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

[mc ukrneal]

I can try and do F, but it would be later in the week or over the weekend.

[amw]

I can try and do F, but it would be later in the week or over the weekend.

That's fine—I can send it to you and you can listen whenever you have the chance (or not at all if you don't).

[Pim]

E1; good, fine, nice, ok
E2; scherzo too fast, thin sound sometimes bordering on the ugly, makes me feel like there's an upcoming nervous breakdown
E3; thin sound, in a way nice to hear the old LP cracks, I appreciate the trio, but the scherzo is not working for me
E4; sounds like they've been recorded in a bathtub, I don't mind less than standard audio quality, but this is making a comparison too difficult
E5; Sense of great command and drive, fast but not rushed and always securely in control. Total unison
E6; best trio of them all, almost coming to a heartfelt standstill, then the reprise of the scherzo is like the return of life. Really great!
E7; scherzo starts of too fast & uneven, the kind of control that characterizes e5 is lacking here. Great trio.

To be fair, e5 e6 e7 & e1 were the best in sound, that did have its effect I guess

e6 = e5 > e7 = e1 > e2 > e4

[amw]

Sweet, thanks Pim.

I might need to extend the deadline until the end of the week due to moving, hope that's alright. Will just drop a reminder PM with the Group F people as E and G are sorted (there's a tie for 4th in G, but I'll resolve that by eliminating both of them and moving on an extra recording from E—the eliminations would thus be E2, E4, G1, G4, G5 & G7)

[Cato]

Group F: the comments are little briefer than usual.

In general several of them are very similar in quality (usually high).

F 1 - Some rough "playing" by the cello detracts from a nice clear sound.  There are some intonation problems in the multiple stops.  Excellent slow section!

F 2 - Again a clear bright sound with excellent ensemble playing!  The tempo is a little faster than F 1, and the cellist is much smoother!

F 3 - The sound seems "smaller," more delicate.  Tempo is somewhere between the first 2.  Excellent version, and again the cello playing seems an improvement over the first two.

F 4 - Here is that BIG SOUND!  Excellent clarity in the lines, and the best cello playing so far, i.e. very smooth and resonant.

F 5 - Similar to F 4: a little too much noise (breaths, clothes rustling) during the slow section.  Usually I can ignore that, but it was a distraction.

F 6 - Older sound, almost claustrophobic after hearing the others, very close-up, which some might prefer.  Nice playing!  And if you want a cellist who is playing  the poor instrument rather than slapping it around after coming home drunk (like F 1), then this recording is for you.

F 7  0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:)

BIG BRIGHT SOUND!  WOW!  Ensemble playing, intonation, dynamics, all wonderful, with ebullience and a slow movement which benefits from the BIG resonant sound.  And the cellist is at least as good as the one in F 6, maybe slightly better! 

Rankings:

F 7   

F 4

F 6

F 5

F 3

F 2

F 1

[amw]

Thanks Cato!

While compiling the results I noticed that three recordings (E5, E6 and F2) have yet to receive a single "meh" or "negative" vote in this entire comparison (even Cato, who ranked F2 near the bottom, praised it)—and two more (E1 and G3) have only one "meh" apiece, the rest of their votes being positive. I wonder how long those streaks will hold out.

[Pat B]

Thanks Cato!

While compiling the results I noticed that three recordings (E5, E6 and F2) have yet to receive a single "meh" or "negative" vote in this entire comparison (even Cato, who ranked F2 near the bottom, praised it)—and two more (E1 and G3) have only one "meh" apiece, the rest of their votes being positive. I wonder how long those streaks will hold out.

Oh, I thought we had a few more days due to your move. Can I submit mine tomorrow?

[amw]

Oh, I thought we had a few more days due to your move. Can I submit mine tomorrow?

No worries, I'm extending it 'til Friday the 3rd, US time (so about two days from now).

[amw]

Although if you haven't started listening yet, I might ask you to take on Group F instead (I think you're in E at the moment, whose results are more or less sealed by now).

[Pat B]

Although if you haven't started listening yet, I might ask you to take on Group F instead (I think you're in E at the moment, whose results are more or less sealed by now).

Yes, I was in E. I listened to it once, a while ago, but was about to give it another go. I'd be perfectly happy to do Group F instead.

[amw]

Alright, thanks! Sent. That should give us a more even spread of 5 votes in each group.

[mc ukrneal]

F Group (shorter comments this time).

F1 - Lively and vibrant. Great unison - they play like one. Great contrast between sections. Wonderful! There are a couple spots where the cello is out of tune. Thumbs way up!

F2 - Sloppy at times and the intonation sounds off. Also, too stacatto at times (which combined with aggessive attacks makes it too pingy). Meh.

F3 - Well played. It lacks some of the fire/intensity of the previous two, but compensates in some lyrical aspects (where the others speed through). Slower section seems a bit loud at times.  Yea.

F4 - Ugh. It's like they want to play it pingy/overly stacatto. It strikes me as overly fussy too. It seems like they didn't eat their wheaties - wimpy at times. Slow section lacks dynamic range.  Thumbs Down.

F5 - Similar to F4 in its fussiness and stacatto approach (though much less pronounced compared to F4). Beautiful slow section. Meh.

F6 - What a change in sound! But they play quite well. But I don't like they inconsistancy in tempo (perhaps it's the use of rubato or expressiveness). They have a clear idea of how to play it. Slow section is soothing - perhaps too much so?  Meh.

F7 - Nice big sound (though perhpas a bit heavy on reverb). Perhaps a bit too heavy by the cello - seems to dominate at times (which may be linked to the reverb). Yea.

So (in order):
Thumbs Up: F1
Yea: F7, F3
Meh: F5, F6, F2
Thumbs Down: F4

[amw]

And a curve ball from the ever-reliable Neal... F2's first "meh", and a chance for F1 to sneak past the competition.

Cheers!

[Cato]

And a curve ball from the ever-reliable Neal... F2's first "meh", and a chance for F1 to sneak past the competition.

Cheers!

I do wonder about differences among computer speakers vs. headphones vs. differences among headphones!   

Obviously I thought F 1 to be the worst, especially with the clunkiest cello of the group, and the "dodgy" intonations.

I will be interested in discovering the identity of F 7 !

[mc ukrneal]

I do wonder about differences among computer speakers vs. headphones vs. differences among headphones!   

Obviously I thought F 1 to be the worst, especially with the clunkiest cello of the group, and the "dodgy" intonations.

I will be interested in discovering the identity of F 7 !

It's true that the cello intonation was not always the best, but I felt that F1 had the best concept and they played the interpretation so seemlessly and as one that I could forgive almost anything - even intonation issues, which sometimes drive me crazy. Now, I listen on headphones, because for this type of listening, I feel it brings me closer to the instruments (and it is easier to hear the different voices). As it is comparative, I am not really sure it matters much what you listen on as long as they are all the same for each version.

And a curve ball from the ever-reliable Neal... F2's first "meh", and a chance for F1 to sneak past the competition.

Cheers!

You can count on me!

[Pat B]

Group F.

F1. On first listen I thought this was an auspicious beginning to the group. Second listen was in reverse order, and this didn't impress quite as much. It's well played, but they lose points for chopping the end of the first pass of the second repeated section. Sound quality is alright but not among the best.

F2. Fantastic. I think this one has the most contrast between a frantic scherzo (without falling out of control) and a solemn trio. Those staccato quavers are crazy. I could quibble with a few crescendos and diminuendos being too abrupt, but I would have never noticed this without the score. Good sound.

F3. Like F1 I enjoyed on first listen, and not quite as much the second time, especially when comparing closely to F2. A few bars in it drags just a tiny bit but once I noticed that, it bugged me. Great sound.

F4. On first listen, this was a step down from F1-F3. Second listen sustained that impression. They make the same cut as F1. I noticed a few stylistic and dynamic contrasts that are a bit smudged. It's still pretty good though.

F5. A style of playing where everything seems to be exaggerated. I'm not a fan.

F6. Older recording. Playing is fine but missing some character. For example, others may create a sense of mystery in the early quiet sections; here it just gets quieter. That, combined with the sound quality, is hard to overcome in this group.

F7. First listen reminded me of F5 but I liked this a tad better. On second listen it shot up near the top. I don't like the playing style quite as well as F1, F2, and F3, but this one gets a lot of things right interpretively. My notes don't have a sound quality rating but I think I liked it from that standpoint.

So my ranking:
F2 - thumbs up
F7 - yea
F3 - yea
F1 - meh
F4 - meh
F5 - nay
F6 - nay

Edit: no reason to keep the text white now.

[amw]

Thanks!

Writing up results now, stay tuned.

[amw]

Round 2 Results

Group E

I suppose there's got to be a Group of Death in every comparison, and Group E was that one here. Every recording save one received a respectable amount of points, and once again I've opted to eliminate one fewer recording than I was planning to. (However, to compensate I'm eliminating an extra one in Group G, more on which later.) Interestingly, in spite of this, only two recordings received distinctions/first-place prizes, each one receiving three.

#7 - E4 (D1)

You said:
"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"
"I found the sound heavy on the bass, and even muffled.  [...]  The cellist makes 4 tiny but exposed errors in the Trio, which in general is played with some drama and mystery [...] The Finale has again a great amount of energy, but the cotton-filled sound detracts from their playing."
"bad sound (distant mono) [...] The trio is rather homogeneous, but works rather well, I like it better than the main section"

In the time-honoured GMG manner we start off with our elimination of a longtime favourite:
[asin]B0000029LC[/asin]
Isaac Stern, Alexander Schneider (vn)
Milton Katims (va)
Pablo Casals, Paul Tortelier (vc)

Recorded at Pablo Casals's mountaintop dojo, in the traditional manner of the Andalusian cellist-kings (inside a bathtub filled with cotton), this version of the Schubert Quintet has been a fixture in the catalogues since it was released. 1952 was a bad year for chamber music. The Irish viola shortage was at its height, Stokowski had just finished arranging the complete Haydn quartets for large orchestra and the Busch Quartet had broken up amidst scandals and allegations of doping. Perhaps it is this consciousness of world events that lends this recording its urgency and power. Or perhaps Casals was simply running late for his sparring match. We'll never know for sure.

#6 - E2 (A1)

You said:
"scherzo too fast, thin sound sometimes bordering on the ugly, makes me feel like there's an upcoming nervous breakdown"
"very engaging Scherzo, sometimes a little violin dominated. Trio maybe a little too slow, but overall impressive"
"The trio is incredibly slow. I might get tired of how slow it is on repeated listens, but for now, I like it."
"It would not be too slow, if a Mahlerian or Barberesque drama in the dynamics were present, but as it is, I found it so slow as to be eccentric."
"There unison is just a hair off at times too"

Dividing opinion in both Scherzo and Trio was
[asin]B000RGSVNK[/asin]
Aeolian Quartet
Bruno Schrecker (vc)

With a trio section lasting almost a minute longer than the nearest competitor—6 minutes in all—the Aeolian Quartet certainly distinguishes itself from the competition. This slowness may in fact not have been completely intentional. The Aeolians had just come off recording a complete cycle of the Haydn quartets, which use no key signature exceeding four flats or sharps. Faced with a key signature of five flats in the Andante sostenuto for the first time in several years, the musicians found themselves continually stumbling. Eventually first violin Sydney Humphreys settled upon a genius solution: they would simply play the Trio slightly faster in D major, which has only two sharps and is thus much easier to read, and then simply change the tape speed to the correct pitch. However, they miscalculated how much slower their tape transposition would be, a problem they were fortunately able to fix by the time they came to record Dvořák's string quartet in A-flat minor the following year.

The rest:
#5 E7
#4 E3
#3 E1
#2 E5
#1 E6

Group F

Group F's results were mostly clear-cut, although one (rather controversial) recording was able to barely squeak by thanks to a late thumbs up from mc ukrneal. Otherwise, every recording that received a thumbs-up has made it through, every one that didn't has been eliminated. Boring.

#7 - F5 (C5)

You said:
"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."
"a little too much noise (breaths, clothes rustling) during the slow section.  Usually I can ignore that, but it was a distraction."
"Similar to F4 in its fussiness and stacatto approach [...] Beautiful slow section."
"A style of playing where everything seems to be exaggerated. I'm not a fan."

Doomed! If not for Pim, you would never have had to listen to
[asin]B002OPY7OY[/asin]
Belcea Quartet
Valentin Erben (vc)

In spite of the cover, this recording was not, in fact, made in a forest. According to my sources, the Belceas were utilising a sound stage in Ealing, and the verdant image behind them is in fact a green screen. Also, please do not mock Valentin Erben for being so tiny. He's quite sensitive about it.

#6 - F6 (B5)

You said:
"F6 is a mono recording.  [...] 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.  [...] [The Andante sostenuto] is, jointly with F2, the best in the group - stoic rather than emotional."
"Nice playing!  And if you want a cellist who is playing  the poor instrument rather than slapping it around after coming home drunk (like F 1), then this recording is for you."
"What a change in sound! But they play quite well. But I don't like they inconsistancy in tempo (perhaps it's the use of rubato or expressiveness). They have a clear idea of how to play it. Slow section is soothing - perhaps too much so?"

It was
[asin]B000003XID[/asin]
Hollywood Quartet
Kurt Reher (vc)

Kicked out mostly for the bad sound, the Hollywood Quartet actually delivered perhaps the first ever recording of Schubert's String Quintet on 33s. It serves for us as a reminder of the days when Schubert was glamorous and fashionable, when the likes of Marilyn Monroe and Cary Grant strutted down Sunset Boulevard to the accompaniment of the Great C Major Symphony and Schoenberg and Stravinsky played table tennis while debating how best to complete the 'Unfinished'. Nowadays you would be lucky to get the Hollywood Quartet for a gig with André Rieu. O tempora! O mores!

#5 - F4 (A5)

You said:
"I noticed a few stylistic and dynamic contrasts that are a bit smudged. It's still pretty good though."
"Ugh. It's like they want to play it pingy/overly stacatto [...] seems like they didn't eat their wheaties - wimpy at times."
"Here is that BIG SOUND!  Excellent clarity in the lines, and the best cello playing so far, i.e. very smooth and resonant."
"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."

It was
[asin]B00005QTI9[/asin]
Auryn Quartet
Christian Poltéra (vc)

A recording that nearly made it, but could not summon sufficient enthusiasm among the participants (apart from mc ukrneal's enthusiastic dislike). Asked for comments on the recording process, cellist Andreas Arndt said: "Tacet [the recording label] was producing this concert for a DVD-Audio release and wanted to capture total surround sound. But I think they went a little overboard. I had twelve microphones attached to my body, five on my cello and two on the music stand. It was very difficult to move for fear of dislodging one of them. At least we [the quartet] did not have it so bad... I could barely see poor Christian [Poltéra], he was so covered in microphones and cables. I hope they managed to get him out of there afterwards." Christian Poltéra could not be reached for comment.

The rest:

#4 F1
#3 F3
#2 F7
#1 F2

Group G

What's the opposite of a Group of Death? Group of Life? Every single recording in this group received at least one "meh", and several of them ended up with fewer points than they had in the first round. Not a very auspicious performance from the distinguished (or not-so-distinguished) recordings on show here. The roundup of damp squibs -

#7 - G7 (B3)

You said:
"I kind of liked this one, and it is my middle of the road pick in the 7 samples [...]  OK, it was a slow paced beginning, not brisk enough, and does lack some momentum punch, but good playing and sound.  Trio:  Very smooth, mild and sumptuously played.  Very beautiful.  Overall, the individual instruments have a clear sound, none are lost in the shuffle.  The individual voices can be heard clearly."
"WE ARE ROBOTS. BLEEP"
"Uuugggghhhhh WHEN WILL THIS END"

No one but ChamberNut liked
[asin]B0000013QE[/asin]
Ensemble Villa Musica

Maybe you should think before you speak! The musicians of the Ensemble Villa Musica are not robots, they are living, breathing humans, with souls, and feelings. Feelings that are very hurt now, not only because Naxos neglected to give their names in the CD liner notes but also because you consider them mere automatons. You dastardly ingrates. (ChamberNut excepted) Not having anyone to interview due to the very un-informative liners, I spoke to Klaus Heymann, head of Naxos, who expressed surprise that musicians were in fact human beings with hopes, dreams and desires. "I thought you just put money in and music came out," he confessed. "God, I really have to apologise to Jenö Jandö."

#6 - G5 (C4)

You said:
"just very strong all around. nothing particularly stand out, just very solid playing throughout."
"Someone tell the cello to calm down please."
"It's pretty good given the acoustic is somebody's living room. I'm not wild about it."
"Emphatic dynamic sound on this recording, and good pace to open.  Good sound quality.  Trio:  A disappointment, in a sense.  I felt this trio was too rushed, and the full stops were abrupt, which I found jarring, alarming and annoying."

It was
[asin]B00FA51TPK[/asin]
Quatuor Diotima
Anne Gastinel (vc)

A recording that was bound to be controversial—if not here, then in the extremely slow adagio and finale—this account features a young quartet who for sheer virtuosity are perhaps unmatched on the international circuit. That virtuosity, however, has mostly been brought to bear on cutting-edge contemporary music. Perhaps if they had taken this recording project more seriously, rather than blowing it off because it didn't have any extended techniques or nontraditional notation and doesn't go up past the 8th position or use any microtones or hexachordal combinatoriality, they might have still been in the running.

#5/4 - G1 (A4)

You said:
"Somewhat coarse recorded sound, the first couple bars aren't technically secure, but I can look past those issues. Unfortunately the first violin's intonation problems are too frequent."
"mediocre, uneven tempo, rushed, forced intensity that falls flat"
"Too much bravado, which created too uncomfortable of a feeling for even the entire Andante section to be enjoyed."
"Good opening pace, and pretty good sound quality.  Trio:  Very passionate, without overembellishment.  Really loved this performance overall, it struck a chord with me."

It was
[asin]B006DEXHDE[/asin]
Fitzwilliam Quartet
Christopher van Kampen (vc)

A recording that has been growing on me—nearly ended up on the cutting room floor, but I eventually decided to include it in preference to the Rosamonde Quartet & Nicolas Deletaille (which it resembles). The Fitzwilliam Quartet is mostly known for its Shostakovich. Actually I think it's only known for its Shostakovich, plus a few performances of Brahms and Schumann and the like on period instruments. Indeed the Fitzwilliam Quartet was one of the few Western ensembles to have the chance to work closely with Shostakovich, but perhaps they would have done better if they hadn't asked him to coach them during rehearsals of the Schubert Quintet. (Reportedly, Dmitri kept asking them to play the Adagio in a "more grotesque" fashion, and tried to add a cymbal crash at the climax of the first movement.)

#5/4 - G4 (C7)

You said:
"OK, but this is the first trio that I've ever heard that did not grab me at all emotionally.  The blandest, ho hum trio to this work I've heard."
"Nothing truly interesting, but a good performance for sure. Very passionate Andante."
"The scherzo is generally really good, although I noticed that before the reprises they have a tendency to slow down momentarily. The trio section is not great, but it is plenty good."
"good presto, forgettable andante"

It was
[asin]B009P8LDSG[/asin]
Janine Jansen, Janine Jansen (vn)
Janine Jansen (va)
Janine Jansen, Janine Jansen (vc)

The first major-label release of the Schubert Quintet produced using multi-tracking, this recording features the talents of Janine Jansen on three of her favourite instruments. However, a last-minute executive decision convinced Decca that the multi-tracking would be seen as a gimmick or even a betrayal of the classical idea of chamber music, and the recording needed to be redone with live musicians playing simultaneously. Decca didn't have the budget for a new recording session, or even a new cover image, but luckily someone had a snapshot of Ms Jansen walking five of her male concubines on one of the few occasions they were allowed outside without collars, and was able to plaster it on the back and convince most of the classical music world that Boris Brovtsyn, Amihai Grosz, Maxim Rysanov, Torleif Thedéen, and Jens Peter Maintz were involved in the making of this recording. But you and I, we know better.

The rest:

#3 G6
#2 G2
#1 G3



Results are cumulative across all rounds. Taking into account only the scores from this round, the results are:

#1 - E6
#2 - E5
#3 - E3
#4 - E1 = E7
#6 - E2 (eliminated)
#7 - E4 (eliminated)

#1 - F2
#2 - F3
#3 - F7
#4 - F1
#5 - F4 (eliminated)
#6 - F6 (eliminated)
#7 - F5 (eliminated)

#1 - G2
#2 - G3
#3 - G6
#4 - G4 (eliminated)
#5 - G1 = G5 (eliminated)
#7 - G7 (eliminated)

So no difference in terms of who gets eliminated, but perhaps gives you a clue as to who the survivors were in previous rounds.

[Jo498]

Interesting, thanks for the evaluation and summary. Of these I only knew the Casals et al. (which was in "my" group) and the Naxos (which I have not heard for the blind listening, but which has been on the "cull" pile for several months already, because while in no way bad, neither did I find it all that remarkable). I am surprised that Casals were so straightforward in the main section. My suspicion (also because of historical sound) would have been the Budapest Q, because they are often very cool and straight. Shows again that my opinion should not account for much...

Now as we are down to 12 it seems actually possible to listen to ALL of them...

[TheGSMoeller]

Funny, I own that Robotic Ensemble Villa Musica disc, at some point I must have enjoyed it.

And I'm not surprised about the Diotima, the Trio is their weakest moment of their performance, but I really like their aaaaadaaaaagiiiiioooooo........


Thank you, amw, for the results!