Beethoven's String Quartets

[Herman]

I happen to think very highly of the ABQ's LvB 130 and 131 too, compared to much of the competition.

[Scarpia]

I happen to think very highly of the ABQ's LvB 130 and 131 too, compared to much of the competition.

Certainly they play to a high technical standard, but their approach to the music leaves me cold and unengaged, I'm not sure I can define why.

[cosmicj]

My overall favorite for Beethoven Quartets is the Vermeer Quartet on Teldec (now Warner).   I also like the Italiano and the Guarneri (Philips).  The piece also works well for string orchestra and Bernstein's recording with the VPO is very interesting.   I've recently amassed a bunch of Beethoven SQ cycles that I haven't had a chance to listen to yet, so the Borodin, Endelian and Cleveland quartet versions are on my "to listen to" stack.

Scarpia - Sorry, I wasn't clear but i was asking specifically about your favorite Op. 131.

[cosmicj]

Certainly they play to a high technical standard, but their approach to the music leaves me cold and unengaged, I'm not sure I can define why.

I'm obviously a big fan of ABQ but I do understand what you're talking about.  Even when they are very expressive, it doesn't provoke emotions in me the way other quartets do. 

[Scarpia]

Scarpia - Sorry, I wasn't clear but i was asking specifically about your favorite Op. 131.

My preferences for Op 131 specifically follow the same lines as my overall preference for Beethoven SQ, Vemeer, Italiano, Guarneri.  I like the Vermeer because they have a taut, brisk sound but manage to infuse it with a certain interpretive warmth.

[Herman]

Certainly they play to a high technical standard, but their approach to the music leaves me cold and unengaged, I'm not sure I can define why.

That's indeed what people usually say about the ABQ, and I used to say that too  -  including that they were more spontaneous etc in their Teldec days.

And then, after ten or fifteen years, I listened again and found there was no foundation for this as far as the pieces I mentioned are concerned, and also some of their Mozart quartets (the Prussian Quartets are superb).

[Scarpia]

That's indeed what people usually say about the ABQ, and I used to say that too  -  including that they were more spontaneous etc in their Teldec days.

And then, after ten or fifteen years, I listened again and found there was no foundation for this as far as the pieces I mentioned are concerned, and also some of their Mozart quartets (the Prussian Quartets are superb).

I have all of their Teldec recordings, but I have never enjoyed any recording they have made with EMI.  I find EMI's engineering inferior and there were multiple personnel changes in the quartet between the Teldec and EMI days.   In the Teldec recordings I hear finesse, but in the EMI recordings I hear cold-blooded precision.  My most recent attempt to listen to them (I think it was the Brahms Clarinet Quintet) was just a year ago, so I estimate I have at least a decade to go before I have any chance of liking them.   

[snyprrr]

I have all of their Teldec recordings, but I have never enjoyed any recording they have made with EMI.  I find EMI's engineering inferior and there were multiple personnel changes in the quartet between the Teldec and EMI days.   In the Teldec recordings I hear finesse, but in the EMI recordings I hear cold-blooded precision.  My most recent attempt to listen to them (I think it was the Brahms Clarinet Quintet) was just a year ago, so I estimate I have at least a decade to go before I have any chance of liking them.   

Didn't they do 2 cycles for EMI? I heard one was great, and the other sucked (those engineers), but I can never figure which is which when I check on Amazon. I have heard the Late SQs with them sitting on the cover (on the old fashioned big box), which I believe is the sucky one (the sound did leave desire). The good one is supposed to be 'live'?

I certainly love that Teldec Box!

[Herman]

perhaps someone can explain to me what engineers can do to a simple string quartet recording that makes the quality of the music making irrelevant?

Admittedly some SQ recordings are more beautifully engineered than others, but I cannot remember ever thinking I could not enjoy the music making because of the engineering.

It's just four fiddles!

[Scarpia]

perhaps someone can explain to me what engineers can do to a simple string quartet recording that makes the quality of the music making irrelevant?

Admittedly some SQ recordings are more beautifully engineered than others, but I cannot remember ever thinking I could not enjoy the music making because of the engineering.

It's just four fiddles!

For those ABQ/EMI recordings, too close, too much bow/rosin scratching on the string sound, not enough resonance of the instrument, presence of the room.  Sound-stage imaging poor, not allowing the individual instruments to be differentiated.  But I suspect my main objection is with the performances themselves.  Personnel changed between the Telefunken and EMI recordings.

[cosmicj]

Didn't they do 2 cycles for EMI? I heard one was great, and the other sucked (those engineers), but I can never figure which is which when I check on Amazon. I have heard the Late SQs with them sitting on the cover (on the old fashioned big box), which I believe is the sucky one (the sound did leave desire). The good one is supposed to be 'live'?

I have portions of both the ABQ Beethoven EMI sets and the live one is better than the studio version.  A back-to-back listen of a Beethoven qt and then one of the ABQ Haydn op. 76 recordings showed how remarkably better the Haydn was - in another league.  The Mozart ABQ is also better than the Beethoven, too.  That said, the Beethoven live by ABQ is the in the middle of the pack in terms of digital classical music recordings.  I listened to 5 different CD packs this weekend and I'd rate the ABQ Beethoven as 3rd out of 5 in sonic quality, unfortunately.  So it isn't a disaster, just a little thin sounding. 

BTW, the Q Italiano CD remasters (first version only - haven't heard the more recent remasters) are clearly inferior to the ABQ recordings just in terms of sonics.

[Scarpia]

BTW, the Q Italiano CD remasters (first version only - haven't heard the more recent remasters) are clearly inferior to the ABQ recordings just in terms of sonics.

I would strongly disagree with that.  The Italiano Quartet recordings may be subject to the limitations of equipment at the time, some tape his, some distortion at extremes of dynamics, etc, but I don't find the music suffers.  The ABQ recordings were unmusical to my ears (and I'm note sure which set I had, I sold it off a while ago).  It's a matter of microphone placement and mixdown.

[cosmicj]

I would strongly disagree with that.  The Italiano Quartet recordings may be subject to the limitations of equipment at the time, some tape his, some distortion at extremes of dynamics, etc, but I don't find the music suffers.  The ABQ recordings were unmusical to my ears (and I'm note sure which set I had, I sold it off a while ago).  It's a matter of microphone placement and mixdown.

I used to have some of the Q Italiano's recordings on LP and they sounded good, so I blame the pretty mediocre remasterings (their Debussy/Ravel CD - the famous later one - also has this issue).  This is obviously just a guess but I think you may be reacting to the digital harshness and haze that I also hear in the ABQ Beethoven.  Since I think both CD sets have sonic problems, it's a question of picking your poison.   

[Herman]

I would strongly disagree with that.  The Italiano Quartet recordings may be subject to the limitations of equipment at the time, some tape his, some distortion at extremes of dynamics, etc, but I don't find the music suffers.  The ABQ recordings were unmusical to my ears (and I'm note sure which set I had, I sold it off a while ago).  It's a matter of microphone placement and mixdown.

Look, this is exactly what I don't get.

First, the Italinao recordings were from the early seventies. There's really nothing a recording team didn't know what they know now. The early seventies were arguably the glory days of analogue recording.

But what really baffles me is your remark about the ABQ EMI recording. It's unmusical. It's a matter of mike placement. I cannot square this. Some of the most musically succesful recordings of an earlier era had shit mike placement and tons of hiss, and yet we define them as musical  -  Cortot, the Budapest Quartet. So what's your story?

[Scarpia]

Look, this is exactly what I don't get.

First, the Italinao recordings were from the early seventies. There's really nothing a recording team didn't know what they know now. The early seventies were arguably the glory days of analogue recording.

But what really baffles me is your remark about the ABQ EMI recording. It's unmusical. It's a matter of mike placement. I cannot square this. Some of the most musically succesful recordings of an earlier era had shit mike placement and tons of hiss, and yet we define them as musical  -  Cortot, the Budapest Quartet. So what's your story?

My characterization of the EMI ABQ recordings as "unmusical" just reflects my personal reaction to them.  What bothers me about them is what I perceive as inappropriate tonal balance (excessive high frequency response) and lack of ambience, or imaging of the sound stage.  That latter problem comes from (I believe) using microphones too close to the instruments, recording each instrument essentially separately and mixing them together. 

I have never listened to any Cordot or Budapest quartet recordings, so I can't comment on them.  However, in those days they recorded with fewer microphones (by necessity) and I suspect that the microphone placement would have been more to my liking.  The old Mercury Living Presence recordings are my ideal, with regard to recording technique, despite the technical limitations of the equipment they were using.

[Franco]

Recording engineering is not important to my enjoyment of a CD or LP.  I focus almost exclusively on the music itself and ignore what people complain about having to do with audio quality. 

I like Beethoven quartets performed by all the groups I've heard (which include complete sets from Takacs, ABQ, Vegh, Italiano, and many others on individual works) - there's hardly anything a quartet can do to these works to ruin them, IMO.

[Scarpia]

Recording engineering is not important to my enjoyment of a CD or LP.  I focus almost exclusively on the music itself and ignore what people complain about having to do with audio quality.

If a conductor demanded the woodwinds play loudly and due the audio engineer's mix the woodwinds were inaudible during that passage, that wouldn't bother you?

[Franco]

If a conductor demanded the woodwinds play loudly and due the audio engineer's mix the woodwinds were inaudible during that passage, that wouldn't bother you?

I don't think I've ever experienced what you are describing. 

Of all the recordings I have listened to I can't think of one in which the audio quality made a significant difference in my enjoyment of it (of course very old historical recordings made from transfers of 78 records are not my cup of tea). 

[cosmicj]

What bothers me about them is what I perceive as inappropriate tonal balance (excessive high frequency response) and lack of ambience, or imaging of the sound stage. 

I agree with this criticism but I don't think it makes the ABQ recordings awful -- just run of the mill.

Herman's point about 1970s analog recordings is valid but not quite onpoint.  The problem is the QI re-mastering.  I think it took classical recording engineers about 15 years after the advent of digital recording to learn how to do it reasonably well (exceptions exist, of course).  When I see that a recording has been made in the 1980s, I have the same reaction as I do to a 1950 recording - I take a deep breath before buying it.

[Scarpia]

Herman's point about 1970s analog recordings is valid but not quite onpoint.  The problem is the QI re-mastering.  I think it took classical recording engineers about 15 years after the advent of digital recording to learn how to do it reasonably well (exceptions exist, of course).  When I see that a recording has been made in the 1980s, I have the same reaction as I do to a 1950 recording - I take a deep breath before buying it.

I certainly agree that the art of digital mastering has improved a lot, but I think Philips was one of the few companies that did a reasonably good job even at the beginning.   In fact, I'm more inclined to trust what Philips did than what DG would do if the remastered it again, given that Philips doesn't really exist anymore and all remastering is being done at Emil Berliner studios by DG.