Shostakovich String Quartets

[Ken B]

You do, do you?

Oh dear lord, as my one-armed cousin Lefty used to say, do not poke the bear.

[snyprrr]

You do, do you?

When was the last time you Posted more than two words in retrograde?! This is a CLASSICAL MUSIC FORUM, not a Smart Alek's Convention!!!

Oh dear lord, as my one-armed cousin Lefty used to say, do not poke the bear.

AND YOU!! A thorn in my side from day one!!


HERE!!

Let me finish both of your Posts for you:


karlhenning: "I like the Emerson, nyuhkk nyuhkk nyuhkk."

KenB: "Oh, Karl, you're so clever. tee hee"



Ya want more? C'mon,... put up yer dukes... I'm ready to make a scrap heap outta this Thread!!










... but reeeally,... I COMMAND YOU!!

[NorthNYMark]

Not to encourage more commanding, but without taking time for a new set of comparisons (which, due to time constraints, will have to wait until at least Thanksgiving week), I can share a few brief thoughts about particularly strong impressions related to the 2nd Quartet.  This one is unusual, from my perspective, in that my reactions to different performances are a bit more polarized than with most Shostakovich quartets (where I tend to enjoy many different interpretive approaches).  I am particularly sensitive to the second movement, which completely amazed me the first time I heard the Mandelring performance of it, but which can irritate me when performed by, say the '82 (bovine) Borodins. 

What I find unpleasant about that latter performance is the oddly exaggerated vibrato the lead violinist uses during the recitative, which sounds to me like he is making a mockery of it.  I imagine that for some listeners, this would be a mark of authentic emotion, but to me it comes across as bizarrely melodramatic.  The Mandelrings, on the other hand, make me feel something real--there is a sense of loss I feel in the playing, as well as intimations of an almost half presence of what might have been lost.  At times, the main "voice" seems to fade almost into silence, and the backing voices interact with a level of tense caution that helps to keep my attention riveted for the entirety of the performance.

No other performance I've heard has the same effect on me, but those that have come closest are by the Emersons and the Fitzwilliams. Of those two (to the extent that my memories can be trusted at this point), I felt that the Emersons achieved a touching mysteriousness in the recitative, but seemed to rush through the first movement at a pace that threatened to minimize its seriousness.  The Fitzwilliams have a carefully balanced first movement--possibly even more to my taste than that of the Mandelrings--but their recitative, while fairly effective, lacks a certain haunted delicacy that I seek in that crucial movement.  I don't remember too much about other performances of it--most have left me rather unmoved--except for that of the Moyzes Quartet, who seemed to have a soft, light, almost Haydnesque approach to it that I didn't care for at all, but which I imagine some listeners would appreciate.  I think I also recall the first movement being particularly strong in the later, Virgin Borodin performance, but they still used too much wide vibrato in the recitative for my liking.

When done in the way that I prefer, this quartet moves me more than any other.

[snyprrr]

Not to encourage more commanding, but without taking time for a new set of comparisons (which, due to time constraints, will have to wait until at least Thanksgiving week), I can share a few brief thoughts about particularly strong impressions related to the 2nd Quartet.  This one is unusual, from my perspective, in that my reactions to different performances are a bit more polarized than with most Shostakovich quartets (where I tend to enjoy many different interpretive approaches).  I am particularly sensitive to the second movement, which completely amazed me the first time I heard the Mandelring performance of it, but which can irritate me when performed by, say the '82 (bovine) Borodins. 

What I find unpleasant about that latter performance is the oddly exaggerated vibrato the lead violinist uses during the recitative, which sounds to me like he is making a mockery of it.  I imagine that for some listeners, this would be a mark of authentic emotion, but to me it comes across as bizarrely melodramatic.  The Mandelrings, on the other hand, make me feel something real--there is a sense of loss I feel in the playing, as well as intimations of an almost half presence of what might have been lost.  At times, the main "voice" seems to fade almost into silence, and the backing voices interact with a level of tense caution that helps to keep my attention riveted for the entirety of the performance.

No other performance I've heard has the same effect on me, but those that have come closest are by the Emersons and the Fitzwilliams. Of those two (to the extent that my memories can be trusted at this point), I felt that the Emersons achieved a touching mysteriousness in the recitative, but seemed to rush through the first movement at a pace that threatened to minimize its seriousness.  The Fitzwilliams have a carefully balanced first movement--possibly even more to my taste than that of the Mandelrings--but their recitative, while fairly effective, lacks a certain haunted delicacy that I seek in that crucial movement.  I don't remember too much about other performances of it--most have left me rather unmoved--except for that of the Moyzes Quartet, who seemed to have a soft, light, almost Haydnesque approach to it that I didn't care for at all, but which I imagine some listeners would appreciate.  I think I also recall the first movement being particularly strong in the later, Virgin Borodin performance, but they still used too much wide vibrato in the recitative for my liking.

When done in the way that I prefer, this quartet moves me more than any other.

wonderful! thank you mark!!

1) The St.P/Hyperion, and the Sorrel, also take the 1st slower, giving added heft (most clock in @8:15, they clock in at 8:44)

2) The Sorrel have been noted to take the 2nd very freely, you might like this a lot.

3) The Sorrel take 12:24 in the 4th, whereas the Borodin'83, the second longest, take 11:24.

4) Only the Mandelring break the 5 minute barrier in the 3rd.


Yes, count me as one of those who likes the Borodin'83's endless 2nd (and yes, it's on the verge of being opiatic(?)), but I am also responding to others as well. Yes, they are pretty out there, surely they can't be absolute top choice, but they always play with that nostalgic sound- it might be a "mood" (as in, what I'm in the mood for).

Yes, the Fitzzies and the Emerson sound special here... hey, sure, any extra research into Op.68 would be appreciated, but I think we're starting to see the winners here. Fitzzies, Emerson, Sorrel, Mandelring, St.P/Hyperion, Eder... I'd love to hear some further analysis.

See, Karl, how hard was that?




Mark- how do you feel about Op.68 NEEDING a big acoustic to fill out this quite Symphonic music? The Borodin'83 used to be the only one, but now the St.P and Sorrel have some really deep sound in a modern guise.

[snyprrr]

Is there any particular work that The Shostakovich Quartet is the FirstChoice in, in your opinion? I think they generally excel in 6-15, with an emphasis on the latter works. Their No.12 has the longest 1st, a very studied and measured and toned focus that really takes you. The disc with 12-14 may be the best, and it appears under both Olympia and Regis banners. Also, the disc with 10/11/15 contains performances you may want to consider.

Of all the sampling I've done lately, the Shostakovich usually fail to make the Top3, but it is really no fault of theirs; however, they caaan be a touch "heavy" when, frankly, it might not be needed. Their grave and serious nature works great in the latter SQs, but, perhaps, they miss some nuance of other emotions. The least impressive so far was Op.68, which couldn't distinguish itself from a competitive field.

It seems I've always paired the Shostakovich and the Eder when comparing, and usually the Shostakovich pull away victorious based on their playing and the sound afforded them, which gets better in the Regis and Alto incarnations. However, the Eder do more with Op.68 than the Shostakovich, and, at times, the Eder exhibit a much more aggressive focus, i.e. No.5.

If I were to recommend the best overall package, it would be the Alto 2CD set of 6,11-15, which may contain all of their best performances.

[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

18:28 is also the quickest No.12 'Allegretto'. The next quickest is the St.P at 18:48, and I like the way the opening trills cascade over each other, unlike the much longer versions which don't necessarily express the bouncy wackiness of it all. That Taneyev looks great... and it seems as though only these two go go the quicker-is-better option. I think the Danel top out at 22:00.

Currently, I'm dealing with:

Borodin81
Shostakovich... both of these are great, but rather serious and grim; both have longer 'Allegrettos'

Borodin91... no great impression

Brodsky... their 'Allegretto' is long, not permitting the bounce I seek

Amati... one of the most satisfying overall; 'Allegretto' = 19:16; the recording, also, is excellent; only criticism would be trifling

Philharmonia... high hopes here, buuut,... 'Allegretto' = 20:83: though there's nothing "wrong", this is one of the slower ones (Sorrel, Danel, Brodsky), and it
                       has nothing about it (in performance, or sonic presentation) that distinguishes it, against, say, the Amati (or most other serious contenders)

St.P... nice, quick 'Allegretto', though, perhaps, their trademark sound (I call it 'Gothic Extreme') sometimes doesn't "swing" so much... they're grim and
          slicing, missing the quirky and bluff good humour

Emerson... right now it's between the Emerson and the Amati; the Emerson's DG sound is ubiquitous, as always,... though the Amati's technically have "better"
                 sound, the rough DG recording doesn't detract from this performance... still, I want moreMoreMORE!!



I'm thinking the Taneyev is the one I'm looking for. No other Modern Recording seems to have the small list of ingredients that I NEED for The Perfect Twelfth

[snyprrr]

No.2 Op.68
Zapolski Quartet

Here is a No.2 from 1995 that has an ALMOST 8 MINUTES 'Waltz'!! Can you believe it? I have it on order simply for the 'I gotta hear this' quotient. They also have the longest 'Overture' at over 9 minutes, which seems to add some nicely chugging heft.

If we made a "Longest Version Possible" it would look like this:

I. 9:04 (Zapolski)

II. 12:48 (Borodin'83)

III. 7:40 (Zapolski)

IV. 12:34 (Sorrel)

     =

TT: 42:00!!.... WOW!!

[snyprrr]

No.2 Op.68
Zapolski Quartet

Here is a No.2 from 1995 that has an ALMOST 8 MINUTES 'Waltz'!! Can you believe it? I have it on order simply for the 'I gotta hear this' quotient. They also have the longest 'Overture' at over 9 minutes, which seems to add some nicely chugging heft.

If we made a "Longest Version Possible" it would look like this:

I. 9:04 (Zapolski)

II. 12:48 (Borodin'83)

III. 7:40 (Zapolski)

IV. 12:34 (Sorrel)

     =

TT: 42:00!!.... WOW!!

yOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK OUT THE zAPOLSKI ON oP.68...(sorry caps)... it really is a Beethovianian performance! The 'Overture', taken about a minute longer than most, has a heft missing from some of the quicker versions. And the 'Waltz', taking 2 minutes longer than all others, actually works wonderfully for me, and you won't hear it like this anywhere else.

The thing's only ONE PENNY on Amazon (coupled with the ubiquitous No.8 (I got a 4CD compilation that cuts the 8th- I wasn't interested anyway)).

Anyhow, why am I reminded of LvB's big Eb SQ here?

[snyprrr]

Is there ANY availability ... ANYWHERE... for the Taneyev Cycle, or the components thereof?


Melodiya:  1,4,5
                 6,7,8
                2,10
                 3,9
                11,12,13
                14,15
               
Point:  1,2,4 ? (this has the Beethoven too?)

Praga: 5,6,7 ? (these have added reverb???)



Anyhow, I'm really only interested in the Bold ones,... especially 12 and 14... 9 and 10...


THERE ARE JUST M.I.A. ....

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Is there ANY availability ... ANYWHERE... for the Taneyev Cycle, or the components thereof?

               
                14,15
               
[snypped]
THERE ARE JUST M.I.A. ....

I have the Taneyev 14/15 on LP. It's a real Cold War relic - a Melodiya issue licensed to CBS.

Supposedly, this cycle has been issued somewhere on CD, but I've never seen it.

[snyprrr]

I have the Taneyev 14/15 on LP. It's a real Cold War relic - a Melodiya issue licensed to CBS.

Supposedly, this cycle has been issued somewhere on CD, but I've never seen it.

The Box... Aulos Box?... is listed on Amazon, and elsewhere, but just completely SoldOut and OOP. There's one 3/9Melodiya for $70, and some 6/7/8s out there, but no 11/12/13 or 14/15 (there is an LP on sale for 14/15).

How do you like that 14?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

How do you like that 14?

I like both of them, but I'm more interested in the 15th, which is one of those stasis-achieving performances. Haven't listened in a long time though. I do think, if you can't find it, there are still plenty of good ones out there - you can still live a full life without hearing it.

[Karl Henning]

[...] - you can still live a full life without hearing it.

Now, that's just crazee talk! 

[snyprrr]

Now, that's just crazee talk! 

I'm this close to getting the Emerson... I just wish they were under $20,... I know, I know,... maybe by the end of the day...


I'm really hitting a wall here- I've got quite a selection, but in the works that I'm not satisfied with my current performances, I'm having difficulty finding suitable consolations. I have to forget about the Taneyev for the time being. Beethoven, and others, are too expensive. Danel, Rasumowsky, Mandelring, Pacifica, Debussy, Rubio, Alexander--- sheeeee... there are just too many Cycles that only come in a Box, and I think most of these probably aren't as feral as the older Digital Cycles (Emerson, Brodsky, Manhattan).

And I've scoured the "one-offs", not too many of them left, though, I'm currently interested in that St.Lawrence 3/7/8 EMI, very brutal, great sound.

But I think I can smell an outrageous new Cycle forming- somewhere- with a group of obsessed players who will integrate all previous good habits with stunning sound. Or- a Cycle with each work played by a different band??


Anyhow, I'd sure love to hear some more---- DSCH SQs are just something I like to hear as many different as possible---- though I wish there was a Towering Definitive FOR ME!!!

ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!

[snyprrr]

Now, that's just crazee talk! 

Do you know the perceptible difference between the original 1999 Emerson Cycle, and the 2006 ReMaster? Anyone? This Cycle has a particular sonic profile, as we all well know, so, it IS important!! I don't hear much on the samples, but, who has both handy?

And, what are the dates, 2004-06?

[Karl Henning]

Do you know the perceptible difference between the original 1999 Emerson Cycle, and the 2006 ReMaster?

No 

[snyprrr]

No 

Your wife must love your gregariousness.

[George]

Your wife must love your gregariousness.

This is a Shostakovich thread. Were you expecting warmth? 

[Karl Henning]

Nicely played, George! 

Your wife must love your gregariousness.

I'll thank you, sir, to refrain from personal remark 

[Karl Henning]

To clarify, I cannot perceive a difference between two things, when I have heard only one of the twain.

So, my wife loves my loyalty