Shostakovich String Quartets

[snyprrr]

Beethoven Quartet

1) technically the worst sound of any Cycle. I think 1-5,7 are 'mono', but only 11-15 are 'ADD' (duuh- or is it 'AAD"?).

2) people seem totally uncritical of these performances, but- in the 6th for instance- there are many more preferred performances. 12 also has been singled out.

3) I don't know if any performance is a First Choice

AVAILABILITY:

1) Doremi Box

2) Consonance: 1,2,4    3,6    7,8,15    9,10,11     12,13,14

3) 'Russian DVD'-Melodiya:  14,15     11,12,13    3, 7,8,10,Quintet? 2   1,2,4



Borodin Quartet 1967,1968,1972

1) more consistent sound than the Beethoven

2) more 'Romantic' performances, rather than the Beethoven's 'Classical' performances

3) I don't know, comparatively, if any performance here is a First Choice? anyone?

AVAILABILITY:

1) Chandos Box



Taneyev Quartet 1968-1978

[/u]1) inconsistent sound. 9-13 are from the last year, 1978, and should probably sound the best

2) generally considered to be legendary performances. Many Top Choices here- 6, 9, 14... more...

3) availability has always been the major problem- 90% unavailable currently

AVAILABILITY:

1) OOP Box

2) OOP Melodiya:  1,4,5     6,7,8    3,9     2,10     11,12,13        14,15

3) Point: 1,3,4

4) Praga: 6,7,8 (with fake reverb?)



Borodin Quartet 1978-1983

1) inconsistent sound. 10-14 have the best sound. 6 and 9 are 'live'.

2) many say the earlier recs. are always better, but can this not be debated? The Borodin continue to be the most 'passionate' of the earlier Masters

3) classics include the disc with 2-3, 6, 10, 12-14

AVAILABILITY:

1) Melodiya "bovine" Box

2) BMG Box

3) EMI Box

4) BMG:    1,2,4      3, Quintet         5,6,7        8,9,10        11,12,13       14,15

5) EMI:      1,9,12        2-3          7,8,Quintet        4,6,11          10,13,14          5,15



Shostakovich Quartet 1979-1988

1) generally more consistent sound than all others here. Sounds a lot like the previous Borodin at their best sounding.

2) Direct Competition for Borodin1978-81

3) generally considered to take the Borodin's passionate approach to its logical conclusion.

4) no fair comparison has yet been made between the Borodin'80s and the Shostakovich. Many think the latter displace the former. Let's figure it out.

5) Top Choice: 12,.... maybe 6,.... maybe 10,11,13,14,15... Not my favourite 5.

6 Single Best Disc: 12,13,14,...... then 10,11,15,........ then 6,8,9

AVAILABILITY:

1) Olympia:       1,2,4?         3,5,7          6,8,9?        10,11,15      12,13,14

2) Alto:          1,2,3,4,5,7,(8?) (2CD)         6,11,12,13,14,15 (2CD)      12,13,14???

3) Alto Box

4) Regis Box

5) Regis:        1,2,3,4,5,7,(8?) (2CD)        6,8,9,10,11,15 (2CD)          12,13,14

[Mandryka]

Beethoven Quartet

1) technically the worst sound of any Cycle. I think 1-5,7 are 'mono', but only 11-15 are 'ADD' (duuh- or is it 'AAD"?).

2) people seem totally uncritical of these performances, but- in the 6th for instance- there are many more preferred performances. 12 also has been singled out.

3) I don't know if any performance is a First Choice

AVAILABILITY:

1) Doremi Box

2) Consonance: 1,2,4    3,6    7,8,15    9,10,11     12,13,14

3) 'Russian DVD'-Melodiya:  14,15     11,12,13    3, 7,8,10,Quintet? 2   1,2,4



Borodin Quartet 1967,1968,1972

1) more consistent sound than the Beethoven

2) more 'Romantic' performances, rather than the Beethoven's 'Classical' performances

3) I don't know, comparatively, if any performance here is a First Choice? anyone?

AVAILABILITY:

1) Chandos Box



Taneyev Quartet 1968-1978

[/u]1) inconsistent sound. 9-13 are from the last year, 1978, and should probably sound the best

2) generally considered to be legendary performances. Many Top Choices here- 6, 9, 14... more...

3) availability has always been the major problem- 90% unavailable currently

AVAILABILITY:

1) OOP Box

2) OOP Melodiya:  1,4,5     6,7,8    3,9     2,10     11,12,13        14,15

3) Point: 1,3,4

4) Praga: 6,7,8 (with fake reverb?)



Borodin Quartet 1978-1983

1) inconsistent sound. 10-14 have the best sound. 6 and 9 are 'live'.

2) many say the earlier recs. are always better, but can this not be debated? The Borodin continue to be the most 'passionate' of the earlier Masters

3) classics include the disc with 2-3, 6, 10, 12-14

AVAILABILITY:

1) Melodiya "bovine" Box

2) BMG Box

3) EMI Box

4) BMG:    1,2,4      3, Quintet         5,6,7        8,9,10        11,12,13       14,15

5) EMI:      1,9,12        2-3          7,8,Quintet        4,6,11          10,13,14          5,15



Shostakovich Quartet 1979-1988

1) generally more consistent sound than all others here. Sounds a lot like the previous Borodin at their best sounding.

2) Direct Competition for Borodin1978-81

3) generally considered to take the Borodin's passionate approach to its logical conclusion.

4) no fair comparison has yet been made between the Borodin'80s and the Shostakovich. Many think the latter displace the former. Let's figure it out.

5) Top Choice: 12,.... maybe 6,.... maybe 10,11,13,14,15... Not my favourite 5.

6 Single Best Disc: 12,13,14,...... then 10,11,15,........ then 6,8,9

AVAILABILITY:

1) Olympia:       1,2,4?         3,5,7          6,8,9?        10,11,15      12,13,14

2) Alto:          1,2,3,4,5,7,(8?) (2CD)         6,11,12,13,14,15 (2CD)      12,13,14???

3) Alto Box

4) Regis Box

5) Regis:        1,2,3,4,5,7,(8?) (2CD)        6,8,9,10,11,15 (2CD)          12,13,14

Thanks for doing this.

[snyprrr]

Thanks for doing this.

sooomebody had to!! valcommen


I'm getting a DSCH-over (hangover from too much of this) oy vey!! Is there no one Obsessed here anymore??? Can't someone BUY something NO ONE ELSE HAS and report??

I've got DSCH Post-Its all over the room. What's everyone else doing to get to the bottom of the rabbit hole?? aaaye...


sorry- i'm ranting


WHO WILL REPORT ON THE THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE?? I'm hearing more and more actual xritixism () criticism- sometimes they just don't seem to "get" certain movements. I DID like their 5 as compared to the much noisier Borodin'67. (Borodin'83 better)

[NorthNYMark]

sooomebody had to!! valcommen


I'm getting a DSCH-over (hangover from too much of this) oy vey!! Is there no one Obsessed here anymore??? Can't someone BUY something NO ONE ELSE HAS and report??

I've got DSCH Post-Its all over the room. What's everyone else doing to get to the bottom of the rabbit hole?? aaaye...


sorry- i'm ranting


WHO WILL REPORT ON THE THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE?? I'm hearing more and more actual xritixism () criticism- sometimes they just don't seem to "get" certain movements. I DID like their 5 as compared to the much noisier Borodin'67. (Borodin'83 better)

I've been listening to a lot of these quartets lately, and will be posting more impressions soon--some that I have been appreciating lately (outside of the Mandelring, which I mentioned before) include the Shostakovich Quartet (about which I agree with some of your observations, in that I find it generally more to my liking than the more acclaimed Borodin bovine cycle), the Danel Quartet, and the rarely discussed Rasumowsky Quartet.  I actually did listen to some of the Beethoven Quartet cycle not long ago, but what I heard didn't really stand out to me interpretively enough to overcome the limitations of the historic sound, so I didn't explore further.

[Mandryka]

sooomebody had to!! valcommen


I'm getting a DSCH-over (hangover from too much of this) oy vey!! Is there no one Obsessed here anymore??? Can't someone BUY something NO ONE ELSE HAS and report??

I've got DSCH Post-Its all over the room. What's everyone else doing to get to the bottom of the rabbit hole?? aaaye...


sorry- i'm ranting


WHO WILL REPORT ON THE THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE?? I'm hearing more and more actual xritixism () criticism- sometimes they just don't seem to "get" certain movements. I DID like their 5 as compared to the much noisier Borodin'67. (Borodin'83 better)

What I particularly appreciated was your advocacy of the Taneyev Quartet. It prompted me to explore their recordings and, truth be told, I don't think I've ever enjoyed the Shostakovich quartets quite so much.

The Taneyev quartet set is available for members of symphonyshare.

[George]

WHO WILL REPORT ON THE THE BEETHOVEN CYCLE??

Buy it for me and I will!

[snyprrr]

I've been listening to a lot of these quartets lately, and will be posting more impressions soon--some that I have been appreciating lately (outside of the Mandelring, which I mentioned before) include the Shostakovich Quartet (about which I agree with some of your observations, in that I find it generally more to my liking than the more acclaimed Borodin bovine cycle), the Danel Quartet, and the rarely discussed Rasumowsky Quartet.  I actually did listen to some of the Beethoven Quartet cycle not long ago, but what I heard didn't really stand out to me interpretively enough to overcome the limitations of the historic sound, so I didn't explore further.

See? I was waiting for someone to mention the Razumovsky. 'dmitri' at Amazon really liked it, but said it was quite slow- you can hear EVERY note? He also said they weren't 'high powered' or something...

GROUPS THAT ARE NOT "HIGH POWERED"

should perhaps not be playing DSCH? This is ALL I hear lately- "oh, they bring out the softer side of Shosty". Whaaat?


Fact is, only the St. Petersburg seem to offer that scratchy, nasally, wooden tone like what I want. Maybe just a tiny bit of the Emerson. (sorry off topic)


But yes, please report on everything. I know we were all lambasting the DANEL but the samples for 6, and, especially, 10 were quite gorgeous. Also, the hit the 14 minute opening of 15 like Borodin'95 do!! They certainly don't hit a lot of the heavy hits, but they do nicely on the SQs that don't call for them.

Wait- was it the MANDELRING that had the really good 10? please check

What I particularly appreciated was your advocacy of the Taneyev Quartet. It prompted me to explore their recordings and, truth be told, I don't think I've ever enjoyed the Shostakovich quartets quite so much.

The Taneyev quartet set is available for members of symphonyshare.

Well I thank you!

You really must reveal more- I thought the samples for 10 were verrry good. They don't do a very scratchy, ballsy tone, do they? They go more for the 'Classical Old Timey' corporate sound? Very much like the Beethoven I though- whereas the Borodin are like rock stars, no?

Yea, really wish even just a couple of those Taneyev were available for less than $60. (I remember having one in my hand when they came out)

Buy it for me and I will!

I'm starting to think everyone here won't go near if because of the sound issues. Why would one, when every other set at least sounds better? And, a lot of their performances seem to fall to either Borodin (or Taneyev) anyway...

I don't even think Sarge has the Beeters.

[NorthNYMark]

See? I was waiting for someone to mention the Razumovsky. 'dmitri' at Amazon really liked it, but said it was quite slow- you can hear EVERY note? He also said they weren't 'high powered' or something...

GROUPS THAT ARE NOT "HIGH POWERED"

should perhaps not be playing DSCH? This is ALL I hear lately- "oh, they bring out the softer side of Shosty". Whaaat?


Fact is, only the St. Petersburg seem to offer that scratchy, nasally, wooden tone like what I want. Maybe just a tiny bit of the Emerson. (sorry off topic)


But yes, please report on everything. I know we were all lambasting the DANEL but the samples for 6, and, especially, 10 were quite gorgeous. Also, the hit the 14 minute opening of 15 like Borodin'95 do!! They certainly don't hit a lot of the heavy hits, but they do nicely on the SQs that don't call for them.

Wait- was it the MANDELRING that had the really good 10? please check

I'll go into more detail once I've had a bit more time with each set.  The works I listened to the other day were mainly 4, 11, and 12.  I looked for that description of the Rasumowsky on Amazon, but there are currently no user reviews posted.  In any event, the description you recall doesn't sound much at all like what I heard.  In fact, they were rather energized, and just sounded very different in terms of their rhythmic approach than any other set I've heard--they had more of a spontaneous, dance-like quality.  I found a review elsewhere on the internet that explained that this was the first set to use some sort of updated ("corrected") scores approved by Maxim S., and the reviewer seemed to find that the biggest changes were that some of the slower movements were noticeably sped up, which the reviewer did not especially like (and he also mentioned some occasional intonation issues).  I hadn't noticed that, to be honest, but I may have been listening to the wrong works--perhaps the different scores have something to do with how different their rhythmic accenting seemed to be from others.  In any event, I found them pretty wonderful in everything I heard.

I haven't spent much time with the 10th quartet in particular yet--when I do, I'll let you know my thoughts (in some ways, I am just becoming familiar with the quartets--I've listened to some more than others, and have sort of been saving a few of the later ones for last as I explore each quartet in more depth).  By the way, I thought the Danel was especially effective with the 11th, providing a particularly chilling reading.  Interesting that they strike me as having a very warm, "humane" overall sound in their Weinberg cycle, but a somewhat aristocratically reserved one in their Shostakovich. 

[George]

I'm starting to think everyone here won't go near if because of the sound issues. Why would one, when every other set at least sounds better? And, a lot of their performances seem to fall to either Borodin (or Taneyev) anyway...

I don't even think Sarge has the Beeters.

Upload a sample from the Doremi set, so I can see how bad it is?

[Mandryka]

See? I was waiting for someone to mention the Razumovsky. 'dmitri' at Amazon really liked it, but said it was quite slow- you can hear EVERY note? He also said they weren't 'high powered' or something...

GROUPS THAT ARE NOT "HIGH POWERED"

should perhaps not be playing DSCH? This is ALL I hear lately- "oh, they bring out the softer side of Shosty". Whaaat?


Fact is, only the St. Petersburg seem to offer that scratchy, nasally, wooden tone like what I want. Maybe just a tiny bit of the Emerson. (sorry off topic)


But yes, please report on everything. I know we were all lambasting the DANEL but the samples for 6, and, especially, 10 were quite gorgeous. Also, the hit the 14 minute opening of 15 like Borodin'95 do!! They certainly don't hit a lot of the heavy hits, but they do nicely on the SQs that don't call for them.

Wait- was it the MANDELRING that had the really good 10? please check


Well I thank you!

You really must reveal more- I thought the samples for 10 were verrry good. They don't do a very scratchy, ballsy tone, do they? They go more for the 'Classical Old Timey' corporate sound? Very much like the Beethoven I though- whereas the Borodin are like rock stars, no?

Yea, really wish even just a couple of those Taneyev were available for less than $60. (I remember having one in my hand when they came out)


I'm starting to think everyone here won't go near if because of the sound issues. Why would one, when every other set at least sounds better? And, a lot of their performances seem to fall to either Borodin (or Taneyev) anyway...

I don't even think Sarge has the Beeters.

So you haven't actually heard the Taneyev Quartet? Do you want me to upload it for you?

[snyprrr]

Upload a sample from the Doremi set, so I can see how bad it is?

So you haven't actually heard the Taneyev Quartet? Do you want me to upload it for you?

suuure I don't quite know what you mean, but I personally can't download anything where I'm at. All I can do is click on something here or where ever.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Still the Danel and Emerson for me. Juuuussss sayin'.....

[snyprrr]

Brodsky- Manhattan- Emerson



These are the three main Digital Cycles that introduced a fresh new look into these works which were generally the property of the Russians. All three also represent a completely different take from the previous Western Cycle by the Fitzwilliam.

Now, most of you have the Emerson- and they kind of get the "Tom Cruise" Award for most High Profile and Biz World Choice- many would say they're the "best", and the Emerson's collective "virtuosity" is always mentioned. But many have also noticed "missing" elements, or missteps, and are able to offer Superior Substitutes for many of the works. And the sound has a touch of brightness that seems to highlight some of the steeliness of the performances- otherwise, it is from DG, and the required sound has been produced.

Much has been said about the Emerson's daringly fast performances, but both of the other groups go blow for blow with the Emerson, and they came first. I guess I feel I need to stand up for the Brodsky and Manhattan, because, even though at the time we might have thought a better Cycle might be coming in the future, from 1990-99 we did not have the Emerson.

I don't readily hear how the Emerson are so much more (well, I do) a streamlined unit than the other two. I count both (admittedly random) bands to offer up at least as much as the Emerson, and in many cases much more.

The Emerson do have a certain "edgy", steely quality, a hard tone when called for, making others sound "sweeter". But, the other two have tempos just as quick, so the maestrom is just as cogent in their way as are the Emerson.

Of the three, the Brodsky are the most distantly mic'd; but, considering how up close and personal the other two are, the Brodsky are just a smidge more naturally placed. And they have that clear Teldec sound. And, corporately and individually, they produced a "sheer and sheen" sound. I seem to think they and the Mandelring sound very similar. The grating violins match the Emerson here- the Brodsky's attack is one of the best out there, imo. Timings are generally quick, but they set some slow records as well (5)- you can always count on them to do something, only in 12 do I feel the totally fall flat (in the 'Allegretto'). I also think their 5 fails on many levels, not least of which was stretching the slow movement beyond its corners. But, when they hit hard, like in the "brutal" movements of 8-11, they really grind like no other.

The Manhattan have an extremely up close and personal recording that really gets into the music. You can hear absolutely everything with the Manhattan. Some may find them a bit too bold, but they are quite compelling. Their timings in 9-10 are some of the fleetest, and they burn down both scores. 4-5 has always been one of my favorite discs of all time. And their 6 is delicate, 7 mysterious, and 8 fresh. I do prefer them in 4-10, but, like with the other two groups here, I somewhat eschew them for the later works- only the Masters here, thank you!

If one were to take things movement-by-movement, I think one would be surprised to find the Brodsky and Manhattan taking things away from the Emerson- and I don't have an axe to grind with the Emerson, I simply hear others nailing things that they willfully state otherwise (finales of 6 and 14 are just too fast). Mind you, I wouldn't kick the Emerson out of bed, as a Cycle, but I really would only be going to them for 1,7,9,11,12, or 13. I think they miss 5,6,10,14... and I'm not all that about their 4 and 15.

Still the Danel and Emerson for me. Juuuussss sayin'.....

I really like the Brodsky's approach, but they fall flat on 5 and 12, and their 13-15 are not the bestest of all. The Brodsky crack whips on 7-11, and may have my favorite digital 6th.

With the Manhattan, I really like 4-10, and leave it at that. 2-3 I give only to the Borodin. I really like 4-5,6, and 9-10.


I mean, we could sit down and go through it. I admit that the Emerson was the last DSCH I kept before I sold out, so, I did give them their props at the time. But I always needed a better performance on nearly everything. Their 9 is tops, though, excellent, and maybe 13. I have AGAIN bought the Brodsky and Manhattan, and did not misremember- they are as cracking as ever.


And, so, here is the point: we are reaching this glut of Cycles, with more surely coming, and I find that both of the very first Digital Era Cycles still hold up against the likes of the Sorrel, St. Petersburg, Pacifica, and Mandelring. So much of the sampling I've done has yielded "prima donna" performances that are simply absent in the Brodsky and Manhattan.

sorry, it's late, getting sleeepy...zzz..... ypu get the picture...

Brodsky = 6-11

Manhattan = 4-10

Emerson = 1,7-9,11-13

[The new erato]

You have done a very good job here, event though I will live happily with my Melodyia/Borodin, Fitzwilliams and Pacifica cycles and don't look to extend my collection. Thanks!

[snyprrr]

You have done a very good job here, event though I will live happily with my Melodyia/Borodin, Fitzwilliams and Pacifica cycles and don't look to extend my collection. Thanks!

Hey, I'm cool with that...


I just can't seem to give anyone enough credit for hitting every SQ right on. Either they do better in the Late SQs (the 'Masters') or the Early SQs (the 'Moderns'). And sometimes it seems that eeeeveryone is playing (whatever) the same way.

I'm having to take this movement-by-movement, which really isn't any fun. So many times, someone gets 3/4s of the music right on and then does something willful (the Brodsky have a habit of reeeally short slow movements).

I'm starting to feel that anyone interested in DSCH SQs should be issued a "DSCH SQ Handbook" and a copy of the Beethoven or Borodin'67 as a starter kit.  Then, it would be required to submit weekly reports, plus, a quota of recordings one needs to buy- not specific, you just need to keep buying so that you can report- you can always sell the Unwanteds later.

But we can't have any of this, "I'm satisfied with my Taneyev and Mandelring and that's that."

NO, THAT'S NOT THAT!!

You have a responsibility to the cause to seek out hidden gems, to buy stuff you don't want, to sacrifice your lunch money!!

CASE IN POINT: the Berlin Philharmonia Quartet's CD on Thorophon, 3/7/12, from the samples, has a 12 that sounds better than any I've heard,... but the price is just too much for me at the moment- but I'm just being a wussy- I should sacrifice a pair new pair of shoes and get the CD. It's just the way things SHOULD be, don't you agree?

If you can tell something sucks from the samples, fine. The process of elimination is a must. But, there are many recordings that aren't readily comparable - and if no one plays the martyr, how will any of us know if a hidden gem is lurking?

I got the St. Petersburg/SONY 1/3 Cycle only because it was pennies, but, it turns out this earlier set seems to blow away their later Hyperion Cycle. How would anyone know such a vital set was languishing in obscurity on Page 4 of the Amazon unless someone just said, "I NEED to hear their 7". I mean, I saw their 7th first movement was even quicker than the great Taneyev version, so I JUST KNEW I HAAAD to screen it. And now it's my favored 7th. None fleeter. Who would have known?






(sorry- it's early and I can't sustain my trolling- nortenough sleep- zzz..zzz)

[George]

No, I was serious.

[snyprrr]

Here's what my research shows:


No.9 Op.117

Beethoven- sound issues, but the playing is like the Borodin'67

Borodin'67- this may be the wildest 9th ever!

Taneyev- this may be the best of all, reverberant hall/great playing

Borodin'81 'live'- very, very good, some coughing,- but I'd have to defer to Taneyev or Borodin'67


Emerson- this may be the single best work in the Cycle. Every note is somewhat perfect.


Brodsky + Manhattan = both of these would be direct competition for the Emerson. Both have great qualities,... I'd love to hear the Brodsky/Manhattan/Emerson DeathMatch.


Jerusalem- out of all the other modern Cycles, this group's 9th stands out- different than the previous three, more folksy- but they hit all the marks


St. Petersburg- their odd, 3D Hyperion sound is spectacular. You won't hear a 9th as chilly as this. The performance isn't my absolute top pick, but, because of the presentation it becomes my 'Most Listenable'. The sound makes others sound dull. See?, this band knows how to make a niche for themselves (whether it works (9-10) or not (7, 12)), making them almost indispensable for study. You can get away with ONLY having this one,... but, you WILL want to get comparisons though.


NOTABLES:

Mandelring- the samples indicate that all the marks are hit (unlike the Pacifica in 9)

Eder- the samples indicate a cracking performance



Generally, this IS 'The List' as I see it. In a field as crowded as this one, we MUST make some discriminating choices.



No.10 Op.118

Borodin'67  is greater than Taneyev (Beethoven had some issues here)

Borodin'81 is greater than Shostakovich/Eder (Shostakovich aren't so brutal in the 'furioso')

Fitzwilliam is greater than Weller



Brodsky leads the moderns, but, I found compelling samples from the Danel, Debussy, Mandelring, and Pacifica, with the Danel and Mandelring having particular good profiles.



Again, the St.Petersburg have a very odd take, drenched in a wintry Hyperion mix. Their whole sound is so different from everyone else that they become a compelling force. It may not be my favored 10th, but one cannot help but listen.



Both the Kopelman and Sorrel take the first movement too slow, ruining the feel for me. scratch Also, there were issues with the Aviv and the Eder.




So, that's my take on 9-10. I certainly welcome any debate, but I tend to see this ranking as the outcome of any vigorous comparison. The reason I am so confident is because of the tendency to 'smooth out' Shosty lately, and these two Quartets need to be presented as rawly as possible- so, any deviation from "The Way" seems to yield a rejection. The quicker the movements, the generally better the performance.

No, I was serious.

I don't have the Beethoven. waaaah At this point, they're the last Cycle to get for me- but I'll see if there's anywhere we can check them out in full...

[Dancing Divertimentian]

But we can't have any of this, "I'm satisfied with my Taneyev and Mandelring and that's that."

NO, THAT'S NOT THAT!!

You have a responsibility to the cause to seek out hidden gems, to buy stuff you don't want, to sacrifice your lunch money!!

Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute, chum!

I sympathize with your quest to find DSCH quartet nirvana but I didn't come by my decisions by throwing a dart, y'know. Plenty of man-hours went into digging and auditioning and if I've found my own nirvana then I've earned my respite.

BTW, don't overlook a few choice individual nuggets: Hagen, Yggdrasil, & Borodin III.

[kishnevi]

BTW, don't overlook a few choice individual nuggets: Hagen, Yggdrasil, & Borodin III.

A rather ashy wooden and doom laden reading by that group, I suppose.

[snyprrr]

A rather ashy wooden and doom laden reading by that group, I suppose.

I did just read an unfavorable review of that one.

Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute, chum!

I sympathize with your quest to find DSCH quartet nirvana but I didn't come by my decisions by throwing a dart, y'know. Plenty of man-hours went into digging and auditioning and if I've found my own nirvana then I've earned my respite.

BTW, don't overlook a few choice individual nuggets: Hagen, Yggdrasil, & Borodin III.

yes yes, we're not... errr... "judging" anyone here......... yet!!

What was your poison again?







Borodin'81 vs Shoatakovich: DIRECT COMPARISON 12-14

I played the Shostakovich on the box, and the Borodin'81 on the YT. Wouldn't ya know it- I could barely tell any difference as the two rolled together. The Borodin's acoustic is a little more orchestral (which suffered just slightly against the Shostakovich's more trimmed acoustic), and they have just a touch more high end, and the cellist is slightly more up front, but, otherwise, these two rolled as if they were one. The tone, and ardent character, was evident in both. Maybe the Shostakovich's first violin had a touch more sweetness, but the cellists sounded very similar (though, again, the Borodin's recording was a little more brightly lit down under, though the Shostakovich was, frankly, just as vivd, just a notch lower on the frequency spectrum).

So, THEY SOUND "EXACTLY" THE SAME!! ALL THREE- 12 13 14

really quite impressed

Whatever this experiment was, it waaas a total success!