Blind Comparison: Schubert String Quintet D. 956 / Op. 163

[Jo498]

IIRC Heifetz does not relax in the more relaxing (Kaffeehaus) bits in the allegretto and starts out so fast that they cannot really get much faster on the accelerando on the last page. (There is a similar problem with some interpretations of Beethoven's op.18/6 finale, but this may be Beethoven's fault, because he wrote a presto MM marking already at the start of the allegretto). In the first mvmt Heifetz &c need less than 13 min w/o repeat, which would be about 17 min with repeat. The "normal" is 19-20 and of course, the adagio is maybe even faster in comparison to typical or average readings.

I only have the studio Petersen with Sanderling.

[Brahmsian]

Wonderful write ups, AMW!    A6 is gone. 

Some heavy hitters ousted in round 1, including the Melos/Rostropovich (that was a shocker!) 

[Jay F]

The way this works, does the Melos Quartet's being eliminated in round one mean their version of D956 is excluded from the rest of the competition?

[Jo498]

This is my understanding (unless there is another Melos recording (on harmonia mundi?) hidden somewhere. As it was not among the ones I listened to, I might buy Melos/Rostro anyway at some stage, if enough people think it is great, to hear for myself.

[kishnevi]

This is my understanding (unless there is another Melos recording (on harmonia mundi?) hidden somewhere. As it was not among the ones I listened to, I might buy Melos/Rostro anyway at some stage, if enough people think it is great, to hear for myself.

There is, although I do not have it.  And do not plan on getting it, at least from Amazon.
[asin]B00000079G[/asin]
I have their HM recording of the late quartets and frankly remember nothing of it.

[yeongil]

Some heavy hitters ousted in round 1, including the Melos/Rostropovich (that was a shocker!) 

That was disappointing.  That was the recording that I grew up with.  But I was not assigned group C.    I was sure, however, that Melos/Rostropovich didn't appear in the groups that I had (B and D).

Regarding the 2nd recording by Melos (with Boettscher) on Harmonia Mundi:

There is, although I do not have it.  And do not plan on getting it, at least from Amazon.

(snip)

I have their HM recording of the late quartets and frankly remember nothing of it.

I had the Melos/Boettscher recording, too, but I later sold it.  I don't remember much, except that I basically didn't like it as much as Melos/Rostropovich.  Also, there was a different 2nd violinist in the Melos/Boettscher (don't recall why they changed 2nd violinists).

I, too, have the HM recording of the late quartets that I like very much.  I also have the DG recording of the complete cycle.  For the late quartets, I like the HM recording much better than the DG recording.

[amw]

I am surprised by the poor performance of Melos/Rostropovich as well; it's widely considered both Melos and Rostropovich's best effort (I cannot confirm or deny the inclusion of other Melos or Rostropovich recordings at this time) and is the other famous Adagio to be eliminated.

[aukhawk]

Perhaps a slight flaw in the whole 'blind comparison' process, that middle-way performances don't always get the attention they deserve.

That said, I'd have kicked them out just for the drab cover art 

[mc ukrneal]

It is not so much a flaw as people perhaps listening to too many at once, which leads to an interest in the ones that are different.

Anyway, on to Group E

E1 - Awesome beginning! Full of life and energy! A bit of an angular performance, and the sometimes 'ugly' sounds they produce are incredibly effective. They create some real beauty in the middle section, though perhaps they could be a bit more tender here. I liked the fullness of the lower strings. Wonderful stuff. Ranking: Yea plus.

E2 - This has a thinner sound. Speed is faster. They have a bit more smoothness than E1 (it's an interesting contrast). They have a bit more stacatto approach. There unison is just a hair off at times too (though it could be a difference in rubato). Middle section starts too loud, but gets better. Still, I feel E1 made a better contrast here. Loses momentum.  So good outer portions and weaker middle. In general, a bit too static in terms of how loud they play (though shame the sound wasn't a litle less distorted at times - still, I won't hold that against the players). Ranking: meh

E3 - Sound even worse here (some distortions in the peak), but playing is quite spritely and transparent. Very good start. Loudness is high throughout the opening. Better contrast in the middle and it has a nice impact. Perhaps they become a bit too slack here? Not quite as good as E1, but still quite good indeed.  Ranking: Yea

E4 - Another one with challenging sound. One hears everything clearly though. But the instruments have a tinny sound - probably the sound, but could also be the sound of the instrument. Anyway, they have occassional unison issues and I think the balance is skewed to the highs. I don't like their rubato choices. Despite this, impact is still decent (though they skip some repeats or something). I like their contrast with the middle section, but the shift in dynamics was more effective in some other versions. Ranking: Thumbs down

E5 - Nice start. This one has great balance - you can really hear every note from every instrument. Too much stacatto at times (meaning there are spaces or gaps at times when I would have liked the line to continue). A more classical sound than some of them. Leading into middle section, cello (I think) holds too long. Beautiful start to middle section though and here is the first to start softer and then get louder. I think I prefer this - what does the score say I wonder? This is probably the most tender middle section - very lyrical in quality (it breathes), but a bit limp towards the end.   Ranking: Yea

E6 - Very stylish beginning. This does not overdo the harshness (I think it is how they do the attacks) and what an interesting difference in impact. Amazing really - this one creates beauty out of the angles, while B1 accents that angularity. Both wonderful - and difficult to choose between. Hold into the middle section too long, but here they are gorgeous. Ranking: thumbs up.

E7 - Rushed at the beginning. Hmm, it seems so fast that I am missing something. I like faster tempos, but not when details are lost, which I feel happens here. This one is almost too legato at times as well. Middle section is better. Ranking: meh.

E1 and E6 were my favorites, both outstanding. E1 was slower and struck me as less smooth, but E6 was just so stylish and oozed Schubert out of every pore. I ultimately put E6 on top, but E1 was nearly as good.


Thumbs up: E6
Yea E1, E3, E5 (in that order)
Meh: E2, E7 (in that order)
Thumbs down: E4

[amw]

That was quick! Thanks for the votes.

E3 - Sound even worse here (some distortions in the peak)

That would be groove wear, and I couldn't figure out how to eliminate it. Short of buying a new LP of course >.>

[mc ukrneal]

That was quick! Thanks for the votes.

September is going to be tough timewise for me (particularly first 1-2 weeks), so thought I'd get it out quickly.

[Brian]

Okay, I've had this tab open for two whole days meaning to reply to the Round 1 discussion, but never getting around to it. First of all, hats off to amw for a truly awesome summing-up that raises the bar for the rest of us blind comparison types (so also curse you). And I totally fell for a couple of those anecdotes. At first I was thinking "Oh, that makes sense that the violinist had a train to catch, kind of like how Neeme Jarvi schedules a head-waxing after all his recording sessions", and then "Huh I didn't know that about Bernard Greenhouse", but then finally "WAIT kidnappings? Crap, what did I just fall for."

I'm frankly very pleased that my strong dislike of ABQ/Schiff before the competition has been confirmed by my strong dislike of ABQ/Schiff when listening blind. This is one rare case where the "reference recording" cited as a favorite by many critics has always left me feeling, "huh? Why do they like this?"

Like you, I favor huge extremes in tempo in this work. It does make me regret, a little, that we did not start with the scherzo, because weeding out recordings based on that would have been easier for me. Contrast, contrast, contrast! This work is all about extreme contrast. Performers should honor this.

The Quartet With No Name, with its trademark ten-gallon hats and six-shooters, has become a familiar sight to the denizens of the tiny Western French one-horse towns their stagecoach passes through. While their grizzled faces may be forbidding, they command respect for their innumerable victories in violin, viola and cello duels against young up-and-comers. Here they team up with old cowpuncher François Guye to deliver a warm, full-bodied rendition of the Quintet which really comes into its own in the 16 1/2 minute Adagio (which, sadly, you will not be able to hear).

If this is on Naxos Music Library, I will definitely give it a listen. Even though I wrote "more contrast!"

Ki vagy te, és hogyan kerültél be a házamba?

Worth visiting Google Translate for this.

a distinctly more in tune approach than their equally distinguished successors at Skálholt (featuring Jaap Schröder and Bruno Cocset)

I find the Musica Omnia label frustrating because half their recordings are great and half of them would be great if Jaap Schröder could play even the note next to the note he's supposed to be playing. He may have been a very good violinist at one time, but now I wouldn't go to his concert for free. Listening to any album he's on, from the last decade or so, is incredibly frustrating.

[aukhawk]

Warning, Group F votes follow below ...

Like you, I favor huge extremes in tempo in this work. It does make me regret, a little, that we did not start with the scherzo, because weeding out recordings based on that would have been easier for me. Contrast, contrast, contrast! This work is all about extreme contrast. Performers should honor this.

I think this must be an aspect of this music that I just 'don't get'.   Listening to this Scherzo (which is probably the part of the whole Quintet that I like the least) I don't really see what the ABA form achieves, apart from maybe allowing the performers to vary their bowing action for a while.  I love the slow 'dead' march of the trio, but for me it would be better as a separate movement - let's have 4 minutes of dizzy, chattery Scherzo then reset for 5 minutes of Funeral March ... then on to the Finale.

As it is, as far as the game goes - each one in the group delivers either a good Scherzo or a good Trio (to my taste that is), but none manages both.  Unfortunately no amount of excellence in the Trio can help the final rating if the Scherzo which surrounds it isn't up to snuff.

Still, who am I ... on with the motley - Group F

A quick sampling showed that F1, F3, F4, F7 would all have a very similar (let's say middling) approach to the Scherzo at least (if not to the trio).
Of these four:
F1 chatters along nicely, without any obvious mannerisms.  The recording is nicely transparent and probably the best of all 7, and the textures are very clearly drawn, though a little bit light on the cellos.  The slow section (which I see as a funeral march but ideally even slower, 'deader' than that) is not stoic enough here - a bit more expression than I want to hear.  Overall an easy Yes though and as good as any in the group.
F3 doesn't have the advantage of an excellent recording, so the Scherzo just gets blocky and shouty.  The trio is just played in a routine way, not slow enough, and certainly not quiet eneough.  Right at the end of the Scherzo things speed up a bit and ensemble suffers.  Too many cons - a No.
F4 wiry sound and the Sherzo has some of the same problems as F3 above, though I like the way the cellos are presented, and they dig away with enthusiasm.  The slow trio is one of the better ones, lots of whispery quietness.  I like it better than F3, not as much as F1 - but still, just, a Yes.
F7 is a rich and resonant recording and the texture is a touch orchestral in feel.  The cellos claim lots of attention, which leads to a bit of '3 vs 2'.  General stodginess makes it a Meh.

Of the others,
F5 adopts the fast end of the same basic tempi (though I think a repeat is missed) but is very mannered by comparison with all the other 6 - all players leaning into their notes and emoting like mad - just horrible.  The slow march is played with wide vibrato - just wrong.  It's a very decent recording quality, but this kind of music presentation just makes me cringe.  No!

F6 is a mono recording.  This is a real disadvantage in the Scherzo, the chords tend to just shapeless blocks of sound.  However - played at a slower pace than all the others, and with great articulation from all the players, some feeling of genuine quality manages to shine through.  Again I think a repeat is missed, not that it bothers me because actually, the sooner we get to the beautiful slow march, the better.  Here (where the recording isn't a problem) is, jointly with F2, the best in the group - stoic rather than emotional.  I'm happy to give this a Yes.  (I think it's probably the recording I grew up with, haven't heard it for over 40 years.)

F2 comes in at a fractionally lower pitch, noteably faster than the rest, and with minimal vibrato. Is this our old friend B2? It's a slightly muddy recording so at this speed once again the textures in the Scherzo are opaque.  At the start of the slow march, there are some slight intonation issues, but this seems to improve after the first statement and the rest is just the best, 'deadest' music-making of all seven.  Certainly a Yes but overall I can't give it a thumbs-up.

Overall
1st place - none of them
Joint 2nd and 'Yes' - F1 and F2
3rd and 4th, also 'Yes' - F6, F4

5th, just 'Meh' - F7
6th, and a 'No' - F3
Plumb last and a horrible 'NO' - F5

[edited to de-white]

[kishnevi]

Group G

Most impressive G2. Thumbs up
Least impressive G1and G7. Thumbs down
G3 G4 G5 G6 all meh
My main criterion was balance between the sections.  The best one got it right,  the two worst muffed it, the others got it, sort of.

[amw]

Thanks for the votes and interesting comments, aukhawk & JS. I'm having second thoughts about which recordings were put in which group now, but too late for that I suppose (Group E has pretty much all the bad sound ones, Group F's got most of the fast ones... etc... I based placing mostly on scores in the first round).

I think this must be an aspect of this music that I just 'don't get'.   Listening to this Scherzo (which is probably the part of the whole Quintet that I like the least) I don't really see what the ABA form achieves, apart from maybe allowing the performers to vary their bowing action for a while.

I actually quite like the ABA, the return of the scherzo after that yawning abyss, if done right, will have undercurrents of desperation the first time around didn't have. My two favourites in this movement, [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], get the balance right IMO, though I've also noticed that the best Scherzos and best Trios aren't necessarily paired together.

(Also, I've found that no group perfectly nails all four movements. My favourite overall recording of the Quintet, [REDACTED], has the best slow movement and one of the best finales, but the scherzo and allegro are merely very good—not quite up to the level of specialness of my respective favourites [REDACTED] and Marlboro)

If this is on Naxos Music Library, I will definitely give it a listen. Even though I wrote "more contrast!"

Pretty sure they added Claves recently, so this one might be on there. If not I'm pretty sure it's on Spotify. Our Dancing Divertinertimertiflerti is also a fan I believe.

[Jo498]

This may be one of the most extreme cases of Scherzo - Trio contrast ever (later on some things by Mahler may come close, but I cannot think of any before or contemporary with Schubert). But as these jarringly contrastive "B"-sections are almost a trademark of Schubert's late works (take the slow movements of the Quintet, the G major quartet, the sonata D 959 and also the Scherzo of the G major and d minor quartets), I think it works well here as in these other cases. The Scherzo main section are more brutal and hectic than cheerful and the pensive/suicidal trio is just the other side of the manic-depressive coin. (Cf. already the "la malinconia" finale of Beethoven's early op.18/6)

(I will post ratings on group E on the weekend.)

[Jay F]

Top of the heap F3, F2

: F4

: Meh, the rest

I can't wait to find out who's performing F3. I wonder whether it's one I already own. If it isn't, it will be.

[Carnivorous Sheep]

Is it still possible for me to jump in during the middle of the process? Otherwise I'll be content just following along on the thread.

Thanks.

[amw]

Certainly. I'll PM you one of the groups shortly.

[Carnivorous Sheep]

Group G below:

G5 = G6 > G2 > G3 > G4 > G7 > G1

G1 – mediocre, uneven tempo, rushed, forced intensity that falls flat
G2 – enjoyed the rhythm and contrast immensely
G3 – driving and intense, but perhaps a bit too much and not enough contrast
G4 – good presto, forgettable andante
G5 – just very strong all around. nothing particularly stand out, just very solid playing throughout.
G6 – another excellent recording all around, kind of a tossup between 5 and 6.
G7 – unmemorable, nothing glaring but didn't particularly excite me.