Haydn's Haus

[Gurn Blanston]

Interesting to hear, Gurn. This Op. 20 is my introduction to this group, so I would have expected similar results with their earlier releases. Let's hope they stick with their unique presentations with No. 33. Samples on iTunes of the Op. 33 sound good so far.

Well, Greg, don't think that the earlier ones aren't very good. They are just not to my taste. You may find them perfect, I don't know what and why certain things appeal to different people.   Good news about Op 33, always one of my favorites! 

[Wakefield]

I've been getting those disks since their first release of Op 9. I have to say that when I started with them, Op 9 and 17 were not my favorite interps of. I found them to be very tame and, I don't know, like a recital, you know, overly perfect so to say. I like an element of rowdyism in my Haydn, maybe not what one would look for in Mozart for example. Those who share this taste know exactly what I am talking about, those who don't probably never will.

Are you talking about the Festetics, Gurn? I agree, the only way to know is listen to by jenself.

However, I thought Op 20 was much more as though they had found themselves. It's a very nice set that I am pleased to have. Op 33 is on MY pre-order too.   

Who knows, maybe I'll give a new chance to the London Haydn Quartet. I bought their Op. 9, but it was so sweet and smooth and nice that I decided to skip their next releases what was a hard decision regarding a PI instruments ensemble doing a complete Haydn traversal.

[Gurn Blanston]

Are you talking about the Festetics, Gurn? I agree, the only way to know is listen to by ***self.
Who knows, maybe I'll give a new chance to the London Haydn Quartet. I bought their Op. 9, but it was so sweet and smooth and nice that I decided to skip their next releases what was a hard decision regarding a PI instruments ensemble doing a complete Haydn traversal.

Yes, creamy perfection, parfait! But I like Op 20 and have every hope of liking Op 33. Just as an aside, and speaking of Op 33, the only 2 disks that I was lacking for a complete Salomon's set were those 2 of Op 33. I got one yesterday and the other is inbound (from Zoverstocks in Britain). Despite my reservations about having 13 disks in a series, I will be pleased to have assembled the entire.

[Geo Dude]

Gurn, do you feel that Mosaiques Haydn is perhaps a bit too 'perfect' and not rowdy enough?  I ask because listening to Op. 76 yesterday that was pretty much the only criticism I could think of.  If so, it will be interesting to see how that Kuijken set contrasts when it arrives.

And you people...   I've ordered London Haydn Quartet's Op. 17 (don't have Op. 17 on hand) and now I'll probably find myself ordering Op. 20 later this month or early next month to see how it contrasts with the Mosaiques recording (when that arrives).  This business of a change in style has me curious.

I recently heard the Meta4 do the Op. 55,No. 1-3.  Not a period group, but, such wonderful playing. 

[asin]B0021R51E0[/asin]

I've heard some samples of that; it was promptly wish listed.

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn, do you feel that Mosaiques Haydn is perhaps a bit too 'perfect' and not rowdy enough?  I ask because listening to Op. 76 yesterday that was pretty much the only criticism I could think of.  If so, it will be interesting to see how that Kuijken set contrasts when it arrives.

And you people...   I've ordered London Haydn Quartet's Op. 17 (don't have Op. 17 on hand) and now I'll probably find myself ordering Op. 20 later this month or early next month to see how it contrasts with the Mosaiques recording (when that arrives).  This business of a change in style has me curious.

Well, to a small extent, I DO feel that way, although in Op 76 I found the Festetics to be TOO sloppy. Looking at the big picture, Op 76 was composed in 1796-97 to be played by professional musicians, and after his London experience where string quartets were played on stage during orchestral concerts. They are a world removed from the early quartets of  ~1770 which were not necessarily even composed to be published, let alone performed in public. Rather they were more intended for his garage band to play on Saturday night when the Prince was off partying. So to speak. You can see that the atmosphere for these is not the same. IMO, of course. That is why it satisfies me to hear them performed in a more unbuttoned style. The LHQ is a very fine ensemble, undeniably so. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to my admittedly eccentric viewpoint should really like these disks. And of course, the later works should be excellent. I'm looking forward to same. My ideal Op 76, the one that I have in my flac collection of 'complete Haydn', consists of the Kuijkens playing #1-3 and the Mosaiques playing 4-6. In my ears, the Kuijkens are a bit more carefree, but not at all sloppy.

I really am not too glib when it comes to explaining why I like some things and then like others less. "It feels right..." is simply not adequate. But reading the history and forming a mental picture surrounding that is unquestionably influential in affecting my sense of 'rightness'.

[TheGSMoeller]

My real attraction to the Mosaiques is the tone they produce, I prefer other interpretations to theirs (Op.20, Op.33, Op.77, Op.103 and Seven Words) but the recorded sound and the instruments of the Mosaiques are top rate. And of course the stellar musicianship is apparent.

I've been enjoying the Buchberger Quartet lately, they are a little more care free, and even a bit erratic at times causing a lack in clarity in some quicker melodies, but they create some real excitement with the music.

I don't really have a favorite performer when it comes the String Quartets, I'm still all over the place with recordings (Takacs, Mosaiques, Buchberger, Ulbrich, Lindsays, Emerson, London Haydn Quartet, Endellion , Jerusalem, Smithson...) and the closest I have to a full set would be Kodaly.

[Gurn Blanston]

My real attraction to the Mosaiques is the tone they produce, I prefer other interpretations to theirs (Op.20, Op.33, Op.77, Op.103 and Seven Words) but the recorded sound and the instruments of the Mosaiques are top rate. And of course the stellar musicianship is apparent.

I've been enjoying the Buchberger Quartet lately, they are a little more care free, and even a bit erratic at times causing a lack in clarity in some quicker melodies, but they create some real excitement with the music.

I don't really have a favorite performer when it comes the String Quartets, I'm still all over the place with recordings (Takacs, Mosaiques, Buchberger, Ulbrich, Lindsays, Emerson, London Haydn Quartet, Endellion , Jerusalem, Smithson...) and the closest I have to a full set would be Kodaly.

I agree with much of what you say. Choosing a favorite performance of a string quartet is not nearly so simple as it is with orchestral works, which tend to be (IMO) either right or wrong. Just like the playing of them, the listening of string quartets is deeply personal too. I would just point out that I quite enjoy the Tokyo's Op 76 (!!), way more than the Takacs, for example. Who else would write something like that? 

[Mandryka]

We did a blind test of Op 50 6-8 months ago (longer??) and I turned out to favor the Salomon's. I like the Schuppanzigh's #6, but it is the only one they did. Surprisingly or not, I am rather partial to The Lindsay's version. They feel good with it.

This is my favorite opus, and I have a bunch of recordings, but picking out a favorite is really pretty hard for me.

I thought the Festetics Op 50 was the best of their Haydn.

[Geo Dude]

Speaking of the Festetics, any thoughts on their Op. 65 set?  I'm a bit gun-shy after their Op. 50 set:  I expected to love that, but the intonation was so poor that I couldn't make it through the first disc. (That has literally never happened to me before.)

[Gurn Blanston]

I thought the Festetics Op 50 was the best of their Haydn.

Was that what you picked in the test? I know I picked Salomon's in #1 and Schuppanzigh in #6, but I didn't really note what choices others made. I like Festetics more in the earlier ones and Mosaiques better in the later ones...

[Wakefield]

Speaking of the Festetics, any thoughts on their Op. 65 set?  I'm a bit gun-shy after their Op. 50 set:  I expected to love that, but the intonation was so poor that I couldn't make it through the first disc. (That has literally never happened to me before.)

IMO, they don't have any problem of intonation. Jens and the people who have denounced their "poor intonation" simply dislike the tone and color of their violins, not sufficiently "steely", as the sound produced by metal strings. So, I believe there isn't a problem of poor intonation or amateurish approach (an old objection regarding HIP ensembles in 70s and early 80s), but a fundamental disagreement about the concept managed by this ensemble and the palette of colors created by them, which tends towards a homogeneous conversational tone more than a discourse more or less conducted by the first violin.

In short, if the issue is the "poor intonation" the answer will be exactly the same about every volume recorded by the Festetics because it's a problem of musical concept.

[Gurn Blanston]

IMO, they don't have any problem of intonation. Jens and the people who have denounced their "poor intonation" simply dislike the tone and color of their violins, not sufficiently "steely", as the sound produced by metal strings. So, I believe there isn't a problem of poor intonation or amateurish approach (an old objection regarding HIP ensembles in 70s and early 80s), but a fundamental disagreement about the concept managed by this ensemble and the palette of colors created by them, which tends towards a homogeneous conversational tone more than a discourse more or less conducted by the first violin.

In short, if the issue is the "poor intonation" the answer will be exactly the same about every volume recorded by the Festetics because it's a problem of musical concept.

I agree with that. Especially since the phrase 'poor intonation' is nearly always followed by 'sour tone'. Frankly I don't hear either one of those things. I really don't think they were at their best in Op 76, but that aside, I like all the others. I just don't like to have only one take on things, that's why I have a variety of alternate versions in my collection.

[Mandryka]

Yes I rather like the dark colours of Festetics, who in respect to colour remind of of Tatrai, especially cello. My problem with them is to do with stolidness, but that's not a deal breaker in some of the op 64/65 quartets. i like Festetics in Op64/2 for example, so humane in the adagio. I think I  prefer them to Mosaiques here and elsewhere, despite the attractive litheness of Mosaiques.

By the way, if you're interested in op 65 (= op 64 4-6), then one very fine recording is Pro Arte in op 64/6. Another very fine ensemble in these quartets is Caspar de  Salo, those two would be my top choices here I think.

I've just started to listen to Buchberger, by the way.

[kishnevi]

IMO, they don't have any problem of intonation. Jens and the people who have denounced their "poor intonation" simply dislike the tone and color of their violins, not sufficiently "steely", as the sound produced by metal strings. So, I believe there isn't a problem of poor intonation or amateurish approach (an old objection regarding HIP ensembles in 70s and early 80s), but a fundamental disagreement about the concept managed by this ensemble and the palette of colors created by them, which tends towards a homogeneous conversational tone more than a discourse more or less conducted by the first violin.

In short, if the issue is the "poor intonation" the answer will be exactly the same about every volume recorded by the Festetics because it's a problem of musical concept.

I think Jens has enough knowledge of and affinity for PI to not be distracted by gut vs metal string.
(Not having ever heard the Haydn recording in question,  I can't say if I would call it 'bad intonation" or something else.  But I do think the phrase "sour tone' could be applied to the Mozart recording I do have.)
But I think the statement of yours which I bolded catches the essence of why I didn't like the Festetics Mozart recording--what I want is heterogeneous conversation, in which all the instruments are equal partners but are sufficiently differentiated to make a more varied palette of tones.  I don't think the Festetics managed this, and that fatally undermined the performance.  Mandryka's use of the word 'stolidness' resonates with me.

[Gurn Blanston]

Yes I rather like the dark colours of Festetics, who in respect to colour remind of of Tatrai, especially cello. My problem with them is to do with stolidness, but that's not a deal breaker in some of the op 64/65 quartets. i like Festetics in Op64/2 for example, so humane in the adagio. I think I  prefer them to Mosaiques here and elsewhere, despite the attractive litheness of Mosaiques.

By the way, if you're interested in op 65 (= op 64 4-6), then one very fine recording is Pro Arte in op 64/6. Another very fine ensemble in these quartets is Caspar de  Salo, those two would be my top choices here ai think.

I've just started to listen to Buchberger, by the way.

Caspar de Salo! Yes, those are very nice recordings, no matter who they are really by! I think they skip some repeats, but what they play they play well.   

[Gurn Blanston]

I think Jens has enough knowledge of and affinity for PI to not be distracted by gut vs metal string.
(Not having ever heard the Haydn recording in question,  I can't say if I would call it 'bad intonation" or something else.  But I do think the phrase "sour tone' could be applied to the Mozart recording I do have.)
But I think the statement of yours which I bolded catches the essence of why I didn't like the Festetics Mozart recording--what I want is heterogeneous conversation, in which all the instruments are equal partners but are sufficiently differentiated to make a more varied palette of tones.  I don't think the Festetics managed this, and that fatally undermined the performance.  Mandryka's use of the word 'stolidness' resonates with me.

No need to single out any one person, there are actually many who share that POV . It's more of a like it or don't thing. What's irritating is the concept that if something doesn't suit ones taste, it is because they can't play. Lots that I don't like, but you rarely see me say so.

[Mandryka]

Was that what you picked in the test? I know I picked Salomon's in #1 and Schuppanzigh in #6, but I didn't really note what choices others made. I like Festetics more in the earlier ones and Mosaiques better in the later ones...

No, I didn't do this test.

I too like op 50 a lot, I'm curious about the Tokyo set that GeoDude ordered, I've never heard it.

There are lots of good op 50 records -- I like Tatrai for example, and Amati. I'll play Salomon  in #1 and Schuppanzigh in #6 soon -- thanks for mentioning them.

[Gurn Blanston]

No, I didn't do this test.

I too like op 50 a lot, I'm curious about the Tokyo set that GeoDude ordered, I've never heard it.

There are lots of good op 50 records -- I like Tatrai for example, and Amati

Yes, I have Tatrai & Amati too (on CD) . I think tatrai are better here than in Ip 76. I like Amati a lot. hard to recommend though, where do you buy Divox these days? 

[Mandryka]

Yes, I have Tatrai & Amati too (on CD) . I think tatrai are better here than in Ip 76. I like Amati a lot. hard to recommend though, where do you buy Divox these days? 

That's soooo old fashioned. You stream Amati though spotify.

[Gurn Blanston]

That's soooo old fashioned. You stream Amati though spotify.

You young moderns are far too much for me!