Shostakovich String Quartets

[snyprrr]

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 . . . .

ok ok... uncle uncle

But the music HAS voices!! waaah!!

Words of wisdom.

Good day, Karl! 

I'm not understanding your "cow + Borodin" thing. (sorry, Quoted the wrong Post)


Yes, the Fitzzies have a unique take on Shosty, I will surely try them out at a later date. And the Eder ALWAYS got pretty high marks (overall I feel them almost like the Shostakovich)- their No.5 is the quickest on record I see. The only thing about their No.4 was the acoustic, which, on the samples, sounded kind of small. What do you think is the best Eder?

I finally found the sample for the Brodsky 4 and 5, aaand, hmm... their 5 has the looongest slow moment by far, and the first movement sounded up to snuff. I don't think I ever heard their 5, but it may very well displace the Manhattan in my heart. Hagen sound good too...

I think I'm just going to get that $3 Brodsky set and be done with it. (as a base Cycle) I know they're not-this not-that but they have a baseline quality that I like. Maybe that will force me into the Analogues. (sure wish the Taneyev was available)

waiting on mailman

[Brahmsian]

I'm not understanding your "cow + Borodin" thing. (sorry, Quoted the wrong Post)

Because it is a reference to the cow (bovine), the cow and the fiddle cover art.  It is the Borodin set on Melodiya label.

[asin]B000HXE5BK[/asin]

[snyprrr]

Because it is a reference to the cow (bovine), the cow and the fiddle cover art.  It is the Borodin set on Melodiya label.

[asin]B000HXE5BK[/asin]

Did you have either the old EMI or the newer BMG releases before this one?- is there a remastering 'difference'? I recall the EMI having an interestingly 'dead' sound that suited the later SQs perfectly. (I mean, it was "good Melodiya")

I'm not to keen on their Chandos sound, and I've heard that the Virgin set has some kind of metallic twinge to it, but the samples there sound fine.

Are there one or two extra special Borodin renditions that you think beat out everyone else? (do you also have Beethoven and Shostakovich? Taneyev?)

questions questions

[Brahmsian]

Did you have either the old EMI or the newer BMG releases before this one?- is there a remastering 'difference'? I recall the EMI having an interestingly 'dead' sound that suited the later SQs perfectly. (I mean, it was "good Melodiya")

I'm not to keen on their Chandos sound, and I've heard that the Virgin set has some kind of metallic twinge to it, but the samples there sound fine.

Are there one or two extra special Borodin renditions that you think beat out everyone else? (do you also have Beethoven and Shostakovich? Taneyev?)

questions questions

I don't have the Beethoven SQ, Shostakovich SQ or Taneyev SQ recordings (though I love the Taneyev SQ for both their Taneyev and Miaskovsky cycles)

I've heard the Chandos Borodin set (which doesn't included #14 and #15), but didn't particularly warm up to it.  I think I'm an exception, and several GMGers love this set.

For the Borodin Melodiya Bovine set?  Not sure that any quartet in particular stands out over the others.  I just find the whole set exquisite!

[snyprrr]

I don't have the Beethoven SQ, Shostakovich SQ or Taneyev SQ recordings (though I love the Taneyev SQ for both their Taneyev and Miaskovsky cycles)

I've heard the Chandos Borodin set (which doesn't included #14 and #15), but didn't particularly warm up to it.  I think I'm an exception, and several GMGers love this set.

For the Borodin Melodiya Bovine set?  Not sure that any quartet in particular stands out over the others.  I just find the whole set exquisite!

But, so, you didn't have the Bovine in the earlier EMI or BMG issues- to compare the transfer with the new remaster? You know, the Shostakovich on Regis is about $15 on Amazon. As I recall from years ago, the Bovine and the Shostakovich were pretty evenly matched, even in sound- maybe the Shostakovich seemed to have an edge in the essential 12-14, 11, 15. I'm still quite wary of all of them in 1, 4-6 in terms of sound (Fitzzies included)- for these earlier ones I don't feel that it is demanded that the band be Russian- 12-14 more than likely- anyhow -

BOVINE- the reason I keep asking is because, as I recall, when they were on EMI, the Penguin Guide made a point to declare that not all the recordings were in the same blah or on what date blah, I don't remember, but, perhaps they said the Quintet's sound suffered? or some of the recordings (5?) depending on where they were recorded (they're not all 'live' are they? I did hear some coughing in one sample I don't remember). So, that's why I'm wondering if the new mastering is better or what not.

tHE QUESTION STANDS:

What are the differences in sound in the Borodin 2.0 in regards to the EMI, BMG, and 'Newest'Box issues?

[Brahmsian]

But, so, you didn't have the Bovine in the earlier EMI or BMG issues- to compare the transfer with the new remaster? You know, the Shostakovich on Regis is about $15 on Amazon. As I recall from years ago, the Bovine and the Shostakovich were pretty evenly matched, even in sound- maybe the Shostakovich seemed to have an edge in the essential 12-14, 11, 15. I'm still quite wary of all of them in 1, 4-6 in terms of sound (Fitzzies included)- for these earlier ones I don't feel that it is demanded that the band be Russian- 12-14 more than likely- anyhow -

BOVINE- the reason I keep asking is because, as I recall, when they were on EMI, the Penguin Guide made a point to declare that not all the recordings were in the same blah or on what date blah, I don't remember, but, perhaps they said the Quintet's sound suffered? or some of the recordings (5?) depending on where they were recorded (they're not all 'live' are they? I did hear some coughing in one sample I don't remember). So, that's why I'm wondering if the new mastering is better or what not.

tHE QUESTION STANDS:

What are the differences in sound in the Borodin 2.0 in regards to the EMI, BMG, and 'Newest'Box issues?

I don't know.  I cry 'Uncle'     I don't remember any coughing in the Bovine reissue?

[Karl Henning]

He's got me curious to listen afresh to the Virgin two-fer, on which I certainly remember nothing of [any] kind of metallic twinge . . . .

[kishnevi]

The Virgin duo is a different recording from the full set.
But for me the Bovine set is so good that sonics do not matter.
And, while I know it might be against Snyp's principles, he needs to listen to the Jerusalem Quartet.  Yeah, they are Israelis,  but that's his problem not mine.

[Karl Henning]

That's the recording where the occult message "eat gefilte fish!" is back-masked in the final Largo of the Op.110, right?

[snyprrr]

The Virgin duo is a different recording from the full set.
But for me the Bovine set is so good that sonics do not matter.
And, while I know it might be against Snyp's principles, he needs to listen to the Jerusalem Quartet.  Yeah, they are Israelis,  but that's his problem not mine.

Yes, yes... even though I BoycottSanctionDivest, I fully admit that the beubelahs have a very unique way with DSCH. They seem a little more 'folk' flavoured than all the other 'Chromium Steele' interpretations. Frankly, I'd give up my seat at the Inquisition (Torquemada was a tribester, btw!!) for this set, but the mercantiles at amazon still want full price (even the originals) - who says I didn't inherit a penny pinching gene or two?

Asian Lady: "Is this good price?"

Me: "I don't know lady, but these strawberries look like shit!"

[snyprrr]

DSCHMANIA

I was here once before, endlessly comparing Shostakovich String Quartets- though, the pickins' were slimmer then. Now we're at a crucial juncture,- if you don't get in now you risk a few more Cycles coming out and then you'll be lost not knowing where to begin. Right now it's barely manageable.

I tend to believe that only people OF Shostakovich can play this music (obviously, No.1 can be played by anyone)- The Masters- I don't know if the Fitzzies should have even been allowed to record their Cycle, but then, surely, the Kremlin's influence over London should be clear. hmm The Only Problem with The Masters is... of course... the sound. But, that has improved (and I never thought Borodin/EMI that I heard sounded bad). However, the Taneyev languish in obscurity, and the Beethoven I can take or leave... anyhow, I left the scene when those Beethoven/Consonance discs came out (I'm sure I got the 12-14), technology was right around the corner (sorry, I'm just blithering and rambling- caffeine)

But, as I've sampled all samples I can sample, my old favourites the Brodsky still seem quite competitive against the likes of the Mandelring, Pacifica, Sorrel, Rubio, Danel, Razumovsky, Debussy, - (how many are there??wow!!)- but, there are definitely some new developments, and my new favs (that by no means displace the Brodskys) are the Sorrel, who consistently appears to have the longest timings on record for much of the Cycle. This means nothing more than- you will hear many slow movements as slow as one might want, which is great when comparing with the sometimes speed-demon Brodsky-

I AM NOTICING THAT ONE MUST HAVE AT LEAST THE TWO 'EXTREME' CYCLES (THE SLOWEST/FASTEST) AS BUTTRESSES- AND THEN ONE CAN GO ABOUT FINDING THE VERSIONS THAT SUIT THE LISTENER'S OWN PARTICULARS.

The Beethoven may the quickest, but the Brodsky are pretty consistent (in that they really appear to be doing something different with each movement), even though the first movement of No.7 is one of the slowest (Taneyev is king here-whizzz). The Sorrel are the most luxurious by far, both in execution and Chandos sound (some may find too  much Majesty).


(btw- though I give the Emerson things like the experimental 11th, their general way here is too... 'something'... I don't know, but everyone seems to notice that the Emerson are not the last word here at all- they do great technically, but there is definitely 'something' missing- which is a shame- their's would be FirstChoice if the 157 Issues were resolved!)


Then there's the current matchup between the Mandelring and the Pacifica, two fairly expensive State-of-the-Art sets that I personally find hard to comes to terms with- the Mandelring being a little easier. But I don't get how these are some new standard- sure, they "sound" as well as any music coming out of a speaker can sound (I mean, what, are we going 'implants' next?), but, I ASSUME Great Sound, so I don't care about that. As interpretations, I don't recall too much or not enough of this that or the other. I mean, on technical merits both could be considered, no doubt. BUT- that's too easy. I want a blow-by-blow comparison with All the Others. I think either will beat out the Rubio, whose samples have yielded some raised eyebrows (and isn't their sound a bit squeaky tight or something?).

And then there's the St. Petersburg, with that impressive Hyperion sound. I wonder who actually has all three of these Cycles and is actively comparing? (and I mean that to all who say they have one or the other and are 'satisfied'- How Dare You be satisified with Only One Cycle- booooooo booooooo) I like St.P in 15.


AND THEN THERE'S ALL THE ONE-OFFS!!

It's just too much!

Anyhow, now I've expended all my caffeine on a useless Post- no wonder you guys make fun of me, haha!! oy vey

(mailman hasn't been my friend this week so far!)

[Karl Henning]

I dunno.  There is this or that quartet in which I (tactically) prefer another group to the Emersons;  but (for let's call this the umpteenth time) I find nothing "missing" in their performances of the 15 — and everything that is there, is top-notch.

If we take two recordings of a piece, to prefer one is not to say that there is anything "wrong" with the other.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

That's the recording where the occult message "eat gefilte fish!" is back-masked in the final Largo of the Op.110, right?

Ho, geesh, busting a rib, here!

[snyprrr]

I dunno.  There is this or that quartet in which I (tactically) prefer another group to the Emersons;  but (for let's call this the umpteenth time) I find nothing "missing" in their performances of the 15 — and everything that is there, is top-notch.

If we take two recordings of a piece, to prefer one is not to say that there is anything "wrong" with the other.

But we're not trying to be the anonymous lay person here, are we? I other words, how often, and which SQ? Do you really whip out the Emersons that often... if at all? Be honest, when was the last time you listened to them for pleasure?

Of course- they're not baaad- I mean...

But, some have said of the Hagen that they are like the Emerson, but 'listenable'. Surely there is something of their playing the speaks more to the classroom than to the gulag? jus' sayin'

IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR WHOLE DSCH SQ LISTENING HISTORY, THEIR DISCOGRAPHY, AND THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION!!


(btw- i'm about ready to pull a coup- hang on a few minutes)

[Brahmsian]

But we're not trying to be the anonymous lay person here, are we? I other words, how often, and which SQ? Do you really whip out the Emersons that often... if at all? Be honest, when was the last time you listened to them for pleasure?

I'm speaking on Karl's behalf, I realize.  He listens to the Emerson's set often.

[Sergeant Rock]

And, while I know it might be against Snyp's principles, he needs to listen to the Jerusalem Quartet.  Yeah, they are Israelis,  but that's his problem not mine.

That's the recording where the occult message "eat gefilte fish!" is back-masked in the final Largo of the Op.110, right?

   ...snyprrr will find that message, even if it's not there 

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

IT SHOULD BE MANDATORY FOR EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR WHOLE DSCH SQ LISTENING HISTORY, THEIR DISCOGRAPHY, AND THEIR PARTY AFFILIATION!!

I have Mandelring, Emerson, Borodin I (with the Beethoven filling in the missing 14 and 15), Borodin II (the Bovine ), Fitzwilliam, Pacifica and Rubio (which I play when I want to hear the sheer beauty of Shostakovich...and yes, they often produce breathtaking sounds). Plus Sorrel 8, 9, 13. But I can't really help you because I haven't done a quartet by quartet comparison of those seven cycles. I just enjoy what I'm currently hearing without much reference to, or worry about what I'm not hearing.

Sarge

[amw]

Mix & Match Shostakovich Cycle in as few discs as possible -

St Petersburg - 11/13/15
Mandelring - 10/12/14
Taneyev - 5/7 (paired with Beethoven in 6), 2 (paired with Beethoven/Shostakovich in the Quintet)
Hagen - 3/7/8
Jerusalem - 1/4/9 (Free Palestine!)

Or: Taneyev 1-15 (if it ever becomes un-OOP), no questions asked

Also, dogs > cats, cake > pie, chocolate > vanilla, purple is the best colour, coriander leaves do not taste like bleach, and my blood type is A negative.

[Brahmsian]

I have Mandelring, Emerson, Borodin I (with the Beethoven filling in the missing 14 and 15), Borodin II (the Bovine ), Fitzwilliam, Pacifica and Rubio (which I play when I want to hear the sheer beauty of Shostakovich...and yes, he often produced breathtaking sounds). Plus Sorrel 8, 9, 13. But I can't really help you because I haven't done a quartet by quartet comparison of those seven cycles. I just enjoy what I'm currently hearing without much reference (or worry) about what I'm not hearing.

Sarge

I think it is time for a death match project for all your sets, Sarge! 

[Karl Henning]

I'm with the Sarge: I've several sets (not so many as Sarge), and, though I may be aware of certain differences, I simply enjoy whichever group I'm listening to at the time.