'm just blithering and rambling- caffeine)
But, as I've sampled all samples I can sample, my old favourites the Brodsky still seem quite competitive against the likes of the Mandelring, Pacifica, Sorrel, Rubio, Danel, Razumovsky, Debussy, - (how many are there??wow!!)- but, there are definitely some new developments, and my new favs (that by no means displace the Brodskys) are the Sorrel, who consistently appears to have the longest timings on record for much of the Cycle. This means nothing more than- you will hear many slow movements as slow as one might want, which is great when comparing with the sometimes speed-demon Brodsky-
I AM NOTICING THAT ONE MUST HAVE AT LEAST THE TWO 'EXTREME' CYCLES (THE SLOWEST/FASTEST) AS BUTTRESSES- AND THEN ONE CAN GO ABOUT FINDING THE VERSIONS THAT SUIT THE LISTENER'S OWN PARTICULARS.
The Beethoven may the quickest, but the Brodsky are pretty consistent (in that they really appear to be doing something different with each movement), even though the first movement of No.7 is one of the slowest (Taneyev is king here-whizzz). The Sorrel are the most luxurious by far, both in execution and Chandos sound (some may find too much Majesty).
(btw- though I give the Emerson things like the experimental 11th, their general way here is too... 'something'... I don't know, but everyone seems to notice that the Emerson are not the last word here at all- they do great technically, but there is definitely 'something' missing- which is a shame- their's would be FirstChoice if the 157 Issues were resolved!)
Then there's the current matchup between the Mandelring and the Pacifica, two fairly expensive State-of-the-Art sets that I personally find hard to comes to terms with- the Mandelring being a little easier. But I don't get how these are some new standard- sure, they "sound" as well as any music coming out of a speaker can sound (I mean, what, are we going 'implants' next?), but, I ASSUME Great Sound, so I don't care about that. As interpretations, I don't recall too much or not enough of this that or the other. I mean, on technical merits both could be considered, no doubt. BUT- that's too easy. I want a blow-by-blow comparison with All the Others. I think either will beat out the Rubio, whose samples have yielded some raised eyebrows (and isn't their sound a bit squeaky tight or something?).
And then there's the St. Petersburg, with that impressive Hyperion sound. I wonder who actually has all three of these Cycles and is actively comparing? (and I mean that to all who say they have one or the other and are 'satisfied'- How Dare You be satisified with Only One Cycle- booooooo booooooo) I like St.P in 15.
AND THEN THERE'S ALL THE ONE-OFFS!!
It's just too much!
Anyhow, now I've expended all my caffeine on a useless Post- no wonder you guys make fun of me, haha!! ;) :laugh: oy vey
(mailman hasn't been my friend this week so far!) :'(
I dunno. There is this or that quartet in which I (tactically) prefer another group to the Emersons; but (for let's call this the umpteenth time) I find nothing "missing" in their performances of the 15 — and everything that is there, is top-notch.
If we take two recordings of a piece, to prefer one is not to say that there is anything "wrong" with the other.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2014, 01:44:15 AM
That's the recording where the occult message "eat gefilte fish!" is back-masked in the final Largo of the Op.110, right?
Ho, geesh, busting a rib, here! :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2014, 08:49:55 AM
I dunno. There is this or that quartet in which I (tactically) prefer another group to the Emersons; but (for let's call this the umpteenth time) I find nothing "missing" in their performances of the 15 — and everything that is there, is top-notch.
If we take two recordings of a piece, to prefer one is not to say that there is anything "wrong" with the other.
But we're not trying to be the anonymous lay person here, are we? I other words, how often, and which SQ? Do you really whip out the Emersons that often... if at all? Be honest, when was the last time you listened to them for pleasure?
Of course- they're not baaad- I mean...
But, some have said of the Hagen that they are like the Emerson, but 'listenable'. Surely there is something of their playing the speaks more to the classroom than to the gulag? jus' sayin'
IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR WHOLE DSCH SQ LISTENING HISTORY, THEIR DISCOGRAPHY, AND THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION!!
(btw- i'm about ready to pull a coup- hang on a few minutes)
Quote from: snyprrr on August 21, 2014, 11:06:58 AM
But we're not trying to be the anonymous lay person here, are we? I other words, how often, and which SQ? Do you really whip out the Emersons that often... if at all? Be honest, when was the last time you listened to them for pleasure?
I'm speaking on Karl's behalf, I realize. He listens to the Emerson's set often.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 20, 2014, 06:21:51 PM
And, while I know it might be against Snyp's principles, he needs to listen to the Jerusalem Quartet. Yeah, they are Israelis, but that's his problem not mine.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2014, 01:44:15 AM
That's the recording where the occult message "eat gefilte fish!" is back-masked in the final Largo of the Op.110, right?
;D :laugh: ;D ...snyprrr will find that message, even if it's not there ::)
Sarge
Quote from: snyprrr on August 21, 2014, 11:06:58 AM
IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR WHOLE DSCH SQ LISTENING HISTORY, THEIR DISCOGRAPHY, AND THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION!!
I have
Mandelring,
Emerson,
Borodin I (with the
Beethoven filling in the missing 14 and 15),
Borodin II (the Bovine ;D ),
Fitzwilliam,
Pacifica and
Rubio (which I play when I want to hear the sheer beauty of Shostakovich...and yes, they often produce breathtaking sounds). Plus
Sorrel 8, 9, 13. But I can't really help you because I haven't done a quartet by quartet comparison of those seven cycles. I just enjoy what I'm currently hearing without much reference to, or worry about what I'm not hearing.
Sarge
Mix & Match Shostakovich Cycle in as few discs as possible -
St Petersburg - 11/13/15
Mandelring - 10/12/14
Taneyev - 5/7 (paired with Beethoven in 6), 2 (paired with Beethoven/Shostakovich in the Quintet)
Hagen - 3/7/8
Jerusalem - 1/4/9 (Free Palestine!)
Or: Taneyev 1-15 (if it ever becomes un-OOP), no questions asked
Also, dogs > cats, cake > pie, chocolate > vanilla, purple is the best colour, coriander leaves do not taste like bleach, and my blood type is A negative.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 21, 2014, 12:24:01 PM
I have Mandelring, Emerson, Borodin I (with the Beethoven filling in the missing 14 and 15), Borodin II (the Bovine ;D ), Fitzwilliam, Pacifica and Rubio (which I play when I want to hear the sheer beauty of Shostakovich...and yes, he often produced breathtaking sounds). Plus Sorrel 8, 9, 13. But I can't really help you because I haven't done a quartet by quartet comparison of those seven cycles. I just enjoy what I'm currently hearing without much reference (or worry) about what I'm not hearing.
Sarge
I think it is time for a death match project for all your sets, Sarge! :D
I'm with the Sarge: I've several sets (not so many as Sarge), and, though I may be aware of certain differences, I simply enjoy whichever group I'm listening to at the time.
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 21, 2014, 03:31:10 PM
I think it is time for a death match project for all your sets, Sarge! :D
My money's on
Borodin I.
Quote from: George on August 21, 2014, 04:14:33 PM
My money's on Borodin I.
Well, I know that's the one you would pick, George! ;D
Quote from: Soapy Molloy on August 21, 2014, 04:13:23 PM
Man are you over-thinking this.
Soapy, you DO realize you are talking to Snyprrr? :D
Oh, thank goodness I had just swallowed my coffee!
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 21, 2014, 03:31:10 PM
I think it is time for a death match project for all your sets, Sarge! :D
If only life were long enough ;)
Sarge
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 21, 2014, 11:11:16 AM
I'm speaking on Karl's behalf, I realize. He listens to the Emerson's set often.
Nor did you speak at all out of turn,
Ray.
snypsss, of my several sets, the
Emerson's is the one which rests under my pillow when I lay me down.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2014, 04:23:00 AM
Nor did you speak at all out of turn, Ray.
snypsss, of my several sets, the Emerson's is the one which rests under my pillow when I lay me down.
oh kaaay... I'm shaking my head, mm mm mm
(you probably club little baby Russian String Quartets to death for breakfast)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 21, 2014, 12:24:01 PM
I have Mandelring, Emerson, Borodin I (with the Beethoven filling in the missing 14 and 15), Borodin II (the Bovine ;D ), Fitzwilliam, Pacifica and Rubio (which I play when I want to hear the sheer beauty of Shostakovich...and yes, they often produce breathtaking sounds). Plus Sorrel 8, 9, 13. But I can't really help you because I haven't done a quartet by quartet comparison of those seven cycles. I just enjoy what I'm currently hearing without much reference to, or worry about what I'm not hearing.
Sarge
you're speaking to me again!! yaaaay!! ;)
Frankly, I'd just like a direct compare of the Mandelring and Pacifica.
So, you like the Rubio? Out of all the samples, theirs seemed to have some funny sound stuff or sumptin...hmm? Don't remember...
I never go clubbing before breakfast.
Well, I found a copy of the Erato-Ultima set with the Borodin and Leonskaja... which ALSO includes the Borodin's Teldec recording of SQs 1 and 15! Yes... isn't that interesting? And guess what? Their 15th's first movement is 13 1/2 minutes! Wow- that's a minute and half longer than the next longest. Can't wait! Anyone else have this?
So, the Borodin Mach 3 looks like this: 1, 2, 3.... 7, 8..... 12.... 15
Quote from: Soapy Molloy on August 21, 2014, 04:13:23 PM
The point is not to narrow down an end result but begin a process of discovery.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2014, 06:56:54 AM
I never go clubbing before breakfast.
You say that now
btw- did you read my Jansons 13 rave in the other Thread? good times!
I thought that's what I was saying?
Oh, but btw Mr. Fancy Pants- I'm running out of DSCHDollars.... QUICKLY!!!... there won't be any more discovering... unless I discover my bill...
Quote from: snyprrr on August 22, 2014, 06:53:04 AM
you're speaking to me again!! yaaaay!! ;)
In some threads, yes ;)
Quote from: snyprrr on August 22, 2014, 06:53:04 AM
Frankly, I'd just like a direct compare of the Mandelring and Pacifica.
That's still a lot of comparison--if I wanted to do it right. I could do the 30 second clip comparison, like you and paulb have perfected, but I'm not sure what that would tell us.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 22, 2014, 06:53:04 AM
So, you like the Rubio? Out of all the samples, theirs seemed to have some funny sound stuff or sumptin...hmm? Don't remember...
I'm listening to Rubio's 3 right now. I don't hear the funny stuff. If you could elaborate, tell me what you find objectionable from the samples you heard, I could try to confirm or deny. I can tell you that Todd (who collects Shosty Quartets) became incensed when I mentioned liking Rubio, He thought I was crazy ;D Interpretively, they rather downplay the biting sarcasm and the pain; they play nice. You could even say, I suppose, they are not idiomatic.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 22, 2014, 07:07:17 AM
In some threads, yes ;)
That's still a lot of comparison--if I wanted to do it right. I could do the 30 second clip comparison, like you and paulb have perfected, but I'm not sure what that would tell us.
I'm listening to Rubio's 3 right now. I don't hear the funny stuff. If you could elaborate, tell me what you find objectionable from the samples you heard, I could try to confirm or deny. I can tell you that Todd (who collects Shosty Quartets) became incensed when I mentioned liking Rubio, He thought I was crazy ;D Interpretively, they rather downplay the biting sarcasm and the pain; they play nice. You could even say, I suppose, they are not idiomatic.
Sarge
You know i enjoy your company!
Anyhow, we all have a lot of work to do! For all, may I suggest a route of comparison?
1) skip No.1 for now
2) 2 + 3 as a pair
3) 4-6
4) 7-8, 9-10
5) 11 by itself
6) 12 by itself... and so on...
For PURE SOUND, compare the more delicate SQs 4-6, and for TECHNICAL compare 11 and 15, and for ANGST compare 12-14.
When listening to samples, it's always nice if the sample occurs during a crucial part of the movement- really, that's all we've got to go on. If the sample is in a grey-area, well, it doesn't do much good. However, quick compares of ten different things will at least give you certain indications, especially with sonics. I just believe that if you listen to 30 samples, and you know how to "read" these things, you can expertly critique (in, yes, an Assuming and Arrogant Way!) what you're looking for. If there's a crucial tempo, and you can hear on the sample if it's too fast or slow, hey, that beats buying it to find our, eh?
(caffeine kicking in- will.stop.now.)
SQ No.12- Borodin 1- wow, the longest timing for the second movement, very nice- could be a FirstChoice
Borodin 2- didn't hear, but remember it being very nice
Borodin 3- much shorter than 1, but still in the 'longer' category; sound is Western, though the Borodin sound just as good in Melodiya sound
(just.stop.typing.)
No.12
This must be one of the rarer on record. There are few one-offs, but, one must think that if a group decides to record it, hopefully they plan to do it justice. I saw the Amati on Divox and the Philharmonia on Thorophon,... along with the Borodin3 on Virgin. I didn't see much else. Let's look at some stats:
Mvmt 1:
6:16 (Amati) - 8:00 (Shostakovich)
Some go for the quicker tempo, but many prefer to luxuriate in this most wonderful tapestry. The Sorrel are right behind the Shostakovich; the Emerson are right behinf the Amati. In general, the tempo is not much of an indicator here, as all are trying their best here. Acoustic would be more important, and most that I heard were similarly pleasing.
Mvmt 2:
18:47 (Beethoven, St, Petersburg, Amati) - 22:03 (Danel- with Sorrel, Borodin1, and Brodsky not far behind)
Wow! There's some fluctuation there! I don't know what's causing it- it's hard when you have a "mixed tempo movement", though, one has to assume that the slow parts are being taken slower (though, the 'Allegretto' section sees its share too). Still, "nuance" seems to be the indicator here, not tempo (again). The sample I heard from the Philharmonia/Thorophon really turned me on, but it was from a different section of the music than the other samples so I don't know if they all do the same thing (they is a "fluttering" of strings that sounded really niiice).
I was most impressed with the Borodin1 and Sorrel samples; Philharmonia sounded very nice- perhaps the Mandelring and Pacifica sounded too nice? (one really needs some DEATH in this piece- some '70s analogue 'grit' or something- 12 should not be 'pristine'). This is a piece of music where I'd probably go with one of The Masters (Beethoven, Taneyev, Borodin 1/2, Shostakovich) simply because of the time and place and sound and zeitgeist. I do believe that the Shostakovich won my late-'90s DeathMatch.
Anyhow, the Hagen didn't do 12. No Kremer. It's not a piece that has caught on like wildfire. I say it belongs to The Masters. I'd recommend either Borodin1 or the Shostakovich. (haven't heard Taneyev- Beethoven might suffer from the sound- can't remember Borodin2-Bovine (Borodin3 on its way))
I'm now listening to the Fitzwilliams' #12. I'm also reading Tom Rob Smith's Agent 6 this week, so I'm feeling steeped in Sovietude. The first movement is as sad, or full of anxiety, as Leo Demidov's life.
ETA: Now I've listened to both movements by both the Emersons and the Fitzwilliams. The second movement is full of noirish movie music: the thing the protagonist most fears has come to pass. I become particularly nailed to my chair at 13:35 in the Emersons' second movement. I like this SQ, and am glad to be able to identify one by number. Since I bought two entire box sets at once, I'm hardly ever clear on which SQ I'm listening to. I like them all, and I like both the Emersons' and the Fitzwilliams' versions. I can't tell one from the other, really, since I'm listening at my computer.
ETA: the Fitzwilliams are drawing me in at the end of the first movement. So sad. So nervous. Such anxiety. God, I love this. Thanks for isolating it today, snypppr.
Quote from: Jay F on August 22, 2014, 08:13:35 AM
I'm now listening to the Fitzwilliams' #12. I'm also reading Tom Rob Smith's Agent 6 this week, so I'm feeling steeped in Sovietude. The first movement is as sad, or full of anxiety, as Leo Demidov's life.
ETA: Now I've listened to both movements by both the Emersons and the Fitzwilliams. The second movement is full of noirish movie music: the thing the protagonist most fears has come to pass. I become particularly nailed to my chair at 13:35 in the Emersons' second movement. I like this SQ, and am glad to be able to identify one by number. Since I bought two entire box sets at once, I'm hardly ever clear on which SQ I'm listening to. I like them all, and I like both the Emersons' and the Fitzwilliams' versions. I can't tell one from the other, really, since I'm listening at my computer.
ETA: the Fitzwilliams are drawing me in at the end of the first movement. So sad. So nervous. Such anxiety. God, I love this. Thanks for isolating it today, snypppr.
Thanks! In a way, it's kind of 'isolated' itself, but so is the 11th,... 13th... things just get really 'Individual' with these Last Quartets, one MUST take them slowly, one by one. DID YOU HEAR the 'fluttering' section in the second movement? palpitations?
(however, I just know you're trolling the Emerson to sic Karl on me! haha)- seriously, "you have to hand it to the Emerson", but I still get upset when people get their set over others. Maybe I'm just playing Devil's Advocate- they're like the "Hollywood Choice" and I'm always rooting for the BoltOutoftheBlue?
As I recall-
EMERSON GOOD: 1, 7, 9?, 8?, 11, 12
EMERSON BAD: 4, 5,
6?, (I've always used the Manhattan Standard for 4-5, though i'm currently seeking replacements; 6 I think Sorrel & Brodsky)
EMERSON, EH: 13?, 14?, 15?, 2?, 3?, 8?
Maybe I just don't like them in any of the folk-flavoured stuff? I seem to like them in the more Abstract stuff? SOME say there's nothing missing in the Emerson Cycle, but but... but... oh, it's no use, ::)
As to the
Fitzzies- no one has ever said which of the 15 they are particularly known for, or which their approach works best with, but I have noted 5 (too aggressive for me?) and 6 (verrry dark, like a Romantic Novel, do check it out- very darkly toned version). But I keep confusing them with the Lindsays. fsr.
"Back in the Day"
Manhattan 1/2/3
4/5 4 and 5 went to the Manhattan. I do love that record, but I'd like to replace it (5 may be the most difficult of all to find)
5/7/8
9/10
11/12/13
Brodsky 6/10/14 I always thought their 6 to be the best I'd heard, and, quite frankly, I believe their 10 beat the Russians (though maybe a tie with 'Shos')
7/8/9 Their incisive attack is well featured on these most biting works.
11/12/13 I think their 11 might have beat the Russians- but not 12 or 13, surely as fine as they are
15
Borodin EMI 1/9/12 Either Borodin or Shostakovich took 12; I believe Borodin kicked ass in 9?
10/13/14 Again, it was either the Borodin or Shostakovich in 13 and 14
Shostakovich/Olympia 10/11/15 I THINK they took the 10th, and I'm supposing the 15th
12/13/14 They also won out in... I think the 12th most definitely (you should hear it)... maybe 14 too?
Beethoven/Consonance 12/13/14 I can't quite recall their profile,... it's not saying much that I can't remember...
Taneyev (maybe limited expsure?) I wish I could recall here, but no
Fitzwilliam (maybe limited exposure) I might have sampled their 4 or 5 - but I think they might be a little aggressive in those particularly.
Emerson Cycle (it was the last to go after everything had been sold- it was a promo- abused- yea, Karl, I'd have been nice to have around... I guess :( )
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Now"
No.1..........................................Borodin3/Teldec (default)*
Nos.2-3.....................................Borodin3/Virgin* Moyzes (2*) St.P/SONY (3)* 2 and 3 are my least favoured-nothing personal
No.4..........................................Manhattan, Moyzes (Hagen?)
No.5..........................................Manhattan St.P/SONY 4-7 are my most favoured- any fav 5s?
No.6..........................................Sorrel, Brodsky
No.7......................................... Borodin3/Virgin, Sorrel, Brodsky (it's very popular on record- 3/7/8 is the favoured programme)
No.8......................................... Borodin3/Virgin*, Sorrel, Brodsky
No.9......................................... Brodsky, Sorrel I like 7-10 for their unity of expression, abstract, mystery motto
No.10....................................... Brodsky, Sorrel
No.11....................................... Vogler/RCA (w/Debussy, Janacek!) 11 is like no other (15?) any personal favs here?
No.12....................................... Borodin3/Virgin, Amati/Divox (still like Shostakovich here, and now Sorrel... rare on record)
No.13....................................... Kremer/ECM, Sorrel ( by default)*
No. 14...................................... Kremer/ECM, Brodsky (by default)*
No.15....................................... Borodin3/Teldec Kremer, Daniels, Kashkashian, Ma (I liked the St.P samples here- I'd like some help)
Quote from: Jay F on August 22, 2014, 08:13:35 AM
I'm now listening to the Fitzwilliams' #12. I'm also reading Tom Rob Smith's Agent 6 this week, so I'm feeling steeped in Sovietude. The first movement is as sad, or full of anxiety, as Leo Demidov's life.
ETA: Now I've listened to both movements by both the Emersons and the Fitzwilliams. The second movement is full of noirish movie music: the thing the protagonist most fears has come to pass. I become particularly nailed to my chair at 13:35 in the Emersons' second movement. I like this SQ, and am glad to be able to identify one by number. Since I bought two entire box sets at once, I'm hardly ever clear on which SQ I'm listening to. I like them all, and I like both the Emersons' and the Fitzwilliams' versions. I can't tell one from the other, really, since I'm listening at my computer.
ETA: the Fitzwilliams are drawing me in at the end of the first movement. So sad. So nervous. Such anxiety. God, I love this. Thanks for isolating it today, snypppr.
I don't know where you are in your listening. If you're still confused, the next one you should try is No. 7 Op.108. I'll Post below:
String Quartet no.7 Op.108
Who doesn't love this little gem? It's like Shosty's gift to the under 15min. crowd! And the opening simply appears to be the most original thing one has ever heard, and so cool,... pensive, maybe paranoid, definitely Spy Thriller! Once you've heard it, how could you ever mistake it?
The 2nd movement continues as as inverse/obverse of the first, being a highly mysterious 'Lento', certainly very elusive and flit. This leads to the concluding barmburner, which, I have to ask, Is this really the first totally brutal fast movement in DSCH SQs?
So, if someone is unsure of where to begin exploring, No.7 makes it easy. Surely,- is there anyone to whom this work is NOT one of their absolute favourites? I just heard the St.P/SONY recording, and it was highly highly impressive, maybe the quickest on record.
It's a beauty. Was probably the first (after the Op.110, of course) whose profile imprinted on my memory.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 23, 2014, 03:50:44 PM
The 2nd movement continues as as inverse/obverse of the first, being a highly mysterious 'Lento', certainly very elusive and flit. This leads to the concluding barmburner, which, I have to ask, Is this really the first totally brutal fast movement in DSCH SQs?
The Allegro non troppo from No. 3 predates it (and was probably the template for the famous scherzo of the 10th symphony)
No. 7's Allegro is brutal for a while, but relaxes into a recap of the first movement at the end. A violent ending would be uncalled for as this quartet was dedicated to the memory of his first wife.
(No. 3 was a template for the later quartets in many ways actually. For instance he apparently liked the ending so much he "recycled" it in Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, along with the 8th, 13th and 15th symphonies [towards the end they started incorporating elements from the similar conclusion of the 4th symphony as well].)
Quote from: amw on August 23, 2014, 04:02:37 PM
The Allegro non troppo from No. 3 predates it (and was probably the template for the famous scherzo of the 10th symphony)
No. 7's Allegro is brutal for a while, but relaxes into a recap of the first movement at the end. A violent ending would be uncalled for as this quartet was dedicated to the memory of his first wife.
(No. 3 was a template for the later quartets in many ways actually. For instance he apparently liked the ending so much he "recycled" it in Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, along with the 8th, 13th and 15th symphonies [towards the end they started incorporating elements from the similar conclusion of the 4th symphony as well].)
Cool, thanks! ;)
Quote from: snyprrr on August 23, 2014, 03:50:44 PM
String Quartet no.7 Op.108
Who doesn't love this little gem? It's like Shosty's gift to the under 15min. crowd! And the opening simply appears to be the most original thing one has ever heard, and so cool,... pensive, maybe paranoid, definitely Spy Thriller! Once you've heard it, how could you ever mistake it?
The 2nd movement continues as as inverse/obverse of the first, being a highly mysterious 'Lento', certainly very elusive and flit. This leads to the concluding barmburner, which, I have to ask, Is this really the first totally brutal fast movement in DSCH SQs?
So, if someone is unsure of where to begin exploring, No.7 makes it easy. Surely,- is there anyone to whom this work is NOT one of their absolute favourites? I just heard the St.P/SONY recording, and it was highly highly impressive, maybe the quickest on record.
I listened to the Fitzwilliams once last night. I plan to listen to the Emersons later. As hard as it is for me to distinguish one SQ from another, I can tell at least that I don't like this one as much as #12--not yet, anyway.
It has taken me a while to learn the individual "profile" of each of the 15. My task is not yet done, but I am thoroughly enjoying the process, and the result already feels more than worth the effort.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2014, 09:09:21 AM
It has taken me a while to learn the individual "profile" of each of the 15. My task is not yet done, but I am thoroughly enjoying the process, and the result already feels more than worth the effort.
I like all of them. And I realize how much of a luxury it is for us to be able just to have this conversation.
Has this site already been linked here?
http://www.quartets.de/ (http://www.quartets.de/)
And especially this page http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html (http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html) where it's suggested that Shostakovich was working his way methodically through a full set of 24.
Quote from: aukhawk on August 24, 2014, 11:42:31 PM
Has this site already been linked here?
http://www.quartets.de/ (http://www.quartets.de/)
And especially this page http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html (http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html) where it's suggested that Shostakovich was working his way methodically through a full set of 24.
Thanks! What great resources.
Quote from: aukhawk on August 24, 2014, 11:42:31 PM
And especially this page http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html (http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html) where it's suggested that Shostakovich was working his way methodically through a full set of 24.
Yes, he was. The next one would have been in B major, followed by G-sharp minor, E major and C-sharp minor. I've occasionally tried to amuse myself by writing bits of pastiche Shostakovich in those keys, but never been sufficiently amused for long enough to try to complete a bona-fide DSCH 16.
Well (and as you know), one needs more than amusement to bring it off!
I must go back to my sources . . . I have an idea that he did not start out with that idea, but "slid into" it quite naturally. I have in mind the remembrance of one of the members of the quartet.
Will scare up that paragraph at home this evening.
Quote from: Jay F on August 24, 2014, 08:30:30 AM
I listened to the Fitzwilliams once last night. I plan to listen to the Emersons later. As hard as it is for me to distinguish one SQ from another, I can tell at least that I don't like this one as much as #12--not yet, anyway.
I don't understand how you can't just love the way 7 opens? So gnomic. So precipitious(huh?). So original. Tell me how it struck you. (granted, the third movement may not do anything for you at the moment, but those first two- well...)
At least it made an impression, haha! (I'd venture that the Emerson are tops here)
In that case,
for beauty, try 6
for something strange and different, try 13
for a little rustic folk festival, try 4
for a Russian Cinderella, fairy-tale simplicity, try 1
for Perfect Classical Dimensions, try 10
That should at least get you in the door!
Quote from: amw on August 25, 2014, 04:19:26 AM
Yes, he was. The next one would have been in B major, followed by G-sharp minor, E major and C-sharp minor. I've occasionally tried to amuse myself by writing bits of pastiche Shostakovich in those keys, but never been sufficiently amused for long enough to try to complete a bona-fide DSCH 16.
Yes, but he would have been getting older and older. I mean... let's add some reality into the mix,: what actually would his C-sharp Minor have sounded like (that being a very cool key in his world) being four after the already death soaked 15? At what point would his ability deteriorate to the point of sheer pointallism(?)?... little plods on the page?... diamond shards?... squeaky lines of shrieking?... 5 minutes?... I agree that a DSCH SQ in C-sharp Minor would be the.... I mean, just think about it!!
For some reason I see his 16th, the B Major, as an amorphous affair.
No.2 Op.68
No.3 Op.73
These two I had on a single Borodin/EMI disc. These two are the most problematic of the bunch for me, and only as a matter of taste. They're just not what I go to Shostakovich for: I don't question their place, I'm just not yet into them all that much. Perhaps, he was writing so much Minor Key Orchestral stuff that I assumed these SQs would mirror those sentiments, but, as we know, his SQ output can be a bit different, more open to wild outside stuff. These two SQs seem to me to have been written in the '20s or '30s- it's very hard for me to see these as 'War' Quartets (they are resolutely NOT!).
The fact is, you can "accidentally" get these SQs on your CD if you are getting one of the other Quartets (3/7/8, 3/4/11, 3/5/9, 2/12), so, being so ubiquitous, it's somewhat easy to overlook them, 3 especially. (it does seem to be his actual most popular item, at least of the SQs) I've already acquired the Borodin3 2-3, Moyzes 2, and St. Petersburg 3 (SONY) without having wanted them, and it gets harder still to remain away.
So, I guess I should at least listen to them again? Ha! Well, so in goes the Moyzes 2, and I suppose I'll save 3 for after dinner. So, if anyone's keeping pace, 2-3 are on the discussion table at the moment- have you anticipated? ;)
Also, for me, I just want to have these together. So many put them on separate discs- I'd love to hear the comparison between the Borodin/EMI 2-3 ('Bovine') and the St. Petersburg/Hyperion 2-3. (there is also a Manhattan 1-3, and probably a few more like that)
Quote from: snyprrr on August 25, 2014, 08:43:49 AM
I don't understand how you can't just love the way 7 opens? So gnomic. So precipitious(huh?). So original. Tell me how it struck you. (granted, the third movement may not do anything for you at the moment, but those first two- well...)
At least it made an impression, haha! (I'd venture that the Emerson are tops here)
I didn't say I don't love it. All I'm saying is I haven't
memorized it. Shostakovich's string quartets are the most wonderful classical music I've discovered in the last 20 years. You're right in your assessment that I like the Emersons better than the Fitzwilliams, though.
I bought this box set last summer because I so liked the Emersons' Beethoven (I had settled on the Takacs, which I hardly ever played). As usual, most people don't share my taste in performers. The Emersons are something of a dirty word to most of you, it seems, while they make music accessible to me that maybe hadn't been as accessible before.
The Shostakovich SQs are almost too much of a good thing.
In that case,
for beauty, try 6
for something strange and different, try 13
for a little rustic folk festival, try 4
for a Russian Cinderella, fairy-tale simplicity, try 1
for Perfect Classical Dimensions, try 10
That should at least get you in the door!
[/quote]
Anyone interested in the St. Petersburg Quartet recordings needs to check this out immediately
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/o.asp?o=1016&vw=al
Quote from: amw on August 13, 2014, 06:37:09 PM
Last note. This is how it should be done IMO (recommended: listen on headphones, with the volume turned way up—you should be able to hear Alexei Koptev's breathing)
[audio]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32084883/08.mp3[/audio]
A 22' 13th is, indeed, intriguing. I'm also intrigued by the Taneyev Quartet's 13th which is only 15 minutes—bearing in mind that they were the second group ever to play the piece, and Shostakovich himself likely heard that interpretation. Sadly the Taneyev cycle, like almost everything else they did, is long since OOP.
(I've only heard one disc, with 5, 6 & 7, and their 7th beats the Borodin's 7th in my estimation hands down. Their 5th wasn't as special. I suppose the full cycle is going to be a bit hit-and-miss, though Vladimir Ovcharek's consistently at the top of his violin-playing game)
Well, that Kremer 13th IS aaalmost 22:30!!
Frankly, I don't have the Sorrel here (@20). I remember the Sorrel made their instruments almostly 'noisy' (in the good way) in the middle, 'loudest' section. The Kremer players don't for that, but their big loud chords fill the hall pretty nicely.
So, it IS pretty much like a looong casket, or slab of death stone- I would have liked to hear no vibrato, but they surely tried to sound as dead as possible without being a parody. I mean, it's a Document, that's for sure. It does remind me of the Borodin in general, the sound has that kind of dead ECM sound (though it's 'live') ideally suited to the music.
Yea, I mean, I think others may appreciate this more than I who haven't been in the mix for a while. But, there is not one longer, so, it sort of makes it a Must Hear. Perhaps it shows that the players aren't an established band, but the playing and the vision are one, and I must declare this at least a Top3. (I mean, what 13 is there that makes an impression that others do not? Like you said, the Taneyev... that Sorrel sounds really really good,... but who else? (I think Borodin/EMI won my old DeathMatch, against the Beethoven (unless they won?) and Shostakovich (or them?))
Yea,- oh, and the last note sounds fine! Now it's off to the 14th with that 11:30 slow movement! (8:00 first movement is also quite daring- Taneyev style?)
Yea... no... THAT was an impressive No.14! Riveting. A dashing, 8:00 first, a truly epic slow movement at 11 and a half- quite moving really- and a broad third movement (10:00) that sounded like a cathedral in sound.
This sounds a LOT like the 15th Symphony. Well, being as it has the longest slow mvmt. on record, by far, and coupled with a very quick first and an equally well thought out third, this MUST now rank as one of the very very finest, if not the very finest indeed.
This 1986 performance sounds like an idealized Borodin performance in idealized Melodiya-as-Hades sound- it just has a 'Classic' ring to it (along with an equally compelling 13). The slow mvmt. really is something special, and they surely wring every last ounce of funereal nobility out of it.
If Mr. 14th-eh is listening, this is something special,- which is of course what we've all been waiting for, always! This is Mandatory Listening!
No.11 Op.122 (1966)
Written before ,the heart attack', as if that would have made it somehow more... ?... well, you know how we love a good story. The 11th, truly, is a strange work- I wonder if a&w would like it, seeing he didn't go for 7, a Quartet that has a bit in common with 122.
11 lends itself to sampling, with three movements at around a minute a piece, and four other slightly longer ones. I believe I have just sampled most all of the currently available releases, and using memory- and- please, allow me to introduce
the Vogler Quartet-
perhaps you've seen the disc with Debussy, Janacek, and... Shostakovich Op.122?! Well, it's not the kind of piece... anyone, has put on their recital, always seemingly opting for 8, sometimes 3,... but, 11? So, one MUST wonder, if a band like the Vogler (on RCA), known for Brahms, Schumann, Bartok, and Berg, should take on this most enigmatic of pieces, how can it not be good?
Well, today I found out. Seriously, this might be one of the single best recordings I can think of. It's certainly one of the very best recordings this gnomic music has gotten. You have to hand it to this group for taking the piece on- well- here's the thing-
there's really nothing much anyone can do with the 11th. You can expand the 2nd and 6th movements (Sorrel), or play everything as fast as it will go (Beethoven),... but, really, most everyone is in the basic ballpark here- there are no 'Sanderlings' in the 11th, only the Beethoven, who play it faster, but, nothing strange, sooo-
the only thing one can do with the 11th is SOUND better than anyone else, and have a great acoustic and great engineers,... a Great Recording- which is what we have in the Vogler 11th. The cello's bass response is phenomenally malicious, deep, rich, and oh so firm. Considering that this music has a lot of roots and fourths/fifths, that is important. And the rest are beautifully rendered in a sumptuous acoustic, but it is the cello that is so important here. You simply have to hear this recording!
So I went through the rolodex of performances, and, as I hope to remember correctly, here are my sonic impressions of all the different bands- mind you, only the way the produce sound is really of much difference, along with the technical aspects. Everyone was at least competent here, and, most likely, because the piece is so cool, everyone loves it enough to give it there very best. So here we go:
Basically, in order-
Beethoven- their rendition, in a fairly bone dry acoustic, is as fleet as it gets, with their 'old school' sound and fearless boldness
in making some interesting tones for this odd music.
Borodin/Chandos- the acoustic here is more pleasing than above, and the Borodin here give the 'Classic' rendition, more
overtly 'Russian' perhaps, maybe more athorative(sp-I just couldn't do it, glug), but -
Borodin/EMI/'Bovine'- actually, maybe just a notch down from the original,... I was getting mixed signals here, I'd like to hear
someone else compare these two.
Fitzwilliam- one of the very best. Ultra dark tone, menacing, rich. Oh yea baby!
Vogler- deep dark and rich, with a bass response to die for and RCA sound of the highest order. This one just grabs you
immediately- the atmosphere is just perfectly menacing and intense paranoia to spare. I really don't know if another
Digital version will be needed if you, like me, have this one. I was taken aback. As a stand alone, it goes to the head
of the class with extra honors.
Hagen- surprisingly, there have a similar deep rich cello response like the Vogler. I wonder if these two competing versions
were aware of each other. The DG sound is Big and Rock Star-like, which is fine. There's a lot of similarity with the
Vogler, but I will give the nod to the Vogler, because of the more personalized sound, and since they're underdogs.
(I've been trying to figure out how to bypass this most excellent Hagen disc!) Some were saying that the cello player
is pretty straight forward on this disc, but on the samples, the cello's presence is etched in with a fat Sharpie.
Sorrel- I'm putting them ahead of the St. Petersburg, but that Chandos may be the only reason (they Hyperion is equally
fine, but, as usual, totally different: Chandos/sumptuousness, Hyperion/deep clarity and richness). But, they stretch
out the slow movements, which no one else does, so they get points for enthusiasm, which could be the watch-word
of their performance. Between the Vogler, Hagen, Sorrel,and St. Petersburg, the rest of the modern competition is
mostly left in the dust.
St. Petersburg- they're reminding me a lot of the Borodin, no nonsense, but with some really distinctive Hyperion sound I
like. I'm putting them at the head of the list of all the modern versions since the Emerson. Don't argue with
me!
Rubio- yes! how about that? See?, I am totally objective! It just happens that the Rubio's samples were pretty sweet. Yea,
they were just very listenable here. A surprise! Sarge, take a listen there and confirm?
Jerusalem- I'm arbitrarily putting them between the Rubio and the Brodsky, but that gives them the credit they are due. They
play fine, but the others above have an extra special recording presence that this one just didn't have, and it
showed that the cello wasn't the Prince of Darkness like in the Vogler recording.
Brodsky- they were a top choice for me back in the day, perhaps tying with the Borodin, though tonight I found them
squarely in the middle of the pack. Others have such distinctive and wonderfully engineered recordings (Vogler,
St. Petersburg- not that the Brodsky's Teldec sound isn't as good as it ever was,... just the tiniest bit drier than
what these new found friends are offering.
Pacifica- I have been consistently enjoying their samples a lot more than the Mandelring, and this is no different. I hear a lot
of the same things here that I hear in the other versions I've noted, mostly in the playing as this recording is more
of the Brodsky variety.
Mandelring- yea, again they appear too "clean" for me here, and the sound is too clean, the playing,... I mean, it's all fine,
but I already declared that everyone was competent, but, at this point I'm having to compare them with the
Brodsky, in terms of this list. The Pacifica have consistently beat out the Mandelring in sample after sample,
though both are almost identical in many aspects. but it just makes me think we have a glut of 11ths.
Someone has to go in this embarrassment of riches. The Mandelring are my first cut. (I am SURE I will hear
about this!)
Emerson- well, again, their 'Etude' is as vicious as any, and more, and so forth and so on,... but... again... they ARE "missing"
something. And it's not a 'Russian' thing, because that's not what this music is about. After hearing everyone else,
and going back to the Emerson a second time, I can only tell you that there were most definitely a contender with
me back when, and I may even put them ahead of the Brodsky, but, with the Hagen, and now the Vogler playing
with such non-Emersonian elan, the 'It'-ness that the Emerson have/had must be reevaluated here in their 11th. I
fully gave them credit here, in that it is a supremely Abstract work, which the Emerson, through their Bartok, should
own- and I thought they did. But the Vogler's RCA recording really just whoops up on the Emersons in terms of
- as they say- listenability. And then there's the tandem tag-team with the Hagen, and the Emerson can't stand.
And, frankly, their sound in this particular Quartet, could someone check- is it not of the same quality as the rest of
their admittedly great sounding Cycle? Oh,... and the St. Petersburg.
Eder- the Naxos sound just can't compete with so many many much better sounding discs. The Eder, however, are crackling!
Shostakovich- I was surprised here, because I could have sworn their won my DeathMatch against the Borodin and the Brodsky
both of which were much better received by yours truly today. The trouble here was just no real distinctiveness,
sounding a bit like the Eder's Naxos recording. Either way, the Borodin gave much more pleasure today. Huh.
Manhattan- their thin, wiry sound and acoustic, which I think works just great in their 4-5, is just death here. There is no
expansiveness to the sound at all, and compared to so much competition, the Manhattan, sadly, go straight to the
cellar. Their's is singled out as the single worst sounding recording of the bunch.
Danel & Debussy were unable to join, but their reputations somewhat precede them, and their recordings are known to be
clean and dry, so I can't see them really competing with the big boys here. Welcome to disagree...
Taneyev- surely, were there samples, they would be competing with the Beethoven for fastest performance! They usually seem
to have a little something extra up their sleeve, so it is a mighty shame that they couldn't join our survey.
I am now listening to #9. I didn't realize it immediately because I have always listened to the entire 15 as one large work, but #9 emerges as a favorite. I'm going stick with #9 for a while.
Quote from: Jay F on August 28, 2014, 07:07:08 AM
I am now listening to #9. I didn't realize it immediately because I have always listened to the entire 15 as one large work, but #9 emerges as a favorite. I'm going stick with #9 for a while.
I get stuck on 9 too.
9 and 10 are 'brothers', yet there are many differences. 10 is more 'Classical', with four movements nevermind, haha!!
I'm wondering how you will take to the 11th. It's only 15 minutes... but, yea, it may confuse... I forget how daunting these can be for the newbie. There's really no way around the complexity- but it's good to get at least a few under your belt so at least you know, "Hey, that's NOT the 9th!"
Again, which are the ones you're familiar with at this point?
Quote from: Jay F on August 25, 2014, 01:54:19 PM
I didn't say I don't love it. All I'm saying is I haven't memorized it. Shostakovich's string quartets are the most wonderful classical music I've discovered in the last 20 years. You're right in your assessment that I like the Emersons better than the Fitzwilliams, though.
I bought this box set last summer because I so liked the Emersons' Beethoven (I had settled on the Takacs, which I hardly ever played). As usual, most people don't share my taste in performers. The Emersons are something of a dirty word to most of you, it seems, while they make music accessible to me that maybe hadn't been as accessible before.
The Shostakovich SQs are almost too much of a good thing.
In that case,
for beauty, try 6
for something strange and different, try 13
for a little rustic folk festival, try 4
for a Russian Cinderella, fairy-tale simplicity, try 1
for Perfect Classical Dimensions, try 10
That should at least get you in the door!
Again, the thing with the Emerson is, if that's all you know, you won't be missing anything, but as soon as you hear the GMG Official Approved Recording of any particular work, you will see- but, for the time being, I'm not going to say anything particularly negative about the Emerson. For me they do best in 7-11, 15, 1,... the more 'delicate', 4, 5, 6- you may eventually want more folksy interpretations (the Fitzzies around not really folksy either- they are very dark, in a curious way- they are growing on me).
Like 2 and 3- I frankly don't think any version other than Borodin/EMI-Bovine should be allowed. It's the only place one gets these in Perfect Performance, Together, and Decent Melodiya Sound.. St. P also have a 2-3- if the playing is as good as the Borodin, it may contend.
I tend to be pretty brutal when critiquing Shosty SQs. We are reaching glut level, and there needs to be some weeding out done- FOR THE LOVE OF THE NEWBIE!!- so you all don't tread this road alone.
My personal mission here is to steer people away from the Obvious Choice (Emerson) because I always seem to believe there is a dark horse out there waiting to be claimed. I mean, I think most of us believe most every set has its weak points- sets are fine, but the scope of Shosty's SQs is wide enough where, unless you have 'The It', you're going to flounder with either the delicate folksiness, or the odd serial death music, or the brutal aspects, or the light aspects, or the humour. I did NOT hear how the Mandelring were supposedly playing each SQ different, and I have yet to hear ANY group sound demonstrably different in, say, 4/5, and 12/15. I'd looove to hear it out of SOMEONE, but I don't. Either i love a band's corporate sound/engineering acoustic, or I don't- and it's based on the music, not my predilections.
Meaning- perhaps 4/5 want slightly smaller acoustics,... but 13 certainly wants a giant sink hole acoustic to absorb all those long lines. So, like with the Manhattan, who have a fairly dry acoustic throughout, I tend to think they suffer in the Later SQs because their sound has no where to go in that small room.
anyhow- caffeine--- it's the caffeine's fault-0-- I don't tend to ramble on like this about silly.... oh,.... wait.... yea... yea I do.... haha, YES I DO!! haha :laugh:
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 20, 2014, 06:21:51 PM
The Virgin duo is a different recording from the full set.
But for me the Bovine set is so good that sonics do not matter.
And, while I know it might be against Snyp's principles, he needs to listen to the Jerusalem Quartet. Yeah, they are Israelis, but that's his problem not mine.
Well, if you want to hear a real 'jewish' version of No.83 (No.4), check out the Moyzes (for a penny on Lydian). You're not going to find more 'earth' is any other performance, and the recording has the acolytes to prove it. You can practically smell the field after an afternoon rain, and the players let their locks down in the last movement- so one hears the rustic townsfolk dancing their jug.
I give the JQ some credit though, they do have some of the more folksy interpretations out there, but, at least in the 4th, for that last ounce of authentic feeling and tone, the Moyzes can't be beat.
And I can't say the same for the Moyzes 2nd, on the same disc. It in no way comes even close to the standard Borodin/EMI-Bovine. The dryish sound, which worked to good effect in 4, makes 2 sound small, which it isn't, and, it's not particularly searching in the slow movement.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 28, 2014, 09:35:53 AM
Again, the thing with the Emerson is, if that's all you know, you won't be missing anything, but as soon as you hear the GMG Official Approved Recording of any particular work, you will see- but, for the time being, I'm not going to say anything particularly negative about the Emerson.
[...]
My personal mission here is to steer people away from the Obvious Choice (Emerson) because I always seem to believe there is a dark horse out there waiting to be claimed.
Just a note that I have heard several ensembles play the quartets, and I hear no such matter of "insufficiency" on the part of the
Emersons.
And now, back to your regularly infused caffeine . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on August 28, 2014, 09:51:49 AM
Just a note that I have heard several ensembles play the quartets, and I hear no such matter of "insufficiency" on the part of the Emersons.
And now, back to your regularly infused caffeine . . . .
I will truly have to give the
Emersons another try in the DSCH quartets. I've
LOVED everything else I've heard by ESQ, that it was strange that I didn't connect with them for the Shosty quartets.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 28, 2014, 09:51:49 AM
Just a note that I have heard several ensembles play the quartets, and I hear no such matter of "insufficiency" on the part of the Emersons.
Many of the reasons I don't like the Emersons LvB make me think that they'd be a fine match for Shostakovich's music.
snypsss is sure tireless in his floggings . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on August 28, 2014, 09:57:21 AM
snypsss is sure tireless in his floggings . . . .
Indeed, and/or tireless....period! 8)
The Emersons is the set I own.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 28, 2014, 09:35:53 AM
I get stuck on 9 too.
9 and 10 are 'brothers', yet there are many differences. 10 is more 'Classical', with four movements nevermind, haha!!
For now, I am going to stick with #9. I have three versions: Jerusalem, Emerson, and Fitzwilliam. I'm not going to say which I prefer, as I honestly don't know. But I remember thinking how I wished the Jerusalem would complete the cycle. I play the Jerusalem version most on CD (as opposed to listening at the computer), partly because the Emerson set is nearly impossible to remove from its slipcase.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 28, 2014, 09:35:53 AMI'm wondering how you will take to the 11th. It's only 15 minutes... but, yea, it may confuse... I forget how daunting these can be for the newbie. There's really no way around the complexity- but it's good to get at least a few under your belt so at least you know, "Hey, that's NOT the 9th!"
In good time. In good time.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 28, 2014, 09:35:53 AMAgain, which are the ones you're familiar with at this point?
I've listened to 7, 12, and now 9 this week.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 28, 2014, 09:35:53 AMAgain, the thing with the Emerson is, if that's all you know, you won't be missing anything, but as soon as you hear the GMG Official Approved Recording of any particular work, you will see- but, for the time being, I'm not going to say anything particularly negative about the Emerson. For me they do best in 7-11, 15, 1,... the more 'delicate', 4, 5, 6- you may eventually want more folksy interpretations (the Fitzzies around not really folksy either- they are very dark, in a curious way- they are growing on me).
I like the Emerson. But I like a lot of newer versions of things a lot of people dismiss, e.g., Paul Lewis' Beethoven.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 28, 2014, 09:35:53 AMLike 2 and 3- I frankly don't think any version other than Borodin/EMI-Bovine should be allowed. It's the only place one gets these in Perfect Performance, Together, and Decent Melodiya Sound.. St. P also have a 2-3- if the playing is as good as the Borodin, it may contend.
I'm not up to 2 or 3 yet.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 28, 2014, 09:35:53 AMI tend to be pretty brutal when critiquing Shosty SQs. We are reaching glut level, and there needs to be some weeding out done- FOR THE LOVE OF THE NEWBIE!!- so you all don't tread this road alone.
My personal mission here is to steer people away from the Obvious Choice (Emerson) because I always seem to believe there is a dark horse out there waiting to be claimed.
I'm not averse to other versions. The Emerson versions are simply what I came upon first, after hearing their excellent Beethoven. It is extremely possible the Jerusalem Quartet will be my favorite, though. I'm at the last movement of their #9, and it is hard to imagine something better.
ETA: I'm now on the Emerson first movement of #9. How sinuous. Astringent. Lovely. Sad. I'm glad I don't have to pick just one.
tHERE's a video on YT of an ELECTRIC!!!! 12th... yes!!, it sounds like King Crimson playing the 12th!! it's a hoot! (TheDailyBeethoven) is the person
Can some kind soul please Post it for everyone's enjoyment? This OS wo
Quote from: snyprrr on August 30, 2014, 09:49:56 PM
tHERE's a video on YT of an ELECTRIC!!!! 12th... yes!!, it sounds like King Crimson playing the 12th!! it's a hoot! (TheDailyBeethoven) is the person
Can some kind soul please Post it for everyone's enjoyment? This OS wo
https://www.youtube.com/v/mKSWt1hZd_8
Sarge
Quote from: snyprrr on August 30, 2014, 09:49:56 PM
tHERE's a video on YT of an ELECTRIC!!!! 12th... yes!!, it sounds like King Crimson playing the 12th!! it's a hoot! (TheDailyBeethoven) is the person
Can some kind soul please Post it for everyone's enjoyment? This OS wo
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 31, 2014, 03:32:27 AM
https://www.youtube.com/v/mKSWt1hZd_8
Sarge
I couldn't take it past 12:39. If this is what King Crimson sounds like, I realize anew why I have never bought a King Crimson album.
Quote from: Jay F on August 31, 2014, 06:19:58 AM
I couldn't take it any longer than 12:39.
You lasted three times longer than I did ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 31, 2014, 06:27:39 AM
You lasted three times longer than I did ;D
Sarge
You lasted twice as long as I did ;D
Dudes, I am not doing the math 8)
Quote from: Jay F on August 31, 2014, 06:19:58 AM
I couldn't take it past 12:39. If this is what King Crimson sounds like, I realize anew why I have never bought a King Crimson album.
Yea... sorry... I didn't make it that far either! :laugh: :'( :laugh:
oy vey indeed!
No, but that is about what some prog rock sounds like from the '70s- dreary dreary dreary!!! "I'm going to be SO serious and create a kick ass 'Song'!" ayeayeaye
Quote from: karlhenning on August 31, 2014, 06:29:49 AM
Dudes, I am not doing the math 8)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
When I said 'awesome' I guess I should have stated I meant 'awesome', as in 'terrible'! What? you didn't like the drums?
anyhoo- I watched the Emerson video of them playing 12 (2nd mvmt). Sweet- but again- missing the hysteria...
I THINK THAT 12 SHOULD BE
a) the 1st mvmt needs to be played like it sounds, like a 'Classical' work, with the band playing in the "old" style- nice and sweet and wotnot
b) BUUUT- the 2nd mvmt needs to be played as if it were a completely different work. There needs to be grit and grime and blood and glass shards and ugliness.
I don't know any performance that does this. Maybe they're still scared of the 2nd mvmt? It's quite a massive mvmt- the Emerson were truly putting all their concentration into every bar- they're getting a bit older too, eh? the days pass...
I picked up the Amati (Divox) for 12, but they play it a bit too professional for me. Again, I missed the utter angsty delirium. They're very smooth- reminding me of the Mandelring samples- they play great but I don't hear the oppression.
Maybe the Shostakovich Quartet was the best I heard before? But, Borodin/Bovine is maybe my First Choice right now- love to hear Taneyev... I really liked the Sorrel samples
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 31, 2014, 06:27:39 AM
You lasted three times longer than I did ;D
Sarge
I'd still love to hear your comparison, of any SQ, between Mandelring and Pacifica. Consistently I have been enjoying the Pacifica's samples a lot more- they seem to have a little more personality in their 'acoustic', whereas the Mandelring seem to have an ultra clean, sheen, sheer, scrubbed sound. eh?
Quote from: snyprrr on August 31, 2014, 08:47:30 AM
I'd still love to hear your comparison, of any SQ, between Mandelring and Pacifica. Consistently I have been enjoying the Pacifica's samples a lot more- they seem to have a little more personality in their 'acoustic', whereas the Mandelring seem to have an ultra clean, sheen, sheer, scrubbed sound. eh?
I need to buckle down and do my Bruckner 6 homework (for the blind comparison). But I'll see if I can do some Mandel/Pacifica comparison next week.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 31, 2014, 08:59:05 AM
I need to buckle down and do my Bruckner 6 homework (for the blind comparison). But I'll see if I can do some Mandel/Pacifica comparison next week.
Sarge
It's like a death march pace here! whew- no time to sweat!
I'm going to Premiere SQ No.1 tonight. I recall it has a fairy-tale 'Andante', but little else. Of course, I do somewhat consider it separate from the the rest- well, the whole Early SQ... up to 6, maybe- he had so many micro-phases... anyhow-
btw- my Mahler craze last one listen-through to the Abbado/Berlin 7th. I wonder if I can get a Supreme Bruckner Recommends- the only B I ever had was that cheap (Szell?, Walter?) SONY 9th. sure, it was fine... anyhow, not necessarily the 9th- you'll really have to grab me with Bruckner- you know how I get- I'm going to need Transcendentalism of the Highest Order- I know you've got ideas)
No.1 op.49
The 1st mvmt has never done much for me- a lot of busy C Major... eh. Help? The 2nd, however, has that 'Russian' minor-key sound, and the 'Molto allegro' is a whirlwind at under 2mins. The Finale has a wonderful DSCH-cum-LvB rustic folk zest that is over as I finish.
Frankly, it is what it is, and I guess that's that. It's that little thing you have after dinner,... or the preparation, an appetizer. I'm ashamed as only if I hear it milked and Hollywood do I respond; if I hear a more 'authentic' performance, I'm like, eh- but this one on SONY by the St. Petersburg (with the caged bird on the cover- awful!!- deserves a spot in the other thread) sounds like Early LvB- fresh, rustic, quick, over. I CAN see how a Dissonance Fearer might even find No.1 a little too much out of their comfort zone (surely the 1st mvmt. of No.2 is)- I don't know- any 'Mozart only' people out there?
I want to go on and on- but there's just nothing to say about 1. Who's that new guy a&w?- have you heard 1 yet?
I mean- it's not the Greatest SQ in Under 15mins- or 13... 12?...
Quote from: snyprrr on August 31, 2014, 06:35:26 PMI wonder if I can get a Supreme Bruckner Recommends
From Sarge? I'm pretty sure this is the only answer
[asin]B0000246CT[/asin]
I've never actually heard any of these, unless there's one of them in the Bruckner comparison, but it's an easy prediction.
Quote from: snyprrr on August 31, 2014, 07:41:01 PM
I want to go on and on- but there's just nothing to say about 1. Who's that new guy a&w?- have you heard 1 yet?
if you mean me? I didn't think much of 1 when I heard it on St Petersburg/Hyperion, though it plays an important role as the "fluff" between the tough-as-nails performances of the Piano Trio & Quintet. I'm listening to the Taneyev Quartet's performance now which feels somewhat as though I'm hearing it for the first time, and is much more to my taste, even though the timings are almost identical (the only difference is the first movement, 4:01 for St P vs. 4:43 for Taneyev; it really benefits from the slower tempo I think.)
Quote from: amw on August 31, 2014, 07:45:51 PM
From Sarge? I'm pretty sure this is the only answer
[asin]B0000246CT[/asin]
Strongly seconded!
Quote from: amw on August 31, 2014, 07:55:16 PM
if you mean me? I didn't think much of 1 when I heard it on St Petersburg/Hyperion, though it plays an important role as the "fluff" between the tough-as-nails performances of the Piano Trio & Quintet. I'm listening to the Taneyev Quartet's performance now which feels somewhat as though I'm hearing it for the first time, and is much more to my taste, even though the timings are almost identical (the only difference is the first movement, 4:01 for St P vs. 4:43 for Taneyev; it really benefits from the slower tempo I think.)
Oh, so you got the Taneyev's 1/2/4?- or just on the YouTube? It seems they have such a certain way (very old fashioned) that they make all the works sound somewhat different than all the rest (maybe the Beethoven have that same 'old' style too?)
It IS amazing how timings can be identical, but the 'profile' of the performance is totally different... slackness, tightness, sweetness, sourness...
Tell me what you think of Taneyev's 4th (if you really got that disc)
No mail todAy :'(
Well, no, it was a Federal holiday 8)
At this point it seems I am only concerned with Nos. 5 and 12. I'm finding a substitute for the Manhattan's 5 notoriously difficult. The Manhattan play to the CinemaScope Panavision of the piece- it is very a very cinematic music in a very abstract way- the story is in the intervals themselves, not in some extra story.
It has the reputation of almost being to big for a mere four instruments, and the 1st mvmt certainly seems to me to be one of the most relentlessly (joyous) chugging rhythmic figures I've ever heard- a combination of two very very different themes- a Mash Up, if you will- that Shosty them forces to become friends, which they do through some of the most wrought counterpoint he ever wrote (coming on the heels of the 24).
The opening sets the whole stage for me, and it seems I'm quite picky here. Though I have always loved the Manhattan (5 is rare, they've been my only real reference- I might have heard Borodin/EMI, or Taneyev, or both, and felt I needed the sonics to accompany this music)- I believe there must be better out there, but this music seems to fail people to a certain degree. The thing I like about the Manhattan's 12:01 1st is its breadth and width: it is the longest on record, and they play it pretty smoothly (though they do dig in). By contrast the St.P/Hyperion, which is right there at 11:55, is played at a completely different, much more jaunty rhythm. The third contrast comes from the St.P/SONY 1st, which, at 10:10, puts a whole other, much quicker, outlook on the jaunty theme, which is here rendered as more of a traipse or skip or jug than a chug.
The sound on both others is actually much better than what is afforded the Manhattan (though they've always seemed to have just enough room around the instruments for 4-5 (their slightly small acoustic doesn't work for me in the Later SQs- only in 4-7)), but, I'm being forced to look elsewhere for someone who has all of what I need- I'm feeling the Russians (the Masters included) are all playing this like folk music, but I want to hear another 'Abstract' version- as if what the Hagen might do. I'm down to the Sorrel, the Mandelring, and the Pacifica. The Eder take the 1st as quick as St.P/SONY; the Sorrel come closest to the 12min mark at @11:30, and their samples indicate a full and lush recording (both of the St.P recordings are a bit unique, especially the Hyperion where you feel like you're sitting in the middle of the band- a bit odd, but good for study). The Pacifica seem to have a little more bite than the Mandelring? mm... eh...
The Brodsky sample actually had quite a bit of bite to it too, but a single disc of 5 is rare. I don't like the Emerson here, but I forget why. Like I said, the Eder are super quick, so they're not on the radar. The Fitzzies sound verrry darrrk here, not the style I want right now (but they always have something interesting to say).
is anyone actually reading this???
HAVE YOU HEARD MORE THAN 2 OR 3 5THS????? Do you have some basis for comparison? BECAUSE OF THE SYMPHONIC NATURE of the music, the Sound IS important, so if you choose Borodin or Taneyev or Beethoven- do you really feel the sound doesn't hinder the overall feeling at all? This piece really needs SPACE around it because of its Symphonic nature- but not swamped for detail. St.P/Hyperion has tremendous sound, but the performance is too unique for my purposes.
oy, I just spew this stuff out don't I? pfffffffffff....
Quote from: snyprrr on September 03, 2014, 02:05:38 PM
The Pacifica seem to have a little more bite than the Mandelring? mm... eh...
This piece really needs SPACE around it because of its Symphonic nature- but not swamped for detail. St.P/Hyperion has tremendous sound, but the performance is too unique for my purposes.
More bite to the recording perhaps but I think the Mandelring is more aggressive in the first movement. The Pacifica lets the music breath a little more, the second theme more affecting, and it has an absolutely haunting transition into the second movement. The instrumental balance at this point in the Mandelring performance goes off.
Of the seven versions I have, the Fitzwilliam is the only one that gets a "symphonic" sound in the Fifth, a more resonant acoustic, but it has a pretty fast first movement which rules it out as a first choice for me. I think I'd have to give that honor to the Pacifica. Borodin/Bovine is damned good too (but you have to adapt your ears to the recording after hearing more modern versions...my ears adjusted quickly). I rather liked the slicker Emerson too although the transition into the second movement felt rushed, even perfunctory.
Sarge
Most interesting, Sarge, thanks.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 04, 2014, 05:54:05 AM
More bite to the recording perhaps but I think the Mandelring is more aggressive in the first movement. The Pacifica lets the music breath a little more, the second theme more affecting, and it has an absolutely haunting transition into the second movement. The instrumental balance at this point in the Mandelring performance goes off.
Of the seven versions I have, the Fitzwilliam is the only one that gets a "symphonic" sound in the Fifth, a more resonant acoustic, but it has a pretty fast first movement which rules it out as a first choice for me. I think I'd have to give that honor to the Pacifica. Borodin/Bovine is damned good too (but you have to adapt your ears to the recording after hearing more modern versions...my ears adjusted quickly). I rather liked the slicker Emerson too although the transition into the second movement felt rushed, even perfunctory.
Sarge
Yea, you can't take that 1st mvmt too quick--- really, the Manhattan do get this all very well, and they PLAY Symphonic (the acoustic is just enough around them), there is just the feeling that you want to hear just... a... little... more.
The only other issue that hasn't been discussed is the
Acies Quartet (3 and 5; forget label). Their samples seem to reveal all the things one wants out of this mvmt. Though I find the playing time skimpy- and I really don't need another 3rd- this 5th sounds very similar to the Pacifica's- lots of wood and excitement, but enough air around the phrases.
Your description of Mandelring vs. Pacifica brought out the fact that I just don't think we want that 1st overly aggressive (same problem with some 4ths). The music itself is so vigorous that I don't see why one should have to 'saw' it out and make it even more so than it already is.
I did pop for the
Sorrel after that St.P/Hyperion disappointment. I may even have to try that Acies. Seriously, this is some rare-air music and it deserves The Treatment! I do get tired of having to slog through the pile just to get to that last one.- normally I GIVE UP A LOT QUICKER, BUT NOT WITH THE 5TH. (gggaaah caps)
St. Petersburg String Quartet (SONY)
Two issues were released in 1995, 1/2/4 and 3/5/7, recorded at the Melodiya and St.P Studios, by Gerhard Tses(s) (who, incidentally, seems to be their Recording Engineer on the Hyperion disc also!- which explains their unique sound throughout). Their strategy seems to be to recreate the classic Russian sound with modern technology, so, their performances are generally at quite breakneck speeds that nonetheless gel bracingly through the vigorous and ardent playing- whether you like these performances or not, you will surely respect them. I could have certainly used more space around the notes, but in this case, the group plays so well that all considerations vanish into complete submersion into the music; the SONY sound is state-of-the-art.
If we compare No.7 Op.108 with the Hyperion release (also recorded at St.P Studios by Tses(s)), the first thing that strikes us is the bizarrely 3-D sound of the Hyperion; the SONY has that perfectly dryish acoustic with a little bit of back up, but the Hyperion is fully fledged Opera Stage of the Mind! It's somewhat willful, but it is spectacular. The performances seem a bit more relaxed in the Hyperion all the way around, which isn't to hard considering the super-human power coming through in the SONY Cycle.
No.5 Op.92 sets up an odd contrast. The SONY is one of the quickest 1st 10:10; (not my favourite style of playing the 5th), but they make it work very vigorously, and the SONY sound accentuates all the woody drama nicely. The Hyperion performance is one of the slowest (1st 11:55), but sounds nothing like the streamlined Manhattan (1st 12:01). The Hyperion St.P 'infect' the opening with a rather bizarre jauntiness I haven't heard elsewhere (maybe Fitzzies?), which, when accentuated by the equally bizarre soundstage 3-D backdrop, there is a very odd, yet somewhat pleasing, effect. It certainly precludes it from any First Choice, but it does make for wondrously clinical study. I have been reading an increasing amount of criticism levelled at their engineering and/or performance style, and it is evident that there is something different going on here. I do enjoy it, but I wonder if a whole Cycle would wear on me?
Ultimately, I wholeheartedly recommend the SONY set of two separate CDs- they're very very cheap right now- as a great 'Masters Substitute'. They play like the Masters, but are afforded the best sound of any Russian group ever (in both, but I prefer the SONY). Their playing in the SONY Cycle is much more scintillating than in the Hyperion, with sonics to match. Though these are blistering performances, and I'm going to gauge that most of us wouldn't choose them as our 'Soul Food' choice, for that 'authentic' feel (whatever that does mean anymore), this St.P Cycle is the one to have.
Who out there had others in the Hyperion Cycle?
Quote from: snyprrr on September 04, 2014, 06:06:36 PM
Yea, you can't take that 1st mvmt too quick--- really, the Manhattan do get this all very well, and they PLAY Symphonic (the acoustic is just enough around them), there is just the feeling that you want to hear just... a... little... more.
I found a used copy. Ordered it. Grabbed Manhattan's 6/7/8 too just because it was really cheap.
Sarge
Quote from: snyprrr on September 04, 2014, 08:01:38 PM
St. Petersburg String Quartet (SONY)
Who out there had others in the Hyperion Cycle?
I've got the Piano Quintet (with Piano Trio 2 and SQ1) and I like it and it was my go-to version, but not any more -
I prefer the Talich for the Quintet (and the Sorrels are quite similar here) and the Vienna Trio (Nimbus) for the Trio.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 05, 2014, 04:20:34 AM
I found a used copy. Ordered it. Grabbed Manhattan's 6/7/8 too just because it was really cheap.
Sarge
Sooooper!!!!! ;) I just ordered the Brodsky Box cheap! :P
Also, the Borodin/Virgin 2-CDs and Borodin/Erato 2-CDs arrived. Quickly- SQ No.1 on the Erato plays like hot cocao on Christmas Eve (haven't heard 15 yet), but I am curious about the sound production on the Virgin:
2 and 12 were recorded at The Maltings
3/7/8 at St. Jude
2 and 12 have a certain recorded tang- maybe this is supposed to be that thing that everyone hated- it sounds like a haydn recording- mm- but it's still very nice- BUT IS THAT CELLO TOO RECESSED---- KARL??? There IS something "willful" about the recording, but it's liveable and the performances are like comfort food. But, in the car, I could barely hear the cello intro to 12- on the boom box a bit better- the balance IS odd in the 2/12 disc I think. The 3/7/8 disc sounds as nice and natural as the Erato.
Getting to the Trio and Quintet...
I feel like I'm getting to end of the line here. The only thing left is to start buying Boxes, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. Again, I'm only interested in 5... 12... (4)... 9-10... 11...
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 04, 2014, 05:54:05 AM
More bite to the recording perhaps but I think the Mandelring is more aggressive in the first movement. The Pacifica lets the music breath a little more, the second theme more affecting, and it has an absolutely haunting transition into the second movement. The instrumental balance at this point in the Mandelring performance goes off.
Of the seven versions I have, the Fitzwilliam is the only one that gets a "symphonic" sound in the Fifth, a more resonant acoustic, but it has a pretty fast first movement which rules it out as a first choice for me. I think I'd have to give that honor to the Pacifica. Borodin/Bovine is damned good too (but you have to adapt your ears to the recording after hearing more modern versions...my ears adjusted quickly). I rather liked the slicker Emerson too although the transition into the second movement felt rushed, even perfunctory.
Sarge
No.5 Op.92Manhattan
Brodsky (en route)
St.P/SONY
St.P/Hyperion
SORREL
Just compared the Sorrel. Hmm... the Chandos sound is at its Maltings lushest. The Sorrel play meatily. I'd say it's a more profound performance than the Manhattan, but when I then put them on, I really was NOT UNDERwhelmed- the Manhattan STILL have a lot of great things about their product, they can still contend with all-comers.
The Sorrel certainly have the Biggest Sound, and vigorously saw away at the sinewy, long-limbed melodies. The Manhattan are more contained, but their vigour is no less so. The Sorrel are also afforded a
dark, syrupy viola tone that is quite delectable- which none of the others have.
I'm leaning towards the Pacifica and the Acies- both have a woodsy flavour to their samples, though the Acies seem to have just an extra ounce of folksy reverie.
Oy- my search for the Perfect Fifth is gruelling.
btw- the St.P/Hyperion had the least effective slow movement so far, not as characterized as all the others.
No.3 Op.73
I always liked that Borodin/EMI has 2 and 3 on the same disc, separating them from the rest (No.1 I'm not considering for these purposes). But, those two are my least favoured technically and I have had little compunction to listen to them, especially if the recording doesn't erase memories of the Borodin.
The 1st movement 'Allegretto' just has too much of the DSCH "Jaunty-folk-jester" sound... I haven't been able to start with this. I went to the 'Moderato' finale and let the St.P/SONY be my guide. Well, I must say I was really impressed, and I know this is partially due to the players and sound, which are really wonderful. And I really liked the mercurial music, which still had traces of the 'Allegretto' sound-world.
Then I tried the 'Adagio', and remembered that unison intro from my Borodin days. Here the St.P's recording really highlights the lovely syrup between the strings in the drawn out notes.
I then continued with the famous 2nd movement 'Moderato con moto'- actually one of my favoured Shosty bits (so heroic sounding). Here I only missed the ample acoustic of the Borodin recording, but otherwise, the St.P retain a very similar profile to their elders (as they seem to in this whole SONY 1/2Cycle).
SQ 3 is certainly the first TRUE "DSCH" SQ, being the "initiation" of so many bits that would pop up again and again, including the machine-like 'Allegro non troppo' which prefigures the Scherzi of all the SQs 7-10 (and Symphonies 8 and 10). The five movement scheme also works to densely pack the SQ with an overload of prickly ideas, all somewhat tilting to a jaunty, jester-like profile.
So, I was being a bit hard on op.73. I'd still rather hear the Hindemith SQs from the '40s, or Bartok, or any number of other SQs from the Gotterdammerung of Romanticism (let's just say it dies 1945-53 along with the war, just for argument's sake). Shosty seems like the baby on the scene with No.3, competing with SQ Traditions of a much older vintage. I'd say Shosty peaks here with the highly wrought No.5, which I WOULD like to hear rather than Hindemith perhaps!
It actually seems to be the most highly recorded of his SQs, and everyone seems to thick it embodies everything they like- and it is easier on the ears for the Mozart crowd, those who have problems with Modern Music. Personally, I like 4 and 5 much more, but 3 is growing on me as Shosty's "First" String Quartet.
I suppose we could also talk about No.2 since these two seem to just want to be with each other, as if the belong together separately apart from the others (again, not counting the real No.1, which I like to include more with 'The Russian Tradition' a la Myaskovsky).
As I may have mentioned in the "Dacha" thread, #2 is one of my favorite of the quartets; after the rather jaunty (yet still somewhat dark in at least some interpretations) first movement, it transforms into one of the most remarkably introspective works I've ever heard in the string quartet genre. It is one where I feel that the non-Russian ensembles I've heard tend to play it in a way I prefer, emphasizing the more uncannily haunting aspects rather than trying to sound melodramatic. In particular, I think the Mandelring Quartet turns it into an unsettling masterpiece. Unexpectedly, given their reputation for coldness, I think the Emerson Quartet does a very good job on the recitative (in terms of what I especially like in it, which is more of a reflectively brooding mood rather than a showy, hand-wringing one).
Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 13, 2014, 09:09:59 PM
As I may have mentioned in the "Dacha" thread, #2 is one of my favorite of the quartets; after the rather jaunty (yet still somewhat dark in at least some interpretations) first movement, it transforms into one of the most remarkably introspective works I've ever heard in the string quartet genre. It is one where I feel that the non-Russian ensembles I've heard tend to play it in a way I prefer, emphasizing the more uncannily haunting aspects rather than trying to sound melodramatic. In particular, I think the Mandelring Quartet turns it into an unsettling masterpiece. Unexpectedly, given their reputation for coldness, I think the Emerson Quartet does a very good job on the recitative (in terms of what I especially like in it, which is more of a reflectively brooding mood rather than a showy, hand-wringing one).
you have been contributing nicely here lately- thanks! ;) In 2 I currently have St.P/SONY, Moyzes, Borodin/Virgin, with Brodsky on the way (though I still remember fondly the Borodin/EMI). I'll take one in the car today...
I WOULD need a 'special' version (like you say about the Mandelring) for this one to totally click with me. Let's see...
No.1- Brodsky, St.Petersburg/SONY, Borodin/Erato (latter two very good)
No.2- Brodsky, St.P/SONY, Moyzes, Borodin/Virgin
No.3- Brodsky, St.P/SONY, Sorrel, Borodin/Virgin
No.4- Brpdsky, St.P/SONY, Sorrel, Moyzes, Manhattan
No.5- Brodsky, St.P/SONY, Sorrel, Manhattan, St.P/Hyperion
No.6- Brodsky, Sorrel (both are very good- I'd like to hear Pacifica, Mandelring, etc.,...)
No.7- Brodsky, St.P/SONY, St.P/Hyperion, Sorrel, Borodin/Virgin
No.8- Brodsky, Sorrel, Borodin/Virgin
No.9- Brodsky, Sorrel
No.10- Brodsky, Sorrel
No.11- Brodsky, Sorrel, Vogler
No.12- Brodsky, Amati, Borodin/Virgin
No.13- Brodsky, Sorrel, Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
No.14- Brodsky, Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
No.15- Brodsky, Sorrel, Borodin/Erato
Emerson- 1, 11, maybe 12, maybe 9-10... sometimes 7-8... there's still "something" chilly about them I don't like most of the time- all others preferred
Brodsky- For me, the Brodsky are On in 6-10, especially 9-10. Trying too hard in the Later SQs. I didn't like 5
Sorrel- They have the absolute richest sound. Sometimes they seem to take the slow movements to the point of lack of tension (11), pointing out that one has to
be careful which movements one wishes to "make one's own". Great 5, dark and meaty 6, maybe the best 8, pretty good 4 (but the competition is stiff
here). You may not agree with all their choices, but they're always up to something. 9-10 not as vicious as Brodsky perhaps.
St.P/SONY- My new choice for 1-7 (except no 6). Tight, great SONY acoustic, - viral performances--- feral!! Best 7.
St.P/Hyperion- Strange 3D Hyperion sound is a help/hurt depending. 5/7/9- 5 is very strange but interesting- 9 is verrry good. I like to hear 10. Otherwise, I don't
think I can handle the presentation sonically- bizarre sonics are beautiful, but disturbingly so. The playing seems to play to the acoustic, not mus
Borodin/Virgin- different acoustics for 2/12 and 3/7/8, the latter is preferred. August performances.
Borodin/Erato- the Best 15 I've heard, maybe the best 1. Great 'Teldec' sound
Manhattan- I still hold fond 4-5, maybe 6. The acoustic is too dry to withstand the harshest later music, I think. The clearest 4 sonically.
The Vogler 11 and Amati 12 and Kremer 13-14 are all in top contention I think.
Apparently there are TWO Rubio Cycles? One on Globe and one on Brilliant? They show two different recording dates, soooo... anyone?
I was thinking about Pacifica's Vol.1 (5-8, Myaskovsky 13), Acies 3/5 (short timing there),... BUT I'M GETTING TO "THAT" POINT- the "one-offs" aren't anymore that attractive, and the only thing left is the Big Boxes- Beethoven, Borodin, Shostakovich, Taneyev (if found), or one of the newer ones...
Quote from: snyprrr on September 16, 2014, 09:10:27 AM
Emerson- 1, 11, maybe 12, maybe 9-10... sometimes 7-8... there's still "something" chilly about them I don't like most of the time
I consider that
bracing 8)
Beethoven
Borodin A (Chandos) 1-13
Taneyev (unavailable)
Fitzwilliam (U.K.)
Borodin B (EMI, BMG, Melodiya)
Shostakovich (Olympia, Regis)
THE DIGITAL ERA:
1989 Brodsky (first digital cycle)
1990 Manhattan
Borodin C (Virgin + Erato) 1/3 Cycle
Hagen- 1/3 Cycle
St.Petersburg A/SONY- 1/3 Cycle
Rubio A (Globe- incomplete?)
Eder
1999 EMERSON (watershed moment)
2000 Sorrel
St.Petersburg B/Hyperion - (notice that after the Emerson/DG, Chandos, Hyperion, and Harmonia Mundi all give it a go)
Jerusalem
Rubio B/Brilliant
Alexander
Razumovsky (not much word on this group- are we getting a glut? where's the "old" groups??)
Debussy
Danel
"Mogranetti" on Decca or EMI- the name is wrong, but there is an Import Decca (or EMI) Cycle by some young group
Pacifica
Mandelring ( these last two have been dominating the conversation and overshadowing most modern rivals lately, apparently)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 16, 2014, 09:21:26 AM
I consider that bracing 8)
You want bracing you might want to look into that St.P/SONY 1/3 Cycle
check my list above--- pretty cool?
No.9 Op.117
No.10 Op.118
Similar in style, but worlds apart in terms of form, 9 and 10 make a very interesting pair. And certainly one can add the lingering memory of No.8 (which frankly includes No.7 also). This grouping of works has a lot of thematic unity, and it's easy to forget sometimes which movement from which work one is listening to, such as the corresponding ending movements of 9 and 10. The skittering 'William Tell' caricature is also heard in the middle 'Allegretto' of No.9, and one is left wondering later if one is hearing it in all the works, so ubiquitous are some of Shostakovich's techniques.
No.9
I throw up my hands. I love it, but I don't get it. It seems so complex, labyrinthine, what is there to hold on to? I find the opening to be a Paranoid Masterpiece, the kind of which he was writing a lot of at the time. The slightly sinister back-and-forth theme lingers long in the memory,- however, the movement is so much more, and I forget so much because the theme has hooked me.
And that runs into the two 'Adagios'- I have not a clue today what they were, just listening yesterday, so obtuse is DSCH's melodic writing here. All I do remember is that the atmosphere is serious and somewhat grim, but in a mercurial style that goes from emotion to emotion.
The middle fast movement is more easily remembered as the first appearance of the faux-'William Tell' rhythm (not the actual melody, the rhythm). I do know from all the samples that it is actually one of his most aggressive movements: I believe it is the Borodin/'bovine' (mach 2, EMI) recording that sounds as if they're literally going off the rails- an extremely intense reading.
Which brings up the problem of having any group "soften" DSCH's music- "play it nice"- like the Danel have been "accused" of. You CAN'T "play this nice"- the Borodin show the risks NEEDED to propel the music to another place. Even the mostly scathing Sorrel play both 9 and 10 a little lighter than their blistering and desolate 8.
So, anyhow, the SQ ends with a 9.5 minute barnburner of a movement, like an expansion/concentration of the middle movement. Here is wisdom: the quickest (I forget- Beethoven?)clocks in at around 8:06, whereas the Shostakovich clock in at around 10:47 (I don't think it's 11:47). Well, I do think the Shostakovich version slightly suffers- again, one has to be careful WHICH movement you choose to "do your thing" to. Here it's not going to work. Most clock in at 9:00, with no perceptible difference within a 60 second radius. I forgot which I liked, I'll get back.
So, No.9 is Abstract Neo-Classicism at its finest.It will keep you busy for a while trying to keep track of what's what!
No.10
10, though exhibiting many of the same characteristic 'jaunty' themes as above, seems totally different. It is stubbornly in Four Classical Movements and exhibits all the rigid formalism that one might expect from such a Classical/Romantic vessel. Here, also, we are totally reminded of No.8, and indeed it sounds as if 9 were simply remade. But, it's a little more than that, having a deep ethos. It reminds of Symphony No.10, indeed one thinks it could have been written ten years earlier.
The 1st movement sounds a lot like the opening to the Cello Concerto No.1. The same jaunty feel- the motto. This leads into music sounding like the 'Paranoid' theme of No.9- the "Intrigue" theme? Either way, here Shostakovich seems to be writing the story of the Soviet Machine in music- the lockstep, the paranoia, the yearning, fear.
This leads into the big 'Stalinesque' fast movement, a repeat of No.8's 'Molto allegro'- going back to SQ No/3. I believe it is the Borodin/Chandos that have securely locked the 'Most Berserk and Wild' Award- wow! that is something there. I also liked the blazing fast Manhattan sample (though the confined acoustic doesn't work so well on 9-10). Some were juuust a little too relaxed here, and you just cannot succumb to any feelings of wanting to minimize anything here. I think it was the Pacifica that disappointed here (please check!).
Again, I can't remember much of the slow movement, though I do believe it has an individual profile. many I'm getting it confused with No.6 now? And this leads into a movement so similar to the corresponding movement in 9 that I forget which is which. The point I'm making is that DSCH is being coy with these two works, and making us dig a little deeper than with the more self explanatory 8,... or 6 or 1. He developed a habit of writing drawn out last movements that demand closer scrutiny.
So here are my listening thoughts, as best as I can remember. What are you absolute favourites?
No.9
1) Beethoven is super fast, but I think it is Borodin/EMI-bovine that hits on all cylinders here (however, and please do check- I don't think the sound is as good on their 9 as their 10- different year/venue?). The Shostakovich were slightly disappointing, trying to do things differently. I'd like to know the Fitzzies here?anyone?
The Brodsky's are... pretty good here, though we do need SOME 'hysteria' in this music as the Borodin deliver. Though the Brodsky are incisive- they're not totally pissed.
The St.Petersburg/Hyperion made my ears prick up. Theirs is an odd take, but they have me from the first note. The fast bits are scratchy like a rabid wolf- the ambience works here really well. I'm having trouble finding other moderns to match their very interesting take. It's almost too unique to want to be a first choice, but it seems to have the 'Best' in a lot of departments.
Mandelring and Pacifica samples didn't give me a rager- please, someone verify.
I DO RECALL LIKING THE EMERSON HERE KARL!! Their style = this music
No.10
This one's completely different. However, I have Stood by BORODIN/EMI-bovine FOREVER. They won my original DeathMatch, I believe, and one listen to the fast sample clinched it. It is also some of Melodiya's BEST SOUND, and again, can someone tell me if 9 sounds worse than 10- 10 has a halo around it than 9 just doesn't have. venue? date?
BUT- THE BORODIN/CHANDOS FAST MOVEMENT IS THE MOST EXTREME BY FAR!!
The Brodsky are pretty good here. I thought I was actually disappointed in the Pacifica here. The Sorrel sound great but don't get as hysterical as the Borodin. I fret that there is no better than the Borodin here. I hear the St.Peterdburg have a 'different' take but I haven't yet heard it.
OH- THE WELLER ARE IN A CLASS BY THEMSELVES HERE!!- anyone???
There arn'yte any other one-offs of 10 that I know of.- it's a tough one to get right apparently- so many try to "tame" it, and NO- don't do that. I'd love to know your thoughts on any modern recording, but it seems to me that the Borodin own this particular piece of music. And the Weller.
And what of the Taneyev in 9 and 10??
The Taneyev Quartet's performance of No. 9 is deeply affecting and ultimately tragic. They take a flowing pace in the Adagios, without any loss of expressivity, but the real Crowning Moment of Interpretation is the big cello solo in the last movement which Josef Levinson milks for all he's worth (channeling Rostropovich) and manages to drive the music to an almost complete stop, after which the final crescendo leads us into the most catastrophic, desperate E-flat major ending this side of the Prokofiev Sixth. I'm also rather fond of the Mandelring Quartet who play up the defiant wildness, and in massive sound to boot. Don't remember much about St Petersburg except their typical clarity, bringing out lots of lines I didn't even know existed; I'll listen to them later.
I've not listened to 10 yet and don't have the time to do so at the moment.
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 07:53:31 PM
The Taneyev Quartet's performance of No. 9 is deeply affecting and ultimately tragic. They take a flowing pace in the Adagios, without any loss of expressivity, but the real Crowning Moment of Interpretation is the big cello solo in the last movement which Josef Levinson milks for all he's worth (channeling Rostropovich) and manages to drive the music to an almost complete stop, after which the final crescendo leads us into the most catastrophic, desperate E-flat major ending this side of the Prokofiev Sixth. I'm also rather fond of the Mandelring Quartet who play up the defiant wildness, and in massive sound to boot. Don't remember much about St Petersburg except their typical clarity, bringing out lots of lines I didn't even know existed; I'll listen to them later.
I've not listened to 10 yet and don't have the time to do so at the moment.
delicious Taneyev description!- aye, is there no where to even hear them right now? timings pleeeez???
I just compared the
4th movement 'Adagio'- a very odd bit, eh?-
The Brodsky take 2:34; Sorrel 4:13- but it's so fragmented- it's difficult to tell that much- is this a foolproof movement? Actually, the Sorrel sound a bit lax compared with the Brodsky; the Sorrel sound like they're milking just a nudge- the St.P sound a little tighter but still clock in at 4:03.. Listen to Brodsky again- yea, they just sound more correct by far- and they absolutely blaze into the finale!
I'm starting to be much more critical of the Sorrel, hmmm... I was still impressed with 5, 8, and 13.
4:05 / 3:41 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18 for the Taneyev in #9.
I should qualify I haven't heard the Kopelman Borodins that everyone seems to recommend in this one. However outside #13 and 15 I've tended to prefer the Taneyevs in those where I have been able to hear both. Possibly another sign of wayward tastes, Shostakovichwise. (The Aharonian Borodins have a lockdown on #15, even more than Kopelman's crew. Check out the first movement, it genuinely sounds like it could kill flies in mid-air.)
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 08:39:41 PM
4:05 / 3:41 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18 for the Taneyev in #9.
I should qualify I haven't heard the Kopelman Borodins that everyone seems to recommend in this one. However outside #13 and 15 I've tended to prefer the Taneyevs in those where I have been able to hear both. Possibly another sign of wayward tastes, Shostakovichwise. (The Aharonian Borodins have a lockdown on #15, even more than Kopelman's crew. Check out the first movement, it genuinely sounds like it could kill flies in mid-air.)
Well, those are indeed some interesting timings. Their 1st is as quick as the Beethoven- and here don't you normally prefer just a little more relaxed tempo- or do the Taneyev just pull it better than the Beethoven? I mean, most others take @4:30 and under, so it's not jarring changes here.
2nd is very quick for the 'Adagio', and I suspect it is correct, since these longer versions are just not speaking to me- they all seem to be milking. I don't know if this music is just wayward noodling or if there is architecture- you know what I mean?
3rd is as fast as St.P. 4th in the middle of the pack.
BUT THEN they play the 'slower' version of the finale? The Brodsky brutalize at 9:09- but, I've heard the 10 minute version (St.P) with equal effect, so, interesting.
Yea, you know, this Thread could use all the Taneyev timings ;D!
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 08:39:41 PM
4:05 / 3:41 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18 for the Taneyev in #9.
I should qualify I haven't heard the Kopelman Borodins that everyone seems to recommend in this one. However outside #13 and 15 I've tended to prefer the Taneyevs in those where I have been able to hear both. Possibly another sign of wayward tastes, Shostakovichwise. (The Aharonian Borodins have a lockdown on #15, even more than Kopelman's crew. Check out the first movement, it genuinely sounds like it could kill flies in mid-air.)
wait- on the 15, I don't understand... EMI vs Erato? The Erato 1st is like 14 minutes- only Kogan/Kagan? is longer at 15- and the Erato 1st definitely has the fly killer sound that no other version has.
IMO the 'big' Shostakovich finales benefit from some time being taken. The Taneyevs take 5:25 up to the big slowdown, so there's about 2 min 20 of roughly Andante in the middle there. Don't know how others compare.
Timings! Though I think most of these are rather standard, compared to some of the tempi they adopt in 'standard rep'—the most obvious standouts being the first movement of No. 5, finale of No. 3, and all of No. 13.
1: 4:43 / 4:34 / 1:58 / 3:03
2: 8:15 / 10:39 / 6:21 / 10:54
3: 7:03 / 4:30 / 3:44 / 5:36 / 10:41
4: 3:26 / 6:41 / 4:03 / 8:19
5: 12:00 / 9:06 / 10:56
6: 7:00 / 5:00 / 4:53 / 8:29
7: 3:10 / 3:49 / 5:42
8: 4:30 / 2:45 / 4:32 / 4:43 / 3:13
9: 4:05 / 3:40 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18
10: 3:57 / 4:18 / 6:16 / 9:05
11: 1:55 / 2:33 / 1:32 / 1:21/ 0:59 / 4:38 / 3:16
12: 6:11 / 18:25
13: 15:22
14: 8:23 / 9:20 / 8:42
15: 11:35 / 6:21 / 2:00 / 4:34 / 5:01 / 6:28
Quote from: snyprrr on September 18, 2014, 09:00:32 PMThe Erato 1st is like 14 minutes- only Kogan/Kagan? is longer at 15- and the Erato 1st definitely has the fly killer sound that no other version has.
I am almost certain that's the one, but I actually can't find it right now. :\ Really slow and icy, almost no vibrato or breathing... remember a dry-ish acoustic... ? And I'm pretty sure it postdates Aharonian's takeover of first fiddle, while the EMI one is still Kopelman. I don't know of any other Aharonian-era Shostakovich recordings.
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 09:18:33 PM
I am almost certain that's the one, but I actually can't find it right now. :\ Really slow and icy, almost no vibrato or breathing... remember a dry-ish acoustic... ?
Borodin/EMI 12:00
Borodin/Erato 14:00
yea- the only one that speaks like that- absolutely chilling- like Arvo Part- yea, that's it- try the u.k. for that one
anyhoo- back to the 9th
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 08:39:41 PM
4:05 / 3:41 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18 for the Taneyev in #9.
I should qualify I haven't heard the Kopelman Borodins that everyone seems to recommend in this one. However outside #13 and 15 I've tended to prefer the Taneyevs in those where I have been able to hear both. Possibly another sign of wayward tastes, Shostakovichwise. (The Aharonian Borodins have a lockdown on #15, even more than Kopelman's crew. Check out the first movement, it genuinely sounds like it could kill flies in mid-air.)
just checked:
Beethoven
Borodin/Chandos
Taneyev
Fitzzies?
Manhattan all play the 1st mvmt in the quicker, better, 4:00 style- you gotta have momentum here
Pacifica milk it to 4:47, and that's too much and tension snaps and falls flat
Mandelring sound a lot like the Brodsky- medium quickish but not touching the Masters
many kept the middle 'Allegretto' to just under 4:00. Lvb, B1, B2, Mnhttn...
many also kept the 2nd mvmt 'Adagio' to 3:30 (Borodin/Chandos wring it 6 minutes!! Borodin/EMI 5mins)
many also kept the 4th mvmt 'Adagio to under 4-
BUT THEN!!!- someone- the Shostakovich?- someone ran the finale to like 11:47!! and that was too much someone else ran it to 11 (Fittzies), but most either chime in at 9-10 to equal effect. Brodsky very blazing here at 9:09.
Emerson somewhat MOR- lax 1st-
Eder- nothing special
Taneyev, LvB, B1,(Fitzzies) and the Manhattan were the most vicious and concise. Then B2/EMI. Then it's like the descending gates of hell frankly- I just can't stand the modern take on this piece after hearing how blazing the Masters are!! poo Best might be Brodsky, Mandelring, St.P
and 9 is such a rare piece
no- I'm REALLY digging the original Masters' take- theu do bring out the terror drama of the 1st mvmt so much better
Quote from: snyprrr on September 18, 2014, 09:21:37 PMyea, that's it- try the u.k. for that one
No I mean I literally can't find it, everything's in boxes right now and I guess I never ripped it to a hard drive. Moving house etc, it's a pain
For me 9 pairs well with 3, which is sort of like its opposite.
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 09:48:02 PM
No I mean I literally can't find it, everything's in boxes right now and I guess I never ripped it to a hard drive. Moving house etc, it's a pain
For me 9 pairs well with 3, which is sort of like its opposite.
9 reminds me of Symphony 9------ especially in bothe 4th movements
but yea, 3 too
btw- the Jersusalem's 9th is one of the very best moderns
Also found Byron Quartet (8/9) and Aviv SQ (8/9) - both not too bad-
Mandelring sounds a lot like Brodsky here---- did not like the Pacifica too much here---
I'm really enjoying No.9 right now,... having trouble moving on to 10.
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 09:12:37 PM
IMO the 'big' Shostakovich finales benefit from some time being taken. The Taneyevs take 5:25 up to the big slowdown, so there's about 2 min 20 of roughly Andante in the middle there. Don't know how others compare.
Timings! Though I think most of these are rather standard, compared to some of the tempi they adopt in 'standard rep'—the most obvious standouts being the first movement of No. 5, finale of No. 3, and all of No. 13.
1: 4:43 / 4:34 / 1:58 / 3:03
2: 8:15 / 10:39 / 6:21 / 10:54
3: 7:03 / 4:30 / 3:44 / 5:36 / 10:41
4: 3:26 / 6:41 / 4:03 / 8:19
5: 12:00 / 9:06 / 10:56
6: 7:00 / 5:00 / 4:53 / 8:29
7: 3:10 / 3:49 / 5:42
8: 4:30 / 2:45 / 4:32 / 4:43 / 3:13
9: 4:05 / 3:40 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18
10: 3:57 / 4:18 / 6:16 / 9:05
11: 1:55 / 2:33 / 1:32 / 1:21/ 0:59 / 4:38 / 3:16
12: 6:11 / 18:25
13: 15:22
14: 8:23 / 9:20 / 8:42
15: 11:35 / 6:21 / 2:00 / 4:34 / 5:01 / 6:28
I think you'd just love the St. Petersburg SONY recordings (not the Hyperion) of 1-5,7.The Taneyev influence is strong with them. They have the same ending of 3. The Manhattan have a 12 minute 1st for the 5th. And the St.P/Hyperion clock in at 11:55 (the St.P SONY- 10:10!!).
At the least, the St.P "sound" very much like a combination of Beeth-Borodn-Taneyv, with some pretty raw playing and delicious SONY sound.
maybe I can make a timings chart for the Masters side by side....
No.6 Op.101
Brodsky
Sorrel
Coming back again to No.6, I was freshly disappointed by the Sorrel's long view. At 6:34, the 'Lento' just seems to drag, and the Fitzzies clock in at 6:45, and though they conjure some tone here, all tension is lost and one is left flaccid in the face of one of the most beautiful slow movements. The Sorrel do manage some tension, but things still sound like they're going through the slow-motion machine. I didn't hear, but Borodin/Chandos clocks in a @6:00, so it would be interesting how they sustain the tension; Borodin/EMI-bovine is quicker, and begins to sound like what one would expect from the music.
Most seem to take the 'Lento' around 5 minutes, which is enough time to let the music breathe; tone might be the only consideration. But, outrageously, the Brodsky take it at an astounding 3:24!- which, in a sense, destroys the sad feeling of the music- but, in a nod to "well there ya go", they do manage to make good of it- it may certainly be a bit headlong but it does retain some of the 'Classical' feel of the rest of the Quartet.
In fact, the Brodsky are the fastest on record because of it, and indeed, their rendition of Op.101, I think, is one of the very best, maybe even Most Innovative- I hasten not to say First Choice, but it has great playing,ideas, and sound- I actually think it's better than the Masters- Beethoven and Borodin I et II- Taneyev I don't know about (awm??)- but the Brodsky just aren't slouches here, and frankly I don't think this is supposed to be 'Russian' music anyway- maybe that's why the Emerson do so well here, because it's right up their 'Classical' highway. In fact, the Emerson are right behind the Brodsky in timing- I didn't scrutinize the sound here for the Emerson- can someone check in please?
Beethoven
Borodin I et II
(Taneyev?)
Shostakovich
Just from the samples and the timings, it seemed like the Beethoven took an extremely leisurely view of Op.101. Their finale lasts 9 minutes!! By contrast, the Brodsky plough right through it in perhaps the quickest 6:47. I can't see how the Beethoven get off here- but- uh- "he" was there, so... ?? They also seem to take the 'Allegretto' opening leisurely; I do so prefer this movement quick and light. I think the Emerson are the quickest around 6:43, but one band, I forget who, seems to drag at 7:24; at 7:17, the Sorrel do just seem a bit plump in the viola opening- it really needs to be clipped a tiny bit like the Brodsky's very quick 7:00. Timings can be slightly deceiving, as one person's 7mins in not anothers: here the Brodsky sound as quick as the Emerson.
I'd love to hear about the Taneyev Op.101. I do believe I found both the Shostakovich and the Eder to be somewhat grey.
The Pacifica had the best samples, as a contender for the Brodsky, with equally great sound. They do stretch out the 'Moderato con moto' to 5:35 (as opposed to the Brodsky's 4:59) but manage to keep it plucky.
The Jerusalem, too, sounded like a good modern recording, with the group sounding a bit folksier than the competition. I did NOT like the St. Petersburg presentation; the sound and playing were distractions (you know how this Hyperion Cycle has its ups and downs). The Rubio wasn't available for listening.
I also thought the much maligned Danel came in with one of the finest Op.101s I sampled. Their usual reticence pays off here, and the tight sound highlighted their humble approach. Can someone confirm?
There are two one-offs, one with the Sibelius Academy Quartet on Finlandia (with Op.73;which might have a 'earlier' recording date- I don't know, but I suspect) and the Orlando Quartet (who Schnittke wrote his No.3 for!) on Emergo, also with (only) Op.73. The latter I am really interested in, but the asking price around town is ridiculously astronomical.
So, my basic theory about Op.101 is that The Masters didn't quite get the First Choice recording of this elusive work (still out on the Taneyev). The Brodsky were the first Digital Cycle, and, they descend upon this work as if the ink was drying; their erstwhile competitors the Manhattan also have a preeetty good one, though I defer to the Brodsky here.
You would think that this is a fool-proof work, but it has suffered particularly as each group tries to put their own stamp on an essentially plain music. Sure, it's not as carefree as it may seem, but one should certainly not go looking to make some 'bad-ass' statement out of it either. I like it quick (Brodsky) and mild (Danel); too many inject unneeded leaven, puffing up the music and making it seem somewhat spoiled and naughty
The Brodsky are by far the most daring; the Emerson seem to "get" this one just right (they could ALWAYS lighten up a bit!!); I only seek Perfection in this Op.101; only Perfection will do. The 6th is somewhat rare on record; rarer still are recording of note and worth.
(there was a YT vid of the finale, taken slightly slower by the Shanghai Quartet)
Quote from: jlaurson on December 23, 2013, 01:02:00 AM
Uffda. If Borodin I doesn't do it for you, and even though Borodin II has improved sonics that don't bother me at all (I've come to expect a little grit from that end in many of my DSCH recordings, perversely), it's still not a modern sound... And then I suppose the rational thing is to recommend Pacifica. Well, Jerusalem, if they were working on their cycle, which I am not sure they are (at least not on HMU). But Pacifica you will not have any qualms about the sound and if you want Borodin-style, you've got that or had that... and now you have a slightly more secure and cleaner (but not as polished---to a fault, perhaps---as Mandelring) set of renditions, but still heartfelt and with guts and gore.
I'm a bit late, but thanks for this, Jens.
Can anyone who had/has the Danel and Pacifica recordings compare their general, overall styles? I have the Danel and find it does not move me emotionally.
Quote from: George on September 23, 2014, 05:28:32 AM
I'm a bit late, but thanks for this, Jens.
Can anyone who had/has the Danel and Pacifica recordings compare their general, overall styles? I have the Danel and find it does not move me emotionally.
I have simply come to the conclusion that no one Cycle has encompassed and mastered all the works. I totally recommend the piecemeal approach to DSCH SQs. Danel, Pacifica, Mandelring, Debussy, Rubio, Alexander, Sorrel, Razumovsky,... it's getting a bit thick out there.
Yes, the Danel seem to be the most non-exciting so far (but how do you like their 6th?), but as much as I'd like to recommend any one of these very modern Cycles, I do ask you to consider the Brodsky Cycle. They are certainly more exciting than most, take chances, have great Teldec sound, are incisive and biting- they have many of the same qualities that all these other bands have, but they have the added'advantage' of coming from the late '89s- and things seem to have changed a little since then.
Anyhow, please look in to the Brodsky- I hate to have to keep choosing between Pacifica vs Mandelring just because that's what everyone's talking about. (though I seem to prefer the Pacifica) I mean, is anyone ever going to try the Debussy Cycle? That seems like quite a risk. As a great All Around Champion, the Brodsky deliver many strengths, few weaknesses- they don't play it particularly safe, and I worry that all these new bands come from the 'Era of Perfection' (hence, the Mandelring are accused of being too perfect). One must have some grit in these SQs.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 23, 2014, 07:15:10 AM
I do ask you to consider the Brodsky Cycle. They are certainly more exciting than most, take chances, have great Teldec sound, are incisive and biting- they have many of the same qualities that all these other bands have, but they have the added'advantage' of coming from the late '89s- and things seem to have changed a little since then.
Thanks! What has changed?
QuoteAnyhow, please look in to the Brodsky- .... As a great All Around Champion, the Brodsky deliver many strengths, few weaknesses- they don't play it particularly safe, and I worry that all these new bands come from the 'Era of Perfection' (hence, the Mandelring are accused of being too perfect). One must have some grit in these SQs.
On that last point, I absolutely agree!
Quote from: George on September 23, 2014, 08:21:22 AM
Thanks! What has changed?
On that last point, I absolutely agree!
I just think the younger generation might not have the right concept of these works- they NEED grit- modern groups are trying to be as scrubbed as possible (the Bikini Wax Theory). You really don't want the Midori String Quartet playing these, do you? I'd rather have a bunch of ex-military alcoholics playing Shostakovich?
Quote from: snyprrr on September 23, 2014, 05:33:11 PM
I just think the younger generation might not have the right concept of these works- they NEED grit- modern groups are trying to be as scrubbed as possible (the Bikini Wax Theory). You really don't want the Midori String Quartet playing these, do you? I'd rather have a bunch of ex-military alcoholics playing Shostakovich?
:laugh: :laugh: Good one, Snypps!!! :D
I don't buy "too perfect" as negative criticism.
Nor do I think any composer's music is well served by a bunch of oldsters with the shakes 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on September 24, 2014, 03:36:02 AM
Nor do I think any composer's music is well served by a bunch of oldsters with the shakes 8)
Oh, trust me, they can handle their liquor- makes 'em play better donchakno!
And yes, sometimes 'perfection'- scrubbed, clean tone, unnaturally tight ensemble, bla bla- IS NOT Perfection. Witness how the Borodin are known for not being afraid of 'low' playing, bringing out the 'gypsy',... find me (oh that dreaded word) "authenticity" in the Debussy, Rubio, Danel,....
now, some haaave said that the Mandelring do some great stuff (14th?)- but they have also been accused of being too clean for ole Shosty. No one is accusing the Borodin of being ... can we just call it "being too clinical"?
btw- could you listen to the Emerson 6th for me? How delicate are they; or, are they rough with it? The samples said they really had this one. I will concede that the Emerson speak to me in, at least, 6-11/12- which, incidentally, would be "that" phase of Shosty's writing that seems to be the one most people do well in (because the music is so so tight here (7-11)).--- even though, some just don't get the feral quality of the rhythmic stabs- at least the Emerson have the balls to not be too nice with DSCH.
Karl, how are you on the Fitzzies? Their 'Lento' in 6 was so long that it sapped the tension right out of the music- but I've heard other movements where they are much more excited.
Do you have a favourite 6th?
Which is your least fav DSCH SQ? (if none, I'm going to assume you mean No.1)
Borodin Recording Dates
Could someone pleeease- who either has the BMG or 'bovine' Cycles- give us the recording dates for this cycle? And which are 'live'? The best I have so far:
1978-79: 1, 15, 7??, 8
1981-82: 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 9 (9 is 'live' Sept. 27, 1981)
1983?: 2, 4
1984?: 3, 5
Anyone?
(frankly, Beethoven and Taneyev dates would be nice too, maybe even Shostakovich?)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 25, 2014, 03:47:13 PM
Borodin Recording Dates
Could someone pleeease- who either has the BMG or 'bovine' Cycles- give us the recording dates for this cycle? And which are 'live'? The best I have so far:
1978-79: 1, 15, 7??, 8
1981-82: 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 9 (9 is 'live' Sept. 27, 1981)
1983?: 2, 4
1984?: 3, 5
Anyone?
(frankly, Beethoven and Taneyev dates would be nice too, maybe even Shostakovich?)
1 - 1978
2 - 1982
3 - 1983
4 - 1982
5 - 1983
6 - 1981 September 27 (live)
7 - 1981
8 - 1978
9 - 1981 September 27 (live)
10 - 1981
11 - 1981
12 - 1981
13 - 1981
14 - 1981
15 - 1978
Quintet - 1983 September 5-6 (live)
Two Pieces for Octet - 1964
Quote from: George on September 25, 2014, 04:01:29 PM
1 - 1978
2 - 1982
3 - 1983
4 - 1982
5 - 1983
6 - 1981 September 27 (live)
7 - 1981
8 - 1978
9 - 1981 September 27 (live)
10 - 1981
11 - 1981
12 - 1981
13 - 1981
14 - 1981
15 - 1978
Quintet - 1983 September 5-6 (live)
Two Pieces for Octet - 1964
oh thank you :-* that is SOOO interesting!! :o
10-14 DO seem to have the 'best sound', no?
I just got the 8-10 on BMG, very interesting sound differences- but, to be honest, as I remember it I prefer the old EMI "sound" to this Remastered sound- I can hear the "bubble of perfection" surrounding the Original Recording. I mean, it's VERRRY GOOD as it is- but, the point is, THAT 1981 VINTAGE seems to been the Borodin's high point?
I can tell you that No.8 on this BMG (1978) has a little bit more rare sound- though it's still pretty up-front. Comparing with the Virgin- wow!!- not much difference at all- 1978 gets it a little more on edge, but the Virgin really sounds just as good- though, I CAN NOW HEAR THAT "METALLIC EDGE" in the violins 'above the stave'- you'll hear it in comparison.
Does the 'bovine'Box have the same Remastering or what? I kind of miss that old EMI disc...
SQs 9-10 are proving very tough nuts for "snyprrr's Perfect Version"- Borodin/Chandos looks to be the wildest, with that Taneyev I haven't heard, and the Beethoven is quite pert indeed- leaving this 1981 'live' performance the most 'Beautiful' of the early Masters (didn't compare Fitzzies here :( ).
Weller and Beethoven and Borodin/Chandos may have the edge on Borodin1981 in Op.118. For the last movement, you reeeally want to try to keep it under 9 minutes, to get that 'bounce' going. The slower versions (10 minutes) don't really get it going.
Hey George- what do you think are the best recordings of that '80s Cycle? I thought the 'live' 9 (and by assumption, the 6th also) was pretty good, though I really never expect any coughing in a Shosty Quartet Experience. For that alone I kind of have to seek elsewhere.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 25, 2014, 08:15:55 PM
oh thank you :-* that is SOOO interesting!! :o
You're welcome!
QuoteHey George- what do you think are the best recordings of that '80s Cycle? I thought the 'live' 9 (and by assumption, the 6th also) was pretty good, though I really never expect any coughing in a Shosty Quartet Experience. For that alone I kind of have to seek elsewhere.
In that 80s cycle, the ones I best know are 14 and 15, as I tend to reach for the Chandos for the rest.
I do want to hear the piano quintet again, though, not just because my favorite pianist is at the keyboard, but also because I havent heard it in awhile.
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 09:12:37 PM
IMO the 'big' Shostakovich finales benefit from some time being taken. The Taneyevs take 5:25 up to the big slowdown, so there's about 2 min 20 of roughly Andante in the middle there. Don't know how others compare.
Timings! Though I think most of these are rather standard, compared to some of the tempi they adopt in 'standard rep'—the most obvious standouts being the first movement of No. 5, finale of No. 3, and all of No. 13.
1: 4:43 / 4:34 / 1:58 / 3:03
2: 8:15 / 10:39 / 6:21 / 10:54
3: 7:03 / 4:30 / 3:44 / 5:36 / 10:41
4: 3:26 / 6:41 / 4:03 / 8:19
5: 12:00 / 9:06 / 10:56
6: 7:00 / 5:00 / 4:53 / 8:29
7: 3:10 / 3:49 / 5:42
8: 4:30 / 2:45 / 4:32 / 4:43 / 3:13
9: 4:05 / 3:40 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18
10: 3:57 / 4:18 / 6:16 / 9:05
11: 1:55 / 2:33 / 1:32 / 1:21/ 0:59 / 4:38 / 3:16
12: 6:11 / 18:25
13: 15:22
14: 8:23 / 9:20 / 8:42
15: 11:35 / 6:21 / 2:00 / 4:34 / 5:01 / 6:28
Actually, the Taneyev do shave off at least a few more seconds in just about every movement. Still, they seem to hold back a little more in 9 than Beethoven and Borodin/Chandos- which may be a good thing: those two are pretty down and dirty. But, all three/four seem to be about the best on the market. The newer bands just won't play these pieces quick quick quick like they should be. No.9's 4th movement should be around 3:40... and only a few go there... 4:40 is just too much for a "breathing" movement. The Brodsky are a tad fast at 2:36!! Right around 3:30, the "breathing" motion sets in, but it gets "winded" at about 4:15.
I'm starting to get a handle on 9 and 10... yaaay!! :D
btw- when were recording dates for Taneyev??? pleeez :-*
Quote from: George on September 25, 2014, 08:23:31 PM
You're welcome!
In that 80s cycle, the ones I best know are 14 and 15, as I tend to reach for the Chandos for the rest.
I do want to hear the piano quintet again, though, not just because my favorite pianist is at the keyboard, but also because I havent heard it in awhile.
Well, 14 and 15 come from different vintages (1981, 1978 resp.), so, can you hear any tonal change in the venue/ ambience/ warth- coolness? I would imagine that 14 will "sound" just a little bit better than 15.
what are the "Chandos years" if I may? What's your take on the sound quality there? It seems to be about on par with the Beethoven set...?!....!?
I'm on one... final... push... towards the finish line...
... whew....
5-6
9-10
11-12
It's ALMOST like Rocket Science! ;) ;D
Quote from: snyprrr on September 25, 2014, 08:27:54 PM
btw- when were recording dates for Taneyev??? pleeez :-*
June 1968 - 3
November 1971 - 4
December 1974 - 15
April 1975 - 6, 14
November 1977 - 7, 8
March 1978 - 1, 2, 5, 9-13
Quote from: amw on September 25, 2014, 09:31:57 PM
June 1968 - 3
November 1971 - 4
December 1974 - 15
April 1975 - 6, 14
November 1977 - 7, 8
March 1978 - 1, 2, 5, 9-13
Fascinating, captain! I can't believe I've reduced my life to date speculating. ::) :-[
Again, do you hear the differences? That's really quite a span of years.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 26, 2014, 09:18:47 AM
[...] I can't believe I've reduced my life to date speculating. ::) :-[
To me it seems like nine weeks and five days (http://youtu.be/vkVzspuCkxg?t=38s).
Quote from: karlhenning on September 26, 2014, 09:24:29 AM
To me it seems like nine weeks and five days (http://youtu.be/vkVzspuCkxg?t=38s).
So, if Shosty was an atheist, and all the greatest performances are by probable atheists, how can one possibly "see God" whilst listening here? Aren't our searches for transcendence fruitless here since no one involved knew His Mind?
btw- Emerson miiight actually get First Prize in No.9.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 26, 2014, 09:24:29 AM
To me it seems like nine weeks and five days (http://youtu.be/vkVzspuCkxg?t=38s).
LOL! :laugh:
No. 9 Op.117: 'Adagio' No.1
This slow movement plaint makes precious little sense to me at the moment. It has that one "barb note" in the rhythm that seems to throw everything off. Timings range from 3:18 (Beethoven) to 6:01 (Borodin1967). I have
4:21 Brodsky
4:22 St.Petersburg
5:06 Borodin1981
5:36 Sorrel
None satisfy me. I long to hear either of the extremes, for the melodic cells seem to want o either be quite quick or hyper-slow. The St. Petersburg seem to pull things around more to my liking, making it sound somewhat normal. Is this just a rarified, Faure-like piece that shouldn't be scrutinized to harshly?- it sure does somewhat sound like a Fauresque mood, eh?
The Borodin1981'live' just seem to perhaps drag it out at 5:06- their 1967 recording takes 6:01! The Sorrel, at 5:36, either needed to go even slower still, because here they seem to inhabit that no-man's-land of rhythmic amorphousness. Sure, the "clouds" sound sumptuous in their Chandos guise, but there is absolutely no tension. It just goes nowhere for me, even dipping the dynamics to near inaudibility to induce snooziness.
Here are some of the winners:
3:18 Beethoven
3:40 Taneyev
3:47 Emerson
3:50 Manhatten
3:58 Eder
Quote from: George on September 25, 2014, 04:01:29 PM
1 - 1978
2 - 1982
3 - 1983
4 - 1982
5 - 1983
6 - 1981 September 27 (live)
7 - 1981
8 - 1978
9 - 1981 September 27 (live)
10 - 1981
11 - 1981
12 - 1981
13 - 1981
14 - 1981
15 - 1978
Quintet - 1983 September 5-6 (live)
Two Pieces for Octet - 1964
1981 was definitely the best vintage for the Borodin. On the BMG 8/9/10, 8-1978 sounded allright (though the Virgin remake is virtually the same performance in somewhat better (though not perfect) sound), the studio 10-1981 had that vintage sound; the 'live' 9-1981 generally had fair sound- sometimes a cough- but I do miss the studio sound here. The 'live' 6th, however, has a warmth to the performance that makes the 'live' acoustics sound like 'A Christmas Carol'.
The Borodin did NOT have the most consistently engineered recordings. :(
Quote from: snyprrr on September 29, 2014, 07:44:27 AM
1981 was definitely the best vintage for the Borodin. On the BMG 8/9/10, 8-1978 sounded allright (though the Virgin remake is virtually the same performance in somewhat better (though not perfect) sound), the studio 10-1981 had that vintage sound; the 'live' 9-1981 generally had fair sound- sometimes a cough- but I do miss the studio sound here. The 'live' 6th, however, has a warmth to the performance that makes the 'live' acoustics sound like 'A Christmas Carol'.
The Borodin did NOT have the most consistently engineered recordings. :(
When the performance is good enough, I forget about the sound.
Beethoven Quartet
1) technically the worst sound of any Cycle. I think 1-5,7 are 'mono', but only 11-15 are 'ADD' (duuh- or is it 'AAD"?).
2) people seem totally uncritical of these performances, but- in the 6th for instance- there are many more preferred performances. 12 also has been singled out.
3) I don't know if any performance is a First Choice
AVAILABILITY:
1) Doremi Box
2) Consonance: 1,2,4 3,6 7,8,15 9,10,11 12,13,14
3) 'Russian DVD'-Melodiya: 14,15 11,12,13 3, 7,8,10,Quintet? 2 1,2,4
Borodin Quartet 1967,1968,1972
1) more consistent sound than the Beethoven
2) more 'Romantic' performances, rather than the Beethoven's 'Classical' performances
3) I don't know, comparatively, if any performance here is a First Choice? anyone?
AVAILABILITY:
1) Chandos Box
Taneyev Quartet 1968-1978
[/u]1) inconsistent sound. 9-13 are from the last year, 1978, and should probably sound the best
2) generally considered to be legendary performances. Many Top Choices here- 6, 9, 14... more...
3) availability has always been the major problem- 90% unavailable currently
AVAILABILITY:
1) OOP Box
2) OOP Melodiya: 1,4,5 6,7,8 3,9 2,10 11,12,13 14,15
3) Point: 1,3,4
4) Praga: 6,7,8 (with fake reverb?)
Borodin Quartet 1978-1983
1) inconsistent sound. 10-14 have the best sound. 6 and 9 are 'live'.
2) many say the earlier recs. are always better, but can this not be debated? The Borodin continue to be the most 'passionate' of the earlier Masters
3) classics include the disc with 2-3, 6, 10, 12-14
AVAILABILITY:
1) Melodiya "bovine" Box
2) BMG Box
3) EMI Box
4) BMG: 1,2,4 3, Quintet 5,6,7 8,9,10 11,12,13 14,15
5) EMI: 1,9,12 2-3 7,8,Quintet 4,6,11 10,13,14 5,15
Shostakovich Quartet 1979-1988
1) generally more consistent sound than all others here. Sounds a lot like the previous Borodin at their best sounding.
2) Direct Competition for Borodin1978-81
3) generally considered to take the Borodin's passionate approach to its logical conclusion.
4) no fair comparison has yet been made between the Borodin'80s and the Shostakovich. Many think the latter displace the former. Let's figure it out.
5) Top Choice: 12,.... maybe 6,.... maybe 10,11,13,14,15... Not my favourite 5.
6 Single Best Disc: 12,13,14,...... then 10,11,15,........ then 6,8,9
AVAILABILITY:
1) Olympia: 1,2,4? 3,5,7 6,8,9? 10,11,15 12,13,14
2) Alto: 1,2,3,4,5,7,(8?) (2CD) 6,11,12,13,14,15 (2CD) 12,13,14???
3) Alto Box
4) Regis Box
5) Regis: 1,2,3,4,5,7,(8?) (2CD) 6,8,9,10,11,15 (2CD) 12,13,14
Quote from: snyprrr on September 29, 2014, 08:23:41 AM
Beethoven Quartet
1) technically the worst sound of any Cycle. I think 1-5,7 are 'mono', but only 11-15 are 'ADD' (duuh- or is it 'AAD"?).
2) people seem totally uncritical of these performances, but- in the 6th for instance- there are many more preferred performances. 12 also has been singled out.
3) I don't know if any performance is a First Choice
AVAILABILITY:
1) Doremi Box
2) Consonance: 1,2,4 3,6 7,8,15 9,10,11 12,13,14
3) 'Russian DVD'-Melodiya: 14,15 11,12,13 3, 7,8,10,Quintet? 2 1,2,4
Borodin Quartet 1967,1968,1972
1) more consistent sound than the Beethoven
2) more 'Romantic' performances, rather than the Beethoven's 'Classical' performances
3) I don't know, comparatively, if any performance here is a First Choice? anyone?
AVAILABILITY:
1) Chandos Box
Taneyev Quartet 1968-1978
[/u]1) inconsistent sound. 9-13 are from the last year, 1978, and should probably sound the best
2) generally considered to be legendary performances. Many Top Choices here- 6, 9, 14... more...
3) availability has always been the major problem- 90% unavailable currently
AVAILABILITY:
1) OOP Box
2) OOP Melodiya: 1,4,5 6,7,8 3,9 2,10 11,12,13 14,15
3) Point: 1,3,4
4) Praga: 6,7,8 (with fake reverb?)
Borodin Quartet 1978-1983
1) inconsistent sound. 10-14 have the best sound. 6 and 9 are 'live'.
2) many say the earlier recs. are always better, but can this not be debated? The Borodin continue to be the most 'passionate' of the earlier Masters
3) classics include the disc with 2-3, 6, 10, 12-14
AVAILABILITY:
1) Melodiya "bovine" Box
2) BMG Box
3) EMI Box
4) BMG: 1,2,4 3, Quintet 5,6,7 8,9,10 11,12,13 14,15
5) EMI: 1,9,12 2-3 7,8,Quintet 4,6,11 10,13,14 5,15
Shostakovich Quartet 1979-1988
1) generally more consistent sound than all others here. Sounds a lot like the previous Borodin at their best sounding.
2) Direct Competition for Borodin1978-81
3) generally considered to take the Borodin's passionate approach to its logical conclusion.
4) no fair comparison has yet been made between the Borodin'80s and the Shostakovich. Many think the latter displace the former. Let's figure it out.
5) Top Choice: 12,.... maybe 6,.... maybe 10,11,13,14,15... Not my favourite 5.
6 Single Best Disc: 12,13,14,...... then 10,11,15,........ then 6,8,9
AVAILABILITY:
1) Olympia: 1,2,4? 3,5,7 6,8,9? 10,11,15 12,13,14
2) Alto: 1,2,3,4,5,7,(8?) (2CD) 6,11,12,13,14,15 (2CD) 12,13,14???
3) Alto Box
4) Regis Box
5) Regis: 1,2,3,4,5,7,(8?) (2CD) 6,8,9,10,11,15 (2CD) 12,13,14
Thanks for doing this.
Quote from: Mandryka on September 29, 2014, 12:06:58 PM
Thanks for doing this.
sooomebody had to!! valcommen
I'm getting a DSCH-over (hangover from too much of this) oy vey!! Is there no one Obsessed here anymore??? Can't someone BUY something NO ONE ELSE HAS and report??
I've got DSCH Post-Its all over the room. What's everyone else doing to get to the bottom of the rabbit hole?? aaaye...
sorry- i'm ranting :-[ ::)
WHO WILL REPORT ON THE THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE?? I'm hearing more and more actual xritixism (???) criticism- sometimes they just don't seem to "get" certain movements. I DID like their 5 as compared to the much noisier Borodin'67. (Borodin'83 better)
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2014, 09:15:01 AM
sooomebody had to!! valcommen
I'm getting a DSCH-over (hangover from too much of this) oy vey!! Is there no one Obsessed here anymore??? Can't someone BUY something NO ONE ELSE HAS and report??
I've got DSCH Post-Its all over the room. What's everyone else doing to get to the bottom of the rabbit hole?? aaaye...
sorry- i'm ranting :-[ ::)
WHO WILL REPORT ON THE THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE?? I'm hearing more and more actual xritixism (???) criticism- sometimes they just don't seem to "get" certain movements. I DID like their 5 as compared to the much noisier Borodin'67. (Borodin'83 better)
I've been listening to a lot of these quartets lately, and will be posting more impressions soon--some that I have been appreciating lately (outside of the Mandelring, which I mentioned before) include the Shostakovich Quartet (about which I agree with some of your observations, in that I find it generally more to my liking than the more acclaimed Borodin bovine cycle), the Danel Quartet, and the rarely discussed Rasumowsky Quartet. I actually did listen to some of the Beethoven Quartet cycle not long ago, but what I heard didn't really stand out to me interpretively enough to overcome the limitations of the historic sound, so I didn't explore further.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2014, 09:15:01 AM
sooomebody had to!! valcommen
I'm getting a DSCH-over (hangover from too much of this) oy vey!! Is there no one Obsessed here anymore??? Can't someone BUY something NO ONE ELSE HAS and report??
I've got DSCH Post-Its all over the room. What's everyone else doing to get to the bottom of the rabbit hole?? aaaye...
sorry- i'm ranting :-[ ::)
WHO WILL REPORT ON THE THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE?? I'm hearing more and more actual xritixism (???) criticism- sometimes they just don't seem to "get" certain movements. I DID like their 5 as compared to the much noisier Borodin'67. (Borodin'83 better)
What I particularly appreciated was your advocacy of the Taneyev Quartet. It prompted me to explore their recordings and, truth be told, I don't think I've ever enjoyed the Shostakovich quartets quite so much.
The Taneyev quartet set is available for members of symphonyshare.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2014, 09:15:01 AM
WHO WILL REPORT ON THE THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE??
Buy it for me and I will!
Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 30, 2014, 09:51:48 AM
I've been listening to a lot of these quartets lately, and will be posting more impressions soon--some that I have been appreciating lately (outside of the Mandelring, which I mentioned before) include the Shostakovich Quartet (about which I agree with some of your observations, in that I find it generally more to my liking than the more acclaimed Borodin bovine cycle), the Danel Quartet, and the rarely discussed Rasumowsky Quartet. I actually did listen to some of the Beethoven Quartet cycle not long ago, but what I heard didn't really stand out to me interpretively enough to overcome the limitations of the historic sound, so I didn't explore further.
See? I was waiting for someone to mention the Razumovsky. 'dmitri' at Amazon really liked it, but said it was quite slow- you can hear EVERY note? He also said they weren't 'high powered' or something...
GROUPS THAT ARE NOT "HIGH POWERED"
should perhaps not be playing DSCH? This is ALL I hear lately- "oh, they bring out the softer side of Shosty". Whaaat????
Fact is, only the St. Petersburg seem to offer that scratchy, nasally, wooden tone like what I want. Maybe just a tiny bit of the Emerson. (sorry off topic)
But yes, please report on everything. I know we were all lambasting the DANEL but the samples for 6, and, especially, 10 were quite gorgeous. Also, the hit the 14 minute opening of 15 like Borodin'95 do!! They certainly don't hit a lot of the heavy hits, but they do nicely on the SQs that don't call for them.
Wait- was it the MANDELRING that had the really good 10? please check
Quote from: Mandryka on September 30, 2014, 10:26:58 AM
What I particularly appreciated was your advocacy of the Taneyev Quartet. It prompted me to explore their recordings and, truth be told, I don't think I've ever enjoyed the Shostakovich quartets quite so much.
The Taneyev quartet set is available for members of symphonyshare.
Well I thank you! ;)
You really must reveal more- I thought the samples for 10 were verrry good. They don't do a very scratchy, ballsy tone, do they? They go more for the 'Classical Old Timey' corporate sound? Very much like the Beethoven I though- whereas the Borodin are like rock stars, no?
Yea, really wish even just a couple of those Taneyev were available for less than $60. :( (I remember having one in my hand when they came out)
Quote from: George on September 30, 2014, 12:07:21 PM
Buy it for me and I will!
I'm starting to think everyone here won't go near if because of the sound issues. Why would one, when every other set at least sounds better? And, a lot of their performances seem to fall to either Borodin (or Taneyev) anyway...
I don't even think Sarge has the Beeters.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2014, 05:36:20 PM
See? I was waiting for someone to mention the Razumovsky. 'dmitri' at Amazon really liked it, but said it was quite slow- you can hear EVERY note? He also said they weren't 'high powered' or something...
GROUPS THAT ARE NOT "HIGH POWERED"
should perhaps not be playing DSCH? This is ALL I hear lately- "oh, they bring out the softer side of Shosty". Whaaat????
Fact is, only the St. Petersburg seem to offer that scratchy, nasally, wooden tone like what I want. Maybe just a tiny bit of the Emerson. (sorry off topic)
But yes, please report on everything. I know we were all lambasting the DANEL but the samples for 6, and, especially, 10 were quite gorgeous. Also, the hit the 14 minute opening of 15 like Borodin'95 do!! They certainly don't hit a lot of the heavy hits, but they do nicely on the SQs that don't call for them.
Wait- was it the MANDELRING that had the really good 10? please check
I'll go into more detail once I've had a bit more time with each set. The works I listened to the other day were mainly 4, 11, and 12. I looked for that description of the Rasumowsky on Amazon, but there are currently no user reviews posted. In any event, the description you recall doesn't sound much at all like what I heard. In fact, they were rather energized, and just sounded very different in terms of their rhythmic approach than any other set I've heard--they had more of a spontaneous, dance-like quality. I found a review elsewhere on the internet that explained that this was the first set to use some sort of updated ("corrected") scores approved by Maxim S., and the reviewer seemed to find that the biggest changes were that some of the slower movements were noticeably sped up, which the reviewer did not especially like (and he also mentioned some occasional intonation issues). I hadn't noticed that, to be honest, but I may have been listening to the wrong works--perhaps the different scores have something to do with how different their rhythmic accenting seemed to be from others. In any event, I found them pretty wonderful in everything I heard.
I haven't spent much time with the 10th quartet in particular yet--when I do, I'll let you know my thoughts (in some ways, I am just becoming familiar with the quartets--I've listened to some more than others, and have sort of been saving a few of the later ones for last as I explore each quartet in more depth). By the way, I thought the Danel was especially effective with the 11th, providing a particularly chilling reading. Interesting that they strike me as having a very warm, "humane" overall sound in their Weinberg cycle, but a somewhat aristocratically reserved one in their Shostakovich.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2014, 05:36:20 PM
I'm starting to think everyone here won't go near if because of the sound issues. Why would one, when every other set at least sounds better? And, a lot of their performances seem to fall to either Borodin (or Taneyev) anyway...
I don't even think Sarge has the Beeters.
Upload a sample from the Doremi set, so I can see how bad it is?
Quote from: snyprrr on September 30, 2014, 05:36:20 PM
See? I was waiting for someone to mention the Razumovsky. 'dmitri' at Amazon really liked it, but said it was quite slow- you can hear EVERY note? He also said they weren't 'high powered' or something...
GROUPS THAT ARE NOT "HIGH POWERED"
should perhaps not be playing DSCH? This is ALL I hear lately- "oh, they bring out the softer side of Shosty". Whaaat????
Fact is, only the St. Petersburg seem to offer that scratchy, nasally, wooden tone like what I want. Maybe just a tiny bit of the Emerson. (sorry off topic)
But yes, please report on everything. I know we were all lambasting the DANEL but the samples for 6, and, especially, 10 were quite gorgeous. Also, the hit the 14 minute opening of 15 like Borodin'95 do!! They certainly don't hit a lot of the heavy hits, but they do nicely on the SQs that don't call for them.
Wait- was it the MANDELRING that had the really good 10? please check
Well I thank you! ;)
You really must reveal more- I thought the samples for 10 were verrry good. They don't do a very scratchy, ballsy tone, do they? They go more for the 'Classical Old Timey' corporate sound? Very much like the Beethoven I though- whereas the Borodin are like rock stars, no?
Yea, really wish even just a couple of those Taneyev were available for less than $60. :( (I remember having one in my hand when they came out)
I'm starting to think everyone here won't go near if because of the sound issues. Why would one, when every other set at least sounds better? And, a lot of their performances seem to fall to either Borodin (or Taneyev) anyway...
I don't even think Sarge has the Beeters.
So you haven't actually heard the Taneyev Quartet? Do you want me to upload it for you?
Quote from: George on September 30, 2014, 07:19:05 PM
Upload a sample from the Doremi set, so I can see how bad it is?
:P
Quote from: Mandryka on September 30, 2014, 09:29:01 PM
So you haven't actually heard the Taneyev Quartet? Do you want me to upload it for you?
suuure :-* I don't quite know what you mean, but I personally can't download anything where I'm at. All I can do is click on something here or where ever.
Still the Danel and Emerson for me. Juuuussss sayin'.....
Brodsky- Manhattan- Emerson
These are the three main Digital Cycles that introduced a fresh new look into these works which were generally the property of the Russians. All three also represent a completely different take from the previous Western Cycle by the Fitzwilliam.
Now, most of you have the
Emerson- and they kind of get the "Tom Cruise" Award for most High Profile and Biz World Choice- many would say they're the "best", and the Emerson's collective "virtuosity" is always mentioned. But many have also noticed "missing" elements, or missteps, and are able to offer Superior Substitutes for many of the works. And the sound has a touch of brightness that seems to highlight some of the steeliness of the performances- otherwise, it is from DG, and the required sound has been produced.
Much has been said about the Emerson's daringly fast performances, but both of the other groups go blow for blow with the Emerson, and they came first. I guess I feel I need to stand up for the Brodsky and Manhattan, because, even though at the time we might have thought a better Cycle might be coming in the future, from 1990-99 we did not have the Emerson.
I don't readily hear how the Emerson are so much more (well, I do) a streamlined unit than the other two. I count both (admittedly random) bands to offer up at least as much as the Emerson, and in many cases much more.
The Emerson do have a certain "edgy", steely quality, a hard tone when called for, making others sound "sweeter". But, the other two have tempos just as quick, so the maestrom is just as cogent in their way as are the Emerson.
Of the three, the Brodsky are the most distantly mic'd; but, considering how up close and personal the other two are, the Brodsky are just a smidge more naturally placed. And they have that clear Teldec sound. And, corporately and individually, they produced a "sheer and sheen" sound. I seem to think they and the Mandelring sound very similar. The grating violins match the Emerson here- the Brodsky's attack is one of the best out there, imo. Timings are generally quick, but they set some slow records as well (5)- you can always count on them to do something, only in 12 do I feel the totally fall flat (in the 'Allegretto'). I also think their 5 fails on many levels, not least of which was stretching the slow movement beyond its corners. But, when they hit hard, like in the "brutal" movements of 8-11, they really grind like no other.
The Manhattan have an extremely up close and personal recording that really gets into the music. You can hear absolutely everything with the Manhattan. Some may find them a bit too bold, but they are quite compelling. Their timings in 9-10 are some of the fleetest, and they burn down both scores. 4-5 has always been one of my favorite discs of all time. And their 6 is delicate, 7 mysterious, and 8 fresh. I do prefer them in 4-10, but, like with the other two groups here, I somewhat eschew them for the later works- only the Masters here, thank you!
If one were to take things movement-by-movement, I think one would be surprised to find the Brodsky and Manhattan taking things away from the Emerson- and I don't have an axe to grind with the Emerson, I simply hear others nailing things that they willfully state otherwise (finales of 6 and 14 are just too fast). Mind you, I wouldn't kick the Emerson out of bed, as a Cycle, but I really would only be going to them for 1,7,9,11,12, or 13. I think they miss 5,6,10,14... and I'm not all that about their 4 and 15.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on October 01, 2014, 09:06:31 PM
Still the Danel and Emerson for me. Juuuussss sayin'.....
I really like the Brodsky's approach, but they fall flat on 5 and 12, and their 13-15 are not the bestest of all. The Brodsky crack whips on 7-11, and may have my favorite digital 6th.
With the Manhattan, I really like 4-10, and leave it at that. 2-3 I give only to the Borodin. I really like 4-5,6, and 9-10.
I mean, we could sit down and go through it. I admit that the Emerson was the last DSCH I kept before I sold out, so, I did give them their props at the time. But I always needed a better performance on nearly everything. Their 9 is tops, though, excellent, and maybe 13. I have AGAIN bought the Brodsky and Manhattan, and did not misremember- they are as cracking as ever.
And, so, here is the point: we are reaching this glut of Cycles, with more surely coming, and I find that both of the very first Digital Era Cycles still hold up against the likes of the Sorrel, St. Petersburg, Pacifica, and Mandelring. So much of the sampling I've done has yielded "prima donna" performances that are simply absent in the Brodsky and Manhattan.
sorry, it's late, getting sleeepy...zzz..... ypu get the picture...
Brodsky = 6-11
Manhattan = 4-10
Emerson = 1,7-9,11-13
You have done a very good job here, event though I will live happily with my Melodyia/Borodin, Fitzwilliams and Pacifica cycles and don't look to extend my collection. Thanks!
Quote from: The new erato on October 02, 2014, 12:29:03 AM
You have done a very good job here, event though I will live happily with my Melodyia/Borodin, Fitzwilliams and Pacifica cycles and don't look to extend my collection. Thanks!
Hey, I'm cool with that...
I just can't seem to give anyone enough credit for hitting every SQ right on. Either they do better in the Late SQs (the 'Masters') or the Early SQs (the 'Moderns'). And sometimes it seems that eeeeveryone is playing (whatever) the same way.
I'm having to take this movement-by-movement, which really isn't any fun. So many times, someone gets 3/4s of the music right on and then does something willful (the Brodsky have a habit of reeeally short slow movements).
I'm starting to feel that anyone interested in DSCH SQs should be issued a "DSCH SQ Handbook" and a copy of the Beethoven or Borodin'67 as a starter kit. Then, it would be required to submit weekly reports, plus, a quota of recordings one needs to buy- not specific, you just need to keep buying so that you can report- you can always sell the Unwanteds later.
But we can't have any of this, "I'm satisfied with my Taneyev and Mandelring and that's that."
NO, THAT'S NOT THAT!!
You have a responsibility to the cause to seek out hidden gems, to buy stuff you don't want, to sacrifice your lunch money!!
CASE IN POINT: the Berlin Philharmonia Quartet's CD on Thorophon, 3/7/12, from the samples, has a 12 that sounds better than any I've heard,... but the price is just too much for me at the moment- but I'm just being a wussy- I should sacrifice a pair new pair of shoes and get the CD. It's just the way things SHOULD be, don't you agree?
If you can tell something sucks from the samples, fine. The process of elimination is a must. But, there are many recordings that aren't readily comparable - and if no one plays the martyr, how will any of us know if a hidden gem is lurking?
I got the St. Petersburg/SONY 1/3 Cycle only because it was pennies, but, it turns out this earlier set seems to blow away their later Hyperion Cycle. How would anyone know such a vital set was languishing in obscurity on Page 4 of the Amazon unless someone just said, "I NEED to hear their 7". I mean, I saw their 7th first movement was even quicker than the great Taneyev version, so I JUST KNEW I HAAAD to screen it. And now it's my favored 7th. None fleeter. Who would have known?
(sorry- it's early and I can't sustain my trolling- nortenough sleep- zzz..zzz)
Here's what my research shows:
No.9 Op.117Beethoven- sound issues, but the playing is like the Borodin'67
Borodin'67- this may be the wildest 9th ever!
Taneyev- this may be the best of all, reverberant hall/great playing
Borodin'81 'live'- very, very good, some coughing,- but I'd have to defer to Taneyev or Borodin'67
Emerson- this may be the single best work in the Cycle. Every note is somewhat perfect.
Brodsky +
Manhattan = both of these would be direct competition for the Emerson. Both have great qualities,... I'd love to hear the Brodsky/Manhattan/Emerson DeathMatch.
Jerusalem- out of all the other modern Cycles, this group's 9th stands out- different than the previous three, more folksy- but they hit all the marks
St. Petersburg- their odd, 3D Hyperion sound is spectacular. You won't hear a 9th as chilly as this. The performance isn't my absolute top pick, but, because of the presentation it becomes my 'Most Listenable'. The sound makes others sound dull. See?, this band knows how to make a niche for themselves (whether it works (9-10) or not (7, 12)), making them almost indispensable for study. You can get away with ONLY having this one,... but, you WILL want to get comparisons though.
NOTABLES:
Mandelring- the samples indicate that all the marks are hit (unlike the Pacifica in 9)
Eder- the samples indicate a cracking performance
Generally, this IS 'The List' as I see it. In a field as crowded as this one, we MUST make some discriminating choices.
No.10 Op.118Borodin'67 is greater than Taneyev (Beethoven had some issues here)
Borodin'81 is greater than Shostakovich/Eder (Shostakovich aren't so brutal in the 'furioso')
Fitzwilliam is greater than Weller
Brodsky leads the moderns, but, I found compelling samples from the
Danel,
Debussy,
Mandelring, and
Pacifica, with the Danel and Mandelring having particular good profiles.
Again, the
St.Petersburg have a very odd take, drenched in a wintry Hyperion mix. Their whole sound is so different from everyone else that they become a compelling force. It may not be my favored 10th, but one cannot help but listen.
Both the
Kopelman and
Sorrel take the first movement too slow, ruining the feel for me. scratch Also, there were issues with the
Aviv and the
Eder.
So, that's my take on 9-10. I certainly welcome any debate, but I tend to see this ranking as the outcome of any vigorous comparison. The reason I am so confident is because of the tendency to 'smooth out' Shosty lately, and these two Quartets need to be presented as rawly as possible- so, any deviation from "The Way" seems to yield a rejection. The quicker the movements, the generally better the performance.
Quote from: George on October 02, 2014, 06:48:04 AM
No, I was serious.
I don't have the Beethoven. :( waaaah :'( At this point, they're the last Cycle to get for me- but I'll see if there's anywhere we can check them out in full...
Quote from: snyprrr on October 02, 2014, 06:27:16 AM
But we can't have any of this, "I'm satisfied with my Taneyev and Mandelring and that's that."
NO, THAT'S NOT THAT!!
You have a responsibility to the cause to seek out hidden gems, to buy stuff you don't want, to sacrifice your lunch money!!
Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute, chum!
I sympathize with your quest to find DSCH quartet nirvana but I didn't come by my decisions by throwing a dart, y'know. ;) Plenty of man-hours went into digging and auditioning and if I've found my own nirvana then I've earned my respite.
BTW, don't overlook a few choice individual nuggets: Hagen, Yggdrasil, & Borodin III.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on October 02, 2014, 01:43:44 PM
BTW, don't overlook a few choice individual nuggets: Hagen, Yggdrasil, & Borodin III.
A rather ashy wooden and doom laden reading by that group, I suppose.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 02, 2014, 04:49:53 PM
A rather ashy wooden and doom laden reading by that group, I suppose.
I did just read an unfavorable review of that one.
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on October 02, 2014, 01:43:44 PM
Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute, chum!
I sympathize with your quest to find DSCH quartet nirvana but I didn't come by my decisions by throwing a dart, y'know. ;) Plenty of man-hours went into digging and auditioning and if I've found my own nirvana then I've earned my respite.
BTW, don't overlook a few choice individual nuggets: Hagen, Yggdrasil, & Borodin III.
yes yes, we're not... errr... "judging" anyone here......... yet!! ;)
What was your poison again?
Borodin'81 vs Shoatakovich: DIRECT COMPARISON 12-14
I played the Shostakovich on the box, and the Borodin'81 on the YT. Wouldn't ya know it- I could barely tell any difference as the two rolled together. The Borodin's acoustic is a little more orchestral (which suffered just slightly against the Shostakovich's more trimmed acoustic), and they have just a touch more high end, and the cellist is slightly more up front, but, otherwise, these two rolled as if they were one. The tone, and ardent character, was evident in both. Maybe the Shostakovich's first violin had a touch more sweetness, but the cellists sounded very similar (though, again, the Borodin's recording was a little more brightly lit down under, though the Shostakovich was, frankly, just as vivd, just a notch lower on the frequency spectrum).
So, THEY SOUND "EXACTLY" THE SAME!! ALL THREE- 12 13 14
really quite impressed
Whatever this experiment was, it waaas a total success!
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 02, 2014, 04:49:53 PM
A rather ashy wooden and doom laden reading by that group, I suppose.
Blessed be! I thought DD was engaging in a slight leg pull. But he is not.
Figures though that they have recorded Schubert: Tod und das Mädchen.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 02, 2014, 07:13:38 PM
Borodin'81 vs Shoatakovich: DIRECT COMPARISON 12-14
I played the Shostakovich on the box, and the Borodin'81 on the YT. Wouldn't ya know it- I could barely tell any difference as the two rolled together. The Borodin's acoustic is a little more orchestral (which suffered just slightly against the Shostakovich's more trimmed acoustic), and they have just a touch more high end, and the cellist is slightly more up front, but, otherwise, these two rolled as if they were one. The tone, and ardent character, was evident in both. Maybe the Shostakovich's first violin had a touch more sweetness, but the cellists sounded very similar (though, again, the Borodin's recording was a little more brightly lit down under, though the Shostakovich was, frankly, just as vivd, just a notch lower on the frequency spectrum).
So, THEY SOUND "EXACTLY" THE SAME!! ALL THREE- 12 13 14
really quite impressed
Whatever this experiment was, it waaas a total success!
Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying you actually listened to the two recordings
at the same time? ???
Quote from: NorthNYMark on October 02, 2014, 07:51:20 PM
Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying you actually listened to the two recordings at the same time? ???
can ya picture it? :P
I let one get two seconds ahead and then just twiddled the volumes,... surely comedy gold there!! :laugh:
But yea, I've never heard two performances so similar in every detail (sort of).
I was starting to get a Cagean moment where I wondered HOW MANY we could play at the same time and it still work. Hmmm...
Well, I'm feeling I've come somewhat to the end of the Great DSCH SQ Challenge for the time being- as DD said, we have a respite (until Sunday!!). I believe I've got a better handle on any and all DSCH SQ recordings (ask me question!!)- obviously probably not,- but- I think I have reached My Understanding.
So far, the biggest surprises have been the St. Petersburg/SONY (not Hyperion 1/3 Cycle, and the Borodin'95's catatonic 15th. I was also surprised I was by my disappointment of the Sorrel (who do play things a bit slow at times).
I've also developed an aversion to most all modern Cycles- I will not have any glib DSCH, thank you. No one's going to be mitigating against my depressed DSCH! Even so, I do have that Pacifica/Mandelring siren going off- we'll see about them later...
oops... gotta go...
No.14 Op.142
Beethoven 8:15 8:09 8:38- 1st is just too fast and glib
Glinka - the samples indicated good perf./sound-'live'
Borodin'81 8:51 10:10 9:18- sounds just like the Shostakovich
Taneyev'74? 8:23 9:20 8:40- much more 'Classical' than either of its neighbors
Shostakovich 8:44 9:39 8:22- sounds just like the Borodin'81; slightly "better" sound
Fitzwilliam 9:09 9:12 8:23- 1st just too slow
Kremer/ECM 8:24 11:23 10:05- got death? TheOne!
Emerson 8:13 8:52 8:05- 1st & 3rd just too fast, Emerson-style
Hagen 8:50 9:23 8:46
Manhattan 8:43 9:52 8:28
Brodsky 9:06 9:02 8:50- 1st too slow, all-around ok, but stiff comp.
St.Petersburg 9:09- 1st just too slow
Cavani 9:14- 1st just too slow
Quote from: snyprrr on October 03, 2014, 12:44:52 PM
No.14 Op.142
Beethoven 8:15 8:09 8:38- 1st is just too fast and glib
Glinka - the samples indicated good perf./sound-'live'
Borodin'81 8:51 10:10 9:18- sounds just like the Shostakovich
Taneyev'74? 8:23 9:20 8:40- much more 'Classical' than either of its neighbors
Shostakovich 8:44 9:39 8:22- sounds just like the Borodin'81; slightly "better" sound
Fitzwilliam 9:09 9:12 8:23- 1st just too slow
Kremer/ECM 8:24 11:23 10:05- got death? TheOne!
Emerson 8:13 8:52 8:05- 1st & 3rd just too fast, Emerson-style
Hagen 8:50 9:23 8:46
Manhattan 8:43 9:52 8:28
Brodsky 9:06 9:02 8:50- 1st too slow, all-around ok, but stiff comp.
St.Petersburg 9:09- 1st just too slow
Cavani 9:14- 1st just too slow
No.15 Op.144*Beethoven'75?'77?- I don't know if there are two separate performances, but the awesome one of the ChantduMonde disc sounds different than the one on Doremi. Can someone clarify. The one on ChantduMonde is frozen and moross- as we would like it!! Doremi just sounds different-
*Kogan Edition'81- there is a 15 minute opener here! Even more death drenched than the Borodin.
*Borodin'95- a 14 minutes opener! Drenched in death, this may be TheOne.
The
Danel and
Eder also have longer 1sts, but it is unclear whether they sustain the level of desolation that the above Masters do. Anything less no sounds "too alive and kickin'"- most play this music competently enough, but the atmosphere needs to be oppressive and claustrophobic, which I can't credit the moderns with.
Kremer-Ma-Kashkashian-Daniels/SONY doesn't make much of an overall impression, considering how impressive Kremer was in the 14th. Some have given the
St. Petersburg much credit in the 15th, though, others say they take the opener much too quickly, robbing it of its necessary death gas. The
Brodsky, too, failed to take me in after hearing the Borodin'95, though they are competent enough. I'll leave it to you to chime in on the
Pacifica & Mandelring. Other than the SONY, I can't think of any other one-offs of the 15th.
So, my picks here are limited and to the point. Only those players above who breathed the air with Shostakovich even dare to make an impression. Please prove me wrong,... but, the we know all the usual suspects,... I can't think of any that rise to the occasion.
I am basking in the glow of the greatness of Shostakovich's SQ Cycle!
There's a moment in the 'Adagio' of No.14 op142 that sounds like Part's 'Festina Lente',... and then it's gone... a moment into the slow movement of No.5, a melody so pure it makes one repeat and repeat,... and then it's gone,... the little Serial section of the opening 'Allegretto' of No.12 immediately preceding the first ostinato section. The opening of No.9.... No.4... No.5... so unique and gripping, all.
Bravo maestro! Braaavo!!
I would love to talk 'minor sixths' with him!
Quote from: snyprrr on October 02, 2014, 07:13:38 PM
I did just read an unfavorable review of that one [Yggdrasil Quartet].
Really? BBC Music Magazine gives it five stars. (http://www.classical-music.com/review/shostakovich-109)
From the Penguin Guide: *** (highest rating). "This [disc] is an auspicious start with a bold and searching account of the autobiographical eighth, and intelligent and satisfying readings of its companions".
From American Music Guide in their Shostakovich Overview, March/April 2006: "They contrast styles simultaneously, as the composer does. They seem so very right in the three [quartets] they have recorded".
Then there's this interesting nugget from a fan on ArkivMusic:
"5 stars. I like this one! December 4, 2013 By David Smith (Oak Ridge, TN)
Of my 4 cycles of the complete Shostakovich string quartets, I prefer these Yggdrasil guys to any of my others, which include the Emerson and the Fitzwilliam. The present performers are more dynamic and make it far easier for me to get inside the music than my other recordings. This CD claims it's Vol. 1 of a complete Shostakovich cycle, but I have yet to see Vol. 2".
And after a re-listen nothing's changed about the way I, myself, feel about the Yggdrasil. Only that I now lament that the planned full cycle never made it past a single disc. :(
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 02, 2014, 07:23:30 PM
Blessed be! I thought DD was engaging in a slight leg pull. But he is not.
Oh, no. It lives.
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_500/MI0001/026/MI0001026125.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
Quote from: snyprrr on October 05, 2014, 05:50:00 PM
I am basking in the glow of the greatness of Shostakovich's SQ Cycle!
There's a moment in the 'Adagio' of No.14 op142 that sounds like Part's 'Festina Lente',... and then it's gone... a moment into the slow movement of No.5, a melody so pure it makes one repeat and repeat,... and then it's gone,... the little Serial section of the opening 'Allegretto' of No.12 immediately preceding the first ostinato section. The opening of No.9.... No.4... No.5... so unique and gripping, all.
Bravo maestro! Braaavo!!
I would love to talk 'minor sixths' with him!
Have you seen this site?
www.quartets.de
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on October 05, 2014, 07:29:42 PM
Really? BBC Music Magazine gives it five stars. (http://www.classical-music.com/review/shostakovich-109)
From the Penguin Guide: *** (highest rating). "This [disc] is an auspicious start with a bold and searching account of the autobiographical eighth, and intelligent and satisfying readings of its companions".
From American Music Guide in their Shostakovich Overview, March/April 2006: "They contrast styles simultaneously, as the composer does. They seem so very right in the three [quartets] they have recorded".
Then there's this interesting nugget from a fan on ArkivMusic:
"5 stars. I like this one! December 4, 2013 By David Smith (Oak Ridge, TN)
Of my 4 cycles of the complete Shostakovich string quartets, I prefer these Yggdrasil guys to any of my others, which include the Emerson and the Fitzwilliam. The present performers are more dynamic and make it far easier for me to get inside the music than my other recordings. This CD claims it's Vol. 1 of a complete Shostakovich cycle, but I have yet to see Vol. 2".
And after a re-listen nothing's changed about the way I, myself, feel about the Yggdrasil. Only that I now lament that the planned full cycle never made it past a single disc. :(
well, ok then! I can't remember where the critical article was. I mean, I wooould have assumed that these guys would burn down the barn.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 05, 2014, 10:19:45 PM
Have you seen this site?
www.quartets.de
I didn't see any talk about the individual SQs, just the keys, and comparing to the Syms.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 06, 2014, 06:44:03 AM
well, ok then! I can't remember where the critical article was. I mean, I wooould have assumed that these guys would burn down the barn.
I didn't see any talk about the individual SQs, just the keys, and comparing to the Syms.
No, it's a very good site. When you click the link it'll come to a page with the title "Shostakovich: the string quartets" and below that you'll see a grey band which says " Shostakovich string quartet no. 123456789101112131415" each of those numbers is another link in disguise, so click on the one you'd like to read about. Here's part of the entry for 14, since you like it so much.
Quote. . .The second movement resembles a beautiful varnish covering a fathomless depth of anguish. It is a passacaglia in form though certainly an unconventional one with variations, fluctuations and embellishments. The movement commences with an unaccompanied theme on the first violin which is then joined by the cello. The cello begins by repeating the theme but then enters into a sparse, intense and lengthy dialogue with the violin. Finally the other instruments then join in with a viola pizzicato accompaniment, but the cello continues its lengthy song ending only when the second violin plays a series of As. Similarly the final section of the movement ends with a series of C sharps being played this time by the first violin. . .
. . . A vignette from a rehearsal is recalled by Fyodor Druzhinin3 :
When the rehearsal was over, Dmitri Dmitriyevich was visibly excited. He got up and addressed us with these words: 'My dear friends, this has been for me one of the happiest moments of my life: first of all, because I think the Quartet has turned out well, Sergei, and secondly I have had the good fortune to play in the Beethoven Quartet, even if I only played with one finger! And how did you like my Italian bit?' We immediately knew what he meant by this last remark, as in the second movement4 and in the Finale's coda, there is a short but wonderfully beautiful and sensual melody. It evokes a nagging but unquenchable ache of the heart, perhaps because this vocal phrase verges on banality. 5
Shostakovich referred to this melody, a duet with the cello playing above the first violin, as his 'Italian bit' because its style is reminiscent of the 'Angel's Serenade', Leggenda Valacca, by the Italian composer and cellist Gaetano Braga 6. Braga's serenade is mentioned near the beginning of Chekhov's short story 'The Black Monk' where the protagonist, Kovrin, hears it being played on the violin. The serenade, beautiful but death-ridden, is central to the story and reappears to herald Kovrin's death at its conclusion, just as the theme returns in the quartet's coda 7. At the time of writing the Fourteenth Quartet Shostakovich was adapting 'The Black Monk' for a one-act opera. This, his last opera project, would ultimately remain unfinished.
The Beethoven String Quartet had the honour of performing the première of the quartet three times. Once on October 30th, 1973 at the USSR Composers' Club in Moscow, then the public première in Leningrad on 12 November and finally the official Moscow première on 18 November 1973. The autograph score presented to Sergei Shirinsky on the 30th June 1973 is now kept by his family.
Shostakovich was awarded the Glinka Prize (the State Prize of the Russian Federation) for the Fourteenth String Quartet - and another composition, Loyalty opus 136, a work of eight ballads for male choir - in 1974. A transcription of the quartet for piano four hands exists written by Anatoli Dmitriev.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 06, 2014, 09:53:14 AM
No, it's a very good site. When you click the link it'll come to a page with the title "Shostakovich: the string quartets" and below that you'll see a grey band which says " Shostakovich string quartet no. 123456789101112131415" each of those numbers is another link in disguise, so click on the one you'd like to read about. Here's part of the entry for 14, since you like it so much.
i'll look again
struggling with the mailman today :(
OH-
SERIOUS QUESTION!!Is it the Chant du Monde CD (with the Glinka Quartet 14th) with the Beethoven 15 that sounds so death ridden, is that the exact same performance as on either their Doremi Box or the Consonance issues?
A Reviewer somewhere mentioned the Chant du Monde performance, and the samples did sound really 'dead', but the samples for the 15th on the Doremi Box sounded more 'alive'. HELP!! I really like what I heard from the C-d-M samples- I couldn't help but think they were another performance than on the Box,... anyone?
THE DIGITAL ERA
Brodsky (1989) SHOSTAKOVICH
Manhattan (1990) EDER
Borodin 3.0 (1,2,3,7,8,12,15) St. Petersburg/SONY (1,2,3,4,5,7)
Hagen (3,4,7,8,11,14)
Emerson (1994-96; released 1999) Rubio
Sorrel (1999-)
St. Petersburg/Hyperion (2000-)
Jerusalem (1,4,6,8,9,11)
Rubio
Alexander
Razumovsky
Danel Aviv (4,8,9,10,13...)
Debussy some group on EMI Japanese Import whose name starts with 'M'
PACIFICA
MANDELRING
1 - Borodin'95
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY
2 - Borodin'95
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY I still feel the need to get that old Borodin/EMI 2-3
Moyzes
3 - Borodin'95
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY
4 - Moyzes
Manhattan Moyzes is the most down to earth
Brodsky
St. Peterdburg/SONY
5 - Manhattan
Brodsky Still looking... I actually thought the Beethoven came the closest, and the sound could be worse?
Sorrel
St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'83 (en route)
6 - Manhattan
Brodsky Still looking (Jerusalem, Pacifica, Orlando...)
Sorrel
Borodin'81 'live' (en route)
7 - St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Manhattan
Brodsky Emerson are REALLY good here.
Borodin'83 (en route)
Borodin'95
Sorrel
8 - Sorrel
Borodin'78
Borodin'95
Manhattan
Brodsky
9 - Manhattan
Brodsky Still looking- Emerson are REALLY good here.
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'81 'live'
Sorrel
10 - Manhattan
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/Hyperion Still looking
Borodin'81
Sorrel
11 - Vogler (Emerson)
Brodsky
12 - Shostakovich
Borodin'95 Still looking- Emerson are REALLY good here.
Amati
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY
13 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
Sorrel
Shostakovich
Brodsky
14 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
Shostakovich Still looking
Brodsky
15 - Borodin'95
Sorrel Beethoven + Kagan Edition No.30
Brodsky
Kremer-Daniels-Kashkashian-Ma/SONY
Quote from: snyprrr on October 07, 2014, 08:46:16 AM
1 - Borodin'95
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY
2 - Borodin'95
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY I still feel the need to get that old Borodin/EMI 2-3
Moyzes
3 - Borodin'95
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY
4 - Moyzes
Manhattan Moyzes is the most down to earth
Brodsky
St. Peterdburg/SONY
5 - Manhattan
Brodsky Still looking... I actually thought the Beethoven came the closest, and the sound could be worse?
Sorrel
St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'83 (en route)
6 - Manhattan
Brodsky Still looking (Jerusalem, Pacifica, Orlando...)
Sorrel
Borodin'81 'live' (en route)
7 - St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Manhattan
Brodsky Emerson are REALLY good here.
Borodin'83 (en route)
Borodin'95
Sorrel
8 - Sorrel
Borodin'78
Borodin'95
Manhattan
Brodsky
9 - Manhattan
Brodsky Still looking- Emerson are REALLY good here.
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'81 'live'
Sorrel
10 - Manhattan
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/Hyperion Still looking
Borodin'81
Sorrel
11 - Vogler (Emerson)
Brodsky
12 - Shostakovich
Borodin'95 Still looking- Emerson are REALLY good here.
Amati
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY
13 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
Sorrel
Shostakovich
Brodsky
14 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
Shostakovich Still looking
Brodsky
15 - Borodin'95
Sorrel Beethoven + Kagan Edition No.30
Brodsky
Kremer-Daniels-Kashkashian-Ma/SONY
The lineup for 13 is made up of some outstanding musicians and it shows in the performance: Nobuko Imai, Gidon Kremer, Thomas Zehetmair, Boris Pergamentschikow. I much preferred it to the 14 and 15 with Kremer. I also, like you, enjoyed Sorrel in 13.
I've never enjoyed anything with Kashkashian. I've enjoyed pretty well everything I've heard with Nobuko Imai and Thomas Zehetmair.
Quote from: Mandryka on October 09, 2014, 01:36:05 PM
The lineup for 13 is made up of some outstanding musicians and it shows in the performance: Nobuko Imai, Gidon Kremer, Thomas Zehetmair, Boris Pergamentschikow. I much preferred it to the 14 and 15 with Kremer. I also, like you, enjoyed Sorrel in 13.
I've never enjoyed anything with Kashkashian. I've enjoyed pretty well everything I've heard with Nobuko Imai and Thomas Zehetmair.
a) your email got sent to my spam- but your link want DOA- thanks for trying!
b)
I just into a No.13 listening fest... next Post.
No.13 Op.138
This one can sound matter-of-fact if played with less than an Apocalyptic viewpoint. I was quite impressed with Kremer's 22:22 rendition on ECM (the longest on record), and the Sorrel delivered some vicious chord jabs, so I thought I'd give my least favoured Late SQ another shot. For this particular piece, I think timings can be useful. Here's a short breakdown:
QUICKEST SLOWEST
Taneyev 15:18 Kremer/ECM 22:22
Beethoeven 18:06 Danel 21:44
Shostakovich 18:06
Brodsky 20:54
Borodin'71 18:44 Rubio 20:44
Eder 20:38
@19mins. @20mins.
Emerson Borodin'81
Fitzwilliam Sorrel
St. Petersburg
Pacifica
Mandelring
I think the long view is the way to go. The Kremer sounds so deliciously "dead" that it makes one have to agree that this is the best way. Surprisingly, the Brodsky's 20:54 is played with a fair amount of 'non-vibrato' technique, and with the slower, dead tempo, their rendition shoots to a close 2nd to Kremer. The Danel sample also points up a "dead" performance style for the piece.
Obviously, the obverse must be just as tantalizing. The Taneyev- I MUST hear them here somehow!- really provoke with their 15min. take.
But here things get interesting. Basically, the remainder seem to fall into three camps: 18mins., 19mins., and 20mins. The Shostakovich, at 18:06, points up a very impassioned, Borodin-like performance that I think may be too full of life and tension and passion; however, the Beethoven seem a bit more restrained at the same tempo.
The Emerson, and many others, have chosen a fairly middle-of-the-road tempo at @19mins., which keeps things moving, but I think probably suits to point out the piece's more Modernistic qualities rather than the Existential ones? The Sorrel, at 20:06, seem to have just enough of the "frozen"/slow elements, with enough of the "swing"/jazzy elements to ganther a Best of Both Worlds approach award.
I surely not saying that timings tell all the story. The Emerson and the Brodsky, at 19 and almost 21 minutes, respectively, still have a very steely, Modernistic approach that highlights the Psychedelia of the music through its alien-like atmosphere. Particularly, the Brodsky utilize a bit of 'non-vibrato' to heighten the strangeness. (I think the St. Petersburg do too?)
Sound, I think, is extremely important here, too. Kremer's 'live' rendition has such a mausoleum like acoustic that it really almost becomes a player. The Manhattan, however, are as if in a coffin, and I don't think that serves the music too well (the Danel also seem to have a very drab acoustic). Again, the Brodsky has some of the best sound going- I was really surprised by their very deep understanding of the atmospheres invoked here. The St. Petersburg, also, again, have that bizzare 3-D Hyperion sound that makes listening here another experience altogether.
1) Taneyev (15:18) vs Kremer (22:22) for contrast of extremes
2) St. Petersburg for ice-box sound + non-vibrato
3) Brodsky for pulling off a particularly thought provoking, icy, non-vibrato-like performance in Perfect Sound
4) Emerson for Modernism
Though I can enjoy the Shostakovich and Borodin'81 performances, both at 20mins., their impassioned style seems to be at odds with the piece's intent. However, they do add "life" to the music, if that's what you want. The Sorrel's 20mins. are quite different.
The Pacifica and Mandelring both seem to be squarely in the middle of the pack, and I noticed nothing out of the ordinary from the samples, though, the Mandelring seemed to have a bit more tonal sophistication?
What am I missing here? Being as Op.138 is quite rare on record (no one-offs?), I think it's safe to say that this little Post should cover most of the worthy bases. My choices above represent the some of the extremes (including the extremely involving sound for the Hyperion), with the Emerson as the standard MOR choice in the middle.
What say you?
St Petersburg is the best
Kremer/Zehetmair/Imai/Pergamenschikow is the second best, probably
(really, why is this quartet not a full time thing, it would be like 200 times more awesome than the arcanto or chiaroscuro quartets)
Borodin (Kopelman) is the third best. Very 'human' though which is not ideal here.
Mandelring is like Borodin (Kopelman) but slightly more tragic and less weird
Taneyev is intense for sure, with lots of momentum, but I have yet to place it in the lineup properly. Also the final sfffz is wimpy.
the others are okay, I guess.
(my favourite Shostakovich quartet! which bumps it up to 3rd favourite Shostakovich work after the 14th Symphony and Jazz Suite No. 2. prior to hearing St Petersburg, it was significantly lower in my estimation)
Quote from: amw on October 09, 2014, 09:26:47 PM
St Petersburg is the best
Kremer/Zehetmair/Imai/Pergamenschikow is the second best, probably
(really, why is this quartet not a full time thing, it would be like 200 times more awesome than the arcanto or chiaroscuro quartets)
Borodin (Kopelman) is the third best. Very 'human' though which is not ideal here.
Mandelring is like Borodin (Kopelman) but slightly more tragic and less weird
Taneyev is intense for sure, with lots of momentum, but I have yet to place it in the lineup properly. Also the final sfffz is wimpy.
the others are okay, I guess.
(my favourite Shostakovich quartet! which bumps it up to 3rd favourite Shostakovich work after the 14th Symphony and Jazz Suite No. 2. prior to hearing St Petersburg, it was significantly lower in my estimation)
13th, right? So, you agree that what I heard on that St.P samples was something different, eh? Yea, I have 'problems' with the St.P/Hyperion Cycle, but the presentation is soooo compelling- the playing and the sound both work together to give you that IMAX Experience! Well, looks like I'll have to...
Have you heard the Sorrel in 13? Not as CinemaScope as the St.P, but they dig deep into the abyss here- which they don't always succeed in doing in other works.
And yes, one CAN be too 'human' in this piece- it needs to be totally abstract.
Yes, I think it's easy to lock down 13 to the major players- the ones we have been mentioning. You MUST have something a little extra special cool here if you want to stand out.
thanks for the input!!
Quote from: snyprrr on October 10, 2014, 08:08:20 AM
13th, right? So, you agree that what I heard on that St.P samples was something different, eh? Yea, I have 'problems' with the St.P/Hyperion Cycle, but the presentation is soooo compelling- the playing and the sound both work together to give you that IMAX Experience! Well, looks like I'll have to...
Have you heard the Sorrel in 13? Not as CinemaScope as the St.P, but they dig deep into the abyss here- which they don't always succeed in doing in other works.
And yes, one CAN be too 'human' in this piece- it needs to be totally abstract.
Yes, I think it's easy to lock down 13 to the major players- the ones we have been mentioning. You MUST have something a little extra special cool here if you want to stand out.
thanks for the input!!
Your posting about the 13th Quartet over the past few days prompted me to take a closer "look" at it--what an amazing work! I think it will end up with nos. 2 and 11 as particular favorites of mine (though I have been enjoying all of them over the past few months). I've listened to about five versions back-to-back, and will refrain from anything like ranking for now, because I was transfixed by each and every performance. I don't have access to the Brodsky or Manhattan Quartets that you mention frequently, and I have some Sorrel and St. Petersburg performances, but not of the 13th. Yesterday I listened to performances by the Shostakovich, Borodin II, Mandelring, Emerson, Danel, Razumovsky, and Aviv quartets, and may listen to the Fitzwilliams and the Pacificas tonight.
As I mentioned, I enjoyed each and every one I heard. The most memorably different from the others were the Mandelrings, Emersons, and Danels. The Mandelrings started off well, with their rich tones, but then I was surprised by how gentle and almost classical they were in the "stabbing" sections, and initially thought they might be too restrained for this work. However, when the inventive middle part comes in, they turned in a mesmerizing, almost dancing performance that took my breath away.
The Emersons really surprised me--I have noticed a pattern with some of their performances, where their faster movements fit well with the stereotypical complaints about them (i.e., too fast and with little expression), but their slower movements often have a very warm, haunting quality much like those of the Mandelrings. In this case, that mysterious warmth was there, but I never had the sense of rushing I've had in other performances by them. They did, however, bring out the work's spikiness more than any other group, with the aggressive "stabs" sounding particularly dissonant (but in a way that seemed intentional). The middle section did not "dance" like that of the Mandelrings, but instead seemed like a modernist concerto for percussion. If I had to pick a favorite performance among those I heard, this might just be it.
The Danels, on the other hand, had a very different read, emphasizing the funereal stillness that I think you were mentioning in your review, Snyprr. Slow, neither dancing nor particularly spiky, but emphasizing space. In general, I find the Danels to have an almost cruelly chilling approach that really works well in this quartet.
The performances by the Russian groups, along with the Razumovskys and the Aviv (the latter from which I hadn't sampled before), were all wonderful as well, perhaps falling somewhere in between the interpretive extremes I mentioned above. The Russians and Razumovskys probably had more of a folksy accent in their approach (though more subtle in this particular quartet than in some others), with the Avivs having some of that, but in a more classically restrained way, moving closer to the Mandelring end of the spectrum.
Anywy, I have fallen in love with this work!
Quote from: NorthNYMark on October 10, 2014, 11:40:33 AM
Your posting about the 13th Quartet over the past few days prompted me to take a closer "look" at it--what an amazing work! I think it will end up with nos. 2 and 11 as particular favorites of mine (though I have been enjoying all of them over the past few months). I've listened to about five versions back-to-back, and will refrain from anything like ranking for now, because I was transfixed by each and every performance. I don't have access to the Brodsky or Manhattan Quartets that you mention frequently, and I have some Sorrel and St. Petersburg performances, but not of the 13th. Yesterday I listened to performances by the Shostakovich, Borodin II, Mandelring, Emerson, Danel, Razumovsky, and Aviv quartets, and may listen to the Fitzwilliams and the Pacificas tonight.
As I mentioned, I enjoyed each and every one I heard. The most memorably different from the others were the Mandelrings, Emersons, and Danels. The Mandelrings started off well, with their rich tones, but then I was surprised by how gentle and almost classical they were in the "stabbing" sections, and initially thought they might be too restrained for this work. However, when the inventive middle part comes in, they turned in a mesmerizing, almost dancing performance that took my breath away.
The Emersons really surprised me--I have noticed a pattern with some of their performances, where their faster movements fit well with the stereotypical complaints about them (i.e., too fast and with little expression), but their slower movements often have a very warm, haunting quality much like those of the Mandelrings. In this case, that mysterious warmth was there, but I never had the sense of rushing I've had in other performances by them. They did, however, bring out the work's spikiness more than any other group, with the aggressive "stabs" sounding particularly dissonant (but in a way that seemed intentional). The middle section did not "dance" like that of the Mandelrings, but instead seemed like a modernist concerto for percussion. If I had to pick a favorite performance among those I heard, this might just be it.
The Danels, on the other hand, had a very different read, emphasizing the funereal stillness that I think you were mentioning in your review, Snyprr. Slow, neither dancing nor particularly spiky, but emphasizing space. In general, I find the Danels to have an almost cruelly chilling approach that really works well in this quartet.
The performances by the Russian groups, along with the Razumovskys and the Aviv (the latter from which I hadn't sampled before), were all wonderful as well, perhaps falling somewhere in between the interpretive extremes I mentioned above. The Russians and Razumovskys probably had more of a folksy accent in their approach (though more subtle in this particular quartet than in some others), with the Avivs having some of that, but in a more classically restrained way, moving closer to the Mandelring end of the spectrum.
Anywy, I have fallen in love with this work!
excellent work my good man!! yes- do report back with the stragglers!!
I think I'm noticing that many groups do 8 and 13 well because they are such "linear" works. There's no real counterpoint (DSCH's 'Schubert moments'?) of the kind encountered in many of their neighbours. Everything's going in one direction, and many Modern groups respond well to this.
Really, much of what changes is the actual venue used and the sound accompanying the music. Funny- the Kremer has a very open acoustic, which highlights the 'death', whereas the Danel have a very closed acoustic, which, also, whoopee!!, highlights the 'death' as well!
You should hear the Sorrel here. Their 'stabs' are the most vicious I've heard so far, and they have quite an interesting time with the jazzy bit.
yes, well... good!!
Yea, I wasn't to keen on 13 until this week!
btw- you checked the Shostakovich against the Borodin'81? Did you find those too "human"? 13 is where I find a lot of the 'Masters' lacking in understanding, perhaps? I think perhaps it does take one of these newer groups to see how it shouldn't be played 'Romantic', with lots of vibrato. Still, they render it well, but it ends up giving a different ending feel than, say, that icy St. Petersburg.
No.12 Op.133 (1968)
Taneyev- they play the 2nd mvmt. much faster than the rest, and I think it sounds correct (the St.P have the second quickest- it works!)
Borodin'81- I THINK THIS IS THE OVERALL BEST- great harmonics at the end of the 1st
Shostakovich- matches the Borodin'81- 2nd BEST- longest 1st mvmt. really lays on the glacial, spiritual ennui (in the good way!)
Emerson- all their weaknesses are strengths here. Still a bit steely, but they can't really be faulted here
Philharmonia (Thorophon)- I don't have this, but the samples indicated a verrry 'Classical' approach, and it really begs a listen
Borodin'95
St. Petersburg- the latter sounds like the perfection of the former; however, I'd consider both to be 'alternatives' and not the First Choice. The Borodin are very
'autumnal' sounding here, the St.Ps have their usual icy Hyperion way. Interesting, but by no means my favs (though the St.P have that very
fast 2nd I like)
Amati (Divox)- frankly, they have a pretty good 12th here. The recording isn't as fat as, say, the Shostakovich, but it is crystal clear and very well recorded indeed
and I would recommend this as a 3rd Choice, perhaps. It comes with a very very good Quintet.
GROUPS THAT TAKE THE 2ND MVMT. WAAAY TOO LONG?
Danel (22:02)- please, can someone confirm here? This seems a bit too loose and dragged out?
Sorrel (21:25)- the samples sounded ok, but I've been noticing the Sorrel taking certain movements a lot slower than I think is called for
Borodin'68 (21:**)- their 1981 recording is my FirstChoice- this one is almost universally discarded for the latter one. The 1981 takes 20:00 even, which is
about as slow as one might want to go
THE QUICKEST
Taneyev + St.P (18:26/18:24) - I think this is the way to go here. Why everyone else bloats it is beyond me.
I did not like the Brodsky here. Along with 5, probably their two missteps? (it's not awful, just no where near the others- and it IS a tight race!!)
HONOURABLE MENTION: Eder (still, overtaken by the great Shostakovich performance)
I'm not so sure about the Pacifica or Mandelring here, or others.... again, 12 is pretty rare on record and it should have been easy to find a winner:
WINNER!: Borodin'81 for Passion (Borodin'81 and Shostakovich are verrry close, but the Borodin are mui charming here)
2ND: Shostakovich for Otherworldliness
3RD: Emerson for Modernism, Perfect Execution
HALL OF FAME AWARD: Taneyev for Classical Quickness
Wow, this is one crazy & obsessive thread. Nonetheless it prompted me to spin nr. 13, the viola quartet.
Quote from: snyprrr on October 03, 2014, 01:09:39 PM
No.15 Op.144
*Kogan Edition'81- there is a 15 minute opener here! Even more death drenched than the Borodin.
What is this? Can you post a link to it?
Quote from: Mandryka on October 12, 2014, 11:07:27 AM
What is this? Can you post a link to it?
sorry, it's 'Kagan'
"Oleg Kagan 30" on Amazon- PT 1 + SQ 15- I think the year is a little later too- doncha love my attention to detail? :laugh:
BORODIN/Virgin 2-CD
2-3: are just better served in the '83-'84 recordings: the sound here is just not as Heroic; otherwise, how are the performances even different?
7-8: 7 is just a tad slower in the 'Allegro', otherwise I can't barely even tell the difference between either recording
12: it's ok, but the sound is bizarrely bass-light,- it almost has the "crystals" that the St.P/Hyperion recording do; either way, it just seems 'genial' to me here?
So, to those who have both, what do you think? I really liked this set at first, but I never seem to feel the need to pull it out, even for comparisons. All of a sudden it seems completely superfluous. Cutting this seems harsh to me, though,- it does somewhat fill a 'compare' niche. Anyhow, 2-3 MUST be had in the earlier incarnation,- 7-8 sound so much alike that either would really do (though the Virgin IS just slightly "mellower"- though not by much); and 12 is infinitely preferable in the '83 recording.
The Borodin's Erato recording of 1 and 15 is an altogether different kettle of fish. btw- the disc with 3/7/8 sounds much better than the one with 2/12- different venues.
Anyone?
Someone sent me a recording by the Borodins doing 13, from Lisbon in 2011. They take over 22 minutes. they hardly use any vibrato. it's very disturbing.
Serendipitously coinciding with my recent Shostakovich quartet listening, I've got tickets to this:
http://www.chambermusic.co.nz/whats-on/borodin-quartet-2014 (http://www.chambermusic.co.nz/whats-on/borodin-quartet-2014)
Quote from: Mandryka on October 14, 2014, 01:49:20 PM
Someone sent me a recording by the Borodins doing 13, from Lisbon in 2011. They take over 22 minutes. they hardly use any vibrato. it's very disturbing.
instant boner!!
Quote from: amw on October 09, 2014, 09:26:47 PM
St Petersburg is the best
I just got the 11/13/15. I'm saving 13 for the big storm tomorrow.
I really enjoyed their 11. Their trademark sound seemed to work well here, and, frankly, they managed a deathly pall no one else has attempted. I can see it making a good intro to 13. btw- the sound treally is impressive, so that even if you don't like their performance, you can't help but hear all the detail that comes out.
15, on the other hand, I felt had NOTHING to offer. I went straight to the 'Nocturne' and was promptly disappointed. Their usual X-Ray, 3D sound didn't illuminate anything here, and the crucial solo in the beginning is not brought out well. Also, the 2nd movement had absolutely no frayed nerves, or digging in, which I thought was surprising considering this cellist usually makes such a big sound. And, their 11 minute opener isn't going to convince anyone that this is DSCH's last SQ. Yea, even the Hyperion sound can't save this one for me.
So far, the St.Ps have really disappointed in 14 and 15, and 7 (in the Hyperion), and have really impressed in 9-11, and 13 (hopefully). I'll give it to them that they do their own thing no matter what, but their trademark sound doesn't seem to work all the time (or their choices are off sometimes).
Anyhow, still pretty impressed with their 11- will report on 13 tomorrow.
Quote from: amw on October 09, 2014, 09:26:47 PM
St Petersburg is the best
Well, yes, I was pretty impressed with their 13th. Its "quickness" (of course, it still sounds like an 'Adagio', but, all the contours I'm familiar with were tantalizingly compressed) was disconcerting at first, but the momentum just keeps it going. And that delicious Hyperion sound (sounding slightly different here? not as cavernous?) really exposes every line like never before. I certainly FELT like I heard things that I'd never payed attention to before, especially the second slow section, leading towards the end.
Wow!, yes, very impressed. I listened three times! It's certainly the most listen friendly 13th I've heard. And such a contrast to Kremer as to make them both indispensable.- yes, wow- still reeling from the performance- the trills like I'd never heard- the separation in the sound is quite impressive- aye- uncle uncle!!
No.5
Borodin'83
Brodsky
Manhattan
St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Sorrel
Atrium (en route)
This Absolute Masterpiece, most highly wrought iron foundry of a tribute to the developmental skills of, say, Taneyev, or Miaskovsky (though, the piece seems more highly wrought, like Taneyev), seems to be a tough nut for players to crack. Though I have always used the Manhattan as my benchmark, finding a replacement has been more than thoroughly challenging. Here is my breakdown:
Beethoven: out of all the Masters' recordings, this presumed Premiere's samples reveal a seemingly decent recording, and delicately vigorous playing.
Borodin'67: seems verrry noisy
Borodin'83:
[s]Taneyev[/s]: the Manhattan take the 1st at 12:00 and have momentum still; they Taneyev at 12:00 drag. :(
Fitzwilliam: they seem to have the most decent sounding 5th of the Original Masters; I don't know how they sound in the opening, though.
Shostakovich: from I can hear, they sound ok, but the presentation seems somewhat lackluster? Anyone?
Eder: the fastest by far! Essential for that, but I like my 5th a bit slower, thank you!
Brodsky: the sound is thin for this thick piece; the slow movement is dragged waaay out, losing tension; very good finale.
Manhattan: this one has just enough of all the right things, but certainly makes you want to go looking for something even Greater. My default.
Emerson: again, for me, they're just "too something" for me; is it the DG glare?; do they play with too much steel and not enough wood?- needs more wood.
Sorrel: Cinematic recording, good tempos, just the tiniest bit relaxed- very good, but I want moreMoreMORE!!!
St. Petersburg/SONY: ultra quick, like the Eder; excellent recording; I like my 5th a bit less frenetic, but, it's a compelling reading; great finale
St. Petersburg/Hyperion: bizarre 3D recording; extremely jaunty performance; disturbing, but compelling- almost have to give it First Choice by default, but there must be better for me- the recording is too good, drawing attention to itself- the playing is unique- not the perfect one for me, but both of the St.P's recordings are extremely compelling to me.
So, there's some pretty good, ok versions here, but I feel no one satisfyingly manages all the elements. The 1st MUST have a little space to breath (the Eder are just too quick at 10:00), but not slack (the Manhattan manage 12:00 very well, the Taneyev not so much). I find that 11:00 is the magic number here. The 2nd can be either quick (St.P's 8:00) or slow (Manhattan's 9:47), but the Brodsky drag at 10:47- oy.t And, I'm finding that the 3rd benefits from a quicker approach (10:00-10:30; St.P/SONY, Beethoven, Acies, Atrium) rather than the more relaxed approach (11:00; Borodin'83, Sorrel, St.P/Hyperion).
Here's the UltraModerns:
Pacifica: seems ok, sound seems a bit small
Mandelring: sounds small to me- I think I'd prefer the Pacifica head-to-head.
Acies: this one-off sounds better than the previous two combined- lots of wood
Atrium: this one-off sounds better than the previous THREE combined!! I haven't heard it yet, but, be prepared for gushing. This may be TheOne!
Danel: samples sound good- anyone?
Rasumowsky: samples didn't sound as good as the previous four.
Debussy: ???
Alexander: ???
See why I'm fluxed? It's hardly credible that we haven't had Perfection until such a late date, but, this SQs issues of BALANCE seem to be the most difficult aspect for players and recording engineers to get right. And, there are dynamic outbursts of complex intensity saddled with stretches of serene sublimity to make mic placement almost an actual player in the proceedings. And, the acoustic is very important here, too. In sum, this piece of music challenges the very core of any participants' mettle, and, I think most somewhat fail to achieve the MountainTop Experience that this music is capable of.
I think Op.92 is Beethovian in the extreme- a granitic, monumental "single movement" piece of 30 minutes' duration that challenges the status of any and all comers. The images evoked by this most Abstract of musics- only concerned with itself and its permutations- are of mountainsides, barbarian wars, underground caverns of wonders, a field after a late afternoon rain. hermetic and enigmatic,- it contai
No.14 Op.142 (1972/3)
In spite of Kashkashian ::),... Kremer's 14th really is the most extreme, and successful, and emotionally felt of just about any version I've either heard or sampled. In looking for an extreme in the other (faster) direction, I run into major problems. Below I have listed as many recordings, and their various problems. Please help me out here!
Beethoven- sorry, imo, they just don't have the measure of this piece.
Taneyev- samples indicate the Best Overall? nice, ambient acoustic, too-
Glinka- samples indicated a fairly well recorded 'live' performance of death, comparable to the Taneyev?
Fitwilliam- 1st is just too slow.
Borodin'83- Best of the Rest: too ardent and emotional for me, but a good contrast to Shostakovich's grimmer approach. Bigger acoustic-
Shostakovich- Best of the Rest: grim, powerful, yet restrained- too much passion for me, but undeniable nonetheless.
Eder- Best of the Rest: similar to the previous two; I really like this one, very suitable, not First Choice, but very very good.
Brodsky- nope
Manhattan-
Emerson- very, very good, BUUUT!, again, there's to much "steel" here, too ardent, too filled with life. Otherwise, it's technically right where it needs to be.
Julliard - eh... nice slow movement.
Sorrel- mmm...
St. Petersburg- just did NOT move me at all.
Cavani- 1st waaay too slow.
Hagen- I'm sorry, I am not responding to their recording of this particular piece. Yes, yes, it's very good,- same kinds of reservations as with the Emerson.
Danel- sounded ok
Pacifica- sounded pretty good
Mandelring- who was it who was gushing about this one? The samples indicate one of the very best performances, with excellent sound. Is this the Best Modern?
No.14 Op.142
1st 8:15- 9:15
2nd 8:09- 10:10- 11:32
3rd 7:54- 10:10
I need a quick (8:26) 1st (but not a blazing as Beethoven or Emerson), a quick 2nd (under 9 minutes), and preferably a quick 3rd (under 8, but not as rushed as the Emerson- mandelring seem to have it).
Quote from: amw on October 14, 2014, 02:50:42 PM
Serendipitously coinciding with my recent Shostakovich quartet listening, I've got tickets to this:
http://www.chambermusic.co.nz/whats-on/borodin-quartet-2014 (http://www.chambermusic.co.nz/whats-on/borodin-quartet-2014)
Based on this performance + the Erato 15th, I do believe that a new cycle from the Borodin Quartet would surpass almost all existing Shostakovich recordings (including those by former lineups of the Borodin Quartet). Their feel for the music is unmatched.
A recording of the Myaskovsky quartets from them would also be pretty good, equaling although less likely to surpass the Taneyevs (except in matters of sound quality and intonation).
Quote from: amw on October 24, 2014, 03:38:25 AM
Based on this performance + the Erato 15th, I do believe that a new cycle from the Borodin Quartet would surpass almost all existing Shostakovich recordings (including those by former lineups of the Borodin Quartet). Their feel for the music is unmatched.
A recording of the Myaskovsky quartets from them would also be pretty good, equaling although less likely to surpass the Taneyevs (except in matters of sound quality and intonation).
IF... AND... BUT...
If those three things are taken into account, then, yes, there is that POSSIBILITY. I would just hope that the engineering would deliver an audiophile recording- and that the Borodin, just maybe, take some chances and really dig in. Yes, all the pistons would have to fire for this to be the Ultimate Cycle.
I'm just really down on Cycles right now. If someone does 6 perfectly, they're gonna screw up 13. If they do 13 perfectly, they're gonna screw up 12, or 4, or 5. Some are saying that the Mandelring play differently for each work, but I don't know if I'm getting that from any samples- I will admit that I have heard them 'being different', say, between 10 and 14 (the disc I would most likely get first).
I need a group to SERIOUSLY play these pieces differently. The Emerson, pretty much, show us one flavour. The Danel- their engineering renders everything dry. The Manhattan have that up=close recording for every piece. YOU MUST HAVE DIFFERING VENUES for the different phases, styles.
FROM NOW ON, Shosty SQ Cycles are going to have to go above and beyond. I will not accept just another sweetly recorded, Modern-playing Cycle like the Danel/Pacifica/Mandelring/Rasumowsky... a glut I tell you, a glut. I need DANGER!! I need UNEARTHLY TECHNIQUE married to The Soul of the Oppressed.
In 11, I need something altogether different.
In 1, I need something altogether different.
In 5, I need something altogether different.
GET ON THE BALL, QUARTET PLAYERS AND YOUR HANDLERS!!! You've got a huge, huge mountain to climb.
The Kopelman, and the Berlinsky Quartets just didn't seem to be doing anything special here. The Old Guard IS GONE! HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY get that "feeling" back? The Gaza String Quartet? The Ebola String Quartet? WHO??? WHO??? WHO??? will do this Cycle justice?
Quote from: snyprrr on October 24, 2014, 08:44:39 AM
(btw, Karl, you seem bored?- wassup??)
Too busy to be bored, actually.
BTW, I've got the
Orlando Quartet disc in my cart at BRO . . . wonder if I'll nab it? . . .
But the Borodin Q now (I have not heard any of their recordings) has no common personnel with the one who did the late 70s/early 80s cycle. Is this not in fact a new ensemble (with a common history, sure)?
Quote from: Jo498 on October 24, 2014, 12:10:31 PM
But the Borodin Q now (I have not heard any of their recordings) has no common personnel with the one who did the late 70s/early 80s cycle. Is this not in fact a new ensemble (with a common history, sure)?
Working out the dates from the data given in the side column here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borodin_Quartet
Ruben Aharonian (1st Violin) and Igor Naiden (viola) became members in 1996, replacing Mikhail Kopelman (joined 1976) and Dmitri Shebalin (joined 1953), respectively. They are now the longest serving of the current Borodins.
Sergey Lomovsky (2nd Violin) joined in 2011, replacing Andrei Abramenkov (joined 1974).
Vladimir Balshin replaced Valentin Berlinsky at cello in 2007. Berlinsky joined in 1945, but technically he was not an original member of the ensemble then known as the Moscow Conservatoire Quartet. That honor actually goes to a guy named Mstislav Rostropovich, who stayed only for a few weeks before leaving the group. Don't know if you've ever heard of him. :P
It's rather like the old conundrum involving a ship or residence which was renovated one plank of wood at a time. The total entity remained in being throughout the process, but at the end nothing of the original remained in the new version. Is it therefore the same thing or a different entity?
Quote from: snyprrr on October 24, 2014, 08:42:39 AM
I'm just really down on Cycles right now. If someone does 6 perfectly, they're gonna screw up 13. If they do 13 perfectly, they're gonna screw up 12, or 4, or 5.
Cycles do seem to be a bit of a GMG thing. I can see why, but I don't agree with it.
Quote from: karlhenning on October 24, 2014, 08:50:47 AM
Too busy to be bored, actually.
He who is not busy being bored is busy dying...
Quote from: karlhenning on October 24, 2014, 08:50:47 AM
Too busy to be bored, actually.
BTW, I've got the Orlando Quartet disc in my cart at BRO . . . wonder if I'll nab it? . . .
I'm hoping mine shows up tomorrow. I haaad to pick up the Philharmonia's 3/7/12 (Thorofon) to make the order- their 12... let's just say the sample indicate that these are definitely First Chairs.
btw Karl, I am pretty shocked, but the Emerson appear to be the ONLY one who play the ending 'Moderato' of No.3 Op.73 CORRECTLY, imo, at 8 minutes. How no one else seems to do this is quite disappointing (I think the Beethoven do, but the Emerson just nail it). Yea, now I'm bummed because I can't find an alternative 3 with the quick ending.
I'm starting to 'discover' 3- seeing it's been one of my least favourite I've avoided it, but now I'm considering it The Proper String Quartet No.1 since it contains so much of what comes later (to me, No.1 is the gimme, and No.2 inhabits such an odd world from the whole rest of the Cycle).
\
And the Emerson are one of the few who get that 'Adagio' in 7 nice and quick (under 3 minutes), making that rocking figure really work, whereas others just let it lay there at, usually 3:50.
I do become annoyed sometimes that I can't what I want- either one of the movements is taken at a ridiculous tempo, or the sound is dank, or dry, or there's no 'It' there, or something,... why can't someone make a Cycle for the snob? I do feel that the St. Petersburg are the most astonishing modern presentation I've heard, (and the sound engineering has a lot to do with it), even though, I do feel they fail a high percentage of the time. I really like the Eder, but their Naxos sound is only good for the 'Dead Quartets'.
ok, it's late and I'm rambling (not drinking)-
I passed up some cheap Ebay Beethoven and Fitzwilliams Cycles last weekend- I don't just want to get get get "just because"- not that they're not on the radar- the time's not right. I am mostly happy with the way my current DSCHMania has developed- I'm just frustrated in those works that I can't seem to find the ruby slipper for (SQs 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14- not that I don't have some very good one- 5, particularly, is tough on players and engineers).
11 is a piece that most everyone does equally well: it's my new throw-away. I've onl (I was just gonna go on forever----goodnight zzZZzzz)
Quote from: George on October 24, 2014, 02:06:46 PM
He who is not busy being bored is busy dying...
Now, wait a minute, dear fellow! 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 25, 2014, 06:03:42 AM
Now, wait a minute, dear fellow! 8)
It was a silly spin on a somewhat obscure Dylan lyric that I thought you would know.
"He who is not busy being born is busy dying."
I missed that! What's the song?
Quote from: karlhenning on October 25, 2014, 06:20:38 AM
I missed that! What's the song?
Googled it for you. 8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Alright,_Ma_(I'm_Only_Bleeding)
Quote from: karlhenning on October 25, 2014, 06:20:38 AM
I missed that! What's the song?
Lyrics for It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)
(two opening verses)
Darkness at the break of noon
Shadows even the silver spoon
The handmade blade, the child's balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand you know too soon
There is no sense in trying
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool's gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying
Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/its-alright-ma-im-only-bleeding#ixzz3HAfFuRmr
I can't believe you defiled my Thread. :( :'(
Quote from: snyprrr on October 25, 2014, 07:41:37 AM
I can't believe you defiled my Thread. :( :'(
It's alright, snyprr, it's only Dylan
Quote from: snyprrr on October 24, 2014, 11:00:38 PM
[snip]
btw Karl, I am pretty shocked, but the Emerson appear to be the ONLY one who play the ending 'Moderato' of No.3 Op.73 CORRECTLY, imo, at 8 minutes. How no one else seems to do this is quite disappointing (I think the Beethoven do, but the Emerson just nail it). Yea, now I'm bummed because I can't find an alternative 3 with the quick ending.
[snip]
And the Emerson are one of the few who get that 'Adagio' in 7 nice and quick (under 3 minutes), making that rocking figure really work, whereas others just let it lay there at, usually 3:50.
[snip]
I
knew that love for the
Emersons would shine through!
Quote from: karlhenning on October 25, 2014, 07:44:11 AM
I knew that love for the Emersons would shine through!
Well, I got the Orlando 3/6 today. Hmmm,... i don't know how to critique it- it's quite 'Classical' as one would expect from the Orlando. The recording is very homey and highlights the rustic woodsy tones. There is an 'insistence' that I'm not quite sure about... mm... at first I wasn't going to recommend it, but I was being a bit reactionary. It's very good- perhaps it's just a slight balance issue in the recording, perhaps not. Maybe I'm just not used to my Shosty 6 the way they play it- some of the contours appear slightly differently in their tempos.
Right now, I'd put it at the top of the heap of the less 'crystal' recordings- Eder, Shostakovich... this may actually be competition for the Jerusalem. Anyhow, Karl, I may just being stupid, it may very well be better than simply VG.
The Philharmonia 3/7/12, frankly, went right into the Sell pile. Nothing special, nothing bad, just really right in the middle of the pack- the recording is nothing special, and does seem to swallow the attack a little. 12 was the draw- the Amati and Brodsky both were much more present, all the way around. wELL, THAT ABOUT DOES IT FOR 12- oops- no other 12s lurking out there. I stand by my earlier Post.
Now I just need THAT ONE 14th to act as a foil to Kremer.
Snyprrr, I think if you want to get the result you want, the most efficient procedure would be to assemble your own string quartet, have them practice together for a couple of years and then record the result.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 25, 2014, 06:01:18 PM
Snyprrr, I think if you want to get the result you want, the most efficient procedure would be to assemble your own string quartet, have them practice together for a couple of years and then record the result.
already been considered :laugh:
I'd just love to be in the room when some groups goes, "Hey kids, let's drag that 'Adagio' out, I'm mean really,... let's do it for Lenny!"
I finally found this Zig Zag Territories disc of Beethoven 'Harp' and Shosty Op.93.... I'd been having difficulty finding a Perfect Fifth- but- YES!!- this 'live' document is the Real Deal- a 12:00 1st that has momentum (some can drag there), and the rest follows suit. Let me be Emphatic!!- THIS IS THE OP.93 YOU MUST REALLY TRY- search Amazon under 'BORDEAUX QUARTET" - maybe add 'Atrium'- it's not listed under Shostakovich. Anyhow- the ensemble in this most sinewy piece is ABQ-like- I'd say it's the best overall 5th I've heard- much bigger sounding than the Pacifica and Mandelring samples. Yes, this is a Beethovinian performance.
The other disc, and maybe final installment of my current mania- is the Mandelring 10/12/14. One of you )Mandryka?) really liked their 14th, and I thought their samples yielded the best modern I'd heard. Could you verify with a long drawn out review? haha
So, no one else is DSCHing at the moment? (I really haaave overdone it a bit!!)
Quote from: snyprrr on November 05, 2014, 06:38:15 AM
I finally found this Zig Zag Territories disc of Beethoven 'Harp' and Shosty Op.93.... I'd been having difficulty finding a Perfect Fifth- but- YES!!- this 'live' document is the Real Deal- a 12:00 1st that has momentum (some can drag there), and the rest follows suit. Let me be Emphatic!!- THIS IS THE OP.93 YOU MUST REALLY TRY- search Amazon under 'BORDEAUX QUARTET" - maybe add 'Atrium'- it's not listed under Shostakovich. Anyhow- the ensemble in this most sinewy piece is ABQ-like- I'd say it's the best overall 5th I've heard- much bigger sounding than the Pacifica and Mandelring samples. Yes, this is a Beethovinian performance.
The other disc, and maybe final installment of my current mania- is the Mandelring 10/12/14. One of you )Mandryka?) really liked their 14th, and I thought their samples yielded the best modern I'd heard. Could you verify with a long drawn out review? haha
So, no one else is DSCHing at the moment? (I really haaave overdone it a bit!!)
I raved about about the Mandelring in #2, and generally enjoy their sound and approach. I would be happy to write up some longer impressions of their performances of 10/12/14, but it will likely have to wait until the week of Thanksgiving--much too busy until then.
I've been listening to the DSCH (and Weinberg) quartets quite a bit, but have been mixing them up with other things to avoid string quartet burnout
Quote from: NorthNYMark on November 05, 2014, 08:43:59 PM
I raved about about the Mandelring in #2, and generally enjoy their sound and approach. I would be happy to write up some longer impressions of their performances of 10/12/14, but it will likely have to wait until the week of Thanksgiving--much too busy until then.
I've been listening to the DSCH (and Weinberg) quartets quite a bit, but have been mixing them up with other things to avoid string quartet burnout
mm'kay
Yea, I'm trying to stave off burnout myself here...
Still, must hawk that Bordeaux SQ disc with Op.93, monumental...
No.2 Op.68 'War' Quartet No.1
Borodin'83
Borodin'90
Brodsky
Moyzes
St.Petersburg/SONY
I have problems here. First off, I got so used to the Borodin'83's nice, big, boomy acoustic, which so nicely fills in the space around the opening of the 'Overture', that drier acoustics tend to make this piece sound small to me. But, I got the Borodin, and, though I cut my teeth with their Op.68, I do now go searching for something... 'cleaner'. I mean, besides some technical issues, their '83 has a lot going for it, including wonderfully old fashioned playing styles. Their 'Recitative & Romance' is the longest on record at 12:48, but, this is a movement I am not confident to critique yet; however, many seem to fail the movement by playing it much too quickly (St.Petersburg?); the Sorrel have been commended here. The Borodin'90 have a much more constricted acoustic, and others also (Brodsky, Moyzes) do not duplicate the Borodin'83's 'Heroic' acoustic- this IS a Big, Heroic, Beethovinian SQ, right? In the grande manner?
I like everyone in the 'Waltz', but this is a very distinct movement in Shostakovich, and has eluded my attention until recently. I like the thick textures, and turgid writing; normally it would be a turn off, but here DSCH strikes gold!
The concluding 'Theme and Variations' is a classic, Russian melody. I'm still working on it. The Borodin'83 take the longer view at 11:24; the Brodsky cut a minute at 10:22.
Again, acoustic seems to me to be a big factor here. Shouldn't the big opening 'Overture' have a Symphonic sweep to it, complete with big acoustic (which I'm normally averse to, but here I like)? All others besides the Borodin'83 have a smallish acoustic that robs the music of Heroicism for me. I hear the newer St.Petersburg/Hyperion has a severely short slow movement, I've heard good things about the Sorrel, but I haven't heard much else. I can't imagine the early Masters to have very good recordings, regardless of performance; I'd like to hear the Fitzwilliam; I do distrust the Moderns here, don't know why- can't remember the Emerson,... anyone?
So, who's winning your heart in Op.68?
EDIT:
I just listened to samples from: (most all surprisingly excellent)
Beethoven- no like sound, others supercede
Borodin'67- wild, baby! decent sound
Fitzwilliam- vivd, sumptuous, fav sample
Shostakovich- eh, only one that really didn't impress
Eder- suprisingly perfectly excellent- sound fits great here
Manhattan- tight, nice
Emerson- really liked this one, very big- fav
St.Petersburg/Hyperion- great slow 'Overture'- big sound fav
Sorrel- great slow 'Overture; slowest Finale at 12:30!! big sound fav
Mandelring- things to say!! 'Waltz' breaks 4 minutes!
YEA!! I was surprised that most everyone really nails Op.68.- pretty much no matter what you do to it. Had the Sorrel used the looong slow movement, the SQ would run 29:40!! and Op.68 can actually handle it, either way- here's a chart:
I 7:55 - 8:22- 8:44 really not such a great variation overall
II 9:09- 10:00- 10:45- 11:35- 12:48 Borodin'83 go where no one else has ever gone; Beethoven muy fast
III 4:47- 5:45- 6:20 really not such a great variation overall
IV 9:59- 11:24 really not such a great variation overall
This is one of the more homoganus? DSCHSQs as you can see. arrfffQ!!
c'mon... someone ::)
You do, do you?
Quote from: karlhenning on November 12, 2014, 12:10:16 PM
You do, do you?
Oh dear lord, as my one-armed cousin Lefty used to say,
do not poke the bear.
Quote from: karlhenning on November 12, 2014, 12:10:16 PM
You do, do you?
When was the last time you Posted more than two words in retrograde?! >:D This is a CLASSICAL MUSIC FORUM, not a Smart Alek's Convention!!!
Quote from: Ken B on November 12, 2014, 04:23:26 PM
Oh dear lord, as my one-armed cousin Lefty used to say, do not poke the bear.
AND YOU!! >:D A thorn in my side from day one!! >:D
HERE!!
Let me finish both of your Posts for you:
karlhenning: "I like the Emerson, nyuhkk nyuhkk nyuhkk."
KenB: "Oh, Karl, you're so clever. tee hee"Ya want more? C'mon,... put up yer dukes... I'm ready to make a scrap heap outta this Thread!!
::)... but reeeally,...
I COMMAND YOU!!
Not to encourage more commanding, but without taking time for a new set of comparisons (which, due to time constraints, will have to wait until at least Thanksgiving week), I can share a few brief thoughts about particularly strong impressions related to the 2nd Quartet. This one is unusual, from my perspective, in that my reactions to different performances are a bit more polarized than with most Shostakovich quartets (where I tend to enjoy many different interpretive approaches). I am particularly sensitive to the second movement, which completely amazed me the first time I heard the Mandelring performance of it, but which can irritate me when performed by, say the '82 (bovine) Borodins.
What I find unpleasant about that latter performance is the oddly exaggerated vibrato the lead violinist uses during the recitative, which sounds to me like he is making a mockery of it. I imagine that for some listeners, this would be a mark of authentic emotion, but to me it comes across as bizarrely melodramatic. The Mandelrings, on the other hand, make me feel something real--there is a sense of loss I feel in the playing, as well as intimations of an almost half presence of what might have been lost. At times, the main "voice" seems to fade almost into silence, and the backing voices interact with a level of tense caution that helps to keep my attention riveted for the entirety of the performance.
No other performance I've heard has the same effect on me, but those that have come closest are by the Emersons and the Fitzwilliams. Of those two (to the extent that my memories can be trusted at this point), I felt that the Emersons achieved a touching mysteriousness in the recitative, but seemed to rush through the first movement at a pace that threatened to minimize its seriousness. The Fitzwilliams have a carefully balanced first movement--possibly even more to my taste than that of the Mandelrings--but their recitative, while fairly effective, lacks a certain haunted delicacy that I seek in that crucial movement. I don't remember too much about other performances of it--most have left me rather unmoved--except for that of the Moyzes Quartet, who seemed to have a soft, light, almost Haydnesque approach to it that I didn't care for at all, but which I imagine some listeners would appreciate. I think I also recall the first movement being particularly strong in the later, Virgin Borodin performance, but they still used too much wide vibrato in the recitative for my liking.
When done in the way that I prefer, this quartet moves me more than any other.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on November 13, 2014, 02:12:03 PM
Not to encourage more commanding, but without taking time for a new set of comparisons (which, due to time constraints, will have to wait until at least Thanksgiving week), I can share a few brief thoughts about particularly strong impressions related to the 2nd Quartet. This one is unusual, from my perspective, in that my reactions to different performances are a bit more polarized than with most Shostakovich quartets (where I tend to enjoy many different interpretive approaches). I am particularly sensitive to the second movement, which completely amazed me the first time I heard the Mandelring performance of it, but which can irritate me when performed by, say the '82 (bovine) Borodins.
What I find unpleasant about that latter performance is the oddly exaggerated vibrato the lead violinist uses during the recitative, which sounds to me like he is making a mockery of it. I imagine that for some listeners, this would be a mark of authentic emotion, but to me it comes across as bizarrely melodramatic. The Mandelrings, on the other hand, make me feel something real--there is a sense of loss I feel in the playing, as well as intimations of an almost half presence of what might have been lost. At times, the main "voice" seems to fade almost into silence, and the backing voices interact with a level of tense caution that helps to keep my attention riveted for the entirety of the performance.
No other performance I've heard has the same effect on me, but those that have come closest are by the Emersons and the Fitzwilliams. Of those two (to the extent that my memories can be trusted at this point), I felt that the Emersons achieved a touching mysteriousness in the recitative, but seemed to rush through the first movement at a pace that threatened to minimize its seriousness. The Fitzwilliams have a carefully balanced first movement--possibly even more to my taste than that of the Mandelrings--but their recitative, while fairly effective, lacks a certain haunted delicacy that I seek in that crucial movement. I don't remember too much about other performances of it--most have left me rather unmoved--except for that of the Moyzes Quartet, who seemed to have a soft, light, almost Haydnesque approach to it that I didn't care for at all, but which I imagine some listeners would appreciate. I think I also recall the first movement being particularly strong in the later, Virgin Borodin performance, but they still used too much wide vibrato in the recitative for my liking.
When done in the way that I prefer, this quartet moves me more than any other.
wonderful! thank you mark!!
1) The St.P/Hyperion, and the Sorrel, also take the 1st slower, giving added heft (most clock in @8:15, they clock in at 8:44)
2) The Sorrel have been noted to take the 2nd very freely, you might like this a lot.
3) The Sorrel take 12:24 in the 4th, whereas the Borodin'83, the second longest, take 11:24.
4) Only the Mandelring break the 5 minute barrier in the 3rd.
Yes, count me as one of those who likes the Borodin'83's endless 2nd (and yes, it's on the verge of being opiatic(?)), but I am also responding to others as well. Yes, they are pretty out there, surely they can't be absolute top choice, but they always play with that nostalgic sound- it might be a "mood" (as in, what I'm in the mood for).
Yes, the Fitzzies and the Emerson sound special here... hey, sure, any extra research into Op.68 would be appreciated, but I think we're starting to see the winners here. Fitzzies, Emerson, Sorrel, Mandelring, St.P/Hyperion, Eder... I'd love to hear some further analysis.
See, Karl, how hard was that?
Mark- how do you feel about Op.68 NEEDING a big acoustic to fill out this quite Symphonic music? The Borodin'83 used to be the only one, but now the St.P and Sorrel have some really deep sound in a modern guise.
Is there any particular work that The Shostakovich Quartet is the FirstChoice in, in your opinion? I think they generally excel in 6-15, with an emphasis on the latter works. Their No.12 has the longest 1st, a very studied and measured and toned focus that really takes you. The disc with 12-14 may be the best, and it appears under both Olympia and Regis banners. Also, the disc with 10/11/15 contains performances you may want to consider.
Of all the sampling I've done lately, the Shostakovich usually fail to make the Top3, but it is really no fault of theirs; however, they caaan be a touch "heavy" when, frankly, it might not be needed. Their grave and serious nature works great in the latter SQs, but, perhaps, they miss some nuance of other emotions. The least impressive so far was Op.68, which couldn't distinguish itself from a competitive field.
It seems I've always paired the Shostakovich and the Eder when comparing, and usually the Shostakovich pull away victorious based on their playing and the sound afforded them, which gets better in the Regis and Alto incarnations. However, the Eder do more with Op.68 than the Shostakovich, and, at times, the Eder exhibit a much more aggressive focus, i.e. No.5.
If I were to recommend the best overall package, it would be the Alto 2CD set of 6,11-15, which may contain all of their best performances.
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 09:12:37 PM
IMO the 'big' Shostakovich finales benefit from some time being taken. The Taneyevs take 5:25 up to the big slowdown, so there's about 2 min 20 of roughly Andante in the middle there. Don't know how others compare.
Timings! Though I think most of these are rather standard, compared to some of the tempi they adopt in 'standard rep'—the most obvious standouts being the first movement of No. 5, finale of No. 3, and all of No. 13.
1: 4:43 / 4:34 / 1:58 / 3:03
2: 8:15 / 10:39 / 6:21 / 10:54
3: 7:03 / 4:30 / 3:44 / 5:36 / 10:41
4: 3:26 / 6:41 / 4:03 / 8:19
5: 12:00 / 9:06 / 10:56
6: 7:00 / 5:00 / 4:53 / 8:29
7: 3:10 / 3:49 / 5:42
8: 4:30 / 2:45 / 4:32 / 4:43 / 3:13
9: 4:05 / 3:40 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18
10: 3:57 / 4:18 / 6:16 / 9:05
11: 1:55 / 2:33 / 1:32 / 1:21/ 0:59 / 4:38 / 3:16
12: 6:11 / 18:25
13: 15:22
14: 8:23 / 9:20 / 8:42
15: 11:35 / 6:21 / 2:00 / 4:34 / 5:01 / 6:28
18:28 is also the quickest No.12 'Allegretto'. The next quickest is the St.P at 18:48, and I like the way the opening trills cascade over each other, unlike the much longer versions which don't necessarily express the bouncy wackiness of it all. That Taneyev looks great... and it seems as though only these two go go the quicker-is-better option. I think the Danel top out at 22:00.
Currently, I'm dealing with:
Borodin81
Shostakovich... both of these are great, but rather serious and grim; both have longer 'Allegrettos'
Borodin91... no great impression
Brodsky... their 'Allegretto' is long, not permitting the bounce I seek
Amati... one of the most satisfying overall; 'Allegretto' = 19:16; the recording, also, is excellent; only criticism would be trifling
Philharmonia... high hopes here, buuut,... 'Allegretto' = 20:83: though there's nothing "wrong", this is one of the slower ones (Sorrel, Danel, Brodsky), and it
has nothing about it (in performance, or sonic presentation) that distinguishes it, against, say, the Amati (or most other serious contenders)
St.P... nice, quick 'Allegretto', though, perhaps, their trademark sound (I call it 'Gothic Extreme') sometimes doesn't "swing" so much... they're grim and
slicing, missing the quirky and bluff good humour
Emerson... right now it's between the Emerson and the Amati; the Emerson's DG sound is ubiquitous, as always,... though the Amati's technically have "better"
sound, the rough DG recording doesn't detract from this performance... still, I want moreMoreMORE!!
I'm thinking the Taneyev is the one I'm looking for. No other Modern Recording seems to have the small list of ingredients that I NEED for The Perfect Twelfth
No.2 Op.68
Zapolski Quartet
Here is a No.2 from 1995 that has an ALMOST 8 MINUTES 'Waltz'!! Can you believe it? I have it on order simply for the 'I gotta hear this' quotient. They also have the longest 'Overture' at over 9 minutes, which seems to add some nicely chugging heft.
If we made a "Longest Version Possible" it would look like this:
I. 9:04 (Zapolski)
II. 12:48 (Borodin'83)
III. 7:40 (Zapolski)
IV. 12:34 (Sorrel)
=
TT: 42:00!!.... WOW!!
Quote from: snyprrr on November 26, 2014, 07:53:20 AM
No.2 Op.68
Zapolski Quartet
Here is a No.2 from 1995 that has an ALMOST 8 MINUTES 'Waltz'!! Can you believe it? I have it on order simply for the 'I gotta hear this' quotient. They also have the longest 'Overture' at over 9 minutes, which seems to add some nicely chugging heft.
If we made a "Longest Version Possible" it would look like this:
I. 9:04 (Zapolski)
II. 12:48 (Borodin'83)
III. 7:40 (Zapolski)
IV. 12:34 (Sorrel)
=
TT: 42:00!!.... WOW!!
yOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK OUT THE zAPOLSKI ON oP.68...(sorry caps)... it really is a Beethovianian performance! The 'Overture', taken about a minute longer than most, has a heft missing from some of the quicker versions. And the 'Waltz', taking 2 minutes longer than all others, actually works wonderfully for me, and you won't hear it like this anywhere else.
The thing's only ONE PENNY on Amazon (coupled with the ubiquitous No.8 (I got a 4CD compilation that cuts the 8th- I wasn't interested anyway)).
Anyhow, why am I reminded of LvB's big Eb SQ here?
Is there ANY availability ... ANYWHERE... for the Taneyev Cycle, or the components thereof?
Melodiya: 1,4,5
6,7,8
2,10
3,9
11,12,13
14,15
Point: 1,2,4 ???? (this has the Beethoven too?)
Praga: 5,6,7 ???? (these have added reverb???)
Anyhow, I'm really only interested in the Bold ones,... especially 12 and 14... 9 and 10...
THERE ARE JUST M.I.A. ....
Quote from: snyprrr on December 10, 2014, 06:52:59 AM
Is there ANY availability ... ANYWHERE... for the Taneyev Cycle, or the components thereof?
14,15
[snypped]
THERE ARE JUST M.I.A. ....
I have the Taneyev 14/15 on LP. It's a real Cold War relic - a Melodiya issue licensed to CBS.
Supposedly, this cycle has been issued somewhere on CD, but I've never seen it.
Quote from: Velimir on December 10, 2014, 07:24:57 AM
I have the Taneyev 14/15 on LP. It's a real Cold War relic - a Melodiya issue licensed to CBS.
Supposedly, this cycle has been issued somewhere on CD, but I've never seen it.
The Box... Aulos Box?... is listed on Amazon, and elsewhere, but just completely SoldOut and OOP. There's one 3/9Melodiya for $70, and some 6/7/8s out there, but no 11/12/13 or 14/15 (there is an LP on sale for 14/15).
How do you like that 14?
Quote from: snyprrr on December 10, 2014, 08:07:11 AM
How do you like that 14?
I like both of them, but I'm more interested in the 15th, which is one of those stasis-achieving performances. Haven't listened in a long time though. I do think, if you can't find it, there are still plenty of good ones out there - you can still live a full life without hearing it.
Quote from: Velimir on December 10, 2014, 08:47:42 AM
[...] - you can still live a full life without hearing it.
Now, that's just crazee talk! 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 10, 2014, 10:57:52 AM
Now, that's just crazee talk! 8)
I'm
this close to getting the Emerson... I just wish they were under $20,... I know, I know,... maybe by the end of the day...
I'm really hitting a wall here- I've got quite a selection, but in the works that I'm not satisfied with my current performances, I'm having difficulty finding suitable consolations. I have to forget about the Taneyev for the time being. Beethoven, and others, are too expensive. Danel, Rasumowsky, Mandelring, Pacifica, Debussy, Rubio, Alexander--- sheeeee... there are just too many Cycles that only come in a Box, and I think most of these probably aren't as feral as the older Digital Cycles (Emerson, Brodsky, Manhattan).
And I've scoured the "one-offs", not too many of them left, though, I'm currently interested in that St.Lawrence 3/7/8 EMI, very brutal, great sound.
But I think I can smell an outrageous new Cycle forming- somewhere- with a group of obsessed players who will integrate all previous good habits with stunning sound. Or- a Cycle with each work played by a different band?????
Anyhow, I'd sure love to hear some more---- DSCH SQs are just something I like to hear as many different as possible---- though I wish there was a Towering Definitive FOR ME!!!
ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 10, 2014, 10:57:52 AM
Now, that's just crazee talk! 8)
Do you know the perceptible difference between the original 1999 Emerson Cycle, and the 2006 ReMaster? Anyone? This Cycle has a particular sonic profile, as we all well know, so, it IS important!! I don't hear much on the samples, but, who has both handy?
And, what are the dates, 2004-06?
Quote from: snyprrr on December 11, 2014, 10:48:11 AM
Do you know the perceptible difference between the original 1999 Emerson Cycle, and the 2006 ReMaster?
No 8)
Quote from: snyprrr on December 12, 2014, 06:55:00 AM
Your wife must love your gregariousness. ::)
This is a Shostakovich thread. Were you expecting warmth? :P
Nicely played,
George! 8)
Quote from: snyprrr on December 12, 2014, 06:55:00 AM
Your wife must love your gregariousness. ::)
I'll thank you, sir, to refrain from personal remark :)
To clarify, I cannot perceive a difference between two things, when I have heard only one of the twain.
So, my wife loves my loyalty 8)
Yes, and, and thank you kind sir for the full sentence!
yOU KNOW, kARL,- whoops- I'm getting to the end of all this DSCH SQ business. I've decided to take a small loan out to finish- head off at the pass- the last bit here: Emerson, Borodin/Chandos, some one-offs,...
SO!
What does anyone think of the St.Lawrence? The samples tell of a quite feral group in Hyperion-styled Skywalker Sound for EMI. The Op.110 'Allegro molto' sounds to be the absolutely wildest ever, check it out! They don't seem to do the timings the way I would have preferred (uniformly quicker), but, the seem to have a much more physical experience than the detached Hagen. Can anyone rank the following 3/7/8s?
ST.LAWRENCE (EMI)
HAGEN (DG)
YYGDRASIL (BIS)
KREUTZER (Carlton Classics)
Also, WHAT OF OP.110? Sooooo many just don't seem to move me at all here. It seems to be the weak link in many Cycles. It surprises me that I've bonded with the Sorrel here and sorely can't find a secondary (here, from the Emerson on down, I find most all wanting- Beethoven 'live' on YT is almost best (Borodin 'live' '62 not so much)- I also liked Borodin'78, but that is no ways definitive- the Sorrel just seem to get the CinemaScope story telling just right- a 'dark comic'.
I forget the Kronos. Anyone? I'm sure the recording is synthetic.----
Is there no one on here who will just throw me a flippin bone here?? Has anyone even listen to these SQs lately---???---wtf, am I on a desert island here??? Alexander, Rubio, Debussy, Danel, Rasowsky, Pacifica, mandelring--- come on people, there's work to do!!!!!! Are all these late rones ntoo 'soft'??
Karl, this is what I have to put up with here, day after day after night after night. Silence. more silence.
btw- Zapolski Op.68, at one penny, is a Must Have! one of the top imo
Disappointed in the Amati 3/7 on Jecklin. Nice, woody tone, though.
Sorrel put out a very very verrry good No.14. Best sound, for sure (beating Hyperion). They do everything pretty much just so here, i can't find any fault (I'd have liked the 'Adagio' a little quicker, but here it is perfectly judged according to the rest of their performance). Their Op.68, on the same CD, is almost as good as the Zapolski, sounds just a touch more lush due to Chandos, and has a ravishing slow movement.
(and I expect Replies?) hahaha ::)drrrrrr
Quote from: snyprrr on December 14, 2014, 05:42:43 PM... whoops- I'm getting to the end of all this DSCH SQ business.
No: you are nearly arrived at the beginning, grasshopper.
Quote from: snyprrr on December 14, 2014, 05:42:43 PM
btw- Zapolski Op.68, at one penny, is a Must Have! one of the top imo
It's available on two labels: Classico and Documents/Membran. Which should I buy?
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 15, 2014, 12:57:32 PM
It's available on two labels: Classico and Documents/Membran. Which should I buy?
Sarge
I got it at BRO as part of a 4CD DSCH package which also includes Mackerras's 5th and Shipley's 10th. That set eliminates the Zapolski's 8th (which ... eh...) and replaces it with Cailin's 3rd (also... eh...). Maybe that IS the latter you mention... either, depending on disc-mate desires?
I was just praying you'd come and give me just even a tiny little Pacifica vs Mandelring report... maybe on the 14th? ... or...
Quote from: karlhenning on December 15, 2014, 12:36:36 PM
No: you are nearly arrived at the beginning, grasshopper.
No... I'm in negotiations right now with vendors... I simply must have that old DG outer sleeve, and, apparently not everyone is offering...
Today I threw money at Shostakovich String Quartets in anticipation of the looming Economic Collapse. I'm pretty sure (bookmark) that I'll be satisfied, Karl, when the bounty arrives. Unless you can direct me to some clandestine Taneyev, or can devine when the next Borodin Cycle arrives, I simply can't see what I'm missing. I have simply PASSED UP on the Fitzwilliam,... and the Beethoven are priced way too high,... Borodin/Chandos, maybe, but, I'm just not frothing for it,... I DID MAKE A FINANCIAL QUERY INTO THE MANDELRING as perhaps a final (for the time) word, to compare with the Emerson and Brodsky and Manhattan.
But, I've done checked into every conceivable option in the DSCH SQ Stakes, and, I'm not quite convinced the Definitive Cycle has been recorded. I daaare you try and stump me with a recording I haven't crotchsniffed!!!
CASE IN POINT!!
Op.73I am not finding many suitable performances here, especially in light of the singularity of the Emerson performance. No one even bothers going where they went, except maybe the Beethoven, but the Emerson are obviously more conducive towards listening here. But, I went through a bunch of Op.73 samples last night, and here, check out these interesting results:
Allegri (w/ Haydn & Schumann)- tight acoustic belies a supremely powerful performance; ravaging fast mvmt. 'Classical', sturdy, powerful, noble
Mandelring & Pacifica- Mandies take the 2nd, Pacifica take the 3rd, Mandies overall very impressive- more musical Emerson?
Gewandhaus (w/ Stravinsky & Prokofiev)- the LvB players play this music with as much "old time" style as it will ever get. You won't get rabies here, but, if you want to here the "history",
you might be interested in this one penny CD.
Yggdrasil- I forgot who was raving about this, but, other than a supremely firm and cool demeanour, I found nothing out of the ordinary.
Cailin (w/Beethoven)- nothing to distinguish it
Anton (w/Bartok)-
St. Lawrence- maybe the most frenetic- great sound- much to recommend...
Sorrel- ruined by bad tempi (too slow)
Manhattan- I was really surprised- I might have to pick this up- this was by far the "jolliest" - most affecting- by far
Emerson- in a class by itself; fastest in all movements- only one of two or three that take the 'Adagio' at @ 4:30 (instead of the normal 5:30-6:30)
Hagen- just not competing, imo, with Emerson + Mandelring + Borodin + Taneyev?
Lafeyette- the worst I heard
Fitzwilliam- not as good as the best
Beethoven- sorry, just too old... well, I just don't see why they just can't be out-done... eh? Too many other, daring accounts- though, it's Top7, for sure.
Borodin'67- raw
Borodin'83- 'Most Romantic'- actually 'Nostalgic Choice'- shows their general approach is always the same- 5th mvmt. becomes 'cellist's dream'...
Borodin'90- a step back from '83... kind of long in the tooth if you ask me, others seem to swear by it??
Kopelman & Berlinsky- I don't know what the point here is... the Berlinsky use the super-long 5th mvmt., otherwise, both are fairly low-wattage.
Danel- for me, marred by the 2nd mvmt.,... listen to sample, too slow???
Amati- crowded field- mm...... nice, woodsky tones, very folksy,- not essential
Orlando- mmmm........ pretty good, 'Classical' poise,... gets things right... contender for Top5-7... 10...
Brodsky- generally all around right smack dab square straight up in the middle- very very good
Fine Arts'79-
Fine Arts'86-
Eder- one of the very best, imo- just wish the sound were transparent- but, it certainly works great as it is
Shostakovich- I thought they were their usual, serious selves here,... maybe a bit turgid?... not in my Top10.
St.Petersburg/SONY- great, close sound,... raw,... lots of good things here.
St.Petersburg/Hyperion- apparently, this was recorded right after the SONY- the acoustic is larger,.. I'm intrigued, but I don't know by how much. mmmm.....
Moyzes- not as essential as their No.4.
Eleonora- crowded field- doesn't have what the best do
Penderecki- samples yield impressive results, one to think about
Bingham
Jupiter
Ludwig
Debussy
Rasumowsky
Alexander
Jerusalem
Atrium
Sibelius Academy
Philharmonia (Berlin)
THERE YOU HAVE IT!!!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on December 15, 2014, 07:19:53 PM
I got it at BRO as part of a 4CD DSCH package which also includes Mackerras's 5th and Shipley's 10th. That set eliminates the Zapolski's 8th (which ... eh...) and replaces it with Cailin's 3rd (also... eh...). Maybe that IS the latter you mention... either, depending on disc-mate desires?
Both versions available from Amazon DE couple 2 with 8. I ordered a used ("like new") copy of the Documents:
http://www.amazon.de/Shostakovich-String-Quartets-No-2-No-8/dp/B000092R36/ref=sr_1_2?s=music-classical&ie=UTF8&qid=1418732692&sr=1-2&keywords=Zapolski[/quote]
Sarge
Quote from: snyprrr on December 15, 2014, 07:19:53 PMToday I threw money at Shostakovich String Quartets in anticipation of the looming Economic Collapse.
"Buy DSCH SQ recordings When There's Blood In The Streets" -
Baron Rotschild
Quote from: North Star on December 16, 2014, 04:26:02 AM
"Buy DSCH SQ recordings When There's Blood In The Streets" - Baron Rotschild
I'm waiting to hear from my carrier pigeon if Napoleon has fallen!!
buyBuyBUY!!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 16, 2014, 03:32:59 AM
Both versions available from Amazon DE couple 2 with 8. I ordered a used ("like new") copy of the Documents:
http://www.amazon.de/Shostakovich-String-Quartets-No-2-No-8/dp/B000092R36/ref=sr_1_2?s=music-classical&ie=UTF8&qid=1418732692&sr=1-2&keywords=Zapolski
Sarge
That's it!- I start wondering if i shouldn't gone for that 2/8- let me know what you think of the 8- timings look slow, though...
any thoughts on my Op.73 critique?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 15, 2014, 12:36:36 PM
No: you are nearly arrived at the beginning, grasshopper.
Karl, you knooow how I need your approval. What do you think of that critique?
I just popped the
Emerson's cherry... again!! ??? (it grows back... errrrrr)
WHO HERE ACTUALLY HAS THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE??AND i'M DESPERATELY LOOKING FOR A
MANDELRING vs PACIFICA report
IN YOUR OPINION- WHAT ARE THE
FITZWILLIAM'S FINEST/WORST MOMENTS???
ok, time to clear the mind....
(five minutes later)
ookaaay!! ;) let's get down to business...
Quote from: snyprrr on December 16, 2014, 07:09:59 AM
any thoughts on my Op.73 critique?
None yet. I'm still working on op.142. Listened to Mandelring vs Pacifica this afternoon. The thing that struck me the most was how emotionally ambiguous the opening was in the Mandelring. The Pacifica was just kind of...jolly. The Pacifica's recording was bright and stabbing; the Mandelring rather lush and plush in comparison.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 16, 2014, 07:30:11 AM
None yet. I'm still working on op.142. Listened to Mandelring vs Pacifica this afternoon. The thing that struck me the most was how emotionally ambiguous the opening was in the Mandelring. The Pacifica was just kind of...jolly. The Pacifica's recording was bright and stabbing; the Mandelring rather lush and plush in comparison.
Sarge
You have my undivided attention!
I have noticed that the Pacifica's sound is rather bright and tight, with a little more of the aggression coming out- though, there seems to be a certain distance from the mic which renders the complete image a touch smaller than the Mandelring?
The Mandelring, on the other hand, seem to have the overall best recording of all, bar none? "lush and plush" as you say... the Sorrel and the St.Petersburg/Hyperion have the most dramatically recorded sound-worlds that I've heard- the Pacifica and Mandelring both have much tighter acoustics, no?
Op.142SARGE- particularly in the 'Adagio' of Op.142, the Pacifica are slightly quicker in the samples, yielding just a touch more of tragic pathos... do you hear that, or do both have that "tugging" effect that i miss in so many versions? I most certainly have been hearing that this mvmt. works best at @8:40 (Emerson, Pacifica,... Beethoven (too quick)... Rasumowsky... Eder), so that the notes "tug" at each other, as if a mother is pleading/lamenting. I don't remember who it was, but one group, playing this at @10:00+ (not Kremer) just lost the 'breathless urgency' of the opening pleas (Kremer, at 11:30, takes the gambit all the way to the other extreme, transforming this mvmt. into something in a class by itself).
So, the Mandelring, at @9:34, seem to be getting away from the "tug",... or are they?
Also, the Mandelring take the finale at UNDER 8:00!!, like the Emerson before them, which seems to work great, no?... and compared to the Pacifica? Here, in this mvmt. we see the complete arc of tempi available, from the ultra-quick Mandelring (7:48) to the ultra-slow Kremer group (10:05)... both ways seem to work fine- this is one of those mvmts. that EVERYONE seems to work well with, haven't heard anyone guff it up yet.
ONE THING I SEEK IN OP.142 is a lack of the Shostakovian 'brutality'- it seems to want to be played 'straight', like a 'Classical' SQ, but, with all the Dorian Gray showing, as if LvB were still writing spectrally. I don't yet know how aggressive the Emerson are here- the Sorrel and Brodsky both deliver quite exquisite performances, tantalizingly close to my perfect ideal- the Shostakovich may be a bit too grim, the Borodins heart-on-their-sleeve as usual,... the Eder are very very good-a contender (nice, dead Naxos sound works great in 142)...
END TRANSMISSION
REPLY
Op.142
This has been one of the most difficult to find the most satisfactory performance/recording.
Let me describe to you how I hear the piece:
I.'Allegretto'
quickest: Emerson (8:05)
slowest: Cavani (9:14)
I find the Emerson just a bit frantic, and the Cavani bloated and sluggish. Kremer, at 8:26, has just enough 'Classical' bounce, with just enough air around the individual notes. MOST clock in at @8:40 (Mandelring, Borodin, Shostakovich). Some can start to sound sluggish at 8:50.
II.'Adagio'
quickest: Beethoven (8:05)
slowest: Kremer (11:30)
Beethoven may be too quick, but, from 8:30-9:00 (Emerson, Eder, Pacifica, Taneyev?, Rasumowsky) we get a Golden Section where this oddly structure "breathing" melody really blooms. But, then at around 10:00, some lose tension and the music devolves into typical "sad music". Kremer's extraordinary 11:30 goes all the way to the other extreme and creates a wholly different aura that works great.
III.'Allegretto-Adagio-Allegretto'
quickest: Mandelring (7:48)
slowest: Kremer (10:05)
I don't think I've heard a terrible 'Allegretto' here. Some may not have the best recording, but, it seems that no matter the tempo choice here, no one's approach can harm the music any- some maaay sound a little sluggish, but Kremer, with the slowest, doesn't seem to have that problem.
Quote from: snyprrr on December 16, 2014, 08:16:14 AM
I find the Emerson just a bit frantic
You see? I knew you would like it, too!
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2014, 08:20:33 AM
You see? I knew you would like it, too!
usually, "too" is negative? ::)
Sarge is hard at work, why aren't you??? I'm slaving over my notes here, wondering if putting all this in book form would be the ticket for everyone?
I'm awful at contrasting recordings as so many favorites I'm just lucky to have any recordings of, but I feel it's time to own the best Op. 144. Thoughts?
Quote from: snyprrr on December 16, 2014, 11:15:10 AM
usually, "too" is negative? ::)
Too emphasizes the adjective.
You didn't write
too; you wrote
just a bit.
(
The surrealism of reminding snypsss just what he wrote . . . .)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2014, 11:44:47 AM
Too emphasizes the adjective.
You didn't write too; you wrote just a bit.
(The surrealism of reminding snypsss just what he wrote . . . .)
No, no, no. Snyprr wrote
too. "Too" is the prefect word for snyprrr's writings! Too, too, too.
>:D :laugh:
Quote from: karlhenning on December 16, 2014, 11:44:47 AM
Too emphasizes the adjective.
You didn't write too; you wrote just a bit.
(The surrealism of reminding snypsss just what he wrote . . . .)
At the risk of biting off more than I can chew, I think I may see the confusion here.
snyprrr said the Emerson was "a bit frantic" (meaning that to be a negative thing)
Then you said "I knew that you would like it too," I assume because you mistook his first statement as being positive.
Then he questioned that too implied negativity because he meant a negative assessment to begin with.
Or maybe I am confused....
I applaud the effort in all events, George!
Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 16, 2014, 11:42:35 AM
I'm awful at contrasting recordings as so many favorites I'm just lucky to have any recordings of, but I feel it's time to own the best Op. 144. Thoughts?
Borodin'95 (Teldec)- maybe try amazon.uk- 14 minute opener
Beethoven
Oleg Kogan Edition 33(32?)- 15 minute opener
Danel & Eder also have longer openings
BUT, BORODIN'95 IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER!!
AND YES, THE EMERSON ARE JUST A BIT TOO MUCH FRENETIC IN 142 'ALLEGRETTO' OPENING, AAAHHHH!!!!! THEY NEED TO CHILL JUST A LITTLE BIT.
SEE, NOW YOU'VE ALL SCARED sARGE AWAY!!!!
I'm feelin' the DSCH SQ burn this morning- come at me, bro!! I'll take on all comers, Put 'em up!!
FITZWILLIAM:
I just heard Op.49, on YT, with the Fitzwilliam, the first full SQ I've heard from them,... and, they DO sound a bit old fashioned and, as they say, "stodgy". The 1st was a bit slow (like the Brodsky), leading to the rest, which really didn't distinguish itself in any blazing fashion. The only thing I've ever heard go wrong with this music is when the 1st is played to slow, and it is here and with the Brodsky.
NEXXXT!!!
Quote from: snyprrr on October 07, 2014, 08:46:16 AM
1 - Borodin'95
St. Petersburg/SONY
Emerson
Sorrel
Alexander
Brodsky
Fitzwilliam
Taneyev'66 'live'
Borodin'67
2 - Verlaine
Zapolski
Georgian State
Borodin'95
Brodsky
Sorrel
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
St. Petersburg/SONY
Moyzes
Emerson
Eder
Borodin'67
Borodin'83
Alexander
3 - Glinka'77 'live'
Borodin'95
Borodin'67
Acies
St. Petersburg/SONY
Brodsky
Georgian State
Allegri
Orlando
Amati
Eder
St.Lawrence
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'84
Taneyev'66 'live'
Hagen
Emerson
Alexander
Cailin
Philharmonia/Thorofon
Sorrel
Beethoven 'Premiere Recording'
4 - Moyzes
Kreutzer
Manhattan
Brodsky
St. Peterdburg/SONY
Sorrel
Taneyev'72
Taneyev'63 'live'
Borodin'67
Alexander
Emerson
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
5 - Atrium 'live'
Acies
Eder
Emerson
Manhattan
Brodsky
Sorrel
St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'83
Brodsky
Alexander
Borodin'67
6 - St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Manhattan
Brodsky
Borodin'81 'live'
Borodin'67
Emerson
Sorrel
Orlando
Alexander
7 - St. Petersburg/SONY
Borodin'67
Hagen
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Kreutzer
Manhattan
Brodsky
Borodin'83
Borodin'95
St.Lawrence
Emerson
Amati
Sorrel
Alexander
Philharmonia
8 - Sorrel
Borodin'67
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'95
Manhattan
Brodsky
St.Lawrence
Hagen
Kreutzer
Aviv
Borodin'78
Emerson
Medici
9 - Gosteleradio
Aviv
Borodin'81 'live'
Borodin'67
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Emerson
Manhattan
Sorrel
10 - Borodin'67
Brodsky
Kopelman
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'81
Manhattan
Sorrel
Emerson
11 - Vogler
Brodsky
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'81
Borodin'67
Emerson
Sorrel
12 - Sorrel (Taneyev)
Shostakovich (Debussy)
Borodin'83
Borodin'95
Amati
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Emerson
Eder
Philharmonia
Borodin'67
13 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
Sorrel
St.Petersburg
Shostakovich
Brodsky (Aviv)
Emerson
Borodin'67
Borodin'81
14 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM (Taneyev)
Shostakovich
Brodsky
Sorrel
Emerson
St.Petersburg/Hyperion (Mandelring)
Borodin'81
15 - Kagan-Zhislin-Bashmet-Gutman 'live'''82
Borodin'95
Eder
Brodsky
Sorrel
St.Petersburg/Hyperion Beethoven
Kremer-Daniels-Kashkashian-Ma/SONY (Mandelring)
Quote from: snyprrr on December 17, 2014, 08:04:49 AM
AND YES, THE EMERSON ARE JUST A BIT TOO MUCH FRENETIC IN 142 'ALLEGRETTO' OPENING, AAAHHHH!!!!! THEY NEED TO CHILL JUST A LITTLE BIT.
Wimp.
Hah!
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yes, that felt good, eh? ;) :D ;D... tee hee... :P...
So, I got stuck on Op.110 today- the Sorrel just outdo everyone,- the Aviv is an exciting 'live' performance,- but the Sorrel just turn this into MovieMusic of CinemaScope epic intimacy. Highlights include the "stabs"- those crucial stabs that some make sound wimpy, here they sound like demonic cat's claws, bear claws,- Kreutzer carries this violence- another highlight is the 7 minute 4th, the longest ever by far, and Symphonic for that,; the Sorrel also have the literally best sound-to-performance ratio out there in this one piece (their 13, also).
The Kronos samples reminded me... no, they didn't, but, the samples came out ahead in my (post-2000) survey. The Pacifica and Mandlring scored high, too. The Rasumowsky also had an interesting take. Frankly, I listened to a lot 5 hours ago and now things are fuzzy... but a lot of typical recording just don't get 110, it seems.
I have Borodins'78 & '90, and, neither one really does it for me, but maybe it's the sound in both cases? The Eder had quite I weak one, I thought.
THERE!! :-* :-* :-*
night
(see, i wasn't going to let you turn this into another One Word Post Thread ;))
No?
Quote from: snyprrr on December 17, 2014, 06:53:26 PM
(see, i wasn't going to let you turn this into another One Word Post Thread ;))
Sorrels. Op 110. Yeah.
Quote from: aukhawk on December 18, 2014, 01:15:05 PM
Sorrels. Op 110. Yeah.
No one else even tries to come close! ;)
1) The 1st mvmt. enjoys being stretched to its limit, which appears to be @5:30- and i don't see anyone (outside of the transcription) passing the 5 minute mark.
2) The 'Allegro molto' seems to clock in at
2:41 FOR EVERYONE!! The Manhattan have the actual quickest timing at 2:36, buuut, those who fill it out some add an extra weight that the speed demons miss.
3) 3rd mvmt. seems to bloom the slower one takes it. At 4:00, it appears a bit fast; at 4:40, just about right. Not too much divergence here.
4) 4th mvmt.- usually clocks in at under 5 minutes, I believe. The Sorrel take 7 minutes, and, frankly, I don't know why no one else dares- it surely is the right way to go here. The Sorrel surely have the most Epic 4th!
5) 5th mvmt.- whether one takes 3:30, or 5:30, it doesn't seem to matter- most do well here
6) the Sorrel are given a CinemaScope acoustic- so many others sound thin, and 'string quartet-ish'; the Sorrel sound as big as the transcription! Only the St.Petersburg/Hyperion have a similarly large/epic acoustic, but I'm not so sure how they manage the music (reviews haven't been fawning here).
So many 110s seem to fall in the "projection" department, I think. I don't even know what i meant by that! :laugh: But, why are there so many failed 110s? I can't find one other that I really WANT to listen to- the Sorrel I WANT to listen to!! The other best 110 I've heard is the 'live' Beethoven from like 1960 proper, maybe it's the Premiere? The Borodin 'live' from 1962 didn't move me at all compared with that Beethoven performance.
The Eder String Quartet (Naxos)
How do you all feel about the Eder? They seem to want to be compared with the 80s Borodin and the Shostakovich; but one might think that the Eder would lose consistently to those two.
The Borodin are somewhat in a 'Romantic' class by themselves, so, let's just compare the Shostakovich with the Eder. In case after case, the Shostakovich always seem to edge out the Eder in terms of sound and timbre- they just have a brighter recording; the Eder's Naxos sound does have a 'deadness' (more bland than anything- nothing special) to it (that works in the sombre later works, but perhaps takes away from the brightness of the earlier works?).
The Eder are at least as volatile as their fellows, and, their interpretations do match up nicely with their more high profile rivals. Had they had superior sound, the Eder might be taken more seriously. But, let me stress that they ARE a valid consideration for certain works: they have a blisteringly fast 5th, a "storybook" 11th, and thought provoking 14ths and 15ths. They do very well in the extended endings of 3-6, and 9-10.
I can't tell if they have ANY in the Top3-5, so, they may yet be just superfluous, but I do go to they when I'm comparing, and they can always make one listen. Still, I don't know how to recommend their set: the drabbish sound does make one think of those old MarcoPolo discs, that "cheap Slavic sound", so, I tend to think of this set as a "time/place" kind of thing- I don't find them revelatory, or essential. I wonder if they will eventually "make the cut"?
What do you think?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 17, 2014, 08:31:40 AM
Wimp.
The Emerson Have Landed :blank:
First up is either 3 or 7... giddy... woo hoo!!...
Quote from: snyprrr on December 19, 2014, 02:05:06 PM
The Emerson Have Landed :blank:
First up is either 3 or 7... giddy... woo hoo!!...
7, 1, and 3 all excellent,... now on 2, also excellent,... great viola sound!... best Op.73 by far, but still not perfect... no, they definitely command authority over their prey...
Quote from: snyprrr on December 19, 2014, 07:36:54 PM
7, 1, and 3 all excellent,... now on 2, also excellent,... great viola sound!... best Op.73 by far, but still not perfect... no, they definitely command authority over their prey...
...9,... this, i recall, was one of the best of the Cycle, but, after so much research, today, I heard it in a different light. See, here is where you can see the Emerson's limitations: though everything is played with an alloyed sheen, there were things missing which had heard either with the Brodsky or St.Petersburg- both have more biting attacks in the faster movements. And, their Finale wasn't as together as some of these studio renderings. Anyway, the Emerson's 9th is still in the Top3-5, no matter: it is surely the most immediate I've heard; they pare both 'Adagios' down to the flowing mercury- frankly
I THINK THE ST,PETERSBURG MIGHT BE EVEN BETTER.
...10... I had canned their 10 from the samples, but when I heard it today, I was mightily impressed. Only in the 'Allegro molto' do they yield in
frisson to the likes of the Brodsky, who I think may have the absolute best that I've heard. Otherwise, the Emerson have the more immediate impact due to the close mic-ing. Still, it's certainly a huge reading, very good lads!
...11... compared to my fav Vogler/RCA, frankly, somewhat identical, though, the Vogler have monster sound to spare and play like the ABQ. The Emerson's DG sound gives them the usual fat sound, but otherwise the RCA recording trumps the DG in presence and clarity and warmth and wattage. I will give the nod to the Vogler for an 'underdog' vote, but otherwise they are fairly equal (RCA sound is sota).
...12... against the Amati/Divox. Mmmm,... I want to give the Amati, again, extra 'underdog' points, but, again, both performances are exemplary, with the Divox sound being sota and very warm and bloom-y,... again, the Emerson are in-your-face. The Emerson can't take anything away from the Amati, but the former, due to the aggressive DG recording, might have an edge.
...14... this is the first one where the Emerson's steely approach yields an unsatisfactory response from moi. 14 has been a baby of mine here lately, and I demand a more feminine, and, or, dead approach. The Emerson just don't let up at all,... just listen to the Kremer for The Revelation,... but, the Sorrel have a verrry good 14, perhaps a Sleeper (hands down over their rivals the St.P).
Emerson Trademarks:
1) In-You-Face DG 'live' recording, with the viola first, cello last (though, the cello cuts when needed)
2) Steely, ultra high gloss sheen in the overall ensemble
3) Somewhat frenetic playing at points (though, surprisingly, some are even more)
4) Unanimity of Expression
5) Generally Quickest Readings ( though- Taneyev and Beethoven too)
6) some emotional content successfully rendered matter-of-fact (they're so good that even when they "just play" they do well)
7)surprisingly Romantic at points (Op68 'Romance')
8)NOT the Last Word in much- but no one comes close to their Op.73, no one has duplicated their scheme...
No.14 Op.142 (1973)
Borodin'83
Shostakovich
Eder
Emerson
Brodsky
Kremer/ECM
St.Petersburg
Sorrel
(Hagen)- not available at time of Review
As you know, Op.142 has been one that I've been having a hard time finding appropriate documents of. Sure, I'm being picky, BUT, as I went about last night comparing, I found my dilemma was compounded. Let's set the scene: the early Beethoven 14 has never gotten much respect (though, I welcome any divergence of opinion here), the Original Borodin never recorded it,... and, for this Reviewer at least, the Taneyev seem impossible to find anywhere for any reason. I don't know that anyone has ever touted the Fitzwilliam in Op.142, but I surely welcome any insight on their performance.
That leaves the grouping above that I Reviewed, and the newer crop of recordings that I didn't have current access to (Danel, Debussy, Rasumowsky, Alexander, Pacifica, Mandelring). So, the group I Reviewed I would consider the 'Second Wave of DSCH SQ Recoridngs' (like the 'Second Wave of British Metal'), leading up to the watershed Emerson Cycle (the only one missing is the Hagen).
Well, I'm no less be-fluxed than before my listening. I'm somewhat disappointed in all my options, but, I think I can convey to you how the recordings fall into categories. OK, here goes....
I. 'Allegretto' (8:05 (Emerson) - 9:14 (Cavani))
Again, the Emerson can off somewhat steely in the 1st. Though their DG sound exposes every line, and they play perfectly, and all that good stuff, all others were simply on the same playing level, and some had more soulfulness. WARNING: Is there a bizarre edit/goof at :26 into this movement?- it's that first big swell, and it sounds like an edit; the Sorrel also have this bizarre feature at this exact point.
The Borodin'82 (their only Op.142) is firstly distinguished by its acoustic, which renders the proceedings lightly sentimental for this listener. Against all-comers, this particular recording might only be bested by the Taneyev, whom I have not heard but am quite expectant of. Of all the others, the Borodin here give us a beautiful Old World reading. Of course, it's Romantic, so, it's bloated, but the Borodin are the ones to do it!
The Shostakovich may have the most presence, and may be preferred, but there are some idiosyncratic things here that I'm not too sure about. At least, their cello sound has more bite than afforded the Emerson here. The Eder also have a great up-front recording, but with their usual, drab, treble-less Naxos sound (though, for the 14th it actually works towards the dead mood).
For me, the Brodsky seem to hit everything better- only the Emerson have such an up-front recording; here, the Brodsky are recessed just a bit. Kremer, being 'live', has the most recessed recording, but that matters not: his rendering is one of the most natural and also adds in an extra edge of what is to come.
The Sorrel, bar the odd opening edit/jolt (@26secs.), have one of the very very best- and they pull out all stops and yet sound natural- LadyFingers really make their mark on this piece! I'm putting the St.Petersburg at the bottom of this pile, but it is really only because the competition is so stiff. Their trademark sound works ok for this music, but i'm not wholly convinced and would need further listening. They still sound like a HIP group to me sometimes, which only works on certain DSCH.
I have not heard the Hagen, but the samples make me think it would have to yield to either the Sorrel or Brodsky. Some say they are as good as the Emerson, but more musical; some say their cellist plays too matter-of-fact. I welcome any thoughts here.
Many of the newer DDD Cycles also have good openers, especially the Pacifica and the Mandelring, but the Danel stood out as perhaps the 'worst' of all, being the least natural of the bunch.
'Adagio' - not reviewed because of tempo
'Allegretto- Poco meno mosso- A Tempo- Adagio'
The Sorrel astonish with their quick tempo, and the Chandos sound highlights the excitement. No one comes close to them, even though their timing isn't the quickest. Kremer has the longest, but, frankly, I really haven't heard a bad finale here. Perhaps, again, I'd put the St.Petersburg at the bottom, but only because everyone else is so good. The Emerson's 'live' sound here is not as 3D as others, but it is up-front and immediate.
The Shostakovich and Eder both have strong showings, with the former having the more open recording. Again, the Borodin are strong, though the tonal refinement of the DDD crowd is not here.
I'd also like to call out the Mandelring here as having the most delicate I've heard of the samples. (Sarge?)
What's the good word?
I'm now verrry interested in the Mandelring Cycle,...
RubioI
RubioII
Debussy
Danel
Rasumowsky
Alexander
Pacifica
Mandelring
This is where we're at in the confusion... aye, that's a lot of Cycles,... only to grow,...
Yes, I've overdone it a bit here,... getting burned out on DSCH SQs,... getting the Emerson was like 'Jumping the Shark',... I've eaten so much it's coming back up my throat,... this has been verrry expensive, ouch,...
Any suggestions as to what an appropriate tonic for too much DSCH would be? I'd almost go for LaMonte Young's String Trio (BASED ON HIGH TENSION WIRES) but I do know better...
a head cleaning (snippy... STOP!!!!!!!!)
Quote from: snyprrr on December 20, 2014, 06:38:17 PM
...9,... this, i recall, was one of the best of the Cycle, but, after so much research, today, I heard it in a different light. See, here is where you can see the Emerson's limitations: though everything is played with an alloyed sheen, there were things missing which had heard either with the Brodsky or St.Petersburg- both have more biting attacks in the faster movements. And, their Finale wasn't as together as some of these studio renderings. Anyway, the Emerson's 9th is still in the Top3-5, no matter: it is surely the most immediate I've heard; they pare both 'Adagios' down to the flowing mercury- frankly
I THINK THE ST,PETERSBURG MIGHT BE EVEN BETTER.
...10... I had canned their 10 from the samples, but when I heard it today, I was mightily impressed. Only in the 'Allegro molto' do they yield in frisson to the likes of the Brodsky, who I think may have the absolute best that I've heard. Otherwise, the Emerson have the more immediate impact due to the close mic-ing. Still, it's certainly a huge reading, very good lads!
...11... compared to my fav Vogler/RCA, frankly, somewhat identical, though, the Vogler have monster sound to spare and play like the ABQ. The Emerson's DG sound gives them the usual fat sound, but otherwise the RCA recording trumps the DG in presence and clarity and warmth and wattage. I will give the nod to the Vogler for an 'underdog' vote, but otherwise they are fairly equal (RCA sound is sota).
...12... against the Amati/Divox. Mmmm,... I want to give the Amati, again, extra 'underdog' points, but, again, both performances are exemplary, with the Divox sound being sota and very warm and bloom-y,... again, the Emerson are in-your-face. The Emerson can't take anything away from the Amati, but the former, due to the aggressive DG recording, might have an edge.
...14... this is the first one where the Emerson's steely approach yields an unsatisfactory response from moi. 14 has been a baby of mine here lately, and I demand a more feminine, and, or, dead approach. The Emerson just don't let up at all,... just listen to the Kremer for The Revelation,... but, the Sorrel have a verrry good 14, perhaps a Sleeper (hands down over their rivals the St.P).
...13... after Kremer's 22 minute wonder, and the otherwordly St.Petersburg and Brodsky and Sorrel Top Choices, we have the Emerson, who many have said that 13 is the best of their Cycle. Well, yes, it's as good as the others, but, it's too "human" for me after hearing the St.p and Brodsky, and even the Sorrel. Each one of them do as well as the Emerson, but I think they all have an extra element missing from the Emerson. But these are minor points- it's a fine fine reading, but, those others ARE more "terrifying" as everyone likes to say. So, I put it at the bottom of the Best List, but, it's still there!!
I also like the Shostakovich here; perhaps the Borodin are too human? I know of no other transformative(?) performances/ transcendent???
No.5 Op.93
Atrium
Acies
(Navarra)
Here are two extremely extremely strong 5ths, with a thought provoking third recording which comes with Ravel. The former two are both powerhouse performances of DSCH's most knotty sonata-form. Indeed, the Acies are overpowering here. They are given a rather large acoustic as compared to the Atrium's more closely mic'd 'live' recording, and the venue amplifies the group's tremendous tuttis of everything going on at once.
I have yet to compare, but, as you know, I was searching for substitutes for my beloved Manhattan, and these two really blow most of the competition out of the water. I also just got the Eder here, and although they too have a high energy performance (one of the quickest), their Naxos sound is its usual drab self in this piece which needs all the harmonics present; and, their vengeance isn't as complete as the other two mentioned above- they are always willing to give you beef, but don't scream like the others. Perhaps the Brodsky are my least favourite here.
I now have the richest cache of Op.93s to compare with, and I hope one day to get this all under my belt, but, for the time being, I'm beginning to unlock its knots.
btw- the Rubio have an exceptionally long slow movement here,- the 'Sanderling Effect' if you will- that elevates their reading...
Rubio String Quartet
Vol.1 1/4/8 (Globe 1996)
Vol.2 7/9/12 (Globe 1997)
Vol.3 3/15 (Globe 1998)
Complete String Quartets 1-15 (Brilliant 2002)
I'm simply doing this to show in our faces that the Rubio do actually have two separate Cycles (one, a 1/2 Cycle). This was confusing me for a while, and I have not been able to find samples for the Brilliant Box anywhere- but there are a couple of single CDs from the Box, such as their 1/14/15. It is clear that their two 15s have different timings, and it's clear from the packaging on both that the recording dates are different.
So, what distinguishes the Rubio? First, what seems from the samples to be a slightly tighter, drier acoustic- "pristine", perhaps,... in a Denon way maybe? Second, they are named after the late English string maker Rubio, so, their "holiness" is fairly well complete, with bowing and instrument sound and style all combining to form one of the "cleanest" corporate styles. I keep thinking of Inbal's Shostakvich Cycle, how these Denon recordings sound so clean, matching Inbal's style there.
So, we have a lot of good things already, without even considering the interpretations. One thing I think I noticed is that they don't reach any spastic heights/depths of delirium such as others may have plumbed. So they're definitely in the Fourth Wave of DSCH SQ Cycles, which includes the Debussy, Alexander, Rasumovsky, and Danel. I like to separate the Pacifica and Mandelring, but, ultimately, they all belong to the same grouping (though, the Mandelring may represent a newer innovation?). It's hard to say how they distinguish themselves in this crowd, since many here are known for their "less-than-brutal" Shostakovich- meant presumably as a cut against, perhaps, the Borodin?
Anyhow, all the Rubio samples I've heard have been pleasant but not really ear catching. Their one astonishing moment is in Op.93, No.5, where they take the slow movement a minute slower than the already slow Manhattan, and make new music altogether! I have heard of no other radical departures, but, no one's talking about the Rubio. Who's the expert here?
Quote from: Todd on May 14, 2007, 05:26:46 AM
Some? Who's smoother? And don't say the Manhattan - they're just more boring.
I certainly agree with the benefits of choice; my personal first choice is the Danel.
Do you still feel this way? 'splain...
This Thread started in '07, when the Rasumowsky and Alexander and Danel and Jerusalem and Aviv came out- though, most of these Cycles hadn't made it here yet. I can see where the Danel would have been HotHouseFlowers back then, but, now with the Pacifica and Mandelring, the Danel do seem to occupy the room of 'Least Passionate'? (and perhaps that's not the best description)
(staving off DSCH burnout right now)
Quote from: Todd on May 14, 2007, 04:56:23 AM
A couple positive mentions about the Rubio set makes me have to blurt out: it's too smoothed over! The set is OK, but it just doesn't ignite.
Yes, that's what I've been hearing. You just can't play this music unless, perhaps, you HAVE SUFFERED ENOUGH? I just can't stand "technically perfect/emotionally lacking" DSCH! I WANT to hear "awful" sounds in 8 and 13, and 11 and 12,... and 9 and 10,...
I want to hear what I want to hear in 4 and 6- beautyBeautyBEAUTY-
I want the Extreme of Interpretaion in 7 (3:11, 2:45, 5:20)- if this piece hit 12 minutes... (of course, you are allowed to totally exaggerate the slow mvmt., like the Kreutzer taking
SIX MINUTES!!)
I want an 8 minutes 'Moderato' finale to No.3...
I want I want I want
Quote from: jlaurson on December 18, 2013, 09:02:24 AM
Danel: Not up there, for you, among these??
St.Petersburg: Not in a box?
(http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/3/JPG_400/MI0001/116/MI0001116321.jpg?partner=allrovi.com)
The have, but it's oop now. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000CETZF0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000CETZF0&linkCode=as2&tag=goodmusicguide-20)
Reasonable prices for used sets (better than buying individually, at least) at Amazon.com and at Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000CETZF0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B000CETZF0&linkCode=as2&tag=goodmusicguideuk-21).
Last night I dreamt I went to Manderling again. (Mandelring) ;)
I have Borodin I, II, Brodsky, Danel, Emerson, St. Petersburg, Shostakovich Quartet, Sorrel, Mandelring, and as of yesterday the complete Pacifica... Borodin II and Danel, Mandelring and Pacifica being the ones that get the most instinctive grab when I listen to them. Emerson I might as well not have.
Please tell me you've got some new insights!! Just a perusal of the last Page or so will reveal where "we're" at at the moment.
RUBIO (Globe)- 1996-1998
DEBUSSY- 1999-2006
AVIV- 2004-06
JERUSALEM- 2005-07
DANEL- 2005(6)
ALEXANDER- 2006-07
RASUMOWSKY-2006
MANDELRING- 2006-10
PACIFICA- 2011??
MORGAUA-
BORODIN2020- (THE PRESUMED New Complete Cycle)
Quatuor Debussy (Arion; at least I spelled it right once!!)
I'm the ONLY one who has mentioned their Complete Cycle (Jens?). Are we totally in the dark on this one? Samples tell a somewhat Danel-like tale, but all the tempi are pretty normal, ... I don't hear too much jumping out at me,...
ANYONE??
I see you Manny- what's the good word? ;)
The Alexander Quartet (Foghorn Classics)
Their Complete Cycle in 2 Volumes (1-7, 8-15) is the least covered Cycle out there. There are no samples anywhere, and i wouldn't even mention them if I hadn't gone to Foghorn Classics website, which actually does have samples.
'dmitri', a Reviewer at Amazon, is the only source of information (besides the usual Classics Today) about this set, and he said they were altogether a bit slower than everyone else, but also exhibited perfect playing. So, I perused the samples on the site, and, lo and behold, there is a wealth of information given in them!
First off, none of the samples had the timings of the movements, but, I am able to gauge, generally, what speed is being adopted based on just a brief sample. And yes, their speeds are generally slower than any I can think of, the Danel coming beside them, perhaps.
Second, the playing is- dare I say- even more razor honed than the Emerson? The Alexander definitely sound like a Beethoven group to me- their unanimity seems unparalleled. I was truly impressed with their playing, regardless of interpretive felicities. I'm not sure any other Cycle has their playing profile. Coupled with the tight acoustic, it surely brings out a sound picture in high relief.
Now, here, in one description, is my impression: their approach seems to work wonders in 1-7, but they just seem to drag in 8-15. I especially didn't take to their slowish 12-15, though, 9-11 were just as guilty of being slower than needed (by a slight margin). I just pulled for 1-7, and am confident that I got all that I needed. I just don't see 8-15 as recommendable to the High Connesuir(pardon). No one is going to want performances as bloated as these when fleeter ones can be had.- even so, there are "slow" performances that take the cake (Kremer 13-14; Borodin'95 15), but here, the Alexander are simply playing the music- they're not the Romantic Borodins, for sure. But, they're not sissies, either. They put out a solid 'Classical' approach that works on those SQs that sound like normal 'Classical' music (1-7). The Abstract Late SQs don't take to their approach at all, I think.
I heartily welcome you all to wait with baited breath for my Review of 1-7. I am!
btw-
(I was going to get the Pacifica's Vol.1 (5-8), but, I think I'm starting to sour a bit on the Pacifica. There's a lot to like, but the competition is getting soooo fierce lately, that one must be a little more critical. I still welcome Sarge's Pacifica/Manderling comparison, or anyone else's. I am very very seriously considering the mandelring as a 'Final Answer', though, I have found a few more interesting one-offs)
Quote from: snyprrr on December 30, 2014, 02:08:42 PM
The Alexander Quartet (Foghorn Classics)
Their Complete Cycle in 2 Volumes (1-7, 8-15) is the least covered Cycle out there. There are no samples anywhere, and i wouldn't even mention them if I hadn't gone to Foghorn Classics website, which actually does have samples.
What, no link?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 31, 2014, 05:30:32 AM
What, no link?
Linux... I'm clueless... "foghorn classics"...
I'm thinking about learning computers this year ::)... errrrr....
Anyhow, Karl, I'm sure you're just slightly interested... let me know how those samples hit ya.
PACIFICA-
I was going to pull for their Vol.1 (5-8), but,... tell me, who is still on the Pacifica Bandwagon?
Karl, did you get the Mandelring?- any word???
I've had the Mandelring for a while, and they deserve all of the Sarge's praise.
Quote from: snyprrr on December 30, 2014, 02:08:42 PM
The Alexander Quartet (Foghorn Classics)
Their Complete Cycle in 2 Volumes (1-7, 8-15) is the least covered Cycle out there. There are no samples anywhere, and i wouldn't even mention them if I hadn't gone to Foghorn Classics website, which actually does have samples.
'dmitri', a Reviewer at Amazon, is the only source of information (besides the usual Classics Today) about this set, and he said they were altogether a bit slower than everyone else, but also exhibited perfect playing. So, I perused the samples on the site, and, lo and behold, there is a wealth of information given in them!
First off, none of the samples had the timings of the movements, but, I am able to gauge, generally, what speed is being adopted based on just a brief sample. And yes, their speeds are generally slower than any I can think of, the Danel coming beside them, perhaps.
Second, the playing is- dare I say- even more razor honed than the Emerson? The Alexander definitely sound like a Beethoven group to me- their unanimity seems unparalleled. I was truly impressed with their playing, regardless of interpretive felicities. I'm not sure any other Cycle has their playing profile. Coupled with the tight acoustic, it surely brings out a sound picture in high relief.
Now, here, in one description, is my impression: their approach seems to work wonders in 1-7, but they just seem to drag in 8-15. I especially didn't take to their slowish 12-15, though, 9-11 were just as guilty of being slower than needed (by a slight margin). I just pulled for 1-7, and am confident that I got all that I needed. I just don't see 8-15 as recommendable to the High Connesuir(pardon). No one is going to want performances as bloated as these when fleeter ones can be had.- even so, there are "slow" performances that take the cake (Kremer 13-14; Borodin'95 15), but here, the Alexander are simply playing the music- they're not the Romantic Borodins, for sure. But, they're not sissies, either. They put out a solid 'Classical' approach that works on those SQs that sound like normal 'Classical' music (1-7). The Abstract Late SQs don't take to their approach at all, I think.
I heartily welcome you all to wait with baited breath for my Review of 1-7. I am!
btw-
(I was going to get the Pacifica's Vol.1 (5-8), but, I think I'm starting to sour a bit on the Pacifica. There's a lot to like, but the competition is getting soooo fierce lately, that one must be a little more critical. I still welcome Sarge's Pacifica/Manderling comparison, or anyone else's. I am very very seriously considering the mandelring as a 'Final Answer', though, I have found a few more interesting one-offs)
I happen to own the Alexander set, mainly because they play at my workplace every year (and this year even played for one of my classes), so I just couldn't resist buying their set from them. I largely agree with your findings, though I don't necessarily draw as sharp a distinction between the earlier and later quartets. I too would call their approach very meticulous and somewhat classically restrained--and this is true of them in general on recordings. Oddly, they don't sound anything like this to me in live performance, where they come across as passionate and even somewhat aggressive. On CD, though, they seem to be the "audiophile quartet," making sure their playing is very perfect and tasteful to go with the crystal clear recording. As admirable as it is, I wish I could hear more of the intensity they bring to their live performances. I do think they are worth listening to for their amazing textural detail, but I honestly don't find myself reaching for them as often as some of my other favorites in this repertoire.
The Mandelring remains my favorite set by anyone, followed by those by the Danel and Shostakovich quartets. I have a difficult time identifying just what it is I enjoy so much about the Mandelrings, but they definitely seem more unique to me than the Pacifica, for example. One thing that has occurred to me is that I think the Mandelring tends to have a richer, more organic sound than most, partly due to their acoustic, but I think they also tend to put less emphasis on a "lead" instrument in relation to the "accompaniment." I could be totally wrong about that, but they just seem to play as a single unit more often than other quartets. Perhaps related to that, they also seem more attuned to atmospherics in this material--there seems to be more subtlety of shading, for lack of a better term. I also just enjoy the "feel" they bring to the phrasing.
What I enjoy about the Danel is a bit easier to describe. They have a drier, closer sound (a bit like the Alexanders, as you pointed out), but their interpretation strikes me as tending to the dark and grim--their no. 11 is my favorite by anyone I've heard, giving me the sense of someone slowly moving through an area where terrible atrocities may have recently occurred (but without witnessing anything directly, instead having a sense of dread). I feel an almost cruel tension in their approach that is fascinating. Sorry for such a non-musical, impressionistic metaphors, but as a non-musician, I am limited. I wonder if it is coincidence that my two favorite cycles are by Western European ensembles. They just seem to add certain kinds of coloristic richness I'm not hearing as much from the Russian or American ensembles.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on January 01, 2015, 08:09:13 AM
I happen to own the Alexander set, mainly because they play at my workplace every year (and this year even played for one of my classes), so I just couldn't resist buying their set from them. I largely agree with your fiondings, though I don't necessarily draw as sharp a distinction between the earlier and later quartets. I too would call their approach very meticulous and somewhat classically restrained--and this is true of them in general on recordings. Oddly, they don't sound anything like this to me in live performance, where they come across as passionate and even somewhat aggressive. On CD, though, they seem to be the "audiophile quartet," making sure their playing is very perfect and tasteful to go with the crystal clear recording. As admirable as it is, I wish I could hear more of the intensity they bring to their live performances. I do think they are worth listening to for their amazing textural detail, but I honestly don't find myself reaching for them as often as some of my other favorites in this repertoire.
The Mandelring remains my favorite set by anyone, followed by those by the Danel and Shostakovich quartets. I have a difficult time identifying just what it is I enjoy so much about the Mandelrings, but they definitely seem more unique to me than the Pacifica, for example. One thing that has occurred to me is that I think the Mandelring tends to have a richer, more organic sound than most, partly due to their acoustic, but I think they also tend to put less emphasis on a "lead" instrument in relation to the "accompaniment." I could be totally wrong about that, but they just seem to play as a single unit more often than other quartets. Perhaps related to that, they also seem more attuned to atmospherics in this material--there seems to be more subtlety of shading, for lack of a better term. I also just enjoy the "feel" they bring to the phrasing.
What I enjoy about the Danel is a bit easier to describe. They have a drier, closer sound (a bit like the Alexanders, as you pointed out), but their interpretation strikes me as tending to the dark and grim--their no. 11 is my favorite by anyone I've heard, giving me the sense of someone slowly moving through an area where terrible atrocities may have recently occurred (but without witnessing anything directly, instead having a sense of dread). I feel an almost cruel tension in their approach that is fascinating. Sorry for such a non-musical, impressionistic metaphors, but as a non-musician, I am limited. I wonder if it is coincidence that my two favorite cycles are by Western European ensembles. They just seem to add certain kinds of coloristic richness I'm not hearing as much from the Russian or American ensembles.
Interesting, thanks.
Quote from: NorthNYMark on January 01, 2015, 08:09:13 AM
I happen to own the Alexander set, mainly because they play at my workplace every year (and this year even played for one of my classes), so I just couldn't resist buying their set from them. I largely agree with your fiondings, though I don't necessarily draw as sharp a distinction between the earlier and later quartets. I too would call their approach very meticulous and somewhat classically restrained--and this is true of them in general on recordings. Oddly, they don't sound anything like this to me in live performance, where they come across as passionate and even somewhat aggressive. On CD, though, they seem to be the "audiophile quartet," making sure their playing is very perfect and tasteful to go with the crystal clear recording. As admirable as it is, I wish I could hear more of the intensity they bring to their live performances. I do think they are worth listening to for their amazing textural detail, but I honestly don't find myself reaching for them as often as some of my other favorites in this repertoire.
The Mandelring remains my favorite set by anyone, followed by those by the Danel and Shostakovich quartets. I have a difficult time identifying just what it is I enjoy so much about the Mandelrings, but they definitely seem more unique to me than the Pacifica, for example. One thing that has occurred to me is that I think the Mandelring tends to have a richer, more organic sound than most, partly due to their acoustic, but I think they also tend to put less emphasis on a "lead" instrument in relation to the "accompaniment." I could be totally wrong about that, but they just seem to play as a single unit more often than other quartets. Perhaps related to that, they also seem more attuned to atmospherics in this material--there seems to be more subtlety of shading, for lack of a better term. I also just enjoy the "feel" they bring to the phrasing.
What I enjoy about the Danel is a bit easier to describe. They have a drier, closer sound (a bit like the Alexanders, as you pointed out), but their interpretation strikes me as tending to the dark and grim--their no. 11 is my favorite by anyone I've heard, giving me the sense of someone slowly moving through an area where terrible atrocities may have recently occurred (but without witnessing anything directly, instead having a sense of dread). I feel an almost cruel tension in their approach that is fascinating. Sorry for such a non-musical, impressionistic metaphors, but as a non-musician, I am limited. I wonder if it is coincidence that my two favorite cycles are by Western European ensembles. They just seem to add certain kinds of coloristic richness I'm not hearing as much from the Russian or American ensembles.
Verrry interesting indeed. Finally, a worthy Post. Hail MarkyMark!!
Seriously- the Danel and Alexander both tend towards the slow side, no? (and I'm starting to think the Rasumowsky and Debussy fall into the exact same camp?) I think also you made have sealed a Mandelring bid- though, what's the cheapest I can get them???- Amazon +sh. = $40.
Today I shored up all non-Mandelring odds and ends, including:
1) Verlaine Quartet (REM; Op.68, w/Webern)
2) Sorrel No.12- their 2nd movement blazes unlike any other: Sorrel seem to rule in 12-14...
3) Borodin 10/13/14- for the 14
4) St.Lawrence 3/7/8 (on order)
5) Eder 2/12 (on order)
6) Alexander 1-7 (on order)
That only leaves the Mandelring...
AND THE TANEYEV :'( :'( :'(
I believe we have reached the place here. Almost every single release has been at least somewhat scrutinized. It's been almost a year of just about only DSCH DSCH DSCH... half of that on the SQs. We're at least at an impasse- fiscal issues, availability,... it's time to take stock... I'm almost all satisfied (Taneyev notwithstanding)... ahhhh, I can feel it, that last chunk o'changed lightened more than my wallet, haha!! gulp!!!
All's Quiet on the Eastern Front,... boldly switched to the PT No.2 yesterday! ;)... such a great piece... Borodin/Leonskaya...
Ode to the mailman...
TODAY: Op.101, Manhattan, Borodin'81'live' (listened to Emerson yesterday- it was better than I remembered, epitome of "fine Classical" playing, but still a bit detached, imo)... (the Orlando, on Emergo, are fine, but the viola is placed so as to have an aggressive demeanour in the recording)... (the Brodsky are generally fine, but I'm liking their direct rivals the Manhattan just a little better nowadays)... I suspect that the Jerusalem's only post-modern 101 (the only one on a one-off) may also rank highly... 101 seems to be about one of the rarest... who really get this dance on light/dark?,... Mandelring?,... I'm not quite happy yet (the Orlando come close but are marred by that simple distraction)...
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 13, 2007, 11:54:34 AM
How much do you want to spend? The Rubio's cycle on Brilliant is quite good, and quite cheap. I love the Fitzwilliam and the old Borodin but there is a real possibility the Shostakovich is going to be my preferred set eventually (I've only heard a few quartets so far but was blown away).
Sarge
Did you ever get that
Zapolski? I remember going on about the 7:30 'Valse'. Well, I just got the Verlaine, from 1987, on REM, playing Op.68, and here are their timings:
I. 6:42
II. 9:17
III. 6:54
IV. 11:05
That 1st's 6:42 seems unprecedented! Wow, can't wait. And then we have another almost 7 minute 'Valse'. And I believe this is 'live'- no, maybe not,... can't really tell, but probably not... mmm...
Quote from: snyprrr on January 07, 2015, 03:14:00 PM
Did you ever get that Zapolski? I remember going on about the 7:30 'Valse'. Well, I just got the Verlaine, from 1987, on REM, playing Op.68, and here are their timings:
I. 6:42
II. 9:17
III. 6:54
IV. 11:05
That 1st's 6:42 seems unprecedented! Wow, can't wait. And then we have another almost 7 minute 'Valse'. And I believe this is 'live'- no, maybe not,... can't really tell, but probably not... mmm...
Wow! This Verlaine Op.68, sounding 'live' (without audience?), is certainly one of the very best,- I'm finishing the finale now- the recording is so intimate, yet obviously in a hall, but the instruments sound so natural and fruity,- I'll get in trouble if I go on... but, it's kept me rapt for its entirety,... I hearing things brought out,... the cellist has the most wonderful tone, and the lead has a nice Romantic sweep and drama.
Concerning the 6:42 'Overture', it certainly didn't sound particularly fast- is there a repeat they left out? If so, they're the only ones who cut it. huh
Anyhow, it ends. Bravo, very lovely lovely No.2 there from 1987 by the Verlaine,... following with Webern's 'Langsamer Satz'. This group has quite an impressive corporate sound, so earthy, but I believe they may be very young?... mm.... anyhow, their 2nd ranks very highly, along with that blazing Zapolski, both being quite authentic and original and out-of-the-blue in their approach... against as much of the competition as I can muster, they both clinch,- immediate impressions were made by the St.Petersburg/SONY and Brodsky,... the Borodin'82 & '90 both have similar trajectories, it's nice comparing, -mm, but,... they're quite "Romantic" - I like them- we'll leave it there, eh? haha---- the Emerson are very slick compared to the earthy Verlaine; the Sorrel seem just ever slightly slow...
Verlaine- HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
The Eder Quartet (Naxos)
I remember when they started coming out (1994?) that everyone was quite surprised, and they quickly gained a reputation as being... almost... in the same class as the Borodin and Shostakovich. Frankly, I always compare these three groups together,- the Borodin being the most ardent and effusive, the Shostakovich being the grimmest, and the Eder seemingly lost in the ether of vague critiques.
So, how are the Eder?
1) They can deliver as much feral venom as any, to wit, the brutal 'Allegros' of 3, 7, 8, and 10. But then, sometimes, they don't dig in like one would expect.
2) Generally, there are few complaints about their playing and interpretation. They fall pretty much squarely in the middle of the whole pack, and there are just a few instances of them making daring choices in tempi (1st of the 5th and 15th, finale of the 3rd, slows of 2 and 14). Their playing is clean, and they don't go all 'gypsy' like the Borodin, and they don't plumb the depths as the well as the Shostakovich (12 in particular). I might want to compare them to the Rubio, but that might be wrong,... they do have the slavic soul, and they can get rabid,... they are somewhat the 'Eastern European Choice', perhaps? I am reminded of the Moyzes in 2/4.
3) Naxos provides somewhat middling sound- at the famous "Naxos church"- a somewhat dead-ish, matter-of-fact sound with an ample acoustic that works the best for the more "dead" SQs (12, 14-15), and hampers the impact of the most brilliant and crystalline works (3, 5, 7, 9).
4 )As good as they are, they always seem to get beat out... by somebody. I struggle to find their place (as with the Fitzwilliam).
5) When they do hit on all points, they are as good as anyone (12).
I may be overdoing it, but I think the SQs 1-9/10 suffer because of the Naxos sound. The only reason the fall to others is because of the dampened high end of the recording, that dead-ish sounding, somewhat Melodiya inspired thud, which works beautifully for 11, 12, and 14 and 15. I'd say these four are the highlights of the Cycle, with 12 being the major standout.
Quote from: snyprrr on January 09, 2015, 09:32:06 AM
The Eder Quartet (Naxos)
....
The only reason the fall to others is because of the dampened high end of the recording, that dead-ish sounding, somewhat Melodiya inspired thud, which works beautifully for 11, 12, and 14 and 15. I'd say these four are the highlights of the Cycle, with 12 being the major standout.
I bought their CD with 14 and 15 to supplement my 1-13 Borodin I on Chandos and they did so splendidly.
Quote from: George on January 09, 2015, 10:56:57 AM
I bought their CD with 14 and 15 to supplement my 1-13 Borodin I on Chandos and they did so splendidly.
The Eder's 15 is one of the most visceral, which brings a certain intensity to the later movements. It certainly takes away from the funereal shroud that the Borodin'95 or the Beethoven give it, but it makes for exciting "music" nonetheless. Again, the "dead" Naxos sound pays dividends in these later works (as opposed to sapping some of the earlier ones.
The Mandelring also sound to have exciting later movements in the 15th.
Quote from: snyprrr on December 30, 2014, 02:08:42 PM
The Alexander Quartet (Foghorn Classics)
Their Complete Cycle in 2 Volumes (1-7, 8-15) is the least covered Cycle out there. There are no samples anywhere, and i wouldn't even mention them if I hadn't gone to Foghorn Classics website, which actually does have samples.
'dmitri', a Reviewer at Amazon, is the only source of information (besides the usual Classics Today) about this set, and he said they were altogether a bit slower than everyone else, but also exhibited perfect playing. So, I perused the samples on the site, and, lo and behold, there is a wealth of information given in them!
First off, none of the samples had the timings of the movements, but, I am able to gauge, generally, what speed is being adopted based on just a brief sample. And yes, their speeds are generally slower than any I can think of, the Danel coming beside them, perhaps.
Second, the playing is- dare I say- even more razor honed than the Emerson? The Alexander definitely sound like a Beethoven group to me- their unanimity seems unparalleled. I was truly impressed with their playing, regardless of interpretive felicities. I'm not sure any other Cycle has their playing profile. Coupled with the tight acoustic, it surely brings out a sound picture in high relief.
Now, here, in one description, is my impression: their approach seems to work wonders in 1-7, but they just seem to drag in 8-15. I especially didn't take to their slowish 12-15, though, 9-11 were just as guilty of being slower than needed (by a slight margin). I just pulled for 1-7, and am confident that I got all that I needed. I just don't see 8-15 as recommendable to the High Connesuir(pardon). No one is going to want performances as bloated as these when fleeter ones can be had.- even so, there are "slow" performances that take the cake (Kremer 13-14; Borodin'95 15), but here, the Alexander are simply playing the music- they're not the Romantic Borodins, for sure. But, they're not sissies, either. They put out a solid 'Classical' approach that works on those SQs that sound like normal 'Classical' music (1-7). The Abstract Late SQs don't take to their approach at all, I think.
I heartily welcome you all to wait with baited breath for my Review of 1-7. I am!
btw-
(I was going to get the Pacifica's Vol.1 (5-8), but, I think I'm starting to sour a bit on the Pacifica. There's a lot to like, but the competition is getting soooo fierce lately, that one must be a little more critical. I still welcome Sarge's Pacifica/Manderling comparison, or anyone else's. I am very very seriously considering the mandelring as a 'Final Answer', though, I have found a few more interesting one-offs)
Op.101 was very nice. I really like the recording, tight and crisp,... seemingly perfect. The playing sounds like a band used to playing Classical lines, Haydn and LvB, a bit like the ABQ, less intense. This 6th shoots into my Top5,... maybe Top3,... it's certainly a contender against all comers. They have the quickest opener of anyone by far (just over 6 minutes), and yet they handle the quicker tempo wonderfully.
No.7, though perfectly executed, lacks the intensity of my favoured performances.
I really am liking the tone of this recording, as if the Rubio recording has gotten some incisiveness. Maybe the Fitzwilliam recording without the super ample acoustic?
The Amazon Reviewer 'dmitri' says they take everything a bit slower than everyone else, but that doesn't necessarily mean tempo-wise: no matter the tempo they choose, they do sound more "3rd person"- there's always a bubble around every note- I find it a sign of their corporate virtuosity. A case in point would be the slow movement of No.5. They take @8:30, which is fairly quick for this movement, but they "sound" slower. Get it? The Rubio take 10:47!
anyhow
I think we've finally got around to the end of this thing here.
1) Waiting on Aviv String Quartet's 9, a vicious sounding performance that even seems to mup the ante on the Emerson's near perfect take. (I found it used, so, it doesn't impact BDS, lolz!) btw- this band might be just a hair better than the Jerusalem- there is 90% overlap between them.
2) I HAVE DECIDED that the Emerson cannot be beat in 10. Anyone? Borodin'67 and Beethoven are both Olympian in 9-10.
3) Waiting on St.Petersburg 6, which, I hope, will be the most beautiful 6th--- Op.101 has proved to be elusive for me,- I need what I need here and I just haven't been sated yet.
4) STILL waiting on St.Lawrence 3/7/8 after 1 1/2 months....
5) Allegri String Quartet in Op.73 is very well played, but the acoustic seems to suck the blood out of the sound- very small hall with no bloom. I wanted to call out the Rubins for some great samples. Also, the Georgian State String Quartet on Caprice.
6) Rubio 10- 'Allegro furioso'- absolutely the worst I've heard- check out the sample- tepid tepid.
7) The Mandelring are starting to lose their edge with me. I've been waffling over the @$40, and the more I hear them, and others, the more I'm not finding them as unique as I once thought they were. If there WERE One Cycle I'd get, it would probably be them. Compared to the Rubio, Debussy, Rasumowsky, Alexander, Pacifica, Danel, Jerusalem and Aviv, they seem to have the most consistent appeal- though none of these newer groups seem to have the fire of earlier eras. wt ???? Still, I'm finding myself cutting off at the Emerson-Sorrel-St.Petersburg 1999-2001 graduating class. mm eh
8) Taneyev MIA
9) check out Aviv 13 and Debussy 12
No where really to go from here,... Borodin/Chandos is the most tempting,... couldn't really care less for the Fittzies, but will probably get them out of boredom at some future date. Beethoven still expensive.
One thing I've learned: the sound hitting my ears is quite important, as opposed to the music or playing. I do like the spectacular recordings- Sorrel, St.Petersburg, St.Lawrence, - I assume the Mandelring would fall in here... but I also like the dreary Naxos, Melodiya, ECM, and others, as they convey the bleakness like no other.
anyhoo...
Quote from: snyprrr on December 17, 2014, 08:21:04 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on October 07, 2014, 08:46:16 AM
1 - Borodin'95
Emerson
Sorrel
Alexander
St. Petersburg/SONY
Brodsky
Fitzwilliam
Borodin'67
Taneyev'66 'live'
2 - Verlaine
Zapolski
Borodin'82
Borodin'67
Borodin'90
Eder
Brodsky
Sorrel
St. Petersburg/SONY
Moyzes
Emerson
Alexander
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
3 - Allegri
Acies
Borodin'67
Borodin'83
Borodin'90
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
St. Petersburg/SONY
Eder
Brodsky
Emerson
St. Lawrence
Hagen
Amati
Orlando
Alexander
Sorrel
Cailin
Philharmonia
Taneyev'66 'live'
4 - Moyzes
Beethoven'60/Taneyev'72
Manhattan
Sorrel
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'82
Borodin'67
Alexander
Emerson
Taneyev'63 'live'
Kreutzer
5 - Atrium
Acies
Beethoven
Manhattan
Sorrel
St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Eder
Emerson
Alexander
Borodin'83
Borodin'67
Brodsky
Taneyev
6 - Manhattan****
Brodsky*****
Borodin'81 'live'*****(*)
Orlando***(**)
Emerson****(**)
Alexander****
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Sorrel**
Borodin'67***
7 - Borodin'67
Hagen
St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Brodsky
Emerson
St. Lawrence
Manhattan
Borodin'90
Amati
Sorrel
Alexander
Borodin'81
Philharmonia
Kreutzer
8 - Sorrel
Beethoven'60
Borodin'67
Borodin'90
St.Lawrence
Manhattan
Emerson
Brodsky
Hagen
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Aviv
Borodin'78
Kreutzer
Medici
Voces Intimae'76
9 - Aviv
Borodin'81'live'
Borodin'67
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Manhattan
Emerson
Sorrel
10 - Borodin'67
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Emerson
Borodin'81
Manhattan
Sorrel
11 - Vogler
Borodin'67
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Brodsky
Emerson
Borodin'81
Sorrel
12 - Sorrel
Taneyev'78
Shostakovich
Eder (Debussy)
Borodin'81
Emerson
Amati
Borodin'90
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Philharmonia
Brodsky
Borodin'69
13 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
Sorrel
St.Petersburg
Brodsky
Shostakovich (Aviv)
Emerson
Borodin'81
Borodin'71
14 - Taneyev'78
Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM
Shostakovich
Borodin'81
Brodsky
Sorrel
Emerson
St.Petersburg/Hyperion (Mandelring)
15 - Borodin'95
Beethoven'75
Brodsky Kagen Edition No.30 (1984)
Eder
Kremer-Daniels-Kashkashian-Ma/SONY (Mandelring)
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Sorrel (Danel)
Emerson
Quote from: snyprrr on January 24, 2015, 07:24:38 AM
I think we've finally got around to the end of this thing here.
You aren't fooling anyone!
Quote from: snyprrr on January 24, 2015, 07:24:38 AM
No where really to go from here,... Borodin/Chandos is the most tempting,...
You don't have that set yet?! :o
Quote from: George on January 26, 2015, 07:23:49 AM
You don't have that set yet?! :o
I usually resist the obvious until it becomes... uh... obvious! ;) :laugh:
I mean, as cheap as the Fittzies are, everything I've heard - most everything- only leads me to them out of boredom for nothing to Buy. But I'm sure I will eventually fall here too.
Beethoven are expensive; Taneyev MIA,... the Borodin'67 are like the hidden nugget that I've had to court here, developing an awareness for this set's status.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 26, 2015, 07:11:29 AM
You aren't fooling anyone!
BUT--- I'M SATISFIED!!
Maybe a stray 12 or 14,... but I just don't see myself getting more of the ones I'm particularly sated with (1,4,8,11,13,...etc.). A BRAND NEW CD is coming out with 4/8/11,... sorry, yaaawn ::),... how could I possibly care HOW good it is?
WE HAVE REACHED A NEW PARADIGM. The stakes are that much higher. You HAAAVE to give me something more than what's been being offered of late. Could we have just one new group not trying to sound so pretty? That's the main reason to go for Borodin/Chandos- they actually serve up some brutality where required (9-11).
How many endless Op.110s are we going to have to ignore? There's just nothing left to say here, is there?
No, Karl, I just can't see where this endless getting would go. WHAT IS LEFT? Coull? No. Anton? eh. Cavani? No.
I finally got the St.Lawrence 3/7/8. Actually, one of the best recorded, to be sure (Skywalker Sound- somewhat tight and bright acoustic, very good). I think they give thew Emerson a bit of a go to. Their 7 blisters. Comparing their Op.73 to all comers, they hold the fort pretty well. SO, WHAT, AM I NOW GOING TO GET THE HAGEN TOO? ONLY FOR $2. Frankly, a head to head here would be instructive...
btw- Brodsky over Emerson in 10. and maybe even in 3...
yes, i have been waffling a little lately on my criticisms... very few outright dismissals... but, I believe I've been diligent in weeding out what I don't want...
HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY GO ON? THERE AREN'T THAT MANY MORE DESIRABLE RECORDINGS.
Debussy
Rubio
Rasumowsky
Pacifica
Mandelring
Danel
I mean, none of these has been described as "vicious" "brutal" or anything like that. We are in the midst of the "Happy DSCH" face scenario, - you CAN'T "let the music speak for itsel"- it was MEANT to be played by
Survivors- not music school graduates.
Give me the
Balkan String Quartet any day. :P
Gulag String Quartet
Stalin String Quartet
Famine String Quartet
poor guy :'( ::)
Quote from: snyprrr on January 27, 2015, 08:00:28 AM
HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY GO ON? THERE AREN'T THAT MANY MORE DESIRABLE RECORDINGS.
Debussy
Rubio
Rasumowsky
Pacifica
Mandelring
Danel
The Pacifica and especially the Danel are most desirable.
Also, consider the not complete and may never be complete Prazak. The newer disc with 14/15 is as good as anyone's, and the earlier 7/8 is pretty darned good, too. Then again, the Prazak is one of the better ensembles out there.
Quote from: Todd on January 28, 2015, 07:09:49 PM
The Pacifica and especially the Danel are most desirable.
I just got the Pacifica, and agree that it's a great set. Now available as 8 discs for the price of 2!
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on January 28, 2015, 07:55:27 PM
I just got the Pacifica, and agree that it's a great set. Now available as 8 discs for the price of 2!
Wowzers!
Quote from: Todd on January 28, 2015, 07:09:49 PM
The Pacifica and especially the Danel are most desirable.
Also, consider the not complete and may never be complete Prazak. The newer disc with 14/15 is as good as anyone's, and the earlier 7/8 is pretty darned good, too. Then again, the Prazak is one of the better ensembles out there.
You have the new Prazak 14/15? do ya do ya?
What are the timings? pleeeez
can't find any samples,... I'd need such olympian advocacy to consider these...
I guess though, my point is- I haven't heard word one concerning the Debussy. Maybe one sentence on Rasumowsky.
You mention the Danel and pacifica, but that does me no good unless you add the Mandelring in too for comparison. I think all of these groups need to be reviewed together, the whole lot.
I mean, I guess you could say, They're ALL great, but, come on, that's not really what living on this planet is all about, is it? If I coached a group on this Cycle, I can tell you my whole aim would be to give the people something they haven't heard before. Every movement would be carefully brought to life, considering the playing traditions.
Would i have an 18 minute 13th, or a 22 minute? Doesn't matter- buuut, the non-vibrato aspect hasn't been brought out so much (Aviv?).
I'm just wanting more insight into these later Cycles,- more than just "I got these and they're great".
I just can't believe that any of them have the brutal ferocity of, say, the '67 Borodin. Suuuurely, that Sorrel 8th hasn't been topped yet?
I'm feeling argumentative this morning. Give me some meat!!
Quote from: karlhenning on January 29, 2015, 04:33:27 AM
Wowzers!
Their whole set, individually or together, is going for peanuts. I have long considered the 5-8 set, for $5,... mm.... eh....
I'm sorry, I feel like I'm getting short with the people who are hawking these newer Cycles. I'm just getting :it's great", without any comparisons... I mean, reeeally, which one of these sets has the ultimate 12 or 14? Are any of the 8ths better than the Sorrel? Does the rabid ferocity enter 3, 7, 8, 9, or 10?
I want answers answers answers!!!!!!!
From all the sampling I've done, it just appears that the above axis of seven or so groups are all in the "gentler" camp. You just CAN'T be uniformly gentle here. Apparently, ONLY the Mandelring make a point of playing each work differently, not usung a corporate sound through each and every work. But I'm not sure they go far enough.
Look, here it is in a nutshell: in the slow movement for No.7, some take it at 2:45,... some stretch to 4:05,... and the Kreutzer pound out a 6 minute version. Those are the three options provided by ALL the participants. What? do I need three examples of EACH, or just one? With No.7, I reeeally get tired of hearing the exact same approach over the course of seven or eight Cycles. If someone fresh comes out now with yet another 7 that doesn't have anything different going for it, I'm going to yawn-scream. Look over all these new Cycles. Does anyone do anything super exciting with 7? mmm? Not really. They're all squarely in the middle of the pack- if all I wanted was 7, would I have to then buy all these expensive Cycles just to be underwhelmed by yet another typical 7?
I REALLY AM TIRING OF THIS. Maybe in a year or so people here will have acquired more Cycles, and we can get some more depth here. Only Sarge was doing some comparisons- really? I'm the only one who has only listened to DSCH for a whole year now? (oy- and I'm trying to break free, but, ... but, this music really is so good to me, for me)
AAAAHHHHHHHH
AN EXAMPLE OF MY OBSSESSION: I just popped for the St.Petersburg 4/6/8 for the 6. I have been seeking a 6 I like, and I just haven't been getting what I want. This 6 has gotten superlative (backhanded) reviews, and the samples shine, so, hopefully, this one will sate. If not, then I have to move on to this list of Seven Cycles, all of which have 6s that sound decent enough (as if this should even be a difficult piece to bring off- but, its delicacy and marital origins seem lost in accounts that seek to find darkness where there is none.
I am weary this morn :(... put the DSCH-pipe down, brutha
Quote from: snyprrr on January 29, 2015, 07:28:58 AM
You have the new Prazak 14/15? do ya do ya?
What are the timings? pleeeez
I don't have the discs handy, but the timings are not particularly unusual. Timings aren't necessarily my thing to begin with. As I posted in the WAYLT thread, the Prazak are as good as anyone I have heard.
Quote from: snyprrr on January 29, 2015, 07:28:58 AM
You mention the Danel and pacifica, but that does me no good unless you add the Mandelring in too for comparison. I think all of these groups need to be reviewed together, the whole lot.
I'm not inclined to do a full-blown comparison at this time, but suffice it to say both the Danel and Pacifica best the Mandelring. The Mandelring play well enough, but the set never catches fire for me. The Pacifica and Danel are both, well, "modern" takes, sort of building on the Emerson. They don't emote like the Borodin or Beethoven Quartets, but they are precise and intense. No warmed over, quasi-Brahmsian Rubio stylings here, if that's your worry. It has been a while since I last listened to the Danel, but they have a sheen of perfection, if you will. No errors, plenty of intensity, and if it lacks some emotional heat, that matters not. DSCH, like all great composers, can be interpreted different ways and still succeed. Think of the Danel and the Pacifica as representing something of an evolution in approach to the works. Surely it is better that interpretations change over time and the music stays alive rather than succumbing to one style and being nothing more than a relic.
Quote from: Todd on January 29, 2015, 07:46:28 AM
. . . No errors, plenty of intensity, and if it lacks some emotional heat, that matters not. DSCH, like all great composers, can be interpreted different ways and still succeed.
What are you
saying?! This is
snypsss! If there's no gore on the handlebars, get off the damned Schwinn!
(j/k)
(maybe)
Quote from: snyprrr on January 29, 2015, 07:28:58 AMLook over all these new Cycles. Does anyone do anything super exciting with 7? mmm? Not really. They're all squarely in the middle of the pack- if all I wanted was 7, would I have to then buy all these expensive Cycles just to be underwhelmed by yet another typical 7?
You probably would be underwhelmed. You're a difficult man to satisfy (that's what she said ;D ). I'd like to help you out but, god, comparing eight cycles of 15 quartets is just such a daunting task. My advice: be happy with your Emerson and Borodin sets (you do have a Borodin, right?) and all your single issues (like that superb Sorrel 8 and the eccentric Zapolski 2). Forget the recent cycles (and Rubio, Fitzwilliam). I really do not think they have what you are looking for. And thank you for all your effort. I doubt I would have invested in Sorrel and Manhattan without your mad obsession.
Sarge
Quote from: Todd on January 29, 2015, 07:46:28 AM
I don't have the discs handy, but the timings are not particularly unusual. Timings aren't necessarily my thing to begin with. As I posted in the WAYLT thread, the Prazak are as good as anyone I have heard.
I'm not inclined to do a full-blown comparison at this time, but suffice it to say both the Danel and Pacifica best the Mandelring. The Mandelring play well enough, but the set never catches fire for me. The Pacifica and Danel are both, well, "modern" takes, sort of building on the Emerson. They don't emote like the Borodin or Beethoven Quartets, but they are precise and intense. No warmed over, quasi-Brahmsian Rubio stylings here, if that's your worry. It has been a while since I last listened to the Danel, but they have a sheen of perfection, if you will. No errors, plenty of intensity, and if it lacks some emotional heat, that matters not. DSCH, like all great composers, can be interpreted different ways and still succeed. Think of the Danel and the Pacifica as representing something of an evolution in approach to the works. Surely it is better that interpretations change over time and the music stays alive rather than succumbing to one style and being nothing more than a relic.
Ah, you do know how to woo me, don't you!!?! :laugh:
WOW, YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST: Danel and Pacifica best the MandelringI'd consider that BreakingNews!!
Wow, that would sent my whole paradigm into free fall. hmmm........
Oh, and "quasi Brahmsian stylings of the Rubio".... oy vey, now THAT's the kind of vitriol I need!!!!! Yes, the Rubio sound too much like my grandad's oldsmobile, not a hair out of place, sheen coming from the bows,... yuuuk. so bland...
NO ONE ON THE DEBUSSY???
I'd like to compare the Danel and Rasumowsky.
WAIT- I seem to recall the Danel really disappointing me in the 2nd of Op.73. No frisson at all?
still, I see and enjoy your way of looking at these newer Cycles,... all insight welcome here!
Quote from: karlhenning on January 29, 2015, 07:48:17 AM
What are you saying?! This is snypsss! If there's no gore on the handlebars, get off the damned Schwinn!
(j/k)
(maybe)
Just listen to the Borodin'67's 9 or 10. Nothing more brutal exists, no?
And with the Sorrel's Op.110, I really hear the fingernails being pulled out in the 3rd movement. pluck pluck pluck ouch!!
And with the Emerson, Hagen, and St.Lawrence, the finale 'Allegro' of No.7 is sent burrowing like a diamond mine drill, ridiculously over the top.
BUT- I want my No.6 to sound like Op.18, I don't want any modern looking for darkness there (or in No.1).
I mean, you just can't be nice with the 3rd of No.11. You can't.
I have the Aviv No.9 coming. It's timings are even quicker than the Emerson, and the samples ensure brutality ensuing. (I have two recordings en route, and, other than the Borodin/Chandos, and maybe one random Modern Cycle, I can't possibly see me rooting and tooling for even yet more 4s, 8s, 1s,, 11s, 15s,...etc. Until a young, feral group arises, with an axe to grind, I will perpetually suspicious of any new releases by "pretty" young groups (not being genderist there) who want to inject some "humanity" into these scores. Fuck Off!!!!!
Gulag String Quartet
Stalin String Quartet
Morgaua String QuartetNow we have three issues from EMI-Japan with the Japanese Morgaua SQ. They're all ridiculously in the $60-80 range. I wonder how these Nipponese handle the volatility of 5 and 9. Fiscally, we may never know...
Only your good old buddy snyprrr has rooted them out of the cellar of obscurity to present before you this totally unheard of recording Cycle.
(Todd, the IT Specialist on SNL: "You're welcooome!" :laugh:
Karl, whose SQs do you like better than DSCH? Every time I play someone else's (Hindemith, Villa-Lobos), I'm like, eh, that's nice. What's happened to me? ??? Only DSCH has the MATERIAL which yields these emotional-melodic situations (the opening of No.9, the slow of 7) that just transport us to the outer reaches of the Ultra-Late Romanticism.
sorry, i'm wearying myself today... more coffee....
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 29, 2015, 08:14:33 AM
You probably would be underwhelmed. You're a difficult man to satisfy (that's what she said ;D ). I'd like to help you out but, god, comparing eight cycles of 15 quartets is just such a daunting task. My advice: be happy with your Emerson and Borodin sets (you do have a Borodin, right?) and all your single issues (like that superb Sorrel 8 and the eccentric Zapolski 2). Forget the recent cycles (and Rubio, Fitzwilliam). I really do not think they have what you are looking for. And thank you for all your effort. I doubt I would have invested in Sorrel and Manhattan without your mad obsession.
Sarge
well I certainly thank you my dear sir!
Maybe, as far as endless comparisons go, can we just pick one or two SQs (the ones that naturally crop up in arguments... 12 and 14?... 9?... whatever work has the most "It" to it) and just do it that way... I'm certainly not asking anyone to review No.1) I'm interested in 9-10, 12, 14,... maybe 5-6,... 2-3,...
Hey, I also thank you for confirming the "eccentric" Zapolski Op.68. The Verlaine (BRO) was also an extremely extremely good Op.68, with wonderfully woodsky timbres, and a 'Waltz' almost as slow as the Zapolski.
And I think that Sorrel Op.110 has now the consensus of waaay too many people, it really is beyond any other recording. I frankly couldn't care less about 110, but for the Sorrel (and, actually, the Beethoven premiere).
Now all this thread needs is an Editor!! :laugh:
btw- I'm still looking at Op.73. I actually am starting to prefer the Brodsky over the Emerson here, but haven't found too many third choices,
again, must. stop. typing.
hunger
dizzy
food
Quote from: snyprrr on January 29, 2015, 08:47:03 AM
Maybe, as far as endless comparisons go, can we just pick one or two SQs (the ones that naturally crop up in arguments... 12 and 14?... 9?... whatever work has the most "It" to it) and just do it that way... I'm certainly not asking anyone to review No.1) I'm interested in 9-10, 12, 14,... maybe 5-6,... 2-3,...
I'll see what I can do...over the next year or two ;D Seriously, I would like to compare my various Sevenths (which you didn't mention, not in this post anyway).
If I had to choose between Pacifica and Mandelring...well, I have to go with my homies. I find them more individual, less corporate. I find them as combustible as the Pacifica. But the fact Pacifica is cheaper now, and has those great "fillers" might sway you.
Quote from: Todd on January 29, 2015, 07:46:28 AMNo warmed over, quasi-Brahmsian Rubio stylings here
Quasi-Brahmsian 8) I like that. It's why I love the Rubio cycle (not to the exclusion of others, but as an interesting alternative view of the music).
Sarge
At one point I was considering a Shostakovich 7 mini-blind comparison, probably a single round contrasting some recordings of the first movement. Might still do it.
Quote from: amw on January 29, 2015, 01:19:03 PM
At one point I was considering a Shostakovich 7 mini-blind comparison, probably a single round contrasting some recordings of the first movement. Might still do it.
Please do!
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on January 29, 2015, 01:47:26 PM
Please do!
Sarge
Quote from: amw on January 29, 2015, 01:19:03 PM
At one point I was considering a Shostakovich 7 mini-blind comparison, probably a single round contrasting some recordings of the first movement. Might still do it.
No, that's a great idea! 7 is perfect, and I just got around to it today. But, all three movements are quite unique and special,... even the coda has been taken in a variety of ways. I mean, I'd love to hear the quickest 2:30 slow movement back-to-back with that 6 minute Kreutzer. And, everyone must hear the most blistering intros to the finale- I think the St.Lawrence might beat the Emerson, but the Hagen might beat them all (though, the St.L have a sense of furious hysteria that the more technically fast Hagen may not show).
I really really like the ultra fresh St.Petersburg/SONY (and yes, a total contrast from their Hyperion). I think the Sorrel might be the most disappointingly boring- Philharmonia/Thorofon also- and I don't really get too much frisson from either later Borodin (huh). Rubio and surprisingly the Alexander also appear blindingly generic. Kudos to the Shostakovich for an eerie cello in the 2nd half of slow mvmt.
Warning: There's more boring 7ths than anything else. You'd really have to mix up the slow/fast mix- many do sound very much alike, the only way to tell the dif is by the rec. sound. Many should be obvious.
No.7 is certainly, to me, a perfect Modernist work- so unique and especially moody in its unsettled game of tones. That opening really snapped me (surely0 the first time I heard it. It's JUST Music as GamePlay, though it's supposed to be a post-LoveSong - I'm always trying to hear the romping between Shosty and his then wife in the playful back and forth of the 1st. One can imagine her "form" in the sinuous melody of the coda of the finale. I hear bickering elsewhere.
Sure, let's do a 7 thingy!
No.7 Op.108 (1960)
This one is just so ubiquitous that I take it for granted. Even though, surely, it is some of my all-time favourite music, I don't seem to take it too seriously. But, when I do carefully listen to it, as I did today, it just presents itself as a perfect journey, a love song. Today I just focused on the first movement.
I started with the Emerson, who, frankly, seem just a touch under characterized when the cello begins its melody over the quivering violin. The Manhattan, and Brodsky, both seem a little more homey than the Emersons, with the Brodsky seemingly edging out the Emerson with a much more characterized and urgent tone (though they are 15 secs. slower the still seem to have more momentum than the Emerson).
The Sorrel and the St.Petersburg/Hyperion come with the best actual sound, with the Sorrel having the lushest presentation of all. At first I thought they were soggy, but today the simply seemed symphonic; the massive acoustic, though, does seem to squish a few things, as has been done with other recordings in this Cycle. The St.Ps have a 3D soundscape that seriously splays the music, making every line separate, and I heard things here that didn't register with others.
The St.Petersburg/SONY account is the quickest I have, at 3:16. Only the Taneyev come close here. The fast clip really draws you in, and I do like this approach. The acoustic is much smaller than in their Hyperion Cycle.
The St.Lawrence are comparable to the Emerson and Brodsky. They have the best actual clear, up front recording, with punch.
The Amati, the Philharmonia, and the Alexander didn't make the listen today- tomorrow- but I'm already sure none of these are in any contention. The two later Borodins also didn't get a spin today, but I am quite familiar with their approach here, and they are pretty mild in both.
Op.108 doesn't really make an impact unless you really ply it, and, no matter the tempo chosen, if a group maintains a solid tension throughout, then they usually succeed.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 26, 2015, 07:11:29 AM
You aren't fooling anyone!
ok, I ordered the Hagen 3/7/8 and the Borodin/Chandos,... happy?!! :P
seriously, that's gonna be it for a while... there just aren't any other options,... right?,... I took my notes, made my charts, followed through, and now I've been churned out the other end,... we KNOW what's left,... though, yes, the Pacifica vs Mandelring issue continues to burn for me, not to mention the 3-4 Cycles we've been mentioning....
No.7 Op.108Been doing some intensive listening here,... (waiting now on Hagen)... always looking for "who is better than the Emerson" (just my game)... and so far, here's my picks, somewhat in order:
1)
St.Petersburg/Hyperion- this one just does things no one else does (even St.P/SONY don't). It's so utterly refined that it is in a category unto itself. The 1st is taken "quickly", like their SONY, putting it in rare company (Taneyev, Beethoven). The finale is not as furious as I like (hovering around 6 minutes instead of the quicker 5:25 of others) but the whole presentation illumunates this work nicely. It's by no mean an actual Top Choice, but I give it 'Top Presentation', as opposed to the other "great recording". the Sorrel, in which their usual giant Chandos reverb does a disservice to the actual music (swamping some detail).
2)
St.Petersburg/SONY- the main difference here is the tight SONY sound as compared to the almost gothic ambience of the Hyperion Cycle. Also, the 1st is the quickest on record, quite fresh. In all, this is the one that has become a sort of Standard for me, I was just really taken by its freshness. It's super cheap too, BuyItNOW!!
3)
St.Lawrence- technically, this one does all the right things, including the most ferocious finale this side of the Hagen. The Skywalker sound is a tight, reflective room, though, I could have stood for a more open room to soak up the rests. Otherwise, it competes directly against the Emerson and Hagen and does slash and burn its way into your memory, disregarding ANY politeness either the Emerson or (much less so) the Hagen offer. I'm putting this version right next to the previous St.P/SONY.
4)
Brodsky- my love for the Teldec sound is well known, and the only thing it really needs is some 15-20k boost for the super high end. Otherwise, this is the most DELINEATED performance of all, so etched... just listen to all the lines intersecting in the slow movement, almost like Webern, yummy! And the finale is in Emerson and Hagen territory. This is a supremely icy performance, etched with fine lines, a very definitive sound. The Brodsky are the Dark Horse here.
5)
Emerson vs Hagen- the Emerson actually sound quite scrappy, in the good way, in Op.108. I was fully prepared to give them the Honours, but, all the above have made quite their own claim on this piece. Their 1st is by no means any better, or even different, than so many others. Their 'live' sound is fine, but not really distinguished- everything works together for a rough-and-ready symbiosis that does actually come together in all aspects. The Emerson's main claim to fame in this work is the fact that they take the slow movement quicker than everyone else (@2:45 vs the usual @3:30-40) giving the music a different flavour (compare this with the Kreutzer's outrageous 6:45!!!!!!). Hardly anyone follows them into this territory, so, it does make them somewhat indispensable. Many seem totally satisfied here and refuse to even entertain the possibility of hearing others, but, other have illuminated things that they haven't, so, it is hard for me to just prostrate myself here.
I haven't yet heard the Hagen, but, the samples indicate that they have reserved a place at the table here.
Quote from: snyprrr on February 08, 2015, 08:22:45 AM
ok, I ordered ... the Borodin/Chandos,... happy?!! :P
I know
you will be!
Quote from: snyprrr on February 08, 2015, 08:22:45 AM
ok, I ordered the Hagen 3/7/8 and the Borodin/Chandos,... happy?!! :P
seriously, that's gonna be it for a while... there just aren't any other options,... right?,... I took my notes, made my charts, followed through, and now I've been churned out the other end,... we KNOW what's left,... though, yes, the Pacifica vs Mandelring issue continues to burn for me, not to mention the 3-4 Cycles we've been mentioning....
No.7 Op.108
Been doing some intensive listening here,... (waiting now on Hagen)... always looking for "who is better than the Emerson" (just my game)... and so far, here's my picks, somewhat in order:
1) St.Petersburg/Hyperion- this one just does things no one else does (even St.P/SONY don't). It's so utterly refined that it is in a category unto itself. The 1st is taken "quickly", like their SONY, putting it in rare company (Taneyev, Beethoven). The finale is not as furious as I like (hovering around 6 minutes instead of the quicker 5:25 of others) but the whole presentation illumunates this work nicely. It's by no mean an actual Top Choice, but I give it 'Top Presentation', as opposed to the other "great recording". the Sorrel, in which their usual giant Chandos reverb does a disservice to the actual music (swamping some detail).
2) St.Petersburg/SONY- the main difference here is the tight SONY sound as compared to the almost gothic ambience of the Hyperion Cycle. Also, the 1st is the quickest on record, quite fresh. In all, this is the one that has become a sort of Standard for me, I was just really taken by its freshness. It's super cheap too, BuyItNOW!!
3) St.Lawrence- technically, this one does all the right things, including the most ferocious finale this side of the Hagen. The Skywalker sound is a tight, reflective room, though, I could have stood for a more open room to soak up the rests. Otherwise, it competes directly against the Emerson and Hagen and does slash and burn its way into your memory, disregarding ANY politeness either the Emerson or (much less so) the Hagen offer. I'm putting this version right next to the previous St.P/SONY.
4) Brodsky- my love for the Teldec sound is well known, and the only thing it really needs is some 15-20k boost for the super high end. Otherwise, this is the most DELINEATED performance of all, so etched... just listen to all the lines intersecting in the slow movement, almost like Webern, yummy! And the finale is in Emerson and Hagen territory. This is a supremely icy performance, etched with fine lines, a very definitive sound. The Brodsky are the Dark Horse here.
5) Emerson vs Hagen- the Emerson actually sound quite scrappy, in the good way, in Op.108. I was fully prepared to give them the Honours, but, all the above have made quite their own claim on this piece. Their 1st is by no means any better, or even different, than so many others. Their 'live' sound is fine, but not really distinguished- everything works together for a rough-and-ready symbiosis that does actually come together in all aspects. The Emerson's main claim to fame in this work is the fact that they take the slow movement quicker than everyone else (@2:45 vs the usual @3:30-40) giving the music a different flavour (compare this with the Kreutzer's outrageous 6:45!!!!!!). Hardly anyone follows them into this territory, so, it does make them somewhat indispensable. Many seem totally satisfied here and refuse to even entertain the possibility of hearing others, but, other have illuminated things that they haven't, so, it is hard for me to just prostrate myself here.
I haven't yet heard the Hagen, but, the samples indicate that they have reserved a place at the table here.
HagenI've just listened to their 7 three times, and, folks, it is the Overall Best Winner. It sounds very much like the Emerson, but pristine and icy DG sound, and with the instruments a little more refined without sacrificing any of the ferocity- and the Hagen may the the most incisive of all in the fugue. Yes, they do everything right, there's no arguing. The acoustic is tight and the whole thing exudes the aura of a perfect DG recording.
I don't recall too many people having this one here, or am I wrong? I'm really just tickled by this presentation,... don't know about 3 or 8 yet, but, no matter, this is all about their 7.
Yes by pure co-incidence I listened to the Hagen 7th yesterday as well - and I agree with your description in every way.
Quote from: snyprrr on February 09, 2015, 05:56:13 PM
I've just listened to their 7 three times, and, folks, it is the Overall Best Winner. It sounds very much like the Emerson, but pristine and icy DG sound, and with the instruments a little more refined without sacrificing any of the ferocity- and the Hagen may the the most incisive of all in the fugue. Yes, they do everything right, there's no arguing. The acoustic is tight and the whole thing exudes the aura of a perfect DG recording.
Jed agrees with you about the sound but he has issues with the group's characterization:
"
However, the Hagens' perfectionism sometimes shortchanges the potential for characterization that others have brought to these works.
For example, the Fitzwilliam and Emerson Quartets make more of the Third quartet's dynamic swells, accents, espressivo markings, and jaunty irony, while the Hagens' slashing down-bow chords in the Allegro non troppo lack the other ensembles' rhythmic impetus and menacing heft. And in the Seventh's first movement, the Hagens miss salient opportunities for interplay. To cite once instance, when the cello introduces its theme (measure 46), the 16th-note accompaniment by the second violin and viola remains on an even, uninflected keel. By contrast, the Emersons genuinely converse, thereby introducing a new color and mood. Don't get me wrong: quartet connoisseurs can learn a lot from the Hagens' exacting standards and world-class instrumental prowess. But for the essence of Shostakovich, the reference versions dig deeper. DG's clear, closely detailed engineering is state of the art."
See more at: http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12950/?search=1#sthash.29WcGWZP.dpuf
His reference recordings: Emerson and Borodin Bovine.
I'm not agreeing with him (haven't heard the Hagen 7) but post this just to present another view. I'm considering the Hagen disc...used cheap copies are available.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 10, 2015, 03:36:51 AM
I'm considering the Hagen disc...used cheap copies are available.
Sarge
I'm just waiting for you to buy one so that DG can issue a cheap complete Hagen Edition. More seriously; such a box is urgently needed as I have very little Hagen in my collection.
Quote from: The new erato on February 10, 2015, 04:53:56 AM
I'm just waiting for you to buy one so that DG can issue a cheap complete Hagen Edition. More seriously; such a box is urgently needed as I have very little Hagen in my collection.
A Hagen box would be nice.
Sarge
Quote from: snyprrr on February 08, 2015, 08:22:45 AM
The Emerson's main claim to fame in this work is the fact that they take the slow movement quicker than everyone else (@2:45 vs the usual @3:30-40) giving the music a different flavour...Hardly anyone follows them into this territory, so, it does make them somewhat indispensable.
The Mandeling's Lento is almost as quick (2:54).
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 10, 2015, 03:36:51 AM
Jed agrees with you about the sound but he has issues with the group's characterization:
"However, the Hagens' perfectionism sometimes shortchanges the potential for characterization that others have brought to these works.
For example, the Fitzwilliam and Emerson Quartets make more of the Third quartet's dynamic swells, accents, espressivo markings, and jaunty irony, while the Hagens' slashing down-bow chords in the Allegro non troppo lack the other ensembles' rhythmic impetus and menacing heft. And in the Seventh's first movement, the Hagens miss salient opportunities for interplay. To cite once instance, when the cello introduces its theme (measure 46), the 16th-note accompaniment by the second violin and viola remains on an even, uninflected keel. By contrast, the Emersons genuinely converse, thereby introducing a new color and mood. Don't get me wrong: quartet connoisseurs can learn a lot from the Hagens' exacting standards and world-class instrumental prowess. But for the essence of Shostakovich, the reference versions dig deeper. DG's clear, closely detailed engineering is state of the art."
See more at: http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-12950/?search=1#sthash.29WcGWZP.dpuf
His reference recordings: Emerson and Borodin Bovine.
I'm not agreeing with him (haven't heard the Hagen 7) but post this just to present another view. I'm considering the Hagen disc...used cheap copies are available.
Sarge
Absolutely correct in Op.73- just listened, and it surely is the smoothest, most professional sounding... maybe even Debussyian? Yes, I totally disagreed with their tempi (7:11 1st, as opposed to the Borodin'83 6:23), but, the presentation and sound really make for compelling listening. Perhaps the Emerson are even too quick- especially in the 2nd movement, ... uh,,,... anyhow, the Hagen's 1st is just too slow and doesn't get that SNAP- still, the presentation makes everything palatable.
Had the Emerson gotten the DG sound that ythe Hagen got, we might be in a very different world. BUT, the more I hear, the more I find perfectly wonderful interpretations that best the Emerson every time- I'm definitely starting to hear the lack of SOUL in a lot of their work here- Op.73 being a great example (and, I was raving over their Op.73 not too long ago). They're just too quick, and miss opportunities to act human.
I still think they got Op.108 right- yes, they have the quicker 'Lento', too. The Emerson's timing on the finale is quicker, but the Hagen sound quicker- some don't like their over the top speed here, but I do. Git 'er done!!
Kind of ambivalent concerning Op.110. No one's even approaching the Sorrel here. I was going to do an Emerson/Hagen/St.Lawrence comparison- what i heard of the Hagen- though it sounds great- they did a few things I didn't care for- still, I need to go more in depth.
So, yea, a Hagen Cycle would be interesting- one assumes there would be interesting things to say in 13 and 15... 9-10... 12...
I'm actually quite pleased with the Hagen 3/7/8. They do a lot of things like the Emerson, and one automatically wants to compare them, and they are somewhat compatible. The Hagen's DG sound really is sumptuously icy- though Op.73 generally wants a bigger auditorium-.
And yes, you can get it cheap NEW!! ($5 + sh.)
Can't get over their totally smooth Op.73- it's so wrong, but I like it!!! STILL- I need to put on that Borodin'83 ('67 on order)- they really get that 1st movement spikiness that a lot of others overlook, and they have that Slavic sloshiness that groups like the Emerson can only dream of.
OY!! I have -apparently- extra booster rockets in my DSCH SQ marathon!!! whew!!!
Currently awaiting
Borodin/Chandos,
St.P 4/6/8, and
St,P 2-3. THAT'S IT I TELL YOU!!!!!! (just plunked for the last one 5 minutes ago--- don't tell Karl :-[ :-[)
SARGE- I'd like to know if the Georgian State SQ's Caprice recording of 2-3 has hit your radar? They're old, they're from the old country, and the samples reveal a refreshingly old fashioned approach. Curious...
Quote from: George on February 08, 2015, 08:24:09 AM
I know you will be!
Borodin/Chandos arrived! Listened to No.7- wow, yes, it IS one of the very best- quick... and, with surprisingly good sound, really not that worse than the Emerson's 'live' sound... eh? Anyone comment on the sound?
Yes, I'm really chompin' at the bit to get in to this one.. 9-10 specifically... can't wait to do an all-Borodin comparison... I'm already looking to scrap a good portion of the 2nd,'80s Cycle... I mean, did they mellow out or what????
Ahhhhhh... wippy zippy... I feel like it's a little glimpse of History... i FEEL LIKE i JUST MET A NEW SOMEONE SPECIAL!!!!!!HAHA Me and the Borodins will be going away for the weekend....
I think I have to start with 2-3... oh, I'm just giddy with anticipation!!!!!!!!! Just LOOOOOK at those timings!!!!!AAAAAAHHHHHHHH
fapfapfapfapfap
wheeeeew :P
Quote from: snyprrr on February 12, 2015, 08:27:37 AM
Borodin/Chandos arrived! Listened to No.7- wow, yes, it IS one of the very best- quick... and, with surprisingly good sound, really not that worse than the Emerson's 'live' sound... eh? Anyone comment on the sound?
Yes, I'm really chompin' at the bit to get in to this one.. 9-10 specifically... can't wait to do an all-Borodin comparison... I'm already looking to scrap a good portion of the 2nd,'80s Cycle... I mean, did they mellow out or what????
Ahhhhhh... wippy zippy... I feel like it's a little glimpse of History... i FEEL LIKE i JUST MET A NEW SOMEONE SPECIAL!!!!!!HAHA Me and the Borodins will be going away for the weekend....
I think I have to start with 2-3... oh, I'm just giddy with anticipation!!!!!!!!! Just LOOOOOK at those timings!!!!!AAAAAAHHHHHHHH
fapfapfapfapfap
wheeeeew :P
yea ::), uh :-[,... :-X :-\... errrr...
So, The Great Borodin Challenge is under way, and, wow, results have come in that were unexpected. So far, No.10 Op.118 is the qualified TopChoice by a wide margin, they handily take care of the Emerson, and score against Borodin'81 with a quicker opener- otherwise, actually, the latter Borodin are almost just as great, but the giant acoustic (fake reverb?) sometimes gets in the way of detail, whereas the Borodin'67 have a much nicer ambience.
However, in No.9 Op.117, in which I thought the B'67 would garner all categories, it was actually the 'live' Borodin'81 that sear this one into the memory. I could have sworn I had pegged the earlier one, but I didn't take into consideration the 'live' context. And, both of them supercede the Emerson by a margin.
The B'67 also take No.7, besting all but by no means being the only avenue here- they just really put the the steam to this one- maybe the Beethoven are as manic but not even the Hagen can match the B'67's sheer, scrappy, feral and rabid ferocity.
The B'67 also take No.11 from the "bovine" group, with the latter's penchant for more "Romantic" expression slowing down the outer and slower movements passed what we'd all like to hear in terms of tension. Though both are scorching in the middle movements, the B'67 No.11 is hot off the press, and tightens up whereas the latter group... bloats (just.a.tiny.bit.). I no longer consider the latter version of this piece competitive.
Again, though I haven't thoroughly checked, and I thought the B'67 would take Nos.2-3 from the latter, famous EMI release. But, though they seem to totally clean up No.2 from the excesses of the latter account, their No.3 doesn't quite give exactly the same kind of heroic posture that the latter EMI/"bovine" exhibits. However, I'm not done here, we have at least three Borodins to compare (more if we could the Kopelman and Berlinsky Quartets!!), though I don't hold out for the later Virgin'90 versions.
Also, I'm none too quick to compare 12-13 since they have gotten some bad press,... anyone?
No.6 Op.101 will be nice to compare to the 'live' B'81, and No.5 Op.92 is much quicker all the way around. That leaves No.1, which I'll save for the B'95 Challenge,... oh, and No.8, though I'm not sure I like the Borodin here...
So, yes, this Borodin'67 Cycle is Essential By All Means... surprisingly good sound (better than Emerson???)... so Authentic, Tangy, "Idiomatic", Rustic,... CHEAP!!! Already blowing much of the competition away...
YAAAY :D
Continuing the Great Borodin Challenge,... going through Op.68 yesterday,... the endless 12:48 'Romance' of the 1983 version doesn't seem THAT immobile when compared to the 1967, or even the 1990, but, the 1983 does seem to miss out a little by being so loose. However, the viola solo near the beginning (EDIT: at the beginning of the FINALE 'Theme & Variations') gets the most delicious sinuous quality in the 1983 that just isn't there in the other two, and I think it's the recording. The 1990 comes off consistently as the "cleaned up" version, which, frankly, isn't so bad,... the 1983 does seem a bit over-the-top, perhaps, in its emotional toiling.
The fact is, in all three recordings, the Borodin don't change their procedure, so, really, all we're getting is different acoustic "guises" for the same basic methodology. I'm starting to enjoy the 1983 the LEAST out of the three, but it seems mostly because of the acoustic/recording and not the approach (though, the 'Romance' IS pretty long). The 'Waltz' may be a little ardent in the 1983, too,... but, here there is definitely not much difference between the three.
The 1967 sound is really very good, and also appropriate to the music, having almost a golden halo around it. The 1990 sound is famously odd, almost too gilded, but it IS a professional Virgin recording and does illuminate certain detail. The 1983 sound sounds like one of those "black" EMI recordings (like Muti's 'Le Sacre') that, even though it sounds ok, has a quality of "oppression" to it that I can't explain, a certain hardness that doesn't feel right (and there have been concerns over what the Melodiya enginerers may or may not have done to the original recordings).
Anyhow,... Op.73 today...
Quote from: snyprrr on February 15, 2015, 07:19:00 AM
Continuing the Great Borodin Challenge,... going through Op.68 yesterday,... the endless 12:48 'Romance' of the 1983 version doesn't seem THAT immobile when compared to the 1967, or even the 1990, but, the 1983 does seem to miss out a little by being so loose. However, the viola solo near the beginning (EDIT: at the beginning of the FINALE 'Theme & Variations') gets the most delicious sinuous quality in the 1983 that just isn't there in the other two, and I think it's the recording. The 1990 comes off consistently as the "cleaned up" version, which, frankly, isn't so bad,... the 1983 does seem a bit over-the-top, perhaps, in its emotional toiling.
The fact is, in all three recordings, the Borodin don't change their procedure, so, really, all we're getting is different acoustic "guises" for the same basic methodology. I'm starting to enjoy the 1983 the LEAST out of the three, but it seems mostly because of the acoustic/recording and not the approach (though, the 'Romance' IS pretty long). The 'Waltz' may be a little ardent in the 1983, too,... but, here there is definitely not much difference between the three.
The 1967 sound is really very good, and also appropriate to the music, having almost a golden halo around it. The 1990 sound is famously odd, almost too gilded, but it IS a professional Virgin recording and does illuminate certain detail. The 1983 sound sounds like one of those "black" EMI recordings (like Muti's 'Le Sacre') that, even though it sounds ok, has a quality of "oppression" to it that I can't explain, a certain hardness that doesn't feel right (and there have been concerns over what the Melodiya enginerers may or may not have done to the original recordings).
Anyhow,... Op.73 today...
No.5 Op.92Hmmm, the Borodin'67's Op.92 left me cold. The opening just doesn't have the sweep of my favoured versions. The Borodin'84 sound better, and have more sweep, but are still not anyewhere near my current standard for this piece. They just don't drive the music like, say, the Emerson- though, the Emerson themselves have absolutely no charm in this particular piece, either- they certainly get the forward momentum going, but there is no integration between the parts (imo) and the sound doesn't flatter the proceeding too much.
All are more interesting than the Brodsky, who really underpower this opening. The Alexander sound good but are a bit polite. It does seem like it's hard to get the measure of this music- it IS quite wrought, and one really must treat it as a Supreme Masterpiece and many just plough on without seemingly taking the extended time to get INSIDE the music.
My old, favoured Manhattan recording came out sounding the best, though missing some of that Emerson "chugga chugga". Still, they have a general sweep missing from the others.
Currently, I hold the Atrium and the Acies in the TopChoice positions, with the two St.Petersburg and the Sorrel holding the flanks. The Eder have the quickest and most brutal opener, surprise, and really take most others to the shed, though their sound is typical Naxos and not top shelf glimmer.
The Beethoven samples tell me that they took it seriously when this music was dedicated to them, and the sound seems a little better than some of their others.
The Taneyev are JUST TOO SLOW in the opener, and drag.
The Fitzwilliam sound pretty good; I'd haaaaaave to get their set to really.... oy vey,... stop it, stop it,.... wait till summer...
I
f anyone could post the Beethoven Op.92, that would be reeeal swell!!I feel like I've really got a handle on Op.92 now, as far as guidance is concerned. I might be settling in for a giant Op.92 marathon, seeing it is the kind of complex piece you can sit down and chew the cud with. And you?
Quote from: amw on September 18, 2014, 09:12:37 PM
IMO the 'big' Shostakovich finales benefit from some time being taken. The Taneyevs take 5:25 up to the big slowdown, so there's about 2 min 20 of roughly Andante in the middle there. Don't know how others compare.
Timings! Though I think most of these are rather standard, compared to some of the tempi they adopt in 'standard rep'—the most obvious standouts being the first movement of No. 5, finale of No. 3, and all of No. 13.
1: 4:43 / 4:34 / 1:58 / 3:03
2: 8:15 / 10:39 / 6:21 / 10:54
3: 7:03 / 4:30 / 3:44 / 5:36 / 10:41
4: 3:26 / 6:41 / 4:03 / 8:19
5: 12:00 / 9:06 / 10:56
6: 7:00 / 5:00 / 4:53 / 8:29
7: 3:10 / 3:49 / 5:42
8: 4:30 / 2:45 / 4:32 / 4:43 / 3:13
9: 4:05 / 3:40 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18
10: 3:57 / 4:18 / 6:16 / 9:05
11: 1:55 / 2:33 / 1:32 / 1:21/ 0:59 / 4:38 / 3:16
12: 6:11 / 18:25
13: 15:22
14: 8:23 / 9:20 / 8:42
15: 11:35 / 6:21 / 2:00 / 4:34 / 5:01 / 6:28
No.4 Op.83 (1949)
Oddly enough, it seems this is the last one to get my attention this time around, perhaps because it was my early favourite thanks to the smooth and sleek Manhattan Quartet and their 4 minute opener. Since then, I've always needed my Op.83 to have a sleek and shimmering opening, not grating in slightest when it comes to the big conflation of the theme that almost ends up sounding a little like orchestral Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple (in the best possible sense,... please, don't argue!). I heard one, it might have been the Taneyev (though I can't imagine), that just grated me in the climax,... maybe it was the Shostakovich? Either way, whether you play the shorter, @3:20 version favoured by the hard core purists (everyone from the Beethoven to the Emerson), or you really stretch it out to @4:20 like some do (am I thinking Rubio?), I need to hear,... excuse me, I don't need to hear too much angst coming out of this music which I would describe as "Golden Dawn at the Crescent of the Harvest of the World",... the shimmering vision of the hot sun shining forth the wheat fields is palpable.
Frankly, this time around, I struggle to hear a bad Op.83. The Sorrel strike yet another gold star here: whereas their massive Chandos sound can get in the way of some of the SQs, No.7 comes to mind, here it gives CinemaScope Panavision to the proceedings. By contrast, the St.Petersburg/SONY have a very tight and intimate gig that I also really like. The Manhattan still sound good to me (and seem to get the delicious mountain melody towards the end of the first movement just right), and the Moyzes is probably still my TopChoice just because of the 'Jewish' Quartet business, but, I am finding the Emerson somewhat too icily "perfect" here, and I just can't give them place with so many Slavic and otherwise, excuse, more "ethnic" groups (oy veeey!!) to choose from. Even the Jerusalem Quartet have been accused of not being semitic enooough in the finale, as is the criticism of most ALL recordings of this work,... uh,... other than the Moyzes (which, frankly, I find just a little too "schleppende", I mean, is slackness supposed to account for an hebraic inflection, huh what?).
So, if I may skip over the slow movement (I prefer the longer, @7:00 versions,... so many good ones here, who do you like?), and the scherzo (though, some are audacious enough to try to play with the strict tempo of the piece, which should be right around 4:00 even to get the right snap), may I go straight to the ending 'Allegretto' and just blow this whole thing up:
Much has been made of Op.83's "semitic" ending, and I recall listen, and trying to nod my head as if to ask, But, this is 'Russian' music, right?, not getting.it.at.all. When I first heard the Moyzes performance, which is cited as being "The" Most Semitic, and heard the loping, slow take of the chugga-chugga, I shrugged my shoulders wondering what all this was about, all this so-called semitism here. (spell check on "semitism"?,... because without "anti-" it's not a word???lolz)
I am used to a slower version of this music, between 10:00 and 11:00, the latter being about the limit of the piece (I think the Moyzes are one of, if not the, longest, at 11:01). So, imagine my utter surprise today, when sampling, I found the Beethoven to have a finale @8:00! and the Taneyev too! And, at this tempo, the music made absolute sense to me,- it's like the same finale in Op.118, No.10, a jaunty, chugging, 'Fiddler on the Roof' rhythm,... not the "schlepping" "victim" rhythm that those who make the rules about what constitutes this kind of stuff favour. If so, then the Hagen must be accounted their godsend, in what may be the absolute longest performance of all (much slower than even the Moyzes, I believe).
I cannot overemphasize the shock this 8 minute finale had on me. I've never actually liked the movement, over payed much attention after the first couple of minutes, precisely, perhaps, because I was hearing such "schlepping" versions (even my beloved Manhattan clock in at 9:47). Besides the Beethoven and the Taneyev, I believe the Fitzwilliam may have a very quick finale (just maybe not), but, not too many others have adopted this strategy. I now cannot hear these slow slow versions as anything other than wilful manipulation of the material. Maybe I'm wrong, but as played by the Beethoven (and here I thought it was going to sound ridiculously fast) this music sounded utterly perfect and right; as played by the Moyzes it seems to sound like a forced slow march; as played by the Hagen it seems to grind to a halt (an exaggeration).
Do you find this particular issues as riveting as I do? One of the pleasures of this journey has been the utter shock at hearing a take on a movement that changes everything, such as the Emerson's Op.73 finale, or the Zapolski's 7 minute 'Waltz' in Op.68, or Kremer's 13-14. And there are many such examples. Here, the Beethoven, whose Premiere Recording of Op.73 is corporately soooo slow as to make the mind boggle (EVERY movement is taken at a snail's pace, riseable by today's standards- as if this is what the public thought the music really was (you must hear these samples on the 'First Recordings' recording)). here the Beethoven shine as pure as the sun: how can this not be what was intended?
What do you think?
Well, as a fan of both the Shostakovich quartets, and Gidon Kremer, I don't know how I've been oblivious to the combination before . . . .
Quote from: karlhenning on February 18, 2015, 05:21:51 AM
Well, as a fan of both the Shostakovich quartets, and Gidon Kremer, I don't know how I've been oblivious to the combination before . . . .
Well, that's nice, Karl, but I was really hoping you'd reply to the Op.83 Post,... errrr. :-[
How is an 11 minute finale more "semitic" than the 8 minute approach?
AND, SO, BTW,
go for the Kremer 13-14, stay away from Kremer 15 (though, it's still nice to have for the SG)
I see you, Sarge,... Op.83?
infuriating it is :-\
Quote from: karlhenning on February 18, 2015, 05:21:51 AM
Have you heard the Taneyev's 'live' 1,3, & 4 on Leningrad Masters?
How curious of you to ask as I just ordered that one. It comes very warmly recommended, and has an Op.83 finale 'Allegretto' of 7:43!! Imagine that contrasted with the Moyzes 11:01. These are heady times we live in, whew!
I've also been hearing interesting things concerning the Dartington Quartet's 4 & 8 for AmonRa (rec. 1971??).
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 10, 2015, 05:41:57 AM
The Mandeling's Lento is almost as quick (2:54).
Sarge
I've been getting into the finale of Op.83. Most take this the long way, which leads to the 11 minute mark, but, after hearing the Beethoven's @8:26, which sounded "correct" to me, I went looking for other short versions.
Well, there's not many: the Beethoven, both Taneyev's, the Kreutzer, and the Eder. I got the 'live' 1966 Taneyev (cheap), and they take it quite fast and it just sounds right, semitic even!! The mvmt. clocks in at 7:46!!, buuut, it begins right at the "rhythm", so, the intro is left out, actually making the mvmt. @8:20, which is still quick (there's also applause to take into account). So, the above groups all clock in @8:30, which gives a nice snap to the mvmvt., like the corresponding mvmt. of Op.118.
So I got the Kreutzer 4/7/8 (Carlton Classics) who seem to be the only modern performance with non-Naxos sound to utilize the quicker ending. We'll see... hear...
Snyprrr, you're so into the material by now... could I trouble you, obviously only if you don't mind, with a list of the DSCH SQ4t Cycles you have (or know of) and the recording dates (earliest and last)?
That would be an awesome leg up for me to get cracking on such a discography of cycles as I've put up for the Symphonies (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-survey-of-shostakovich-symphony-cycles.html).
Quote from: jlaurson on February 25, 2015, 08:48:03 AM
Snyprrr, you're so into the material by now... could I trouble you, obviously only if you don't mind, with a list of the DSCH SQ4t Cycles you have (or know of) and the recording dates (earliest and last)?
That would be an awesome leg up for me to get cracking on such a discography of cycles as I've put up for the Symphonies (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-survey-of-shostakovich-symphony-cycles.html).
start at Page 20? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
There is a page on the netwebs compiled by "onno van rijen" that I have open all the time online.nl ... let me know if you can't find it
but it starts with
Beethoven+
Borodin '67-'72
Taneyev -'78
Fitzwilliam ;76
Borodin '78-'83
Shostakovich '78-'86?
Brodsky'89
Manhattan'90
Borodin'90-'95
Eder 1/2 Hagen '94/'06
1/2 St.Petersburg/SONY'94-'95
1/2 Rubio/Globe
Debussy'98-'04?
Emerson
Sorrel'99-
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Runio/Brilliant'02
1/2 Jerusalem
1/2 Aviv 'live'
Alexander'05/6
Rasumowsky'05/6
Danel'06
Pacifica
Mandlering
1/2 Morgaua
Borodin2020
Quote from: jlaurson on February 25, 2015, 08:48:03 AM
Snyprrr, you're so into the material by now... could I trouble you, obviously only if you don't mind, with a list of the DSCH SQ4t Cycles you have (or know of) and the recording dates (earliest and last)?
That would be an awesome leg up for me to get cracking on such a discography of cycles as I've put up for the Symphonies (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-survey-of-shostakovich-symphony-cycles.html).
and my personal library updates are in Post#579 on Page29
Quote from: snyprrr on February 25, 2015, 07:24:21 PM
start at Page 20? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
There is a page on the netwebs compiled by "onno van rijen" that I have open all the time online.nl ... let me know if you can't find it
but it starts with
Beethoven+
Borodin '67-'72
Taneyev -'78
Fitzwilliam ;76
Borodin '78-'83
Shostakovich '78-'86?
Brodsky'89
Manhattan'90
Borodin'90-'95
Eder 1/2 Hagen '94/'06
1/2 St.Petersburg/SONY'94-'95
1/2 Rubio/Globe
Debussy'98-'04?
Emerson
Sorrel'99-
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Runio/Brilliant'02
1/2 Jerusalem
1/2 Aviv 'live'
Alexander'05/6
Rasumowsky'05/6
Danel'06
Pacifica
Mandlering
1/2 Morgaua
Borodin2020
Good man! Thanks very much, indeed.
That's a great leg up!
Started listening to the Sorrel today. I began with volume 2, which contains #3, 4, & 11.
[asin]B00003XB21[/asin]
I can't understand why I would want another cycle of these works; and yet something drives me on ... Thankfully they are all available for streaming.
:)
Quote from: sanantonio on February 27, 2015, 06:39:43 AM
I can't understand why I would want another cycle of these works; and yet something drives me on ...
My dear chap, you have a window onto
snypsss's soul! 8)
Quote from: sanantonio on February 27, 2015, 06:39:43 AM
Started listening to the Sorrel today. I began with volume 2, which contains #3, 4, & 11.
[asin]B00003XB21[/asin]
I can't understand why I would want another cycle of these works; and yet something drives me on ... Thankfully they are all available for streaming.
:)
Actually, that is the ONE CD that I thought was their worst. I really liked their 4, but, certain movements of 3 and 11 ruined them for me. I think it was the slow movements... with 3 I think also the 2nd was extreeemely slow and the last two mvmts. seemed slow, and then with the 11th, the second to last movement was just too slow.
Sometimes, their strategy is just what is needed (like in No.8), but, in the more "normal" works they tend to drag out the slow movements past the point of tension, in 3, 6, 11, maybe 10,... please tell me if you can't hear that in 3 or 11.
However, I do agree with you that their presentation is maybe the very best. 12-14 are probably the best I've heard (especially 12), and 8,...
However, sometimes their overly luxurient(?) Chandos sound seems to swamp detail, like in No.7 where the concluding furious fugue seems to get gelled up with the auditorium ambience.
Do get the three issues with 12-14, and maybe their 5/15 (though their 15 is way too lively). I'd personally stay away from the 3/4/11 and maybe the 6/7/10,...
Quote from: karlhenning on February 27, 2015, 06:42:16 AM
My dear chap, you have a window onto snypsss's soul! 8)
But I've travelled farther, and must declare a warning not to get too hypnotized by the Sorrel's sumptuousness. Again, when they're on (1-2, 4-5, 8, 12-14) they can beat ALL the competition, but when they take some of those slow movements way too slow (3, 6, 10) one really hears it as being too slow, especially in 6 and 10.
Karl, I did get that PointClassics Taneyev disc with 1/3/4 (1966,66,63), and, mm, the sound is Soviet-OK, and there are some outrageously fast passages (finale of No.1 is a bluuur), but I was unable to get overly excited. The finale of No.4 was refreshingly the opposite of the longer versions, exhibiting a bounce (like the finale of 10) that others gloss over with their slower tempos.
I also, and yes this would point to my "needs", I got the old Medici Op.110,... yes, that old thing that everyone's probably overlooked,...
OH, BTWWWWW!!!!- I DO DECLARE THAT THE KRONOS 8 HAS MUCH MUCH MORE GOOD STUFF THAN THE EMERSON. I WAS SHOCKED, but the Kronos deliver one of the best overall and do everything "more" than many. iN MY JOURNEY, THIS was one of the intereresting surprises that I thought I'd taken for granted (that the Kronos was going to suck). Bam!!
soooo,... does this mean there's going to be more traffic in the Thread?? ::) :laugh:
Oh, dear fellow, you are dreadfully mistaken! I was horribly disappointed when I went back to the Kronos Qt recording of the Op.110 — unless you don't mean the one which was on the Black Angels album, and that they have since recorded it when they were better equipped? That would almost be against their Mission statement, though . . . do it once, and now it's dead to us . . . oh, the shameless première whores!
Quote from: snyprrr on February 27, 2015, 07:05:47 AM
Actually, that is the ONE CD that I thought was their worst. I really liked their 4, but, certain movements of 3 and 11 ruined them for me. I think it was the slow movements... with 3 I think also the 2nd was extreeemely slow and the last two mvmts. seemed slow, and then with the 11th, the second to last movement was just too slow.
If this is their worst, then their cycle must be pretty darn good. I haven't listened so closlely yet to voice an opinion concerning your dislike of their tempo in the slow movements, but am now eager to listen to the other volumes.
Up to now my go to sets were Danel, Pacifica and
Takacs (brain fart, Bartok) Borodin. Maybe Sorrel will join them, at least for some of the works.
Thanks for your comments.
:)
Quote from: snyprrr on February 27, 2015, 07:06:41 AM
soooo,... does this mean there's going to be more traffic in the Thread?? ::) :laugh:
That would be a wonderful thing, for IMO Traffic doesn't get enough recognition these days.
Quote from: sanantonio on February 27, 2015, 07:20:00 AM
If this is their worst, then their cycle must be pretty darn good. I haven't listened so closlely yet to voice an opinion concerning your dislike of their tempo in the slow movements, but am now eager to listen to the other volumes.
Their performances of No. 9 and No. 12 are excellent. No. 13 was a bit less impressive. I didn't listen to any of the others.
Quote from: snyprrr on February 27, 2015, 07:05:47 AM
Actually, that is the ONE CD that I thought was their worst. I really liked their 4, but, certain movements of 3 and 11 ruined them for me. I think it was the slow movements... with 3 I think also the 2nd was extreeemely slow and the last two mvmts. seemed slow, and then with the 11th, the second to last movement was just too slow.
Sometimes, their strategy is just what is needed (like in No.8), but, in the more "normal" works they tend to drag out the slow movements past the point of tension, in 3, 6, 11, maybe 10,... please tell me if you can't hear that in 3 or 11.
However, I do agree with you that their presentation is maybe the very best. 12-14 are probably the best I've heard (especially 12), and 8,...
However, sometimes their overly luxurient(?) Chandos sound seems to swamp detail, like in No.7 where the concluding furious fugue seems to get gelled up with the auditorium ambience.
Do get the three issues with 12-14, and maybe their 5/15 (though their 15 is way too lively). I'd personally stay away from the 3/4/11 and maybe the 6/7/10,...
But I've travelled farther, and must declare a warning not to get too hypnotized by the Sorrel's sumptuousness. Again, when they're on (1-2, 4-5, 8, 12-14) they can beat ALL the competition, but when they take some of those slow movements way too slow (3, 6, 10) one really hears it as being too slow, especially in 6 and 10.
Karl, I did get that PointClassics Taneyev disc with 1/3/4 (1966,66,63), and, mm, the sound is Soviet-OK, and there are some outrageously fast passages (finale of No.1 is a bluuur), but I was unable to get overly excited. The finale of No.4 was refreshingly the opposite of the longer versions, exhibiting a bounce (like the finale of 10) that others gloss over with their slower tempos.
I also, and yes this would point to my "needs", I got the old Medici Op.110,... yes, that old thing that everyone's probably overlooked,...
OH, BTWWWWW!!!!- I DO DECLARE THAT THE KRONOS 8 HAS MUCH MUCH MORE GOOD STUFF THAN THE EMERSON. I WAS SHOCKED, but the Kronos deliver one of the best overall and do everything "more" than many. iN MY JOURNEY, THIS was one of the intereresting surprises that I thought I'd taken for granted (that the Kronos was going to suck). Bam!!
Are you talking Celibidache here??
Quote from: Robert on February 27, 2015, 01:57:12 PM
Are you talking Celibidache here??
The only thing that clicks is the Kreutzer's 6:48 'Lento' from No.7, which is usually played 2:47-3:34. There appears not to be too many opportunities for Xtreme Slow Tempi in the SQs, though, it would be nice if someone did a Cleibidache/Sanderling Op.110 and played it to the breaking point (with the 'Allegro molto' also being as-slow-as-possible),... the Sorrel are tops here...
Quote from: sanantonio on February 27, 2015, 07:20:00 AM
If this is their worst, then their cycle must be pretty darn good. I haven't listened so closlely yet to voice an opinion concerning your dislike of their tempo in the slow movements, but am now eager to listen to the other volumes.
Up to now my go to sets were Danel, Pacifica and Takacs (brain fart, Bartok) Borodin. Maybe Sorrel will join them, at least for some of the works.
Thanks for your comments.
:)
Quote from: amw on February 27, 2015, 01:29:33 PM
Their performances of No. 9 and No. 12 are excellent. No. 13 was a bit less impressive. I didn't listen to any of the others.
BUUUT- their 13 does have the same extreme aggression in those stabbing chords as does their 8... I'm a fan of most of the Modern 13s...
Again, their 8th has been noted by many as in a class of its own.
I took inspiration and took the Sorrel's 12 with me today- WOOOW, that 'Allegretto' is just staggeringly resplendent, every turn caught in Technicolor.
sanantonio,- everyone says every new Cycle is "The Best Sounding", and all that jazz, but, it seems openly obvious that the Chandos sound "environment" given to the Sorrel is like out of some Hollywood Fantasy,... I mean, we all know the type of sound Chandos is known for. lush lush lush
I don't like their layout, though. I'd rather have 12-14 on one disc,... but,... mm,... I Am keeping the volumes I don't like, so,... haha!!
And, I'll just open this can'o worms- think about the Sorrel,- four women working together- getting on the same cycle- ---- I wonder if I perceived certain days when they weren't synched-up?--- I mean, it's just a fact of life, but I certainly hear ... oh... ok.... I'll stop ... oy vey...
Quote from: karlhenning on February 27, 2015, 07:18:12 AM
Oh, dear fellow, you are dreadfully mistaken! I was horribly disappointed when I went back to the Kronos Qt recording of the Op.110 — unless you don't mean the one which was on the Black Angels album, and that they have since recorded it when they were better equipped? That would almost be against their Mission statement, though . . . do it once, and now it's dead to us . . . oh, the shameless première whores!
Well, I just YT'd the other day, out of the blue, just after the Emerson, (like- wait, do I haaave to listen to the Kronos too??lolz)- and, as my head had been swimming with 8s all that day, I immediately perked up when I heard them. I was expecting dreck, but I was quite surprised by their involvement, Now, let me preface by saying I like Op.110 to be as pretentiously dramatic as possible. And, isn't it fairly safe to say that the Emerson are quite dry here? (hence, my disappointment with some of their choices (and, of course, their legendary 3rd person coolness))
So, since the Kronos don't opt for a slow tempo in mvmt.4, at least they make the chords sound like knocking (no one does the doomsday thuds like the Sorrel). I don't know, Karl, I know, I was expecting the Kronos to be full of themselves- and they are- but this SQ HAS to be played as a pretentious soundtrack- all the ones I've heard where they're "playing more of the music and less of the hype"- eh, that's bs- the music needs to be played flat-out, and with a Human Agenda-
I mean, Karl, isn't there the consensus amongst us (even you?) that Op.110 is pretty standard in the Emerson's hands (maybe except for the fast bit of course!!- which of course others have now done just as fast and brutal)?
I know, why am I getting all defensive over your shock? I'm shocked!! (that I found the Kronos... gulp... "definitive" for the time in which it came out... gulp...and that I didn't find the Emerson to be such a jump)
Anyhow, I just got the Medici's 8- they are the first Western recording of 8 after the Fitzzies... 1984? way before the DSCH craze... I've passed this CD up so many times, oy vey, haha (w/Debussy)...
anyhow...
still, there's so much more to Op.110 than what either the Kronos or Emerson deliver, right? I even counted the Manhattan and Brodsky as more involving than the Emerson... even the St.Petersburg/Hyperion rendition, I thought, came into direct competition with the Emerson (the St.Ps surprised me here)...
ON TO MORE RESEARCH!!
I heard there was only one or two versions of 110 in which the violinist "snips" off the end of that intro note- as if the "Voice of the Artist" was being snuffed out. Anyone? Everything I've heard has been various shades but nothing as dramatic as what I have recalled hearing at some point in the past.
The Medici's Op.110, from 1986, comes with a quite tight Nimbus ambience, not at all like the super auditoriums I have heard in other recordings. That tightness reduces the proceedings to a living room performance; the Medici are quite good throughout, except for some really tepid "doom knocks" in the 4th, which, frankly, can't be tolerated at this point. As much as I'd like to give them some credit, I'm going to give them a 72%, a C- if you will. In spite of some nice, woody tones, there's not much hear that would keep me coming back,... haven't even checked the Debussy.
Does anyone have the DSCH Journal 15, or know about the Praga discs that say they were recorded live in Prague but are actually just the same old recordings? I have here the Taneyev No.4 (along with Glinka 3, and PT2) which Praga claims is a Czech live broadcast from 1977, but, the DSCH Journal guy says it's just the regular Taneyev No.4 from the Melodiya Cycle (not the REAL live Taneyev No.4 from 1963 which is on the Leningrad Masters/Point label).
So, my question is: Is there reverb added to this Praga, or audience noise? There is a very pleasing ambience, but I do recall the Taneyev were produced fairly well, so, it could just be the regular Melodiya ambience and not some added reverb?
Anyone?
btw- the Glinka Op.73, which i believe iIS live, IS ONE OF THE VERY BEST, even though it is highly underpowered, it still does everything wonderfully!
Quote from: snyprrr on March 24, 2015, 05:52:41 PM
Does anyone have the DSCH Journal 15, or know about the Praga discs that say they were recorded live in Prague but are actually just the same old recordings? I have here the Taneyev No.4 (along with Glinka 3, and PT2) which Praga claims is a Czech live broadcast from 1977, but, the DSCH Journal guy says it's just the regular Taneyev No.4 from the Melodiya Cycle (not the REAL live Taneyev No.4 from 1963 which is on the Leningrad Masters/Point label).
So, my question is: Is there reverb added to this Praga, or audience noise? There is a very pleasing ambience, but I do recall the Taneyev were produced fairly well, so, it could just be the regular Melodiya ambience and not some added reverb?
Anyone?
btw- the Glinka Op.73, which i believe iIS live, IS ONE OF THE VERY BEST, even though it is highly underpowered, it still does everything wonderfully!
anyone?
My eye fell upon this lovely box again this morning . . . .
Quote from: snyprrr on December 17, 2014, 08:21:04 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on October 07, 2014, 08:46:16 AM
1 - Borodin'95
St. Petersburg/SONY
Borodin'15
Emerson 'live'
Sorrel
Alexander
Brodsky
Fitzwilliam
Taneyev'66 'live'
Borodin'67
2 - Verlaine (Takacz?2015-Hyperion)
Zapolski
Fitzwilliam
Borodin'91
Borodin'67
Borodin'83
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Georgian State
St. Petersburg/SONY
Sorrel
Brodsky
Emerson 'live'
Moyzes
Eder
Alexander
3 - Glinka'77 'live'
Taneyev'66 'live'
Georgian State
Borodin'95
Borodin'67
Borodin'84
Acies
St. Petersburg/SONY
St.Lawrence
Brodsky
META4
Allegri
Amati
Orlando
Eder
Hagen
Emerson 'live'
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Manhattan/Centaur
Alexander
Fitzwilliam
Cailin
Philharmonia/Thorofon
Sorrel
Beethoven 'Premiere Recording'
4 - Kreutzer
META4
Moyzes
(Eder)
(Rubio/Globe)
Sorrel
St. Peterdburg/SONY
Taneyev'72
Taneyev'63 'live'
Borodin'83
Borodin'67
Manhattan
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Fitzwilliam
Alexander
Brodsky
Emerson 'live'
5 - Atrium 'live'
Acies
St.Petersburg/SONY
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Eder
Emerson 'live'
Manhattan
Sorrel
Borodin'84
Fitzwilliam
Brodsky
Taneyev
Navarra
Alexander
Borodin'67
Beethoven
6 - St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'81 'live'
Manhattan/Centaur
Borodin'67
Manhattan/ESS.A.Y.
Emerson 'live'
Sorrel
Orlando
Alexander
Fitzwilliam
Brodsky
Beethoven
7 - St. Petersburg/SONY
Borodin'67
Hagen
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Kreutzer
Manhattan
Brodsky
Borodin'83
Borodin'95
St.Lawrence
Emerson 'live'
Amati
Fitzwilliam
Sorrel
META4
Alexander
Philharmonia
8 - Sorrel
Borodin'67
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Jerusalem 'live'/BBC
Fitzwilliam
Borodin'95
Manhattan/ESS.A.Y.
Brodsky
St.Lawrence
Manhattan/Centaur
Kronos
Borodin'15
Borodin'78
Hagen
Kreutzer
Aviv
Emerson 'live'
Medici
9 - Gosteleradio
Aviv
Borodin'81 'live'
Borodin'67
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Emerson 'live'
Manhattan
Sorrel
Fitzwilliam
10 - Borodin'67
Fitzwilliam
Brodsky
Kopelman
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'81
Manhattan/Centaur
Manhattan/ESS.A.Y.
Emerson 'live'
Sorrel
11 - Vogler (Danel)
Borodin'67
Fitzwilliam
Brodsky (Hagen)
Emerson 'live'
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Borodin'81
Sorrel
12 - Sorrel
Shostakovich
Fitzwilliam
Taneyev
Emerson 'live' (Debussy)
Amati
Borodin'83
Borodin'95
Eder
Brodsky
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Philharmonia
Borodin'67
13 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM 'live' '84
Sorrel
St.Petersburg
Shostakovich
Brodsky (Aviv)
Emerson 'live'
Borodin'67
Borodin'81
Fitzwilliam
14 - Kremer/Lockenhaus Edition-ECM 'live' '84
Borodin'15
Fitzwilliam
Glinka 'live' '76
Taneyev
Shostakovich'88
Borodin'81
Eder
Sorrel
Brodsky
Emerson 'live'
St.Petersburg/Hyperion (Mandelring)
15 - Kagan-Zhislin-Bashmet-Gutman 'live'' '82
Borodin'95
Beethoven
Fitzwilliam
Eder
Brodsky
Emerson 'live'
Sorrel
St.Petersburg/Hyperion
Kremer-Daniels-Kashkashian-Ma 'live' '86/SONY (Mandelring)
What does the strike-through of the Kremer-Daniels-Kashkashian-Ma/SONY signify? TIA 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on April 20, 2015, 08:35:04 AM
What does the strike-through of the Kremer-Daniels-Kashkashian-Ma/SONY signify? TIA 8)
I find it uncompetitive, which I regret saying, since I expected - but wait!- here's the kicker: the Kagan-Bashmet-Gutman performance is everything you wanted the Kremer to be- 1st movement lasts 15 minutes!! Kremer's team has no creaking tonal death creaks- they just play it somewhat 'lovingly' which does nothing t(out of the ordinary) to give this disjointed music that cold white feeling. Maybe I'm wrong- no, I'm not. You must try either Borodin'95 or the Kagan or the Beethoven- I'm really having trouble finding a digital 15th that sounds creepy enough-
The Kagan is really the best I've heard. At least it's in a class by itself, but, no one today is taking any chances with 15, for some reason.
Kagan is 82- Kremer is 86-- both 'live'--night and day
has anyone heard the Petersen in either 1/4 or 8, on Capriccio (as usual)? This usually favoured group has not been getting the best press here, and I have no real interest in their interpretations,... eh?
No 8)
I don't see anyone having mentioned the brand new Borodin lineup's Decca recording of 1/8/14!!
eh??
hellooo!!!
it was in the new releases thread a while back.
I haven't heard it but when they finish the cycle it will probably be the best one ever recorded. The Borodins are really, really tight right now.
Quote from: amw on May 09, 2015, 06:47:51 PM
it was in the new releases thread a while back.
I haven't heard it but when they finish the cycle it will probably be the best one ever recorded. The Borodins are really, really tight right now.
Well, I certainly wouldn't have pulled a Pavlov if it had been 1/7/8,... or 1/3/8, 3/7/8,... you know? Thankfully, we have a recording of No.14 that appears to go after the slooow Kremer version, so, thaaat's interesting,... and, No.14 only has had one Borodin recording until now, so, yes, this particular issue at least has something "different" to recommend it. And, it appears that their No.8 will be going after the Sorrel's crown here,... we'll see...
But, yea, this Cycle came out of nowhere,... I recall no lead-up?,... eh...
can't wait! 0:)
(and maybe each CD will have a different line-up than we are used to? Quintet? Trio? 2 Pieces? Octets? Arrangements?
AND WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT MORGAUA QT. CYCLE ON EMI/JAPAN??
3/4/7 (META4 String Quartet; Hanssler)
This is an exteeemely well recorded CD,... I couldn't possibly stress this enough. Along with that is an interpretation of Op.73 that has quite a bit of individuality (apparently the won a Shostyprize for their interpretation). Their 7:30 1st may be the longest timing out there, but their more leisurely pace simply brings out other aspects of the humour.
Op.83 shot right up the snyprrr hit parade, and if only the took the finale at my more preferred quicker tempo, I would could this as perhaps the best overall presentation. They also take the 1st as slow as the Rubio- and, at 4:27, this IS about the outside of what the movement really wants (the best I've heard hover around the 4 minute mark).
No.7 is played so straight that it barely registered- we now have so many of these that you really need to do something to get one's attention, either play it too fast or too slow, or add so funky tonal qualities, or sooomething. Sure, it's "perfect", so, really, it's fine, but, frankly, it's post-2000, so Op.108 could stand with some toying with, eh?
Either way, I'm totally (man) recommending this for 3, and especially 4, for the sumptuously clean and clear sound and the silky ensemble. Maybe it's a Nordic thing?
Quote from: snyprrr on May 10, 2015, 05:01:41 PM
Well, I certainly wouldn't have pulled a Pavlov if it had been 1/7/8,... or 1/3/8, 3/7/8,... you know?
Certainly not!
Quote from: karlhenning on May 11, 2015, 02:54:31 AM
Certainly not!
I think you must spend too much time in the 'One Word Posts' and 'Two Word Posts' Threads,... I mean, reeeally. ::) I can't remember the last time you offered any information... opinion... humour... what's up wit dat?
"Certainly not!" WHAAAT???? You aren't even clear in what you're 'certainly not' about- either you'd go Pavlov regardless, or you agreed with me,... but, when you communicate so blithely, eh, uh, what else am I to do but call you out?
I give give give- and you just take!! :'( :'( :'( where's the love??? :-[
Quote from: snyprrr on May 11, 2015, 05:06:33 AM
I think you must spend too much time in the 'One Word Posts' and 'Two Word Posts' Threads,... I mean, reeeally. ::) I can't remember the last time you offered any information... opinion... humour... what's up wit dat?
That
was humor, lad! And my spirit is indeed blithe . . . .
Lately the quartets I have been listening to are
Zemlinsky; not much to contribute here (apart from my wonted love for the
Emersons 8) )
Quote from: snyprrr on May 11, 2015, 05:06:33 AM
I think you must spend too much time in the 'One Word Posts' and 'Two Word Posts' Threads,... I mean, reeeally. ::) I can't remember the last time you offered any information... opinion...
I fear I fail you too. Sorry. My excuse: I already have between seven and twelve versions of each Quartet. I'm satisfied; I have no real interest in acquiring more (unless something extraordinary shows up). I don't believe the Grail will ever be found for each and every one so I'm not willing to go on the quixotic hunt. I leave that to you, Sir Snyprrrfal ;)
Nevertheless, I read your reports and ravings with interest because you
have pointed out the extraordinary a few times (e.g., Sorrel 8; Zapolsky 2).
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 11, 2015, 05:59:02 AM
I fear I fail you too. Sorry. My excuse: I already have between seven and twelve versions of each Quartet. I'm satisfied . . .
I have fewer, and if this be not satiety, it will do as a substitute.
Today I took a chance on the Carducci String Quartet (http://www.carducciquartet.com/), a group I'd never heard but who recently released a recording of three Shostakovich quartets:
[asin]B00S6EN1EE[/asin]
Based on this recording I hope this is the first in a series of recordings of these works.
Some reviews (http://www.carducciquartet.com/reviews/) of them, but not of this disc, yet.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on May 11, 2015, 05:59:02 AM
I fear I fail you too. Sorry. My excuse: I already have between seven and twelve versions of each Quartet. I'm satisfied; I have no real interest in acquiring more (unless something extraordinary shows up). I don't believe the Grail will ever be found for each and every one so I'm not willing to go on the quixotic hunt. I leave that to you, Sir Snyprrrfal ;)
Nevertheless, I read your reports and ravings with interest because you have pointed out the extraordinary a few times (e.g., Sorrel 8; Zapolsky 2).
Sarge
No, but trust me, I'm THERE! I absolutely feel like I've ploughed the whole field here. The number of older releases that I have not at least heard a samples of are now very rare (the Anton Op.73 on ChantduMonde, for example). And, other than the Beethoven and Taneyev, there are no great hidden Cycles that I have not already throughly(!!!) vetted.
I too now have a bunch of samples for each work, and even though many of the works remain elusive for a perfect rendering (Op.73), I really can't expect anything much better than what's already been going around.
Seriously, when Karl says I'm only just beginning, well, no, there's nothing left. Every rock (pretty much) has been at least turned over and sniffed. I mean, I still have said no to the Fittzies even though they are always @$8- yea, I know, eventually... buuut....
The New Borodin really does represent something new, so, yea, that's going to get a Pavlov quicker than that Carducci that sanantonio says he took a CHANCE on- no one wants to get burned- I took a chance on the Georgian State SQ in 2-3, and, mm, even though they are wonderfully folksy guys, I probably would count that as a superfluous addition- but I know better than to put in the Sell pile immediately, lol!!
One thing I would like to recommend to both of you is the St.Petersburg two CDs on SONY, not the Hyperion Cycle. They are going for pennies and really are something special- raw and rough and ready (on SONY!!) in pristine '90s SONY sound. Those two discs may be my go to for just listening enjoyment (3/5/7 especially).
getting late- gotta go..................................
The St Petersburg Quartet are students of members of the Taneyev Quartet (particularly Vladimir Ovcharek) so there's a direct 'line of succession' there, so to speak. Their recordings of Tchaikovsky and Borodin are also quite good, and I'd definitely like to hear their Prokofiev.
(I'm satisfied with the Taneyev+St Petersburg cycles and a few individual releases. Half considering a volume of the Sorrels's, maybe the one with 9 and 13 on it)
(I pretty much only listen to 3, 9, 12 and 13 from the Shostakovich cycle in the first place. Sometimes 2)
Quote from: amw on May 15, 2015, 01:59:26 AM
(I pretty much only listen to 3, 9, 12 and 13 from the Shostakovich cycle in the first place. Sometimes 2)
9 is an interesting choice there. (Of course, I like the lot, so there are no
poor choices in my view.)
Quote from: amw on May 15, 2015, 01:59:26 AM
The St Petersburg Quartet are students of members of the Taneyev Quartet (particularly Vladimir Ovcharek) so there's a direct 'line of succession' there, so to speak. Their recordings of Tchaikovsky and Borodin are also quite good, and I'd definitely like to hear their Prokofiev.
(I'm satisfied with the Taneyev+St Petersburg cycles and a few individual releases. Half considering a volume of the Sorrels's, maybe the one with 9 and 13 on it)
(I pretty much only listen to 3, 9, 12 and 13 from the Shostakovich cycle in the first place. Sometimes 2)
Yes, the Sorrel 8/9/13 is the place to go, but I also think they may have the most stupendous 12 ever- sound+vision, just like in their 8.
For 9, the Sleeper is the Gosteleradio SQ on that old '80's Russian RCA/Melodiya disc. This 9 seriously has the most awesone finale of all- the Brodsky and even the Borodin'81 'live' beat out the Emerson here in my estimation (though 9 may be their best of show), but this Russian group gets everything plus a verrry good Soviet recording. Look for it cheap.
Frankly, I agree that sooome of DSCH SQs can be done with just a couple of performances (the "fast" one and the "slow" one??), but, 2-3 seem more elusive. Seriously try the bargain Zapolski in 2.
I HAVE YET NOT FOUND MY PERFECT OP.73.
Borodin'83 would get the nod if their finale was of the "quicker" version (I'm not a big fan of that ultra-slow intro- the
Emerson, by contrast, are just a fraction too quick for me. The
St.Lawrence have everything I like except the super tight Skywalker Ranch sound. Both of the
St.P have some issues here and there.
Borodin'67 and '90 sound like old men to me (maybe mostly the '90).
Hagen make it French. The
Amati are really really good but have a beerhall/distant acoustic. The
Allegri are also verrry good but have a sepulchural(?) audiophile sound that annoys me. The
Orlando are also verrry good but have an aggressively fierce recording in spots.
The pizz in the allegro can be a dealbreaker/maker.
The way the opening of the adagio is phrased.
The tempo of the finale.
The tempo of the 2nd movement.
The 1st movement seems to usually always do well.
Quote from: sanantonio on May 14, 2015, 01:44:35 PM
Today I took a chance on the Carducci String Quartet (http://www.carducciquartet.com/), a group I'd never heard but who recently released a recording of three Shostakovich quartets:
[asin]B00S6EN1EE[/asin]
Based on this recording I hope this is the first in a series of recordings of these works.
Some reviews (http://www.carducciquartet.com/reviews/) of them, but not of this disc, yet.
I was hoping for some specifics. I was most impressed by the steely sounding samples of 11. 4 has the slow finale I don't like. Their 8 - was it vicious enough? The sound quality sounded super clear.
HOW ARE THE PACIFICA AND MANDELRING FARING NOW THAT SO MANY OTHER GROUPS ARE STARTING TO RECORD IN SPLENDIFEROUS SOUND? The Pacifica's sound image has always sound somewhat tiny in the samples, compared to the Mandelring's state-of-the-art tight acoustic (I think these works could either stand a bigger acoustic, or, different acoustics for each piece).
I WILL CHECK THE MAILBOX ONE.... MORE... TIME (CDCDCD ALERT!!!!!!) FOR THAT BORODIN 1/8/14. >:D >:D >:D
I am no good when it comes to comparing recordings.
I generally like the one I'm listening to unless there is something that stands out as wrong to my ears. The Carducci was very enjoyable for me, but I can't offer you the kind of head-to-head analysis you seem to enjoy.
8)
Quote from: sanantonio on May 15, 2015, 02:06:36 PM
I am no good when it comes to comparing recordings.
I generally like the one I'm listening to unless there is something that stands out as wrong to my ears.
Likewise. At times I will listen to two or three recordings back to back to compare; I am more apt to find distinct things I enjoy about each, rather than use the occasion as a threshing floor ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 16, 2015, 04:01:49 AM
Likewise. At times I will listen to two or three recordings back to back to compare; I am more apt to find distinct things I enjoy about each, rather than use the occasion as a threshing floor ;)
Quote from: sanantonio on May 15, 2015, 02:06:36 PM
I am no good when it comes to comparing recordings.
I generally like the one I'm listening to unless there is something that stands out as wrong to my ears. The Carducci was very enjoyable for me, but I can't offer you the kind of head-to-head analysis you seem to enjoy.
8)
WIIIMPS!!! :laugh:
Seriously, though, I've been going through the
Op.73, hit the
Hagen again today. Yea, if there were a "French" way here, this would be it. I started at the big allegro, but, ack, wait,...?... they seem quite not white hot here, not compared to either the Emerson or the St.Lawrence. Really, by the time I got through the slow movement and on to the finale, I was throughly convinced that the Hagen were just going through THEIR motions- they just don't seem to be involved in the EMOTIONS underpinning these movements. The Adagio, especially, had none of the angst the music requires. To me, the Hagen, like the Emerson, seem to do better with the more abstract pieces, but, even the Emerson offer more passion than the Hagen. Perfectly executed, yes, but, I'm going to say,... pretentious. Moi?
btw- HAVE THE NEW BORODIN IN MY GRUBBY LITTLE FINGERS. INSERTING NOW,... ASK ME A QUESTION!!??
QuoteINSERTING NOW ... ASK ME A QUESTION
His or her name?
Quote from: snyprrr on May 16, 2015, 11:07:51 AM
WIIIMPS!!! :laugh:
Seriously, though, I've been going through the Op.73, hit the Hagen again today. Yea, if there were a "French" way here, this would be it. I started at the big allegro, but, ack, wait,...?... they seem quite not white hot here, not compared to either the Emerson or the St.Lawrence. Really, by the time I got through the slow movement and on to the finale, I was throughly convinced that the Hagen were just going through THEIR motions- they just don't seem to be involved in the EMOTIONS underpinning these movements. The Adagio, especially, had none of the angst the music requires. To me, the Hagen, like the Emerson, seem to do better with the more abstract pieces, but, even the Emerson offer more passion than the Hagen. Perfectly executed, yes, but, I'm going to say,... pretentious. Moi?
btw- HAVE THE NEW BORODIN IN MY GRUBBY LITTLE FINGERS. INSERTING NOW,... ASK ME A QUESTION!!??
This new Borodin is... very good! 0:)
Op.49 and Op.142 are mighty contenders here, and Op.110 has a lot going for it, though it doesn't displace my favoured Sorrel. The sound is unlike any other Cycle- very brightly lit, up close, nice little atmosphere in the background, lots of wood tones and excitement in the instruments- it's classic Major Label Sound. The playing is mighty tight-- miiighty tight- lots of that old Borodin "passion" in evidence in the slow movement to 14, but, these cats are of the New School.
ask me a question...
Op.142 is special.
Op.49 is bracing.
It's Over 0:)
Quote from: snyprrr on May 17, 2015, 04:54:27 PM
This new Borodin is... very good! 0:)
Op.49 and Op.142 are mighty contenders here, and Op.110 has a lot going for it, though it doesn't displace my favoured Sorrel. The sound is unlike any other Cycle- very brightly lit, up close, nice little atmosphere in the background, lots of wood tones and excitement in the instruments- it's classic Major Label Sound. The playing is mighty tight-- miiighty tight- lots of that old Borodin "passion" in evidence in the slow movement to 14, but, these cats are of the New School.
ask me a question..
DO you have a link to the new Borodin?
Passionate and opinionated and perceptive series of reviews here by someone who calles himself 21st century reviewer
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AF29MB5HNYL3W/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp
Quote from: George on June 05, 2015, 03:37:32 PM
DO you have a link to the new Borodin?
Voila (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00T8RIXWI/goodmusicguide-20). Only one volume out, so far.
Quote from: jlaurson on July 01, 2015, 10:39:45 PM
Voila (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00T8RIXWI/goodmusicguide-20). Only one volume out, so far.
Thanks!
1) Well, sooomeone got that Taneyev/Aulos set from Ebay for @$130.00,... a bit rich for my tastes,... yes, I did partake in the bloodbath, but, thankfully, I was spared the colonoscopy(?). I'd rather just get a few of the old Melodiyas, but, the Taneyev are extrememly elusive. WHO WILL RE-ISSUE?????
2) I found a VERY VERY GOOD OP.110- the Jerusalem SQ on that BBC disc (NOT the HarmoniaMundi set). Wow- this reading goes very far into Sorrel territory, and may be one of the best 8ths ever. Seriously, folks, for fifty cents you might want to check it out- they really deliver a super heartfelt performance- I just had a feeling here, and I have to shout it out- GET THIS DISC!!
3) I have been looking at anything potentially interesting, but I'm just not "feeling" anything of the leftovers. The Pacifica-Mandelring (Rubio, Debussy, Danel, Rasumowsky, Alexander, etc.,...) grouping is really just not enticing me at all- the new Borodin2015 seems to have taken care of that entire cabal. I'd go for either the Taneyev or Beethoven if they were more available... $$$...
4) I HEAR THAT the newest remastering of the Borodin/EMI set, on Melodiya, the 'Bovine' set, has TOTALLY CLEARED UP THE OLD RECORDINGS and the sound (say, on No.5) is totally free of the harshness of some of the older issues (whether the EMI or BMG incarnations). CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THE SOUND QUALITY? I would have to trade in all the old Borodin for this set if this is so. PLEASE CONFIRM!!
I can't believe I haven't burned out on these yet! :-\
Quote from: jlaurson on July 01, 2015, 10:39:45 PM
Voila (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00T8RIXWI/goodmusicguide-20). Only one volume out, so far.
Congratulations on Posting #666!! :o ???
Do you mean this one, or is there a newer one? I got the one below some time ago when it first came out but I only had one disc (8,9,10) of the separate (blueish with DSCH photo) earlier discs and do not remember anything about differences in sound quality. I think the earlier recordings (with some different personnel) on Chandos (1-13) have a "warmer" sound (even if the sound quality per se is inferior) but this might also be different playing style.
[asin]B000HXE5BK[/asin]
Quote from: Jo498 on July 06, 2015, 12:18:30 AM
Do you mean this one, or is there a newer one? I got the one below some time ago when it first came out but I only had one disc (8,9,10) of the separate (blueish with DSCH photo) earlier discs and do not remember anything about differences in sound quality. I think the earlier recordings (with some different personnel) on Chandos (1-13) have a "warmer" sound (even if the sound quality per se is inferior) but this might also be different playing style.
A new -- brand new! -- one, indeed. Today's version of that Quartet have just started a new, third (3 1/2?) cycle for Decca.
I actually tried to clarify point 4) of snyprrr's #668 about remasterings of the 70s/80s Borodin.
I saw the new disc with the new setup but I already have too many recordings of this music, so I'll pass for now.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 06, 2015, 03:33:53 AM
I actually tried to clarify point 4) of snyprrr's #668 about remasterings of the 70s/80s Borodin.
I saw the new disc with the new setup but I already have too many recordings of this music, so I'll pass for now.
Yes,... no,... I DID mean that OLD EMI-Borodin, as you said. And you're saying you don't hear much if any difference? No.8 was recorded in 1978- No.9 is 'live', and No.10 is 1981, I believe.
From what I'm understanding, there should be a much better sound in that 'Bovine' set than either the 8-10 BMG, or the old EMI discs. I have No.10 in both BMG and EMI, and BMG simply has a slightly more aired-out expanse in the upper ranges, though nothing absolutely dramatic.
Finally picked up the Fitzwilliam from the Library. Guess I'll be going through it 1,2,3,4.... if anyone else cares to join?
Quote from: snyprrr on July 06, 2015, 12:11:06 PM
Yes,... no,... I DID mean that OLD EMI-Borodin, as you said. And you're saying you don't hear much if any difference? No.8 was recorded in 1978- No.9 is 'live', and No.10 is 1981, I believe.
From what I'm understanding, there should be a much better sound in that 'Bovine' set than either the 8-10 BMG, or the old EMI discs. I have No.10 in both BMG and EMI, and BMG simply has a slightly more aired-out expanse in the upper ranges, though nothing absolutely dramatic.
Unfortunately I can't help you with more details because I got the yellow "bovine" (I swear I never had noticed that cow!) set years ago and quickly gave away the BMG disc of 8-10. But I do not remember dramatic sound differences. But it's perfectly possible that the "bovine" set is considerably better. Anyway, as the BMG singles were not readily available back then, the bovine set was the obvious option to go for.
Nos. 3, 6, 8, & 10 (Manhattan SQ; Centaur 1986)
Not many people know that the Manhattan SQ recorded these for works much earlier than their ESS.A.Y recordings of 1990. But, these two Centaur CDs show how consistent the Manhattan's sound was. Someone said that if the Hollywood SQ had recorded DSCH, they would sound like the Manhattan. Well, I have to agree. No.6 has the lushest, most friendly countenance I've heard (Centaur), and their No.10 seems to give nothing away to anyone else.
These Centaur recordings sound to me like those sumptuous Telarc recordings, or, Dorian or Delos. Surely, at the time, they represented the best recordings of these pieces- very studio-but-with-ambience. And, corporately, they have quite a silky sound.
I know many have caveats concerning the Manhattan, but, i still find that they deliver much- especially, say, in No.6, which doesn't really need that 'Russian' thing as much as earlier works. I'd say they remind me of the Cleveland SQ in the way that they are presented so lushly.
Anyhow, these Centaur CDs are impossible to find- snagged one on Ebay, the other at the city library- they are not on Amazon at all, as far as I know.
3 & 8, on the other CD, compare very favourably to the later recordings. No.8 has a lot of good things going for it, though, the one on ESS.A.Y. has an extra creepy feel due to the recording.
Quote from: Jo498 on July 06, 2015, 12:30:44 PM
Unfortunately I can't help you with more details because I got the yellow "bovine" (I swear I never had noticed that cow!) set years ago and quickly gave away the BMG disc of 8-10. But I do not remember dramatic sound differences. But it's perfectly possible that the "bovine" set is considerably better. Anyway, as the BMG singles were not readily available back then, the bovine set was the obvious option to go for.
check
Quote from: Jo498 on July 06, 2015, 12:30:44 PM
Unfortunately I can't help you with more details because I got the yellow "bovine" (I swear I never had noticed that cow!) set years ago and quickly gave away the BMG disc of 8-10. But I do not remember dramatic sound differences. But it's perfectly possible that the "bovine" set is considerably better. Anyway, as the BMG singles were not readily available back then, the bovine set was the obvious option to go for.
Where T.F. did that cow come from? Holy cow... that jumped at me now, never having noticed it before, either.
I wonder, however, if I could ...milk a few more puns out of its presence.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 06, 2015, 12:12:59 PM
Finally picked up the Fitzwilliam from the Library. Guess I'll be going through it 1,2,3,4.... if anyone else cares to join?
I'm in. :)
Quote from: Jo498 on July 06, 2015, 12:30:44 PM
(I swear I never had noticed that cow!)
Sometimes the cow is hard for me to see, even when I'm looking for it. Darth Vader's helmet in the background, though...
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 06, 2015, 01:06:20 PM
I'm in. :)
I'm on CD1, with Nos.1-2. First impressions: ardent, opulent, with a 'classic' '70s sounding recording that sounds quite unique- it's a touch distant, but comes alive in fortes. And the playing is very masculine and 'old world', without an 'slavic' overtones, just dark/light, tight,....
Op.68 first. Frankly, this is one of the very best performances, and benefits greatly from the ample acoustic. The 'Waltz', especially, sounded so tight, yet lilting, not as aggressive as others (i.e 'loud'). The 'Overture' was wonderfully vigorous. I hit the 'Winner' buzzer early on here with Op.68. Score 1 for the Fittzies.
Op.49 I had heard on YouTube, and, I felt at the time that the 1st was a bit slow. Today, it was still slow, but, taken in context, it just sounded 'old fashioned', and the English countryside came into view. I haven't finished Op.49, but, might skip to SQ No.6 before I hit 3-5.
I was taken aback a bit, hearing, really, the Fittzies for the first time. They are obviously of a different time than the groups performing today, and, if you had told me these were the Borodin, I would have said, ok, sounds fine! They seem to put the Borodin/EMI-era more into focus for me. I think that being from the '70s makes aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall the difference here, so far. There is just a 'Classic' feel.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 06, 2015, 07:15:34 PM
Op.68 first. Frankly, this is one of the very best performances, and benefits greatly from the ample acoustic. The 'Waltz', especially, sounded so tight, yet lilting, not as aggressive as others (i.e 'loud'). The 'Overture' was wonderfully vigorous. I hit the 'Winner' buzzer early on here with Op.68. Score 1 for the Fittzies.
RE: Fitzwilliam: I'm also listening to the first disc, and the Opus 68 is definitely a great performance. Well balanced Overture indeed, and a wonderful final Theme and Variations movement.
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 06, 2015, 07:44:12 PM
RE: Fitzwilliam: I'm also listening to the first disc, and the Opus 68 is definitely a great performance. Well balanced Overture indeed, and a wonderful final Theme and Variations movement.
Yes, agreed.
Op.68 is a Winner! A 'Classic' Performance
I then skipped to 6-7.
Op.101, No.6, was also very fine, having maybe a slow movement with even mooore pathos than the Borodin's 6:30. They are, perhaps, a bit dramatic in the 1st- I have been getting worn out by over-aggressive accounts of this movement- the Fittzies are a little insistent, but, however, the ample acoustic does absorb the power of these notes, whereas, say, in that Orlando account, the aggressive tone really infringes upon enjoyment. The finale was thoroughly well-judged. In all, I'd compare this with the Emerson's account.
Op.108 came off- well, it just sounded fine- all things well judged, again.THE INSTRUMENTAL BALANCE IN THIS CYCLE IS VERY VERY EXCELLENT- THE CELLO is as pronounced - and maybe a bit more so- than most any other recording- YOU REALLY HEAR EVERYTHING with the ittzies.
Op.73 presented the first case of criticism, for me, and, as you can probably guess, they have to do with the two inner, faster movements, which certainly don't exhibit the power of more modern groups. Other than that, the rest of the movements are amongst the very best I've heard- I continue to be quite impressed with the Fittzies "Western" approach from the mid'79s.
GOTTA GOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
Now on slow mvmt of
No.4.......
Some days, this is my favorite thread . . . .
Quote from: snyprrr on July 09, 2015, 01:50:07 AM
Op.108 came off- well, it just sounded fine- all things well judged, again.THE INSTRUMENTAL BALANCE IN THIS CYCLE IS VERY VERY EXCELLENT- THE CELLO is as pronounced - and maybe a bit more so- than most any other recording- YOU REALLY HEAR EVERYTHING with the ittzies.
Agreed about the cello sound. It is prominent and clear in the Fitz's recordings.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2015, 03:01:28 AM
Some days, this is my favorite thread . . . .
Bonjour,
Karl. I agree. Some days. ;D
Great to see you 'round these parts again, Ray!
Fitzwilliam is the only set I own. But I'm very, very happy with it.
Amusingly, though, in headphones at least, you can faintly here a bird twittering outside in one or two recordings. It's rather beautiful actually, because when Shostakovich ends a quartet quietly and peacefully, it fits!
I think it's the end of op.73 where that happens.
This is entirely on the lines of "Symphony № x is my east favorite by N. — but of course, I like all his symphonies" . . . I do enjoy the Fitwilliams, but they are probably my least favorite among the cycles I have.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2015, 05:10:50 AM
This is entirely on the lines of "Symphony № x is my east favorite by N. — but of course, I like all his symphonies" . . . I do enjoy the Fitwilliams, but they are probably my least favorite among the cycles I have.
Which other cycles do you have,
Karl? 8)
Quote from: orfeo on July 09, 2015, 04:56:23 AM
Fitzwilliam is the only set I own. But I'm very, very happy with it.
Amusingly, though, in headphones at least, you can faintly here a bird twittering outside in one or two recordings. It's rather beautiful actually, because when Shostakovich ends a quartet quietly and peacefully, it fits!
I think it's the end of op.73 where that happens.
Hmm, will have to check that out. :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 09, 2015, 09:36:23 AM
Which other cycles do you have, Karl? 8)
The
Emersons,
Pacificas &
Mandelrings . . . hard to pick one favorite from among them,
Ray. Also the
Borodins.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2015, 09:44:42 AM
The Emersons, Pacificas & Mandelrings . . . hard to pick one favorite from among them, Ray. Also the Borodins.
Excellent,
Karl. Is the
Pacifica cycle now complete?
It is!
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 09, 2015, 09:46:36 AM
Excellent, Karl. Is the Pacifica cycle now complete?
Shostakovich is with distance my favorite composer of the 20th Century, but (for some unexplainable reason) I rarely stop here. But this time I needed to say: Well come back home,
ChamberNut! It's great to see you around here again. :)
Quote from: snyprrr on July 09, 2015, 01:50:07 AM
Now on slow mvmt of No.4.......
Op.83 starts off well, being a little more sunrise-blazing than sunrise-soothing, with the tempo firmly in the sweet spot. The slow movement has the slowness necessary, but the Fittzies don't seem to invest every note with yearning, the way, say, the Moyzes, or even the Borodin do. However, the 'Waltz', from the first note, has an etched quality I haven't really heard much- again, the cello is so firm, with bluff good humor, that one thinks that this cellist seeks to be the dedicate of a future DSCH SQ- I really think he's trying to channel- or challenge- Berlinsky (the Borodin's cellist). Again, the Fittzies don't sound particularly Russian, but, the way they vigorously produce their notes, they seem to show the more 'Universalist' aspects of this music.- they, more than all the others I've heard, seem to let the notes speak from the paper...
Also, I cheated, and skipped to
No.11 (short), and, yes!, this one make quite an impact on me, as good as Borodin'67, and preferable to Borodin'81. The intensity in this one can go head to head with any other, I believe. Only the modern sound elevates my favored Vogler (RCA).
So, I'm closing in on 1-7 here, and, generally, there is nothing I can say- though, now that I've heard them (and know I can get them at the library) I just don't seem to feel the need to get them for myself. As good, and classic as they are, it's almost a superfluousness of great things to have the Fittzies on top of everyone else. SURE, AT THE TIME, I can see this Cycle making waves, but, this IS before the 2nd Borodin Cycle, with which this set really MUST compete with. However, again, if there was only one set, and this was it, I don't see how anyone (so far) could have any issues. Performances are manly (maybe a bit so), and 'old school', and all the notes come through, and the recording is classic '70s soul food.
I might have to go with the Fittzies OVER the Emerson, though, simply because they play a bit more 'old school', and don't go absolutely bonkers with the speed demon approach.
WE STILL HAVE 8-10 AND 12-15 TO GO!!
OK,----OP.110 IS NEXT UP.... SHALL WE ALL SYNCHRONIZE FOR 5PM EST?????????
I'll be on a bus then.
"Bonkers"? 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2015, 10:52:10 AM
"Bonkers"? 8)
I'm thinking a lot of the Emerson's finales are taken way too quickly,- Op.73- Op.118... no breathing room at all. Come on, karl, we all know that the Emerson's approach is ultimately flawed in The Big Picture sense-
a) not Russian
b) playing even the most human of the SQs as "Abstract Music"
c)
well,- of course, their Abstract approach works great with the actual Abstract Music - 5... 7... 11... 12...13.... however, their final to No.4 contains the least amount of humanity than in all the others combined!
Frankly, this "didn't hear the Fittzies until now" thing has even opened my eyes wider to the Emerson's approach. I can't believe how good the Fittzies are in comparison to the jet set group- aaand they sound so human- however, they have what it takes to make the Abstract works work, also. For me, it's hands down
Fittzies > Emerson
I can now only recommend the Emerson to someone who has already the Early Masters, and maybe some other moderns--- I mean, I'd recommend the Emerson for DESSERT, not for the MAIN COURSE!!!!
I continue with the Fittzies... Op.118...
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 06, 2015, 01:06:20 PM
I'm in. :)
Op.110Well, I had a keen ear on this one from the get go. The 1st goes by, tense and brooding, but nothing either way tothe extreme- still, one can feel the seriousness. THEN!!!-
WOW!!- the 'Allegro molto' is one of the most ferocious ever!- St.Lawrence come to mind. They are certainly even more so than the Emerson, which really shocked me. But, yea, the Fittzies rise close to the top here. The buzzing fast notes sound like human victims scattering in the face of theTerror- whereas in all other versions the buzzing notes sound more like the ENEMY- here the sound like the protagonist scurringy frantically. I give the Fittzies TOTAL CREDIT here- I think they really listened to DSCH when he described what he wanted here.
And then the 3rd is one of the quickest on record, but the Fittzies imbue it with all the angst of the Sorrel's much longer version. The Fittzies EXCEL IN THE PIZZ DEPT.!!!!!!!- in all, the pieces I've so far heard.
And the 4th is very quick and menacing,- as a matter of fact, I think this is the most breathless Op.110 I've heard.
And it end...
YES, SO, THE FITTZIES DELIVERED ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL OP.110s of all time............ I am truly impressed to hear a standout 8th in a Complete Cycle (usually it's the one that lead balloons- the Emerson's reading really isn't all that it could be, you must admit, eh?)
Op.118WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!
I AM STUNNED by the Fittzies' Op.119. My new fav was the Borodin'67, but this one truly equals that one,- A TIE!!! I think the Fittzies must have had the Borodin'67 on the LP because they are so similar. Every thing is done right here, everything. The digging, the biting... the slow mvmt. is breathless.... so much detail everywhere.,
Easily one of the very very best- along with No.11
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!
Now we have 9.... 12-15 left...... so far, the Fittzies would be my No.1 recommends for the Newbie..... personally, I don't know if I "need" them, but,
THEIR PRICE IS SO RIDICULOUSLY LOW- it will probably be inevitable.
WORST THING ABOUT THE FITTZIES SO FAR--- the CD Box cover.... oy, please re-issue, ack.... if the cover were irressasstatable this set would be even more in demand.
Sorry, I am impressed. The Fittzies are a thing that makes you go, Hmmmm.
I see sarge lurking! ;)
Quote from: snyprrr on July 09, 2015, 02:08:50 PM
I'm thinking a lot of the Emerson's finales are taken way too quickly,- Op.73- Op.118... no breathing room at all. Come on, karl, we all know that the Emerson's approach is ultimately flawed in The Big Picture sense-
a) not Russian
b) playing even the most human of the SQs as "Abstract Music"
c)
well,- of course, their Abstract approach works great with the actual Abstract Music - 5... 7... 11... 12...13.... however, their final to No.4 contains the least amount of humanity than in all the others combined!
Frankly, this "didn't hear the Fittzies until now" thing has even opened my eyes wider to the Emerson's approach. I can't believe how good the Fittzies are in comparison to the jet set group- aaand they sound so human- however, they have what it takes to make the Abstract works work, also. For me, it's hands down
Fittzies > Emerson
I haven't heard the Emersons, but somewhere I read a review (the Penguin CD guide maybe?) that had exactly that kind of reaction - that the Emersons were jet set, too slick.
Also, I got the Fitzwilliams when it was an orange cover.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2015, 09:44:42 AM
The Emersons, Pacificas & Mandelrings . . . hard to pick one favorite from among them, Ray.
Never ask a Libra to pick a favorite. 8)
Quote from: snyprrr on July 09, 2015, 02:24:52 PM
Op.110
And it end...
YES, SO, THE FITTZIES DELIVERED ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL OP.110s of all time
Sorry, I am impressed. The Fittzies are a thing that makes you go, Hmmmm.
Yes, the Fitzwilliam's do deliver an extraordinary performance for the famous Op. 110. It was a total jaw dropper, the first time I heard their performance of Op. 110
Quote from: snyprrr on July 09, 2015, 02:24:52 PM
WORST THING ABOUT THE FITTZIES SO FAR--- the CD Box cover.... oy, please re-issue, ack.... if the cover were irressasstatable this set would be even more in demand.
Hah!! ;D I actually like this understated, seemingly bland cover. The black, beige and white work for me. 8)
Quote from: George on July 09, 2015, 05:26:19 PM
Never ask a Libra to pick a favorite. 8)
Surgically done! Happy Friday,
George!
Quote from: orfeo on July 09, 2015, 03:38:57 PM
I haven't heard the Emersons, but somewhere I read a review (the Penguin CD guide maybe?) that had exactly that kind of reaction - that the Emersons were jet set, too slick.
I've read that (or a variation on it) about various recordings by the
Emersons. But when I listen to the performances, I find them engaging, well-prepared, and always musical. Generally, exciting. So, I've learnt to take "jet set, too slick" as code for "they don't like it" 8)
[ Cross-post ]Quote from: karlhenning on July 10, 2015, 04:43:04 AM
Just me & the jet-setters:
Дмитрий Дмитриевич [ Dmitri Dmitriyevich (Shostakovich) ]
Струнный квартет № 2 Ля мажор, соч. 68 [ String Quartet № 2 in A, Opus 68 ] (1944)
The Emerson String Quartet
[asin]B000F3T7RE[/asin]
Now (for instance) in the
Recitative & Romance, I hear warmth & intensity; a wonderful tension between the chaste
accompagnando instruments and the both passionate and tender soloist in the foreground; there are drama and contrast in this performance, and I do not find anything remotely "slick" about it.
I feel a poll coming soon. What are your "pick up to three" favourite Shostakovich string quartet cycles? :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 10, 2015, 07:44:59 AM
I feel a poll coming soon. What are your "pick up to three" favourite Shostakovich string quartet cycles? :D
The Five Shostakovich Cycles to Rule Them ALL . . . ? 8)
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 10, 2015, 07:44:59 AM
I feel a poll coming soon. What are your "pick up to three" favourite Shostakovich string quartet cycles? :D
I only need Borodin I. (And Borodin II's 14 and 15, missing from Borodin I.)
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 09, 2015, 07:34:27 PM
Yes, the Fitzwilliam's do deliver an extraordinary performance for the famous Op. 110. It was a total jaw dropper, the first time I heard their performance of Op. 110
No.9
For some reason, this work has emerged as The Salamander of the bunch. I hae a feeling we agree that there is something 'extra' in this work that gives it an extra sense of the inscrutable - not to mention that it just seems to slip through the cracks-
So, I thought here the Fittzies merely sounded as good as they do, without offering any special effect- which, frankly, abound in this work. It's a good, standard operations version, but, the
Brodsky, the 'live'
Aviv, the
Gosteleradio, the
St.Petersburg, the
Emerson, - all bring so much more frisson to this work- along with the 'live'
Borodin'81- and, I hear, the
Taneyev.
However, the PIZZ are wonderful, the cello is still the most etched of any I've heard (the viola is quite syrupy, too)
ex.- the finale is no where near the octane of all the above performances.
No.14 Op.142I've been on a 14 kick lately, so, here we go....
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HIT THE BUTTON NOW!!!!!!!
I'm in awe here,- this is a GREEEAT 14th... clap clap clap!!!!!
The 1st is taken very slowly, but with such lightness as to not lumber the rhythm. This 1st sounds more like what I imagine than any I can think of- what a unique approach!
The slow mvmt. - wow, you can hear the notes on the page,- etched- the duo is so etched- I keep hearing that quality in the cello
The finale is of the slower variety- very very nicely done.
Oh,... ahhhh,... I wasn't expecting such a good 14th,... such a quality going on here... must hear the Taneyev now-- anyone???-
Yes, the Fittzies have really impressed in the later works so far- only 12, 13, and 15 left...
Quote from: karlhenning on July 10, 2015, 04:57:19 AM
[ Cross-post ]
Now (for instance) in the Recitative & Romance, I hear warmth & intensity; a wonderful tension between the chaste accompagnando instruments and the both passionate and tender soloist in the foreground; there are drama and contrast in this performance, and I do not find anything remotely "slick" about it.
Now, now,... as you'll recall, Op.68 was one that we all agreed the Emerson excelled at- none of their stereotypical practices appear in this work.
But, don't you think the final to Op.73 is just even a slight hair breathless? the finale to No.4 slightly less than idiomatic? the 8th just a little matter-of-fact? the finale to No.14, again, just a little less than charming?
charm, Karl, that's what they sometimes seem to lack- also, that home-cooked-meal feeling that one gets from a slavic performance...
not a criticism, just a fact 0:)
And My Thread Rules the Roost Again,... bwahahahaha!! :) ;) :D ;D :laugh: (cue Charlton Heston laughing)
Interesting that you think the finale of no.9 is low octane. I really enjoy the finale and its weight (but then I don't know any other version).
Quote from: orfeo on July 10, 2015, 07:46:19 PM
Interesting that you think the finale of no.9 is low octane. I really enjoy the finale and its weight (but then I don't know any other version).
The Brodsky, Aviv, and Gosteleradio (clocking in at an astonishing 8:56!) play the finale as fast as the Fittzies play the 'Allegro molto' of Op.110, meaning, you WILL be totally blown away. Now, don't get me wrong, as Iwas listening to the Fittzies' Op.117 finale, and hearing it be of the slower variety, I still recognize that they aaalways imbue whatever they're doing with a certain amount of grit. Still, I'm finding Op.117 to be an interpretive quandary for many- there's just so many personal touches one can add.
Quote from: snyprrr on July 10, 2015, 02:45:02 PM
No.9
For some reason, this work has emerged as The Salamander of the bunch. I hae a feeling we agree that there is something 'extra' in this work that gives it an extra sense of the inscrutable - not to mention that it just seems to slip through the cracks-
So, I thought here the Fittzies merely sounded as good as they do, without offering any special effect- which, frankly, abound in this work. It's a good, standard operations version, but, the Brodsky, the 'live' Aviv, the Gosteleradio, the St.Petersburg, the Emerson, - all bring so much more frisson to this work- along with the 'live' Borodin'81- and, I hear, the Taneyev.
However, the PIZZ are wonderful, the cello is still the most etched of any I've heard (the viola is quite syrupy, too)
ex.- the finale is no where near the octane of all the above performances.
No.14 Op.142
I've been on a 14 kick lately, so, here we go....
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HIT THE BUTTON NOW!!!!!!!
I'm in awe here,- this is a GREEEAT 14th... clap clap clap!!!!!
The 1st is taken very slowly, but with such lightness as to not lumber the rhythm. This 1st sounds more like what I imagine than any I can think of- what a unique approach!
The slow mvmt. - wow, you can hear the notes on the page,- etched- the duo is so etched- I keep hearing that quality in the cello
The finale is of the slower variety- very very nicely done.
Oh,... ahhhh,... I wasn't expecting such a good 14th,... such a quality going on here... must hear the Taneyev now-- anyone???-
Yes, the Fittzies have really impressed in the later works so far- only 12, 13, and 15 left...
Wrapping up this grand introduction to the Fittzies Cycle:
No.12OK,- ... wait,... does it really begin in near silence? Yes,... the opening cello line is taken almost off-stagem and then, slowly, the volume rises. I almost dismissed this out-of-hand, but had to re-listen a few times, and, lo, the Fittzies have come up with a major coup, doing things no one else has even dreamed of! These guys are really impressing me with their ideas )or, are the really DSCH's ideas?).
The 1st is taken quite slow, almost as slow as the Shostakovich, and almost just as grand. All is so well here,- including, again, that etched cello line, the creepy ensemble, the dynamics. I have to rank this as one of the very very best, though the Shostakovich are so wonderfully ethereal (probably their single greatest achievement, imo). The Fittzies are, though, without a doubt much more interesting than the Borodin here, as well as much of the competition. This is special.
So, what of the 2nd movement?
It's slow, but, again, the Fittzie never flag, even with slow tempi. Their deliberateness gives this long movement an architecture that may be missing from some of the more breathless renditions.
Frankly, without belaboring detail, this is the finest 'Early Masters' 12 I've heard (though i wait to hear the Taneyev). They havve no qualms about the piece, and give---- I had given this work to the Sorrel's absolutely over-the-top awesomeness, but the Fittzies sound like they are RIGHT THERE... it's wonderfully creepy!!
No.13I didn't make it far into this one before I turned it off. I heard too many others at this point, wasn't expecting much, and didn't get it. Perhaps I'll try again, but, out of the 'Early Masters', only the Shostakovich can at least make me come back for a return listen (the Borodin are notorious for being too "human" in both of their versions). I just didn't hear enough death in the opening to go on.
No.15
Well, this is the last one, and not one I was particularly caring to hear, BUUUT the Fittzies deliver a Top5 performance, imo, at least. They don't slow the proceedings down, like the Borodin'96 or the Kagan group, but they manage to, perhaps, give the 'saddest' account. It's not creepy, it's sad/. The Beethoven are a little more creepy. But, here, I think, the dialogue between Composer and Performer yielded some insights that I may not have heard in others. Only, perhaps, the balance in the 'Nocturne' I have heard better delineation- the Fittzies have been one of the most X-ray recordings I've heard, but in certain places they muddy up the waters a little, and here the great accompanying figure is a little too much behind the lead (in others, it can be the other way around- some get the balance perfect)- I have yet to find my Most Satisfying 'Nocturne').
So, surprise, I enjoyed No.15 for a change- it's just not my fav to listen to, perhaps it's the structure, perhaps I don't get parts, perhaps it's the interpretations. I dunno...
But, I could throw out most modern versions of No.15 at this point..... whoops, typing fingers are going quickly, gotta go......
Quote from: snyprrr on July 11, 2015, 06:18:02 PM
Wrapping up this grand introduction to the Fittzies Cycle:
No.12
OK,- ... wait,... does it really begin in near silence? Yes,... the opening cello line is taken almost off-stagem and then, slowly, the volume rises. I almost dismissed this out-of-hand, but had to re-listen a few times, and, lo, the Fittzies have come up with a major coup, doing things no one else has even dreamed of! These guys are really impressing me with their ideas )or, are the really DSCH's ideas?).
The 1st is taken quite slow, almost as slow as the Shostakovich, and almost just as grand. All is so well here,- including, again, that etched cello line, the creepy ensemble, the dynamics. I have to rank this as one of the very very best, though the Shostakovich are so wonderfully ethereal (probably their single greatest achievement, imo). The Fittzies are, though, without a doubt much more interesting than the Borodin here, as well as much of the competition. This is special.
So, what of the 2nd movement?
It's slow, but, again, the Fittzie never flag, even with slow tempi. Their deliberateness gives this long movement an architecture that may be missing from some of the more breathless renditions.
Frankly, without belaboring detail, this is the finest 'Early Masters' 12 I've heard (though i wait to hear the Taneyev). They havve no qualms about the piece, and give---- I had given this work to the Sorrel's absolutely over-the-top awesomeness, but the Fittzies sound like they are RIGHT THERE... it's wonderfully creepy!!
I love no.12, it's one of my favourites, and I think that yes, a sense of architecture is a big part of why I love it.
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 06, 2015, 01:06:20 PM
I'm in. :)
what happened?
So, I just want to sum up my Fitzwilliam Adventure:
WINNERS:
2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15
LOSERS:
13, maybe 6, maybe 3, maybe 9
NO REAL OPINION:
1, 7, maybe 3, 6, 9,... maybe 4
10-12 & 14 are the absolute standouts, all vying for at least a Top3 showing. I might have to throw
8 in there too.
7 was, frankly, pretty perfect, but, still, sounded like a lot of other perfect versions, so, I can't really pick anything out to recommend it above any other.
2, also, is extremely good, but here, I think, there is more to recommend.
4, 6, 9, & 15 were all good in their own way, but have infinitely more competition, and none can really be considered a Top3 (though, 15 comes really close).
I don't know anyone who really cares about
1, but, it has a quite slow 1st, which may deflate it somewhat. Otherwise, it's as good as many.
There. THE LAW HAS SPOKEN! :laugh:
Quote from: snyprrr on July 12, 2015, 01:53:53 PM
WINNERS:
2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15
LOSERS:
13, maybe 6, maybe 3, maybe 9
NO REAL OPINION:
1, 7, maybe 3, 6, 9,... maybe 4
Observation: You've got 3, 6 & 9 as both "maybe LOSERS," and "maybe NO REAL OPINION." That almost suggests that you are suffering from some confusion. (We all know better.)
My question is: How can 4 be NO REAL OPINION, "maybe"? Is a real opinion lurking there? MAKE IT COUNT (even as a
maybe) ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 13, 2015, 08:23:34 AM
Observation: You've got 3, 6 & 9 as both "maybe LOSERS," and "maybe NO REAL OPINION." That almost suggests that you are suffering from some confusion. (We all know better.)
My question is: How can 4 be NO REAL OPINION, "maybe"? Is a real opinion lurking there? MAKE IT COUNT (even as a maybe) ;)
you're right
This was a bit hasty. I'd amend, and say only 13 disappointed me. 3, 6, & 9 would probably be N.O. I think the point of all them was that there were movements that hampered total pleasure... In 3 it was the faster movements, as with 9,
6 simply was a little bit aggressive in the 1st, but had one of the most deeply felt slow movements...(I've become very attuned to feelings of aggression in the 1st of 6- so many make the music more dramatic than it needs to be)
4 had a blazing 1st, a curiously unemotional slow movement, a great 'Waltz', and a middling finale
Just, basically, in 3 4 6 9 there are other versions that just blot out the Fittzies from general consideration--- none of these criticisms are a death blow, though- the Fittzies are never less than extremely good, it's just that there is a glut of goodness in the most popular works...
same with 7- the Fittzies are firmly in the middle of the pack here- it would be hard to pick them out of a line-up- nothing totally distinctive---- not in any way bad, just not head and antler above the competition in terms of interpretive touches (whereas in other places, the Fittzies are #1 in interpretive touches, such as the opening to 12)
Well, yea, karl, I am pretty desperate to GetMoreStuff here, but, as I troll the Amazon listing, I just can't find anything I'm really interested in checking out.... or, the stuff I'm interedsted in is just waaay too expensive for consideration.
Take the Coull (Nos. 4 8 11), or Duke (No.8) CDs. Maybe worth checking out, maybe not, who know, who cares?
I might have to disagree with you that this is an endless rabbit hole
BUUUT- did you hear my rave of the Jerusalem's BBC 8th? 'live' in concert? maaan, it's pretty heavy, rivalling the Sorrel's massive account... that was latest "find",... for pennies... but, that's really the end of the line in revelations here, ......
Quote from: snyprrr on July 15, 2015, 03:41:20 PM
I might have to disagree with you that this is an endless rabbit hole
Five years from now, you'll revisit the
Emersons, and see light 8)
I've heard the
Jerusalem Qt, though not playing
ДШ; they are excellent, so yes, I may look into them at some point :)
Quote from: karlhenning on July 16, 2015, 03:21:25 AM
Five years from now, you'll revisit the Emersons, and see light 8)
I've heard the Jerusalem Qt, though not playing ДШ; they are excellent, so yes, I may look into them at some point :)
The main reason the JQ recordings are not preferable to the Borodin Cow cycle is the simple fact that it is only a partial cycle. I would very much urge to you to make that "some point" in the near future.
I finished my listen to the Emerson cycle yesterday. True they do not wear their heart on their sleeve in the manner of the Borodins, but I find the claims they are too cool and unemotional to be unfounded.
It is in fact the Fitzwilliams whom I found to be too uninvolved. If I can remember which shelf they are consigned to, I will bring them out and give a relisten to see if my ears retain that opinion.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 16, 2015, 07:40:40 AM
The main reason the JQ recordings are not preferable to the Borodin Cow cycle is the simple fact that it is only a partial cycle. I would very much urge to you to make that "some point" in the near future.
I take your urging to heart, sir.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 16, 2015, 07:47:56 AM
I take your urging to heart, sir.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 16, 2015, 07:40:40 AM
The main reason the JQ recordings are not preferable to the Borodin Cow cycle is the simple fact that it is only a partial cycle. I would very much urge to you to make that "some point" in the near future.
I finished my listen to the Emerson cycle yesterday. True they do not wear their heart on their sleeve in the manner of the Borodins, but I find the claims they are too cool and unemotional to be unfounded.
It is in fact the Fitzwilliams whom I found to be too uninvolved. If I can remember which shelf they are consigned to, I will bring them out and give a relisten to see if my ears retain that opinion.
I was talking about the
Jerusalem's SQ's Op.110 on the
BBC Magazine CD,
NOT the HarmoniaMundi CD. This one is 'live' and also contains Haydn and LvB. Right?
Why don't you simply compare the Fittzies-Emerson-'Bovine' in Op.110 alone? I'm thinking the Fittzies win that one hands down. Even so, it's still shaping up that this Axis-of-DSCH is the daddy of all future DSCH comparisons,... errrr, as it haaas been already anyhow,... now it's just more obvious than ever. I guess I just wish that a Cycle would come along to silence all the Emerson lovers forever- even if that meant a STUDIO Emerson Cycle- yea, the Emerson's just seem like the 'White Privilege' Choice, the Frat Party Choice, and since they came out, there has always been an undercurrent of- resentment???- for them "imposing" themselves upon this music. For me, they are simply there to be bettered by someone else- though, even the Great and Powerful snyprrr has had to come around on, say, Op.68, or Op.93, or Op.101.- of course there's good things here, but, oy, I simply cannot countenance a conversation where my colleagues cannot seem to bring themselves to critique not a note of their whole Cycle,... I mean, c'mon guys, I could take this EmersonFest from you more readily if you offered any balancing criticism- which I never hear. I guess I'm saying that if you compare Fittzies-Emerson-'Bovine' in Op.110, and choose the Emerson, I will just have to UnFriend you!! :laugh:
sorry- my typing sounds mean today- I'm not being mean, it just typed out that way...
I am lamenting that the St.Petersburg/SONY 1/3 Cycle didn't have at least another volume. I think thaaat full Cycle would have been a monster!
Quote from: snyprrr on July 20, 2015, 12:00:17 PM
I was talking about the Jerusalem's SQ's Op.110 on the BBC Magazine CD, NOT the HarmoniaMundi CD. This one is 'live' and also contains Haydn and LvB. Right?
Why don't you simply compare the Fittzies-Emerson-'Bovine' in Op.110 alone? I'm thinking the Fittzies win that one hands down. Even so, it's still shaping up that this Axis-of-DSCH is the daddy of all future DSCH comparisons,... errrr, as it haaas been already anyhow,... now it's just more obvious than ever. I guess I just wish that a Cycle would come along to silence all the Emerson lovers forever- even if that meant a STUDIO Emerson Cycle- yea, the Emerson's just seem like the 'White Privilege' Choice, the Frat Party Choice, and since they came out, there has always been an undercurrent of- resentment???- for them "imposing" themselves upon this music. For me, they are simply there to be bettered by someone else- though, even the Great and Powerful snyprrr has had to come around on, say, Op.68, or Op.93, or Op.101.- of course there's good things here, but, oy, I simply cannot countenance a conversation where my colleagues cannot seem to bring themselves to critique not a note of their whole Cycle,... I mean, c'mon guys, I could take this EmersonFest from you more readily if you offered any balancing criticism- which I never hear. I guess I'm saying that if you compare Fittzies-Emerson-'Bovine' in Op.110, and choose the Emerson, I will just have to UnFriend you!! :laugh:
sorry- my typing sounds mean today- I'm not being mean, it just typed out that way...
I am lamenting that the St.Petersburg/SONY 1/3 Cycle didn't have at least another volume. I think thaaat full Cycle would have been a monster!
Re: Jerusalem Qt. I have the CD you refer to....but I was promoting to Karl the two Harmonia Mundi CDs.
I have, I am pretty sure, every CD the Jerusalem Quartet has released.
My overall favorite DSCH cycle is the Bovine. Emerson and Pacifica duke it out for second place.I found my copy of the Williamovitch cycle and will give it a relisten. Previously I found it to have all the flaws you find in the Emersons. We will see what happens now.
A
possible new recording of the complete cycle by the Brodsky Quartet:
QuoteWe have been reveling in the quartets of Shostakovich throughout our
43 year existence. No.11 was among the initial handful of pieces we
chose to learn. In the absence of parts back in the 70s we
painstakingly wrote out the parts to No.13 by listening to a recording
over and over again. In the late 80s we were asked to play the whole
cycle in the QEH London, this subsequently led to Teldec inviting us
to make the 1st complete digital recording of the set. Since then we
have played the cycle countless times all over the world from Sydney
Opera House to remote churches on Norwegian Fjords. Now, 25
years after that original recording we feel ready and excited by the
prospect of capturing our latest thoughts on these masterpieces. In an
effort to get as spontaneous a reading as possible we are going to
record them all ʻliveʼ from the Musiekgebouw in Amsterdam in
February 2016 to be released on the Chandos label. This process will
cost us £40,000 (this does not include a fee of any description!). One
extremely generous donor has already given us half this amount,
leaving £20,000 outstanding. Please help us realise this dream of
what amounts to a lifetimeʼs work by making a donation to our fund.
Every penny counts and we thank you in advance.
http://www.brodskyquartet.co.uk/brodsky-quartet-new-shostakovich-recording.pdf
Quote from: Camphy on July 20, 2015, 10:59:44 PM
A possible new recording of the complete cycle by the Brodsky Quartet:
http://www.brodskyquartet.co.uk/brodsky-quartet-new-shostakovich-recording.pdf
well now- thaaat's interesting news. Thanks for mitigating against the peanut gallery and actually posting some useful information... a-heeeeem ::)...
It seems with everyone being oh so satisfied with just one or two, albeit essential, Cycles, the Brodsky have gotten precious little love in this Thread. No... wait... I fear I'll be on a 3PageRant if I continue... lol... carry on...
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I would be holding extremely high expectations for a New Brodsky Cycle,... I think we may be heading into the Super Quartet Era,... maybe 10-12 new Cycles will be released, all of them absolutely essential...
NOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Listening to CD 4 of the "Fitzies" (SQs 8,9,10) now, and my previous opinion holds. Not as emotionally intense, sometimes merely fussy, overall too restrained. They are at their best in the more lyrical passages, but even there the Emersons often sing better.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2015, 02:44:05 PM
Listening to CD 4 of the "Fitzies" (SQs 8,9,10) now, and my previous opinion holds. Not as emotionally intense, sometimes merely fussy, overall too restrained. They are at their best in the more lyrical passages, but even there the Emersons often sing better.
Addendum after listening to the last CD of the Fitzwilliam cycle. Their performance of Op. 144 is superlative.
But that is, IMO, the only gem of this cycle.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 25, 2015, 02:44:05 PM
Listening to CD 4 of the "Fitzies" (SQs 8,9,10) now, and my previous opinion holds. Not as emotionally intense, sometimes merely fussy, overall too restrained. They are at their best in the more lyrical passages, but even there the Emersons often sing better.
I'm shocked! Socked, I tell you!!I have been going through a Op.101-a-thon, and, whew, that repeated figure in the 1st movement gets sooo annoying in so many performances,... I was starting to dislike the music. So many have the violin be soooo insistent here, grating. So, I was going through, and being very critical, and I have come away with maybe the Emerson's being my fav here. Their 'Classical' approach minimizes the annoyance of the repeated note, and everything is more matter-of-fact, which seems to suit this overtly programmatic music (it's obviously about the ups-and-downs of a courting couple). The 'live' Borodin 1981 recording could be considered a 'Romantic' antipode And the St.P's Hyperion recording rounds outmy Top3,... though I may prefer it in some instances.
Still, I's have to sit in the same room with you going through that Op.110,...
Hm, it's been a bit quiet 'round here . . . .
This can bring our snypsss only pain . . . . (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21529.msg914627/topicseen.html#msg914627)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 14, 2015, 08:17:16 AM
This can bring our snypsss only pain . . . . (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,21529.msg914627/topicseen.html#msg914627)
he has been dealt with
Just a random Thread Post,...
I've moved into the Concertos all of a sudden, and found it difficult to get back into the SQs. Orchestral colour has stolen me from the tyranny of strings. Also, I have been craving to buyBuyBUY!!! something here, but, again, I know what's out there, and am not interested in, say, the Sofia SQs Gega recording of 8/10/11,... or,... mm,... the mulling over of the eventual (ie "never") essential purchases of the Fitzwilliam and Borodin 'Bovine' Cycles,... the post-parting depression of believing I've heard most all that I will ever hear of these Compositions.
Lately, I've been fantasizing about the "missing" St.Petersburg/SONY recordings of Nos. 6 & 8. They didn't make it onto either CD, and there's no evidence they were recorded, but, based on their approach, I've played these through in my head and use this fantasy to soothe my desire.
Perhaps there's a couple of strays that I haven't bothered with, that, surely I would buyBuyBUY!!! if I could care about the expenditure, but, again, I feel like I can already play these in my head, and I still seek out My Perfect Op.73, though, at this point, the Borodin 1984, yes, even with the slooow finale, has to be TheOne. I only await the 'New' Borodin here, but hold no expectation, either way.
Here is a thumbnail, current listing of what's been on my mind:
Op.49: Sorrel (just for the lushness), 'New' Borodin, Borodin'95, Taneyev 'live' 1966
Op.68: Zapolski & Verlaine, Fitzwilliam,... Sorrel... Emerson 'live'
Op.73: St.Petersburg/SONY, Taneyev 'live' 1966, Borodin'84
Op.83: Kreutzer, META-4, Taneyev 'live' 1963 & Taneyev'72, Borodin'83, St.P/SONY,... Sorrel,...
Op.92: Atrium, Acies, St.P/SONY & Eder (both for speed), Emerson 'live', maybe Borodin'84
Op.101: St.P/Hyperion, Emerson 'live', Borodin 'live' 1981, Manhattan/Centaur
Op.108: Borodin'67, St.P/SONY, Hagen, Kreutzer, Brodsky,...
Op.110: Jerusalem 'live' BBC, Sorrel, Borodin'67, St.P/Hyperion, Fitzwilliam
Op.117: Gosteleradio, St.P/Hyperion, Brodsky, Borodin 'live' 1981
Op.118: Fitzwilliam, St.P/Hyperion
Op.122: Vogler, Hagen, Borodin'67, St.P/Hyperion, Brodsky
Op.133: Fitzwilliam, Sorrel, Shostakovich, Amati, Emerson 'live'
Op.138: Kremer/ECM 'live', St.P/Hyperion, Brodsky, Sorrel, Shostakovich
Op.142: Kremer/ECM 'live', Fitzwilliam, Glinka 'live' @1976, 'New' Borodin, Sorrel*,...
Op.144: Kogan 'live' 1984, Borodin'95, Fitzwilliam, St.P/Hyperion*/ Sorrel*,...
Notice that there is a 'live' option for most listings,... interesting...
Sibelius Academy String Quartet 3-4, 2 & 6
I finally heard some samples here, and, mm, I'm glad I didn't plunk down the cash. First, the acoustic is just too tight for DSCH, especially in these earlier works. Then, there are some interpretive issues, like the slowness of the 2nd in Op.73 (though, the last two mvmts. here were more enjoyable). And, Op.101 wasn't as "essential" sounding as I might have hoped for, so, in all, I found all four works to be somewhat MOR- they could easily have been from any of the post-2000 Cycles, or not.
So, yes, another quest has been laid to rest. We can all sleep a little more soundly tonight! ;)
I certainly haven't listened to a single DSCH SQ note since this Thread died, but, I'm still waaay in Nordic Territory, so, not much dif...
Quote from: snyprrr on November 06, 2015, 01:24:14 PM
I certainly haven't listened to a single DSCH SQ note since this Thread died, but, I'm still waaay in Nordic Territory, so, not much dif...
You have done sterling work, my dear snyprrr !
Quote from: snyprrr on November 06, 2015, 01:24:14 PM
I certainly haven't listened to a single DSCH SQ note since this Thread died
You Khrennikov-enabler, you.
Ah, the smell of DSCH SQs in the morning! ;)
I took the Kreutzer 4/7/8 for a spin. Yes, the 4th is wonderful here, just right. I'd have to consult my List above to see where it stands in the pantheon.
No.7 here has a slow mvmt. that is twice as long as all the others; it really leaves an interesting impression. The finale isn't as raving as some others, but, overall, this is a very interesting 7th. Skipped the 8th for now.
I don't think a marathon is in the offing, though. It's hard getting back into the string sonority coming from Stravinsky, whose SQs don't really prime one for something like DSCH.
Quote from: snyprrr on September 05, 2017, 07:26:20 AM
I took the Kreutzer 4/7/8 for a spin. Yes, the 4th is wonderful here, just right. I'd have to consult my List above to see where it stands in the pantheon.
No.7 here has a slow mvmt. that is twice as long as all the others; it really leaves an interesting impression. The finale isn't as raving as some others, but, overall, this is a very interesting 7th.
How do they milk the
Lento so? (← rhetorical question)
I'll be ripping this set pretty soon to my iPod:
(https://img.discogs.com/KdJcS-FjFQL81LG4W5dj-p8Sb5o=/fit-in/600x597/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-5070074-1383679870-9309.jpeg.jpg)
This is probably my favorite set overall. I also own the Borodin (half cycle --- older recordings on Chandos), Brodsky (Teldec), Emerson (DG), and Pacifica (Cedille) sets.
The Borodin complete (Kopelman, Abramenkov, Shebalin, Berlinsky) is my go to set, a mix of studio and a few live performances. For me, the quartets are the grounding center of Shostakovich's music, nothing less than excellent and remarkably varied — although I have always been slightly put off by 8. I'm sure all the self-quotations had some special significance for the composer, but they don't do much for me except take me out of the frame of the work.
On the occasion of receiving the new Borodin String Quartet cycle on Decca (their third, not counting the half-hearted effort on Virgin), I just finished one of my labor-of-love discographies:
A Survey of Shostakovich String Quartet Cycles
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sTHWL9-17hU/W7e1s89d37I/AAAAAAAAKns/zb2DrgsORkYCajhx1l4Vu0R1_wpY_OXZQCLcBGAs/s1600/Shostakovich_old3_laurson_600.jpg)
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-survey-of-shostakovich-string-quartet.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-survey-of-shostakovich-string-quartet.html)
Nice, Jens.
I enjoy those discography series a lot. Thanks for making them.
Quote from: Artem on October 07, 2018, 04:14:16 AM
I enjoy those discography series a lot. Thanks for making them.
Thanks for the kind words. Feedback is always sweet.
Here are a couple of my ruminations as I listened to the Pacifica Qt's box.
Shostakovich composed fifteen quartets, the most popular of which are nr 8 and nr 10, which have both been turned into pieces for string orchestra. This may be an indication that the words "string quartet" and "popular" don't really belong in one sentence.
Over the years I have found I gravitate towards the quartets DSCH wrote in homage to people he was close with. Of course we don't know what was in the back of his mind whenever he was composing. However we know that the Seventh Quartet (1960) was dedicated to the memory of his wife Nina, who had died six years before. And I especially love the Quartets Eleven thru Fourteen which were dedicated to the members of the Beethoven Quartet who had played (often premiered) all of his works for string quartet. It is somewhat ironic to know that the composer actually preferred the younger Borodin Quartet, with whom he rehearsed, too, at the time he was composing his nrs 11 - 15. He just didn't want to hurt his older friends of the Beethoven Quartet. I can't help but think this is what DSCH was like. These musicians were the people he really cared about.
The Eleventh (1966) was dedicated to the 2nd violinist of the Beethoven Qt, Vasily Shirinsky, who had died the year before. The piece consists of seven rather short character pieces; only the Elegy lasts five minutes - in which the 2nd violin hardly ever needs more than the lowest string. Nr Twelve is dedicated to the 1st violinist, Dmitry Tsyganov. Ironically, the piece starts as a string trio, the 2nd violin remaining silent for more than thirty bars, the entire first theme. It is one of DSCH most player-friendly pieces. It's that not always an easy piece to play, but it's got beautiful legato lines and there's just a lot of stuff to do and the audience will clearly see you doing it.
The Thirteenth Quartet (1970) was dedicated to the viola-player of the Beethoven Qt, Vadim Borisovsky, who had just been replaced by Fyodor Druzhinin (who was a student of Borisovsky, and in turn a teacher of Yuri Bashmet). In Elizabeth Wilson's oral history Druzhinin recalls how he was in a rehearsal noodling way up high on his fiddle when the composer asked him to hit that (impossibly) high note again. It's the B flat that eventually became the searing high note at the end of the Thirteenth Quartet. It's about the highest note one can technically play on the viola. Nr Thirteen is in my view one of DSCH's crowning achievements, the most successful quartet in terms of power and the way the medium is pushed.
It's amusing how the composer asked the four players to tap their bows against the body of their instruments in the middle section (described by a Emerson Qt member as "the boogiewoogie from hell") . Nobody does that anymore. Instruments are too fragile and expensive. Most players (not that many quartets perform this piece) tap the bows on the music stand now, which is only a partial solution, since most bows first rate players use approach the $100.000 range, too.
The Fourteenth Quartet, composed after a long period of hospitalization following the premiere of Symphony nr 15, is the odd one out. It's dedicated to the Beethoven Qt's cellist, Sergei Shirinsky, who starts with a hunt-like solo, and there are several more solo turns for the cello later on. Almost every player gets to do a solo in this piece, which is the least "quartet-like" quartet in DSCH's catalogue, and yet it is one of the most appealing late DSCH pieces, with its singing lines, a showstopping violin solo at the start of the middle mvt, a ten bar viola solo, unaccompanied, and the "Italian bit" appearing twice - a unisono duet for first violin and cello with the other two fiddles strumming like a guitar. It's the complete opposite of nrs 13 and 15, a generous piece that is easily relatable, and I don't understand why it isn't performed more often. Quartets should take this piece on tour and see what happens.
The Fifteenth is the successor of the Thirteenth quartet, very sparse and focused, too. It uses the same bullet note device as at the end of nr 13, at the beginning of the second mvt, only now the piercing sforzandos are handed from one fiddle to the other. After having dedicated four quartets to his friends of the Beethoven Qt, DSCH wrote this piece for himself, pretty much as his epitaph. I'm not the world's biggest fan of this piece. I have seen this piece in performance a number of times, most notably by the Borodin Quartet in the late eighties. They put a big candelabra on the stage and blew out the candles at the end. It gave the whole performance a lugubrious atmosphere which I had a hard time with. I like to think music and all art is a celebration of life. Nr. 15 does not give one a lot of chances there. It was premiered by the Taneyev Quartet, because the Beethoven's primarius, Shirinsky, died as he was rehearsing the piece.
Nr 15 is definitely a piece one should experience live, because it's a very theatrical composition. This is an integral part of DSCH's m.o. His symphonies use the theatrical devices of loud and soft, massive tuttis and delicate solos a lot. This happens in the quartets, too. In nr 13 there is the massive B flat trill in the viola part in the bars leading up to the aforementioned boogie woogie. The music stays in an unambiguous dominant for something like eighteen bars before were back to the tonica (incidentally nr 13 starts as a dodecaphonic piece, but DSCH is very much having his cake here and eating it too: there's never any ambiguity as to where we are, harmonically). It's like we're in a dark tunnel just waiting for the B flat light to reappear. In nr 15 the entire opening Elegy is like this, and it is one of the longer movements in DSCH quartets. Only in the Serenade movement, after the bullet notes have stopped ringing out, a melody and accompaniment appears. It's a major achievement, composing a piece this long, 35 minutes, every movement in an unrelenting E flat minor (no open strings whatsoever), with so little material to go on. It's an absolute masterpiece one should not hear too often.
Nice, Herman.
Did I have any preferences as to the performers?
I don't know all recordings. Of the ones I have I tend to prefer the ca 1980 Borodin Qt; certainly in the really intense and dramatic pieces, nr 13 and nr 15, which one should really witness live, they get closest to the required dramatic intensity.
However the Pacifica is very good across the board, and sometimes the Beethoven Qt is very good too (nr 14). I like the Emersons, too, who recorded the entire cycle live. I am somewhat underwhelmed by the Fitzwilliam. It was a brave effort, but they just don't have what it takes. Same for either Brodsky.
I had a similar feeling about the Fitzwilliams.
My preference is for the Taneyev Quartet in 1-9 and the St Petersburg Quartet in 10-15, but the 2018 Borodin Quartet recordings definitely seem very much to my taste as well. Also the ca 1965 Borodin Quartet recordings of 1-13 (because the other two hadn't been written yet).
I like the Emerson, the Pacifica, and the Mandelring Quartets very much.
I don't know the Mandelring recordings yet. I'm really hoping the Jerusalem Qt will complete the cycle.
Quote from: Herman on October 11, 2018, 01:41:18 AM
Here are a couple of my ruminations as I listened to the Pacifica Qt's box.
Shostakovich composed fifteen quartets, [interesting ruminations snipped]
I have the Pacifica box, I think it's about time I went thru it from beginning to end. They're maybe my favorite 4tet at the moment; I've heard them several times since they're kind of local to me. Recently they changed 50% of their personnel, but they still sound great.
Anyway...your comments on #13 were interesting, because for years I heard this as a surreal nightmare. I was influenced by the notes to the Fitzwilliam performance, which pointed out how bad DSCH's health was at the time he composed it, stuffed full of pills and medications. Maybe it's time for me to listen to it as pure music and see how it holds up.
Same applies to #15. I hear the quartets 12-15 as a group, because they came after his heart attack when his health was declining and death was in sight. So I've always seen them as very gloomy, haunted works.
Well, obviously, to a degree they are death-haunted works, and it's amazing to think how DSCH wrote quite a bunch of these works while hospitalized, falling aparts from different ailments.
One of the interesting things is the way he uses twelve-tone rows, which he reportedly regarded as a death-like system, probably because of its restraints. So as he is facing death, he turns to dodecaphony, but in a non-dodecaphonic way: he always repeats the tonica note, which is not allowed in strict dodecaphony. However, there is (to my knowledge) no dodecaphony in the 15th SQ).
The beauty of the lighter late quartets, nrs 11, 12 and 14 especially is how full of life they are.
Quote from: Herman on October 11, 2018, 07:46:24 AM
One of the interesting things is the way he uses twelve-tone rows, which he reportedly regarded as a death-like system, probably because of its restraints. So as he is facing death, he turns to dodecaphony, but in a non-dodecaphonic way: he always repeats the tonica note, which is not allowed in strict dodecaphony. However, there is (to my knowledge) no dodecaphony in the 15th SQ).
I read somewhere that the opening of one of the mvts of #15 is a tone row - it's the one which begins with one solo crescendo after another (I forget which mvt it is exactly).
The last five quartets are kind of a group in that they share an extreme simplification of both the material & the instrumental writing, very often reduced to one or two real parts, but at the same time this extremely stripped down material can be dissonant or highly chromatic and strips away many of the more "accessible" features of his earlier work, eg melodies that aren't dodecaphonic, any kind of normal musical rhetoric (apart from funeral marches), and anything resembling climaxes or narrative continuity. We also see this in a few of the other late works eg the Symphony No. 14, the Alexander Blok songs Op. 127, the Michelangelo songs Op. 144, the violin & viola sonatas. I think this tends to make even the "happy" music (eg the 12th and 14th quartets) sound austere and difficult.
Quote from: Herman on October 11, 2018, 01:47:27 AM
Did I have any preferences as to the performers?
I don't know all recordings. Of the ones I have I tend to prefer the ca 1980 Borodin Qt; certainly in the really intense and dramatic pieces, nr 13 and nr 15, which one should really witness live, they get closest to the required dramatic intensity.
However the Pacifica is very good across the board, and sometimes the Beethoven Qt is very good too (nr 14). I like the Emersons, too, who recorded the entire cycle live. I am somewhat underwhelmed by the Fitzwilliam. It was a brave effort, but they just don't have what it takes. Same for either Brodsky.
Thank you Herman for an interesting read.
I was also underwhelmed by the Fitzwilliams. My favorite is the 80s Borodin cycle, followed by the Emerson SQ. I know a lot of people are not impressed by the latter, but I think they do the music justice. Close after that the Pacifica and Shostakovich cycles. The Jerusalem Qt semi-cycle is a must have.
Quote from: amw on October 11, 2018, 08:12:38 AM
The last five quartets are kind of a group in that they share an extreme simplification of both the material & the instrumental writing, very often reduced to one or two real parts, but at the same time this extremely stripped down material can be dissonant or highly chromatic and strips away many of the more "accessible" features of his earlier work, eg melodies that aren't dodecaphonic, any kind of normal musical rhetoric (apart from funeral marches), and anything resembling climaxes or narrative continuity. We also see this in a few of the other late works eg the Symphony No. 14, the Alexander Blok songs Op. 127, the Michelangelo songs Op. 144, the violin & viola sonatas. I think this tends to make even the "happy" music (eg the 12th and 14th quartets) sound austere and difficult.
This is true, but on the other hand I think DSCH wasn't doing this in order to be difficult, but as a way to increase the musical drama. For instance, the very bare bones opening of the viola sonata, just like the minimal material in the opening pages of quartet nr 15, when you're in the audience, this is very very dramatic.
Maybe it's the same thing as in Bach's solo violin sonatas, where the listener's inner ear has to provide the harmonies one four-string instrument can't produce. In this very bare-bones music DSCH was composing in his final years the listener is sucked into the music because there are so many open spots.
Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on October 11, 2018, 07:25:54 AM
Anyway...your comments on #13 were interesting, because for years I heard this as a surreal nightmare. I was influenced by the notes to the Fitzwilliam performance, which pointed out how bad DSCH's health was at the time he composed it, stuffed full of pills and medications. Maybe it's time for me to listen to it as pure music and see how it holds up.
Same applies to #15. I hear the quartets 12-15 as a group, because they came after his heart attack when his health was declining and death was in sight. So I've always seen them as very gloomy, haunted works.
IMO this is a real problem in DSCH-exegesis. There is too much a sense that things should be decoded. I read a piece in which a musicologist is counting the taps in nr 13, trying to figure out whether they relate to the nr of years DSCh was with his various wives. The emphasis is always on the Soviet-repression, the anxiety and, for the final dozen years, the physical suffering. Obviously these are absolutely there, but it's why I thought the Borodin's blowing out the candles was just a little too much. Krystof Meyer's DCH book is an eyeopener in that respect. He was a younger Polish composer seeking DSCH's blessing or friendship. The first time he visits DSCH at home he cannot help but notice how large DSCH's home is. His life was not bereft of luxury.
Meyer also notes that DSCH has a hard time recognizing him every time he visits. DSCH lived in a very small circle of men and women he had known for decades, nearly all of them musicians, like the members of the Beethoven Quartet. I'm not saying he was "close" to them in the sense they swapped intimate stories (I have no idea; there was a lot of drinking). But these were the people he liked, and with whom he worked.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jun/22/shostakovich-quartets-wendy-lesser-review
Quote from: Herman on October 11, 2018, 09:12:51 AM
This is true, but on the other hand I think DSCH wasn't doing this in order to be difficult, but as a way to increase the musical drama.
I generally agree. I think by this point he was a sufficiently beloved and well-known figure in Soviet musical life that people still had great reverence for his music even if it may have been seen as difficult. He had a lot more artistic freedom in the later years.
Quote from: amw on October 11, 2018, 09:17:22 PM
I generally agree. I think by this point he was a sufficiently beloved and well-known figure in Soviet musical life that people still had great reverence for his music even if it may have been seen as difficult. He had a lot more artistic freedom in the later years.
Apart from the natural trajectory a composer takes (think Beethoven, whose late string quartets are nearly as forbidding (and certainly must have seemd so, at the time), there are two main reasons for DSCH to feel like he could alter his style towards hitherto undesirable realms:
1.) Stalin was dead.
2.) DSCH knew he was dying soon. (At some point; at the latest after he visited the NIH in D.C.)
A Survey of Shostakovich String Quartet Cycles (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-survey-of-shostakovich-string-quartet.html)
I wish people would stop saying they're underwhelmed by the Fitzwilliams. I'm perfectly happy with them and you all make me wonder if there's something wrong with that.
Also, an emphatic yes to de-emphasising the "decoding" of Shostakovich. No other composer suffers so much of that kind of analysis, ever since Testimony. Sometimes it's enough to just appreciate the man's control of form and personally I think he's also one of the best composers ever when it comes to endings.
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on October 12, 2018, 12:27:53 AM
Apart from the natural trajectory a composer takes (think Beethoven, whose late string quartets are nearly as forbidding (and certainly must have seemd so, at the time), there are two main reasons for DSCH to feel like he could alter his style towards hitherto undesirable realms:
1.) Stalin was dead.
2.) DSCH knew he was dying soon. (At some point; at the latest after he visited the NIH in D.C.)
A Survey of Shostakovich String Quartet Cycles (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-survey-of-shostakovich-string-quartet.html)
What do you mean?
Quote from: JBS on October 11, 2018, 08:22:28 AM
followed by the Emerson SQ. I know a lot of people are not impressed by the latter, but I think they do the music justice.
I've liked pretty much everything I've heard from the Emersons. I recently compared their Bartok to the classic Juilliard/1963 and there was no clear winner. I guess that makes me weird.
Quote from: Madiel on October 12, 2018, 01:50:28 AM
I wish people would stop saying they're underwhelmed by the Fitzwilliams. I'm perfectly happy with them and you all make me wonder if there's something wrong with that.
I had them for years and was perfectly happy with them too. Every DSCH set I've heard has something to offer.
QuoteAlso, an emphatic yes to de-emphasising the "decoding" of Shostakovich. No other composer suffers so much of that kind of analysis, ever since Testimony.
Ain't it the truth. Ironically, in painting him as a closet dissident, one you need a secret decoder ring to understand, it traps him in a kind of totalitarianism of meaning. As Vaughan Williams said (referring to his 4th Sym.), sometimes a man just wants to write a piece of music; but the DSCH decoders wouldn't let him do that.
Quote from: Madiel on October 12, 2018, 01:50:28 AM
I wish people would stop saying they're underwhelmed by the Fitzwilliams. I'm perfectly happy with them and you all make me wonder if there's something wrong with that.
Mainly they don't get much mention. I like them a lot because they seem to find humor and jauntiness in Shostakovich that others typically miss.
The Fitzwilliams also come recommended by Shostakovich himself as far as I recall.
Quote from: amw on October 12, 2018, 01:15:51 PM
The Fitzwilliams also come recommended by Shostakovich himself as far as I recall.
Of course DSCH was very pleased with the Fitzwilliam recording his complete SQs on a western label! It was a beach head. Up till then people from the West had to buy melodia LPs in Eastern Europe and take them back home, at least that's what my parents did.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on October 12, 2018, 06:48:43 AM
What do you mean?
When he was notably sick, he visited the National Institute of Health in Washington DC to have himself checked out and, if necessary/possible, treated. (Hush-hushed at the time, I've been given to understand.) But apparently they (presumably)
cut him open [took a good look at him], took a good look at the lung, and said: "Sorry, there's nothing we can realistically do at this point..." and he went back to live out the remainder of his soon-to-be-ending life in Moscow.
In the summer of 1973 DSCH visited the USA because he had been awarded an honorary degree from Northwestern.
While he was there he went to a NY Philharmonic concert with Boulez conducting and a Met performance of Aida. On their way back from Illinois they made a detour to the NIH, where he was examined for two days, and diagnosed with heart trouble and and a progressive neurological disorder. My guess is they could not help but notice he was going to die of lung cancer three years later by just making a chest x-ray.
I'm pretty sure they did not "cut him open" since that would have imperilled his life instantly. Opening the thorax of an old and frail man was a very dicey business at the time, and still is something medics prefer to avoid. The Cold War was not as cold as it used to be, but still no one was eager for the scenario of "Most Famous USSR Composer dying at the hands of American Doctors."
The poignant thing is that even at this time DSCH was positive he had many years to live; this is a belief that keeps many old people going especially when they're married to a much younger person, as DSCH was. When he got Back in the USSR he attended the rehearsal of SQ 14 in which he played the 2nd violin part - on the piano.
Bronchoscopes were already in use for decades, and would have been the obvious followup for pulmonary exams.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchoscopy
It struck me that something was off in the story because there is no NIH facility where a person could be seen by a doctor in DC. There is a clinical research center in Bethesda, Maryland. I guess someone could have seen him there, but is the sort of place you get referred to for a clinical trial, not so much for an examination.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on October 13, 2018, 10:50:53 PM
It struck me that something was off in the story because there is no NIH facility where a person could be seen by a doctor in DC.
What about in the 1970s? We're not talking recent history here.
Quote from: Ghost of Baron Scarpia on October 13, 2018, 10:50:53 PM
It struck me that something was off in the story because there is no NIH facility where a person could be seen by a doctor in DC. There is a clinical research center in Bethesda, Maryland. I guess someone could have seen him there, but is the sort of place you get referred to for a clinical trial, not so much for an examination.
Presumably the Bethesda campus, which had been around for a long time. I would consider Bethesda "DC"... although I hadn't even thought that far. (Curious aside, I've got my account with the NIH Credit Union. Sometimes people think I'm a research-doctor when they see my CC.)
Laurel Fay mentions Bethesda, MD as the place where DSCH was examined for two days.
From the recent SCOTUS confirmation hearings we know that in common parlance Bethesda is considered to be a part of the DC-area.
Also I could imagine exceptions were made in the case of DSCH's visit (it doesn't sound like he had made a doctor's appointment two months in advance) so as to accommodate him quietly without the media knowing. Up to and including the ceremony at Northwestern his visit had been covered extensively (including his comments on the "rug concert*" by Boulez and the NY Phil he attended) but the trip back to the East coast was no news.
*At a rug concert the audience gets a pillow or a rug and people are encouraged to lie on the hall floor. It was a weird way to lure the Woodstock generation into the symphonic concert hall.
Weird often worked with the Woodstock generation . . . .
I'm resurrecting this thread. Talking to a student in one of my classes the words Shostakovich 8th came up and I started on about how I loved the 8th symphony until she said, "No, I meant the 8th string quartet" Got home, searched Qobuz and streamed the 8th - wow, this was great stuff. I also sampled some of the others and found the music very approachable. It's always a pleasure to discover new music.
I've read the first half of this thread where many recommendations of complete sets were made - so many that I'm not sure which to eventually stick with.
(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiODQ5NjI5Mi4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6MzAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE1NTU5MzcyMjV9)
I really liked the samples of the Decca Borodins
(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiNzkyMjY0NC4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6MzAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE0MDE5ODI0ODR9)
and also listened to some of the Chandos Cycle.
Some of the reading I've done leaves me a little unclear on how many cycles they've done. I know the Chandos is cycle I but is the Decca cycle II or III?
The Danel take a very different approach to the cycle but the Borodin's have a certain approach - almost manic - that appeals.
After those first recommendations any others. To give you an idea of how I like my Shosty, my favourite recording of the 8th symphony is the Previn LSO on EMI (not the DGG). The scherzo is so strident and manic yet he gets the other movements to work as well.
Quote from: Holden on March 25, 2022, 04:22:07 PM
I'm resurrecting this thread. Talking to a student in one of my classes the words Shostakovich 8th came up and I started on about how I loved the 8th symphony until she said, "No, I meant the 8th string quartet" Got home, searched Qobuz and streamed the 8th - wow, this was great stuff. I also sampled some of the others and found the music very approachable. It's always a pleasure to discover new music.
I've read the first half of this thread where many recommendations of complete sets were made - so many that I'm not sure which to eventually stick with.
(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiODQ5NjI5Mi4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6MzAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE1NTU5MzcyMjV9)
I really liked the samples of the Decca Borodins
(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiNzkyMjY0NC4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6MzAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE0MDE5ODI0ODR9)
and also listened to some of the Chandos Cycle.
Some of the reading I've done leaves me a little unclear on how many cycles they've done. I know the Chandos is cycle I but is the Decca cycle II or III?
The Decca is the third cycle, with a totally new lineup of players. Here's a review that discusses the different personnel in the recordings:
http://theclassicalreviewer.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-legendary-borodin-quartet-sign-to.html
To further complicate the matter, the Borodin Quarter recorded a partial cycle for EMI, including my favorite recording of the 8th.
This box seems to be the simplest way of getting it
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/513typ6cNSL.jpg)
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61SSz9zmsHL.jpg)
Quote from: Holden on March 25, 2022, 04:22:07 PM
I'm resurrecting this thread. Talking to a student in one of my classes the words Shostakovich 8th came up and I started on about how I loved the 8th symphony until she said, "No, I meant the 8th string quartet" Got home, searched Qobuz and streamed the 8th - wow, this was great stuff. I also sampled some of the others and found the music very approachable. It's always a pleasure to discover new music.
I've read the first half of this thread where many recommendations of complete sets were made - so many that I'm not sure which to eventually stick with.
(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiODQ5NjI5Mi4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6MzAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE1NTU5MzcyMjV9)
I really liked the samples of the Decca Borodins
(https://d1iiivw74516uk.cloudfront.net/eyJidWNrZXQiOiJwcmVzdG8tY292ZXItaW1hZ2VzIiwia2V5IjoiNzkyMjY0NC4xLmpwZyIsImVkaXRzIjp7InJlc2l6ZSI6eyJ3aWR0aCI6MzAwfSwianBlZyI6eyJxdWFsaXR5Ijo2NX0sInRvRm9ybWF0IjoianBlZyJ9LCJ0aW1lc3RhbXAiOjE0MDE5ODI0ODR9)
and also listened to some of the Chandos Cycle.
Some of the reading I've done leaves me a little unclear on how many cycles they've done. I know the Chandos is cycle I but is the Decca cycle II or III?
The Danel take a very different approach to the cycle but the Borodin's have a certain approach - almost manic - that appeals.
After those first recommendations any others. To give you an idea of how I like my Shosty, my favourite recording of the 8th symphony is the Previn LSO on EMI (not the DGG). The scherzo is so strident and manic yet he gets the other movements to work as well.
The Danel is "Shostakovich-light," it's just not idiomatic. This is my sole cycle regret as I bought it before sampling the later quartets. Borodin II on Melodiya is complete, some intonation issues in their playing compared to the first incomplete cycle, but still well worth having along with the first cycle.
For modern sets Pacifica are excellent.
Now the first string quartet I sample is 8 before deciding if I want to proceed further in a cycle.
I like the Pacifica as well. Just played their cycle again a few weeks ago.
One other thing worth mentioning in case sound quality is a concern, I'm almost certain Borodin's first cycle on Chandos is sourced from vinyl and not tape. There are some telltale artifacts, and places where the fidelity drops that points to it being from vinyl.
This might be but I think the late 1970s/early 80s Borodin on Melodiya has not clearly better sound. The older one sounds "warmer" and I'd describe both more as "o.k." for their age than having good sound. If recorded sound is a major concern neither the Chandos nor the BMG/Melodiya are a first choice. I think the sound is not bad enough to distract from the overall quality of the performances.
+2 on the Pacifica Quartet.
Quote from: hvbias on March 25, 2022, 07:56:30 PM
The Danel is.......... Borodin II on Melodiya is complete, some intonation issues in their playing compared to the first incomplete cycle, but still well worth having along with the first cycle.
For modern sets Pacifica are excellent.
Quote from: The new erato on March 25, 2022, 10:29:19 PM
I like the Pacifica as well. Just played their cycle again a few weeks ago.
Quote from: DavidW on March 26, 2022, 05:36:17 AM+2 on the Pacifica Quartet.
Agree w/ the above the Pacifica Quartet is my preference; my only other set is Borodin ('78-'83); culled out a couple other sets a few years back. Dave :)
My primary reference is the St. Petersburg Quartet (there was a box set for a while but it's gone now, I think). Listened to selected movements from a bunch of different sets before settling on it as my primary one. I liked the Pacificas as well but not enough to buy them; I do also have the Taneyev Quartet, Borodin Quartet III, the Emersons from their cube, and the Sorrel Quartet, which was my second choice during the mass comparison. Plus a few individual recordings.
I do not generally find my own tastes in accordance with the majority of forum-goers in this matter; I don't think Borodin II is that great for example (prefer Borodin I and III, although never acquired the former), and likewise found St. Petersburg and Sorrel, despite occupying opposite ends of the cold-warm polarity, to beat out most of the other competitors in terms of intensity, which is often the very thing people cite as what those two ensembles don't have enough of.
In addition to these, I think very highly of the Mandelring Quartett. I spent a great deal of time with the Shostakovich SQs in 2021, and found these really satisfying.
So how do people rate the Borodin III? I have a great sound system attached to my PC and one of the joys of listening to chamber music is hearing the interplay between the members. I like what I hear of the Borodin III but I'll check out the others mentioned here as well and like HVbias I will use the 8th as my initial guide, The Pacifica seems to be the place to start.
Quote from: Jo498 on March 26, 2022, 04:45:39 AM
This might be but I think the late 1970s/early 80s Borodin on Melodiya has not clearly better sound. The older one sounds "warmer" and I'd describe both more as "o.k." for their age than having good sound. If recorded sound is a major concern neither the Chandos nor the BMG/Melodiya are a first choice. I think the sound is not bad enough to distract from the overall quality of the performances.
I'm not too concerned about recording quality, my most listened to chamber set of the last couple of weeks was Kolisch Quartet in Schoenberg's four String Quartets, these are recordings from 1936/1937 and there is a ton of surface noise because they didn't use noise reduction. I only mentioned it because I do see people say they are looking for good sounding recordings.
Quote from: amw on March 26, 2022, 10:57:55 AM
My primary reference is the St. Petersburg Quartet (there was a box set for a while but it's gone now, I think). Listened to selected movements from a bunch of different sets before settling on it as my primary one. I liked the Pacificas as well but not enough to buy them; I do also have the Taneyev Quartet, Borodin Quartet III, the Emersons from their cube, and the Sorrel Quartet, which was my second choice during the mass comparison. Plus a few individual recordings.
I do not generally find my own tastes in accordance with the majority of forum-goers in this matter; I don't think Borodin II is that great for example (prefer Borodin I and III, although never acquired the former), and likewise found St. Petersburg and Sorrel, despite occupying opposite ends of the cold-warm polarity, to beat out most of the other competitors in terms of intensity, which is often the very thing people cite as what those two ensembles don't have enough of.
For myself I can explain not mentioning them by not having heard St. Petersburg, Borodin III, or Sorrel :D . Mandelring were the ones that showed some promise in string quartet 3 but a bit glossy, and lacking in dirt and grit overall. I have Emersons in the cube and have been meaning to find time to hear them.
I think I bought Borodin II because it was the generally held notion to get them to complete Borodin I.
I've sampled St Petersburg and they are very promising. They have a darkness and bleakness in 8, and the grit and intensity for 11, especially in the Elegy which is one of my other benchmarks. Pretty impressive so far. Nice sounding recordings as well, ye olde Russian recordings usually can't bring out that kind of bass in the cello, it adds another dimension to these.
The set I listen to the most is Borodin I on Chandos.
For a Modern set, I like the Danel a lot. I also own Borodin II but like amw, I prefer the earlier set. Since the earlier one is incomplete, it's good to have the second one to fill in the gaps (and to get Richter joining for the piano quintet.)
No Fitzwilliam love at all?
Sigh.
The Sorrels for me. They don't lack intensity in the slightest. However their full warm sound will not please everybody, it certainly blunts the 'edge' - an 'edge' which I guess most lovers of this music think is a necessary component.
We did a mini-blind comparison of the 8th some while back - not really enough people taking part, nor a long enough music sample, to be conclusive - but for what it's worth the very clear favourites were the Jerusalem Quartet. 2nd (out of 8 runners and riders) were the Yggdrasil, with the Sorrels 3rd.
There is also a very early recording of the 8th (coupled with the 4th) by the Borodins, from 1962 pre-dating any of their cycles or near-cycles, recorded in Moscow by the Mercury Living Presence team. As a performance, it's awful, at this time they clearly had not yet fully internalised the music.
Quote from: SonicMan46 on March 26, 2022, 07:10:51 AM
Agree w/ the above the Pacifica Quartet is my preference; my only other set is Borodin ('78-'83); culled out a couple other sets a few years back. Dave :)
If you ever want another set, try the Fitzwilliam set. It was for me the gold standard pre-Pacifica. And their take on it is different enough to warrant having both.
Quote from: Madiel on March 27, 2022, 03:48:20 AM
No Fitzwilliam love at all?
Sigh.
Well I've added to it now.
Quote from: Madiel on March 27, 2022, 03:48:20 AM
No Fitzwilliam love at all?
Sigh.
Indeed I do love this set!
Quote from: Madiel on March 27, 2022, 03:48:20 AM
No Fitzwilliam love at all?
Sigh.
They're decent enough, but not a favorite. My favorites are the Borodin (Chandos and Melodiya), Pacifica and Mandelring.
Quote from: Madiel on March 27, 2022, 03:48:20 AM
No Fitzwilliam love at all?
Sigh.
I regard them very highly.