I have just started listening to my newly-arrived box set of the Mosaiques in the late quartets (op 64, 76, 77). This is the first time that I have listened to the Mosaiques and my listening is confined so far to Op 76/4 (the Sunrise), plus bits and pieces (mainly finales) of other Op76 works. Here are the first impressions (whilst they are still fresh).
In general, for the Sunrise, it was an enjoyable experience. Since I know this work quite well, it was very interesting to hear a new performance in a somewhat different style. The sound was quite striking, the balance was excellent, with very expressive playing at an unhurried tempo. However, there were a couple of things that struck me. To me, the Mosaiques seem to be big fans of rubato and employ it at almost every possible occasion. It is very common to hear a hesitation or slow start to many phrases. This becomes very noticable in the minuet, but being a dance movement this is acceptable for me, although I found it a little overdone. But in the final, the tempo and accents seemed to be all over the place, making the music hesitate, speed up, brake, continue, etc. I found it quite disconcerting and the finale did not sound at all like the traditional version that I am used to (Orlando Quartet). Instead of flowing naturally it seemed to be chopped into bits and pieces.
Did anyone else have the same impression or is it just me having trouble adapting to the MSQ's idiom ? I understand that the players come from one of Harnoncourt's orchestra's and I got the feeling that they were trying a new approach mainly because it was new and different .... like Harnoncourt often does (with varying success ...).
Another impression that I got, which was a lot more favourable, was of the incredible modernity and originality of some of the movements. Eg the finale of Op76/5. It was difficult to imagine that I was listening to Haydn. It was a revelation and sometimes quite startling .... absolutely fascinating.
Finally, I found that I really needed to listen in short periods; I could not listen to a full CD .... I needed a break between quartets. The sound of the MSQ is extremely clear and clean, but without vibrato it is a little aggressive which I found tiring for prolonged listening (via headphones). This is not a criticism ..... I am a HIP fan and I like a lean sound ..... I just needed a break before moving on ....
Looking forward to exploring the rest of the box .... especially the works I do not know.
Just yesterday I was at a "good" computer, and heard some of the Mosaiques Op.76.
I don't know if it was the computer sound, but the recording sounded just slightly fierce at high climaxes. I don't recall the Op.20 recording to have this problem, so maybe it was bad computer sound. That "orchestral" halo that I remember from Op.20 was here, too, but maybe not as pronounced (once again, can't totally tell on computer speakers).
The next thing I noticed was the ensemble sound, and ensemble playing. At the time, I was comparing with the Alberni, and the QM do have a much more adamant attack, such as I heard with the ABQ. Tempos were a little more relaxed than with the Alberni (who, by comparison, are quite fleet in
Prestos), though, at surprising moments, the QM can turn the afterburners on.
76/4, the "Sunrise", seemed pretty equal betwixt the two versions, but, my now current favorite,
76/6, receives, in my view, a treatment slightly different than the rest of the QM's interpretations. I think this is the best 76/6 I've heard so far (Kodaly, QM, ABQ, Alberni, Amadeus, Auryn). The first two mvmts. are pretty low key, and most people play them similarly (though, the slow mvmt. can have a 2min. variation, either way); but, in the quicksilver
Menuetto, the QM dig in like ticks, so one can hear the wood of their attack. They are by far the most exciting here (the ABQ are just as solid, but with a slight aggressiveness that the QM doesn't have/need). And, from the first notes of the
Finale, the QM continue their digging in on the attack. Here, too, the ABQ are the only others who dig into their attack like this.
By comparison, the Alberni are very feminine indeed (no offence
). Their attack is softer, but, if they do not dig like the others, they still emphasize other things. As with LvB interpretations, many groups do very well, and the only differences are differences of personal taste, and not a question of good or bad.
So, the big revelation for me was the QM's 76/6.
The QM's manly attack contined from the first three emphatic chords of
76/3, the "Emperor". The Alberni are much softer here, too, though they are by no means discounted.
Whilst on YouTube, I sampled a bunch of openings from
76/2. the "Fifths". What a riot it is to hear those first 30secs done by a variety of professional and amateur groups. One sees how Haydn's music does need some, mmm, TLC. One anonymous group was quite rough, whereas a clip by the Brentano was pretty perfect. The QM here are quite "woody", which is the first really "rustic" performance I've heard. Both the Auryn and the Alberni are much more the last word in refinement, meaning, their string sound. The QM impressed me mightily here, especially the way they handled the Major Key melody that comes right on the heels of the main theme (the sort of chirpy, whistle-y melody). I didn't hear the "
witch's minuet", but, I can imagine the QM nail this too.
I had wanted to hear the QM's Op.76, and, I'm quite impressed. There are certain aspects of their "sound" that I'm not totally on board with (which would definitely require a better sound system than a computer), which is the same prob I had with their Op.20, but they certainly have reams to offer here in interpretive delights. Ha, they are certainly not as all-consumingly HIP as the LondonHaydnQuartet. I DID hear a squiggum of vibrato here and there, haha!
Uh, I just noticed I wrote another page long post. Sorry, guys!
