Shostakovich String Quartets

[snyprrr]

When I cut my teeth on the DSCHSQs, the Manhattan and the Brodsky were the main sets, supplimented with the Borodin2, Shostakovich, and Beethoven, all in the Later Quatets. The two former simply had the better sound for the more delicate Earlier Quartets (up to 6). But, eventually, their weaknesses showed through. In the end, the Manhattan solidly took 4 and 5, maybe 6, and, I think the Brodsky only took 10, maybe 6. The Shostakovich took most of the 'Hot' Quartets.

Anyhow, this go around I've already met the Sorrel and they seem to handily best the whole Brodsky 'thing'. But I will give the Brodskys some personal credit, and they do have very good Teldec sound, so, all is not lost for them (they always maintain at least a certain level of 'stuff').

So I just had to get the Manhattan 4/5 again just to hear. And here it is, AND IT'S TRUE! This is the perfect single CD presentation (the only) of 4 and 5 together (the Emerson add 6 on their set). The opening of 4 is handled just so, no unintended grating on the ear. The opening movement of 5 takes 12 minutes! blessedly this is a wonderfully correct tempo, as the opening hits just the right degree of back and forth.

I think I tried a lot of 4s and 5s back in the day, and always came back to this CD. Yes, yes, perhaps there are issues in places with ensemble or intonation (could that be the music? EVERYONE sounds grating in these two SQs!!), but, well, ok... so, the Sorrel samples sound really really good here and I really wish they had done 4/5/6.

MANHATTAN vs BRODSKY

So, the Sorrel have probably dethroned any shred at a First Choice the Brodsky might have ever had, but until I hear them in 4/5, I'm enjoying the Manhattan right now. Karl, can you imagine how happy I was back in the early '90s when I first heard this 4 and 5? ahhhh...

btw- the Manhattan, I believe, also did well in 6 and maybe 7 and maybe 1, BUT, because of their particular recording style, which favoured the more melodious SQs, all of the HardCore Late SQs are a little thin, up front and in your face (though still well recorded). And they just couldn't match the Masters. So, except for 4/5, and maybe 6/7/8 (9/10 suffers from the thinness), the Manhattan, too, have come and gone.

RIP Manhattan & Brodsky- you served your purpose well, go in peace!

[snyprrr]

Beethoven

Glinka

Borodin1 (inc.)

Borodin2

Borodin3 (inc.)

Shostakovich

Taneyev


Fitzwilliam



Are we in agreement that the Taneyev have a little something extra, eh?!! They are so IMPOSSIBLE to find, aye. Can anyone comment about some highlights? And, what's a Fitzwilliam highlight? Are there any other Early Cycles in the 'First Wave of DSCHSQs'? (we're well into the Third by now)

[Brahmsian]

Beethoven

Glinka

Borodin1 (inc.)

Borodin2

Borodin3 (inc.)

Shostakovich

Taneyev


Fitzwilliam



Are we in agreement that the Taneyev have a little something extra, eh?!! They are so IMPOSSIBLE to find, aye. Can anyone comment about some highlights? And, what's a Fitzwilliam highlight? Are there any other Early Cycles in the 'First Wave of DSCHSQs'? (we're well into the Third by now)

Get the cow and the fiddle 'Borodin'.  Fitzwilliam is another favourite, but very different than the Borodin's.

I love the Eder Quartet on Naxos too.  Best 4th I've heard.

[amw]

(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?)

Last note. This is how it should be done IMO (recommended: listen on headphones, with the volume turned way up—you should be able to hear Alexei Koptev's breathing)

[audio]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32084883/08.mp3[/audio]


A 22' 13th is, indeed, intriguing. I'm also intrigued by the Taneyev Quartet's 13th which is only 15 minutes—bearing in mind that they were the second group ever to play the piece, and Shostakovich himself likely heard that interpretation. Sadly the Taneyev cycle, like almost everything else they did, is long since OOP.

(I've only heard one disc, with 5, 6 & 7, and their 7th beats the Borodin's 7th in my estimation hands down. Their 5th wasn't as special. I suppose the full cycle is going to be a bit hit-and-miss, though Vladimir Ovcharek's consistently at the top of his violin-playing game)

[Brahmsian]

Listening to:

String Quartet No. 3 in F major, Op. 73
String Quartet No. 4 in D major, Op.83 (the one with the sneaky, Pink Panther like 3rd movement Allegretto - quite different from other performances!)

*Oh Dmitri, why couldn't you have made all four movements of the 4th Allegretto?!   

[asin]B0000042HV[/asin]

[Karl Henning]

Listening to:

String Quartet No. 3 in F major, Op. 73
String Quartet No. 4 in D major, Op.83 (the one with the sneaky, Pink Panther like 3rd movement Allegretto - quite different from other performances!)

*Oh Dmitri, why couldn't you have made all four movements of the 4th Allegretto?!   

[asin]B0000042HV[/asin]

A day late, but I'll join Ray for this Op.83

[bwv 1080]

Brodsky had long been my default but I have been leaning to the Pacifica's last disk which, as a bonus, contains a great reading of Schnittke's 3rd

[Brahmsian]

A day late, but I'll join Ray for this Op.83

Excellent, Karl!  I'm now listening to Op. 92, 101 and 108, by the Fitzzies!

[snyprrr]

Brodsky had long been my default but I have been leaning to the Pacifica's last disk which, as a bonus, contains a great reading of Schnittke's 3rd

I think the Brodsky 10 may be in the Top3. I really have to give them the nod in comparison to the Sorrel. When the Brodsky were on, the really WERE ON! They really dig into the 10th, all scratching and clawing, but in perfect sound, with a very tight ensemble. I think, when I made the compare, they might have beaten out the Masters even. Anyhow, the Brodsky 10 is a keeper. Must reacquire 7/8/9.

(they really could scratch and claw when required-

SQ 10- 'Allegro furioso'

I was actually somewhat shocked by the Sorrels' apparent restraint here. I just knew I could hear more vehemence elsewhere. When i put the Brodsky on, I remembered: theirs'(?) is quite 'daemonic' (maybe not totally, but much much more than the Sorrel) whereas the Sorrel really felt like they were holding the last bit of hysteria back. And after their searing 8th, I couldn't believe it. I mean, it's big and sumptuous, just not hysterical. Anyhow, the Brodsky won this handily.

I believe, back in the day, I also held the BorodinEMI 10th up very hightly- maybe even the Shostakovich too. (the BorodinEMI with the 10th was the last one of their's that I let go, so, i'm assuming I liked it).

Last note. This is how it should be done IMO (recommended: listen on headphones, with the volume turned way up—you should be able to hear Alexei Koptev's breathing)

[audio]http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32084883/08.mp3[/audio]


A 22' 13th is, indeed, intriguing. I'm also intrigued by the Taneyev Quartet's 13th which is only 15 minutes—bearing in mind that they were the second group ever to play the piece, and Shostakovich himself likely heard that interpretation. Sadly the Taneyev cycle, like almost everything else they did, is long since OOP.

(I've only heard one disc, with 5, 6 & 7, and their 7th beats the Borodin's 7th in my estimation hands down. Their 5th wasn't as special. I suppose the full cycle is going to be a bit hit-and-miss, though Vladimir Ovcharek's consistently at the top of his violin-playing game)

Yea, the Sorrel clipped that last note a bit, on purpose, I suppose, to be different. I saw nothing wrong there (they totally got nasty with the middle, so it was ok that they changed up the ending, I thought).

I can't remember my experience with the Taneyev/DSCH, but the few samples I heard recently (14th?) almost sounded like Schubert playing, so refined and delicate and yummy was the ensemble.

Again- I will explicity ask, you- and all- Should I go ahead and give Kremer a shot at 13-14? Those timings- especially the 11 1/2 14th 'Adagio' and that 13th- they are so beyond everyone else.

And yes, a 15 minute 13th sounds outrageous, especially if they sound like they do in the other samples.

For 11-15 I'm more than happy going with the more totally outrageous interpretations. And the creepiness- I'm not hearing too many players play to the grotesquerie all that much


For 15, all I have is Kremer/Ma/KashKashian/Daniels (CBS). I frankly don't know how to place it, but it's as good as one would want. (it's 'live')


can't think straight- need nap....zzzZZ

[Brahmsian]

SQ# 10 is one of my favourites.  Especially the opening two contrasting movements.  Gotta love that 'Allegretto Furioso'.  It's pure evil, in a good way! 

[snyprrr]

SQ# 10 is one of my favourites.  Especially the opening two contrasting movements.  Gotta love that 'Allegretto Furioso'.  It's pure evil, in a good way! 

SQ 9

No.9 is really the big, meaty one... if we count 7-8 and 9-10. The thing that struck me about No.10 is how Perfect, and Classical it is. It's really a counterweight to No.6 in that regard.

I almost wanted to disregard the superficial similarity between 8 and 9 both having five movements, but they do actually seem to be - it does seem like he looked back to 8 when written 9, just in the whole feel of it. I'm starting to wonder WHICH SQ I'm listening to between these three: that 'William Tell' gallop is all over the place, the Motto Theme has taken over and everthingy is "bum bum bum". The 'DSCH' theme turns into other 'motto' like themes- so many similarities.

I was listening to the Sorrel again, but, again, I wondered if the last ounce of hysteria might not be missing from these beautifully crafted performances. I just want to hear more grit (like the Brodsky usually do) and 'ugly' sounds, - not that they don't give you some good stuff, but i always want more until I hear Perfection.

I do particularly like the uneasy sound of the first movenment, the paranoid looking over your shoulder sound- the first movement really has such a mood to it- I think I'm just really enjoying 7-8 and 9-10, this is a particular place in the DSCH-Stylography- this is different stuff than before, and much different from what was to come.

[Karl Henning]

Iconic snypsss: looking for that last ounce of hysteria . . . .

[snyprrr]

Iconic snypsss: looking for that last ounce of hysteria . . . .

the digging, the grating, the portamento, nasal


If you'll notice, these are elements of DSCH that you won't really find in 1-6. But, starting (slightly) with 7, but of course in 8, Shosty started this "angry cat clawing" sound in his 'Allegros' that seems to appear in most of the subsequent SQs- but mostly in 8-9-10... 11... maybe 12...

I mean, really Karl, - how can one hear the respective 'Allegros' of 8 or 9 or 10 without the EXTRA added attraction of hearing the vicious slapping of the bow, the grating of the strings- one can almost see a dust of rosin filling the air! The Sorrel seem to just shy away from real nastiness-

Just compare one of these 'Allegros'- Sorrel vs Brodsky- to hear. The lead violinist of the Brodsky keeps it up the whole time- the Sorrel just sound 'badass', but the Brodsky sound almost hysterical- though- I would maybe even seek out more.

But, I think the Brodskys won out before- even over the Borodin and maybe the Shostakovich- when it can to the rabid, feral quality THAT WE NEED TO HAVE in these movements. I think when Shosty copped this new way of doing 'Allegros' I must think that he would be pleased with a really gut-out performance.

I DID like the Sorrel's 8, but was shocked when their 9 and 10 (in the 'Allegros') didn't dig in.to.every.single.note.

anyhow...

[snyprrr]

Op.101


SQ No.6 is SO Haydnesque, so 'normal, so Classical, one wonders where to place it. It's not in the 'jeweish' vein of 4-5, it's not in the 'New Style' of 7-11, it's more like a companion to 'little-ole-left-out' No.1.

But, it's deceptively easy listening. Going back over it, I was surprised by how dark it could get- only to flit back into the light- but then only to go back,... and forth. The first and last movements, though, benefit - wait-

1) Let's get this out of the way: the slow movement,- it doesn't seem to matter how fast or slow one takes it- this movement speaks for itself and is never a problem.

2) Moderato con moto- seems to work better slower than faster


HERE'S MY PROBLEM:

The Brodsky, for instance, in the first movement, seem to be playing in a clipped, Modern Style that just seems at odds with the Haydnesque aspects. When I listened to the samples of the Taneyev and the Borodin, I heard that GOOD OLD FASHIONED playing when the endings of the notes weren't clipped, and the legato line went from one note to the other in a seamless line, whereas the Brodskys sounded like they were playing one-note-after-another with no sense of the whole line of the thing.

As if players today just CAN'T play like 'they' used to. WHAT I NEED IN NO.6 is a "Classical String Quartet" to play it, like the Taneyev or Borodin, but, of course, with proper sound and such.

Anyhow, i need your input on the whole No.6 anyway- for a Haydn SQ it sure is rich-

(sorry, I'm getting tired, losing brain cells by the second)

(btw- the Fitzies have QUITE a dark No.6!!)- Borodin1 and 2 and Taneyev sound very old fashioned here- the Beethoven...?

[George]

Iconic snypsss: looking for that last ounce of hysteria . . . .

Step inside, walk this way...

[snyprrr]

No. 4 Op.83


I've always loved this from the moment I heard the Manhattan recording. There's no analysis, it's just a great piece of wonderfully gay music, touched by a twinge of sadness. The opening swell of euphonious D-ness is thoroughly enveloping, leading to another one of his hidden gem slow movements, and followed by a quite long walk through a field after a fresh spring rain. Fiddler on the roof, indeed!

In searching for an alternative to the Manhattan, I've run in to quite a few that pleased me NOT! (Emerson, Brodsky, most of the analogues). I'm currently considering either the Sorrel, or the Hagen here, and have the Moyzes on order, but I'm always interested in what you think here. It's some of my favourite all-around music, and I think I can find one that builds on the Manhattan (they have their eh-moments, but, they're just moments).


No.5 Op.92

This may be my single favourite Shosty work at the moment, and it can tower over other Chamber Works like no one's business. Again, from the moment I heard the Manhattan, I was hooked, and have searched in vain for a compare (Emerson, NOT!). With 4-6 I have a problem with some of the analogue recordings, since these pieces cry out for Perfect Sound (since they are so delicate and musical), so, I prefer to cull from the digital era here. Sorrel, St. Petersburg, and Manderling have so far impressed me with samples.

No.5's opening movement juxtaposes two alternate themes that unite in tremendous power and slippery movement. There is a vastness to the mastery here, I can't say in words yet- but overwhelming impact- which leads straight into a slow movement unlike any other, so peaceful- with very low and very high notes, simulating a mining expedition to an uncharted Garden of Eden- which is picked up by the concluding 'Moderato'- no where else does Shostakovich wallow for so long in an atmosphere of serene, idyllic contemplation and repose. 4 and 5 together make one intense hour of wonderfully thought provoking music- with the ending of 5 leaving a total satisfaction- as if one can now go to bed in peace.

I don't know the story of 5, but I want to look into it- what's going through a man's mind here? Is he anticipating Stalin's death, or did it just happen (1952- not yet right?). Anyhow...

[Karl Henning]

I don't know the story of 5, but I want to look into it- what's going through a man's mind here?

Dude, you've got to offset the natural wish to know more about the great artist's person, by the fact that you'll never do more than speculate on this question you ask.

We review the facts:  Shostakovich was reticent by nature, atop which fact, external circumstances made him more cautious still.

He wrote the music, so that you would listen to the music; not to those voices . . . .

[Brahmsian]

No. 4 Op.83


I've always loved this from the moment I heard the Manhattan recording. There's no analysis, it's just a great piece of wonderfully gay music, touched by a twinge of sadness. The opening swell of euphonious D-ness is thoroughly enveloping, leading to another one of his hidden gem slow movements, and followed by a quite long walk through a field after a fresh spring rain. Fiddler on the roof, indeed!

In searching for an alternative to the Manhattan, I've run in to quite a few that pleased me NOT! (Emerson, Brodsky, most of the analogues). I'm currently considering either the Sorrel, or the Hagen here, and have the Moyzes on order, but I'm always interested in what you think here. It's some of my favourite all-around music, and I think I can find one that builds on the Manhattan (they have their eh-moments, but, they're just moments).

Eder Quartet, Bovine Borodin and for a quite different take on the 3rd Allegretto movement, the Fitzzies! 

[Brahmsian]

Dude, you've got to offset the natural wish to know more about the great artist's person, by the fact that you'll never do more than speculate on this question you ask.

We review the facts:  Shostakovich was reticent by nature, atop which fact, external circumstances made him more cautious still.

He wrote the music, so that you would listen to the music; not to those voices . . . .

Words of wisdom.

Good day, Karl! 

[Karl Henning]

Cheers, Ray!