Shostakovich String Quartets

[snyprrr]

The Allegro non troppo from No. 3 predates it (and was probably the template for the famous scherzo of the 10th symphony)

No. 7's Allegro is brutal for a while, but relaxes into a recap of the first movement at the end. A violent ending would be uncalled for as this quartet was dedicated to the memory of his first wife.

(No. 3 was a template for the later quartets in many ways actually. For instance he apparently liked the ending so much he "recycled" it in Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, along with the 8th, 13th and 15th symphonies [towards the end they started incorporating elements from the similar conclusion of the 4th symphony as well].)

Cool, thanks!

[Jay F]

String Quartet no.7 Op.108

Who doesn't love this little gem? It's like Shosty's gift to the under 15min. crowd! And the opening simply appears to be the most original thing one has ever heard, and so cool,... pensive, maybe paranoid, definitely Spy Thriller! Once you've heard it, how could you ever mistake it?

The 2nd movement continues as as inverse/obverse of the first, being a highly mysterious 'Lento', certainly very elusive and flit. This leads to the concluding barmburner, which, I have to ask, Is this really the first totally brutal fast movement in DSCH SQs?

So, if someone is unsure of where to begin exploring, No.7 makes it easy. Surely,- is there anyone to whom this work is NOT one of their absolute favourites? I just heard the St.P/SONY recording, and it was highly highly impressive, maybe the quickest on record.

I listened to the Fitzwilliams once last night. I plan to listen to the Emersons later. As hard as it is for me to distinguish one SQ from another, I can tell at least that I don't like this one as much as #12--not yet, anyway.

[Karl Henning]

It has taken me a while to learn the individual "profile" of each of the 15.  My task is not yet done, but I am thoroughly enjoying the process, and the result already feels more than worth the effort.

[Jay F]

It has taken me a while to learn the individual "profile" of each of the 15.  My task is not yet done, but I am thoroughly enjoying the process, and the result already feels more than worth the effort.

I like all of them. And I realize how much of a luxury it is for us to be able just to have this conversation.

[aukhawk]

Has this site already been linked here?
http://www.quartets.de/

And especially this page http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html where it's suggested that Shostakovich was working his way methodically through a full set of 24.

[Karl Henning]

Has this site already been linked here?
http://www.quartets.de/

And especially this page http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html where it's suggested that Shostakovich was working his way methodically through a full set of 24.

Thanks!  What great resources.

[amw]

And especially this page http://www.quartets.de/articles/structure.html where it's suggested that Shostakovich was working his way methodically through a full set of 24.

Yes, he was. The next one would have been in B major, followed by G-sharp minor, E major and C-sharp minor. I've occasionally tried to amuse myself by writing bits of pastiche Shostakovich in those keys, but never been sufficiently amused for long enough to try to complete a bona-fide DSCH 16.

[Karl Henning]

Well (and as you know), one needs more than amusement to bring it off!

I must go back to my sources . . . I have an idea that he did not start out with that idea, but "slid into" it quite naturally.  I have in mind the remembrance of one of the members of the quartet.

Will scare up that paragraph at home this evening.

[snyprrr]

I listened to the Fitzwilliams once last night. I plan to listen to the Emersons later. As hard as it is for me to distinguish one SQ from another, I can tell at least that I don't like this one as much as #12--not yet, anyway.

I don't understand how you can't just love the way 7 opens? So gnomic. So precipitious(huh?). So original. Tell me how it struck you. (granted, the third movement may not do anything for you at the moment, but those first two- well...)

At least it made an impression, haha! (I'd venture that the Emerson are tops here)



In that case,

for beauty, try 6

for something strange and different, try 13

for a little rustic folk festival, try 4

for a Russian Cinderella, fairy-tale simplicity, try 1

for Perfect Classical Dimensions, try 10



That should at least get you in the door!

[snyprrr]

Yes, he was. The next one would have been in B major, followed by G-sharp minor, E major and C-sharp minor. I've occasionally tried to amuse myself by writing bits of pastiche Shostakovich in those keys, but never been sufficiently amused for long enough to try to complete a bona-fide DSCH 16.

Yes, but he would have been getting older and older. I mean... let's add some reality into the mix,: what actually would his C-sharp Minor have sounded like (that being a very cool key in his world) being four after the already death soaked 15? At what point would his ability deteriorate to the point of sheer pointallism(?)?... little plods on the page?... diamond shards?... squeaky lines of shrieking?... 5 minutes?... I agree that a DSCH SQ in C-sharp Minor would be the.... I mean, just think about it!!

For some reason I see his 16th, the B Major, as an amorphous affair.

[snyprrr]

No.2 Op.68
No.3 Op.73

These two I had on a single Borodin/EMI disc. These two are the most problematic of the bunch for me, and only as a matter of taste. They're just not what I go to Shostakovich for: I don't question their place, I'm just not yet into them all that much. Perhaps, he was writing so much Minor Key Orchestral stuff that I assumed these SQs would mirror those sentiments, but, as we know, his SQ output can be a bit different, more open to wild outside stuff. These two SQs seem to me to have been written in the '20s or '30s- it's very hard for me to see these as 'War' Quartets (they are resolutely NOT!).

The fact is, you can "accidentally" get these SQs on your CD if you are getting one of the other Quartets (3/7/8, 3/4/11, 3/5/9, 2/12), so, being so ubiquitous, it's somewhat easy to overlook them, 3 especially. (it does seem to be his actual most popular item, at least of the SQs) I've already acquired the Borodin3 2-3, Moyzes 2, and St. Petersburg 3 (SONY) without having wanted them, and it gets harder still to remain away.

So, I guess I should at least listen to them again? Ha! Well, so in goes the Moyzes 2, and I suppose I'll save 3 for after dinner. So, if anyone's keeping pace, 2-3 are on the discussion table at the moment- have you anticipated?


Also, for me, I just want to have these together. So many put them on separate discs- I'd love to hear the comparison between the Borodin/EMI 2-3 ('Bovine') and the St. Petersburg/Hyperion 2-3. (there is also a Manhattan 1-3, and probably a few more like that)

[Jay F]

I don't understand how you can't just love the way 7 opens? So gnomic. So precipitious(huh?). So original. Tell me how it struck you. (granted, the third movement may not do anything for you at the moment, but those first two- well...)

At least it made an impression, haha! (I'd venture that the Emerson are tops here)

I didn't say I don't love it. All I'm saying is I haven't memorized it. Shostakovich's string quartets are the most wonderful classical music I've discovered in the last 20 years. You're right in your assessment that I like the Emersons better than the Fitzwilliams, though.

I bought this box set last summer because I so liked the Emersons' Beethoven (I had settled on the Takacs, which I hardly ever played). As usual, most people don't share my taste in performers. The Emersons are something of a dirty word to most of you, it seems, while they make music accessible to me that maybe hadn't been as accessible before.

The Shostakovich SQs are almost too much of a good thing.


In that case,

for beauty, try 6

for something strange and different, try 13

for a little rustic folk festival, try 4

for a Russian Cinderella, fairy-tale simplicity, try 1

for Perfect Classical Dimensions, try 10



That should at least get you in the door!
[/quote]

[kishnevi]

Anyone interested in the St. Petersburg Quartet recordings needs to check this out immediately
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/o.asp?o=1016&vw=al

[snyprrr]

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)

Well, that Kremer 13th IS aaalmost 22:30!!

Frankly, I don't have the Sorrel here (@20). I remember the Sorrel made their instruments almostly 'noisy' (in the good way) in the middle, 'loudest' section. The Kremer players don't for that, but their big loud chords fill the hall pretty nicely.

So, it IS pretty much like a looong casket, or slab of death stone- I would have liked to hear no vibrato, but they surely tried to sound as dead as possible without being a parody. I mean, it's a Document, that's for sure. It does remind me of the Borodin in general, the sound has that kind of dead ECM sound (though it's 'live') ideally suited to the music.

Yea, I mean, I think others may appreciate this more than I who haven't been in the mix for a while. But, there is not one longer, so, it sort of makes it a Must Hear. Perhaps it shows that the players aren't an established band, but the playing and the vision are one, and I must declare this at least a Top3. (I mean, what 13 is there that makes an impression that others do not? Like you said, the Taneyev... that Sorrel sounds really really good,... but who else? (I think Borodin/EMI won my old DeathMatch, against the Beethoven (unless they won?) and Shostakovich (or them?))

Yea,- oh, and the last note sounds fine! Now it's off to the 14th with that 11:30 slow movement! (8:00 first movement is also quite daring- Taneyev style?)

[snyprrr]

Yea... no... THAT was an impressive No.14! Riveting. A dashing, 8:00 first, a truly epic slow movement at 11 and a half- quite moving really- and a broad third movement (10:00) that sounded like a cathedral in sound.

This sounds a LOT like the 15th Symphony. Well, being as it has the longest slow mvmt. on record, by far, and coupled with a very quick first and an equally well thought out third, this MUST now rank as one of the very very finest, if not the very finest indeed.

This 1986 performance sounds like an idealized Borodin performance in idealized Melodiya-as-Hades sound- it just has a 'Classic' ring to it (along with an equally compelling 13). The slow mvmt. really is something special, and they surely wring every last ounce of funereal nobility out of it.

If Mr. 14th-eh is listening, this is something special,- which is of course what we've all been waiting for, always! This is Mandatory Listening!

[snyprrr]

No.11 Op.122 (1966)

Written before ,the heart attack', as if that would have made it somehow more... ?... well, you know how we love a good story. The 11th, truly, is a strange work- I wonder if a&w would like it, seeing he didn't go for 7, a Quartet that has a bit in common with 122.

11 lends itself to sampling, with three movements at around a minute a piece, and four other slightly longer ones. I believe I have just sampled most all of the currently available releases, and using memory- and- please, allow me to introduce

the Vogler Quartet-

perhaps you've seen the disc with Debussy, Janacek, and... Shostakovich Op.122?! Well, it's not the kind of piece... anyone, has put on their recital, always seemingly opting for 8, sometimes 3,... but, 11? So, one MUST wonder, if a band like the Vogler (on RCA), known for Brahms, Schumann, Bartok, and Berg, should take on this most enigmatic of pieces, how can it not be good?

Well, today I found out. Seriously, this might be one of the single best recordings I can think of. It's certainly one of the very best recordings this gnomic music has gotten. You have to hand it to this group for taking the piece on- well- here's the thing-

there's really nothing much anyone can do with the 11th. You can expand the 2nd and 6th movements (Sorrel), or play everything as fast as it will go (Beethoven),... but, really, most everyone is in the basic ballpark here- there are no 'Sanderlings' in the 11th, only the Beethoven, who play it faster, but, nothing strange, sooo-

the only thing one can do with the 11th is SOUND better than anyone else, and have a great acoustic and great engineers,... a Great Recording- which is what we have in the Vogler 11th. The cello's bass response is phenomenally malicious, deep, rich, and oh so firm. Considering that this music has a lot of roots and fourths/fifths, that is important. And the rest are beautifully rendered in a sumptuous acoustic, but it is the cello that is so important here. You simply have to hear this recording!

So I went through the rolodex of performances, and, as I hope to remember correctly, here are my sonic impressions of all the different bands- mind you, only the way the produce sound is really of much difference, along with the technical aspects. Everyone was at least competent here, and, most likely, because the piece is so cool, everyone loves it enough to give it there very best. So here we go:

Basically, in order-


Beethoven- their rendition, in a fairly bone dry acoustic, is as fleet as it gets, with their 'old school' sound and fearless boldness
                 in making some interesting tones for this odd music.

Borodin/Chandos- the acoustic here is more pleasing than above, and the Borodin here give the 'Classic' rendition, more
                          overtly 'Russian' perhaps, maybe more athorative(sp-I just couldn't do it, glug), but -

Borodin/EMI/'Bovine'- actually, maybe just a notch down from the original,... I was getting mixed signals here, I'd like to hear
                                someone else compare these two.

Fitzwilliam- one of the very best. Ultra dark tone, menacing, rich. Oh yea baby!



Vogler- deep dark and rich, with a bass response to die for and RCA sound of the highest order. This one just grabs you
           immediately- the atmosphere is just perfectly menacing and intense paranoia to spare. I really don't know if another
           Digital version will be needed if you, like me, have this one. I was taken aback. As a stand alone, it goes to the head
           of the class with extra honors.

Hagen- surprisingly, there have a similar deep rich cello response like the Vogler. I wonder if these two competing versions
           were aware of each other. The DG sound is Big and Rock Star-like, which is fine. There's a lot of similarity with the
           Vogler, but I will give the nod to the Vogler, because of the more personalized sound, and since they're underdogs.
           (I've been trying to figure out how to bypass this most excellent Hagen disc!) Some were saying that the cello player
           is pretty straight forward on this disc, but on the samples, the cello's presence is etched in with a fat Sharpie.

Sorrel- I'm putting them ahead of the St. Petersburg, but that Chandos may be the only reason (they Hyperion is equally
           fine, but, as usual, totally different: Chandos/sumptuousness, Hyperion/deep clarity and richness). But, they stretch
           out the slow movements, which no one else does, so they get points for enthusiasm, which could be the watch-word
           of their performance. Between the Vogler, Hagen, Sorrel,and St. Petersburg, the rest of the modern competition is
           mostly left in the dust.

St. Petersburg- they're reminding me a lot of the Borodin, no nonsense, but with some really distinctive Hyperion sound I
                      like. I'm putting them at the head of the list of all the modern versions since the Emerson. Don't argue with
                      me!



Rubio- yes! how about that? See?, I am totally objective! It just happens that the Rubio's samples were pretty sweet. Yea,
          they were just very listenable here. A surprise! Sarge, take a listen there and confirm?

Jerusalem- I'm arbitrarily putting them between the Rubio and the Brodsky, but that gives them the credit they are due. They
                play fine, but the others above have an extra special recording presence that this one just didn't have, and it
                showed that the cello wasn't the Prince of Darkness like in the Vogler recording.

Brodsky- they were a top choice for me back in the day, perhaps tying with the Borodin, though tonight I found them
             squarely in the middle of the pack. Others have such distinctive and wonderfully engineered recordings (Vogler,
             St. Petersburg- not that the Brodsky's Teldec sound isn't as good as it ever was,... just the tiniest bit drier than
             what these new found friends are offering.

Pacifica- I have been consistently enjoying their samples a lot more than the Mandelring, and this is no different. I hear a lot
            of the same things here that I hear in the other versions I've noted, mostly in the playing as this recording is more
            of the Brodsky variety.


Mandelring- yea, again they appear too "clean" for me here, and the sound is too clean, the playing,... I mean, it's all fine,
                  but I already declared that everyone was competent, but, at this point I'm having to compare them with the
                  Brodsky, in terms of this list. The Pacifica have consistently beat out the Mandelring in sample after sample,
                  though both are almost identical in many aspects. but it just makes me think we have a glut of 11ths.
                  Someone has to go in this embarrassment of riches. The Mandelring are my first cut. (I am SURE I will hear
                  about this!)

Emerson- well, again, their 'Etude' is as vicious as any, and more, and so forth and so on,... but... again... they ARE "missing"
              something. And it's not a 'Russian' thing, because that's not what this music is about. After hearing everyone else,
              and going back to the Emerson a second time, I can only tell you that there were most definitely a contender with
              me back when, and I may even put them ahead of the Brodsky, but, with the Hagen, and now the Vogler playing
              with such non-Emersonian elan, the 'It'-ness that the Emerson have/had must be reevaluated here in their 11th. I
              fully gave them credit here, in that it is a supremely Abstract work, which the Emerson, through their Bartok, should
              own- and I thought they did. But the Vogler's RCA recording really just whoops up on the Emersons in terms of
              - as they say- listenability. And then there's the tandem tag-team with the Hagen, and the Emerson can't stand.
              And, frankly, their sound in this particular Quartet, could someone check- is it not of the same quality as the rest of
              their admittedly great sounding Cycle? Oh,... and the St. Petersburg.


Eder- the Naxos sound just can't compete with so many many much better sounding discs. The Eder, however, are crackling!

Shostakovich- I was surprised here, because I could have sworn their won my DeathMatch against the Borodin and the Brodsky
                    both of which were much better received by yours truly today. The trouble here was just no real distinctiveness,
                    sounding a bit like the Eder's Naxos recording. Either way, the Borodin gave much more pleasure today. Huh.


Manhattan- their thin, wiry sound and acoustic, which I think works just great in their 4-5, is just death here. There is no
                 expansiveness to the sound at all, and compared to so much competition, the Manhattan, sadly, go straight to the
                 cellar. Their's is singled out as the single worst sounding recording of the bunch.


Danel & Debussy were unable to join, but their reputations somewhat precede them, and their recordings are known to be
                         clean and dry, so I can't see them really competing with the big boys here. Welcome to disagree...



Taneyev- surely, were there samples, they would be competing with the Beethoven for fastest performance! They usually seem
              to have a little something extra up their sleeve, so it is a mighty shame that they couldn't join our survey.

[Jay F]

I am now listening to #9. I didn't realize it immediately because I have always listened to the entire 15 as one large work, but #9 emerges as a favorite. I'm going stick with #9 for a while.

[snyprrr]

I am now listening to #9. I didn't realize it immediately because I have always listened to the entire 15 as one large work, but #9 emerges as a favorite. I'm going stick with #9 for a while.

I get stuck on 9 too.

9 and 10 are 'brothers', yet there are many differences. 10 is more 'Classical', with four movements nevermind, haha!!

I'm wondering how you will take to the 11th. It's only 15 minutes... but, yea, it may confuse... I forget how daunting these can be for the newbie. There's really no way around the complexity- but it's good to get at least a few under your belt so at least you know, "Hey, that's NOT the 9th!"

Again, which are the ones you're familiar with at this point?

I didn't say I don't love it. All I'm saying is I haven't memorized it. Shostakovich's string quartets are the most wonderful classical music I've discovered in the last 20 years. You're right in your assessment that I like the Emersons better than the Fitzwilliams, though.

I bought this box set last summer because I so liked the Emersons' Beethoven (I had settled on the Takacs, which I hardly ever played). As usual, most people don't share my taste in performers. The Emersons are something of a dirty word to most of you, it seems, while they make music accessible to me that maybe hadn't been as accessible before.

The Shostakovich SQs are almost too much of a good thing.


In that case,

for beauty, try 6

for something strange and different, try 13

for a little rustic folk festival, try 4

for a Russian Cinderella, fairy-tale simplicity, try 1

for Perfect Classical Dimensions, try 10



That should at least get you in the door!

Again, the thing with the Emerson is, if that's all you know, you won't be missing anything, but as soon as you hear the GMG Official Approved Recording of any particular work, you will see- but, for the time being, I'm not going to say anything particularly negative about the Emerson. For me they do best in 7-11, 15, 1,... the more 'delicate', 4, 5, 6- you may eventually want more folksy interpretations (the Fitzzies around not really folksy either- they are very dark, in a curious way- they are growing on me).

Like 2 and 3- I frankly don't think any version other than Borodin/EMI-Bovine should be allowed. It's the only place one gets these in Perfect Performance, Together, and Decent Melodiya Sound.. St. P also have a 2-3- if the playing is as good as the Borodin, it may contend.

I tend to be pretty brutal when critiquing Shosty SQs. We are reaching glut level, and there needs to be some weeding out done- FOR THE LOVE OF THE NEWBIE!!- so you all don't tread this road alone.

My personal mission here is to steer people away from the Obvious Choice (Emerson) because I always seem to believe there is a dark horse out there waiting to be claimed. I mean, I think most of us believe most every set has its weak points- sets are fine, but the scope of Shosty's SQs is wide enough where, unless you have 'The It', you're going to flounder with either the delicate folksiness, or the odd serial death music, or the brutal aspects, or the light aspects, or the humour. I did NOT hear how the Mandelring were supposedly playing each SQ different, and I have yet to hear ANY group sound demonstrably different in, say, 4/5, and 12/15. I'd looove to hear it out of SOMEONE, but I don't. Either i love a band's corporate sound/engineering acoustic, or I don't- and it's based on the music, not my predilections.

Meaning- perhaps 4/5 want slightly smaller acoustics,... but 13 certainly wants a giant sink hole acoustic to absorb all those long lines. So, like with the Manhattan, who have a fairly dry acoustic throughout, I tend to think they suffer in the Later SQs because their sound has no where to go in that small room.

anyhow- caffeine--- it's the caffeine's fault-0-- I don't tend to ramble on like this about silly.... oh,.... wait.... yea... yea I do.... haha, YES I DO!! haha

[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.

Well, if you want to hear a real 'jewish' version of No.83 (No.4), check out the Moyzes (for a penny on Lydian). You're not going to find more 'earth' is any other performance, and the recording has the acolytes to prove it. You can practically smell the field after an afternoon rain, and the players let their locks down in the last movement- so one hears the rustic townsfolk dancing their jug.

I give the JQ some credit though, they do have some of the more folksy interpretations out there, but, at least in the 4th, for that last ounce of authentic feeling and tone, the Moyzes can't be beat.

And I can't say the same for the Moyzes 2nd, on the same disc. It in no way comes even close to the standard Borodin/EMI-Bovine. The dryish sound, which worked to good effect in 4, makes 2 sound small, which it isn't, and, it's not particularly searching in the slow movement.

[Karl Henning]

Again, the thing with the Emerson is, if that's all you know, you won't be missing anything, but as soon as you hear the GMG Official Approved Recording of any particular work, you will see- but, for the time being, I'm not going to say anything particularly negative about the Emerson.

[...]

My personal mission here is to steer people away from the Obvious Choice (Emerson) because I always seem to believe there is a dark horse out there waiting to be claimed.

Just a note that I have heard several ensembles play the quartets, and I hear no such matter of "insufficiency" on the part of the Emersons.

And now, back to your regularly infused caffeine . . . .