Dmitri's Dacha

[Mirror Image]

I'd love to get some people's thoughts on the Pacifica Quartet's Shostakovich SQ cycle. What do you guys think of the performances? I recently bought the newly released box set as I was in need of at least one more SQ cycle. I hope I made a wise choice.

[Mirror Image]

Were they not written during the Zhdanov era? And hence part of the Second Terror, and not the Terror of the 30s to which the Fourth fell victim.
I think the question of what the Fifth Symphony would have sounded like without the denunciation of Lady Macbeth and the suppression of the Fourth has so many possible answers it is unanswerable.  My instinct is that DSCH would have pushed the symphonic form to the limit and then abandon it.  Do not forget that one reason the Fourth was withdrawn was the claim it was technically beyond the ability of the orchestra.  Or possibly he would have gone on the line of the violin and cello concertos, and written piano concertos for himself.  But it is all speculation.

You bring up some interesting points here, Jeffrey. Imagine a Symphony No. 5 that wasn't put through the Stalin grinder? Food for thought for sure. Would the symphony sound conventional, would he have taken the idea of the fourth further, again, makes one wonder. But, thankfully, what we got is a masterpiece of a symphony, but also, a symphony that continues to baffle historians.

[amw]

I'd love to get some people's thoughts on the Pacifica Quartet's Shostakovich SQ cycle. What do you guys think of the performances? I recently bought the newly released box set as I was in need of at least one more SQ cycle. I hope I made a wise choice.

While "rediscovering" the Shostakovich quartets via St Petersburg/Hyperion I did some comparisons via Qobuz to determine whether I should acquire all six volumes of the set or mix-and-match different ensembles. From what I heard of the Pacificas they didn't present a very distinctive profile, and I didn't find their playing emotionally involving, though technically perfect. You tend to have fairly opposite tastes to mine so I suspect you'll enjoy them more. Possible point of comparison would be the Brodsky Quartet—interpretively occupying a middle ground between the psychedelic Kopelman Borodins and the astringent Emersons on the "cold"/"modernist" end of Shostakovich, as opposed to the "warm"/"romantic" end occupied by the Beethovens, Fitzwilliams and Mandelrings et al.

Currently I seem to gravitate towards the Taneyev Quartet in 1-9, the St Petersburg in 10-14 and the Aharonian Borodins in 15. (There's also the Mandelring's exceptional performance of No. 12 and the Hagen's ice-cold No. 8.)

[Karl Henning]

I'd love to get some people's thoughts on the Pacifica Quartet's Shostakovich SQ cycle. What do you guys think of the performances? I recently bought the newly released box set as I was in need of at least one more SQ cycle. I hope I made a wise choice.

I find the Pacificas technically perfect, and therefore emotionally involving.

[Mirror Image]

While "rediscovering" the Shostakovich quartets via St Petersburg/Hyperion I did some comparisons via Qobuz to determine whether I should acquire all six volumes of the set or mix-and-match different ensembles. From what I heard of the Pacificas they didn't present a very distinctive profile, and I didn't find their playing emotionally involving, though technically perfect. You tend to have fairly opposite tastes to mine so I suspect you'll enjoy them more. Possible point of comparison would be the Brodsky Quartet—interpretively occupying a middle ground between the psychedelic Kopelman Borodins and the astringent Emersons on the "cold"/"modernist" end of Shostakovich, as opposed to the "warm"/"romantic" end occupied by the Beethovens, Fitzwilliams and Mandelrings et al.

Currently I seem to gravitate towards the Taneyev Quartet in 1-9, the St Petersburg in 10-14 and the Aharonian Borodins in 15. (There's also the Mandelring's exceptional performance of No. 12 and the Hagen's ice-cold No. 8.)

Thanks for the feedback. I tend to have opposite tastes to well...everyone! I have had the Mandelring cycle in my shopping cart many times, but, for whatever reason, I never pulled the trigger on it.

[Mirror Image]

I find the Pacificas technically perfect, and therefore emotionally involving.

Thanks, Karl. I also like the fact that they perform SQs from Prokofiev, Schnittke, Myaskovsky, and Weinberg.

[Brahmsian]

I'd love to get some people's thoughts on the Pacifica Quartet's Shostakovich SQ cycle. What do you guys think of the performances? I recently bought the newly released box set as I was in need of at least one more SQ cycle. I hope I made a wise choice.

Haven't heard the Pacifica set, John.  However, a great number of GMGers really rave about it, so I have no doubt you have made a wise choice. 

[snyprrr]

I'd love to get some people's thoughts on the Pacifica Quartet's Shostakovich SQ cycle. What do you guys think of the performances? I recently bought the newly released box set as I was in need of at least one more SQ cycle. I hope I made a wise choice.

AREN'T WE DOING THIS IN THE sq tHREAD? (whoops csaps sorry)(

I'm looking at Vol.1 of the Pacifica: SQs 5-8, plus Myaskovsky 13. What's the actual acoustic sound like in No.5? Is it 'dry', is there 'some' space, or is it 'wet'?

While "rediscovering" the Shostakovich quartets via St Petersburg/Hyperion I did some comparisons via Qobuz to determine whether I should acquire all six volumes of the set or mix-and-match different ensembles. From what I heard of the Pacificas they didn't present a very distinctive profile, and I didn't find their playing emotionally involving, though technically perfect. You tend to have fairly opposite tastes to mine so I suspect you'll enjoy them more. Possible point of comparison would be the Brodsky Quartet—interpretively occupying a middle ground between the psychedelic Kopelman Borodins and the astringent Emersons on the "cold"/"modernist" end of Shostakovich, as opposed to the "warm"/"romantic" end occupied by the Beethovens, Fitzwilliams and Mandelrings et al.

Currently I seem to gravitate towards the Taneyev Quartet in 1-9, the St Petersburg in 10-14 and the Aharonian Borodins in 15. (There's also the Mandelring's exceptional performance of No. 12 and the Hagen's ice-cold No. 8.)

I just got the St.P/Hyperion 5/7/9--- the recording acoustic is BIZARRE!!!! I kincda like it, but it can also be slightly distracting. Their No.10 gets high marks for a particularly "flat" reading??? I've just been seeing a little more criticism of them than I'd like--- keeping me from trying 10-15. But you like 'em, soooo.... hmmm....


I just got the Sorrel No.5--- (still comparing to Manhattan)--- well------ it's VERRRY Good--- the recording is luxuriously lush, which creates just the right amount of space for the "Symphonic" lines to weave their sinewy thread. It's almost too much awesomeness---- but, compared to the very odd St.P/Hyperion (their SONY 5 sounds completely different) the Sorrel package simply sounds BIG!!


The reason I say all this--- the Pacifica seemed to have the same playing profile as the Sorrel, but their acoustic sounded a bit smaller, so, I'm wondering how their recording complements their playing. They may have just what i'm looking for.

The other 5 that's been catching my eye is the Acies (3 and 5) which seems to have a very nice woodsy tone.

Thanks for the feedback. I tend to have opposite tastes to well...everyone! I have had the Mandelring cycle in my shopping cart many times, but, for whatever reason, I never pulled the trigger on it.

The samples all just so --- too perfect or something--- I hear no grit--- I would start with their 5/7/9 to directly compare with the St.P.

Sarge seemed to slightly prefer the Pacifica in 5, but I don't know how this translates to the other works. Sarge- maybe you could compare an easy movement like the 'furioso' of 10--- or the similar in 8---- something easy where we could readily hear the differences between the two. btw--- I certainly enjoyed your comparison of 5.




Frankly, the Brodsky are proving that their razor sharp playing along with their superb Teldec recording are still a formidable consideration. I'd do a direct comparison between the Brodsky and the Mandelring. The Pacifica seem more like the Sorrel?


I have four of the Sorrel now. They have so much going for them. They always do things a bit different. Their playing is gargantuan. Their Chandos sound is probably the best of all comers- it's really CinemaScope without the odd positioning of the St.P/Hyperion (which is like 3-D).

[Karl Henning]

Take this Ferrari away, I hear no grit.

[Mirror Image]

Haven't heard the Pacifica set, John.  However, a great number of GMGers really rave about it, so I have no doubt you have made a wise choice. 

Thumbs up, Ray!

[Mirror Image]

AREN'T WE DOING THIS IN THE sq tHREAD? (whoops csaps sorry)(

I'm looking at Vol.1 of the Pacifica: SQs 5-8, plus Myaskovsky 13. What's the actual acoustic sound like in No.5? Is it 'dry', is there 'some' space, or is it 'wet'?


I just got the St.P/Hyperion 5/7/9--- the recording acoustic is BIZARRE!!!! I kincda like it, but it can also be slightly distracting. Their No.10 gets high marks for a particularly "flat" reading??? I've just been seeing a little more criticism of them than I'd like--- keeping me from trying 10-15. But you like 'em, soooo.... hmmm....


I just got the Sorrel No.5--- (still comparing to Manhattan)--- well------ it's VERRRY Good--- the recording is luxuriously lush, which creates just the right amount of space for the "Symphonic" lines to weave their sinewy thread. It's almost too much awesomeness---- but, compared to the very odd St.P/Hyperion (their SONY 5 sounds completely different) the Sorrel package simply sounds BIG!!


The reason I say all this--- the Pacifica seemed to have the same playing profile as the Sorrel, but their acoustic sounded a bit smaller, so, I'm wondering how their recording complements their playing. They may have just what i'm looking for.

The other 5 that's been catching my eye is the Acies (3 and 5) which seems to have a very nice woodsy tone.


The samples all just so --- too perfect or something--- I hear no grit--- I would start with their 5/7/9 to directly compare with the St.P.

Sarge seemed to slightly prefer the Pacifica in 5, but I don't know how this translates to the other works. Sarge- maybe you could compare an easy movement like the 'furioso' of 10--- or the similar in 8---- something easy where we could readily hear the differences between the two. btw--- I certainly enjoyed your comparison of 5.




Frankly, the Brodsky are proving that their razor sharp playing along with their superb Teldec recording are still a formidable consideration. I'd do a direct comparison between the Brodsky and the Mandelring. The Pacifica seem more like the Sorrel?


I have four of the Sorrel now. They have so much going for them. They always do things a bit different. Their playing is gargantuan. Their Chandos sound is probably the best of all comers- it's really CinemaScope without the odd positioning of the St.P/Hyperion (which is like 3-D).

I haven't heard anything from the Pacifica Quartet, so my purchase was a completely 'blind' one. As I've mentioned, this cycle has had some very good reviews, but I'm pretty inexperienced with SQs in general to say what I prefer and what I don't prefer right now. Hopefully, in time, I can say with some kind of certainty what I look for in a Shostakovich's SQs, but, right now, I'm still in discovery mode. He composed a lot of music, so I've been busy with the other genres he composed for.

[amw]

I just got the St.P/Hyperion 5/7/9--- the recording acoustic is BIZARRE!!!! I kincda like it, but it can also be slightly distracting. Their No.10 gets high marks for a particularly "flat" reading??? I've just been seeing a little more criticism of them than I'd like--- keeping me from trying 10-15. But you like 'em, soooo.... hmmm....

It's worth bearing in mind that my tastes in Shostakovich are weird as hell. Popular works like the 5th and 10th symphonies and 24 Preludes and Fugues do almost nothing for me, whereas I reserve high praise for pieces like the Piano Sonata in B minor.

(Also it's worth bearing in mind that my sound system is a pair of £10 USB speakers whose cord is becoming quite frayed)

Frankly, the Brodsky are proving that their razor sharp playing along with their superb Teldec recording are still a formidable consideration. I'd do a direct comparison between the Brodsky and the Mandelring. The Pacifica seem more like the Sorrel?

I don't know, you've listened more than me. I'd have put them the other way around—Brodsky & Pacifica ("cold"), Mandelring & Sorrel ("hot").

So that I could say I knew what I was talking about I listened to the Pacificas' #3. Their ensemble playing is definitely some of the tightest out there, and there's much to admire in the performance. I guess I just found myself wishing they'd let loose, inject more wackiness into the music—their approach is emotionally a bit restrained—perhaps take some risks. I did not get as much of a sense of "watching the sunrise from the ruins" as I like to. I don't know, there's nothing wrong with it really. Maybe I'll check out their Elliott Carter.

[kishnevi]

For what it is worth, my current choices in DSCH SQs among what I have, in order.
Borodin Bovine
* Jerusalem
*Borodin EMI duo
Pacifica
Emerson
Shostakovich
Mandelring
Fitzwilliam

*Asterisks are of course incomplete cycles.
Whatever it is folks who like the Fitzw. find in their cycle, I do not find.  Emerson otoh has always hit my sweet spot, even if over time I have come to like others better.

Tangent:  I found the Julliard Carter to be almost as good as Pacifica's; bear in my mind I first heard the Carter SQs via the Pacifica recordings.

[Karl Henning]

The Pacifica set is a dandy on the merits of the Shostakovich;  and the "bonus" quartets are a plus.  The Weinberg and Myaskovsky quartets are eye-openers, especially.

[Madiel]

Hopefully, in time, I can say with some kind of certainty what I look for in a Shostakovich's SQs

I wouldn't necessarily see certainty as something to aspire to...

[Karl Henning]

I wouldn't necessarily see certainty as something to aspire to...

Agreed!

[Brahmsian]

Myaskovsky quartets are eye-openers, especially.

Dude, you need the complete Myaskovksy SQs. 

[Karl Henning]

You know, I do believe you are right . . . .

[Sergeant Rock]

Sarge seemed to slightly prefer the Pacifica in 5, but I don't know how this translates to the other works. Sarge- maybe you could compare an easy movement like the 'furioso' of 10--- or the similar in 8---- something easy where we could readily hear the differences between the two.

No.10, Furioso: Like the first movement of No.5, I find the Mandelring are more aggressive relative to the Pacifica and Sorrel. Partly it's a matter of tempo (Mandelring 3:54, Pacifica 4:07, Sorrel 4:08...not a huge difference but the actual effect is substantial). They also dig into the music in a much harsher manner. They aren't afraid to sound ugly here. The sonics: Pacifica sound like they are occupying my small listening room. The Sorrel is in a larger acoustic, a concert hall, and you are sitting front row balcony. Lots of air, some reverberation, making them sound larger than a quartet. Mandelring are somewhere in between although closer to the Pacifica sound world. Which do I prefer? Not sure. I suppose it would depend on my mood, and the condition of my ears    The Sorrel just sounds lovely. The technical perfection of the Pacifica is breathtaking while still providing an emotional kick (I hear them differently than amw apparently). The Mandelring might get closer to the heart of the music. But that's just one movement. I don't think you could, or should judge each cycle on the merits here.


Sarge

[Karl Henning]

Thanks for your observations, Sarge.