Beethoven's String Quartets

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I agree completely. Of the four sets I've heard (Alban Berg, Quartetto Italiano, Tokyo, Végh), the Alban Berg is the one I ended up buying. I'm mighty pleased with it.

Me too, assuming you're talking about the studio ABQ and not the live one.

[Peter Power Pop]

Me too, assuming you're talking about the studio ABQ and not the live one.

Yep.

This is the set I bought:

[Brian]

I also got Artemis, Endellion, and Vermeer for about $30, and the Budapest box should be available for around $25. The Tokyo String Quartet's first cycle, for RCA, is now under $15. Alexander Quartet's first cycle is $30. Haven't heard the Tokyo cycle, but it can't be that bad a starter kit.

Vermeer was how I got to learn all the quartets through Op. 95, and I was very happy with them. Also very happy with Artemis, Alexander II (which is pricier), and Prazak (again, pricier).

[Que]

Is this



the same as this series?

Given that the top set was recorded 1999-2003, largely in Super Audio and considering the jackets, ties and haircuts on the picture below, that seems highly unlikely.

I didn't like it that much BTW, that later set...

Q

[Wanderer]

Is this



the same as...

I don't know, but it's a quite magnificent set and deservedly praised.

[Chris L.]

I got this 10 CD set at Half Price Books for 40% off. It's on the Membran-NCA label and the discs are housed in a unique box with a lift off top. This style of box takes up more space but makes access to the discs easier. Although this set doesn't claim to be "complete" I'm assuming it is or pretty close to it. The sound quality on this was astounding for the price, at any price really. These are amongst the best sounding string quartet recordings I've heard. I don't have a lot to reference this against but I could easily live with this set if it were the only one I could have. It also includes a bonus interview disc of former members the Gewandhaus-Quartett and a CD-ROM with notes and text. Highly recommended!

[Jo498]

The Gewandhaus-set is complete, it even includes Beethoven's own arrangement of the piano sonata op.14/1. It seems a very solid set.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Haven't heard the Tokyo cycle, but it can't be that bad a starter kit.

It's not bad. Very smooth and creamy in tone, without (unlike the Italiani) making the quartets sound like Bruckner. You will not hear razor-sharp, hair-splitting accents here; to my mind their approach works best for an expansive work like op. 59/1, or the variations in 127. Best thing about it: they include both the op. 14/1 arrangement and the C major quintet (w/Pinchas Zukerman, at least this is true in the 3-box set version I have). Worst: they can be imprecise with the rhythms at times, most obviously in the intro to 127, where they fail to sustain the half notes for their full values (measure 3 comes across as 3/8 rather than 2/4, thus destroying the written syncopations, and this annoys me more each time I hear it). And in the big climax near the end of the Heiliger Dankgesang, they press forward too much, rather than sustaining the long chords in tempo.

[jlaurson]

Given that the top set was recorded 1999-2003, largely in Super Audio and considering the jackets, ties and haircuts on the picture below, that seems highly unlikely.

I didn't like it that much BTW, that later set...

Q

The photos look like Year 1 BEFORE and Year 1 AFTER the fall of the iron curtain, actually. Reminds me a bit of Gregor Voss on Sprockets.

[Chris L.]

It's not bad. Very smooth and creamy in tone, without (unlike the Italiani) making the quartets sound like Bruckner. You will not hear razor-sharp, hair-splitting accents here; to my mind their approach works best for an expansive work like op. 59/1, or the variations in 127. Best thing about it: they include both the op. 14/1 arrangement and the C major quintet (w/Pinchas Zukerman, at least this is true in the 3-box set version I have). Worst: they can be imprecise with the rhythms at times, most obviously in the intro to 127, where they fail to sustain the half notes for their full values (measure 3 comes across as 3/8 rather than 2/4, thus destroying the written syncopations, and this annoys me more each time I hear it). And in the big climax near the end of the Heiliger Dankgesang, they press forward too much, rather than sustaining the long chords in tempo.

Whoa... that's way over my head! You obviously must be a musician. I wish I could convey what I like or don't like about a piece in that manner.

[amw]

one of the figures being a chart of the timings in the Heiliger Dankgesang from Op. 132. I remember that while the average timings were in the 15-18 minute range there was one recording (explicitly described as an outlier) which took something insane, like 22 minutes... but don't remember which recording that was.

Found it!!!

Weirdly mistagged on youtube and may not be available in your country:
https://www.youtube.com/v/07s9CX3uHdY

It's the Concord Quartet on Vox and they take 21:36.

(This appears to be their approach in general—witness a 10+ minute slow movement to Borodin 2 on the same album. I certainly recommend hearing the Op. 132, at least as an experience.)

[Mandryka]

Are there metronome markings in the manuscript of op 132? If so, are they doable?

The reason I ask is that I've been listening to a concert recording of the quartet by LaSalle, from 1964, and it's very fast. To me, it was a revelation - I've not enjoyed this quartet so much before. And I'm wondering where they got the inspiration to play it like that, and whether anyone else does.

.

I also remember that there was a really fast Heiliger Dankgesang as another outlier, 12 minutes or so. I think that's the Leipzig Quartet on MDG but not 100% certain.

The LaSalle from 1964 is 12 minutes something - more bold than their studio recording. And Leipzig on MDG take a little under 13. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Jo498]

No, there are no metronome markings for any of the late quartets. The analogies/reconstructions from Kolisch and others point to a fairly fluid tempo for the Dankgesang because it seems of the same "choral" (and actually alla breve despite the 4/4 time signature) type as op.59/2, ii and the first section of the adagio of the 9th symphony. Both of which have the fairly quick marking of 60 for the quarter note (which is (ballpark) taken by some quartets in op.59 but rarely in the 9th symphony (only Norrington and Gielen are in the ballpark, I think). The rationale by Kolisch etc. for taking this quick tempo seriously is that it is actually 30 for half notes but Beethoven's metronome ended at 40 or 44.

I have heard the Leipzig Q in Konzert with that "quick" tempo and it is a different experience (never bothered to get their recording, though). Can't deny that I tend to fall for the slow luxuriating performances. But there are also some in between, often reducing vibrato to get an "otherworldly" archaic feeling in the beginning (afair Artemis and Hagen do something like that).

[amw]

Quatuor Terpsycordes plays the opening without vibrato and on period instruments at a fairly flowing tempo (quarter note ≈ 50) which sounds more or less "right". Of course I evidently also have a weakness for slower tempi (albeit combined with austere & "archaic" phrasing/vibrato) with my favourite version being by the Belcea Quartet at quarter note ≈ 28.

It's possible that quick tempi would come from extrapolation from Beethoven's metronome marks for existing pieces, and the nascent authentic performance movement in the 1960s, but also there has always been a tradition of quick and incisive Beethoven performance from e.g. Toscanini, Szell, Schnabel, Gulda. I do not know enough about the LaSalle Quartet to judge.

[Mandryka]

Tokyo Quartet's second recording of op 132. There was a heated disagreement about these performances when they first came out in 2013 and I remember defending them vigorously. Scarpia thought that it was spoilt by a weak the cello: I don't concur with that objection. Going back to this op 132 now, I think it is so unbelievably melancholy and reflective, moving, I love it more now than then in fact. They even manage to make the whole thing work, including the repetitive second movement.

Of the quartets from 130 - 135, 132 seems the most conventional.

[Jo498]

Really? op.135 is more conventional on the surface (op.127 as well). Of course it is almost impossible in 1826 to be more excentric than op.131. The overall form of op.132 is fairly conventional (only compared to the environment of Late Beethoven) but the movements themselves not at all. The first movement is quite strange, it has the unique feature of basically two recapitulations with the first of them being in the wrong (dominant) key.  And the alla marcia - recitative - finale sequence must have appeared rather excentric at its time, and the finale has also passages that are extraordinarily violent (2 vs. 3 rhythms + jarring dissonances in a fairly extended passage in the development)

[Mandryka]

Really? op.135 is more conventional on the surface (op.127 as well). Of course it is almost impossible in 1826 to be more excentric than op.131. The overall form of op.132 is fairly conventional (only compared to the environment of Late Beethoven) but the movements themselves not at all. The first movement is quite strange, it has the unique feature of basically two recapitulations with the first of them being in the wrong (dominant) key.  And the alla marcia - recitative - finale sequence must have appeared rather excentric at its time, and the finale has also passages that are extraordinarily violent (2 vs. 3 rhythms + jarring dissonances in a fairly extended passage in the development)

Yes you may be right about op 135. But I really wanted to thank you for the comment of op 132/iv, it's a movement I haven't paid enough attention to,  i always wondered why the final dance at the end appeared so bitter to me, ironic.

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Basically what you just gave, Todd.  Quick comments for the ones you have so as to give a snapshot works for me. 


1. Végh String Quartet (mid-70's)
2. Talich String Quartet (late '70s/early '80s)
3. Vermeer (1980's)
4. Takacs (2000's)
5. Quatuor Hongrois (1950's)
6. Oxford Quartet (1990's)
7. Endellion Quartet (2000's)
8. Italiano Quartet (1970's)
9. Alban Berg Quartet (1990's)
10. Julliard QT (1964- 1970)
11. Prazak – 2000s; the best digital cycle on the market
12. Budapest – 1951/52; possibly the best cycle on record
13. Emerson – 1990s; precise but colorless and lifeless
14. Cleveland – 1990s; solid, serious, well-recorded
15. Budapest – 1958-1961
16. Alexander  – 1990s
17. Smetana
18. Orion
19. Leipzig
20. Guarneri – 1960s
21. Orford
22. Medici
23. Vegh - 1950s
24. Amadeus – 1960s
25. The Lindsays
26. Hungarian – 1960s
27. Kodaly – 2000s
28. Tanayev
29. Suske
30. Gewandhaus
31. Barylli
32. Bartok
33. Tokyo
34. Beethoven

Question about the "Oxford" String Quartet cycle. Does that actually exist? What label, if so? I've not been able to find any hints about it online. Thanks & cheers,
Jens

[Parsifal]

Question about the "Oxford" String Quartet cycle. Does that actually exist? What label, if so? I've not been able to find any hints about it online. Thanks & cheers,
Jens

I have it. It was issued by Delos. I'll admit I never listened to it.

[Todd]

I have it. It was issued by Delos. I'll admit I never listened to it.

I believe that's the Orford.