Shostakovich String Quartets

[NorthNYMark]

13th, right? So, you agree that what I heard on that St.P samples was something different, eh? Yea, I have 'problems' with the St.P/Hyperion Cycle, but the presentation is soooo compelling- the playing and the sound both work together to give you that IMAX Experience! Well, looks like I'll have to...

Have you heard the Sorrel in 13? Not as CinemaScope as the St.P, but they dig deep into the abyss here- which they don't always succeed in doing in other works.

And yes, one CAN be too 'human' in this piece- it needs to be totally abstract.

Yes, I think it's easy to lock down 13 to the major players- the ones we have been mentioning. You MUST have something a little extra special cool here if you want to stand out.

thanks for the input!!

Your posting about the 13th Quartet over the past few days prompted me to take a closer "look" at it--what an amazing work!  I think it will end up with nos. 2 and 11 as particular favorites of mine (though I have been enjoying all of them over the past few months).  I've listened to about five versions back-to-back, and will refrain from anything like ranking for now, because I was transfixed by each and every performance.  I don't have access to the Brodsky or Manhattan Quartets that you mention frequently, and I have some Sorrel and St. Petersburg performances, but not of the 13th.  Yesterday I listened to performances by the Shostakovich, Borodin II, Mandelring, Emerson, Danel, Razumovsky, and Aviv quartets, and may listen to the Fitzwilliams and the Pacificas tonight.

As I mentioned, I enjoyed each and every one I heard.  The most memorably different from the others were the Mandelrings, Emersons, and Danels. The Mandelrings started off well, with their rich tones, but then I was surprised by how gentle and almost classical they were in the "stabbing" sections, and initially thought they might be too restrained for this work.  However, when the inventive middle part comes in, they turned in a mesmerizing, almost dancing performance that took my breath away. 

The Emersons really surprised me--I have noticed a pattern with some of their performances, where their faster movements fit well with the stereotypical complaints about them (i.e., too fast and with little expression), but their slower movements often have a very warm, haunting quality much like those of the Mandelrings.  In this case, that mysterious warmth was there, but I never had the sense of rushing I've had in other performances by them.  They did, however, bring out the work's spikiness more than any other group, with the aggressive "stabs" sounding particularly dissonant  (but in a way that seemed intentional).  The middle section did not "dance" like that of the Mandelrings, but instead seemed like a modernist concerto for percussion.  If I had to pick a favorite performance among those I heard, this might just be it. 

The Danels, on the other hand, had a very different read, emphasizing the funereal stillness that I think you were mentioning in your review, Snyprr.  Slow, neither dancing nor particularly spiky, but emphasizing space.  In general, I find the Danels to have an almost cruelly chilling approach that really works well in this quartet. 

The performances by the Russian groups, along with the Razumovskys and the Aviv (the latter from which I hadn't sampled before), were all wonderful as well, perhaps falling somewhere in between the interpretive extremes I mentioned above.  The Russians and Razumovskys probably had more of a folksy accent in their approach (though more subtle in this particular quartet than in some others), with the Avivs having some of that, but in a more classically restrained way, moving closer to the Mandelring end of the spectrum.

Anywy, I have fallen in love with this work!

[snyprrr]

Your posting about the 13th Quartet over the past few days prompted me to take a closer "look" at it--what an amazing work!  I think it will end up with nos. 2 and 11 as particular favorites of mine (though I have been enjoying all of them over the past few months).  I've listened to about five versions back-to-back, and will refrain from anything like ranking for now, because I was transfixed by each and every performance.  I don't have access to the Brodsky or Manhattan Quartets that you mention frequently, and I have some Sorrel and St. Petersburg performances, but not of the 13th.  Yesterday I listened to performances by the Shostakovich, Borodin II, Mandelring, Emerson, Danel, Razumovsky, and Aviv quartets, and may listen to the Fitzwilliams and the Pacificas tonight.

As I mentioned, I enjoyed each and every one I heard.  The most memorably different from the others were the Mandelrings, Emersons, and Danels. The Mandelrings started off well, with their rich tones, but then I was surprised by how gentle and almost classical they were in the "stabbing" sections, and initially thought they might be too restrained for this work.  However, when the inventive middle part comes in, they turned in a mesmerizing, almost dancing performance that took my breath away. 

The Emersons really surprised me--I have noticed a pattern with some of their performances, where their faster movements fit well with the stereotypical complaints about them (i.e., too fast and with little expression), but their slower movements often have a very warm, haunting quality much like those of the Mandelrings.  In this case, that mysterious warmth was there, but I never had the sense of rushing I've had in other performances by them.  They did, however, bring out the work's spikiness more than any other group, with the aggressive "stabs" sounding particularly dissonant  (but in a way that seemed intentional).  The middle section did not "dance" like that of the Mandelrings, but instead seemed like a modernist concerto for percussion.  If I had to pick a favorite performance among those I heard, this might just be it. 

The Danels, on the other hand, had a very different read, emphasizing the funereal stillness that I think you were mentioning in your review, Snyprr.  Slow, neither dancing nor particularly spiky, but emphasizing space.  In general, I find the Danels to have an almost cruelly chilling approach that really works well in this quartet. 

The performances by the Russian groups, along with the Razumovskys and the Aviv (the latter from which I hadn't sampled before), were all wonderful as well, perhaps falling somewhere in between the interpretive extremes I mentioned above.  The Russians and Razumovskys probably had more of a folksy accent in their approach (though more subtle in this particular quartet than in some others), with the Avivs having some of that, but in a more classically restrained way, moving closer to the Mandelring end of the spectrum.

Anywy, I have fallen in love with this work!

excellent work my good man!! yes- do report back with the stragglers!!

I think I'm noticing that many groups do 8 and 13 well because they are such "linear" works. There's no real counterpoint (DSCH's 'Schubert moments'?) of the kind encountered in many of their neighbours. Everything's going in one direction, and many Modern groups respond well to this.

Really, much of what changes is the actual venue used and the sound accompanying the music. Funny- the Kremer has a very open acoustic, which highlights the 'death', whereas the Danel have a very closed acoustic, which, also, whoopee!!, highlights the 'death' as well!

You should hear the Sorrel here. Their 'stabs' are the most vicious I've heard so far, and they have quite an interesting time with the jazzy bit.

yes, well... good!!

Yea, I wasn't to keen on 13 until this week!




btw- you checked the Shostakovich against the Borodin'81? Did you find those too "human"? 13 is where I find a lot of the 'Masters' lacking in understanding, perhaps? I think perhaps it does take one of these newer groups to see how it shouldn't be played 'Romantic', with lots of vibrato. Still, they render it well, but it ends up giving a different ending feel than, say, that icy St. Petersburg.

[snyprrr]

No.12 Op.133 (1968)

Taneyev- they play the 2nd mvmt. much faster than the rest, and I think it sounds correct (the St.P have the second quickest- it works!)


Borodin'81- I THINK THIS IS THE OVERALL BEST- great harmonics at the end of the 1st


Shostakovich- matches the Borodin'81- 2nd BEST- longest 1st mvmt. really lays on the glacial, spiritual ennui (in the good way!)


Emerson- all their weaknesses are strengths here. Still a bit steely, but they can't really be faulted here


Philharmonia (Thorophon)- I don't have this, but the samples indicated a verrry 'Classical' approach, and it really begs a listen


Borodin'95
St. Petersburg- the latter sounds like the perfection of the former; however, I'd consider both to be 'alternatives' and not the First Choice. The Borodin are very
                        'autumnal' sounding here, the St.Ps have their usual icy Hyperion way. Interesting, but by no means my favs (though the St.P have that very
                        fast 2nd I like)


Amati (Divox)- frankly, they have a pretty good 12th here. The recording isn't as fat as, say, the Shostakovich, but it is crystal clear and very well recorded indeed
                      and I would recommend this as a 3rd Choice, perhaps. It comes with a very very good Quintet.



GROUPS THAT TAKE THE 2ND MVMT. WAAAY TOO LONG?

Danel (22:02)- please, can someone confirm here? This seems a bit too loose and dragged out?

Sorrel (21:25)- the samples sounded ok, but I've been noticing the Sorrel taking certain movements a lot slower than I think is called for

Borodin'68 (21:**)- their 1981 recording is my FirstChoice- this one is almost universally discarded for the latter one. The 1981 takes 20:00 even, which is
                            about as slow as one might want to go


THE QUICKEST

Taneyev + St.P (18:26/18:24) - I think this is the way to go here. Why everyone else bloats it is beyond me.





I did not like the Brodsky here. Along with 5, probably their two missteps? (it's not awful, just no where near the others- and it IS a tight race!!)




HONOURABLE MENTION: Eder (still, overtaken by the great Shostakovich performance)




I'm not so sure about the Pacifica or Mandelring here, or others.... again, 12 is pretty rare on record and it should have been easy to find a winner:

WINNER!: Borodin'81 for Passion                           (Borodin'81 and Shostakovich are verrry close, but the Borodin are mui charming here)

2ND: Shostakovich for Otherworldliness

3RD: Emerson for Modernism, Perfect Execution

HALL OF FAME AWARD: Taneyev for Classical Quickness

[Herman]

Wow, this is one crazy & obsessive thread. Nonetheless it prompted me to spin nr. 13, the viola quartet.

[Mandryka]

No.15 Op.144


*Kogan Edition'81- there is a 15 minute opener here! Even more death drenched than the Borodin.

What is this?  Can you post a link to it?

[snyprrr]

What is this?  Can you post a link to it?

sorry, it's 'Kagan'

"Oleg Kagan 30" on Amazon- PT 1 + SQ 15- I think the year is a little later too- doncha love my attention to detail?

[snyprrr]

BORODIN/Virgin 2-CD



2-3: are just better served in the '83-'84 recordings: the sound here is just not as Heroic; otherwise, how are the performances even different?

7-8: 7 is just a tad slower in the 'Allegro', otherwise I can't barely even tell the difference between either recording

12: it's ok, but the sound is bizarrely bass-light,- it almost has the "crystals" that the St.P/Hyperion recording do; either way, it just seems 'genial' to me here?


So, to those who have both, what do you think? I really liked this set at first, but I never seem to feel the need to pull it out, even for comparisons. All of a sudden it seems completely superfluous. Cutting this seems harsh to me, though,- it does somewhat fill a 'compare' niche. Anyhow, 2-3 MUST be had in the earlier incarnation,- 7-8 sound so much alike that either would really do (though the Virgin IS just slightly "mellower"- though not by much); and 12 is infinitely preferable in the '83 recording.

The Borodin's Erato recording of 1 and 15 is an altogether different kettle of fish. btw- the disc with 3/7/8 sounds much better than the one with 2/12- different venues.

Anyone?

[Mandryka]

Someone sent me a recording by the Borodins doing 13, from Lisbon in 2011. They take over 22 minutes. they hardly use any vibrato. it's very disturbing.

[amw]

Serendipitously coinciding with my recent Shostakovich quartet listening, I've got tickets to this:

http://www.chambermusic.co.nz/whats-on/borodin-quartet-2014

[snyprrr]

Someone sent me a recording by the Borodins doing 13, from Lisbon in 2011. They take over 22 minutes. they hardly use any vibrato. it's very disturbing.

instant boner!!

[snyprrr]

St Petersburg is the best

I just got the 11/13/15. I'm saving 13 for the big storm tomorrow.

I really enjoyed their 11. Their trademark sound seemed to work well here, and, frankly, they managed a deathly pall no one else has attempted. I can see it making a good intro to 13. btw- the sound treally is impressive, so that even if you don't like their performance, you can't help but hear all the detail that comes out.

15, on the other hand, I felt had NOTHING to offer. I went straight to the 'Nocturne' and was promptly disappointed. Their usual X-Ray, 3D sound didn't illuminate anything here, and the crucial solo in the beginning is not brought out well. Also, the 2nd movement had absolutely no frayed nerves, or digging in, which I thought was surprising considering this cellist usually makes such a big sound. And, their 11 minute opener isn't going to convince anyone that this is DSCH's last SQ. Yea, even the Hyperion sound can't save this one for me.

So far, the St.Ps have really disappointed in 14 and 15, and 7 (in the Hyperion), and have really impressed in 9-11, and 13 (hopefully). I'll give it to them that they do their own thing no matter what, but their trademark sound doesn't seem to work all the time (or their choices are off sometimes).

Anyhow, still pretty impressed with their 11- will report on 13 tomorrow.

[snyprrr]

St Petersburg is the best

Well, yes, I was pretty impressed with their 13th. Its "quickness" (of course, it still sounds like an 'Adagio', but, all the contours I'm familiar with were tantalizingly compressed) was disconcerting at first,  but the momentum just keeps it going. And that delicious Hyperion sound (sounding slightly different here? not as cavernous?) really exposes every line like never before. I certainly FELT like I heard things that I'd never payed attention to before, especially the second slow section, leading towards the end.

Wow!, yes, very impressed. I listened three times! It's certainly the most listen friendly 13th I've heard. And such a contrast to Kremer as to make them both indispensable.- yes, wow- still reeling from the performance- the trills like I'd never heard- the separation in the sound is quite impressive- aye- uncle uncle!!

[snyprrr]

No.5

Borodin'83
Brodsky
Manhattan
St. Petersburg/SONY
St. Petersburg/Hyperion
Sorrel
Atrium (en route)


This Absolute Masterpiece, most highly wrought iron foundry of a tribute to the developmental skills of, say, Taneyev, or Miaskovsky (though, the piece seems more highly wrought, like Taneyev), seems to be a tough nut for players to crack. Though I have always used the Manhattan as my benchmark, finding a replacement has been more than thoroughly challenging. Here is my breakdown:

Beethoven: out of all the Masters' recordings, this presumed Premiere's samples reveal a seemingly decent recording, and delicately vigorous playing.

Borodin'67: seems verrry noisy

Borodin'83: again, the loud sections of the 1st grated my ears. I'm really disappointed that this was the state of the Melodiya engineers' end result, at the END of the Borodin's Cycle. ('81 seemed to be the best vintage)

[s]Taneyev[/s]: the Manhattan take the 1st at 12:00 and have momentum still; they Taneyev at 12:00 drag.

Fitzwilliam: they seem to have the most decent sounding 5th of the Original Masters; I don't know how they sound in the opening, though.

Shostakovich: from I can hear, they sound ok, but the presentation seems somewhat lackluster? Anyone?

Eder: the fastest by far! Essential for that, but I like my 5th a bit slower, thank you!



Brodsky: the sound is thin for this thick piece; the slow movement is dragged waaay out, losing tension; very good finale.

Manhattan: this one has just enough of all the right things, but certainly makes you want to go looking for something even Greater. My default.


Emerson: again, for me, they're just "too something" for me; is it the DG glare?; do they play with too much steel and not enough wood?- needs more wood.



Sorrel: Cinematic recording, good tempos, just the tiniest bit relaxed- very good, but I want moreMoreMORE!!!

St. Petersburg/SONY: ultra quick, like the Eder; excellent recording; I like my 5th a bit less frenetic, but, it's a compelling reading; great finale

St. Petersburg/Hyperion: bizarre 3D recording; extremely jaunty performance; disturbing, but compelling- almost have to give it First Choice by default, but there must be better for me- the recording is too good, drawing attention to itself- the playing is unique- not the perfect one for me, but both of the St.P's recordings are extremely compelling to me.



So, there's some pretty good, ok versions here, but I feel no one satisfyingly manages all the elements. The 1st MUST have a little space to breath (the Eder are just too quick at 10:00), but not slack (the Manhattan manage 12:00 very well, the Taneyev not so much). I find that 11:00 is the magic number here. The 2nd can be either quick (St.P's 8:00) or slow (Manhattan's 9:47), but the Brodsky drag at 10:47- oy.t And, I'm finding that the 3rd benefits from a quicker approach (10:00-10:30; St.P/SONY, Beethoven, Acies, Atrium) rather than the more relaxed approach (11:00; Borodin'83, Sorrel, St.P/Hyperion).

Here's the UltraModerns:


Pacifica: seems ok, sound seems a bit small

Mandelring: sounds small to me- I think I'd prefer the Pacifica head-to-head.

Acies: this one-off sounds better than the previous two combined- lots of wood

Atrium: this one-off sounds better than the previous THREE combined!! I haven't heard it yet, but, be prepared for gushing. This may be TheOne!


Danel: samples sound good- anyone?

Rasumowsky: samples didn't sound as good as the previous four.

Debussy:

Alexander:


See why I'm fluxed? It's hardly credible that we haven't had Perfection until such a late date, but, this SQs issues of BALANCE seem to be the most difficult aspect for players and recording engineers to get right. And, there are dynamic outbursts of complex intensity saddled with stretches of serene sublimity to make mic placement almost an actual player in the proceedings. And, the acoustic is very important here, too. In sum, this piece of music challenges the very core of any participants' mettle, and, I think most somewhat fail to achieve the MountainTop Experience that this music is capable of.

I think Op.92 is Beethovian in the extreme- a granitic, monumental "single movement" piece of 30 minutes' duration that challenges the status of any and all comers. The images evoked by this most Abstract of musics- only concerned with itself and its permutations- are of mountainsides, barbarian wars, underground caverns of wonders, a field after a late afternoon rain. hermetic and enigmatic,- it contai

[snyprrr]

No.14 Op.142 (1972/3)

In spite of Kashkashian ,... Kremer's 14th really is the most extreme, and successful, and emotionally felt of just about any version I've either heard or sampled. In looking for an extreme in the other (faster) direction, I run into major problems. Below I have listed as many recordings, and their various problems. Please help me out here!



Beethoven- sorry, imo, they just don't have the measure of this piece.

Taneyev- samples indicate the Best Overall? nice, ambient acoustic, too-

Glinka- samples indicated a fairly well recorded 'live' performance of death, comparable to the Taneyev?

Fitwilliam- 1st is just too slow.



Borodin'83- Best of the Rest: too ardent and emotional for me, but a good contrast to Shostakovich's grimmer approach. Bigger acoustic-

Shostakovich- Best of the Rest: grim, powerful, yet restrained- too much passion for me, but undeniable nonetheless.

Eder- Best of the Rest: similar to the previous two; I really like this one, very suitable, not First Choice, but very very good.



Brodsky- nope
Manhattan-
Emerson- very, very good, BUUUT!, again, there's to much "steel" here, too ardent, too filled with life. Otherwise, it's technically right where it needs to be.
Julliard - eh... nice slow movement.


Sorrel- mmm...
St. Petersburg- just did NOT move me at all.

Cavani- 1st waaay too slow.

Hagen- I'm sorry, I am not responding to their recording of this particular piece. Yes, yes, it's very good,- same kinds of reservations as with the Emerson.



Danel- sounded ok
Pacifica- sounded pretty good
Mandelring- who was it who was gushing about this one? The samples indicate one of the very best performances, with excellent sound. Is this the Best Modern?








No.14  Op.142

1st    8:15- 9:15

2nd   8:09- 10:10- 11:32

3rd   7:54- 10:10


I need a quick (8:26) 1st (but not a blazing as Beethoven or Emerson), a quick 2nd (under 9 minutes), and preferably a quick 3rd (under 8, but not as rushed as the Emerson- mandelring seem to have it).

[amw]

Serendipitously coinciding with my recent Shostakovich quartet listening, I've got tickets to this:

http://www.chambermusic.co.nz/whats-on/borodin-quartet-2014

Based on this performance + the Erato 15th, I do believe that a new cycle from the Borodin Quartet would surpass almost all existing Shostakovich recordings (including those by former lineups of the Borodin Quartet). Their feel for the music is unmatched.

A recording of the Myaskovsky quartets from them would also be pretty good, equaling although less likely to surpass the Taneyevs (except in matters of sound quality and intonation).

[snyprrr]

Based on this performance + the Erato 15th, I do believe that a new cycle from the Borodin Quartet would surpass almost all existing Shostakovich recordings (including those by former lineups of the Borodin Quartet). Their feel for the music is unmatched.

A recording of the Myaskovsky quartets from them would also be pretty good, equaling although less likely to surpass the Taneyevs (except in matters of sound quality and intonation).

IF... AND... BUT...

If those three things are taken into account, then, yes, there is that POSSIBILITY. I would just hope that the engineering would deliver an audiophile recording- and that the Borodin, just maybe, take some chances and really dig in. Yes, all the pistons would have to fire for this to be the Ultimate Cycle.

I'm just really down on Cycles right now. If someone does 6 perfectly, they're gonna screw up 13. If they do 13 perfectly, they're gonna screw up 12, or 4, or 5. Some are saying that the Mandelring play differently for each work, but I don't know if I'm getting that from any samples- I will admit that I have heard them 'being different', say, between 10 and 14 (the disc I would most likely get first).

I need a group to SERIOUSLY play these pieces differently. The Emerson, pretty much, show us one flavour. The Danel- their engineering renders everything dry. The Manhattan have that up=close recording for every piece. YOU MUST HAVE DIFFERING VENUES for the different phases, styles.

FROM NOW ON, Shosty SQ Cycles are going to have to go above and beyond. I will not accept just another sweetly recorded, Modern-playing Cycle like the Danel/Pacifica/Mandelring/Rasumowsky... a glut I tell you, a glut. I need DANGER!! I need UNEARTHLY TECHNIQUE married to The Soul of the Oppressed.

In 11, I need something altogether different.

In 1, I need something altogether different.

In 5, I need something altogether different.


GET ON THE BALL, QUARTET PLAYERS AND YOUR HANDLERS!!! You've got a huge, huge mountain to climb.

The Kopelman, and the Berlinsky Quartets just didn't seem to be doing anything special here. The Old Guard IS GONE! HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY get that "feeling" back? The Gaza String Quartet? The Ebola String Quartet? WHO??? WHO??? WHO??? will do this Cycle justice?

[Karl Henning]

(btw, Karl, you seem bored?- wassup??)

Too busy to be bored, actually.

BTW, I've got the Orlando Quartet disc in my cart at BRO . . . wonder if I'll nab it? . . .

[Jo498]

But the Borodin Q now (I have not heard any of their recordings) has no common personnel with the one who did the late 70s/early 80s cycle. Is this not in fact a new ensemble (with a common history, sure)?

[kishnevi]

But the Borodin Q now (I have not heard any of their recordings) has no common personnel with the one who did the late 70s/early 80s cycle. Is this not in fact a new ensemble (with a common history, sure)?

Working out the dates from the data given in the side column here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borodin_Quartet
Ruben Aharonian (1st Violin) and Igor Naiden (viola) became members in 1996, replacing Mikhail Kopelman (joined 1976) and Dmitri Shebalin (joined 1953), respectively.   They are now the longest serving of the current Borodins.
Sergey Lomovsky (2nd Violin)  joined in 2011, replacing Andrei Abramenkov (joined 1974).
Vladimir Balshin replaced Valentin Berlinsky at cello in 2007.   Berlinsky joined in 1945, but technically he was not an original member of the ensemble then known as the Moscow Conservatoire Quartet.  That honor actually goes to a guy named Mstislav Rostropovich, who stayed only for a few weeks before leaving the group.  Don't know if you've ever heard of him. 

It's rather like the old conundrum involving a ship or residence which was renovated one plank of wood at a time.  The total entity remained in being throughout the process, but at the end nothing of the original remained in the new version.  Is it therefore the same thing or a different entity?

[aukhawk]

I'm just really down on Cycles right now. If someone does 6 perfectly, they're gonna screw up 13. If they do 13 perfectly, they're gonna screw up 12, or 4, or 5.

Cycles do seem to be a bit of a GMG thing.  I can see why, but I don't agree with it.