Shostakovich String Quartets

[snyprrr]

Beethoven
                    Borodin A (Chandos) 1-13
                                                               Taneyev (unavailable)


                                                                                                   Fitzwilliam (U.K.)

                                                                                                                                             Borodin B (EMI, BMG, Melodiya)
                                                                                                                                                                                               Shostakovich (Olympia, Regis)





THE DIGITAL ERA:

1989 Brodsky (first digital cycle)
1990 Manhattan

Borodin C (Virgin + Erato) 1/3 Cycle
                                                      Hagen- 1/3 Cycle
                                                                                   St.Petersburg A/SONY- 1/3 Cycle
                                                                                                                                            Rubio A (Globe- incomplete?)

Eder




1999 EMERSON (watershed moment)


2000 Sorrel
St.Petersburg B/Hyperion      -      (notice that after the Emerson/DG, Chandos, Hyperion, and Harmonia Mundi all give it a go)
Jerusalem




Rubio B/Brilliant
Alexander
Razumovsky                (not much word on this group- are we getting a glut? where's the "old" groups??)
Debussy
Danel


"Mogranetti" on Decca or EMI-    the name is wrong, but there is an Import Decca (or EMI) Cycle by some young group


Pacifica
Mandelring     ( these last two have been dominating the conversation and overshadowing most modern rivals lately, apparently)

[snyprrr]

I consider that bracing 

You want bracing you might want to look into that St.P/SONY 1/3 Cycle

check my list above--- pretty cool?

[snyprrr]

No.9 Op.117
No.10 Op.118

Similar in style, but worlds apart in terms of form, 9 and 10 make a very interesting pair. And certainly one can add the lingering memory of No.8 (which frankly includes No.7 also). This grouping of works has a lot of thematic unity, and it's easy to forget sometimes which movement from which work one is listening to, such as the corresponding ending movements of 9 and 10. The skittering 'William Tell' caricature is also heard in the middle 'Allegretto' of No.9, and one is left wondering later if one is hearing it in all the works, so ubiquitous are some of Shostakovich's techniques.

No.9

I throw up my hands. I love it, but I don't get it. It seems so complex, labyrinthine, what is there to hold on to? I find the opening to be a Paranoid Masterpiece, the kind of which he was writing a lot of at the time. The slightly sinister back-and-forth theme lingers long in the memory,- however, the movement is so much more, and I forget so much because the theme has hooked me.

And that runs into the two 'Adagios'- I have not a clue today what they were, just listening yesterday, so obtuse is DSCH's melodic writing here. All I do remember is that the atmosphere is serious and somewhat grim, but in a mercurial style that goes from emotion to emotion.

The middle fast movement is more easily remembered as the first appearance of the faux-'William Tell' rhythm (not the actual melody, the rhythm). I do know from all the samples that it is actually one of his most aggressive movements: I believe it is the Borodin/'bovine' (mach 2, EMI) recording that sounds as if they're literally going off the rails- an extremely intense reading.

Which brings up the problem of having any group "soften" DSCH's music- "play it nice"- like the Danel have been "accused" of. You CAN'T "play this nice"- the Borodin show the risks NEEDED to propel the music to another place. Even the mostly scathing Sorrel play both 9 and 10 a little lighter than their blistering and desolate 8.

So, anyhow, the SQ ends with a 9.5 minute barnburner of a movement, like an expansion/concentration of the middle movement. Here is wisdom: the quickest (I forget- Beethoven?)clocks in at around 8:06, whereas the Shostakovich clock in at around 10:47 (I don't think it's 11:47). Well, I do think the Shostakovich version slightly suffers- again, one has to be careful WHICH movement you choose to "do your thing" to. Here it's not going to work. Most clock in at 9:00, with no perceptible difference within a 60 second radius. I forgot which I liked, I'll get back.

So, No.9 is Abstract Neo-Classicism at its finest.It will keep you busy for a while trying to keep track of what's what!


No.10

10, though exhibiting many of the same characteristic 'jaunty' themes as above, seems totally different. It is stubbornly in Four Classical Movements and exhibits all the rigid formalism that one might expect from such a Classical/Romantic vessel. Here, also, we are totally reminded of No.8, and indeed it sounds as if 9 were simply remade. But, it's a little more than that, having a deep ethos. It reminds of Symphony No.10, indeed one thinks it could have been written ten years earlier.

The 1st movement sounds a lot like the opening to the Cello Concerto No.1. The same jaunty feel- the motto. This leads into music sounding like the 'Paranoid' theme of No.9- the "Intrigue" theme? Either way, here Shostakovich seems to be writing the story of the Soviet Machine in music- the lockstep, the paranoia, the yearning, fear.

This leads into the big 'Stalinesque' fast movement, a repeat of No.8's 'Molto allegro'- going back to SQ No/3. I believe it is the Borodin/Chandos that have securely locked the 'Most Berserk and Wild' Award- wow! that is something there. I also liked the blazing fast Manhattan sample (though the confined acoustic doesn't work so well on 9-10). Some were juuust a little too relaxed here, and you just cannot succumb to any feelings of wanting to minimize anything here. I think it was the Pacifica that disappointed here (please check!).

Again, I can't remember much of the slow movement, though I do believe it has an individual profile. many I'm getting it confused with No.6 now? And this leads into a movement so similar to the corresponding movement in 9 that I forget which is which. The point I'm making is that DSCH is being coy with these two works, and making us dig a little deeper than with the more self explanatory 8,... or 6 or 1. He developed a habit of writing drawn out last movements that demand closer scrutiny.

So here are my listening thoughts, as best as I can remember. What are you absolute favourites?


No.9

1) Beethoven is super fast, but I think it is Borodin/EMI-bovine that hits on all cylinders here (however, and please do check- I don't think the sound is as good on their 9 as their 10- different year/venue?). The Shostakovich were slightly disappointing, trying to do things differently. I'd like to know the Fitzzies here?anyone?

The Brodsky's are... pretty good here, though we do need SOME 'hysteria' in this music as the Borodin deliver. Though the Brodsky are incisive- they're not totally pissed.

The St.Petersburg/Hyperion made my ears prick up. Theirs is an odd take, but they have me from the first note. The fast bits are scratchy like a rabid wolf- the ambience works here really well. I'm having trouble finding other moderns to match their very interesting take. It's almost too unique to want to be a first choice, but it seems to have the 'Best' in a lot of departments.

Mandelring and Pacifica samples didn't give me a rager- please, someone verify.

I DO RECALL LIKING THE EMERSON HERE KARL!! Their style = this music


No.10

This one's completely different. However, I have Stood by BORODIN/EMI-bovine FOREVER. They won my original DeathMatch, I believe, and one listen to the fast sample clinched it. It is also some of Melodiya's BEST SOUND, and again, can someone tell me if 9 sounds worse than 10- 10 has a halo around it than 9 just doesn't have. venue? date?

BUT- THE BORODIN/CHANDOS FAST MOVEMENT IS THE MOST EXTREME BY FAR!!

The Brodsky are pretty good here. I thought I was actually disappointed in the Pacifica here. The Sorrel sound great but don't get as hysterical as the Borodin. I fret that there is no better than the Borodin here. I hear the St.Peterdburg have a 'different' take but I haven't yet heard it.

OH- THE WELLER ARE IN A CLASS BY THEMSELVES HERE!!- anyone???



There arn'yte any other one-offs of 10 that I know of.- it's a tough one to get right apparently- so many try to "tame" it, and NO- don't do that. I'd love to know your thoughts on any modern recording, but it seems to me that the Borodin own this particular piece of music. And the Weller.


And what of the Taneyev in 9 and 10??

[amw]

The Taneyev Quartet's performance of No. 9 is deeply affecting and ultimately tragic. They take a flowing pace in the Adagios, without any loss of expressivity, but the real Crowning Moment of Interpretation is the big cello solo in the last movement which Josef Levinson milks for all he's worth (channeling Rostropovich) and manages to drive the music to an almost complete stop, after which the final crescendo leads us into the most catastrophic, desperate E-flat major ending this side of the Prokofiev Sixth. I'm also rather fond of the Mandelring Quartet who play up the defiant wildness, and in massive sound to boot. Don't remember much about St Petersburg except their typical clarity, bringing out lots of lines I didn't even know existed; I'll listen to them later.

I've not listened to 10 yet and don't have the time to do so at the moment.

[snyprrr]

The Taneyev Quartet's performance of No. 9 is deeply affecting and ultimately tragic. They take a flowing pace in the Adagios, without any loss of expressivity, but the real Crowning Moment of Interpretation is the big cello solo in the last movement which Josef Levinson milks for all he's worth (channeling Rostropovich) and manages to drive the music to an almost complete stop, after which the final crescendo leads us into the most catastrophic, desperate E-flat major ending this side of the Prokofiev Sixth. I'm also rather fond of the Mandelring Quartet who play up the defiant wildness, and in massive sound to boot. Don't remember much about St Petersburg except their typical clarity, bringing out lots of lines I didn't even know existed; I'll listen to them later.

I've not listened to 10 yet and don't have the time to do so at the moment.

delicious Taneyev description!- aye, is there no where to even hear them right now? timings pleeeez???

I just compared the 4th movement 'Adagio'- a very odd bit, eh?-

The Brodsky take 2:34; Sorrel 4:13- but it's so fragmented- it's difficult to tell that much- is this a foolproof movement? Actually, the Sorrel sound a bit lax compared with the Brodsky; the Sorrel sound like they're milking just a nudge- the St.P sound a little tighter but still clock in at 4:03.. Listen to Brodsky again- yea, they just sound more correct by far- and they absolutely blaze into the finale!

I'm starting to be much more critical of the Sorrel, hmmm... I was still impressed with 5, 8, and 13.

[amw]

4:05 / 3:41 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18 for the Taneyev in #9.

I should qualify I haven't heard the Kopelman Borodins that everyone seems to recommend in this one. However outside #13 and 15 I've tended to prefer the Taneyevs in those where I have been able to hear both. Possibly another sign of wayward tastes, Shostakovichwise. (The Aharonian Borodins have a lockdown on #15, even more than Kopelman's crew. Check out the first movement, it genuinely sounds like it could kill flies in mid-air.)

[snyprrr]

4:05 / 3:41 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18 for the Taneyev in #9.

I should qualify I haven't heard the Kopelman Borodins that everyone seems to recommend in this one. However outside #13 and 15 I've tended to prefer the Taneyevs in those where I have been able to hear both. Possibly another sign of wayward tastes, Shostakovichwise. (The Aharonian Borodins have a lockdown on #15, even more than Kopelman's crew. Check out the first movement, it genuinely sounds like it could kill flies in mid-air.)

Well, those are indeed some interesting timings. Their 1st is as quick as the Beethoven- and here don't you normally prefer just a little more relaxed tempo- or do the Taneyev just pull it better than the Beethoven? I mean, most others take @4:30 and under, so it's not jarring changes here.

2nd is very quick for the 'Adagio', and I suspect it is correct, since these longer versions are just not speaking to me- they all seem to be milking. I don't know if this music is just wayward noodling or if there is architecture- you know what I mean?

3rd is as fast as St.P. 4th in the middle of the pack.

BUT THEN they play the 'slower' version of the finale? The Brodsky brutalize at 9:09- but, I've heard the 10 minute version (St.P) with equal effect, so, interesting.


Yea, you know, this Thread could use all the Taneyev timings !

[snyprrr]

4:05 / 3:41 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18 for the Taneyev in #9.

I should qualify I haven't heard the Kopelman Borodins that everyone seems to recommend in this one. However outside #13 and 15 I've tended to prefer the Taneyevs in those where I have been able to hear both. Possibly another sign of wayward tastes, Shostakovichwise. (The Aharonian Borodins have a lockdown on #15, even more than Kopelman's crew. Check out the first movement, it genuinely sounds like it could kill flies in mid-air.)

wait- on the 15, I don't understand... EMI vs Erato? The Erato 1st is like 14 minutes- only Kogan/Kagan? is longer at 15- and the Erato 1st definitely has the fly killer sound that no other version has.

[amw]

IMO the 'big' Shostakovich finales benefit from some time being taken. The Taneyevs take 5:25 up to the big slowdown, so there's about 2 min 20 of roughly Andante in the middle there. Don't know how others compare.

Timings! Though I think most of these are rather standard, compared to some of the tempi they adopt in 'standard rep'—the most obvious standouts being the first movement of No. 5, finale of No. 3, and all of No. 13.

1: 4:43 / 4:34 / 1:58 / 3:03
2: 8:15 / 10:39 / 6:21 / 10:54
3: 7:03 / 4:30 / 3:44 / 5:36 / 10:41
4: 3:26 / 6:41 / 4:03 / 8:19
5: 12:00 / 9:06 / 10:56
6: 7:00 / 5:00 / 4:53 / 8:29
7: 3:10 / 3:49 / 5:42
8: 4:30 / 2:45 / 4:32 / 4:43 / 3:13
9: 4:05 / 3:40 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18
10: 3:57 / 4:18 / 6:16 / 9:05
11: 1:55 / 2:33 / 1:32 / 1:21/ 0:59 / 4:38 / 3:16
12: 6:11 / 18:25
13: 15:22
14: 8:23 / 9:20 / 8:42
15: 11:35 / 6:21 / 2:00 / 4:34 / 5:01 / 6:28

[amw]

The Erato 1st is like 14 minutes- only Kogan/Kagan? is longer at 15- and the Erato 1st definitely has the fly killer sound that no other version has.

I am almost certain that's the one, but I actually can't find it right now. :\ Really slow and icy, almost no vibrato or breathing... remember a dry-ish acoustic... ? And I'm pretty sure it postdates Aharonian's takeover of first fiddle, while the EMI one is still Kopelman. I don't know of any other Aharonian-era Shostakovich recordings.

[snyprrr]

I am almost certain that's the one, but I actually can't find it right now. :\ Really slow and icy, almost no vibrato or breathing... remember a dry-ish acoustic... ?

Borodin/EMI 12:00

Borodin/Erato 14:00

yea- the only one that speaks like that- absolutely chilling- like Arvo Part- yea, that's it- try the u.k. for that one


anyhoo- back to the 9th

[snyprrr]

4:05 / 3:41 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18 for the Taneyev in #9.

I should qualify I haven't heard the Kopelman Borodins that everyone seems to recommend in this one. However outside #13 and 15 I've tended to prefer the Taneyevs in those where I have been able to hear both. Possibly another sign of wayward tastes, Shostakovichwise. (The Aharonian Borodins have a lockdown on #15, even more than Kopelman's crew. Check out the first movement, it genuinely sounds like it could kill flies in mid-air.)

just checked:

Beethoven
Borodin/Chandos
Taneyev
Fitzzies?
Manhattan                              all play the 1st mvmt in the quicker, better, 4:00 style- you gotta have momentum here

Pacifica    milk it to 4:47, and that's too much and tension snaps and falls flat

Mandelring     sound a lot like the Brodsky- medium quickish but not touching the Masters



many kept the middle 'Allegretto' to just under 4:00. Lvb, B1, B2, Mnhttn...

many also kept the 2nd mvmt 'Adagio' to 3:30 (Borodin/Chandos wring it 6 minutes!! Borodin/EMI 5mins)

many also kept the 4th mvmt 'Adagio to under 4-


BUT THEN!!!- someone- the Shostakovich?- someone ran the finale to like 11:47!! and that was too much someone else ran it to 11 (Fittzies), but most either chime in at 9-10 to equal effect. Brodsky very blazing here at 9:09.


Emerson somewhat MOR- lax 1st-

Eder- nothing special



Taneyev, LvB, B1,(Fitzzies)  and the Manhattan were the most vicious and concise. Then B2/EMI. Then it's like the descending gates of hell frankly- I just can't stand the modern take on this piece after hearing how blazing the Masters are!! poo Best might be Brodsky, Mandelring, St.P

and 9 is such a rare piece


no- I'm REALLY digging the original Masters' take- theu do bring out the terror drama of the 1st mvmt so much better

[amw]

yea, that's it- try the u.k. for that one

No I mean I literally can't find it, everything's in boxes right now and I guess I never ripped it to a hard drive. Moving house etc, it's a pain

For me 9 pairs well with 3, which is sort of like its opposite.

[snyprrr]

No I mean I literally can't find it, everything's in boxes right now and I guess I never ripped it to a hard drive. Moving house etc, it's a pain

For me 9 pairs well with 3, which is sort of like its opposite.

9 reminds me of Symphony 9------ especially in bothe 4th movements

but yea, 3 too




btw- the Jersusalem's 9th is one of the very best moderns

Also found Byron Quartet (8/9) and Aviv SQ (8/9) - both not too bad-

Mandelring sounds a lot like Brodsky here---- did not like the Pacifica too much here---



I'm really enjoying No.9 right now,... having trouble moving on to 10.

[Karl Henning]

9 reminds me of Symphony 9

Well, they are both in E^b.

[snyprrr]

IMO the 'big' Shostakovich finales benefit from some time being taken. The Taneyevs take 5:25 up to the big slowdown, so there's about 2 min 20 of roughly Andante in the middle there. Don't know how others compare.

Timings! Though I think most of these are rather standard, compared to some of the tempi they adopt in 'standard rep'—the most obvious standouts being the first movement of No. 5, finale of No. 3, and all of No. 13.

1: 4:43 / 4:34 / 1:58 / 3:03
2: 8:15 / 10:39 / 6:21 / 10:54
3: 7:03 / 4:30 / 3:44 / 5:36 / 10:41
4: 3:26 / 6:41 / 4:03 / 8:19
5: 12:00 / 9:06 / 10:56
6: 7:00 / 5:00 / 4:53 / 8:29
7: 3:10 / 3:49 / 5:42
8: 4:30 / 2:45 / 4:32 / 4:43 / 3:13
9: 4:05 / 3:40 / 4:01 / 3:27 / 10:18
10: 3:57 / 4:18 / 6:16 / 9:05
11: 1:55 / 2:33 / 1:32 / 1:21/ 0:59 / 4:38 / 3:16
12: 6:11 / 18:25
13: 15:22
14: 8:23 / 9:20 / 8:42
15: 11:35 / 6:21 / 2:00 / 4:34 / 5:01 / 6:28

I think you'd just love the St. Petersburg SONY recordings (not the Hyperion) of 1-5,7.The Taneyev influence is strong with them. They have the same ending of 3. The Manhattan have a 12 minute 1st for the 5th. And the St.P/Hyperion clock in at 11:55 (the St.P SONY- 10:10!!).

At the least, the St.P "sound" very much like a combination of Beeth-Borodn-Taneyv, with some pretty raw playing and delicious SONY sound.



maybe I can make a timings chart for the Masters side by side....

[snyprrr]

No.6 Op.101

Brodsky
Sorrel

Coming back again to No.6, I was freshly disappointed by the Sorrel's long view. At 6:34, the 'Lento' just seems to drag, and the Fitzzies clock in at 6:45, and though they conjure some tone here, all tension is lost and one is left flaccid in the face of one of the most beautiful slow movements. The Sorrel do manage some tension, but things still sound like they're going through the slow-motion machine. I didn't hear, but Borodin/Chandos clocks in a @6:00, so it would be interesting how they sustain the tension; Borodin/EMI-bovine is quicker, and begins to sound like what one would expect from the music.

Most seem to take the 'Lento' around 5 minutes, which is enough time to let the music breathe; tone might be the only consideration. But, outrageously, the Brodsky take it at an astounding 3:24!- which, in a sense, destroys the sad feeling of the music- but, in a nod to "well there ya go", they do manage to make good of it- it may certainly be a bit headlong but it does retain some of the 'Classical' feel of the rest of the Quartet.

In fact, the Brodsky are the fastest on record because of it, and indeed, their rendition of Op.101, I think, is one of the very best, maybe even Most Innovative- I hasten not to say First Choice, but it has great playing,ideas, and sound- I actually think it's better than the Masters- Beethoven and Borodin I et II- Taneyev I don't know about (awm??)- but the Brodsky just aren't slouches here, and frankly I don't think this is supposed to be 'Russian' music anyway- maybe that's why the Emerson do so well here, because it's right up their 'Classical' highway. In fact, the Emerson are right behind the Brodsky in timing- I didn't scrutinize the sound here for the Emerson- can someone check in please?

Beethoven
Borodin I et II
(Taneyev?)
Shostakovich

Just from the samples and the timings, it seemed like the Beethoven took an extremely leisurely view of Op.101. Their finale lasts 9 minutes!! By contrast, the Brodsky plough right through it in perhaps the quickest 6:47. I can't see how the Beethoven get off here- but- uh- "he" was there, so... ?? They also seem to take the 'Allegretto' opening leisurely; I do so prefer this movement quick and light. I think the Emerson are the quickest around 6:43, but one band, I forget who, seems to drag at 7:24; at 7:17, the Sorrel do just seem a bit plump in the viola opening- it really needs to be clipped a tiny bit like the Brodsky's very quick 7:00. Timings can be slightly deceiving, as one person's 7mins in not anothers: here the Brodsky sound as quick as the Emerson.

I'd love to hear about the Taneyev Op.101. I do believe I found both the Shostakovich and the Eder to be somewhat grey.




The Pacifica had the best samples, as a contender for the Brodsky, with equally great sound. They do stretch out the 'Moderato con moto' to 5:35 (as opposed to the Brodsky's 4:59) but manage to keep it plucky.

The Jerusalem, too, sounded like a good modern recording, with the group sounding a bit folksier than the competition. I did NOT like the St. Petersburg presentation; the sound and playing were distractions (you know how this Hyperion Cycle has its ups and downs). The Rubio wasn't available for listening.

I also thought the much maligned Danel came in with one of the finest Op.101s I sampled. Their usual reticence pays off here, and the tight sound highlighted their humble approach. Can someone confirm?


There are two one-offs, one with the Sibelius Academy Quartet on Finlandia (with Op.73;which might have a 'earlier' recording date- I don't know, but I suspect)  and the Orlando Quartet (who Schnittke wrote his No.3 for!) on Emergo, also with (only) Op.73. The latter I am really interested in, but the asking price around town is ridiculously astronomical.


So, my basic theory about Op.101 is that The Masters didn't quite get the First Choice recording of this elusive work (still out on the Taneyev). The Brodsky were the first Digital Cycle, and, they descend upon this work as if the ink was drying; their erstwhile competitors the Manhattan also have a preeetty good one, though I defer to the Brodsky here.

You would think that this is a fool-proof work, but it has suffered particularly as each group tries to put their own stamp on an essentially plain music. Sure, it's not as carefree as it may seem, but one should certainly not go looking to make some 'bad-ass' statement out of it either. I like it quick (Brodsky) and mild (Danel); too many inject unneeded leaven, puffing up the music and making it seem somewhat spoiled and naughty


The Brodsky are by far the most daring; the Emerson seem to "get" this one just right (they could ALWAYS lighten up a bit!!); I only seek Perfection in this Op.101; only Perfection will do. The 6th is somewhat rare on record; rarer still are recording of note and worth.

(there was a YT vid of the finale, taken slightly slower by the Shanghai Quartet)

[George]

Uffda. If Borodin I doesn't do it for you, and even though Borodin II has improved sonics that don't bother me at all (I've come to expect a little grit from that end in many of my DSCH recordings, perversely), it's still not a modern sound... And then I suppose the rational thing is to recommend Pacifica. Well, Jerusalem, if they were working on their cycle, which I am not sure they are (at least not on HMU). But Pacifica you will not have any qualms about the sound and if you want Borodin-style, you've got that or had that... and now you have a slightly more secure and cleaner (but not as polished---to a fault, perhaps---as Mandelring) set of renditions, but still heartfelt and with guts and gore.

I'm a bit late, but thanks for this, Jens.

Can anyone who had/has the Danel and Pacifica recordings compare their general, overall styles? I have the Danel and find it does not move me emotionally. 

[snyprrr]

I'm a bit late, but thanks for this, Jens.

Can anyone who had/has the Danel and Pacifica recordings compare their general, overall styles? I have the Danel and find it does not move me emotionally.

I have simply come to the conclusion that no one Cycle has encompassed and mastered all the works. I totally recommend the piecemeal approach to DSCH SQs. Danel, Pacifica, Mandelring, Debussy, Rubio, Alexander, Sorrel, Razumovsky,... it's getting a bit thick out there.

Yes, the Danel seem to be the most non-exciting so far (but how do you like their 6th?), but as much as I'd like to recommend any one of these very modern Cycles, I do ask you to consider the Brodsky Cycle. They are certainly more exciting than most, take chances, have great Teldec sound, are incisive and biting- they have many of the same qualities that all these other bands have, but they have the added'advantage' of coming from the late '89s- and things seem to have changed a little since then.

Anyhow, please look in to the Brodsky- I hate to have to keep choosing between Pacifica vs Mandelring just because that's what everyone's talking about. (though I seem to prefer the Pacifica) I mean, is anyone ever going to try the Debussy Cycle? That seems like quite a risk. As a great All Around Champion, the Brodsky deliver many strengths, few weaknesses- they don't play it particularly safe, and I worry that all these new bands come from the 'Era of Perfection' (hence, the Mandelring are accused of being too perfect). One must have some grit in these SQs.

[George]

I do ask you to consider the Brodsky Cycle. They are certainly more exciting than most, take chances, have great Teldec sound, are incisive and biting- they have many of the same qualities that all these other bands have, but they have the added'advantage' of coming from the late '89s- and things seem to have changed a little since then.

Thanks! What has changed?

Anyhow, please look in to the Brodsky- .... As a great All Around Champion, the Brodsky deliver many strengths, few weaknesses- they don't play it particularly safe, and I worry that all these new bands come from the 'Era of Perfection' (hence, the Mandelring are accused of being too perfect). One must have some grit in these SQs.

On that last point, I absolutely agree!