Shostakovich String Quartets

[snyprrr]

Can anyone say a word about the St. Petersburg group's original duo of discs for SONY? (1,2,4 & 3,5,7)

[snyprrr]

THE LAST TIME I HAD A CYCLE

it ended with a smattering of Late Quartets by the Borodin, Beethoven, and Shostakovich, the earlier ones kept in check by either the Emerson, Brodsky, or Manhattan. Then I was left with only the Emerson- not a Cycle I would want to have by itself- and grew apart from the DSCH15. Then I sold the Emerson.

Now I'm here again.

I'm most interested in 4-5 (I still like the Manhattan here), 1/6 (for Haydn's sake)m and then 7-11. Right now I couldn't care less about the Death Quartets 12-15.

IT'S OBVIOUS that 7/8 and 9/10 form a unity (maybe with 11 at the end) and it's so hard to get them all together without getting stuff you don't want. The Borodin BMG issue has 8-10, which seems quite perfect- should I go here or go DDD? I'm torn between authenticity and sound, not that I don't actually like the Borodin's dry acoustic (that I hear has been opened up by BMG).

But the Sorrel's samples have impressed me mightily, and I'm sure if I got the Borodin that I'd be craving a DDD set... ahhh, the trauma.

The Pacifica aggravate me no end with their outlay. I'm just dismissing them out-of-hand for their programming... aye.

The St.Petersburg on Hyperion have that really odd, London String Quartet sound,... HIP DSCH?? I mean, it's a bit disconcerting, no? Some parts sounded really nice, but the sound dimension seemed to draw attention to itself, or something...

The Mandelring are just too expensive singly, and the box, though quite reasonable, is still not in my budget. I like their programming, though.

Still waiting to hear some word on St.Petersburg/SONY.

And the Razumovsky>?


How's that Danel traversal coming???





I'm soirry, I know this post sucked...... fuuuu..... I just want my stiuff NOOOW!!!!!

[George]

How's that Danel traversal coming???

I still don't like that set. Too emotionally cool for me, sent me running back to the superb, intense set (1-13) by Borodin on Chandos.

[SonicMan46]

The Pacifica aggravate me no end with their outlay. I'm just dismissing them out-of-hand for their programming... aye.

Well despite Snyprr's outright rejection of the Pacifica Quartet's performances, I just had all four volumes delivered by mail today - the covers are fabulously, the booklets thorough (only in English), the recordings recent/modern, and the performances excellent (starting w/ V. II which has the first 4 Shoshty SQs + No. 2 by Prokofiev) - yes, these could have been put on a lesser number of discs but indifferent to the addition of the 'other' SQs - Dave

 

 

[snyprrr]

I still don't like that set. Too emotionally cool for me, sent me running back to the superb, intense set (1-13) by Borodin on Chandos.

Uh oh- everyone's gonna be on yo case! But they did sound a bit cool to me too- playing it cool is just not cool in this case- must have fever- angst-

I like how someone said that the Borodin aren't afraid to make an ugly sound, or go all gypsy. The only thing they don't have (at least in the 2nd Cycle) is state of the art sound, but, most of the SQs benefit from ancient sound. (6, for instance, does NOT!- or 4 or 5)

[snyprrr]

ok, I'm sure you'll all be disappointed, but here's what I ended up getting:

4-5 Manhattan (had before)

6, 10, 14 Brodsky (had before)

6, 7, 10 Sorrel

8, 9, 13 Sorrel



The Sorrel just seemed to have the nicest acoustic- at least a bigger one than some- and seemed to be an update of the Brodsky approach. The Pacifica and Mandelring were either too expensive, or something, and the Hyperion discs seem to have that odd Hyperion sound picture (a la London Haydn Quartet). Still I've heard nothing of their SONY efforts (which surely don't have that Hyperion sound issue).

[Karl Henning]

No 1-3 at all?

[snyprrr]

No 1-3 at all?

No.1 should be on a disc of, say, 4 Russian Quartets, including Myaskovsky's 13th... I don't know the other two. Or, and I just haven't seen it, I think it should be on a 1, 4, 6 disc, perhaps- all the most 'normal' DSCH SQs. But, eh, I don't want it mixed in with other SQs- I mean, who really wants 1. 8. 15? I'd rather have 1 all  by itself or something (Kopelman?)- Ravel? or Francaix?

Nos.2-3 have always been my least favoured DSCH SQs, and I think they belong together anyhow- Borodin or St.P there- but, eh, I think they're scrappy- and I'm sure I mean that in a good way- maybe they'd do better for me if they were by Britten? Anyhow... I'm sure I'll come around. But I prefer the phase started in 7-11, and I'm kind of not feeling like hearing the Death Quartets just now. It's 4-11 for me, with 6 as the odd duck out.

Volger in 11? anyone?

[snyprrr]

String Quartet No.12


String Quartet No.13


String Quartet No.14



Can you tell which one you may like better, and why? For me, these are the most difficult, but that may all be in my head. In a way, they are all quite dreary (well, they're not exactly chipper!) and demand the utmost from the listener... maybe again I'm being overblown? I just don't seem to care for them, routinely get them mixed-up, and would like to come to terms. What do you think? They're all different, yet similar... what's your favourite section, and so on...

[Brahmsian]

String Quartet No.12


String Quartet No.13


String Quartet No.14



Can you tell which one you may like better, and why? For me, these are the most difficult, but that may all be in my head. In a way, they are all quite dreary (well, they're not exactly chipper!) and demand the utmost from the listener... maybe again I'm being overblown? I just don't seem to care for them, routinely get them mixed-up, and would like to come to terms. What do you think? They're all different, yet similar... what's your favourite section, and so on...

Synprrr, can't you just ever listen to works and enjoy?  You know you don't need 100 recommendations for each piece, I hope? 

[amw]

12 - Hardly dreary. Shostakovich's true Chamber Symphony here, full of energy and wacky 12-tone hijinks. Some performances admittedly do sag in the middle of that 20 minute Allegretto, I remember losing interest in the Brodskys when I streamed them. This is the high point of the Mandelring cycle for me, but whoever you pick should have that sort of big, quasi-orchestral sound

13 - The Post-Apocalyptic Quartet in a cycle that pitches itself on the edge of nuclear war. In my head it's played entirely without vibrato, cold as ice. You need Russians here, no one else (except the Mandelrings again) takes that sfffz marking seriously.

14 - Meh

(Hagen Qt can sell it if anyone can)

[snyprrr]

Synprrr, can't you just ever listen to works and enjoy?  You know you don't need 100 recommendations for each piece, I hope? 

I wasn't looking for recommends, just your personal thoughts on the music. They ARE somewhat difficult, no? I mean, I don't usuuually go and choose them for listening, and, in my latest go around I have been avoiding them as much as possible, though I've now piggy backed 13 and 14. Now look, "amw" answered my question - what's wrong Ray, do you need a hug?

If I haaad to pick a recommends for these pieces, I agree with amway, and I'd probably go Beethoven 12-14, though they all seem pretty good (Beethoven, Borodin, Shostakovich).

12 - Hardly dreary. Shostakovich's true Chamber Symphony here, full of energy and wacky 12-tone hijinks. Some performances admittedly do sag in the middle of that 20 minute Allegretto, I remember losing interest in the Brodskys when I streamed them. This is the high point of the Mandelring cycle for me, but whoever you pick should have that sort of big, quasi-orchestral sound

13 - The Post-Apocalyptic Quartet in a cycle that pitches itself on the edge of nuclear war. In my head it's played entirely without vibrato, cold as ice. You need Russians here, no one else (except the Mandelrings again) takes that sfffz marking seriously.

14 - Meh

(Hagen Qt can sell it if anyone can)

See? I think my point of asking was because I couldn't remember which one it was that I was kind of tired of- it is most likely 14. I will soon put myself through 13 (Sorrel), and yes, I expect miracles of the macabre. I'll have to find a 12...

[snyprrr]

Compared SQ 6 with the Sorrel and Brodsky. The Brodsky are perhaps the very quickest of many here, taking the 'Moderato con moto' perhaps just a touch fast, whereas most others come in about a half minute later. Also, their 'Largo' is the quickest, and their last movement wastes no time either.

By contrast, the Sorrel may be the slowest on record. Most everyone's 'Allegretto' opening runs to about 7 minutes, the Sorrel included. However, right from the get go the Sorrels have a much deeper and richer recording environment as compared to the Brodsky's TELDEC Studio (not that their recording is anything but crisp and clear and clean). They take the 2nd movement at the pace I am more used to, but in the 'Lento' they are very slow and mellow. By now I had grown just a little weary of the Brodsky's extrovert nature, but the Sorrel are a much more introspective group. There is somewhat of a veil over the Sorrel's performance, and noble gentleness and deepness; the Brodskys, good as they are, seem just a tad rushed by comparison; both are in the extremes of interpretation, but the Sorrel leave a deeper impression.

I also listened to the Sorrel Op.110, and, as much as we all know how much we can loathe this piece, here I AM convinced of its greatness and Masterpiece status. The Sorrel play it like one wants to hear it, and the deep, rich recording captures the proceedings in a deep red light. I know someone else was raving about this, but I have to agree, it's the best 8th I've heard so far (though, admittedly, it's not a piece I've cared to compare-to-death).

The Sorrel sure do have the acoustic i like, and the engineering, and they make a nice, thick corporate sound, biting away at all the red meat. They can be quiet, but then they always come back and lay on the grit. And they seem to uniformly have the slowest timings overall, though I've not yet found any willfull acts of damage yet. Everything sounds fine.

And the 13, again, was deep and rich... and, in this case, deliciously creepy! Love the jazzy bit!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

String Quartet No.12

I agree with amw's assessment above. A big, beefy, dramatic work, marked by bold atonal slashes.

String Quartet No.13

This one is special to me. It's the only piece of music that has ever caused me to have a nightmare. The night after hearing it for the first time, I saw myself wandering through subterranean dungeons, scared and disoriented. It's that crazy. Apparently written when DSCH was strung out on medications for his various illnesses.

String Quartet No.14

An elusive piece that I can't get a handle on. I like it though. The highlight is the Webernesque Klangfarbenmelodie in the finale.

[The new erato]

This one is special to me. It's the only piece of music that has ever caused me to have a nightmare. The night after hearing it for the first time, I saw myself wandering through subterranean dungeons, scared and disoriented. It's that crazy. Apparently written when DSCH was strung out on medications for his various illnesses.

No 13 is probably the scariest piece of music I know. Your assessment is 100% accurate.

[aukhawk]

I also listened to the Sorrel Op.110, ... I know someone else was raving about this, but I have to agree, it's the best 8th I've heard so far (though, admittedly, it's not a piece I've cared to compare-to-death).

Well yes I wrote:

The 8th played by the Sorrel Quartet is just simply the best single chamber music recording I own.

It is a piece I've always liked anyway, but this recording, with the wick turned well up, is sensational especially in that 'key Largo'.  The rounded Chandos sound works against the grittiness we expect in Shostakovich quartets - it shouldn't sound right, but it does, there's a sort of synergy created.

[snyprrr]

I was checking the samples of Kremer's Lockenhaus Edition 4/5, and the 13th and 14th sound awesomely "dead". The timing on 13 is like 22 and a half minutes, but I can imagine there is some applause at the end (though, 22 and a half would be pretty wild!).

And 14 has an 11 and a half minute slow movement! Can anyone confirm of deny the awesomeness of these performances? The samples make it seem like Kremer's taking the 'death' thing seriously, and producing two ghoulish documents.

[Karl Henning]

An elusive piece [ the F# Quartet Op.142 ] that I can't get a handle on. I like it though.

The Allegretto starts out as simply cheerful, doesn't it?  It is rather elusive . . . and the (equally elusive) Tristan allusions in the Adagio.

[Karl Henning]

String Quartet No.12


String Quartet No.13


String Quartet No.14



Can you tell which one you may like better, and why? For me, these are the most difficult, but that may all be in my head. In a way, they are all quite dreary (well, they're not exactly chipper!) and demand the utmost from the listener... maybe again I'm being overblown? I just don't seem to care for them, routinely get them mixed-up, and would like to come to terms. What do you think? They're all different, yet similar... what's your favourite section, and so on...

My answer is perhaps predictable, but I like them all.  I am not sure if I can be of any help to you, as I do not find them at all difficult.  Even if they do demand, well, is it much?  All they demand is one's full attention;  but that is amply rewarded.

[snyprrr]

My answer is perhaps predictable, but I like them all.  I am not sure if I can be of any help to you, as I do not find them at all difficult.  Even if they do demand, well, is it much?  All they demand is one's full attention;  but that is amply rewarded.

Yes, yes... buuut, for a Ultra-Late Romantic String Quartet, No.14 IS... c'mon... just a little chewy, eh? I mean, I just came back to it yesterday, - listened to all samples and then put on the Brodsky (I could tell it wasn't their best)- and, all I could hear was BERG! It's a three movement, French Existentialist - Serio-Expressioni a la Berg?- I know, I know... but...

The Brodsky take the first movement way too fast, so all I could think of was what I was missing,- and here's the rub- it's the kind of music that changes character depending on who's playing (more so than others?), so, I really don't know what I heard (I heard the Brodskys determined to play it quick, which robbed the music somewhat).

I WANT to hear this music dead,- played as slow as possible with the creepy factor built into the rosen- a Sanderling version!!! The Kremer samples hinted at that. I want to hear that 11 1/2 minute slow movement. I mean, generally, the Sorrel have consistently the slowest timings of all Moderns but are not in the 14th.

I don't know Karl, with the 14th I need A Special Advocacy. If I recall, the Shostakovich group won the last Death Match (about 15 years ago), or Borodin2. Neither the Manhattan nor the Brodsky could displace the Masters. (I think the Beethoven just had the worst sound?) But the Masters hadn't become self-conscious yet- that was to come with Manhattan, Brodsky, Emerson, Hagen, Kremer, the 'Second Wave of DSCH Cycles'- and now we have an excess of not-quite-gelled psychological approaches- I guess it's between the Hagen and Kremer in the 14th? Obviously both will have quite individual things to say. But I'd think the Hagen would sound too 'alive' whereas those Kremer samples sounded so 'dead'. eh?

eh

You know how much I love it when the dark horse trots in from left field!


I mean, I'd like to hear the 14th butchered!






(I liked the Sorrel just fine in 13- where's that sssZZZffff - is that in the middle, or the last note? Still, Kremer's 22 1/2 here... tantalizing?)